U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

76–063 PDF 2013

S. Hrg. 112–676 

CENSUS: PLANNING AHEAD FOR 2020 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT 

INFORMATION, FEDERAL SERVICES, AND 

INTERNATIONAL SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 18, 2012 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

NICHOLAS A. ROSSI, Minority Staff Director 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

JOYCE WARD, Publications Clerk and GPO Detailee 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT 

INFORMATION, FEDERAL SERVICES, AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

JOHN KILVINGTON, Staff Director 

WILLIAM WRIGHT, Minority Staff Director 

DEIRDRE G. ARMSTRONG, Chief Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

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

Senator Brown .................................................................................................. 3 

Senator Coburn ................................................................................................. 4 

Prepared statements: 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 47 

Senator Brown .................................................................................................. 49 

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 18, 2012 

Hon. Robert M. Groves, Director, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department 

of Commerce ......................................................................................................... 5 

Hon. Todd J. Zinser, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Commerce ........... 9 

Robert Goldenkoff, Director, Strategic Issues, U.S. Government Accountability 

Office ..................................................................................................................... 10 

Jason Providakes, Ph.D., Senior Vice President and General Manager, The 

MITRE Corporation ............................................................................................. 30 

Jack Baker, Ph.D., Senior Research Scientist, Geospatial and Population 

Studies, The National Academy of Sciences ...................................................... 32 

Andrew Reamer, Ph.D., Research Professor, George Washington Institute 

of Public Policy, George Washington University ............................................... 34 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Baker, Jack, Ph.D. : 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 32 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 105 

Goldenkoff, Robert: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 82 

Groves, Hon. Robert M.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 51 

Providakes, Jason, Ph.D.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 30 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 99 

Reamer, Andrew, Ph.D.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 34 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 110 

Zinser, Hon. Todd J.: 

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 67 

APPENDIX 

Questions and responses for the Record from: 

Mr. Groves ......................................................................................................... 118 

Mr. Zinser .......................................................................................................... 124 

Statement for the Record from: 

Jerry Cerasale, Senior Vice President, Direct Marketing Association ......... 130 

Lisa Maatz, Director of Public Policy and Government Relations American Association of University Women (AAUW) ......................................... 132 

Wade Henderson, President and CEO, The Leadership Conference on 

Civil and Human Rights .............................................................................. 135 

(1) 

CENSUS: PLANNING AHEAD FOR 2020 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 18, 2012 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT INFORMATION, FEDERAL SERVICES,

AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY,

OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:34 p.m., in Room 

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

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Carper, Brown, and Coburn. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Senator CARPER. This hearing will come to order. Welcome, one 

and all. Today’s hearing will examine lessons learned from the 

2010 census, while identifying issues that show promise for producing an even more accurate and hopefully more cost-effective 

census in 2020. 

I want to begin by thanking Dr. Groves for his commitment to 

public service and for his willingness to help the Bureau navigate 

through some very challenging times. I must admit the news of 

your decision to leave this post as Director of the Census Bureau 

is bittersweet. It is actually mostly bitter, if you want to know the 

truth. But when you came on board in 2009, the Census Bureau 

faced many challenges that threatened the success of the 2010 census, as we will all recall, and you along with your dedicated staff 

confronted these challenges head on, and through his very impressive skill set and background in these issues related to the census 

and statistics, he helped right the ship through the completion of 

the 2010 census. 

And under your leadership, the Bureau completed key operations 

on schedule, hired nearly 900,000 temporary workers at a time 

when a lot of people needed jobs, obtained an exceptional participation rate of 74 percent, and managed to report population figures 

in time to support the redistricting. The Bureau has also realigned 

its national field office structure and implemented key management reforms, reducing costs by an estimated $15 to $18 million 

annually beginning in 2014. Three years after your arrival, Dr. 

Groves definitely leaves the Census, I think, in better shape than 

when you found it. 

However, despite these achievements, the 2010 census was still 

the most expensive in our Nation’s history, by far, and even taking 
2 

inflation into account, the total cost of the single operation escalated from an initial estimate of about $11.3 billion to right around 

$13 billion. Even more disturbing is the fact that with all the modern scientific improvements in technological advancements that 

have been made over the years, the framework for conducting the 

2010 census was based off of a model that we first used in the 

1970s. In fact, I have just been re-reading part of the Old Testament, and found that King David ordered a census. Got in trouble 

with the Lord for ordering it; I do not know why. 

But they were doing a census all this time ago. They did not 

have these handheld—I think it was mentioned, I think, in the 

Book of Samuel about the handhelds. No, not really. But pretty 

much we are not a whole lot further along than we were then. Actually, we are, but you get the gist. 

Although the methodology basics of the census have remained 

the same over the past 40 years, the cost of the census has decidedly not. The average cost per household was about $97 in 2010, 

compared to $70 in 2000, and $16 in 1970. The total cost of the 

2020 census could rise to as much as $30 billion. This, in my view, 

is just not acceptable. We cannot do that. And it is especially not 

acceptable at a time when we are struggling to find solutions to the 

serious deficit and debt crisis our country is currently facing. 

I have spoken at previous hearings about the need for us to look 

in every nook and cranny in the Federal Government and ask this 

question: ‘‘Is it possible to get better results for less money or better results for the same amount of money? ’’ 

The hard truth is that many programs funding levels will need 

to be reduced, and even some of the most popular and necessary 

programs out there will likely need to do more with less, or at least 

more with the same amount of money. The Census Bureau, despite 

the vital and constitutionally mandated nature of its work, cannot 

be immune from that sort of examination. 

Today we will look at the Bureau’s planning efforts for the 2020 

decennial, and although it is 8 years away, it is never too early to 

start thinking about ways to reduce costs and improve quality 

through more efficient data collection. More importantly, we need 

to make certain that the issues that lead to the failures and cost 

overruns we saw the last time around have been addressed and 

will not reoccur. Taxpayers ought not be expected to pick up the 

tab for them again. 

Looking ahead, the Bureau’s research should focus on how existing technology can be incorporated into the 2020 design. Obviously, 

the Internet is here to stay, and according to experts, an Internet 

response option could have saved the Bureau tens of millions of 

dollars in processing costs in 2010 alone. 

Future research should not only focus on how to implement 

Internet data collections, but also how to reap the benefits, both financial and otherwise, of it, and other technologies next time 

around. We also need to make certain that people who make up our 

growing and changing country are comfortable enough with the security of the data collection methods for us to allow for an accurate 

census. 

Moreover, steady leadership will also be critical in reversing a 

trend of decennial censuses marked by poor planning and esca-
3 

lating costs. The 2010 census experienced several changes in leadership, as we will all recall, and vast spans of time with waiting 

or with acting or interim directors, further putting the operation at 

risk. 

I think in the 27 months leading up to the census day, the Bureau had, as I recall, three different Directors during that span of 

time. Dr. Groves, your departure will undoubtedly leave some very 

big shoes to fill, but it is imperative that we get someone just as 

good in place as soon as possible so that we can avoid the operational and management changes and challenges that plagued 

some of our prior decennials. 

We look forward to hearing from our witnesses today who will 

help us to identify ways to best balance the need for an accurate 

census, with a need to ensure reasonable costs for this endeavor. 

Before turning to Senator Brown, I just want to say to Senator 

Coburn, just a real special thanks for your diligent work on this 

issue. We have, I think, done better than we might otherwise have 

because of your strong efforts, and in the future we will do better 

still because of your ongoing efforts. Senator Brown. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BROWN 

Senator BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is also good to 

have Senator Coburn here, and I think he has spearheaded this 

issue and has some concerns, which is a good thing. I am going to 

give my opening statement, leave some questions for the record, 

and defer to Senator Coburn. I have other commitments. 

The decennial census, due to its size, is probably the most schedule-driven project mounted by the Federal Government, as we all 

know, and it was a vital undertaking, as you referenced. The results were used, obviously, for redistricting and the annual distribution of billions of dollars in Federal and State funds. 

The results of the 2010 census were both encouraging and discouraging at the same time. Encouraging that our population has 

expanded to become more diverse and that the Census Bureau 

achieved a high degree of accuracy in the 2010 count. As you referenced, the discouraging news is that the costs exploded and we 

simply cannot afford that continued cost. I believe, and have 

learned in my brief tenure here, that we cannot continue to do the 

things that we have always been doing, to the detriment of the 

American taxpayer. 

