I," " '

K

* "'« S. HRG. 99-998

CENSUS BUREAU PLANNING FOR THE 1990 DECENN1AL CENSUS: NEW YORK CITY FIELD HEARING

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

ENERGY, NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION, AND

GOVERNMENT PROCESSES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENTAL AEFAIKS

UNITED STATES SENATE

NINETY-NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

SEPTEMBER 4, 1986

NEW YORK, NY

Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

64-919 O WASHINGTON ! 1987

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents. Congressional Sales Office

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

WILLIAM V. ROTH. JR., Delaware, Chairman

TED STEVENS, Alaska THOMAS F. EAGLETON, Missouri

CHARLES McC. MATHIAS, JR., Maryland LAWTON CHILES, Florida

WILLIAM S. COHEN, Maine SAM NUNN, Georgia

DAVE DURENBERGER, Minnesota JOHN GLENN, Ohio

WARREN B. RUDMAN, New Hampshire CARL LEVIN, Michigan

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ALBERT GORE, JR., Tennessee

FRANKLIN G. POLK, Chief Counsel and Staff Director

GARY ZIZKA, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY, NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION, AND GOVERNMENT PROCESSES

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, Chairman

WILLIAM S. COHEN, Maine JOHN GLENN, Ohio

JAMES H. LOFTON, Staff Director

JUNE WALTON, Chief Counsel

LEONARD WEISS, Minority Staff Director

CHRISTINA WEST. Chief Clerk

(ID

i

V
CONTENTS

Page

Opening statement of Senator Cohen 1

WITNESSES

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 1986

Hon. Edward I. Koch, Mayor, city of New York 2

John G. Keane, Ph.D., Director, Bureau of the Census, accompanied by Peter

Bounpane, Assistant Director, Demographic Censuses, and Barbara Bailar,

Ph.D., Associate Director, Statistical Standards and Methodology 6

Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr., corporation counsel, city of New York; David R.

Jones, general director, Community Service Society of New York; Eugene

Ericksen, professor, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA; and Hazel N.

Dukes, president, New York State Conference of NAACP Branches 53

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Bailar, Barbara, Ph.D.: Testimony 6

Bounpane, Peter: Testimony 6

Dukes, Hazel N.:

Testimony 16

Prepared statement 83

Ericksen, Eugene:

Testimony 16

Prepared statement with an attachment 67

Jones, David R.:

Testimony 16

Prepared statement 59

Keane, John G., Ph.D.:

Testimony 6

Prepared statement 38

Koch, Hon. Edward I.:

Testimony 2

Prepared statement 35

Schwarz, Frederick A.O., Jr.:

Testimony 16

Prepared statement 53

(m>

CENSUS BUREAU PLANNING FOR THE 1990 DECENNIAL CENSUS: NEW YORK CITY FIELD

HEARING

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 1986

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY, NUCLEAR

PROLIFERATION, AND GOVERNMENT PROCESSES,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS,

New York, NY.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in the

ceremonial courtroom, U.S. Court of International Trade, One Federal Plaza, New York, NY, Hon. Thad Cochran (chairman of the

subcommittee) presiding.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COCHRAN

Senator COCHRAN. The subcommittee will please come to order.

This morning we are very happy to be able to convene a hearing

of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Energy, Nuclear Proliferation,

and Government Processes of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs to look at the preparations that are being made for

the taking of the 1990 census.

The Census Bureau has been working to identify ways to ensure

an accurate count of all of the people required to be counted by the

Constitution when the census is taken in 1990.

Everybody knows that after each decennial census, there have

been suggestions that the count has not been as accurate as it

should have been, and in specific areas of the country, one example

is here in New York City, there have been serious charges of undercounting. Some say that as many as 500,000 people were not

counted here in New York City in 1980.

The consequences of undercounting can be very serious. Federal

programs, State government programs, representation in the State

legislature, and representation in the U.S. House of Representatives are all affected by the number of persons who are counted in

the decennial census. That is why we are trying, as a subcommittee

with jurisdiction over the census, to monitor the efforts being made

by the Census Bureau to ensure an accurate count in 1990.

We have had hearings in Washington, DC, in my State of Mississippi, and now here in New York to ensure that in the rural areas,

in the small towns and communities, and in the large urban areas

of this country every effort is made to utilize the techniques, the

procedures, the equipment, and the people who will help make this

(l)
1990 census an accurate count and a success. That is why we are

here today.

We appreciate very much those of you who have agreed to assist

us by preparing statements for the subcommittee's use in advance

of our hearing and being present to testify to help us and the

Bureau understand how important it is that the 1990 census be

done well and that an accurate count be made.

Our first witness is Mayor Koch of New York City for whom we

are very grateful, and we thank him for his hospitality and for

being here.

I had the pleasure of serving in the U.S. House of Representatives with Mayor Koch, and we got to be friends at that time and

we remain friends.

It is great to see you again, mayor, and we welcome you to the

subcommittee and ask you to proceed in any way that you wish.

TESTIMONY OF HON. EDWARD I. KOCH, MAYOR, CITY OF NEW

YORK

Mayor KOCH. Thank you very much, Senator.

It is a privilege and a special pleasure, because we did serve together in the House of Representatives, to welcome you in your capacity as chairman of the Senate committee by taking testimony

on this very critical issue.

I would like to summarize my testimony and file the formal testimony,1

if I may. And I would also like to introduce the gentleman

on my left who is Fritz Schwarz, the corporation counsel of the city

of New York. He is testifying before one of the panels that you

have subsequently, but I thought perhaps in the Q and A you

might want to get the benefit of his comments as well, and that is

why I asked your permission that he join me here at the table.

What is interesting is that the Census Bureau has admitted that

there is an undercount, particularly egregious in the city of New

York. Their figure•not our figure; our figure is much higher•

their figure, which we will accept for the purposes of the discussion, is that there was an undercount of 7.4 percent, whereas the

national undercount rate was 1.6 percent; 7.4 percent, say they,

represents 524,000 people which is more people than live in Seattle

or Denver or St. Louis, and I think roughly the equivalent of the

city of San Francisco, one of our great cities. Well, the others are,

too.

Now, why would there be this enormous undercount and how do

we address it? The reasons are not complicated. New York City is

the only city in the country where people live, to the extent of 70

percent of them, in apartments, and 30 percent in private homes.

The average in the country is just the other way: 30 percent in

apartments and 70 percent in private homes. It makes it difficult

when you go to do the count. I will tell you why.

One, we have an enormous shortage of housing in the city of

New York, and there are tens of thousands, I will tell you, hundreds of thousands, probably, who are doubled up in the city; two

families living together. And they are doing it illegally. We do not

1 See p. 35 for Mayor Koch's prepared statement.
3

enforce the law because if you would enforce the law as it related

to that, you would have them out on the street. Because we are

short, some say, over a 10-year period, 1 million apartments over

the next 10 years, or if you would, to satisfy everybody's individual

need for an apartment.

Therefore, you will find that there will be people who will not

ever tell you, if you are the census-taker, well, there are two families living in this apartment, because it subjects them•even

though we are not going to enforce that law unless there is some

horrendous situation or health situation. But they are not going to

tell you. That would be No. 1.

The second reason that there is a problem in the count is that in

the city of New York there are at least 20 languages other than

English spoken and spoken in each case by at least 10,000 people

who do not speak English while they speak their original mother

tongue. So that is 200,000 people who, if the censustaker came and

knocked on the door, he could not communicate with them. That is

another reason.

There are many people who speak but do not read English. You

should know that it is estimated that the number of foreignborn in

the city of New York today•we are talking about citizens, primarily, foreignborn•is the highest since 1910 and is roughly 30 percent

of our population that were born in other countries. And they are

wonderful citizens; that is why we are the international capital of

the world because we have that diversity.

My father came from Poland. My father never went to an American public school. When he came here, he was 15 or 16 years of

age. He was born on the night of the big storm so we are not really

sure what year that was. My father never learned to write English.

He could read it and obviously he could speak it; he never learned

to write it.

So if my father had received a form, and if he, for whatever

reason, might not have turned it over to one of his three children,

he probably would not have filled it out. And he might have been

lost in that census.

So finally, with respect to the groups that are involved, you have

the undocumented aliens. We believe that the Constitution requires that all people in the United States, irrespective of their

documentation, must be counted. We believe that there are law

cases on this, decisions that make that clear. So assuming, arguendo, that that is the case from our point of view, we have an

estimated minimum of 500,000 undocumented aliens in the city of

New York.

And I want to tell you, most of these people are very decent

people, have been here for many, many years, and I only wish that

the Congress would pass the legislation which would legitimize

their status and also impose criminal penalties on employers who

hire undocumented aliens. I am for that legislation. That is for the

Congress to do. We cannot do that locally.

I will tell you something else that shocks people. The Immigration and Naturalization Service does not want us to arrest undocumented aliens. I want to tell you the policy of the city of New York

is not to. We would not, unless an undocumented alien was involved with some other crime outside of the question of his status
or her status. We do not believe it to be our local job to arrest

them. If they are involved in a crime other than that, we arrest

them, we turn them over to the Immigration and Naturalization

Service, the information, and we believe that criminals who are

aliens and can be deported should be deported if they have engaged

in other criminal activity. I am not talking about their undocumented status.

But what is interesting is the Immigration and Naturalization

Services says to us, in effect, by their statements, "Please do not

arrest them because we would not know what to do with them if

you gave us their names." Now, that is a fact.

So these people are here. Now, if they are here and they are sick,

we maintain a health and hospital corporation which has 15 hospitals and dozens of clinics, sick baby clinics and well baby clinics,

you name it, we got it, and we think it is helpful to the country

that we provide good medical care.

Well, if they are not counted, aside from the fact that they do

not get Medicaid, and they do not get Medicaid, these illegal aliens

are still taken care of by the city. If they come to our hospital and

they do not have Medicaid, for example, a U.S. citizen or a resident

alien legally here does not have Medicaid and they cannot afford to

pay, we take them. We say, "Can you pay 50 cents? You can pay 50

cents. If you can pay a dollar, you pay a dollar. You cannot pay

anything? We take you."

What should we do with an undocumented alien who comes to

our hospital with a sick baby and he does not have a Medicaid card

and he is undocumented so you could not even get him a Medicaid

card, what should we do? Say, "Take your sick baby elsewhere"?

We must treat that baby just from a humanitarian point of view.

We think even a legal point of view, but even just from a compassionate point of view.

So we are not going to be reimbursed by the Federal Government

because this family does not have Medicaid. But by its disproportionate undercount, the Census Bureau has in effect eliminated, we

estimate, somewhere between $26 and $52 million of the kind of

aid that comes to a city like New York according to populationbased formulas which, Mr. Chairman, you referred to: the loss that

occurs there. And so we are asking you to note the fact that the

Census Bureau has already said we do a lousy job." How can

anyone say it was a good job if you have a 7.4-percent failure rate,

by their facts and admissions; ours is higher. It is a lousy job.

And so what should they do to correct the job? We have a proposal to make, not novel. They have resisted it. It is a statistical adjustment.

Now, when the pollsters decide who is in the lead with a 3-percent error rate, they use a sample of 1,500 people, and they have a

3-percent error rate. Well, the Federal Government, the Census

Bureau, has millions of people that they are counting; therefore, if

they use a statistical adjustment•they have done it themselves

here, but it is not an accurate one•what is wrong with that? Why

not correct the error to the best of your ability? They have said

that they are not going to do it. What we are saying is, "You

should make them do it." They are not an independent agency in
the sense of making policy for the United States. The Congress

does that.

And so what we are asking is that the Congress enact legislation

which will require the statistical adjustment and that that be done

in time for the 1990 census.

That is my case, Mr. Chairman.

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. You make

an eloquent and persuasive argument for the need to improve the

way the count is made to ensure fairness and accuracy.

I am impressed by the statistics you cite, the $26 to $52 million

that may be lost here in the city of New York as a result of undercounting in the 1980 census. That is a substantial sum, and whether or not that is the exact amount involved or not, I think we need

to help ensure through monitoring and guidance, even legislation if

that is required, that we do have an accurate count in 1990.

Now, these people who are running the census today were not

running it in 1980. So, you know, I am not conducting the hearing

to drag them through the coals of criticism here today. But we are

here to get suggestions and to find out from you and others who

are very interested and involved how it can be done better.

You are suggesting a statistical adjustment be made, and I understand that, and that even legislation should be enacted to direct

that statistical adjustments be made.

Mayor KOCH. Because they have said they will not do it, otherwise.

Senator COCHRAN. Well, let us hear from them now and see what

their plans are. I do know that new procedures are being developed. We have found that out from our earlier hearings in Washington, and a renewed effort is being made to explore ways to improve the accuracy of the count. I think by being here today and

hearing your statement and the statement of others, we will be

better prepared to take the census here in New York City in 1990.

I do not have any specific questions of you. I know the others

who are going to be on the third panel, including Mr. Schwarz•

whose op-ed piece I read in the New York Times the other day was

very helpful in understanding the specific problems of New York

City•will be able to deal with those specific questions.

Thank you so much for being here.

Mayor KOCH. Thank you.

Senator COCHRAN. We appreciate your attendance.

Let us now turn to the next panel of witnesses which includes

the Director of the Bureau of the Census, John Keane. He is accompanied today by Peter Bounpane and Barbara Bailar. Mr.

Bounpane is Assistant Director for Demographic Censuses, and Dr.

Bailar is the Associate Director for Statistical Standards and Methodology of the U.S. Bureau of the Census.

Mr. Keane, we welcome you to the hearing and thank you and

your colleagues for helping us prepare for the hearing. We have a

copy of the statement which you have provided to the subcommittee. We will make that statement part of the record in its entirety.

I have reviewed it and am impressed by the effort that the Bureau

is making to prepare for the 1990 census. I think that we are

seeing a preparation that is more vigorous and more conscientious
6

than we have ever seen in the history of the U.S. Bureau of the

Census.

So I want to congratulate you for the efforts that are being

made. I know that there are some difficulties right away. The other

day at a meeting of our full Committee on Appropriations, as you

know, I offered an amendment to try to get an additional $11 million appropriated for the Bureau so that you could buy some automated equipment, some equipment that will help you do a better

job, and that got turned down.

Now, that is an example of one of the problems that I know that

you are facing. But we are trying to learn today what else may be

done and what procedures may be used to make sure that the

count in the urban areas of our country are more accurate and fulfill the constitutional responsibility that is placed upon the Bureau

of the Census.

Thank you very much for being here and you may proceed in

any way you wish.

TESTIMONY OF JOHN G. KEANE, PH.D., DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF

THE CENSUS, ACCOMPANIED BY PETER BOUNPANE, ASSISTANT

DIRECTOR, DEMOGRAPHIC CENSUSES, AND BARBARA BAILAR,

PH.D., ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, STATISTICAL STANDARDS AND

METHODOLOGY

Mr. KEANE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I certainly appreciate the positive note in which you have positioned this hearing. On behalf of the Census Bureau, any kind of a

hearing of this sort that leads to us doing a better job in 1990 and

thereafter, we are all for. So the thanks are really ours. Especially

I want to make public what I have said to you privately, how much

we appreciate your effort to restore the ADP budget, the automation budget for the 1987 census. That is a pivotal thing, obviously,

in our plans to make the next census a better one.

In keeping with your request, I will highlight the major areas of

my testimony,1and it really falls into four areas:

First, problems we encounter in enumerating urban areas; next,

our plans to work closely with local officials; thirdly, what we are

doing to make the best census possible in 1990; and finally our position on adjustment for the 1990 census.

Taking them in that sequence, enumeration problems in the

urban areas. Some of the things that can make census taking in

the urban areas difficult are the lower mail return rates, difficulties in recruiting and retaining personnel, the complexity of living

situations•I think Mayor Koch was certainly illuminating on

some of those•and large numbers of minority populations. Now,

we tend to miss minorities at a higher rate than the population in

general. Because of these problems, a number of cities sued the

Census Bureau during and after the 1980 census. Many of these

suits were aimed at having the census counts adjusted.

Our position regarding the 1980 census is that we cannot adjust

the census counts. We are talking 1980, now. This is because our

coverage evaluation studies, which of course are vital to any adjust1 See p. 38 for Mr. Keane's prepared statement.
ment, do not provide us with information accurate enough to

adjust.

Now, then, for 1990, we have embarked on a dual strategy. We

will attempt to take the best census possible and count everyone;

although you would probably say that is implicit in the Census

Bureau, let us make it explicit for the record, because that is an

important part of our dual strategy.

The second part is we will do what is necessary to be prepared to

adjust the counts if we determine that adjustments will improve it.

And I should say straight for the record that we have never said

that we will not adjust the 1990 census count. And I ask for corroboration of my colleagues on my right and left on that, and getting assents from both, I say that for the record.

Well, let us turn back to the positive side of working with big

city mayors. I will outline our plans to work closely with local officials to make the 1990 census a success.

If we all work together, we can take that high quality census,

one that everyone agrees is the best possible job that might be

done.

Mayors have such a wealth of knowledge, and Mayor Koch has a

wealth of knowledge, obviously, about their communities, about the

city of New York in his case, and a closeness to the people in these

communities. Thus, we are committed with working closely with

local officials as we plan and implement the 1990 census.

At the center of our efforts will be a series of one-on-one meetings with mayors of our larger cities. In order to assure ongoing

contact between the cities and the Census Bureau staff, we are

asking mayors•and this is a first•we are asking mayors to appoint high level liaisons•and I emphasize high level. In June I visited, for instance, in New York City with Mayor Koch, and we discussed our mutual concerns about the 1990 census and possible

joint efforts for encouraging the city's population to be counted in

1990. And I publicly thank Mayor Koch for his pledge of support

and his dedication to a successful census. This was an excellent

meeting, and he would say so himself.

We have had meetings with mayors from other cities, and we

will hold additional meetings in the next 6 months or so. This is all

part of this program, this first-of-a-kind program for establishing a

much closer working relationship and a high level liaison with targeted cities.

Three, taking the best census possible, and I will talk now about

our specific plans for doing just that. In my full testimony I describe what we are doing to make improvements in five areas. I

will highlight those five here. The first one is plans to encourage a

high mail return rate. A high mail return rate is vital if we are

foing to take a good census, complete operations on time and to

eep within our budget.

Therefore, we are implementing an extensive outreach and promotion program for 1990. This will include a national advertising

campaign under the auspices of the Advertising Council with special advice from minority advertising agencies. We are placing

greater emphasis on promoting the census at the grassroots level;

that is, through the schools, through religious organizations, such

as the Baptist Church, the Methodist Church, the Catholic Church,
8

and so forth, and other community groups. To make sure this

grassroots promotion works, we have already begun outreach program planning with community organization leaders. And I might

say that that is one of the things that distinguishes the efforts of

preparing for the 1990 census almost across the board in contrast

with the 1980 census. That is simply an earlier start before attitudes perhaps get congealed and there is time to do things, and

taking a census is not just a 10-year time program; it really goes

beyond that.

The second issue I will discuss is improving coverage. All of the

other topics I am discussing relate in some way to census coverage.

But we also have a number of special programs aimed specifically

at improving coverage. One of these operations•we call it precanvass•is designed to update and improve our mailing list. In this

operation, the enumerators canvass an assigned area to check that

this list is complete and is accurate. We are improving this operation for 1990 by having the enumerators check the apartment designation for every unit in a multiunit building.

We also had many census operations in 1980 designed to improve

coverage after the census questionnaires have been delivered. We

plan to use most of them again in 1990. In our test censuses we are

working, though, to refine and to improve these procedures.

These extensive operations included checking vacant units to see

if they are occupied or not, seeing if persons on an independent list

that we obtained were counted in the census, and special visits to

hotels, to motels, to missions, and any other transient quarters and

to shelters for the homeless. Canvassing parks, pool halls, theaters,

train stations, about anywhere, including the tunnels of the

subway system in this city, because after all, if people are there,

they are part of our beat.

A planned "Were You Counted?" publicity campaign. We should

not ever underestimate what that can do. I am told, for instance,

that the city of New Orleans customized such a program in the

1980 census and would very much fit what that city stands for in a

way. And the theme was that "I Want To Be in That Number."

That is an example not only of a publicity campaign, but one that

speaks to the people in that area, rather than just having a generic

kind of a program that individuals might have difficulty relating

to.

Questions on the census questionnaires designed to obtain complete coverage of everyone in a housing unit, and assistance in filling questionnaires out, including translations into various languages.

We have not yet made final decisions on the details of the coverage improvement program. These decisions will be made over the

next year after we complete our review of the test censuses. There

is still one test census to go which is scheduled for North Dakota in

1987, and you will recall that our program started way back in

1984. So we need the results of all those test censuses to complete

our review.

Increased use of automation. We are going to automate many of

the tasks performed clerically during the 1980 census. We are also

going to process the data for the whole country concurrently with

data collection. This processing will occur 5 to 7 months earlier
9

than it did for the 1980 census. We are going to tailor our concurrent processing systems to meet the needs of different areas of the

country, again, rather than having just one generic program when

there are differential circumstances or can be area to area.

For larger urban areas we will do almost all questionnaire processing in centralized processing centers. One reason we made this

decision is to reduce substantially the number of clerical staff

needed in urban areas. The urban district offices can use their resources to concentrate on complete enumeration and data collection.

For rural parts of the country we anticipate fewer staffing problems; thus, we will do more of the questionnaire processing in the

decentralized district offices.