For the most part, the basic model of conducting the census has 

not changed since the 1970s, as you referenced. Using methods like 

the old-fashioned snail mail, et cetera. Last year’s hearing revealed 

the Census Bureau must innovate and bring the census into the 

21st Century. I am encouraged as well that Director Groves has 

recognized this need to change the census, beginning many reforms 

aimed at reducing cost while maintaining quality. 

I am hopeful. I know as long as I am here I am going to make 

sure that those innovations and cost reduction efforts continue. For 

example, I look forward to filling out my 2020 questionnaire online. 

Additionally, with Director Groves’ pending departure, it becomes 

more imperative that we institutionalize these necessary changes. 

I also want to voice my support for the continuation of the American Community Survey (ACS). It is our country’s only source of 
4 

micro-area estimates on social and demographic characteristics. 

The ACS survey is critical to many businesses like AIR Worldwide 

of Boston which founded the catastrophe modeling industry in 1987 

and utilizes the ACS survey in the development of its catastrophe 

modeling. Eliminating the ACS survey would be short-sighted and 

hinder the ability of the Census Bureau to achieve efficiencies in 

the 2020 census. 

This is the second hearing we have had on the census this session, so I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that, and Senator 

Coburn, for your efforts and I look forward to watching the testimony. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Good, you bet. Senator Coburn, welcome. 

OPENING STATEMENT BY SENATOR COBURN 

Senator COBURN. Well, first of all, let me thank each of you for 

being here. I think we also ought to thank President Obama for his 

nomination, Dr. Groves. Being on the other side of the aisle, we are 

always critical, but when we recognize great leadership in terms of 

Dr. Groves and his leadership in the Senate, we ought to recognize 

who nominated him. 

I am particularly interested in this hearing because I think there 

is still lots to do, and doing it now rather than what Dr. Groves 

was faced with means we are going to be better at it, we are going 

to save more money, and the data is going to be more accurate. 

I do have some significant concerns with the American Community Survey. As a matter of fact, I experienced the harassment personally from the Census Bureau when I was sent the American 

Community Survey 3 years ago. I stood by my constitutional rights 

to not answer certain questions in that. 

I recently have had five letters to my office on the American 

Community Survey with people with the same complaints as to 

their constitutional right not to answer questions of total privacy 

that is really nobody else’s business. That does not mean I do not 

believe we need an American Community Survey; I think we do. 

But I think there are ways, and one of the things I would like 

to explore is, how do we do it and still get the same information, 

make sure it is not skewed, and how we do it with a carrot instead 

of a stick, because one of the problems that is occurring in our 

country today is the undermining of the confidence of the rule of 

law. 

And when you have good patriotic Oklahomans that pay their 

taxes every year, work, follow the rules, follow the laws, feel invaded when the government comes in and says, We want to know 

this, this, and this, and they say, I am sorry, I will pay the fine, 

but I am not telling you this, this, and this. 

So there are ways for us to get around it. We know that the data 

is important and we know that the accuracy of the data is important, but what we have to have is innovative thinking as we approach that, and that also goes towards the 2020 census. 

I have had a conversation with Dr. Groves as well as appreciate 

the work of the Inspector General (IG) and the General Accountability Office (GAO). I am a big defender of IGs, and everybody 

knows my reputation of protecting and defending the GAO for the 

valuable work that they give to Congress. We could not do any-
5 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Groves appear in the appendix on page 51. 

where close—and that may be a good thing—without that help. So 

I am appreciative of you being here. 

I will save the rest of my statement as we ask questions. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Dr. Coburn. I have a fairly lengthy 

introduction for our witnesses. I am not going to use that. I would 

second what Dr. Coburn said about thanking the President for submitting your name and for your service. 

Todd Zinser. Todd has been before us number of times, the IG 

for the Department of Commerce. How is the Secretary of Commerce doing? Any idea how he is coming along? 

Mr. ZINSER. I think he is doing fine. In fact, he has having a little reception for the staff at Commerce Department later this week. 

Senator CARPER. Oh, that is good. OK, thank you. We are very 

appreciative of your work and that of your team and welcome you 

back here today. And Robert Goldenkoff, our friend from GAO, Director of Strategic Issues, responsible for reviewing the 2010 census 

and Federal Government-wide capital reforms. Welcome. Thank 

you all. 

In certain times we try to limit you to 5 minutes. I am not going 

to do that today. If you go on too long, just drone on endlessly, I 

will rein you in. But short of that, we will let you go. 

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

CENSUS BUREAU, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Mr. GROVES. Thank you. I am really delighted to be here. I want 

to thank both of you personally. One of the greatest pleasures I 

have had during my directorship is working with you and I appreciate your interest in the Census Bureau and your support for the 

things we are trying to do. 

Senator CARPER. Did you ever think you would say that to two 

guys, one from Ohio State (OSU), and another from— [Laughter.] 

The guy from Michigan. You never know. 

Mr. GROVES. So I want to begin with a little retrospective on the 

2010. And as you, Mr. Chairman, noted, when I was in this room 

for my nomination hearing in the spring of 2009, the forecast was 

one that the 2010 census was headed for disaster. I think what we 

all discovered, I most deeply, was that the team that was assembled late in the decade was much better than anyone knew at the 

time. 

Recently, as you know, the statistical evaluation of that census 

showed that it was one of the best this country has ever seen, if 

not the best. Having said that, there are still groups in this country 

that are very difficult for us to enumerate. These are deep social 

forces that produce these problems. We have trouble counting renters, young children, young adult males, African-Americans, Hispanics, American Indians on reservations. That has been true for 

several decades. 

On the other hand, we overcount groups in the population, owners of homes, older persons, females, and white non-Hispanics. 

These are problems that are deep in our society that the Census 

Bureau cannot solve itself, but they are real problems and cause 

us difficulties. 
6 

I am pleased that we returned nearly $2 billion of the taxpayers’ 

money and presented the key results on time. But I want to note, 

and I think it is important, I think, for the Subcommittee to know 

that the credit for the accomplishments of this really go to the wonderful scientists and managers at Census Bureau. They pull off an 

enormous feat and they deserve that glory. 

Meanwhile, we have been restructuring and realigning a lot of 

key functions at Census, and we have one mantra in this. We want 

to get more efficient and take advantage of new technologies to do 

that. With the approval of Congress, we have restructured the Census Bureau. We have added a Research and Methodology Directorate to inhouse discover the innovations in statistical operations 

that reduce costs. 

We have reduced the number of regional offices from 12 to 6, simultaneously modernizing supervisory structures and software 

support systems. We have built cross-functional survey teams with 

technical and management resources to find efficiencies in our operation. We have new leadership in the information technology (IT) 

Directorate that is making a difference already. 

We have given it enterprise-wide authorities, so whenever feasible, we are sharing IT services across directorates. We are using 

public cloud services. We have done this several times successfully, 

saving big, big money. Consolidating data centers building. We are 

also building a private cloud environment that I have great hopes 

for. 

Senator CARPER. Building a what? What is that? 

Mr. GROVES. A private cloud environment inside. So a lot of our 

operations have surge needs and if each directorate said, ‘‘We are 

going to take care of ourselves, you have to pay for that capacity.’’ 

Senator CARPER. At first I thought you said private club. [Laughter.] 

You certainly got my attention. 

Mr. GROVES. We have completed an application programming 

interface (API), and we have released this in beta, but this is going 

to allow developers all over the world to produce apps on all sorts 

of mobile devices to access our statistical information. Within a 

matter of weeks, we will be able to show you an economic statistics 

app that will run on Android and iPhones and allow you instant 

access to the most up-to-date data on that. 

We are attempting to build a culture of innovation and that 

takes a while, but one of our tools is an annual challenge to our 

staff and the challenge is, Write down your ideas to make us more 

efficient and if they are meritorious, we will do them. And we are 

getting hundreds of proposals each year. There are tons of ideas in 

the Federal Government workers and the Census Bureau for doing 

things more efficiently. We are trying to release those. 

We are building better statistics through new analysis. We have 

launched a team devoted to blending together dataset that we already have collected to create new information. We can do this 

without launching any new data collections. We do not pay much 

at all for that. 