Four, recruiting, training and managing personnel, another area

of improvement opportunity. We will contact mayors, community

organization leaders, and national organizations to help us recruit

temporary workers. And I think I can take it out of just the future;

I have already had several conversations myself with mayors on

this point. We are going also to implement better ways to train, to

motivate, and to manage our temporary workers for 1990. Some of

these things include restructuring enumerator training so that

there is a mix of field work with classroom training; in other

words, a person just is not read to hour after hour on the procedures, but gets out into the field to apply them, and the use of

video tape so it is a more effective learning experience and therefore the enumerators would be better prepared. An incentive pay

plan to reward enumerators who complete a specified amount of

quality work, and the incentive plan goes beyond just quality work;

that is, doing say, on an average, 12 quality questionnaires in an 8-

hour period, to include staying there. There is an incentive to staying there since continuity is also important to superior performance. Staying there until that work is completed.

Daily reporting of cost and progress through an automated management information system. This system is designed and it is now

in place and working, aimed at improving our census-taking planning and control.

And selection of enumerators using an automated applicant file,

another area of automation in contrast to 1980.

Five, cooperation between the Census Bureau and local officials.

In the 1980 census, we established two joint ventures with local officials designed to improve the census. These were the Complete

Count Committee Program and the Local Review Program. In our

meetings with mayors, we will discuss how to make these two programs more successful.

Under the Complete Count Committee Program, we ask elected

officials to form committees of local leaders, and the key responsibility of these committees is to develop promotion campaigns to

stress the importance of the census to their communities. These efforts build public support and help us, thereby, achieve a good

count.

But ultimately, the success of these efforts within these committees depend on the level of local effort. We will be urging all localities to set up energetic committees for 1990.
10

The 1980 census Local Review Program gave local officials in

over 39,000 jurisdictions an opportunity to review census totals

before the temporary census offices closed. We are doing a number

of things to improve this program for the 1990 census, such as informing local officials about the program earlier than we did in

1980, providing training through State agencies on how to prepare

for local review; and having two reviews of the counts, one precensus and one postcensus.

As with the Complete Count Committees, I want to stress the importance again of local effort to making this program work.

Adjustment. I will briefly mention the second part of our dual

strategy, adjustment. We have undertaken a rigorous program of

research, of testing, complemented by evaluation of the various

issues related to adjustment for the 1990 census. Our aim is to be

prepared to adjust the census counts if we determine that adjustment will improve those counts.

In early 1987, we will decide on the statistical and the operational feasibility of adjustment. This is not a decision about whether

the adjusted numbers will be the official 1990 census counts. To

make that determination, we must have the census counts and the

results of our coverage measurement program. If we decide we are

capable of adjustment, then we will plan work to permit adjustment. Final decisions about how the coverage measurement program will be integrated into other census operations, including the

coverage improvement program, will be made at that time.

We will also announce in the spring of next year the standards

we will use to assess whether the census counts or the adjusted figures are more accurate. Again, not the decision, but announcing

the standards by which we make that decision.

After public discussion, which of course we always do, of the preliminary standards, we will publish proposed standards in the Federal Register in October of next year. This is the key. We want to

reach consensus on these standards among various interested parties in advance of the 1990 census.

The plan for determining whether to adjust has been designed to

be independent of the judgment of only one individual. I do not

take that personally, I want you to know, Mr. Chairman. It is good

for whoever is in that position.

In December 1990, or as soon as possible thereafter, the Director

of the Bureau of the Census will make and issue the final decision

on adjustment. In making that decision, the Director will be thoroughly advised by recommendations from both internal and external experts in the statistical and demographic fields. This is a sensible plan for reaching a decision on whether or not to adjust the

1990 census counts.

Although census undercoverage has been steadily reduced over

the past four censuses, there is that persistent difference in undercount for certain groups and for certain geographic areas. These include urban and rural areas, blacks and Hispanics. It is this differential undercount that is of concern to us at the Census Bureau

and to many others, and this is why we have embarked on a dual

strategy, the strategy I have just described.

By the same token, I do not wish to imply, however, that adjustment is an uncomplicated matter. Even if we can reach a consen-
11

sus with stakeholders about what statistical methods are appropriate to use for adjustment, we must consider the operational feasibility of conducting an adequate coverage measurement program in

a short timeframe. In addition, we do not have the ability to completely eliminate the differential undercount. We simply do not

have it.

There are no techniques that allow us to make a precise estimate

of the number of illegal immigrants in the country.

I look forward to continuing discussions on this matter with interested users and stake holders as we proceed with our research,

testing and evaluation program.

By way of closing observations, Mr. Chairman, I want to stress

again•I know that you understand, but it cannot be said enough•

that we cannot take a good census by ourselves. To carry out that

responsibility•and it is an enormous one•as efficiently and accurately as possible, we need the help of local leaders. So far that

help is forthcoming, I am pleased to report. We are committed to

designing a program of local involvement and maintaining the

broadest possible communications with local officials. In many respects, a superior national census is, obviously, a series of superior

local censuses. That is how we do it. That is how we meet the goal

that we collectively agree upon.

So, therefore, working together we can make the bicentennial

census•and that is what is making this one so special•a success.

We can take the best census possible for urban areas and, for that

matter, the whole country.

Senator COCHRAN. Thanks very much, Dr. Keane, for your presentation and your explanation of the plans and efforts that are

being made to help make this 1990 census an accurate census, a

complete count, as you describe it.

I congratulate you on the work you are doing, and I am also

pleased to hear your plans for involving others in the decision

about possible adjustments in 1990.

As I understand your testimony, you are in the process now of

developing some standards based on research and evaluation,

review of past census practices and demographic information.

These standards will be announced in the spring of 1987. Publicly,

you will tell the world how you are going to decide on making adjustments. Then in the fall of that year, you will formally propose

these standards in the Federal Register, and there will be a comment period thereafter for those who have opinions and observations and suggestions or criticisms or other ideas to make those

available to the Bureau of the Census before any standards become

final.

I congratulate you on that, not keeping all this a secret until it is

too late for anybody to do anything about it. I think that is one of

the problems, frankly, that occurred in 1980. I was not involved, as

many who are here today were, in the 1980 census in any way, but

as I understand it, most of the preparation was done, or the involvement of local officials was done sort of at the last minute or

during the last year or two preceding the census. That may have

been a big mistake.

I think this year there is an effort being made to start well in

advance of the date of the census and to meet with mayors as you
12

have done here in New York City with Mayor Koch and around

the country, having your meetings in Washington, inviting officials

from all over the country to come talk about how we improve this.

So I think you are on the right track. I think you are doing what

needs to be done at this point.

I am worried somewhat about the availability of funding, though.

Tell me about that. What is your idea about being able to pay for

all this. If we get caught in a budget squeeze and a GrammRudman across-the-board reduction in funding, what happens to

the promotion budget and the Outreach Program and the automation and the other things that you listed that you have plans to do?

What happens to all that?

Mr. KEANE. It certainly would depend on the timing and the

degree of any budget curtailment, as you can appreciate because

you have taken up our position in trying to restore the funding in

the 1987 budget for automation. If that were to affect something

like automation, why, these are vital areas.

I might point out, it is not just the restoration of the funding

that is so important; it is the timing of it because if we cannot have

the money when we need it for that investment, the return on that

investment is less effective. There is training that has to go on.

There is installation and the connection of automation that has to

go on. We need time to plan and to know that it is coming.

I am not sure, and perhaps you are not either, what is likely to

happen in upcoming Congresses. If there are very substantial

budget cuts, we will have to look for ways, probably taking it out of

other programs and have to wrestle with that inside and likely

before committees and subcommittees such as yours.

It seems to be an unprecedented budget environment. That is my

impression at this point. I would invite either or both of my colleagues to comment on it.

Senator COCHRAN. What is your plan for promotion? Do you have

now in mind some figures or suggested amounts of money that will

be needed for an advertising budget, and can you compare that

with the amount made available in the 1980 census, to get some

idea of whether you are going to be able to do more than was done

in 1980 or not?

Mr. KEANE. We plan to do more than in 1980. In 1980, on a pro

bona basis, we estimate•actually, it was an independent estimate

by competent professionals•that the census received approximately $38 million in time and space, free publicity and advertising.

Just on mini-inflation alone, that might be $80, $90, $100 million

now to produce that kind of an effort.

Are there set budgets, Pete? Would you elaborate, please?

Mr. BOUNPANE. Sure. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few

words about that.

The cost of the total outreach program includes preparation of

materials for whatever advertisement you are going to do; that we

Eay for. The advertising council then arranges for the materials to

e aired free, as public service advertising, and that amount of free

advertising was worth about $38 million as the Director mentioned.

Of course, outreach includes other things like reaching out to the

local officials now, meeting with local communities, et cetera.
13

All of that in 1980 cost about $35 million, for the total outreach

program as broad as you could define it. We are expecting to spend

twice that in 1990, somewhere on the order of $70 million.

Senator COCHRAN. There has been some suggestion in statements

I have reviewed in preparation for this hearing that one of the

problems in getting enumerators to do the actual work of counting

is in the lack of adequate pay; that for the money that is available

to pay enumerators, you just cannot get people who are conscientious or qualified to work for that amount of money.

What is your reaction to that and what are the plans to try to

correct that problem in 1990?

Mr. KEANE. Well, of course, one of the responses is incentive pay

which would have the advantages of both offering greater monetary compensation to a would-be or an actual enumerator. It also

depends a lot, Mr. Chairman, on what the circumstances are in the

areas where the recruiting goes on.

For example, several years ago in Houston, TX, we had a protracted problem in attracting enumerators. That problem has eased

considerably currently. So what the economic climate is in all

those areas of the country•and, of course, it is virtually everywhere•that we are trying to attract qualified enumerators to.

Has there been a request for relief and special exemptions on the

pay caps of this job, do you know, Pete?

Mr. BOUNPANE. I am not sure about whether there has been

relief on the pay caps, but if I could address the question a little bit

more, I would like to.

We probably would never be able to pay every enumerator at a

rate that might attract very, very high quality everywhere because

if you multiply the individual pay rates by 350,000 enumerators, it

is an enormous sum of money. And as discussed earlier, the total

census budget is a very difficult thing to manage.

I would say that new things, like incentives, have to be added•

and that has worked in our test censuses so far. We talked about

that when we were in Mississippi. We are probably going to have

to ask some of the people in local areas to help us find people to

work on the census, people who are willing to do this as a matter

of civic pride and help to their community, and who are willing to

work at the kind of wage we could offer. We hope that some of our

attempts at that will provide a work force that will do a good job

for us.

And again, to date, on some of our test censuses, that has

worked. Our turnover rates on the test censuses so far have been

relatively lower than experienced in 1980.

Senator COCHRAN. AS you compare the preparations that are

being made now with those which were made in 1980, are you able

to draw any conclusions about whether this is a more aggressive

preparation, or is it not? Do you have any way to measure your

preparations now as compared with any measurements that were

done of the preparations in 1980?

Mr. KEANE. On the measurements, certainly by the calendar a

number of activities which we did we simply start earlier, in some

cases up to 3 years. A hard measurement also would be the amount

of money being devoted to the effort, such as the outreach budget

which the Assistant Director just mentioned.
14

My sense is that, like you, I do not have the timeframe comparison, not being associated with it in 1980, but my sense is that

beyond the two things that I mentioned, there is much better planning, it is more integrated planning, the specific area such as automation, much greater automation in a number of areas, whether it

be automated mapping, whether it be concurrent processing of the

data, whether it be automation of the address control file. There

are a host of areas that automation covers. The personnel, the selection process, the incentive plan, the training of in-class and infield work, the mix of videotape with text, the whole mayor contact

program that I mentioned earlier in the testimony. I have mentioned that is a first of a kind. We have been inclined in the past to

do an effective job at the technical level in the difficult to enumerate areas, especially. But we have not complemented that with

high level at both the political structure as well as high level of the

ongoing administrations within these hard-to-enumerate areas. So

that when we need them to help us sensitize people to the value of

a census, cooperation and trustworthiness of it, that is it there.

So that overlay program complementing the technical contact,

complementing the review programs and so forth. And a final indicator to me is that we have improved a number of systems, whether it be the Fosdic machine in automation or we have learned how

to improve the local review committees. We are better organized.

So it is a host of efforts that lead me to believe that we are doing

significantly better.

On the other side, if you ask what worries me, I am concerned

about what the attitude will be in the country in 1990 when the

census breaks. Will it be a favorable attitude toward the Federal

Government, and we as part of the Federal Government with this

program therefore benefit from that. Is the interviewing climate

deteriorating in this country to a significant degree? There are

some suggestions that it may be.

For instance, in our test censuses, we ran into some instances

where the mail-return rate did not meet our expectations. We have

seen some instances outside the country. For instance, Canada did

a middecade census in June of this year. The return rate, while enviable at 86 percent, did not match the last return rate of 90 percent. So these are not directly parallel, but we do try and learn

from others. And informal, anecdotal evidence, but again, it is not

to be ignored; anecdotal evidence suggests that those who do polling or marketing research firms, those who do survey work in general, are seeing some signs of a deteriorated interviewing climate.

Senator COCHRAN. In the New York City area, specifically, there

are suggestions of a large number of undocumented aliens and in

certain areas of the city are hard to count. Lower Manhattan is

mentioned in one of the statements I reviewed as an area where

the population is just very difficult to count. It was in 1980 and is

expected to be in 1990.

What special techniques, procedures, other efforts do you have in

mind to use in this area that will help address and deal effectively

with those problems?

Mr. KEANE. Well, the improved precanvassing operations, particularly, as the mayor pointed out in these multiunit residences,

to know who lives where there. The outreach program that we
15

talked about, plus the high level of liaison program, the hard-toenumerate cities. And that translates into your question because

we hope through that to get the neighborhood council heads, to get

the chamber of commerce heads, to get media managers and heads

to help us with this kind of a challenge, rather than just asking the

technical people within these cities to help us.

In short, we are looking for people to help in the self-interest of

these cities with people that have contacts and clout. So those are

some of the overall responses. We are looking at such things as

storefronts, so-called storefronts so that people might go in to get

help, Census Bureau manned storefronts to get help if they are

having difficulty deciphering the questionnaire, of what it means

and completing it; looking at people who we•I understand that in

1980 there were 33 languages that the questionnaire could be

translated into by Census Bureau people. We certainly would not

minimize that, looking for ways to improve that.

These are somewhat general but I think address your question.

Perhaps one of my colleagues would like to comment further.

Senator COCHRAN. In Mississippi, I was impressed at the degree

of cooperation from community leaders in helping with the outreach program and the promotion, educating the citizens with the

knowledge that they had a personal stake in that, and in understanding why it was important to cooperate.

Do you think you will be able to get that kind of community

spirit going in some of the large urban areas? I know you will involve religious leaders, ministers of churches, the tribal chieftain of

the Choctaw Nation which has a reservation near Meridian, MS,

branch leaders of the NAACP, many others, just trying to reach everybody through personal contact and having ministers talk about

it in their sermons. That was described at our hearing in Mississippi as an effective way to get the word out. This is something good

that is going on in our community, and we all need to cooperate.

Is that same kind of technique going to work in the large urban

areas, I wonder?

Mr. KEANE. It surely will if we have a lot of Senator Cochrans

and Congressmen Garcias to count on, because through your able

leaderships there is just nothing that quite approaches the kind of

support you get through public service announcements in both instances. So if we could start with your colleagues in Congress to get

them involved in the self-interest, the trickle-down effect will be a

flood of cooperation in my judgment. And we can get that; we are

aiming to hit every sector in the nice sense of the verb, to involve

everybody•the church leadership, schools, academic institutions,

labor unions•because all benefit. Who doesn't benefit from an improved census count?

However, I think that we can do a better job, at least in one

area, and that is translating. We say the self-interest. That is certainly the acceptable term, and it is certainly a true observation.

But we could do a better job. I am talking to grade school children,

let us say, and it is the seventh grade, getting seventh graders to

go home and in understandable and compelling ways being able to

tell their parents who may be waffling on whether or not•or may

not even know of the census•to get their cooperation.
16

Just take the instance I cite and translate it into whatever the

group would be, whether it is a church-based effort, whether it is a

school-based effort, whether it is local community organizations.

That is a special challenge that we should take to ourselves, and I

am charging the Census Bureau with doing that, starting with

myself.

Senator COCHEAN. Well, I think we are off to a good start here

and in other areas of the country. Your testimony indicates a willingness to work with local officials and community leaders right

now to lay the groundwork for an accurate count, and I think that

is important and that is a move in the right direction. I congratulate you for it.

I appreciate your being here in New York City today to help us

with this hearing, and your cooperation is deeply appreciated.

Thank you very much for being here.

Mr. KEANK. On behalf of all of us, thank you, Senator.

Senator COCHRAN. We now have a panel of witnesses, persons

from here in New York City and the general area, who have either

worked with or have special knowledge about census problems in

the past. We invite you now to come forward.

Our panel of witnesses includes Mr. Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr.,

who is corporation counsel of the city of New York; Mr. David R.

Jones, who is general director of the Community Service Society of

New York; Mr. Eugene Ericksen, professor of sociology at Temple

University in Philadelphia; and Mrs. Hazel Dukes, president of the

New York State Conference of NAACP Branches.

I want to welcome each of you to the hearing, and let me just tell

you that it was because of Ms. Dukes and Mr. Jones specifically

who let me know of problems here in New York City with the 1980

census when I was speaking to a meeting of the Community Service Society of New York that led to this hearing. We were talking

about things that were happening in Washington, and this was a

topic that was brought up at the time. I appreciate their bringing

these special problems to my attention, and I am glad that we were

able to schedule the hearing and look very closely at what ought to

be done to help ensure an accurate count of New York City in

1990.

Your presence here today is appreciated, and we have statements

which we thank you for. We will make those all a part of the

record.

Let us begin with Mr. Schwarz, and I would urge you to summarize your prepared statement and proceed with your presentation.

TESTIMONY OF FREDERICK A.O. SCHWARZ, JR,1 CORPORATION

COUNSEL, CITY OF NEW YORK; DAVID R. JONES, GENERAL DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY SERVICE SOCIETY OF NEW YORK;

EUGENE ERICKSEN, PROFESSOR, TEMPLE UNIVERSITY, PHILADELPHIA, PA; AND HAZEL N. DUKES, PRESIDENT, NEW YORK

STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES, NEW YORK, NY

Mr. SCHWARZ. Thank you, Senator.

' SM p. 58 for Mr. Schwarz prepared statement.
17

This is a problem, of course, not just for New York City but for

the whole Nation which we must solve.

I would like to comment a moment on the prior testimony. I

know the census people well. I do not know Mr. Keane but I know

the Bureau because I tried the case in 1980, and I have had other

contact at other sessions of testimony with the people who testified

before you.

They face a very difficult task. They are dedicated professionals.

They are very nice people. And out of all those things, including

the plans they talk about, come naturally a glow of good feeling

and a sense of optimism.

But I am afraid I must say that we would err and the country

would be harmed if we too readily assumed that that glow of good

feeling will translate into results that solve this very, very difficult

problem of implementing and making real our democracy.

I believe it is fair as a prediction to make, and if they were crossexamined, in effect•they were very honest people. They were very,

very honest witnesses at our trial, and they are extremely dedicated, decent and honest people. They would admit that there will be

an undercount in 1990, that it will be significant, that there will be

a significant differential between the undercount of minorities and

nonminorities, and between the undercount of areas like New York

City and the rest of the Nation. Those are facts which cannot be

and would not be denied by the people who today run the Census

Bureau because I know they are honest and I know they are competent.

It is, of course, important to do the things that they mentioned

in their testimony and that you brought out in your excellent questioning of the new Director of the Census Bureau. It is, of course,

important to do those things, and we in New York City pledge our

cooperation with the kind of efforts that you talked about and that

they talked about. But those coverage improvement techniques

cannot solve the problem, will not solve the problem. They can chip

away at the edges, but they will not solve the problem of the differential undercount. And it would not be fair to the Nation to leave

that impression that the problem can be solved.

Indeed, as I think one of the most important parts of Professor

Ericksen's testimony brings out, in some respects the very fine

things that are going to be done and which should be done by way

of coverage improvement can worsen the differential in coverage

between the poor, the minorities, the less stable members of our society, the less educated members of our society, and the people who

have all the opposite of those characteristics. And Gene Ericksen in

his testimony can outline for you why that is true.

But even if that were not true, the clear fact which we must face

as a nation is that this problem cannot be solved, of the differential undercount, cannot be solved unless we face up to statistical

adjustment.

In addition, of course, the cost of each additional coverage step is

enormous. There are some statistics set out in the testimony, again,

principally of Mr. Ericksen, of how much that cost has been, how

much it will be. To put it in cost benefit terms•we should do all

these things, Senator•but to put it in cost benefit terms, each

extra $100 million that are spent on coverage improvement tech-
18

niques is going to, to put it colloquially, chip away at the problem

and not solve the problem.

The second general point I want to make is that we are dealing

here with what I think fairly can be described as a vicious circle

that hurts the very people that you and your colleagues are trying

to help by the legislation that you pass that deals with education

or crime or poverty or housing.

What do I mean by that? Well, as you know, as your own opening comments brought out, to the extent that there is a differential

undercount, and to the extent that it particularly bites against the

poor, the undereducated, the people who live in high crime areas,

people who are minorities, it means less in Federal funds; it means

less in State funds. And the result of that is that the very problems

of illiteracy or poor housing are more difficult to solve. The very

cause of the census undercount•nobody's fault•the intractable,

difficult problems of our society are going to be less easy to solve

because the money is not going to be there, because the individuals

who should be counted, in a perfect world would be counted, are

not going to be.

In addition, of course, the census differential undercount affects

political representation, and therefore the balance within your

body and other bodies, including in the States, is changed to some

extent to the detriment of those who are weakest in our society•

the urban areas, the poor, the minorities, the poorly educated and

so forth; including, by the way, some rural areas that also have

severe problems of undercounts.