Through the collaboration with the National Science Foundation 

(NSF), we have established a network of research, university research teams working on problems that we face of statistical, geo-
7 

graphical, and computing nature. And when you put all these 

things together, it allows me to speak to the 2020 planning effort, 

because it is in this environment that we have tried to launch a 

new way of planning the next decennial census. These are interconnected things. 

We, too, recognize that the rising cost of the decennial census 

cannot be sustained. That is well accepted, both by the leadership 

of Census, but all through the culture now. We get it. So we are 

focused intensely on cost-saving ideas. We have built a new 2020 

directorate. That was part of the restructuring, deliberately to 

build a new culture for the new census. 

It is free to optimize its structure. In about a year, about this 

time next year, the proposed new structure of that will be put forward. We have created an executive level steering committee that 

directs cross-directorate collaboration, a key thing we are working 

on. We have restructured research teams; we have made them 

smaller and nimbler. 

Every one of the research projects that we are mounting has cost 

efficiency as one of the goals. It is not just quality; it is quality and 

cost at the same time. And we are attempting to use many small 

tests rather than a small number of very large tests, and we think 

we will save money on the planning if we do that, and we will run 

through more ideas that way. 

The key innovations that you should look for are things that are 

on our agenda. You know about these things, but they need the 

kind of nurturing that you talked about just a few minutes ago. We 

aspire to do targeted address canvassing at the end of the decade 

that can save hundreds of millions of dollars if we do it right. 

To allow us to do that, we want to continuously update our master address list and we are working on that right now. This will 

require new partnerships with local areas and the Postal Service. 

Two, we are designing—all of our options are what survey methodologists call multi mode designs. We will use mail, telephone, 

Internet, face-to-face interviews, and any other electronic response 

option that is going to arise over the next few years that we do not 

even know about yet. We are doing those multiple modes because 

it is clear, if you talk to census statisticians around the world, no 

one thing works for all sub-populations. We are a very diverse society and all Internet census will not work and all mail census will 

not work. 

Most importantly, we are evaluating using existing administrative records that are held in other Federal Government agencies to 

obtain data about the households who do not otherwise respond. 

This tool can save very large amounts of money if we succeed in 

that. 

And then finally, we talk a lot about program management on 

2020, learning lessons from 2010. We have integrated budget and 

schedule and scope, and soon we will have a fully integrated schedule that has what questions need to be answered for what decisions 

at what time in the decade and we would love to share that with 

you. That would be a great way to keep track of our work. 

Now, in addition to working hard to save money, I have another 

duty in this position and that is to inform the country of the impact 

of budgets on the scope and quality of what we do, and I must note 
8 

that the Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 House Appropriations Bill has 

major effects on what we do. 

It cut the President’s request by about $358 million, or 37 percent. I must report to you that if that stands we cannot conduct 

the economic census of the United States, scheduled for just a few 

months from now, which measures the health of our economy. 

As you know, the bill does not permit any spending on the American Community Survey. In addition, the cuts will halt crucial development of ways to save money on 2020 and it will eliminate 

most of the remaining 2010 products. I feel obliged to tell you that. 

I want to turn to near-term challenges that I think are very big. 

Some of these are more amorphous than others, but they are things 

that we all have to worry about. There are four in number that I 

want to mention. One is a moment’s notice will tell you that the 

Census Bureau’s mission can be fulfilled only with the willingness 

of the American public to provide data. 

We know this every day. We see this every day. A real challenge 

for us is to link the valuable statistical information we provide, 

people’s knowledge of that, to these requests for their own answers. 

And that is a constant challenge to us. It is a big educational burden to communicate to large, diverse groups of people why it is useful to have this statistical information for key decisions and then 

how that information leans on individual decisions to participate. 

Two, we must continue to nurture ties with university researchers and technology firms. We are very active in discussions with 

technology firms on a variety of issues: Dissemination, data collection, and others. The challenges here are greatest with regard to 

staying up-to-date on mobile computing technologies, new features 

of the Internet, and new geographical information technologies. 

Three, some Internet-based data and other so-called big data 

sources are relevant to what we do. The explosion of Internet-related data in this country is a real change in the work of information agencies. A challenge to the Census Bureau is developing real 

organic access to those kind of data, new public/private partnerships, and learning how to combine those kinds of data with our 

traditional surveys and censuses to provide better information to 

the American public. 

And then finally, four, the world of statistics is rapidly changing. 

There are developments in the field of statistics that we should 

use. They are model-based innovations that can enhance the quality of what we do and reduce the cost of what we do. So a challenge 

to the Census Bureau is making sure that we stay up to date on 

that domain of knowledge, but also that we have access to other 

data to permit us to enrich our estimates with auxiliary data. 

So let me close by saying, it is my fervent hope that the oversight 

from this Committee will act to allow the Census Bureau to continue on the path that we have set. Thank you very much. 

Senator CARPER. Not to worry. Thank you so much for that testimony, and again, for your wonderful leadership. Todd Zinser, Mr. 

Zinser, please proceed. Thanks a lot for joining us again today. 
9 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Zinser appears in the appendix on page 67. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. TODD J. ZINSER,1 INSPECTOR GENERAL, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

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

you for the opportunity to testify about planning for the 2020 census and the challenges the Census Bureau faces in laying the 

groundwork for the decennial. In our April 2011 testimony before 

this Subcommittee, we identified seven top management challenges 

facing the 2020 decennial. 

They included: One, revamping the cost estimation process to 

make it better; two, using the Internet and administrative records 

to control costs and improve accuracy; three, implementing a more 

effective testing program using the American Community Survey; 

four, effectively automating field data collection; five, the continuous updating of address lists and maps; six, improving project 

management and planning; and seven, establishing a Census director position that spans Administrations. 

Since that testimony, we have issued our final report on the 2010 

decennial which included 19 recommendations and helped us identify the challenges ahead for 2020. We have also issued two reports, in April and May of this year, one focused on 2020 planning 

and the other on the master address file (MAF) and the topologically integrated geographic encoding and referencing (TIGER) 

database. 

The challenges we identified in April 2011 remain operative. Our 

work over the past year and recent developments have brought five 

key issues concerning those management challenges into greater 

focus. The first key issue concerns departmental oversight of the 

Bureau’s data collection and IT infrastructure projects. 

The Department will need to play a strong oversight role early 

in the 2020 census. Now is the time for the Department to assess 

the Bureau’s IT and data collection plans and help Census manage 

operational risk. For 2010, we saw the path to escalating IT costs 

begin early in the decade. For 2020, the Department needs to help 

the Bureau as it develops cost estimates, establishes critical path 

management, and maintains a more reasonable cost route. 

The second key issue concerns decennial planning within the constrained budget environment. We have already seen during the research and testing phase how the Bureau has had to adapt to a 

challenging cycle of Federal Government budgets. In Fiscal Year 

2012, the Bureau canceled 20 of 109 studies that measure 2010 

performance and inform 2020 plans. 

Like all other Federal agencies, the Census Bureau must continue to plan within constrained budgets. Providing the Department and Congress reliable and transparent budget requests will 

be paramount. 

The third key issue concerns continuity of leadership at the Census Bureau. Because the Bureau must operate on long planning cycles for decennial surveys, it is difficult to maintain leadership with 

a consistent vision and much easier to fall back on old ways and 

institutional habits. Making the nomination and confirmation of a 

new Census director a priority will significantly help the Bureau 
10 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Goldenkoff appears in the appendix on page 82. 

manage its critical issues of budget, design, and survey content, 

which dictate the success of the decennial. 

The fourth key issue concerns modernizing the 2020 census with 

an Internet option, greater data sharing, and the use of administrative records. When the Bureau decides how the 2020 census will 

be designed, it may need the help of Congress to facilitate that design. 

The goal should be significantly reduced labor costs through 

more equitable interagency sharing and more effective use of data 

and administrative records, more automated data processing and 

fewer time consuming, costly, personal enumeration visits. 

The final key issue concerns the uncertainty surrounding the 

American Community Survey. As Congress considers whether to 

make responding to the survey voluntary rather than mandatory, 

or eliminate the survey’s funding entirely, there are several implications that will factor into the deliberations, some of which we 

have identified in our written testimony. 

With respect to making the ACS voluntary, Census research in 

2002 and 2003 indicated that a voluntary ACS would result in a 

significant reduction in the mail response rate. This reduction 

would then require a more costly survey to obtain the same level 

of reliability—and would also have an adverse impact on the data 

quality for areas of low response. 

With respect to eliminating ACS funding altogether, the implications include no longer being able to use the ACS as a test bed for 

the 2020 decennial, the loss of the trained and experienced workforce distributed across the country that carry out the ACS on an 

ongoing basis and also support decennial operations, and losing the 

opportunity to use the ACS over the course of the decade to build 

and perfect the IT infrastructure necessary to securely use an 

Internet option for 2020. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the entire staff at the Office 

of Inspector General, I would like to thank Dr. Groves for his leadership of the Census Bureau. It was a personal privilege to have 

served with Dr. Groves and we wish him well. This concludes my 

statement. I would be happy to answer any questions you or Senator Coburn may have. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks much for the testimony. We welcome 

Mr. Goldenkoff. Please proceed. Thanks for joining us. 

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT GOLDENKOFF,1 DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Mr. Chairman, Senator Coburn, thank you for 

the opportunity to be here today to provide an update on the Census Bureau’s planning and reform initiatives for the 2020 census. 

As was earlier noted, the basic design of the decennial census, an 

approach the Bureau has used since 1970, is no longer capable of 

a cost-effective enumeration. Unless changes are made going forward, future headcounts could be fiscally unsustainable. 

The 2010 census was the most expensive population count in U.S. history with a total cost of around $13 billion. Without reforms, the 2020 census could be even more costly. In fact, the Cen-
11 

sus Bureau estimates that if it uses the same approach to count 

people in 2020 as it did in 2010, it would cost $151 to count each 

housing unit compared to 2010s $97 per housing unit, a 56 percent 

cost increase. 

When we last testified before the Subcommittee in April 2011, we 

discussed four lessons learned from the 2010 and earlier decennials 

that could help secure a more cost-effective enumeration in 2020. 

They included, one, reexamining the Nation’s approach to taking 

the census. Two, tailoring operations to specific operations in population groups. Three, addressing prior high risk areas. And four, 

ensuring that the Bureau’s management, culture, and business 

practices all align with a successful census. 

The Bureau generally agreed with these actions and is taking 

steps to address them. As requested, my remarks today will focus 

first on the Bureau’s progress in each lesson learned, and second, 

what remains to be done going forward. 

Overall, the Bureau’s preparations are off to a good start. However, sustaining those efforts will be a tremendous challenge as the 

Bureau’s planning over the next few years will take place in an uncertain environment given the extent of the Bureau’s reforms, 

budget constraints, and next month’s planned resignation of the 

Census Director. As a result, continued Congressional oversight 

throughout the decade will be critical. 

With respect to the first lesson learned, reexamining the Nation’s 

approach to taking the census, the Bureau is already rethinking 

the design of the enumeration. For example, the Bureau is researching how it can use administrative records such as data from 

other government agencies to help it locate and count people, including nonrespondents. Administrative records could help reduce 

the need for costly field operations, but the Bureau must first resolve data quality and access issues. 

As for the second lesson learned, tailoring operations to specific 

locations and population groups, in 2010, the Bureau effectively 

targeted several activities, including its paid advertising campaign. 

For 2020, the Bureau is considering expanding these efforts, for example, to address canvassing. A better understanding of value 

added of key census operations would help the Bureau’s ability to 

further target its operations and allocate its resources more efficiently. 

On the third lesson learned, addressing factors that led to 2010s 

high risk designation, it will be important for the Bureau to improve its ability to develop reliable life cycle cost estimates and 

strengthen its information technology (IT) management so that 

shortcomings in these areas do not recur in 2020. 

With respect to the fourth lesson learned, ensuring that the Bureau’s management and culture align with the cost effective enumeration, we found that the Bureau’s early planning efforts for the 

2020 census were consistent with most leading practices for organizational transformation, long-term planning, and strategic workforce planning. But in the future, additional steps will be needed, 

including determining how to monitor and evaluate its workforce 

planning efforts. 

In summary, the Bureau is making noteworthy progress in addressing these and other lessons learned from the 2010 census. To 
12 

help sustain the Bureau’s progress going forward, it will be important for Congress to continue to hold the Bureau accountable for 

results, weigh in on key design decisions, and provide appropriate 

funding. 

I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate Dr. 

Groves on his successful stewardship of the Census Bureau and 

wish him the best of luck in his new position at Georgetown University. Under Dr. Groves’ leadership, the Census Bureau mitigated the risks jeopardizing the decennial and delivered an operationally successful headcount. 

The Census Bureau embarked on a more transparent and results-oriented path, and it developed a vision for a more cost-effective approach to collecting and disseminating data in the future. 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Coburn, this concludes my remarks. I 

would be pleased to respond to any questions that you or other 

Members of the Subcommittee might have. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Goldenkoff, thanks a whole lot. I have 

asked Dr. Coburn to lead off the questions. I have got to return a 

phone call real quick and I will be right back. Tom? 

Senator COBURN [presiding]. Well, thank you for each of your testimonies. What I noticed across all three testimonies, Dr. Groves 

was talking about the changes he has made in terms of IT. Actually, I believe what you said was IT was across all sections, all 

silos, but I also heard worries by IG and GAO on the implementation of that. What you all are talking about is one of our biggest 

problems in the government, not just at Census. 

So first of all, Dr. Groves, I wanted to correct an omission I 

made. You really were successful, through your leadership, but also 

the quality of people that you have working for you. And so I want 

to publicly recognize them, because what we saw was under great 

leadership they shone. They stepped up. So that reflects great on 

those employees, but as well your leadership. 

So tell me, if you would, hearing the concerns about IT transformation and the watching of it, it is a sinkhole. Just so you all 

will know, we spend $64 billion a year on it in the Federal Government and half of it is wasted, fully half, $32 billion. The American 

people need to hear that. $32 billion a year goes down the drain 

in IT projects that do not work. 

So would you give me some assurance, first of all, of where they 

are worried and what is in place, and how are you going to address 

their concerns on the IT portion of it? 

Mr. GROVES. Well, worry is not an ill-placed emotion, I think, because it would motivate the kind of scrutiny of changes that are 

coming in now. I must admit I am rather optimistic. There are features of the environment on the IT side and the leadership side 

that were not there 10 years ago. OK? 

So a move for more centralization of authority, of CIOs is afoot. 

That seems inevitable that will not stop. And the reason I do not 

think it would peter out is if you just look at Census, 10 years ago 

each of our directorates really had their own IT set-up, they had 

their own hardware, they had, many times, unique software systems. 

What we are doing in our data center is virtualizing servers, basically. So you may have had your own servers that did your stuff 
13 

and I had mine. Now we get the same services, but we are actually 

sharing servers in a completely—in a way that does not affect our 

productivity. That service provision is a change, I think, and a good 

change. 

And then the hard thing is going to be the next developments, 

the new things that we do. How do you avoid the problems of the 

past where you spend years developing requirements and then 

years more working on system development that actually is so late 

in delivery that it does not solve the original problem? 

Agile programming environments are good. We are using that 

wherever we can. The very basic lesson of keeping the user in the 

loop all the time, I think, we have gotten, but it is counterculture 

still. So pressure in that regard, I think, is needed throughout. 

I am hoping we have turned a corner, both because of these administrative things, the technical nature of the hardware environment, and then our software developments, but scrutiny will be required. 

Senator COBURN. So there is good reason for us to watch that 

closely? 

Mr. GROVES. Absolutely. And, calling the leadership on this. Our 

leadership is attuned to this problem now. I think we talk about 

it a lot. We are talking openly about it as something that we want 

to do better on. I think that is real healthy, but calling us to account on this is a useful thing, I think. 

Senator COBURN. So you have got this in place and moving forward and you are leaving next month. That is what I hear the IG 

and the GAO say. OK. How is it going to go forward without you 

there? 

Mr. GROVES. Well, we have good leadership. We have a wonderful new CIO. He has brought in several key, high-level scientists 

who are rolling up their sleeves and working with the program 

areas. They have built the trust or are building that trust. 

I think the other way you could keep track of this is that for 

2020 especially, we are going to be pretty transparent on deliverable dates and key intermediate deadlines. That will be out there 

and we are hoping to establish an ongoing briefing of your staff, 

so too in the House, to tell you where we are on things. And that 

should be a wonderful vehicle that would allow you to catch things 

that are off-track early, if they go off-track. 

Senator COBURN. Any comments on what you have heard, either 

of you? Both of you raised it as a concern. 