This is ultimately, and the reason, Senator, why I think the Congress must wrestle with this problem itself. Fine to wait and see

maybe in 1987 what they say they are going to do. But ultimately

the Congress has to wrestle with this problem because ultimately

this is a political issue, a political constitutional issue, a political

issue not in the party political sense but in the sense that when we

face honestly the facts, we know that both in terms of political representation and in terms of the dollars that come by way of aid for

reading or housing or crime, there is a fixed pie and your pie is not

getting any bigger that you are able to give out.

You mentioned Gramm-Rudman and all the terrible problems

you have with the budget. We are not in an era where the pie is

going to grow as it did in the past. At least it is not going to grow

enormously.

There being a fixed pie, the consequence of getting an accurate

count when we honestly face the facts is that there are some winners and some losers. And that is a political problem.

It is therefore a problem which the Census Bureau, as a dedicated, honest, sincere bureaucracy, is very unlikely to have the political will to solve; and turning that around, it is a problem which

properly is lodged with the Congress.

Under the Constitution, indeed, article I, section 2, it is interesting. The Constitution itself makes the census, as you know, a very

vital part of our democracy and makes it the Congress' responsibility to direct how the census shall be taken.

Now, obviously, you should not get into the minor details other

than in your excellent and general oversight. But on this question
19

of whether there should be an adjustment, it is ultimately a political question and one that should be made by the Congress.

Now, just to conclude: Why is it so important to address this?

Fair share of money, fair share of representation•those are the

harms that are done when it is not addressed. But it is really important, Senator, because this is the bicentennial of the greatest

document: political document in the history of mankind, our Constitution, and we have not yet done what we can do to perfect our

democracy. This, in my judgment, is the last structural problem

that exists with respect to perfecting the democracy of these

United States.

We fought our revolution to become free. We passed our Constitution, which gave the rights that it gave to many. We fought a

civil war to make sure that blacks in this society could vote, among

other things. We gave women the right to vote. The Supreme Court

in the 1960's, facing, incidentally, much of the argument that underlies this question, you know, that it would be a political thicket

for the courts to get into one person one vote. Well, Justice Frankfurter, whom I knew well, expressed that strongly, and the Supreme Court was closely divided. They finally did and the sky has

not fallen. Indeed, our democracy is working much better.

Well, this question of the differential undercount, which means

that certain areas, certain peoples are not getting their fair share,

must be solved to make our democracy more perfect, and it cannot

be solved unless a statistical adjustment is used.

Thank you, Senator.

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you very much for your excellent statement.

Before asking any questions of you or others, I think we will go

through and let every witness make a statement, and then we will

have a chance to discuss the issues that are raised in that way.

Mr. Jones, you may proceed.

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Senator.

I am certainly going to keep inviting you to the Community

Service Society.

Senator COCHRAN. I enjoyed that. Thank you.

Mr. JONES. It was very kind of you, sir.

I have submitted my statement1concerning some of the difficulties that we ran into in the city of New York in the 1980 census. At

that time I was the liaison that Dr. Keane really was referring to

for the city of New York. I was special adviser to the mayor at that

time and made director of the city census effort basically at the request of the then head of the census, Vincent Barabba, who was

seeking to do much the same thing in 1980 as is being discussed for

1990.

I do not think it is necessary to go through some of the pitfalls

and setbacks that occurred in 1980, except to say that when the

1980 census was just getting under way, when officials from the

city of New York were meeting in 1978 and before from the city

planning department, the same kind of rosy glow as to new census

improvement techniques were being discussed at that time. For in-

'See p. 59 for Mr. Jones' prepared statement.
20

stance, the Complete Count Committee was going to be the major

effort that the census was going to use in terms of improving the

accuracy of the count through community outreach.

There were going to be a liaison in each of the major cities of the

country who would have the "clout" necessary to get the elected

officials with influence involved in getting people in the census.

There were efforts that were being prepared to involve the

churches of the city of New York.

The difficult is that while there were some successes, we did in

fact form a Complete Count Committee led by a former Under Secretary of the Navy, Roswell Gilpatrick. We did in fact contribute

literally hundreds of thousands of dollars in direct city moneys, additionally, and free public service announcements on all the major

networks who feed into the New York audience, almost every

major radio station that was in the city. We had census messages

going on milk cartons. We had a census Sunday. We had "Were

You Counted?" buttons on almost every schoolchild in the city of

New York. We had sound trucks that the city itself hired and gave

to the Census Bureau to go through the streets urging citizens to

participate. All these efforts were attempted, and yet still the

census had enormous amounts of problems in reaching the population.

Obviously, I have a bias here, but if anything, I think our efforts

there exceed some that are being discussed for 1990. Ours was perhaps the most aggressive Complete Count Committee and activity

center, I think, anywhere in the Nation. Nonetheless, it fell well

short of reaching many of the city's residents.

And I think the mayor has already pointed out some of the difficulties we face, particularly now that the city has an estimated 2

million blacks living here and some 1.4 million Hispanics, and

Sowing daily in those populations. Nearly 50 percent of the popution are now minority, which the Census Bureau has expressed

are the most difficult communities to count. On top of that, you

have the undocumented alien problem. On top of that, you have a

vacancy rate that is optimistically rated at 2 percent. All of these

factors are almost coming together to make the likelihood of an accurate count even less likely than it was in 1980.

I think anyone who goes through the streets of the city of New

York in the poorest communities recognizes that for many poor

families, particularly minority families, the housing crisis has

worsened, not because of anything that has been done by the city,

but because of a worsening economy and the difficulties and high

cost of creating new units of housing.

Because of that, again, as the mayor mentioned, the likelihood of

families having to double up, triple up, quadruple up or be in units

where they are not allowed to be in those numbers, I think, if anything, has gotten worse. These problems are going to run right in

the face of any efforts to urge people to participate in an effort

which, at best, is going to be perceived as rather distance from the

day-to-day realities of trying to make a go of it in a city as complex

and tough as New York City is.

There were serious problems that occurred in 1980. And, again, I

do not think it was a planning problem. As a matter of fact, as I

see some of the people•I was not always considered the best friend
21

of the Census Bureau, but as I see many of my friends or acquaintances from the Census Bureau, I remember the planning was good.

The difficulties arose because of the lack of funds, essentially the

tools were not in place, because no one could come up with the

budgetary amounts of money necessary to really make a strong

showing in New York.

When one of the Census Bureau representatives talked about the

fact that they were going to be relying on volunteers who were civically minded, in the city of New York, with the youth unemployment rate that is up in the 40- to 50-percent range, where people

are literally scraping by, where rents are now well above $400 or

$500 per month for working people in poor neighborhoods, to ask

someone to volunteer, I think, is being insensitive, if anything. The

problems are tough for people, and to ask them to volunteer their

time at this time in their lives when so many difficulties are confronting them, I think is to ignore the realities of being poor in the

city of New York.

All of these things make the notion that we are only going to see

somewhere around the minimum wage or somewhat above being

paid to people as a major disincentive to getting the kind of quality

enumerators needed to go into poor neighborhoods.

I must admit, I was outraged when, in 1980, one of the officials of

the Census Bureau came to me with great hope in his eyes saying,

"We have finally found a new group of enumerators who can go

out. We are tapping in to methadone maintenance individuals."

And I looked at him, and I said, "Where?" He said, "Central

Harlem." And I almost had a fit because the misunderstanding and

misperception of the communities, the notion that my grandmother

living in Bedford-Stuyvesant, very similar to central Harlem, would

open the door to someone who is having a drug problem and be excited by it, with as rigid as she was and as frightened as she was of

crime is to misperceive poor communities. If anything, you need

the most skillful enumerators of anywhere in the country because

you are going to populations that are terribly concerned and frightened, not only about someone coming in and messing up their

living arrangement, but of crime.

That kind of thing is going to take enormous sophistication, and

quite frankly, if you double the wedge, you probably could not

make a major impact on that problem.

So these kinds of things have to be understood. The outreach

project, which I hear was going to be doubled, I am not good at

math, but I know there has been inflation; not much, it is lowered.

But essentially, we are not talking about a budget that is doubling.

We are talking about perhaps a 10-percent increase in the amount

of money to be spent on public service effort.

All those factors make me get a real sense of deja vu here; that,

again, we have good-spirited people having good plans, but without

the budgetary wherewithal, really, to do the things they hope to do.

And I think in light of the budgetary constraints that have been

placed by Congress, that it is even less likely that, when we get to

this 1990 census that the money is going to be in place to really

make a significant impact in improving the accuracy of the count.

This is not even taking into account the people who are not

going to come forward. Because I have a two-part statement here
22

find I will close with it. If we had unlimited funds, I still think

there would be a disproportionate undercount of this area in the

city of New York. We might improve it; we might chip away, as

Mr. Schwarz says. But ultimately we cannot overcome the resistance in this community, not because of lack of patriotism or lack of

good community spirit, but because people are under the gun in

the city of New York, poor people are under the gun, and they just

cannot take the risk.

This was told to me by the now Catholic bishop of Pittsburgh

now, Monsignor then, Bevelaqua, who I almost convinced with

census help that the Catholic Church should play a major role in

convincing citizens of New York to participate in the census. And

finally what the now Bishop Bevelaqua told me, he could not do it

because the fear of confidentiality among their parishioners and

the danger that even one would somehow be turned in to perhaps

the Immigration Service or lose their apartment because they had

one child too many, was just too great. And the Catholic Church

refused to participate in urging its parishioners to get involved in

the census. That problem is going to exist no matter what we do.

I think taken together it makes it incumbent upon the Congress

to look at adjustment. That is going to help urban areas, one, but

also the minority communities of the entire Nation who are having

tough times along with working people and unemployed people

everywhere.

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Jones.

An excellent presentation.

Let me call now on Professor Ericksen.

Mr. ERICKSEN. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify. ' I am here to make three basic points.

One is regardless of how much money and effort are expended on

the traditional head count, the differential is inevitable.

Second, the coverage improvement efforts that we have heard

about which are aimed at simply redoubling traditional head count

efforts do not solve the problem, and in some ways they make it

worse.

Finally, there are methods of statistical estimation that exist by

which an imperfect census can be brought closer to the truth.

I would like to second what Mr. Jones said, that the problems of

the census undercount are not necessarily for a lack of good ideas.

I would like to give you a couple of examples of that.

In the 1980 census, Temple University was part of the nationwide program in which students were going to be recruited to learn

to become enumerators. Faculty such as myself were recruited to

teach classes which gave the students 6 hours of course credit

toward their undergraduate degree and a guaranteed job working

as a census enumerator.

Together with the Philadelphia Regional Director, Mr. David

Lewis, he and I gave a lot of publicity to this and held a number of

recruiting sessions at which I would say approximately 150 students came. We told them what they were going to do, how they

were going to get the credit; there was a great deal of interest. But

'See p. 67 for Mr. Ericksen's prepared statement.
23

at some inevitable time, we told the students that where they were

going to be doing their counting was in north Philadelphia, which

is our version of Harlem. At that point maybe a third of the students got up and left, and when all was said and done, we had 15

or 18 of 150 students that came to the meetings actually go

through the program.

So I think that the fear of going into difficult neighborhoods and

taking the count make it really impossible to hire a sufficient

number of trained enumerators.

The second example has to do with creating a master address

register. A master address register is the key to the entire census

because that is the list of addresses to which the forms are sent. In

areas such as north Philadelphia, which I am very familiar with,

and in many of these areas in New York and other large cities, you

have large, three- to four-story buildings that have one door, one

doorbell and one mailbox. No matter how many people you send,

whether they be postal employees, precanvass employees, Census

Bureau supervisors, every time they walk by that house they are

going to see one door, one doorbell, and one mailbox. Now, anyone

who has ever done a survey in an urban area such as that knows

that those doors commonly have anywhere from two to six apartments inside that one structure, that it has simply been subdivided.

The only way you can find out about those two to six structures is

actually to go in there and ask people where they are, essentially

taking the census twice. And all the precanvass and all the money

you put toward that are not going to solve that problem.

Now, according to the General Accounting Office, in 1980, $342

million were invested in coverage improvement. The per capita inflation adjusted cost of counting one person in 1980 was $4.72. In

1970, it was $2.30. So even after adjusting for inflation, the cost of

counting in 1980 was double what it was in 1970.

The General Accounting Office projects a similar rise for 1990.

What do we get for that extra expenditure of funds? According to a

demographic analysis computed by the Census Bureau in 1970, the

undercount for blacks was 6.1 percent higher than the undercount

for nonblacks. In 1980, after all this extra money was spent, the

calculation made by the same procedure indicated a differential of

5.9 percent. No real difference.

Now, to give you an example of how public improvement programs can make things worse, let me go back to the example that I

gave you of recanvassing areas to find if there are houses which

are not included in the initial list. I have tried to give an example

of how this does not find all housing in urban areas. In rural areas,

where housing does not have identifiable street addresses, you

often have to rely on descriptions of houses. And you have different

enumerators going out trying to update lists, often with severe

time pressures. Different people will see the same house and give it

two different descriptions. It will be included in two different lists

and will receive two census forms and often be counted twice.

A Census Bureau study estimates that 2 million people live in

households that were counted twice in the 1980 census.

I argue that the solution to this problem is a statistical adjustment. Now, the Census Bureau used the methods that I and many

other statisticians would advocate for an adjustment when it ad-
24

justed the 1970 census by the national vacancy check. Very similar

methods involving demographic procedures, matching procedures,

and regression procedures are used by the Census Bureau to calculate per capita income estimates and population growth estimates

for 39,000 revenue sharing units for every year after the census.

My own research indicates that using data provided by the

Census Bureau from the 1980 census, calculating adjustments by a

variety of different methods, and making a variety of assumptions

all indicate the same result: Areas with higher proportions of minorities have higher undercounts; cities like New York have higher

undercounts than other areas with similar proportions of minorities. A statistical adjustment would shift the population shares

from certain types of areas to other types of areas regardless of the

assumptions that you make.

Given the fact that the Census Bureau has used these methods in

other contexts and given the widespread urgings of other statistical

and demographic experts toward an adjustment, the question

arises, why does not the Census Bureau adjust?

I argue that the reason is political. Vincent Barabba, the Director of the 1980 census, made the following statement:

If in fact the Bureau does all the things it plans to do and enumeration is still

differential, then the dilemma arises. The decision about what you do in that case is

a political decision.

Now, if the Bureau were ordered to adjust, and my own personal

opinion is that is the only way it will happen, I am confident that

they would do an excellent job. The Census Bureau did a very good

job of adjusting the 1970 census by means of the national vacancy

check. They do an excellent job of calculating post census estimates

of population change and per capita income.

Thank you.

Senator COCHKAN. Thank you, Dr. Ericksen.

Mrs. Hazel Dukes.

Ms. DUKES. Good morning, Senator, and thank you very much

for listening !to us and coming with action. It is very difficult to

believe that a man from your part of the State would have taken

time to listen to facts that was earlier presented to you.

I am pleased to be here today to share with you my views on this

most important subject, the 1990 census. The members of the 77

NAACP branches throughout New York State have an abiding interest in developing measures that will ensure a full and fair count

of all New Yorkers, particularly black New Yorkers. We especially

know the negatives of the undercount. We know that allocations of

all types of resources are based on the number of people living in a

community who are not counted in a census. At the top of the list

of those things that directly impact on all aspects of life is political

representation. Go back to what my last colleague just said. Congressional seats, State legislative seats, city council seats, county

board positions, and school board positions are based on the

number of people living in an area who are counted.

Based on the last census in 1980, political representation in black

communities throughout New York State increased at the congres-

_ ' See p. 83 for Ms. Dukes' prepared statement.
25

sional level by 309 percent with two blacks elected to Congress in

Brooklyn and one about to be elected in Queens. Although we are

not happy because our twin cities, Buffalo and Syracuse, should

also be electing a Congressman at this point.

Now, it was good, but a full count has not been made. There

should be at least two congressional seats in areas where black

New Yorkers live if a full count had been made in the 1980 census

An additional three to five seats in the State legislature would

have been won by the black community.

Laws and budgetary decisions made in the Congress and in State

legislatures can be made more fairly and sensitively for all New

Yorkers if those who are the lawmakers include a fairer representation of all New Yorkers.

In addition to political representation, many Federal and State

financial allotments are based on the population that is counted.

Entitlement programs in many areas are vastly underfunded because the black and poor communities are not counted.

Let me go to some of the things that we believe in line with what

the Census Bureau people who are here this morning outlined to

you. But even in 1980, as Mr. Jones can tell you, NAACP was not

contacted or notified in writing or by telephone call until they were

in the process of doing the census count and was told by City Hall

at that time that there was an undercount. I share with Mr. Jones

the outrage we heard when we said we were going to get methadone patients to go into our community. But I also know that we

do not have to go to Temple University to train young men and

women to take a census count.

If you come to a community base in New York State, we will be

celebrating 50 years of the NAACP in this State. We are in every

nook and crook of this State. We have persons who are in need of

work. I would fight for an increase in the amount of salaries that

we give. I most certainly would not advocate we ought to have volunteers to do this job. It is insensitive to even approach it from

that standpoint.

I think an orientation to persons who reside in the community

where we know that an undercount would probably take place is

the best way to go after solving this problem. I do believe that we

need an increase in the budget amount. But the basic cross for

those of us who are black, Hispanic, Asian, is for our communities

to be involved. I strongly recommend that we have advisory committees set up throughout this country of basic leadership groups,

along with our political leaders. This is not a party. I agree with

our counsel. This is not a party. This is a constitutional right for

all of us to be counted.

So those allocations, those resources, those political entitlements

that we should also have regardless to whether we are poor, whether we are black, whether we are Hispanic, whether we are Jewish

or Italian, should be the main center of effect that should take

place for the 1990 census.

I come today as the president of the New York State Conference

of the NAACP Branches reaching out to say that we want a full

count, that we are available. We have offices throughout this State.

We have men and women who can participate as census-takers, not
26

for free but with the limited resources to be divided equally. They

would be there.

I come ready, willing, and able to see that this mandate is carried out for this State of New York.

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Dukes.

Well, I appreciate the panel's participation in this hearing. I

think it is very informative, very helpful, and I am optimistic that

we are getting somewhere, that we are getting to the bottom of the

problem. We are finding out some things about the realities of

taking a census in New York City that will inevitably benefit the

census-takers.

Let me ask a little more about the suggestion that the mayor

made and that Mr. Schwarz has repeated concerning an amendment, legislation that ought to be introduced to clarify the authority of the U.S. Bureau of the Census to make statistical adjustments.

As I understand the suggestion, the law is not as clear as it could

be in that respect. I know that in the statement on page 4 of Mr.

Schwarz' statement, there is a reference to a section of the United

States Code which you say plainly authorizes the Bureau to include

"the use of sampling procedures and special surveys" as part of its

decennial census-taking procedures, and that has been held by a

court to mean that the Bureau is prohibited from relying solely on

sampling.

I understand that next you say that the Bureau says the statistical adjustment would somehow politicize the census.

In looking at the statute itself, I want to read the provision. It

says, "The Secretary shall"•and this is, I guess, the Secretary of

Commerce

Mr. SCHWARZ. Yes, it is.

Senator COCHRAN [continuing]. "Shall in the year 1980 and every

10 years thereafter take a decennial census of population as of the

first day of April of such year, which date shall be known as the

decennial census date, in such form and content as he may determine, including the use of sampling procedures and special surveys. In connection with any such census, the Secretary is authorized to obtain such other census information as necessary."

Well, it would seem to me that that does authorize the Secretary

to use statistical adjustments or samples or surveys. But then it

has been brought to my attention that the Bureau of the Census

has called to the attention of some courts that there is another provision of that law, section 195, which provides the following:

"Except for the determination of population for purposes of apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the several States,

the Secretary shall, if he considers it feasible, authorize the use of

the statistical method known as sampling in carrying out the provisions of this title."

Is there any inconsistency between those two?

Mr. SCHWARZ. Well, Senator, I think congressional clarification

would be desirable. Now, we won the argument, putting the two together, that they were not prohibited. That was in a district court.

And I think it would help, and I like your idea, to have the Congress clearly state that•as long as statistical adjustment is not the

only method. It would be crazy to make it the only method. We
27

have to use the traditional methods to some major extent. But to

have Congress clearly state that they are authorized to use statistical techniques in the decennial census, including for the purposes

of apportionment.

Now, I believe that the Congress should go further than that and

say that they should use such techniques so long as the techniques

will result in a more accurate count That should be the standard.

You know, not if it is a perfect count. We know that existing methods cannot be perfect. We have to admit that. Neither can statistical methods be perfect, but the standard should be, can they make

it better? Or as the Supreme Court held in the one person, one vote

cases, you should have an accurate count "as nearly as practicable."

I think if the Congress were to express its will that sampling is

authorized or statistical techniques are authorized, and that they

should be used if they will improve the results overall, it would

make a major contribution. It would help the Census Bureau with

what is a difficult problem. They are taking on a burden if they on

their own, without some assistance from the Congress, say, well, we

are going to change statistically. And I think you could make a

very, very major contribution by passing such legislation. Then

leave to their considerable expertise, which I agree with Gene

Ericksen would be carried out fairly and well.

And we would be happy, Senator, to work with you or your staff

on suggesting language that would make a real contribution to this

problem.

Senator COCHRAN. AS I understand it, the question of the meaning of that phrase that I read in section 195 is still the subject of

litigation. Is that correct?

Mr. SCHWARZ. I think they have not abandoned that position.

You are correct.

Senator COCHRAN. NO court has actually said that the law authorizes sampling even for the purpose of apportioning the seats in

the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. SCHWARZ. TWO courts have held that in our case, but the district court specifically wrestled with the apparent conflict between

141 and 195 and resolved it in the way we were arguing. And the

circuit court in an earlier stage of the litigation held that statistical adjustments were permitted by both the Constitution and the

statutes.