Mr. ZINSER. Sir, I do think that the culture at the Census Bureau has greatly improved since we expressed concerns over the 

handheld computers. That problem was hidden, possibly from the 

Director and definitely from the Department. 

That is not going to happen in the future the transparency mechanisms that have since been built in and the increased oversight 

will help in that regard. 

Senator COBURN. Well, it also was a problem. We did not know 

what we want, so we created a cost-plus contract and we kept 

changing what we want. Plus, in my personal opinion, we had poor 

performance by the supplier. So I am in adamant opposition to all 

cost-plus contracts other than pure research, because if we do not 
14 

know what we want, then the first thing we ought to do is go research what we want and create specifics for that. Anything else? 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Well, I agree with what has been said so far. 

What I would add to that is that the management processes need 

to be in place before any contracts are let. I think what you were 

alluding to is that for 2010, the specifications for a lot of these systems were not matched to the operational requirements and that 

led to some of the problems that came about later in the decade. 

Senator COBURN. We actually showed in a Subcommittee hearing 

how you could get an iPhone to do exactly what we paid almost 

$500 million to get somebody to develop. So, I mean, that is a governmentwide contract problem. From the testimony we had earlier 

today from Danny Werfel at the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), the Comptroller, I think we are on the way to starting to 

change some of that culture within the government. So I think that 

is good. 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. And it is a cultural shift that needs to take 

place. It is one thing to talk about the implementation of agile programming or, we saw in 2010 the use of IT management leading 

practices here and there, but it has to be implemented organization-wide. There needs to be that executive level oversight and that 

is one thing that we did not see happen during 2010, but we are 

seeing some important shifts moving forward. 

Senator COBURN. One thing that caught my mind during all of 

your testimony is getting this administrative data from other government agencies. Who in the government knows what we need to 

do to enable that for you? Because there are certain laws on the 

books that restrict some of that? Somebody needs to be charged 

with an assessment of how do we create an activity? 

Or if it requires legislation that allows the Census Bureau to 

have data that otherwise we would not want them to have through 

previous legislation? Does anybody know where that list is so that 

we could actually start thinking about how we can—if it is going 

to require our help to get there, what we need to be doing? Because 

the sooner we get that done—this place is designed to not pass 

laws. That is what our Founders intended. They wanted it to be 

very difficult to change laws. 

So the sooner we get that list of what is necessary for us to do, 

the sooner we can aid the Census Bureau in what I think I heard 

Dr. Groves say could save us millions and millions and millions of 

dollars, plus a lot of time. Anybody have any idea of what that list 

is? 

Mr. ZINSER. Senator, we do have some suggestions about legislative changes. We think there are sufficient laws on the books allowing the Census director to access records and administrative data 

from other agencies. However, there is not corresponding legislation requiring the heads of those other agencies to provide the information to the Bureau. As a result, there are some key legislative 

initiatives that could help. 

Senator COBURN. Can you address that directly to me in response to this question? 

Mr. ZINSER. Absolutely. 
15 

Senator COBURN. Put it in writing and where those areas are? 

I think that would be very helpful, and my commitment is to try 

to grease that skid to see if we cannot get it done. 

Mr. ZINSER. Yes, sir. 

Senator COBURN. Privacy rights are an important thing in this 

country and we can do that without violating privacy rights. But 

we also do not want fiefdoms to limit our ability to save tons of 

money. 

If we could, can we move on to one other question for Dr. Groves? 

I have never had a hearing where I am the only one present, so 

it is kind of fun. One of the things I heard in your testimony was 

an expansion of what you can do in terms of data, in terms of research, in terms of data. And I would just put forth a cautionary 

tone for you there. 

This country faces an enormous challenge in its fiscal situation. 

This Congress has proved it is not up to that. Maybe future Congresses will be. But I think it is important to go back and look first 

at what the charge is for the Census Bureau before you take on 

new things. Two reasons I would say that. 

One is the fiscal implications and the dollars spent there that 

might not be able to spend, saving us some money somewhere else 

within your organization. And I will assure you that you will not 

see the House number for the Census Bureau at this time. It will 

not come through. The worst will be is you will be where you are 

right now for at least—for the first 4 or 5 months, and I think that 

is pretty well a given by most of us looking at that. 

That is not to say that we are not going to see some dollar cuts, 

but you ought to be involved in what those are, rather than some 

of us who actually do not know what we are talking about being 

involved in what those are. 

But the second point is, there is a private sector out there and 

if what you can bring through analysis and research of numbers 

that you have that are already public, somebody wanting to make 

a buck can also do that. And there is a lot of private capital out 

there that is looking for ways to make money out of your data. You 

see it all the time. 

And so, I would just caution, that is just one Senator’s opinion, 

because we are going to have trouble doing the basics in the future, 

financing the basics for what we do. So I would just caution in that 

regard. If I could continue for a little bit longer, I will be finished 

with just one more. 

It leads the American Community Survey. As you and I talked 

in our office, there is a real cultural change occurring in our country about the invasiveness of that survey. Some of it is right; some 

of it is wrong. And I think it is good to explain to people what the 

utilization of that data is and why they ought to participate in it. 

I do not discourage that. 

But if you look at the Constitution, there is nothing in there 

about the American Community Survey. It is an expansion that we 

have done. And we have done it on the basis of having data so we 

know how to distribute funds. That is one of the reasons. That is 

why it started. 

But I think it is really important that we figure out, how do we 

get this data and still pay attention to this very real concern by 
16 

people that we are violating their privacy? And I think we can figure that out. The study says that you had a 20 percent reduction 

in participation. Well, there are carrots that can increase that, and 

figuring out what those carrots need to be to not skew the data is 

not rocket science. I mean, it will take some work, but it can be 

done. 

But the point is, I think we ought to pay attention to the message we are hearing. This is not a small deal. This is a big deal. 

And the reason you saw that coming from the House is because the 

people’s House are feeling all this blowback on the American Community Survey. 

So I would love, before you leave, even though we have had a 

conversation about it, Director Groves, and I would also love you 

all’s input as well, and anybody else listening to this, is how do we 

accomplish the collection of the data in a way that truly protects 

us? How do we innovate in a way that gets us the same data with 

as good a quality and not rub up against personal liberties? 

And I think that is the challenge in front of us, because I am not 

certain that you could not, even though it has been tried before, 

but under the environment we are in today, see a real revolt on 

that. The Internet spreads information. Half the time it is true and 

half the time it is not. 

But people do not go to factcheck.org. What they do is they write 

their Senator a letter, and then you have to say, Well, these are 

not true facts that you are reacting to. So how about your comments on that? If all the witnesses would comment on this issue. 

Mr. GROVES. Well, I understand the reaction. I have talked to respondents, as you probably have talked to your constituents on 

this, so I understand the concerns. There are technical issues that 

could be investigated on this. Your notion of approaching this not 

to increase the benefits of participation as opposed to just persuasion is logical and we know how to do that. We need a little research to make sure it works. It is risky, but it could be done. 

The enormous challenge the ACS has is that it publishes statistics on really small areas. That makes it slightly more difficult 

than, say, the unemployment survey which is not producing such 

lower level estimates. My reaction to what you are saying is to take 

this on as a serious matter that could be investigated in a variety 

of ways. 

We have been having workshops, by the way, through the National Academy of Sciences panel on the 2020 with people who are 

not really users, but more representative of consumers, and ideas 

are coming up out of that suggesting ways that we could keep in 

touch with real people as we do our work in ways that would benefit. 

There will be—my knowledge—I worked before I came to Census 

in this very area of how do people make decisions on whether to 

participate or not. I am not optimistic that any one thing will work 

for all people. 

Senator COBURN. No, I agree. 

Mr. GROVES. And there will always be, especially in this country, 

a strain of people that say, I do not want to tell anyone anything 

about myself. We will not succeed on them. But on large portions 

of the population, I think it is worth investigating. 
17 

So my reaction, if you are exactly right and this is the beginning 

of a wave and this will just get bigger is, it is prudent for us to 

do the research that provides you with the trade-off decisions on 

what would happen if we took this course to the quality of the data 

versus some other course, and that would be a proper role for a statistical agency and a proper role for the Congress, I think. 

Senator COBURN. Well, I would say the fact that the House 

passed elimination of funding for the ACS is a pretty good indication there is a wave out there. I do not know if you would concur 

with that, but that tells me something. And I know we need that 

data. So one of the legacies you could leave as you leave is to make 

sure that is one of the research projects that is started and tested 

and looked at. 

Because I would suggest, with the low rating government as a 

whole has with the American people, that your compliance is going 

to tend to get tougher. The voluntary compliance is going to go 

down. I do not want that to happen. But at the same time, we need 

the data so we need to be on top of that. Any comments from either 

of you on that? 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Well, I mean, there is the inherent challenge 

of balancing the need for timely and accurate small area data on 

the one hand without violating people’s personal privacy and unduly burdening them on the other hand. I think one way, one approach, the Bureau can take, in the shorter term is to continually 

re-examine and assess the need for specific questions on the ACS. 

Are they still relevant? Are they needed at that low level of data, 

for example? Some of them still might be; others may not be, and 

I do not know how often that review process is done. 

Senator COBURN. And that also would be a variable based on the 

geographic location you are looking into, too, as well, as you try to 

get these groups that are under-represented. 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Because, I mean, some of those questions really had their origins in the census long form back prior to 2000. 

Well, here it is 10 years later and maybe it is time to revisit the 

need for those questions at that level of granularity. 

Another thing that the Census Bureau might do is look at how 

they are publicizing and communicating what is done with this 

data. Some of those questions on their face, they may look a little 

bit odd and people may question, why does the government need 

to know this, because we know that is happening. So maybe a big 

part of it could be a communications issue. 

And now with all the various forms of technology that are available, and social media, there might be new and better ways of communicating the importance of that information and what is done 

with it. 

And then finally, another approach for the Bureau to take is to 

communicate the cost of non-response—how much that will cost for 

follow-up—that the Bureau will come back and call you up on the 

phone and then knock on your door. 

Senator COBURN. Well, that is the whole point of changing the 

way you do this so that you do not get this non-response. 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Right. And so now in these cost-conscious 

times with taxpayers saying, ‘‘Hey, this is my money being spent,’’ 

well, maybe that by itself might be an incentive. And then finally, 
18 

as you said, there might be other incentives out there instead of 

the hammer of this is required by law, which probably is important 

and Bureau studies have shown the importance of that. But are 

there other incentives that could work more constructively with 

folks? 

Senator COBURN. All right. I just have one final question and 

that is on the part of maps and what the Census Bureau is doing 

with maps versus what can be bought in the private sector and the 

justification for continuing to spend money there when, in fact, you 

can probably or, at least, I think it was, Mr. Zinser that raised the 

issue in terms of maybe what is available in the private sector can 

be modified to meet the needs rather than spending the money internal in the Census. 

Mr. GROVES. I think a good development that is occurring because of our work on trying to reduce full address canvassing is basically an opening up of collaborations with all sorts of entities. It 

would be good if that were nurtured. The relationship between the 

private sector and statistical agencies is a dynamic one, more dynamic than it has ever been in my career. 

We are working with several of them on dissemination and, in 

a way, a map is a dissemination of a piece of information. So getting that right is difficult because the private sector has different 

needs and goals, but we are working on this. I would hope that 

continues. 

I think part of the reason I am optimistic it may continue is our 

budget pressures are such that we are re-examining everything we 

do and that will continue, I suspect, for some years. That is a 

healthy environment to consider new arrangements. 

Senator COBURN. All right. 

Mr. ZINSER. Sir, can I just add one thing? I am sorry. 

Senator COBURN. Sure. 

Mr. ZINSER. I think your question about improving Census Bureau map quality and cost-efficiency is about more than just sharing information or using available private sector resources. There 

also needs to be a freer flow of information between the Census Bureau and State and local governments. Right now, the law is basically a one-way street, except for one part of the decade when the 

Bureau conducts an address update operation with local governments. Laws need to allow more free-flowing information between 

jurisdictions and the Census Bureau. 

Senator COBURN. Where is the problem? Coming from the 

States? 

Mr. ZINSER. The Census Bureau has restrictions from Title 13 on 

sharing information. Census shares address information with local 

governments during only one period of the decade; we think legislation ought to loosen those restrictions so that the Bureau can share 

data more freely throughout the decade as part of the Bureau’s 

continuous updates. 

Senator COBURN. Well, would you add that to the list— 

Mr. ZINSER. Sure. 

Senator COBURN [continuing]. That you are going to send to me? 

Mr. ZINSER. Yes, sir. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
19 

Senator CARPER. [presiding]. Sure, you bet. I just want to follow 

up on a little bit of Dr. Coburn’s questioning on the ACS. One of 

the things that continues to amaze me is I have two sons that are 

22 and 23. They are all about social networking and have been for 

a while. And I am amazed at the kind of information people are 

just willing to like bare their souls in Facebook and other venues. 

And then when it gets to something like the ACS, they are just 

much more reluctant, maybe understandably so because you are 

turning it over to the government as opposed to your friends or 

those who are thought to be friends. 

But anyway, you said something earlier in your comments, Dr. 

Groves, that I took down and asked Velvet Johnson who is sitting 

over my left shoulder, asked her to note it as well. You had asked 

the Census employees with an eye toward innovation and creativity 

just to think about good ideas and smart ways to do business and 

just submit those. I think you said you had gotten hundreds of 

folks who participated in that. 

And I said, one of the things we need to do on another side of 

our jurisdiction is work with the Postal Service. And going forward 

in our work with the Postal Service we must try to make sure that 

they remain not just relevant in the 21st Century, but sustainable 

on a fiscal basis. They need not just to cut, cut, cut. They need to 

find ways to get better results for less money and they need to be 

able to grow revenues. And so, I said, just write that down. We 

want to make sure that the Postal Service is doing the same thing 

in soliciting ideas from their folks. 

I do not know to what extent this ACS issue is a growing concern 

and I think it is reflected by the House vote, but if I were in your 

shoes or the shoes of the person who is going to succeed you, I 

would be making sure we do a lot of focus groups around the country in different venues and just add people from all different walks 

of life throughout the country. 

Where do you think the lines should be drawn knowing what you 

need in terms of information? Just get their input. I think I would 

urge that whoever is going to be sitting in your seat 6, 7, 8 months 

from now, that they will be doing that. I know we have other folks 

who are in the audience who is from the Census Bureau? Just 

make a note of that if you would. Be sure to tell the next Director 

that there are one or two guys on this Subcommittee that think 

that is a good idea. 

The other thing I want to ask—I have several things I want to 

ask, but every organization I have ever been a part of, whether it 

was the Navy or running the State of Delaware as Governor, or 

working here in the Senate, everything that I have been a part of 

leadership has been the key. 

If I go to a school, the school is doing a good job, more often than 

not because they have a great principal. They can have wonderful 

teachers, but if they have a lousy principal, they are not going to 

be meeting their potential. The leadership is just so important. The 

same is true here with the Census Bureau. 

One of the things we ask all in trying to help identify a talent 

pool for people to fill this position several years ago, we had a 

panel in. I think they were people that had previously been Census 

Bureau directors, and we asked them to basically give us, not at 
20 

that time, but to just give us a couple good names that we would 

then share with the Administration. I also asked them to tell us 

what kind of skills and talents we ought to be looking for, or the 

Administration, our country should be looking for. 

I will not ask you all to give me a couple good names, although 

later on I may ask Dr. Groves to give me a couple to share with 

the Administration. But rather, the qualities that we ought to be 

looking for, the President should be looking for our country, our 

Senate, our colleagues should be looking for as we move into this 

century. 

Let me just start with you, Dr. Groves. Just give us some 

thoughts of the qualities, the kind of leadership qualities and skill 

sets we should be looking for. 

Mr. GROVES. I view this position as both a managerial one, but 

a technical one, a scientific one. So what goes on at the Census Bureau is based on a set of principles that are derived often from statistics, but sometimes from other disciplines. So pretty high on my 

list would be someone that understands that knowledge domain. 

Does not mean they have to be the greatest scientist in the world, 

but you have to be able to understand technical matters. 

I want to stress that because I think I have heard opposite opinions, that what we need in the Census Bureau is maybe an ex-general that has run an Army. It is sort of like running an Army. 

Right? That is what you need. Well, I do not agree with that. 

Senator CARPER. OK. 

Mr. GROVES. Now, you do need managerial— 

Senator CARPER. How about a Navy man? 