Nonetheless, as a matter that is open for litigation, it seems to

me it would be helpful for the Congress to clarify that.

Senator COCHRAN. Well, I am glad to have your thoughts about

it, and I think the Congress ought to review this area and try to

decide whether legislation is appropriate to authorize it.

Let me ask Dr. Ericksen this question: Are we far enough along

in our statistical adjustment expertise and technical competence to

be able to make a sample, take a survey and obtain the kind of information that is important for us to have when we do take the

decennial census?

Mr. ERICKSEN. Well, I guess I should answer your question in two

ways.

First of all, as you probably know, sampling is an important part

of the census itself. One out of six households in the census was
28

assigned the long form which provides information on income, education, and occupation. So sampling is already a very important

part of the census.

I am not sure if that is what you mean by your question.

Senator COCHRAN. Can we substitute sampling for the obtaining

of the information that the Census Bureau does obtain every 10

years? There is a lot of information other than just how many

people live in New York City that the Census Bureau gets.

Can we, by sampling or statistical adjustment, make up the difference, the shortfall between what you get from a sample and

what you get from the more detailed enumeration of the population?

Mr. ERICKSEN . Well, yes, you can. First of all, in 1980, sample information was available from the Current Population Survey which

is the basis monthly survey of the Census Bureau used to estimate

the unemployment rate in the country. It has the highest response

rate of any survey I know of in the United States. It is an excellent

source of data.

And the sample from the Current Population Survey was

matched against the census to estimate the proportion of the population that was omitted from the count.

The Census Bureau then sampled its own count and went back

into the field to estimate the proportion of people who were erroneously enumerated. So you can take the estimate of erroneous enumerations, subtract it from the estimate of omissions to get the estimate of the undercount. And those estimates were published, and

the standard errors which are the errors due to the fact that you

have a sample and not a complete census, were very small for

those areas which had high undercounts.

For example, the standard error of the New York City estimate

was about one^quarter or one-fifth the size of the estimate.

Now, we think we can improve on those sample estimates by a

statistical procedure known as regression. And I mentioned that

making estimates from a variety of assumptions gave essentially

the same result; I was primarily talking about regression estimates. The estimates of undercount for areas such as New York

City, are many times greater than the error attached to them.

I conclude that adjustments to the census count for areas like

New York City can therefore improve the proportionality of the

count of the entire United States.

Senator COCHRAN. The Census Bureau testified today that in the

case of undocumented aliens there was no way to really count

them using the sampling or statistical polling. What is your reaction to that?

Mr. ERICKSEN. Well, what I believe the Census Bureau meant is

the following: That it is very difficult to design a survey, and I say

this having directed a very large survey to identify undocumented

aliens in New York City hospitals, to identify who the undocumented aliens are in the census. That is a job which I would agree with

the Census Bureau is impossible.

Now, the other issue is actually counting the undocumented

aliens. Now, undocumented aliens are an extremely difficult-tocount population. The Census Bureau estimates that they counted

2 million undocumented aliens in the 1980 census. The problem is
29

they do not know just which of the people who they counted were

undocumented. They estimate this through indirect methods using

other data.

So I think the answer is yes, the Census Bureau can count undocumented aliens. They probably miss them at a higher rate than the

general population. No; the Census Bureau cannot identify who the

undocumented aliens are individually that they have counted.

Senator COCHRAN. What would you suggest as a standard for deciding when to use statistical adjustment? You heard our discussion with the Census Bureau that under way now is research and

review of previous census activity, demographic information. For

the purpose of developing a standard, what would you suggest as a

standard?

Mr. ERICKSEN. I think that the estimates of undercount should be

consistent with what we know about the American population. Demographic methods exist which actually give us a better estimate

of number of black and nonblack Americans than the count does.

So any adjustment should be consistent with the demographic information that we have.

For local areas the size of New York City, the estimates of undercount should be reliable. And what I mean by reliable is that if the

adjustment is substantially different from zero, and that means it

has either a very large positive or a very large negative adjustment, that adjustment should be larger than its standard error,

which is the measure that statisticians use to evaluate the error of

an estimate.

Mr. SCHWARZ. If I could, Senator, give a supplement to that

answer. Putting it in more layman's terms or constitutional or statutory type of language than statistical language, I think there are

two formulas that you could use in addition to the more statistical

ones.

One is the common sense question, will statistical adjustment improve the results overall?

The second is to take the language that the Supreme Court has

used in applying its one person, one vote test, which indeed we persuaded the second circuit was the right way to analyze the census.

And that is that one should have an accurate count "as nearly as

practicable."

I think if you put those two things together, no doubt with some

of the more technical statistical jargon and language, you have the

guts of what would be the appropriate standard.

Senator COCHRAN. Well, one thing concerns me, and that is that

when the Congress approved this language of section 195, it clearly

indicated that except for determining population for purposes of

apportionment of the Congress, the Secretary would be authorized

to use sampling. There had to be, in 1957, which I presume is the

date that that provision was first written, some reason for making

that exception. And I just wonder whether or not we have developed techniques, expertise since then that is a reason for abandoning that exception, even for the apportionment of the House of

Representatives should there now be sampling authorized?

Mr. SCHWARZ. I think that is a very good way of putting the

question, Senator. 1957 was the year I graduated from college, and

looking at you, it might be roughly equivalent for you.
30

Senator COCHRAN. Right.

Mr. SCHWARZ. And we sure have come a long way on the use of

statistical techniques and in fact their acceptability to the public. I

mean, there was a time when sampling, polling, you know, just was

not acceptable, was not believed to be real. That is not the case

today, and it is much more scientific today than it was in the dim,

dark days of our past.

Senator COCHRAN. In connection with the work being done now

to involve community leaders, groups that can help encourage cooperation and participation in the census, I worry that you say to

me and to the committee today that some of this may be counterproductive. I mean, it may even result in a greater disparity between the number of people who are really there and the number

who are counted. That bothers me.

How can the census-takers correct that or is there a way? I know

money is a problem, and I was impressed by what Mr. Jones said.

Planning was good in 1980, he said. Even if it is better for 1990, it

may not solve the problem. I heard that.

Mr. JONES. Well, I think the generic, since you really talk to it,

but I can tell you one area that it is going to happen right away. If

you go to a community group, church group in Winnetka, Illinois,

and propose as a good government something that is going to help

their community, their turnout rate of people willing to go for little

or no money to do enumeration is going to be pretty tremendous.

Bring the same program into my neighborhood, Bedford-Stuyvesant, with unemployment running 50 percent, with the problem of

minimum wage something that is really of tremendous concern, it

is going to be harder to get people to do that kind of activity. In

other words, the richer areas where things are going better are

going to be much more receptive to the kind of appeals that the

Census Bureau is now crafting as discussed here this morning than

a poorer community could ever hope to be.

Senator COCHRAN. One thing that was mentioned, and Ms. Dukes

may want to comment on this, and please do if you would like to.

You mentioned about the fear in some neighborhoods that if some

stranger comes to the door and is going to come in and ask you

some questions, he is just not going to get in there no matter what

he says or what he says he is there for or anything.

Ms. DUKES. Absolutely.

Senator COCHRAN. My question is this: Can that problem be

solved in doing a better job with mailing lists, by getting to that

person in another way?

Your grandmother, for instance, would probably very well respond to a questionnaire.

Mr. JONES. Right.

Senator COCHRAN. If she believes this is for the good of the country, that person is going to respond in that way.

Mr. JONES. Right.

Ms. DUKES. See, I think we need to have some updated techniques coming into the 21st century. I think, No. 1, we ought to examine the census form that we have now.

I think that some of the information on there is quite crazy. I

live in a suburban area of this State in Nassau County. My school

every year sends out a census, literally. If I am still there, same
31

number of persons in the household and then all I have to do is

sign my name and send it back. There is nothing else to do.

I think the whole form that we have must be re-examined, there

must be some rewriting of what information we really want to

know.

I believe even in the poor neighborhood, we have voter registration in poor neighborhoods, and it has been those persons in my

neighborhood in Roslyn, they are poor people. But yet those poor

people know me.

There are senior citizens where I am sure if we have senior citizens in a senior citizen center where we want to do a census, we

can do it and there will be no complaint.

I think we have to come up with some better ideas. I do not

know who is in the top positions in the census throughout the

country. Maybe we need to revamp and look at our employment

area in there so when we get ready to do this we have a sensitivity

that runs through the whole operation of the Census Bureau.

I would believe there are great people, they are nice people. I

have not had much contact with them as our counsel here, Mr.

Schwarz, but I have a feeling from 1980, when Mr. Jones walked

into the NAACP office at 250 West 57th Street, I have a feeling

that we still have some very insensitive people and some bureaucrats still in the Census Bureau. And I think that that is where we

need some overhauling done and more coming into the 21st century.

I would have to tell you that statistical data is very well accepted

in our community these days, that it is a new form of data that is

being used in all instances, that it could be applied to this.

One of the colleagues here mentioned the vacancy rate that we

have in our community. That most certainly is some way to have

statistical data used in our larger urban areas such as in New York

City and Syracuse and Rochester. That can be used, the vacancy

rate, in those areas.

When you look at New York, it is kind of unique, if you will. You

have to look from Westchester County to Nassau County, from

Nassau County to Suffolk County. Each one of these subdivisions

politically brings its own strength and its weakness to how the

Government interacts with its people, if you will. Even the five boroughs in New York City, you have to know who is the government

there. There is a lot of play to come in that in New York State and,

of course, we pride ourselves on what we have done here because

the Statue of Liberty here beckons all to this country, to this State

more than any other State, even from your State. They come here

looking for a better life.

There is a way, I believe, to have a better count than we did in

1980. I am told by a person who was involved that 1970 was better

than 1980. We need to look at what happened in 1970. I do not

know. I was not that much involved in 1970 in what went on as I

was in 1980.

But I think we ought to look back at some of the history to take

out that which was good, that which was not so good, and see now

while we still have the planning stage. I am not so sure, Mr. Jones,

that all the planning was good and well intentioned because I

know that they left out community-based groups such as the Urban
32

League and NAACP. We were not involved in the planning stage

at all. It was after everything was put together, even, if you will,

the material, the written material. They brought us material that

we know had no relevance to our community.

Senator COCHRAN. Well, I think that identifies a problem. The

complexity of the information can be overwhelming to a lot of

people who are being asked to fill out forms and send them in. I

think a simpler, shorter form is going to be a big help in getting a

greater degree of cooperation.

Mr. JONES. Certainly in 1980, we had a major problem with the

master address register. As you were alluding to, yes, it is less toxic

to have something received in the mail than someone knocking at

your door, even though the response rate in poorer neighborhoods

is much lower. And I think the test census was a perfect example

of that.

But if you can get it into the household, you have got a better

shot at it. The trouble in 1980 we encountered, as I mentioned in

my testimony, essentially the lists being used to compile the

master address register were commercial lists, the commercial lists

used by credit card companies and realtors whose main interests

were in neighborhoods where they thought they might have potential customers. They had essentially left the poorer neighborhoods

in the city of New York unupdated for 10 or more years. That left

those lists almost, in my view, useless for many communities in the

city.

I think it would be extremely difficult to find the money and

wherewithal to actually make those lists accurate enough to make

a substantial difference between 1980 and 1990. Again, I think you

would have to visit, do a precensus as Dr. Ericksen mentioned, of

each household, go out into the streets, knock on each door, go

inside and see how many units actually exist within a particular

building or tenement.

I do not think the money is available for that. Certainly, we

v«ould encourage it if they are seriously considering it. But we

ihink that the master address register is going to be crucial in determining even some modest improvement in the accuracy of the

count.

Mr. ERICKSEN. I would just like to add one point to that. One of

the solutions which was oftentimes suggested for improving this

f>roblem is to make greater use of the telephone. And many of the

ists that were used for the same purpose as the commercial list in

New York City could have been derived by taking the telephone directory, and companies will essentially turn it inside out and give

you address lists of all the houses that have telephones, which

would be a good start for the master address register.

The problem is as follows: In my hometown of Philadelphia, I

wrote a report on the Puerto Rican population, and 30 percent of

all Puerto Rican households in Philadelphia have no telephone,

compared to a rate of about 5 percent for everybody else.

On a national basis, I made an estimate for black families living

in poverty. Around 40 percent of those families in many areas were

without telephones.

And so all of the procedures that we use, commercial mailing

lists, the post office, telephones, all of those are set up to communi-
cate with the average, well-educated, middle class type of family.

And when you go and try to have a procedure which is the same

for everyone, it is not going to affect the poor populations in the

same way. It will not work as well there.

Senator COCHRAN. I think that is the point that comes through

very clearly today, and that is that an extra effort and additional

procedures that may be unique in a neighborhood among an ethnic

group are going to have to be used. Advisory committees, as Ms.

Dukes suggested, are just going to have to be used in communities

and in neighborhoods to help ensure a total, complete count, an accurate count. These new procedures may have to be looked to.

I am going to continue to explore the possibility of legislation

with those of you who have suggested it. It may be that that would

be helpful. I am not prepared today to say that it is the answer or

that it would be helpful, but it may help clarify the authority that

the Bureau has. Maybe the Bureau would suggest clarifying language that it would find helpful.

We will continue to work on that and monitor the preparations

for the 1990 census. This has been an important hearing, I think,

in that effort. We will adjourn this hearing at this point with our

thanks again to Mayor Koch, to his staff, to this important panel

who has been helpful to us, to Dr. Keane and his staff of the U.S.

Bureau of the Census in Washington.

We appreciate everyone's cooperation We will continue the effort

to monitor with hearings as we go through this process. So the

hearing record is going to be open. If anyone has suggestions and

would like to make those suggestions to our subcommittee, we can

include that in our transcript of our hearing, and it will have an

important effect on the work that we are doing

Thank you all for being here. The hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the hearing was adjourned, subject to

the call of the Chair.]

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

TESTIMONY OF

EDWARD I. KOCH

MAYOR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY, NUCLEAR

PROLIFERATION, AND GOVERNMENT PROCESSES

OF THE

SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

NEW YORK, NEW YORK

SEPTEMBER 4, 1986

Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, thank you for

the opportunity to speak to you on the planning for the 1990 Census.

I am encouraged by your interest in the perspective of large cities

like New York, and I will try briefly to outline that perspective.

I have three purposes here: to call your attention again to

the extent of the undercount of New York City in the 1980 Census,

to offer some explanations for the undercount, and to convey its

political and economic consequences.

The extent of the New York City undercount in 1980 was

truly dramatic. The Census Bureau itself estimated the undercount

to be about 524,000 people. This number exceeds the number of

people counted in many large cities -- Seattle, Denver, and St.

Louis, to name just three. It is as if a major city were altogether

overlooked by the Bureau.

The rate of the undercount for New York City was far out

of line with the rate nationally. The City rate was 7.4 percent; the

national rate was only 1.6 percent.

Why was the City undercount so disproportionate? There

are a number of contributing causes. Some of these apply equally to

other central cities; others apply uniquely to New York City. I hope

that identifying these causes will give you some sense of how difficult

it is to take the Census in a city like New York, and also how

quixotic it is to think that "coverage improvement" techniques --

without statistical adjustments -- will adequately deal with these

problems.

One contributing cause is that most housing in New York

City, as in other cities, consists of apartments. As you know, the

use of Census questionnaires for apartments is unreliable, particularly

for low-income apartments. In many instances, the name of the

addressee is unknown; in others, the apartment number is unknown.

In such cases, the questionnaires are frequently left in the lobby and

it is only serendipity that they reach the addressees. The Bureau

simply does not have enough information about this population to make

sure that they receive the questionnaires.

(35)
36

A second problem is New York City's undocumented aliens,

who are obviously reluctant to respond to a government agency's

request for personal information, fearful that their immigration status

will be discovered. According to the Census Bureau, only 200,000 of

the City's undocumented aliens were counted in the 1980 Census. Yet

the number of undocumented aliens in the City has been estimated by

INS and by the City's Department of City Planning to be as high as

500,000 to 750,000.

A third problem is New York City's large transient

population, many of whom live in rooming houses and SROs. Some of

these transients are not mentally capable of responding to the

questionnaires; others are afraid that responses to such government

inquiries will jeopardize their public assistance. As with the case of

undocumented aliens, there are strong individual motives operating

here to discourage cooperation with the Census Bureau.

A fourth problem is the number of New Yorkers who cannot

read and write English. Not only is there a sizable Spanish-speaking

population; there are 20 languages used in this City by at least

10,000 people each. Although in 1980 the Census Bureau developed

questionnaires in some of these foreign languages, it did not do

nearly enough to reach the City's foreign-language population. 1

should point out, parenthetically, that there are also a number of

English-speaking people who cannot read and write well enough to

complete the questionnaires.

A fifth problem is the large number of families who,

because of the shortage of affordable housing, are forced to share

single units. Frequently, they are reluctant to disclose the total

number of people living in an apartment because the shared

occupancy is illegal; they fear that disclosure will result in eviction.

A final problem is the existence of high crime areas in the

City. Many Census Bureau enumerators are simply frightened away.

In all these ways, New York City is resistant to a fully

accurate count.

The effect of the undercount has been devastating. First,

it has cost the City its full share of representation in Congress and

in the New York State Assembly. What that means is that we have

not been fully represented in political decisions which fundamentally

affect us. As the City's Corporation Counsel, Frederick A.O.

Schwarz, Jr., will discuss later this morning, this is not only unfair;

it is also unconstitutional.

Second, the City has lost between $26,000,000 and

$52,000,000 annually in federal funds under certain programs with

formulas tied to population. Over a period of 10 years, this

translates into a loss of up to half a billion dollars in services to New

Yorkers. We have also lost state funds under programs similarly tied

to population.

A final consequence is that our own ability to develop

programs and policies to improve the City has been diminished.

Without accurate Census data, the City's efforts to distribute fairly

-2-
37

its basic services • housing, education, sanitation, health care, and

police and fire protection • are necessarily undercut.

We recognize that the Census Bureau allocated considerable

resources to improving its count in the 1980 Census, and that it

plans to allocate additional resources for 1990. But we believe that

many of the problems in covering a population like New York City are

intractable ones, and that only through the use of statistical

adjustments can there be a complete count.

I hope that the Subcommittee will take steps to insure that

the Census Bureau amends its procedures and, in any event, makes

its proposed 1990 procedures public as early as possible. This notice

will permit cities like New York to provide comments on the

procedures and will enable the Bureau then to incorporate appropriate

changes.

In closing, let me stress that the City stands ready to

assist the Bureau in taking the 1990 Census. We realize that

cooperation by localities is essential in a project of this kind, and we

will provide it.

Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for organizing this

hearing and for permitting the City to speak on this important

matter.

-3-
38

STATEMENT OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF THE CENSUS

JOHN G. KEANE

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY, NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION,

AND GOVERNMENT PROCESSES

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

U.S. SENATE

SEPTEMBER 4, 1986

Introduction

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to discuss the Census Bureau's

plans for enumerating urban areas In the 1990 census. At the hearing on

July 1 in Mississippi, I testified on some of the problems we have 1n the

more rural areas of the country. One reason the census is so complex and

challenging is that we are a large and diverse Nation. The Census Bureau

must address the needs of all sections of the country. This hearing is an

indication of your commitment and interest in making the census a success

throughout the land. I commend you for that commitment.

I will describe some of the difficulties we have had enumerating urban areas

in the past and how we are addressing those problems for 1990. But first,

I want to outline our efforts to work closely with all local officials to

make the 1990 census a success. While a perfect census 1s not possible

1n such a complex and highly mobile society as ours, we can, 1f we all

work together, take a high quality census--one that everyone agrees Is

the best job possible.

One of the best ways for us to make sure we have a good census 1s for the

Census Bureau to work closely with local officials. That means getting ideas

from local officials about how to improve the census 1n their areas and

obtaining their help in achieving widespread public support for the census.

Mayors have a wealth of knowledge about their communities and a closeness to

the people 1n those communities. Thus, for the 1990 census, we have included

special efforts to establish contacts with mayors and other dty officials.

In early June of this year, we held a week-long conference 1n Washington, D.C.,

on the topic of "Cities and the 1990 Census." During the first 3 days,

we met with mayors and staff from 29 cities that had populations of 200,000

or more. In the final 3 days, a second conference was held with representatives

from 26 dttes with smaller populations. The discussions focused on the

importance of the 1990 census to the cities and how we could cooperate to

ensure that our Nation's Bicentennial Census will be the most accurate

ever.

We also met with mayors at the annual meeting of the U.S. Conference

of Mayors in Puerto R1co in June. And we will conduct workshops at the

fall meetings of the National Association of Towns and Townships, the

International City Management Association, and the National League of

Cities. These forums will provide opportunities for both formal and

Informal discussions with other mayors.
39

At the center of our efforts will be a series of one-on-one meetings with

mayors of our larger cities. In June, 1 visited New York City to meet

with Mayor Koch. We discussed our mutual concerns about the 1990 census

and possible joint efforts for encouraging the City's population to be counted

in 1990. This was an excellent meeting and I am very encouraged by our discussions. Deputy Director Klncannon, at the meeting of the U.S. Conference of

Mayors, had similar discussions with mayors from Chicago, Philadelphia,

San Juan, and other cities. Over the next six months or so, we plan to meet

with mayors of other cities. In order to assure ongoing contact between

the cities and Census Bureau staff, we will ask the mayors to appoint

high-level liaisons. We are committed to working with the cities to

prevent foreseeable problems in the 1990 census and to be able to solve

any unforseen ones as they arise.

Enumeration Problems 1n Urban Areas

I will now describe some of the things that can make census-taking in urban areas

difficult. Most of our large urban centers pose the same sort of complexities,

although the degree of complexity and the specific problems may differ from

city to city. I will briefly mention four problems: mail-return rates, personnel,

the complexity of living situations, and coverage of minority populations.

First, mail-return rates. In the 1980 census, our larger cities tended

to have lower mail-return rates than the national average•about 76 percent

as compared to 83 percent for the whole country. A few urban census

offices had mall-return rates below 70 percent. Lower mail-return rates

mean larger workloads in our nonresponse follow-up operation and, thus,

greater costs and more time to complete the census. Many factors contribute to the failure to mall back a census form. These can Include not

receiving the questionnaire, not being able to fill 1t out, being away

from home, being busy or apathetic, or being unwilling or afraid to cooperate

with the Government.

Second, personnel. We tended 1n 1980 to have more problems 1n recruiting and

retaining sufficient numbers of census workers in some urban areas. In part,

this was because of greater competition for workers from other employers and,

1n part, because of the difficulty of personal-visit enumeration 1n some areas.

Third, the complexity of living situations. Large cities have greater

concentrations of multlunit buildings, where there are sometimes mlxups 1n

questionnaire delivery. Mlxups occur in buildings without clear unit

designations or when the mail carrier gives the questionnaire designated for

Apt. 1 to Apt. 2, etc. When questionnaires get mixed up, we cannot easily

recognize which apartments we counted and which we did not. This situation

is not confined to large buildings. Smaller buildings, such as those that

have been converted from one-family units to two or three housing units,

can be a problem if there are no apartment designations. Another difficulty

1s that there are smaller households 1n the large cities, so that follow-up

enumerators often cannot find anyone at home. There also tend to be more

special places 1n cities. Special places Include college dormitories.
40

hospitals, nursing homes, transient quarters, and so forth. In addttton,

we must plan special procedures to count the persons 1n our cities who

have no usual living quarters.

Fourth, we tend to miss minorities at a higher rate than the general population.

Many cities have large minority populations and we must take extra steps to try

to cover those populations well. In addition, we must work hard to get across

our message: that the census is important and that answering the census will

not harm anyone.

Because of these problems and because our coverage evaluation studies over

the years had shown higher undercount rates for Blacks and Hlspanlcs than

for the total population, several cities (as well as States, organizations,

and persons) sued the Census Bureau during and after the 1980 census. Some

of these were large cities, but others were quite small. Many of these

suits were aimed at having the census counts adjusted. The Census Bureau's

official position regarding the 1980 census 1s that we cannot adjust the

census counts because our coverage evaluation studies do not provide us with

information accurate enough to adjust. We have embarked on a dual strategy

for the 1990 census: We will attempt to take the best census possible and

to count everyone, but we also will do what is necessary to be prepared to

adjust the counts 1f we determine that adjustment will improve them.

First, I will discuss our efforts to Improve census procedures. Then, I

will briefly describe our position on adjustment for the 1990 census.

1 will discuss our 1990 census planning efforts in five areas: (1) encouraging

a good mail return, (2) improving coverage, (3) automation, (4) recruiting,

retaining, and managing personnel, and (5) joint ventures with local governments.

Encouraging a High Mall Return

The first topic I will address is how we will attempt to achieve a high mailreturn rate in the 1990 census. As 1n 1980, we will again use the mail-out/

mail-back census method for most areas of the country, containing over

95 percent of the population. We will prepare an address list and mall or

deliver questionnaires to each housing unit on the list. We will ask

householders to complete the questionnaires and mall them back to us on

or about April 1, 1990. In this way, we can complete most of the census

by mail and limit the amount of costly followup. We can, that 1s, 1f we

have widespread public cooperation.

The first thing we need to do to assure public cooperation ts to make 1t easy

for people to complete and return the questionnaires. The questionnaires

can be filled out at home and mailed back to us using the enclosed stamped and

pre-addressed envelope. We keep questionnaire length reasonable by asking only

those questions that are required to meet well demonstrated public needs or

that are required to fulfill legal mandates or implement governmental programs.
41

There will be no Increase In the length of the questionnaire for the 1990 census.

We are conducting research Into the design, format, and wording of the questionnaires and other components of the questionnaire mailing packages.

As in past censuses, we will offer assistance to people who need help in

filling the census questionnaire. We will Include a telephone number on the

questionnaire so householders can call for help. We will provide census enumerators with translations of the census questionnaires 1n various languages

(33 languages in 1980). And we are looking at the possibility of Increasing

the number of storefront, walk-1n centers. These could be set up in areas of

special need, such as areas where there are large numbers of people who do not

speak English well. Our experience in past censuses has been that walk-in

centers received little traffic. In part, this is because of the difficulty

of publicizing the location and hours of operation of numerous sites. If we

use walk-1n centers 1n 1990, we have to find ways to better publicize the

centers.

The second thing we need to do to assure public cooperation 1s to again

have a successful outreach and promotion campaign. The 1980 promotion

campaign was quite successful and certainly contributed to the high

mall-return rate of 83 percent. The promotion campaign will stress the

importance and confidentiality of the census and how to participate 1n

1t. Research conducted after the 1980 census found that the public

information campaign stimulated cooperative mail response behavior.

We have established an even more extensive outreach and promotion plan for

1990 and have begun to Implement parts of the plan. I will sketch some

of the highlights of the plan.

We have decided to pursue a public service advertising campaign through

the auspices of the Advertising Council. In 1980, the efforts of the

Advertising Council and its volunteer advertising agency, Ogilvy and

Mather International, Inc., led to the donation of $38 million worth of

time and space by the Nation's media. In addition to the efforts of the

Advertising Council's selected volunteer ad agency, we will ask the

Advertising Council to obtain the services of minority advertising agencies

to work with the volunteer agency to develop materials and messages

directed to minority groups.

In addition to the large-scale advertising campaign, we will establish many

other efforts to gain support for the census. We will ask Members of Congress

to help us educate their constituents about the census through the media

channels that are available to them; encourage news items and feature

stories in newspapers and magazines; and form a "Broadcasters Census

Committee" to undertake special efforts to assure that the census messages,

tailored to meet local needs, are publicized on radio and television.

For example, the broadcasters' committee might obtain the assistance of

local celebrities 1n taping promotional spots. We will produce or encourage

the production of bumper stickers, decals, buttons, posters, messages on

monthly utility bills, and so on; ask trade associations, businesses, and

service organizations to use their communications facilities to promote
42

the census; and obtain private sector support 1n underwriting selected

promotion projects. And we will undertake activities that will emphasize

the fact that the 1990 census will be the Bicentennial Census of the

United States.

He will make special efforts to promote the census at the grassroots level,

through the schools, religious organizations, and community groups. We will

discuss our outreach program plans with community organization leaders to

determine how we can improve our plans for Implementation 1n their communities.

We also are exploring two ways of getting promotional messages directly to

each household: motivational Inserts and mail reminder cards.

Research conducted after the 1980 census showed that for some people, the

arrival of the census mailing package was the first time they had heard about

the census. Thus, the census mailing package Itself is a public Information

vehicle and can be a critical source of information. In the 1986 censuses

1n East Central Mississippi and in Central Los Angeles County, we redesigned

the questionnaire covers and envelopes to be more attractive and colorful

than those for the 1980 census. We also are evaluating the effects of

Including a motivational Insert 1n some of the questionnaire mailing packages.

The test is designed to see whether a brief written appeal for cooperation

can improve mail-response rates, lower question nonresponse, and Increase

cooperation with follow-up enumerators. We also are looking at whether

this general-purpose Insert has comparable effects for various population

subgroups. The Insert included red, white, and blue graphics and listed

six reasons "to count yourself in on the census." We expect to have

preliminary results from thts study soon.

We also have been testing the effect of sending out reminder cards targeted

to housing units for which questionnaires are not returned. We tested

this 1n the 1985 Census of Tampa, Florida and In our 1986 test censuses.

We have learned that there are serious logistical, workload, and timing

problems involved in doing targeted mailings of reminder cards. To do

targeted mailings, we must wait several days for the initial mall returns;

then we must create a file of housing units for which questionnaires have

not been returned, generate address labels, label the reminder cards, and

mall them out early enough to get responses back before the beginning of

nonresponse followup. We could avoid this problem if we mailed cards to

every unit, rather than targeting them, because we could label the cards

In advance of Census Day. We are planning to conduct a blanket mall-out

for the entire country. We will mall census questionnaires about a week

earlier than for the 1980 census and would send out the reminder cards

shortly before Census Day. If we determine that the blanket mail-out is

not cost-effective, then we could decide to do the blanket mailing to

selected areas, particularly the harder-to-enumerate areas of the country.

We are also examining the costs and benefits of a second mail reminder card

after Census Day (most likely a blanket mall-out to selected areas).
43

Improving Coverage

The second Issue I will discuss 1s Improving coverage. All of the other

topics I an discussing•such as the outreach and promotion program,

questionnaire assistance, other efforts to encourage mall response,

Increased automation, personnel, and joint ventures with local government•relate In some way to census coverage. But we also have a number

of special programs designed specifically to Improve coverage. Generally,

we divide our coverage improvement operations Into two broad categories•

those designed to make sure we have the most complete mailing list possible

and those designed to Improve coverage after the census questionnaire has

been delivered. I will talk about the mailing list first.

A mailing list that 1s as complete and accurate as possible 1s Important if

we are going to conduct a good census. We use the mailing 11st to control

the enumeration by mailing questionnaires to each housing unit on the 11st

and monitoring the mall returns to determine whether a questionnaire has

been returned for a particular unit. We start by constructing the best

possible mailing 11st. Then we update 1t during the census so that at the

end of the census we have a 11st of addresses that is as complete and

accurate as possible. Once a housing unit is included in our address 11st,

we stand an excellent chance of completing the enumeration of that unit

and Its Inhabitants.

We conducted the Address List Compilation Test in 1984 to explore several

methods for compiling the original mailing list for both urban and rural

areas. In the urban test sites, we compared three Initial list sources:

(1) a Hst compiled for us by the U.S. Postal Service, (2) the final list

of addresses from the 1980 census, (3) and a list purchased from a commercial

vendor. (We used the latter as the initial list 1n 1980.) We updated

each of these three Initial 11st sources through postal service checks

and checks by our own staff.

Based on the results of this test, we have decided to again use vendor lists

as the primary mailing list source 1n urban areas In 1990. The 1980 census

lists may be an acceptable alternative or supplement to vendor lists in

areas where no vendor has a 11st or the vendor list does not meet our quality

standards. Thus, we are considering selective use of the 1980 list.

In addition to looking at our initial mailing list sources, we have been

testing different methods for updating the address 11st. We realize that

the commercial vendor list we purchase for urban areas will not include

every address we need. Thus, we will put the list through several checks

by the U.S.P.S. and our own enumerators, as we did in 1980.

The check that our enumerators conduct is called "precanvass," and we have

tested changes that could Improve the precanvass operation in 1990,

particularly for multlunit buildings. In the 1980 census, precanvass

enumerators were given an address register that contained listings only

of basic street addresses. For multlunit structures, only the number of

housing units in the basic street address was included 1n the registers.

As enumerators canvassed their assignment areas, they verified that the
44

number of units listed for each basic street address was correct, added

missed basic street addresses, and deleted addresses that did not exist

or were not for residential units. The enumerators only Inquired

extensively at multfunlt structures for which they found more units than

the number listed 1n their registers.

For 1990, we have been testing a new unit-by-unit precanvass operation.

Under this new procedure, we give enumerators address listings for each

housing unit, including apartment designations for multlunits. The

precanvass enumerators are Instructed to verify the apartment designation

for each unit listed. The enumerators do not need to visit each Individual

unit, but only to visit each structure and inquire about apartment designations

from a knowledgeable respondent. By Improving apartment designations on

our address lists, this operation could Improve questionnaire delivery 1n

multiunlt structures and reduce delivery m1x-ups.

Now, I will turn to those census operations designed to Improve coverage

after the census questionnaires have been delivered. We employed a number

of such procedures in 1980 and will use most of them again 1n 1990. In

our test censuses, we are working to refine the procedures. I will briefly

discuss just a few of these operations here.

One of the coverage-Improvement operations, called the "vacant and delete check"

or "unit status review," 1s based on our previous experience that shows that

the enumerators' m1sclass1ficat1on of occupied housing units as "vacant" can

cause a coverage problem. Enumerators identify some units as vacant when they

visit addresses for which questionnaires are not returned. For the 1980 census,

every vacant unit was visited by a second. Independent enumerator who verified

the occupancy status of the unit. This recheck procedure also Included units

deleted as nonexistent by the Initial follow-up enumerator. We plan to conduct

this procedure again in 1990.

As a further attempt to Improve the coverage for minority populations, a

new program•the Nonhousehold Sources Check•was added 1n 1980. This check

was performed in selected census tracts with significant minority populations.

The check consisted of a match between the census records and lists of names

and addresses from administrative sources such as drivers' license lists.

Census enumerators tried to contact persons on the independent lists who

were not recorded in the census at the same address to see 1f each person

should have been enumerated. For 1990, we are examining the potential

for using more lists, besides drivers' license lists and better targeting

the program to areas where 1t Is most likely to be effective.

As in 1980, we will conduct several special programs to count persons who

are living away from their usual residences on Census Day, are living 1n

group quarters, or who have no usual residence. For example, we will conduct

special visits to hotels, motels, missions, and flophouses to count permanent

residents of these facilities; or persons visiting the facilities who have

no one at their usual residence to complete the enumeration. We conduct
45

8

another operation In which enumerators canvass places frequented by persons

with a higher than average probability of being missed by the census•city

parks, pool halls, theaters, train stations, etc. We also will carry out

a special "were You Counted?" publicity campaign after Census Day.

We also include questions on the census questionnaires designed to obtain

complete coverage of a household's inhabitants. We are conducting studies

to improve the effectiveness of these questions.

As I mentioned earlier, we will provide assistance In filling the census

questionnaires and translation of the questionnaires 1n various languages

for use by the follow-up enumerators. In 1980, respondents could request

a Spanish-language questionnaire by phone or by marking the appropriate

box on the English questionnaire. There were relatively few requests for

Spanish-language questionnaires. We are examining this procedure to see

if we can Improve 1t for 1990.

Finally, we again plan to conduct the Local Review Program, which we first

introduced in the 1980 census as a coverage-improvement program. 1 will

discuss this program later when I talk about joint ventures with local

officials.

Automation

The third topic I will discuss is our automation plans for the 1990 census.

As we have mentioned at previous hearings, one of our major goals for the

1990 census is to Increase the use of automation. Automating many of the

census tasks performed clerically during the 1980 census and beginning

automated processing (particularly the conversion of questionnaire data

into computer-readable form) earlier than in 1980 will help us release

data products in a more timely manner, improve accuracy, and give us more

control over the entire census process. A new automated geographic support

system, which we call "TIGER," also will contribute greatly to Improving

the census.

For 1990, we are going to begin data conversion about 5-7 months earlier

than we did for 1980; this will mean that we will be doing processing

concurrently with data collection. There are many benefits to concurrent

processing. For example, 1t will allow us to identify and correct problems

with the data early 1n the census process and it will help us to meet our

goal of releasing data products In a more timely manner.

Concurrent processing 1s made possible by an automated address control file,

which 1s another automation advance we will employ in 1990. An automated

address control file allows us to do flow processing because each questionnaire can be electronically tracked through its unique identification number.

In 1980, our address control and data conversion systems required that we

process all questionnaires from a district office as a unit. As a result,

all the district office's data collection work needed to be completed before
46

any questionnaires could be shipped to one of three processing centers.

This meant that many completed questionnaires that could have entered the

data conversion phase remained In the district offices for several months.

In April of this year, we reached some preliminary decisions about how we

would configure our processing and district (or collection) offices to

Implement concurrent processing. The crux of these decisions 1s that

district offices 1n many of our larger urban centers will not have to be

responsible for questionnaire check-1n, editing, and other clerical

tasks; thus, they can concentrate Instead on data collection and follow-up

activities. The district offices will be responsible largely for following

up on nonrespondlng housing units and those for which additional Information

1s needed. One of the reasons we made this decision 1s to ease the staffing

needs 1n urban areas. For these areas, which include most of the large, harderto-enumerate urban centers, and some adjacent areas, we will ask householders

to mail back their questionnaires to a processing center rather than to

the district office. In the processing center, the questionnaires will be

automatically checked 1n, the data converted Into machine-readable format,

and edited by computer.

For the rest of the country where we expect higher mail-return rates and

fewer staffing problems, we also will be doing concurrent processing,

but we will implement 1t somewhat differently. In order to reduce equipment

and personnel needs for the processing centers, we will ask householders to

return questionnaires to the district offices. In the district offices,

we will check 1n the questionnaires automatically and will perform clerical

edits, rather than computer edits. Once questionnaires are determined to

be complete, they will be sent on a flow basis to a processing center for

conversion Into computer-readable format and computer edit.

Personnel

The fourth topic I will discuss is recruiting, retaining, and managing temporary

census personnel. In 1980, we hired some 460,000 persons throughout the

census, with some 270,000 working at the peak of operations. Even with

Increased automation in the census, we still will need an army of temporary

census employees. Because of the Increased automation, many of these employees

will need to be more skilled than 1980 census workers. Another important

recruitment issue 1n addition to the sheer numbers and skill levels of

workers, 1s our policy of hiring indigenous enumerators wherever possible;

that is, enumerators who live 1n the area they are assigned, who are familiar

with the area, and who speak the prevailing languages.

We will need to put a great deal of effort Into recruiting these temporary

workers. That will mean publicizing census jobs through our regular

census outreach and promotion channels, employment offices, community

groups and organizations, and so on. We will make a special effort to

have national organizations, such as those for teachers and retirees,

publicize census jobs through their communications networks. We may

consider utilizing paid newspaper advertising more extensively than in
47

10

1980; If so, we will want to conduct research to make the advertising as

effective as possible. In our test censuses, we have experimented with

mailing recruitment notices to households 1n areas where hiring is lagging.

These mailings do seem to Increase hiring; but, as with mall-reminder

cards, we must weigh the benefits against the costs.

In addition to our concerns about recruiting census-takers, we are looking

at better ways to motivate and manage them. For the 1986 test census In

Central Los Angeles County, persons selected for nonresponse follow-up

enumerator positions attended a motivational briefing. Using videotapes

and slides, we stressed the importance of the census and of the enumerators'

role 1n It, Its history, and confidentiality. The ceremony concluded with

a mass swearing in of the enumerators. Reactions to the briefing were very

positive and 1t seemed to foster good morale among the enumerators. We are

exploring the possibility of conducting briefings 1n some urban areas in

1990.

In both Los Angeles and Mississippi, we restructured enumerator training

so that after a morning of classroom Instruction the enumerators were

sent out into the field to complete questionnaires. Then they came back

to the classroom the next morning to share their experiences and to get

further training. This allowed the enumerators to have early exposure to

field work, a chance to apply what was learned in the classroom, and help

in solving any problems. We plan to continue using this approach.

We also instituted a new way to pay enumerators for training. In past

censuses, we found that many persons would attend training, for which

they were paid an hourly wage about equal to what they would earn while

working; but then they would not accept an assignment. Thus, we had

Invested money to train them, but received no work from them. In the

1986 test censuses, we paid enumerators the minimjn wage during training

but gave them a supplemental payment when they took an assignment and

completed 10 acceptable questionnaires (or about a day's work.) The

supplemental payment was the difference between the minimum wage and the

regular hourly wage for the enumerators. The supplemental pay plan worked

well 1n the 1986 tests, and we probably will use this approach in 1990.

Another Innovation for the 1986 censuses was an incentive pay plan.

The purpose of this plan was to give enumerators an Incentive to meet

production goals and stay on the job. Incentive payments were based on

the amount of quality work completed. To be eligible for the Incentive

payments, nonresponse enumerators had to accurately complete an average of

1 1/2 questionnaires per hour (or 12 per day) and stay on the job until

the completion of the nonresponse follow-up operation. Crew leaders also

could earn incentive payments based on the work of their crews. We are

examining the feasibility of Including an Incentive pay plan in the 1990

census.

We have Implemented several other new procedures in our test censuses

that could Improve personnel management in the 1990 census. These include:

(1) Dally meetings between crew leaders and enumerators and daily progress

and payroll reporting; (2) required edits by the crew leaders of the
48

enumerators' work; (3) "storefront" offices, where crew leaders can meet

with their enumerators and edit their work 1n a secure area; (4) an

automated management Information system that will provide quick feedback

on the course of operations both for district office supervisors and

managers at the regional offices and at headquarters; and (5) use of an

automated qualified-applicant file to perform centralized selection of

persons to attend training sessions.

We believe that these and other Innovations we plan in our personnel system

will lead to improvements for the 1990 census. We are very encouraged by

the results of the 1986 censuses. In East Central Mississippi, we completed

nonresponse followup a week ahead of schedule, and in Central Los Angeles

County, despite a low mail-return rate, we completed nonresponse followup

virtually on schedule. The success of these operations is attributable

to the combined effect of the motivational sessions, improved training,

incentive payments, better control of the enumeration, and more timely

and accurate management reports.

Joint Ventures with Local Governments

Now, I want to return to the topic I opened with--joint ventures with

localities. In the 1980 census, we established two new programs designed

to get help from local officials to Improve the census. These were the

Complete Count Committee Program and the Local Review Program, both of

which we plan to repeat for the 1990 census. Our discussions with big

city mayors will certainly include, but will not be limited to, how to

make these two programs more successful.

Under the Complete Count Committee Program, we asked elected officials to

form committees of local leaders representing a cross-section of the community.