Mr. GROVES. I did not want to pick on one branch. 

Senator CARPER. OK. 

Mr. GROVES. Sorry. But you do need managerial expertise, and 

what kind you need, I think you need a calmness and a certainty 

of decision style. That is, you have to make decisions. Decisions 

need to be carefully crafted, but quickly made. Indecision is deadly, 

I think, in an environment like this. 

As Senator Coburn noted, we have some good leaders at the Census Bureau, and knowing when to delegate and when not to delegate, what is the right decision on that score is important greatly. 

And then I have learned something that I did not know before I 

took this position. 

There is an outreach side of a Director. The ability to relate to 

communities, to understand how real people live is, I believe, I 

would rate that higher than I did before I came in. That is pretty 

important because we are relying on their goodwill to do our business, and kind of understanding how people process what we do is 

an important thing. 

Senator CARPER. Those are great items to consider. Mr. Zinser, 

do you agree with any of those or disagree with all of them, add 

to them? 

Mr. ZINSER. Yes, sir. I would agree that all the qualities of a good 

leader are important. With respect to the Census Bureau, what Dr. 

Groves brought that did not exist before was an openness and willingness to subject the Bureau to oversight and to communicate 

with the Department and the oversight bodies in a straightforward 

way. 
21 

I think that the way the Census Bureau operated in the past was 

a little more insular. The next leader of the Census Bureau would 

do well to adopt an open and transparent management style like 

Dr. Groves did. 

I also think that relationships are very important inside the Department, with Congress, and with the rest of the country. 

Senator CARPER. OK, thanks. Go ahead, please. 

Senator COBURN. Just a follow-up question. How are we going to 

assess that? Let us say we have a new one and it is not as open 

and transparent as Dr. Groves. How are we going to find that out? 

Because the problem is, is we all know how organizations work, 

and outside a whistle-blower on a specific issue, tell us how we are 

going to assess that. 

Mr. ZINSER. I brought up transparency at the Census Bureau because I actually had to write a letter to this Subcommittee when 

I first arrived at the Department asking for the Subcommittee’s 

help in getting access to Census Bureau information. We were 

faced with all kinds of barriers with respect to operating inside the 

Census Bureau and accessing their information. 

And to the credit of Dr. Murdock and then Dr. Groves, there has 

been a sea change. As a result, transparency depends partly on 

hearings like this. GAO, OIG, and the Department have to be held 

accountable for pushing that kind of transparency. 

Senator COBURN. It is actually a more fun place to work when 

it is transparent. 

Mr. ZINSER. That is what I think. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Goldenkoff. 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Well, in terms of the leadership characteristics— 

Senator CARPER. Let me just say, one fact comes to mind. We 

have some opportunities here as well as we go through the vetting 

process, as we go through the confirmation process. I just think 

nominees come to call on us and that is a good point to make. I 

would say, By the way, did you know? All right, please. 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. We listed some attributes in our written statement that we submitted for the Record, but just building on some 

of those in thinking about attributes that help create a high performance organization, those are things that are so essential. And 

I think to Dr. Groves’ credit he certainly exhibited and applied a 

lot of them and thought more at a corporate level, and brought a 

lot of stewardship and innovation to it. 

I think in the past where the Bureau was not as successful is 

when they applied more of a scientific or ‘‘if statistician’s approach 

to solving problems. As if we can just do one program a little bit 

better, apply this one statistical thing, do it a little bit better, we 

would make some improvements.’’ 

But for the first time, we have been starting to see that these 

issues, because they have been recurring again and again, that the 

problems are more deeply rooted in the Census Bureau. It was 

things like the culture of the Census Bureau, the management of 

the Census Bureau, old ways of thinking, stovepiped organizations. 

Now those issues are being addressed, and so that is so important. 

Further, developing and using partnerships strategically is critical. Working with political leaders and Capitol Hill and reaching 
22 

out to other levels of government, and then everyday citizens. And 

then getting back to internal things that the Census Bureau can 

do, managing people strategically, talent management, just making 

the Census Bureau a desirable place to work. 

Senator CARPER. Let me ask you a question. I have jurisdiction 

in another Subcommittee that deals with the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC), and for a number of years, consecutive years, 

they have been at the top of the charts in terms of a place where 

people like to work. They get very good reviews. Any idea what it 

is like at the Census Bureau in terms of those rankings? Any idea? 

Mr. GROVES. Well, we have employees—actually, you told me this 

in one of my first hearings, so I followed up. 

Senator CARPER. Oh, good. 

Mr. GROVES. I tried to decompose why is it that NRC have employee surveys that measure attitudes, and it is a very mixed bag. 

There are some parts of the environment that are really energized, 

believe they are doing important things. I have analyzed those data 

myself and there are some bad things in the data. We get very high 

ranks on people believing what they are doing is important. That 

is a good thing for a public servant to have that. 

One of the most negative things is having to work next to someone who is not working very hard, the inequity of productivity and 

the lack of reward systems that allow one to get rid of deadwood 

and stuff like that. That is a drag on employee morale that is in 

the data. They are telling us that quite honestly and that is a hard 

thing to work on. 

Senator CARPER. OK, thank you. I am sorry, Mr. Goldenkoff, I 

interrupted you there. 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Just to build on that, making an organization 

a desirable place to work, and that is exactly what I was getting 

at. You were referring to the Partnership for Public Service, the 

survey that they do on best places to work in the Federal Government. And if you look at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and 

other organizations that have always ranked high, and I have to 

say GAO is among them, that— 

Senator CARPER. I like the way you worked that in there. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. I know my boss was up here earlier today. 

Senator CARPER. He never used a note. I told someone, I said to 

the other colleagues, I said, for all the years I have been here, I 

have only had two people come in and testify for an extensive period of time, and never use a note. He is one of them and the other 

is John Roberts, our Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Very impressive. 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Very. Well, you see me with my binder here 

and papers all over the place. 

Senator CARPER. You and me both. 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Comptroller General sets a high bar. But one 

of the things for those organizations that rank highly in the best 

places to work— 

Senator CARPER. I have noticed that with the change of the 

Comptroller General, there is a guy who sits right behind him over 

his left shoulder and when Gene Dodaro speaks, the guy right behind him, it is like his lips are moving. [Laughter.] 
23 

Senator COBURN. That is absolutely untrue. [Laughter.] 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Well, there is a clear and compelling mission 

of the organization. They have an aggressive recruiting program. 

They have a wonderful on-boarding process. It is one thing to recruit people, but what do they do once they get there? Is there a 

buddy system to keep them engaged? Are there rotational opportunities so they see all different parts of the organization? Is there 

a good work/life program? Things that make people want to stay 

and feel good about the place that they work for. 

And ultimately, what the Partnership for Public Service has 

found out, a lot of what it comes down to is leadership. 

Senator CARPER. I like to tell the story about listening on my 

way from my home to the train station last fall, I catch a 7:15 train 

many days and I listen to the news. I watch the 7:00 top of the 

hour, listen to NPR on my way to the train station. 

A number of months ago, late last year, NPR was reporting on 

an international survey. The question was being asked in the survey of people all over the world, thousands of people, is what is it 

about your job that makes you like it? And people had a wide range 

of responses, but a lot of people said, ‘‘Well, I like getting paid. I 

like getting a paycheck.’’ 

Some people said, ‘‘I like having health care benefits,’’ some people said ‘‘I like receiving a pension,’’ some people said, ‘‘I like the 

folks that I work with or the kind of surroundings in which I 

work.’’ 

What most people said was the thing that was the most important to them in terms of liking their work is they felt that they 

were working on something that was important and that they were 

making progress. 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Challenging work and making a difference. 

Senator CARPER. Yes, and that was the key for more people than 

not. One of the questions, when we get to the end of this session 

I am going to ask—the last question I will probably ask of you and 

you can just think about it now—is just think what each of you 

have said and I just want you to share with us something that you 

heard from one of the other two witnesses that maybe made you 

think a little differently or that you think is especially important 

that you would just like to underline and leave for us as we look 

at it. Just be thinking about that. 

I think Dr. Coburn got into this a little bit, but I am going to 

ask this question anyway and just ask you again, if you will. Starting with you, Dr. Groves, but just to reiterate again some of those 

important lessons that we learned from the 2010 census that the 

Bureau should really be focused on now looking ahead. 