Some 4,000 communities established such committees. The committees developed

campaigns to stress the importance of accurate census counts to their citizens

and to encourage everyone to complete the census questionnaire and return

1t promptly. The committees conveyed their messages through many channels,

including parades, posters, brochures, television and radio messages, and

so forth. The efforts of the complete count committees are an important

and necessary supplement to our outreach and promotion campaign. A

creative complete count committee can find ways to localize the national

advertising campaign to appeal to the people in Its area.

We want this program to be more successful in 1990. In 1980, while many

of the committees were quite energetic and creative, only about 10 percent

of eligible Jurisdictions formed committees. We hope to see expanded

efforts for 1990. We plan to provide local government officials with a

handbook of ideas and suggestions for promotional activities. Ultimately,

the success of the committees will depend on the level of local effort,

and this is a point we will emphasize 1n our meetings with the mayors.
49

12

The 1980 census Local Review Program gave local officials In over 39,000

jurisdictions an opportunity to review aggregate census counts before the

temporary census offices closed. The purpose of the program was to detect

and correct possible errors while our temporary local offices were still

functioning. About 12,400 jurisdictions participated in the program. Local

officials noted any discrepancies between the census counts and their own

data, and we checked the counts and made corrections, as necessary.

We want to Improve this program for the 1990 census. He are working on a

design that will give local officials two opportunities to review the

counts: they can review counts of housing units before Census Day (in

most jurisdictions), and then review actual census counts of housing

units when most of the census operations have been completed, but before

the offices have closed. In 1980, we had only the post-Census Day review.

The pre-Census Day review will help us have the best possible mailing

list. As I mentioned earlier, once a housing unit Is Included on our

mailing 11st, we stand an excellent chance of completing the enumeration

of that unit and Its Inhabitants. We expect to begin contacting local

officials earlier than for 1980 to give them more time to prepare their

own data sources. And we are asking state agencies to give training

sessions to help the localities get ready for the program. State Data

Centers and/or Federal/State Cooperatives for Population Estimates In

most states have expressed a willingness to conduct these training sessions

and to provide other types of assistance. We are very grateful for their

offers of assistance.

There are other areas where we will need the aid and cooperation of local

officials. They can help us meet our staffing goals by suggesting sources

for qualified workers and by helping us publicize the fact that we are

looking for workers. The localities also can help us meet our needs for

space for testing and training enumerators, for assistance centers, and

so forth. Traditionally we have relied on donated space to meet these

needs.

Adjustment

Now that I have discussed Improvements that will help us take the best

possible census in 1990, I will turn to the second part of our dual strategy:

adjustment. We have undertaken a rigorous program of research, testing,

and evaluation of the various issues related to adjustment for the 1990 census.

To be able to adjust, we have to do four things: (1) We have to establish

methodologies to measure coverage accurately; (2) we have to develop acceptable

statistical techniques to estimate coverage for small geographic levels and

for a variety of population and housing characteristics; (3) we have to

establish and publish standards for evaluating the quality of the adjusted

and unadjusted data; and, (4) we have to Implement the adjustment, compare

the adjusted and unadjusted data in light of the standards, and then release

one of the sets of data as the official 1990 census results.
13

In early 1987, we will decide on the statistical and operational feasibility

of adjustment. This is not a decision about whether the adjusted numbers

will be the official 1990 census counts. What appears feasible 1n 1987

may or may not be feasible In 1990. If we determine that adjustment is not

technically feasible, then we would not go ahead with a full-scale adjustment program. We would likely propose a smaller, less costly undercount

measurement program for the purposes of evaluation, not adjustment.

If the decision is that we are statistically and operationally capable of

adjustment, then we will plan work to permit adjustment. We will release

the adjusted figures unless the final results do not meet technical

standards that we are currently developing.

We are developing and will announce well In advance of the census the

standards we will use to assess whether the census counts or the adjusted

figures are better. We want to reach a consensus among various stakeholders

In advance of the 1990 census on the criteria for judging the relative

quality of the adjusted and unadjusted figures. We are developing standards

for both methodologies of estimating census coverage error--the post-enumenatlon

survey and demographic analysis. These two methodologies are very different

and require different standards. We continue to conduct research into

census adjustment standards and plan to distribute the results of this

research in the spring of 1987.

We could not conduct the census without widespread support for our plans

and goals. Neither can we contemplate adjustment without establishing a

consensus of support for our techniques and standards. We have consulted

extensively with a wide range of interested individuals and groups. After

the publication of our preliminary census adjustment standards early next

year, we will hold a number of public forums to discuss the standards and

other issues related to adjustment. In October 1987, we will publish the

proposed standards 1n the Federal Register and review any comments we receive.

In May 1988, we will submit materials on the proposed census adjustment

standards for review by our Congressional oversight committees.

Finally, I will discuss the decision to adjust the census. There are two

main parts to the overall decision process:

First, if the 1987 decision is that adjustment 1s statistically and

operationally feasible, the machinery will be put in place. Coverage

estimates will be made and population and housing estimates adjusted for

an undercount will be produced. We will only release the adjusted data

if ft can be shown that the adjustment figures are more accurate than the

unadjusted counts. The 1987 adjustment decision will essentially represent

the Census Bureau's judgment, at that time, about whether to prepare adjusted

estimates.

Second, 1n December 1990 or as soon as the coverage measurements have

been obtained, we will evaluate the measurements 1n light of the specified

technical standards. This evaluation will be looking for any substantial

unforeseen errors that might have occurred or other unanticipated serious

flaws in the coverage measurement process that would cause us to view the

adjusted data as less accurate than the unadjusted data. Assuming the
51

14

standards are met and such flaws have not occurred, we would release the

adjusted data. But if our review Indicates that serious errors occurred,

then we would release the unadjusted data.

This 1s an ambitious goal . We may not be able to estimate coverage and

adjust for the count and characteristics in every census block by

December 31, 1990. If we do not meet that date, we do have fallback

positions; but it would mean that there could be two sets of census

results•the unadjusted numbers available on December 31, 1990 and an

adjusted set available later.

In making the decision on adjustment, we will convene a group of key

Census Bureau statisticians and demographers. In addition, we will work

with the Committee on National Statistics' Panel on Decennial Census

Methodology and to the Census Advisory Committee of the American Statistical

Association augmented by some representatives selected from the Census

Advisory Committee on Population Statistics. These experts will review

the results of the census and the adjusted figures and make comparisons

with the established standards. They will submit a report and recommendations

to the internal technical group.

The internal technical group will consider the external experts' report

and recommendations and will make recommendations to the Director of the

Bureau of the Census. The Director will then make and issue the final

decision.

The plan for determining whether to adjust has been designed to be

Independent of the judgment of only one individual. By developing

standards that are agreed upon In advance, we are removing the need to

trust the judgment of one specific person or any one concern. We believe

that the decision must be based upon definite knowledge about the results

of our coverage evaluation program and the quality of both the census and

the evaluation. The key to this strategy 1s reaching consensus on the

standards before the census is taken.

Closing

Mr. Chairman, I believe that 1f we are successful in Implementing Improvements

in each of the five areas I discussed above•mail-response rates, coverage

Improvement, automation, personnel, and cooperation with local officials•

we will have a good census In 1990, both in our urban areas and throughout

the Nation.

As I have said at previous hearings, we want to make the Bicentennial Census

the best ever, one that lives up to our Nation's proud heritage. We are a

much larger and more complex society than we were at the first census in 1790.

Then, only 5 cities had as many as 10,000 people. New York City, then as now

the largest, had only 32,000 people. In the 1980 census, we had 2,903 places

with over 10,000 inhabitants, 173 with over 100,000 people, and 22 with half

a million or more.
52

15

Counting all these people 1s the Census Bureau's challenge and responsibility.

But we cannot take a good census all by ourselves. To carry out our responsibility as efficiently and accurately as possible, we need the help of state

and local leaders.

We have begun our outreach to city officials 3 years earlier than before

the last census. We are committed to designing a program of local involvement and maintaining the broadest possible communication with city officials.

Working together, we can take the best census possible for our urban areas.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I will be happy to answer any

questions.
53

TESTIMONY OF

FREDERICK A.O. SCHWARZ, JR.

CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY, NUCLEAR

PROLIFERATION AND GOVERNMENT PROCESSES

OF THE

SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

NEW YORK, NEW YORK

SEPTEMBER 4, 1986

I would like to thank the Subcommittee for inviting me to

testify on the subject of the 1990 Decennial Census and, in

particular, on the problems associated with counting the population in

urban areas such as New York City.

As you have heard from Mayor Koch, the City will

cooperate in every way it can, as it did in 1980, to assist the Census

Bureau in conducting the 1990 Census in New York.

Other witnesses testifying today address the reasons why

there is significant undercounting in New York City and other urban

areas, and demonstrate that the coverage improvement procedures

which the Bureau may implement can help but cannot solve the

undercount problem.

The City's position since the undercount issue first came to

its attention in the 1980 Census is that statistical adjustment of the

Census is necessary to solve the inevitable undercount problem. Dr.

Eugene Ericksen, who also is testifying today, demonstrates that the

Census Bureau has the technical tools to make a statistical

adjustment, and indeed that an adjustment is the only solution to the

problem.

My testimony addresses the need for statistical adjustment

as a matter of constitutional right, democratic ideal and political

necessity.

The Census Bureau's own undercount studies of the 1980

Census show that the number of people missed in New York City •

approximately a half million people • exceeds the number of people

counted in many other large cities, including Seattle, Denver and St.

Louis.

The disproportionate undercount in urban areas reflects the

well-established fact that Census methods traditionally have

disproportionately missed blacks, Hispanics, aliens, poor people,

residents of high crime urban areas, persons with unconventional

living arrangements, and persons whose EngUsh skills are weak or

nonexistent. Without question, the disproportionate undercount in

our cities will occur again in 1990.
54

The undercount figures on blacks and Hispanics should be

particularly disturbing to a nation committed to equal political rights

without regard to race and ethnicity. The Bureau's studies of the

1980 Census undercount, based on demographic data such as birth

and death records, indicate that the net national undercount for

blacks was about 6 percent (with black males aged 25 to 54

undercounted at well over twice that rate). Thus, the number of

blacks who went uncounted in 1980 exceeded the total population

counted in each of 16 states. In contrast, those studies indicate that

nonblacks were undercounted by less than 1 percent. Bureau

surveys also make clear that Hispanics are missed at rates comparable

to those applicable to blacks, and that undercounting of both blacks

and Hispanics is even greater in central cities than it is on the

national level.

Huge undercounts exist in this country's alreadybeleaguered cities, such as New York, because such cities have not

only a larger-than-average population of minorities, but also

larger-than-average populations of aliens, poor readers and all the

other groups that existing Census methods miss.

This means a loss of fair representation in Congress and in

state legislatures. It means the misallocation and loss of millions of

dollars in aid under federal (and state) programs because aid

formulas typically are tied to population or a combination of population

and income level. It also means that innumerable other decisions

made by the public and private sectors on the basis of Census data

are flawed by inaccurate data.

The Census Bureau has been dragging its feet in

developing a methodology for statistical adjustment. It has

squandered a great deal of energy and money on raising legal and

statistical defenses to adjustment, only to have the courts, or

statistical experts outside the Bureau, reject those defenses. The

Bureau's history on» this issue demonstrates that unless ordered to do

so by the Congress or the courts, the Bureau will not be prepared to

adjust for the undercount in the 1990 Census.

At the time that the City commenced its lawsuit against the

Census Bureau to require it to statistically adjust the 1980 Census,

the Bureau maintained that the United States Constitution required a

"headcount" and that statistical adjustments to an actual count were

prohibited.

The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, however, held

that the Constitution required that the Bureau accurately determine

the populations of the country and its geographical subdivisions "as

nearly as practicable," and that statistical adjustments were not

prohibited. Carey v. Klutznick, 637 F.2d 834, 839 (2d Cir. 1980).

The Second Circuit's decision noted that if a Census

resulted in a disproportionate undercount of minorities in areas such

as New York where they are heavily concentrated, and there was no

adjustment, there would be a violation of the Constitution's plain

objective to make equal representation for equal numbers of people

-2-
55

the fundamental goal. Carey v. Klutznick, 637 F.2d at 839, citing

Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1964).

The Bureau also has attempted unsuccessfully to argue that

a provision of the Census Act, 13 U.S.C. ! 195, prohibits using

sampling and statistical procedures for the Decennial Census. But

another section of the Act, 13 U.S.C. S 141(a), plainly authorizes the

Bureau to include "the use of sampling procedures and special

surveys" as part of its Decennial Census-taking procedures. Thus,

as held by a U.S. District Court, the Bureau is prohibited only from

relying solely on sampling for the Decennial Census. See Carey v.

Klutznick, 508 F. Supp. 404, 415 (S.D.N.Y. 1980).

Now, the Bureau asserts that statistical adjustment would

somehow politicize the Census.

This argument represents a failure of faith in the good

sense of the American people and a failure to study the lessons of

American history.

The Bureau's position ignores the fact that failure to use

available statistical methods to improve the raw count • which itself

rests on methodological choices and is known to contain serious bias

against the politically weak • politicizes the Census. Once New York

City's 1980 lawsuit moved the systematic undercount out of the

academic papers of experts and into the public arena, the cat was out

of the bag. Indeed, what could do more to make the Census a

subject of political controversy than knowledge that, under existing

methods, major cities, the poor, minorities and other groups that tend

to be both politically under-represented and most in need of aid to

education and other governmental programs, are being knowingly

deprived of a fair share of political representation and financial

assistance? In addition, how realistic is an argument that the

American public, fully accustomed to the use of statistical techniques

in polling, for example, would rebel against the use of statistical

techniques • based upon a vastly larger data base • to improve the

results of the Census?

Despite the Bureau's concerns, a fair review of the history

of American democracy makes a compelling case for action to correct

the injustices of knowing under-representation of the least politically

powerful people in the country and the governmental jurisdictions in

which they reside.

Since 1776, our democracy has moved step by step to

remove barriers to fair and equal representation. We fought for

independence under the banner of "no taxation without

representation." We fought a civil war resulting in constitutional

recognition of the right of blacks to vote and to be counted as whole

persons. In 1920, women were given the right to vote. In the

1960's, the Supreme Court -- rejecting a "political thicket" argument

quite similar to that used by the Census Bureau today • held that

the Constitution required representation based upon one-personone-vote and that malapportionment of political districts was

unconstitutional.

-3-
56

Today, because of the systemic inaccuracies of the Census,

areas like New York City are in fact being taxed without fair

representation. Today, blacks (and other minorities) are still

counted in the Census as less than whole persons. Today, the

one-person-one-vote doctrine is mechanically applied to data that are

known to be inaccurate and to be skewed against the urban poor.

With the bicentennial of our Constitution approaching, it is

time to agree upon fixing the systemic Census errors, righting these

wrongs, and thereby taking one more step toward realization of the

American democratic ideal of fair representation.

Since the Census Bureau appears unwilling to implement

statistical adjustment as an integral part of the Decennial Census,

then Congress or the courts should make that decision. The

Decennial Census constitutes a key instrument for the allocation of

political power under the Constitution. An accurate Census

implements the constitutional plan for the direct election of the House

of Representatives "by the people of the several states" with

representation apportioned among the states "according to their

respective numbers" (Article I, Section 2; Amendment 14, Section 2).

An accurate Census implements the Great Compromise accommodating

the conflict of interest between the original states, large and small.

It also is a tool for readjusting political power as "new states may be

admitted by Congress into the Union" (Article IV, Section 3) • a

continuing process necessary so that all states are admitted on an

equal footing. The allocation of Electoral College votes (Article II,

Section 1), and hence the allocation of power in Presidential elections,

also depends on a complete Census. And the accurate performance of

the Decennial Census is the foundation for the constitutional

guarantee of equal votes for equal numbers of people, and thus the

integrity of the very cornerstone of political democracy.

As already discussed, Article I, Section 2, as amended by

Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, requires that apportionment

of Representatives among the states must be based upon "the whole

number of persons in each State," so that Congress may be

apportioned, "as nearly as is practicable," in accordance with the

one-person-one-vote constitutional requirement. See Wesberry v.

Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1964).

The standard adopted in Wesberry echoes the words of

Daniel Webster, who wrote on the subject of apportionment among the

states as follows: "That which cannot be done perfectly, must be

done in a manner as near perfection as can be. If exactness cannot,

from the nature of things, be attained, then the greatest practicable

approach to exactness ought to be made." Senate Report, 22d

Cong., 1st Sess., Doc. No. 119, pp. 4, 7 (1832).

The conduct of the Census has been delegated by Congress

to the Census Bureau, which has inevitably become a vast

bureaucracy, employing periodically more than 250,000 persons.

Notwithstanding the critical function it serves in the constitutional

plan, until the 1980 Census litigation, the actual work of the Census

-4-
57

Bureau had not been subject to the probing scrutiny that these cases

have brought to bear on its operations. It seems fair to say that no

other executive bureau • and certainly . none of comparable

importance -- had been left so long to its own devices.

The 1980 Census brought not only the lawsuit by New York

City but also suits by some 50 other states, counties, cities and even

smaller jurisdictions, all complaining of inaccurate population counts.

See Carey v. Klutznick, 653 F.2d 732, 735 n.10 (2d Cir. 1981). Most

of these suits are still pending in the courts. If the Bureau fails to

provide for adjustment, the 1990 Census may produce a new spate of

lawsuits. For example, the Executive Director of the United Latin

American Citizens testified to a House Subcommittee in 1984 that a

coalition of groups concerned about the disproportionate undercount

were contemplating a challenge to the 1990 Census .unless the Bureau

adopts procedures to adjust the next Census count.

But the Census Bureau maintains its ambivalent stance on

statistical adjustment. Just a few weeks ago, Barbara Bailar, the

Bureau's Associate Director for Statistical Standards and Methodology,

testified to a House Subcommittee that the Bureau has a dual strategy

for the 1990 Census: (1) to take the best possible Census count; (2)

"to be prepared to adjust the counts if we determine that adjustment

will improve them." She said that in early 1987 the Bureau would

decide on the statistical and operational feasibility of adjustment of

the 1990 Census. Nevertheless, she also said that "what appears

feasible in 1987 may or may not be feasible in 1990."

Another obstacle to adjustment recently raised by the

Census Bureau relates to undocumented aliens. The Bureau claims it

does not know how to adjust the Census count for this population.

Both the Census Bureau and the City agree that the Constitution

requires that undocumented aliens be counted in the Census. In

fact, we both were on the same side in another lawsuit brought in

1980, one that attempted to obtain a court order to exclude

undocumented aliens from the Census count. In that case, the

plaintiff, Federation for American Immigration Reform (F.A.I.R.),

argued that the inclusion of undocumented aliens in the Census count

is unconstitutional.

A three-judge federal court, while dismissing the case on

jurisdictional grounds, found F.A.I.R.'s case "to be very weak on

Testimony of Arnoldo Torres before the Subcommittee on Census

and Population of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on

Post Office and Civil Service, April 4, 1984.

o

Oral testimony of Barbara A. Bailar before the Subcommittee on

Census and Population of the U.S. House of Representatives

Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, July 24, 1986.

-5-
the merits." The court agreed with us that the language of the

Constitution on the issue of who is to be enumerated "is not

ambiguous." The court further noted that the City's and the Census

Bureau's constitutional argument that aliens must be counted "is

bolstered by two centuries of consistent interpretation" by Congress.

F.A.I.R. v. Klutznick, 486 F. Supp. 564, 576 (D.D.C. 1980), appeal

dismissed. 447 U.S. 916 (1980).

In addition, exclusion of undocumented aliens would create

real unfairness in the handful of states, and the cities within those

states' borders, where large numbers of undocumented aliens reside.

Most states have few if any undocumented aliens. They experience

no fiscal burden from the federal government's failure to enforce

immigration laws effectively. On the other hand, five states •

California, New York, Texas, Florida and Illinois • and cities

therein, such as New York City, are the places of residence of most

of the undocumented aliens in the United States. These states must

provide police, fire, education, sanitation, health and other services

to these aliens; but they have no power to prevent the entry of

aliens into their states or to seek their removal.

Moreover, whatever the legal status of these aliens, both

the Immigration and Naturalization Service and former Attorney

General William French Smith have testified that the overwhelming

majority of these aliens are in fact permanently residing in the United

States and will never be deported. Thus, it is only fair that these

states' representation in Congress, and their share of federal funds

for providing governmental services, be based on the total population

of those states, including all aliens who in fact are living there,

whatever their immigration status.

The adjustment methodology the Bureau develops must

include techniques for adjusting the count of undocumented aliens.

Dr. Eugene Ericksen's testimony today on the feasibility of statistical

adjustment demonstrates that the Bureau's assertion that it does not

know how to adjust for undocumented aliens is simply more evidence

of its ambivalence on the overall question of statistical adjustment.

Only a clear Congressional or judicial mandate will move the

Bureau to complete its development of a statistical methodology in time

for the 1990 Census. The City of New York urges this Subcommittee

to spearhead legislation that will require • unequivocally •

statistical adjustment of the 1990 Census.

3

Testimony of Doris Meissner, INS, to the Subcommittee on

Energy, Nuclear Proliferation and Government Processes of the U.S.

Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, September 18, 1985.

4

Plvler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 218 & n.17 (1982).

-6-
59

Testimony of

David R. Jones

Before the

Subcommittee on Energy

Nuclear Proliferation and

Government Processes

of the

United State Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs

New York, New York

Thursday, September 4, 1986

I am David R. Jones, General Director of the

Community Service Society of New York. From 1979 to 1983,

I was Special Advisor to the Mayor of the City of New York,

Edward I. Koch. Between 1979 and 1981, I was also the

Director of the City's 1980 Census Effort.

Early in 1979 the City of New York became

concerned about the planning being done for the 1980 Census.

A pre-test for the '80 Census had been conducted in Lower

Manhattan in 1978. That pre-test had alarmed many local

residents and officials because of the manner in which

the Bureau of the Census had conducted its outreach and

enumeration. The Office of the Mayor was told by local

residents that the Bureau had made little or no effort to

adapt its materials, or procedures to suit the ethnic

and social conditions of Lower Manhattan. As the honorable
60

-2-

members of this Subcommittee may be aware, this section of

New York contains large numbers of poor families. The Bureau

made little or no attempt to address their problems of

language and fear of governmental intrusion. As a result of

this Pre-test, the Bureau itself admitted that it was

confronted with unique difficulties in New York City.

Moreover, the National Academy of Sciences, in a report

requested by the Secretary of Commerce, raised serious

concerns about the 1980 Census. The NAS Study uncovered

the fact that in 1970, 7.7% of the nation's black population

• four times the rate for white Americans -- had been missed

by the Census. In addition that report indicated that an

extraordinary 18% of black men between the ages of 25 - 44,

were also missed in 1970. Similar undercounts were thought

to have existed for the nation's Hispanics. These facts

were of obvious concern to the City of New York, which has a

minority population approaching 50%. An undercount of this

magnitude might very well, and in retrospect turned out to

have, seriously missed substantial numbers of New York's

population. The City's problems were compounded by the

high concentration of undocumented aliens thought to be

living in the five boroughs. The Immigration and

Naturalization Service and the Internal Revenue Service

had made statements to the effect that there were perhaps

as many as 500,000-750,000 undocumented aliens residing

in the metropolitan area.

With all these factors in mind, especially the

problems of undercount in prior censuses, and the obvious

deficiencies of the 1978 Pre-test, the City began to organize

in 1979 to try to improve the count, both through cooperation with Census in preparation of the Bureau's efforts

in the City and direct publicity and outreach to New York

residents. The Mayor directed that I establish a 1980 Census

Effort to do the following: (i) examine what the City could

1. National Research Council, Counting the People in

1980: An Appraisal of Census Plans' (Washington, D.C.:

National Academy of Sciences, 1978) p.3
61

-3-

do to improve the accuracy of the count; (ii) to oversee the

progress of census efforts in the city, and (iii) examine

the City's options in the event that an accurate count did

not seem possible.

In August of 1979, I met with then Director of the

Census, Vincent Barrabba, at his office in Washington,

to discuss plans for the 1980 Census. At that time, I was

informed that the amount of money available for publicity

for the Census was severely limited by budgetary constraints

placed upon the Bureau by the President and Congress. The

City was asked, and did in fact, create a Complete Count

Committee of prominent local individuals to assist the

residents of New York in learning about the importance of

the census count to the City. The Committee did in fact

raise $100,000, for census publicity efforts. These funds

provided a significant number of public service

announcements on local radio and television channels

explaining the importance of participation in the Census

process.

Almost from the outset the City ran into

difficulties in terms of Census procedures. The primary

methods of enumeration for the Census nationwide both in

prior Censuses and 1980, was mail delivery of Census

questionnaires to each household, with a follow-up visit

only to those households that failed to respond by return

mail. Nationwide the return rate by mail was well in

excess of 80% -- those returns are believed to be the most

accurate and complete of the data reports that were

received by the Bureau.

In order to mail to each household, the Bureau

compiles mailing lists or "Master Address Registers" ("MARS")

for each locality. A problem with these lists emerged early

on the conduct of the '80 Census. The Bureau, despite

objection by the City, decided to use a Master Address

Register purchased from commercial vendors. These lists had

been compiled expressly to serve the needs of nationwide

credit card companies and retailers. Because these customers

had little or no interest in the poorer areas of the City,

addresses in the poorest neighborhoods of Brooklyn, Bronx

Manhattan and Queens had not been updated for 10 years or

more. Enormous numbers of units had been created or ceased

to exist during that period. These Master Address

Registers were also the basis for follow-up enumerator

visits. Inaccuracies contained in these lists impacted

the entire 1980 Census process in New York.
62

-4-

Because of the criticism of the Master Address

Registers by the City, the Bureau committed to a variety

of steps to improve the accuracy of the lists. The Bureau

planned to have the Postal Service check them against

its records on three occasions, it planned to have its

enumerators canvass housing units before April 1, and

it planned to have local officials review housing unit

totals. The results of all these operations were to be used

to revise the commercial lists. In New York State and City,

at least one Postal Service check was not done all, or

only partially done, and the results typically were not

transferred to the MARS. The precanvass began so much

later than planned that it was done haphazardly, and in a

number of districts, results were not transferred to the

lists. The local review of total housing units, which was

to be. used to correct the list, was cancelled. Thus,

the Master Address Registers were substantially incomplete

when mail out/mail back was begun, and enumerators has

only these deficient lists to work from to determine

which household units required personal follow-up. Many

individual units within buildings, as well as entire

buildings, were not identified or counted, either

through mail out/mail back, or personal follow-up.

As of the end of April 1980, the average mail

return rate nationally was 87%, but in New York City, the

rate averaged 68%, with some predominantly poor, minority

districts having return rates as low as 44%. The

enumeration staff hired for field follow-up was inadequate

given this mail return rate and the consequently great

number of households requiring personal follow-up in New

York State, and City.

It gets worse. Beginning on or about

April 14, 1980, each Census Bureau District Office was

supposed to send enumerators to visit each household

which had not returned a completed questionnaire.

This stage in the enumeration process, involving household

visits by enumerators, was called Follow-up I. In response

to demands that greater converge efforts be made in

neighborhoods with large minority and immigrant populations,

the Census had promised to hire enumerators from local

communities who were fluent in languages other than English,

particularly Spanish. However, not only did the Bureau fail

to hire sufficient bilingual enumerators to work in New

York's minority communities but, based on a report issued by

the G.A.O. on June 3, 1980, the Bureau had only hired 59.5

percent of its required number of enumerators for the entire

City • the lowest staffing rate in the nation.
63

The Census Bureau knew that Follow-up I

enumeration in many poor and minority neighborhoods in

New York would be a very difficult process. People in

those neighborhoods are generally suspicious of strangers,

and are particularly loathe to give information to

government employees. In addition, the neighborhoods

themselves are extremely dangerous places to conduct surveys,

especially with only two days of Census.

Nevertheless, the Bureau did not make adequate

special efforts to conduct an accurate enumeration of these

areas. Census officials refused, despite repeated requests

by the City, to allow enumerators to work in pairs in high

crime areas. In addition, Census officials refused to

authorize payment of enumerators upon an hourly • instead

of a piecework • basis despite the difficulty enumerators

experienced in obtaining responses in the poorer

neighborhoods. Finally, enumerators we learned later

were commonly not paid for six to eight weeks because of

bureaucratic foul-ups.

As a result of these practices, and based upon

press and Census employee reports received by the City,

the City learned that many enumerators refused to go

into" buildings in poor and minority neighborhoods and

instead marked thousands of occupied housing units as

vacant or simply guessed how many persons lived in such

units. This practice, is called "curbstoning," resulted

in a count that was much lower than the correct figures

in these neighborhoods.

Let me now cite some additional failures and

inadequacies of the 1980 Census in New York City.

• The so-called "casual count" of persons not

living in traditional households, such as

derelicts and others with no fixed place of

residence, was cut short, despite the specific

request of the Census supervisor in charge for

more time to conduct the survey.

• All Census questionnaires initially mailed to

household were in English. A small box on the

front of these questionnaires stated, in Spanish,

that a Spanish language questionnaire could be

obtained by calling a telephone number. This

procedure made Census responses by Spanishspeaking residents much less likely.
64

-«-

Despite an advertising budget of nearly S15f

•illion nationwide, the advertising of the

Censes on television, radio and in the print

•edia was cot short, before the fell process

of enumeration was over. The result was that

almost everywhere in the City, and particularly

in minority neighborhoods, the impression was

that the Census ended on April 1, 1981. The

Bureau's much vaunted 'Were Toe Counted?

"Campaign' to count missed persons was so

underfunded that there was almost no publicity

and no response by City residents.

In response to criticisms that the Census has

undercounted minorities in the past, the Bureau

promised an "outreach' campaign to encourage

minority participation in the Census. This

campaign was not conducted in an effective

manner in lew Tork. The Bureau refused to pay

for advertisements in broadcast and print media

directed to minorities. As noted before, the

City managed to raise approximately SIM,Mi with

which it printed and distributed about three

million flyers and posters, but it could not

come close to producing the media effort

required.

Hew Tork City officials were not given lists of

housing units which the Census Bureau claimed

to be "vacant' so that we could check these

lists against our own data. Nor was the City

permitted to see the Master Address Register to

check its completeness, even though addresses

alone have no claim to confidentiality.

A fire was set in the records room of the

Census's Bedford Stuyvesant District Offices,

destroying the entire community's Census forms.

Despite repeated requests, a much abbreviated

recount was all that the Bureau permitted,

because of a central directive as to the final

closing date for all local Census offices.
65

• Because of a shortage of workers the Census

Bureau was forced in Central Harlem to hire

persons receiving methadone maintenance

as Census takers, despite community opposition

and fear of revealing confidential information to

such an obviously unreliable work force.

The conduct of 1980 Census in the City of New

York was grossly mismanaged, in part that was the result of

poor local management. But the more significant reason was

the lack of funds appropriated for the Bureau's New York

effort. This lack of sufficient resources led to the

reliance on a inaccurate mailing list; the almost total lack

of publicity to convince an urban population of the

importance, confidentiality and even the safety of the Census

process; a failure to properly recruit, screen, train, and

pay census enumerators and supervisors; and too little time

in which to implement such a massive undertaking.

Even if improvements are seen in these procedures

for 1990, it will still leave New York City with an undercount of minorities, undocumented aliens and the poor which

will unjustly deprive the City of both political

representation and funds.

From all indications, the 1990 Census for New

York is shaping up in much the same way as the 1980 Census

did, with budgetary restraints certain to severely limit

any prospect of improved accuracy in the City's count.

In closing, I strongly urge that this Committee

support a statistical adjustment of the Census, to correct

for the gross undercount of minorities, undocumented aliens

and the urban poor. I believe that this position is

warranted both because it will provide a much more accurate

picture of the number of persons residing in the City and

because it appears unlikely in a time of fiscal austerity

that either the President or the Congress would be willing

to expend the tremendous amount of money necessary to

achieve a significantly improved count.

I do have a few modest proposals in addition to

statistical adjustment. They include the following:

• More money should be allocated for pre-census

publicity. In particular, the theme of the
66

total confidentiality of the Census form should

be driven hone so that vulnerable populations

feel less threatened. Paid advertisements

should be taken out in the minority press,

which cannot do the full job necessary on a

sro bono basis.

Enumerators should be better paid and trained

to do what is generally conceded to be a very

difficult job in areas of high population

density and where the mail-back rate is

particularly law. Additionally, more enumerators

should be assigned to areas such as New York

City where disproportionate undercount is a

certainty.

There should be a longer period of data

collection to allow for well-planned and

conducted follow-up procedures.

The Master Address Register to be utilized

must be brought up to date since these are the

primary bases for enumeration. Provision should

be made for cross-checking the Bureau's MAR with

postal records and local housing unit records

and other accurate records held by the City,

in a systematic manner.
67

TESTIMONY OF EUGENE P. ERICKSEN

TO BE GIVEN BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY,

NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION AND GOVERNMENT PROCESSES

' SEPTEMBER 4, 1986

My name is Eugene P. Ericksen. I am a survey

statistician and social scientist with over 20 years experience of working with census data. Currently, I am an

Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology at Temple

University and a Special Consultant to National Economic

Research Associates, Inc. I am also co-author, with Professor Joseph B. Kadane, of the paper, "Estimating the Population in a Census Year", published in 1985 in the Journal of

the American Statistical Association. This paper, which I

submit along with this testimony, describes my views concerning methods of data collection and estimation on the

Decennial Census.

I am here to make three points: (1) regardless of

how much money and effort are expended on the traditional

headcount, a differential undercount is inevitable in the

American Census; (2) coverage improvement procedures, aimed

at simply redoubling traditional headcounting efforts, do

not solve the problem and indeed can increase the amount of

error in census data; and (3) methods of estimation exist by

which an imperfect census can be adjusted to bring the count

closer to the truth. I conclude that for the 1990 Census,

we should direct funds toward the development and implementation of appropriate adjustment techniques rather than

toward so-called "coverage improvement".

1. Error in the Census Is Inevitable

The Census is a survey that provides and can only

provide an estimate of the true population. It is inevitably fraught with error in the collection of data that necessarily results from census procedures. Inequity occurs

when, as is invariably the case, the errors are greater in

some places than others. In the United States, errors due

to undercounting are greatest in central city neighborhoods

inhabited by minority populations. These errors have caused

these cities and their states to be shortchanged in terms of

political representation and fund allocations.

Problems giving rise to error beset any attempt to

collect survey data. Such problems are present in magnified
68

form in an undertaking as massive as the census. This is

especially true because the majority of census workers at

many levels are temporary employees without prior experience

in collection of data. At peak periods during the 1980

Census, the Bureau employed about 275,000 temporary employees in its field offices and about 6,300 temporary employees

in its three specialized processing centers. It is extremely difficult to find people qualified to be enumerators in

poor urban areas, and the time and funds available to train

them for the job are limited. Quality control problems

inevitably cause errors in census data as the Bureau itself

has recognized in evaluation studies that follow the

Decennial Census (e.g., ER-60 Series after the 1960 Census,

PHC(E) Series after the 1970 Census, and PHC-80 Series after

the 1980 Census).

An important feature of the errors in the Census

is that they are systematic. By design and as implemented,

the Census is best suited to count those whose homes are

clearly recognizable as residential structures at identifiable addresses, who are willing to cooperate with the government by providing the requisite information, who are

proficient in English, who are educated and who are members

of a well-defined family unit. Where those conditions are

not met, the likelihood of census error is greater. Problems can be identified at each step of the census process.

The first step is the preparation of address

lists. In urban areas the Census Bureau relies on commercial address lists which it then updates through field

checks. A study by the General Accounting Office has shown

that the commercial lists are much worse in poor central

city neighborhoods than they are elsewhere. Updating the

lists through field checking is also difficult in these

neighborhoods, which are often dangerous and in which

multiple housing units at the same address are frequently

disguised and hard to spot without contacting the residents.

Additional errors occur when census forms are

mailed to those addresses included in the listings. In

order for a household to receive a form, it must not be lost

in the mail for any reason. The mailing label must be

affixed properly, the address must be legible, and the form

must be handled properly by the Post Office. In apartment

buildings or other multi-unit structures where mail is

received collectively, the residents must distribute the

questionnaires correctly among themselves for each household

to receive its form. In areas like the South Bronx, where

there were thousands of broken mailboxes and where the
questionnaires often did not include the name of the

addressee as part of the mailing address, many people did

not receive census forms in 1980.

Assuming a questionnaire is received, someone in

the household must open it, answer it correctly, and return

it to the Bureau. The questionnaire may go unopened or it

may be opened but then lost. The questions may not be

understood by the respondent and thus may be incorrectly

answered, particularly if the respondent is poorly educated

or if the respondent's native language is not English. Even

if the questionnaire is correctly answered and mailed back,

it may be lost in the mail. Assuming the form is received

by the Census Bureau, it must be correctly recorded and

tabulated. Inevitably in this process, forms are lost or

destroyed and the data on some are misrecorded or mistabulated.

If the household does not return the form, an

enumerator is sent to visit the address and attempt to

collect the form. Depending on the crime rate and ease of

finding the address in the area, this is a job of varying

difficulty. Where the mailback rate is higher, this job is

easier. While a low mailback rate does not mean that people

inevitably will be missed, it certainly makes it more likely

because the job is so much harder. The task was substantially more difficult in the Bedford-Stuyvesant area of

Brooklyn, where fewer than half the population mailed back

their census forms, than in a middle-class suburban area

where the mailback rate was 90 to 95 percent.

In some cases, the enumerators are not able to

find any household residents. In such instances, the enumerator is told to seek out a neighbor, building janitor, or

similar outside source to obtain information about the unit.

Such people have imperfect information, and less than ideal

motivation to supply it. Moreover, many enumerators,

perhaps in frustration, simply "invent* their own information in a well-known procedure called "curbstoning".

Finally, the quality of the follow-up, like the quality of

the address lists, is adversely affected by the use of a

large number of temporary employees as enumerators.

The foregoing points are not made in criticism of

the Census Bureau, but merely to show that it is impossible

accurately to count every person and that it is the most

disadvantaged members of our society who, by the nature of

the Census, are the ones predominantly missed. Indeed, the

Census Bureau recognizes the existence of most of these
70

problems, and has attempted to remedy them. The remedies,

however, are themselves imperfect solutions. Since these

imperfections are most likely to result in errors in situations where it is most difficult to count people, the errors

are cumulative. It is a general principle of survey research that checks need be made at every step of the process

of data collection. This means checking the completeness of

the address list, making sure that all forms are returned,

checking the validity of data on every form, and making sure

that all data are correctly processed through the computer.

As the data base grows larger, the proportion of resources

needed to be devoted to quality control grows larger. When

the survey attains the size of a Decennial Census, the goal

of complete quality control becomes unobtainable.

2. The Geographical Distribution of the Undercount

The Census Bureau evaluated the undercount by

means of its Post Enumeration Program (PEP) in 1980. Best

estimates indicate that 10 to 13 million persons were

omitted from the Census, 6 million others were erroneously

enumerated and 3 million additional person-records were

created by computer by a method known as imputation. This

resulted in a net national undercount of one to four million

persons, concentrated in central cities. The PEP produced

separate estimates for 16 large central cities like New York

and Chicago. In these cities, the combined omission rate

was estimated to be 9.9 percent, compared to 5.0 percent

elsewhere. The rate of erroneous enumeration was 2.6 per

cent, comparable to the 2.9 percent observed elsewhere. The

net result was an undercount of six percent in the cities

and one percent in the rest of the country. As shown in the

table below, the differential undercount was especially

great for Blacks and Hispanics, who were missed at rates

exceeding ten percent in the cities.

The 1980 Census was the first one for which this

type of geographic detail was presented on the undercount.

However, the racial pattern is similar to that observed on

censuses since 1940. For example, in 1970 the Bureau used

demographic methods to estimate an undercount of 7.6 percent
71

for Blacks and 1.5 percent for Whites, a differential of 6.1

percent.

Undercount Rates for Three Ethnic Groups

in Central Cities and Elsewhere

Location Blacks

Central Cities 11.3%

Elsewhere 5.5%

Total 7.2%

Group

Non-Black Hisoanics Other

1.5%

Total

10.3% 6.0%

4.5% 0.2% 1.0%

5.9% 0.3% 1.6%'

The racial differential for 1980 as measured by demographic

analysis was 5.9 percent, a scant improvement. It is this

differential that is so intractable, resisting the best

efforts of the Census Bureau to obtain complete and equitable counts. On the basis of the results for 1980 and

earlier years, we can expect the same pattern of differential undercounting to occur in 1990 and later.

3. Coverage Improvement Campaigns Do Not Solve the Problem

The 1980 Census was by far the most expensive in

American history. According to a report of the General

Accounting Office, the inflation-adjusted cost of counting

one person in 1980, $4.72, was more than twice the 1970

cost, $2.30. According to a panel of the National Academy

of Sciences 1/, which reviewed a variety of coverage

improvement programs with a total cost of approximately $100

million, programs directed toward improving address lists

improved the count in a cost effective manner, as

2/ National Research Council, The Bicentennial Census: New

Directions for Methodology in 1990.
72

16.4 million people were added at a cost of $28.1 million,

$1.71 per capita. However, coverage improvement programs

attempting to add population during the data collection

period were less effective, as only 2.6 million people were

added at a cost of $69.7 million, $26.81 per capita, and

indeed, the cost for some programs was as high as $75.54 per

capita.

There is ample evidence that, in addition to

failing to reduce the omission rate substantially, the

coverage improvement programs caused erroneous enumerations

to increase. For example, without a corresponding check of

households initially classified as "occupied" the National

Vacancy Check was bound to inflate the count. The NAS Panel

found that several coverage improvement programs could cause

erroneous enumerations, and this is consistent with the

results of two Census Bureau studies.

The first, a study of housing unit duplications,

found that approximately two million people live in housing

units that were counted twice, often in rural areas where

enumeration district boundaries are less clear and street

addresses lacking. The second, a more comprehensive estimate of erroneous enumerations, found that they were much

more likely to occur during follow-up activities than on the

initial mailout-mailback. Among persons counted during the

follow-up period when enumerators collected the data, one in

fourteen turned out to be erroneous enumerations.

There are many potential explanations for this

high rate of error. One is that the period of data collection lasts so long, stretching into the fall of 1980 in many

areas. Given the high mobility of the American population,

the same family could be counted twice in different places

(either because it moved or had two residences) with the

family being unaware of it because information was provided

by different family members or neighbors. Another explanation is simple fabrication, occurring when enumerators are

under great pressure to get forms completed to meet Bureau

deadlines.
73

4. Adjusting the Counts

The Census Bureau recognizes that the disproportionately severe impact of the undercount on minorities

and the communities where they live is the key problem in

the accuracy of census data. As Vincent Barabba, Bureau

Director during the 1980 Census, wrote, "the key issue [is]

differential undercount•the fact that blacks and other

minorities are missed more often than whites in the count of

the U.S. population." 2/ The Census Bureau also recognizes, as we all recognize, that the disproportionate

undercount of various minority groups is most severe in

major metropolitan centers and results in a particularly

severe undercount of major cities. As I show in Section 2

of this testimony, the Bureau's own studies show

consistently that Blacks and Hispanics are missed at higher

rates than Whites, and that minorities living in central

cities are missed at a higher rate than minorities living

elsewhere.

Further, the Census Bureau has acknowledged that

coverage improvement programs can actually exacerbate the

disproportionality of the undercount. As various Bureau

officials and advisors stated at a conference on the 1980

Census post enumeration program held by the Bureau in

October 1980:

•"You could reduce the 1970 undercoverage level, but

perhaps increase the differential." (Vincent

Barabba, Director);

•"Don't be surprised if you get something like an

overcount of Whites and an undercount of Blacks with

therefore an impossible to compute differential

except in absolute terms or something that might go

far beyond the 4 to 1 of 1970." (Jacob Siegel,

Senior Demographic Statistician);

•"[A]s the census pushes harder and reduces the

undercount its almost certain to increase the

differential of the undercount." (Prof. Nathan

Keyfitz, Department of Sociology, Harvard

University)."

2/ Mitroff, Mason & Barabba, The 1980 Census:

Policvmakinq Amid Turbulence, p. xiii.
74

Having recognized that 'coverage improvement* is

extraordinarily expensive, that it will not eliminate the

undercount, and that it can and does increase the racial

differential undercount, one would expect the Census Bureau

to deal with the undercount problem by other means, i.e.. by

statistical adjustment. Indeed, statistical adjustment is

the clear solution to this problem. The Bureau has repeatedly been advised to this effect by groups of distinguished

experts, including the Census Advisory Committees of the

American Statistical Association, the American Economic

Association, the American Marketing Association, and Population Statistics, as well as a panel of the Committee on

National Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences.

The Bureau says it has been spending a lot of time and

effort preparing to make such an adjustment, but it hesitates to do so.

Much of the reason the Census Bureau hesitates to

adjust the Census for the differential undercount is political. Vincent Barabba, Director of the Census Bureau during

the 1980 Census, has characterized the decision on adjustment as 'value laden* and 'political*, and has said:

"If, in fact, the Bureau does all of the things it

plans to do, and the enumeration is still differential,

then the dilemma arises.

"The decision about what you do in that case is a

political decision.* 2/

In substance, since the motivation is political.

Congress clearly must give the Census Bureau a push.

without such a push from Congress, nothing will happen. I

base that judgment on the fact that what we are now hearing

from the Bureau about its preparation for adjustment in 1990

is substantially the same as what we heard about its

preparation for adjustment in 1980.

Prior to 1980, the Bureau said it had not directed

sufficient research effort toward developing good adjustment

2/ "A Right To Be Counted*, American Demographics, p. 46

(1979).
75

methods. As Barbara Bailar, Census Bureau Associate Director for Statistical Standards, testified about the 1980

Census:

"We have been doing matching studies off and on over a

period of 30 years ... I think if we had been working

on matching and really devoting all kinds of research

necessary to learn how to do matching well, we would

probably be a lot further ahead."

According to Dr. Bailar, since 1980, the Bureau has devoted

substantial efforts toward developing an adjustment methodology. The Bureau states that it now considers an adjustment for the inevitably differential undercount to be a

forseeable possibility. The Bureau has bound itself to make

a decision on the feasibility of adjustment in February

1987, and attests to optimism that adjustment will be

feasible for the 1990 Census. As Dr. Bailar testified

before the House Subcommittee on Census and Population on

July 24, 1986:

"In early 1987, we will decide on the statistical and

operational feasibility of adjustment .... Although

we cannot say definitely at this time what our determination will be, our research thus far on undercount

measurement has been promising."

In the face of the Bureau's persistent assertions

that it is studying the problem of undercount very hard, I

would like to join in this optimism about the probability of

an adjustment in 1990, but I cannot. I am concerned that

what the Bureau is saying today is no different from what it

stated in the years leading to the 1980 Census. Once again,

the Bureau seems to regard studying a problem as the equivalent of solving it. As a result, the best becomes the enemy

of the good. Thus:

•As of 1976, the Bureau had established as "one of

the objectives . . . for the 1980 Census ... to

develop procedures by which the residual undercount can

be distributed at least to States and major metropolitan areas so that corrected population counts can be

published". 4/

4/ GAP Report to House Committee on Post Office and Civil

Service, p. 21 (May 5, 1976).
76

10

•In February 1980, the Bureau hosted a conference

of expert demographers and statisticians on the question of adjustment. As reported by the conference

chair, the conferees were in 'general consensus that

some form of adjustment for the undercount is needed,

for areas with concentrations of persons likely to be

•issed may be receiving less than their share of funds

which are distributed in part or wholly on the basis of

population". 5/

•In August 1980, Bureau Director Vincent Barabba

stated at a news conference, "Don't order us to adjust

until the final results are in ... . If they show us

we have undercounted, we will adjust". 6/

In spite of these sentiments, the Bureau announced a decision not to adjust on December 16, 1980, before data on the

undercount were ready for analysis. As everyone had

anticipated, the differential undercount took place in the

1980 Census, but the Bureau did not adjust.

5. Conclusion

Given the intractable difficulties of counting in

urban areas, the differential undercount is inevitable. The

Census Bureau's claims that massive advertising will lessen

the problem constitute little more than wishful thinking.

In 1980, the Bureau's advertising budget was third in the

United States behind only those of McDonald's and Ford.

Yet, a Bureau survey showed that 4 percent of Whites, but

12 percent of Blacks and 10 percent of Hispanics had not

heard of the Census. 2/ Neither are coverage improvement

programs a viable or effective option. After $342 million

was invested toward this end in 1980, a differential undercount occurred, and an estimated six million erroneous

5/ Conference On Census Undercount. Proceedings of the

1980 Conference, p. 3 (1980).

£/ "Census Head Indicates '80 Figures Could be Adjusted

for U.S. Grants", New York Times, p. B4, col. 5 (Aug. 27,

1980).

2/ Bailar & Keyfitz, "Issues in Adjusting for the 1980

Census Undercount", p. 8 (1981).
77

li

enumerations were included in the count, a/ The inevitability of this differential makes adjustment the only

practical solution. For this to occur, the Bureau needs a

clear mandate from Congress, not only in terms of funds for

developing the adjustment methodology, but also in terms of

a direct instruction to produce an accurate population

estimate.

You may wonder why I urge Congress to intrude upon

what appears to be a technical matter. First, as the

Subcommittee is no doubt aware, the Constitution makes the

Census the particular responsibility of Congress. 2/

Second, the Census serves as the Constitutionally mandated

tool for the allocation of political power. This means that

failure fully to count various categories of people and the

communities in which they live affects far more than the

accuracy of statistical data. The failure to adjust undermines the "one-man, one-vote" principle and threatens public

confidence in the fairness of the political process.

Similarly, because census data are used in the distribution

of billions of dollars of federal revenues, the undercount

may be translated directly into lost resources for urban

areas. Third, at a pragmatic level, when a better estimate

causes some groups and places to lose strength, they may

protest, and the Bureau may look to Congress for support for

doing the statistically correct thing.

Finally, as a technical matter, the Census Bureau

has demonstrated that it knows how to adjust census data and

does so when it wishes to. The Bureau adjusted the 1970

Census figures through the National Vacancy Check and the

Post Enumeration Post Office Check. Further, in connection

with the calculation of general revenue sharing allocations,

the Congress has directed the Secretary of the Treasury to

use the "most recent available information" from the Bureau

3/ Cowan & Fay, "Estimates of Undercount in the 1980

Census", Proceedings on the Section on Survey Research

Methods, American Statistical Association, pp. 566-71

(1984).

9/ "The actual Enumeration shall be made within three

Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United

States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in

such Manner as they shall by Law direct." U.S.

Constitution, Article I, Section 2.
78

12

of the Census. 10/ In response, the Census Bureau has

computed postcensal changes in population and income for

each of 39,000 revenue sharing units. Alternatively, the

Bureau might have relied instead on the most recent census

results, in effect assuming that all areas had changed at

the same rate since the most recent census, but it did not.

Rather, the Bureau used demographic analysis, matching

procedures, and regression analysis to compute separate and

updated population estimates for each local area and hence,

to 'adjust" the census. Even though the small-area estimates contain errors, the overall quality of the population

data is improved, since all areas do not change at the same

rate. The technical problems involved in adjusting the

decennial census are no more difficult than the problems

encountered in preparing postcensal updates.

In an ideal world, I believe the Census Bureau

would likewise use its professional judgment to adjust the

count. Indeed, I am confident that once the Census Bureau

decides to adjust, it will do an excellent job. Perceived

political pressure causes the Bureau to hold back•hence the

need for Congressional instruction. This instruction should

be given before the data are in, to prevent the appearance

of attempting to alter census results to benefit some areas

at the expense of others. The method of adjustment should

be left to the discretion of the Bureau, since any professionally acceptable method will ameliorate the discrepancy

resulting from the differential undercounting of minority

groups, especially those who live in cities, and bring the

counts closer to the truth. Even relatively crude tools can

improve on large errors. It is time for Congress to assure

that the 1990 Decennial Census will be significantly more

cost-effective and accurate than those of the past.

10/ 31 U.S.C. S 6713(a)
79

J7J7-TI TEMPLE UNIVERSITY

J ***** I COLLEGE OF LIBERAL ARTS

• -^ -• • PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19122

M'.HulM Of WXIOLOtiT

September 27, 1986

Senator Th,id Cochran

Subcommittee on Energy,

Nuclear Proliferation,

and Government Processes

Room 605, Hart Senate Office Bldg.

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Cochran,

Enclosed please find a statement amplifying

my answers to your questions concerning standards

for adjusting the census and accounting for undocumented aliens at the September 4 hearing.

I have sent my corrections to the transcript

to Christina West. I appreciate the chance to have

testified, and 1 feel that it was a useful hearing.

Yours,

Eugene P. Erlcksen

^^ihjf: &

Centennial Challenge Program 1884-1984
80

STANDARDS FOR DECIDING WHETHER TO ADJUST

Virtually everyone will agree that we should

adjust the census for undercounting If we believe that

the adjustment will make It better. Such an adjustment

wuuld increase the fairness of political apportionments

and fiscal allocations based on the census. The crucial

question is--how do we know that we are making it better?

I believe that we can be confident of improving

upon the unadjusted count if three things are true:

o there is substantial variation among areas

in rates of undercounting and overcounting,

o the adjustment is consistent with what we

know about the undercount, and

o we are reasonably confident that the adjustment improves upon the raw count in a majority of local areas.

Inter-Area Variations in Undercounting

When the Census Bureau decided not to adjust the

1980 Census, one of its major reasons for doing so was

that the national undercount appeared to be close to zero*.

Later analysis showed that this net figure masked not only

a substantial undercounting of Blacks and Hispanlcs compared

to a negligible undercounting of Whites, but also large

variations In undercount rates among local areas. The

undercounts were largest In those areas, such as central

cities with large minority populations or rural areas

where the mallout-raailback procedure was not used, where

census-taking problems had been concentrated. These are

the areas which have been shortchanged by the imperfect

count, and these are the areas which will probably be

shortchanged by an unadjusted count in 1990. As long as

such differentials exist, we have an excellent chance of

being able to improve upon the raw counts with an adjustment. Put simply, when differential undercounting is as

pronounced as it has been, even a crude adjustment is

likely to be an improvement. More refined adjustments,

of which the Bureau Is capable, will be still more likely

to improve upon the raw counts.

What We Know About the Undercount

The Census Bureau has conducted demographic and

statistical studies of the undercount since 1940, and

each of these studies has come to the same conclusion•

* U.S. Bureau of the Census, "Position on Adjustment of

the 1980 Census Counts for Underenumeration," Federal

Register, December 16, 1980, 82872-82885.
81

Blacks were missed at a race substantially higher than that

of Whites. Because the methodology of the 1990 Census will

be substantially the same as that used in 1980, we have

every reason to expect a similar differential. As Bureau

Director Keane testified on September 4 with respect to the

raw count, "in addition, we do not have the ability to completely eliminate the differential undercount. We simply

do not have it."

Because the Census Bureau expanded its research

efforts in 1980, we have learned a great deal of additional

information about the undercount. Hispanics were missed at

rates similar to those of Blacks. Minority populations in

large cities were missed at races higher than minority populations elsewhere, and there were certain rural areas with

high rates of under counting. In general, where census-taking

problems were greater, undercounts were higher.

A good adjustment can and should be consistent with

chiB knowledge. Ic will first of all mirror the demographically estimated differential between Blacks and Whites, correcting more for the people known to be missed at higher

rates. Secondly, the adjust ment should make sense in terms

of census-taking problems. For example, we would expect

the adjustment to be greater in those areas where good address

lists are unavailable, where good enumerators are hard to

hire, where crime rates are higher, or where there are substantial concentrations of non-English speaking people. On

the other hand, should the nature of census-taking problems

be different in 1990, from those seen in 1980, we would expect the pattern of undercounting to change. A good adjustment can and should correspond to these expeccations.

Our Confidence in the Adjustments

by me

ad j us

1990.

proce

unob

For e

an ad

the r

lated

enC s

regio

cenc

popu 1

pond i

Wh

ans

tmen

IC

dure

erve

xamp

just

aw c

Che

1 zes

ns,

Th

atlo

ng P

n t

of t

t by

st a

wou

d un

le,

raent

oun t

pro

F

the

pr

n ov

r oba

he C

he N

a

ted

Id i

derc

if t

bet

F

babi

or t

prob

obab

er 2

bill

ensu

aclo

tand

that

mpro

ounC

he t

ween

or t

liti

he n

abil

Hit

50,0

ty f

S Bu

nal

ard

an

ve u

was

rue

0 a

he 1

es o

at io

ity

y of

00 w

or a

reau

Vaca

of

ad j u

pon

mor

unde

nd 4

970

f i

n a

of

imp

as a

n ar

adj

ncy

he k

s tine

the

e th

rcou

per

ad j u

prov

a w

mpro

rove

bout

ea w

uste

Chec

ind

nt

raw

an h

nt

cen

s tme

emeu

hole

veme

• n C

85

ith

d th

k» i

that

a 1 cu

coun

alf

ere

t wo

nts

ts f

an

nt w

for

per

popu

raw c

justi

ould

ced b

if th

the

per c

d imp

he Bu

area

for c

near

1 oca

nt an

tion

ount

fled

be u

y th

tr

adj u

ent ,

rove

reau

s of

he v

ly 1

1 ar

d th

betw

in 1970

the

sed in

elr

ue but

stment**.

then

upon

calcudlfferarious

00 per

ea with

e correseen

** U.S. Bureau of the Census, "Effect of Special Procedures

to Improve Coverage in the 1970 Census," in Census of

1'opulatlOL and Housing: 1970 Evaluation and Research

Program P IC(R)-6. Washington, U.S.Government Printing Office.
82

50,000 and 250,000 was 70 per cent.

This is a reasonable standard which should be

attainable in 1990***. The science of statistics is such

that we cannot calculate estimates without error, but we

can often assess what these errors are likely to be. An

adjustment can never be perfect, and our objective is to

reduce bias as much as we can. Our calculations can take

account of the fact that the adjustments are necessarily

based on samples, and we can make reasonable assumptions

taking into account such problems as missing data. Statisticians routinely estimate what error rates are and

evaluate the reasonableness of their assumptions.

In 1980, in cities and states with high rates of

undercounting, adjustments can be calculated with sufficiently small standard errors that we can be 90 per cent

sure of improving upon the raw count. For sma Her areas,

or areas with lower rates of undercounting, both the adjustments and their chances of improving upon the count

are smaller, but it is reasonable to conclude that the

adjustments improve upon the count in a sizable majority

of local areas.

The Conservative Nature of an Adjustment

could

adj us

again

misse

Popul

at ion

sent

Impor

homel

latio

the f

coun t

Bee au

adj us

such

side

the c

count

for e

Co

tak

tmen

st c

d.

atio

Sur

thos

tant

ess

ns a

ac t

rat

se t

tmen

ad j u

Th

hanc

I

spec

has

ount

cedu

rec

uch

vey

as p

sons

pies

e, a

rtia

they

kes

grou

11 n

t s w

serv

over

n so doin

ially har

ncern

ace

t pro

ensuB

Any s

n Sur

vey (

per

exam

peopl

re pa

that

es ma

hese

ts wi

s tmen

e con

of

been

of u

res a

ords

sampl

(as i

ropos

most

Of 8

nd yo

lly a

have

the p

ps ar

ever t

ill b

at Ive

compe

8

d-toraised

ndocumen

re based

and esti

whe th

n 1980)

ed for 1

likely

uch pers

ung adul

ccounted

clearly

roposed

e concen

heless b

e more 1

nature

nsat ing

will h

count gr

over whe

ted alie

on the

mating p

er it 1

or an in

990) is

to be ni

ons are

t Black

for by

higher

adjustme

trated i

e greate

ikely to

of such

for the

ve made

oups 1 ik

ther

ns.

mate

ropo

bas

depe

like

ssed

undo

male

an a

than

nt c

n ar

th

err

an a

diff

a pa

e un

an a

-Our

hing

r t Ion

ed on

ndent

ly to

by t

cumen

S

djust

aver

onser

eas w

an av

on t

djust

erent

rtlal

docum

djus

prop

of s

s of

the

Pos

und

he c

ted

uch

ment

age

vati

here

erag

he 1

ment

lal

adj

ente

tment

osed

amples

persons

Current

t Enumerer-repreensus.

aliens,

subpopu-

, and

underve.

the

ow

reduces

underustment

d aliens.

The Census Bureau used a comparable standard In evaluating the postcensal estimates for local areas used for

revenue sharing. It found that the estimates were better

than the most recent census in 66 per cent of areas with

populations above 1,000. For smaller areas, the probability

was reduced to 55 per cent, and the Bureau indicated

concern that the latter set may not be sufficiently accurate.

See U.S.Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports,

Series P-25, Ho. 963, "Evaluation of 1980 Subcounty

Population Estimates," Washington, U.S.Government Printing Office
83

New York State Conference of N.A.A.C.P. Branches

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE

1560 Broadway, Suite 405

New York, New York 10036

HAZEL x DUKES (212) 7040265 (O)

(516) 621-1491 (Home)

TESTIMONY BEFORE THE U.S. SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY,

NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION, AND GOVERNMENT PROCESSES TO

REVIEW THE U.S. CENSUS BUREAU'S PLANNING FOR THE 1990

DECENNIAL CENSUS

BY HAZEL N. DUKES, PRESIDENT OF THE NEW

YORK STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES

September 4, 1986

CEREMONIAL COURTROOM OF THE U.S.

COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

1 FEDERAL PLAZA

NEW YOKR, NEW YORK
84

Good morning members of the panel.. 1 am Hazel N. Dukes,

President of the New York State Conference of Branches of the

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. I an

pleased to be here to share with you my views on this most important

subject of the 1990 Census. The members of the 77 NAACP Branches,

Youth Councils and College Chapters in New York State have an

abiding interest in developing measures that will insure a full and

fair count of all New Yorkers, particularly Black New Yorkers. We

especially know the negative consequences of undercounting. We know

that allocations of all types of resources are based on the numbers

of people living in a community who are counted in the census. At

the top of the list of those things that directly impact on all

aspects of life is political representation. Congressional seats.

State Legislative seats. City Council seats. County Board positions,

and school board positions are based on the number of people living

in an area HC ARE CDUtOTE.

Based on the last census in 1980 Political representation in

Black conmunities throughout New York State increased at the

Congressional level by 30O4 with 2 Blacks elected to Congress in

Brooklyn and one about to be elected in Queens! Pour new Assembly

seats were filled by Blacks as well as two State Senatorial seats as

a result of re-apportionment based on the 1980 census. Now, this

was good but not as good as it could have been if a full count had

been made. There should be at least two additional Congressional

seats in areas where Black New Yorkers live if a full count had been

made in 1980. An additional 3-5 seats in the State Legislature

could also have been won by the Black community.

Laws and Budgetary decisions made in the Congress and in

State Legislatures can be made more fairly and sensitively for all

New Yorkers if those who are the law makers include a fairer

representation of all New Yorkers.

In addition to Political Representation many Federal and

State financial allocations are based on the population that is

counted. Entitlement programs in many areas are vastly underfunded

because the Black and poor communities are not fully counted. It is

ironic that those New Yorkers most in need are not counted in the

Census and therefore do not count in any other economic or political

program.

We must now look at the steps that need to be taken to

prevent another decade of neglect of Black New Yorkers. First, this

Committee must affirmatively resolve that there will be a full and

fair census count. This then will provide the motivation and

incentive to implement this policy of a full and fair count. If

there is the will to do it then here is the plan.

1. The Census Bureau Staff and Administration must have

Blacks at every level from the top down and bottom up.

2. Regional Offices must also reflect Blacks at policy and

line levels.
85

3. Outreach efforts and public relations efforts must include

Black firms who understand how to capture the attention of

the Black community to encourage their cooperation in the

count.

4. Information materials must be produced by and/with Black

advice and participation.

5. All connunity outreach efforts should be coordinated

through and with established Black connunity organizations

and Black Churches.

6. Census takers should reflect the communities in which they

work.

7. Qualifications for census takers should be based on skills

directly related to interviewing and data collection on a

form that is simple to read and fill out.

8. Orientation should include practice in role playing

situations based on realistic circumstances.

9. Finally, in densely populated urban centers and other hard

to count areas Advisory committees of local ccmiunity

leaders should be established in advance of the counting

and should be continued until the count is concluded.

Such comnittees can assist with recruitment and training

of census takers as well as the orientation of the

connunity to cooperate in the count.

The NAACP as the oldest most effective and most respected

civil rights organization in the world is committed to eradicating

every vestige of discrimination whether by intent or by result. On

behalf of the New York State NAACP, I pledge my full cooperation

with the 1990 Census and will make the resources under my

responsibility available to this end.

Thank you

I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

o

l&o&/ 2i1