Mr. GROVES. Well, I was not able to talk about some of the 

things, so I thank you for this question, first of all. We had, in 

2010—this was before my time so I cannot claim credit for it—the 

wisdom to design the post-enumeration survey, which is our way 

of evaluating the census, in a way that allows us to decompose the 

quality, the marginal impacts on quality of different operations. 

So looking forward on 2020, we have, for the first time, a way 

of asking the question, how valuable was a particular operation to 

the overall quality? Now, we do not have perfect cost data on each 

of those operations, but we could do pretty good work, and for the 
24 

first time, I think this decade will have cost/quality trade-off commentary on different components. 

Sometime this decade, if all goes well, we will publicly be able 

to say we could do this operation that costs X hundred million dollars and we think it would impact the quality this amount. We 

have never had a discussion in this country about how good does 

the census have to be for a particular cost. We will need Congressional help on this. 

Senator CARPER. How so? 

Mr. GROVES. It is crystal clear, in Article 1, Section 2, that the 

census will be done in a manner that by law Congress shall direct. 

For the first time, I think we will be able to give cost/quality tradeoff. The mandate in all paths, if you study the history of this is, 

do better, do better, do better. Or at a particular point in the decade, make it cheap, make it cheap, make it cheap, but we have to 

bring these together. 

Senator CARPER. There you go. 

Mr. GROVES. And it is a tough trade-off decision and it belongs 

to Congress, I believe. 

Senator COBURN. Yes, but there is a law of diminishing returns. 

Mr. GROVES. Absolutely and we know it. We see it in the data. 

But it is that law or that diminishing return that poses the issue. 

How much more money should be spent for what payoff, and what 

payoff is worth getting, which is basically a Congressional question. 

Senator COBURN. Well, we have 10 tough years in front of us at 

least. 

Mr. GROVES. Yes. 

Senator COBURN. And so those are going to be difficult discussions. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Zinser, do you want to respond to my question? When you look at some of the most important lessons learned 

from the 2010 census that the Bureau ought to be focused on at 

this time, would you just again restate those? 

Mr. ZINSER. We identified seven challenges looking forward for 

2020, based on what we saw in 2010. One Bureau priority is to 

stay focused on cost issues. A problem we saw in 2010 was the inability of the Census Bureau to accurately estimate the costs of its 

field operations and maintain the transparency of its money tracking. 

As a result one important lesson is to develop the cost-tracking 

capacity to be able to know, going through the operations how 

much they cost and how much progress or lack of progress is actually costing. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thank you. Mr. Goldenkoff. 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. I would say sustaining the reforms. The Bureau, past experience has shown that the Bureau has always gotten off to a good start. 1990 got off to a good start, 2000 got off 

to a good start, 2010 got off to a good start. And then things went 

awry before too long. Part of that was because, I think—and this 

goes back to the transparency issue—the Bureau was always late 

to acknowledge that there was a problem and that created more 

difficulties down the road. 

I think that is the greater challenge. It is one thing to come up 

with good ideas at the very beginning of the census planning cycle, 
25 

but good ideas and getting off to a good start are not enough. The 

Census Bureau needs to focus on priorities, risk management, continue to focus on changing the culture, and that is going to be difficult in the years ahead given the fiscal uncertainties, the leadership uncertainties. 

Senator CARPER. OK, good. I am going to ask maybe one more 

set of questions about the ACS here in a minute, but before I do 

that, our Governor Jack Markell, has just become since last Sunday the Chairman of the National Governor’s Association (NGA), 

which is a great thing for him and for our State. It is a post I once 

held when I was Governor of Delaware. 

I used to describe the States as 50 laboratories of democracy. 

They are not all the same, but we can learn from one another. In 

fact, we did. As Governors, we used to try to steal the best ideas 

from other States, and frankly, I would gladly share it with other 

States what we were doing, how it actually made sense. 

When you look around, again, the world, we look around the 

world at countries like us, maybe a little different from us, what 

are some of the lessons that we have learned from them that we 

actually are incorporating? Maybe what are some of the lessons we 

have yet to learn from them that we ought to be incorporating with 

the idea of better results, less money or better results for the same 

amount of money. Dr. Groves. 

Mr. GROVES. Well, I was a party to sort of a summit meeting of 

the English-speaking world. 

Senator CARPER. Really? When was this? 

Mr. GROVES. Statisticians, several months ago. 

Senator CARPER. I will bet that was pretty exciting. 

Mr. GROVES. Now, now. Statisticians can be exciting. 

Senator CARPER. You all did not have it in Las Vegas, did you? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GROVES. No, not at all. What I learned is that we face similar problems. Our societies, modern societies are moving in the direction that is common. We are more diverse because of immigration. Every one of the countries is encountering more new immigrants. We differ in various ways. By the way, we all believe there 

is a consensus that we must move to multiple ways of collecting 

data simultaneously. 

Senator CARPER. So everybody pretty much agrees on that? 

Mr. GROVES. That is clear. We all agree that administrative 

records must be a component to our future. Where we differ is the 

legal infrastructure. So if you take Australia as an example, the 

chief statistician in Australia has the authority to use, for statistical purposes, all record systems in the country, government, private sector, for statistical purposes. 

U.K. has a statistics law that spans all agencies and defines 

what rights and responsibilities a statistical agency has. Because 

of our history of a dispersed structure, we do not have unifying legislation like that. And that is, at this moment in history, a dealbreaker for our progress, because if administrative records are part 

of the statistical future, we are decades behind some of these countries. So that is a critical issue we need to learn from. 

The other thing, Brazil, the Brazilians did their census with 

handhelds after visiting the Census Bureau in the late 2000s, no-
26 

ticing that we were doing handhelds, and they succeeded in a very 

interesting way. We sent a team down to research. 

So there are lessons to be learned all over, and our decennial 

folks are trying to learn those lessons quite actively now because 

it is a period of enormous change in how statistics are collected and 

presented and we have got to stay up with them. 

Senator CARPER. Good, thanks. Mr. Zinser, any comments on my 

question? 

Mr. ZINSER. We have not done any comparative analysis of how 

different countries carry out their census. 

Senator CARPER. OK. 

Mr. ZINSER. We face particular challenges in the United States 

with, with the American Community Survey, especially tying it 

back to the constitutional issues that Dr. Coburn raised. I am not 

sure those kinds of issues exist in other countries. 

There are countries, for example, where the citizens are actually 

issued I.D. numbers that make it easier to count them. That is 

never going to happen here. In this respect, the United States does 

have a lot of unique challenges that other countries may not have. 

Senator CARPER. OK, thanks. Mr. Goldenkoff, anything on this 

particular point? 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. There could be lessons learned out there. Canada is one possibility, for example. They have been able to hold 

their census costs very steady for a number of cycles now. I think 

this country needs to have a better understanding of what is behind that. Is it because their census is conducted differently? Are 

they able—do they accept higher error rates than would be acceptable in this country? 

Is it because of something about their culture that they are more 

willing to give up personal information? Or are they doing something that the Census Bureau can truly adopt here in this country 

to help us control costs, unique and innovative? 

Senator CARPER. Let me just ask, Dr. Groves, 60 seconds on that. 

Tell us what you know, a little bit of what you know. 

Mr. GROVES. Statistics Canada is really a sister agency. We are 

back and forth all along. They do something that would be a radical change for us in the United States and that is, when a small 

area, a certain percentage of people have responded on the census, 

they will cut off efforts, and those are in the 90s, a pretty high 

rate. 

But many people do not know that most of our money is spent 

on those last percentages. This would take a different discussion in 

this country. Are we willing to stop at a certain point knowing that 

it is incomplete, but we have gone through a certain predefined set 

of efforts. We have never had that discussion politically. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thank you. A couple more questions 

and I will be excusing you. Dr. Groves, some of the critics of the 

ACS have suggested that all or much of the data from that survey 

are available from or could be culled, I guess, from other sources, 

maybe even from data that other government agencies collect for 

different purposes. Could you address that for us just very briefly? 

Mr. GROVES. My professional judgment is that that is incorrect 

and it is incorrect largely because of ACS’s attempt to have esti-
27 

mates, statistics on small neighborhoods universally, and there is 

nothing like that available. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Is that true, to some degree, and how 

would the Census Bureau go about supplementing what it collects 

in the ACS with data already available from other sources? I think 

you have spoken to this, but just a little bit more, if you would. 

Mr. GROVES. There are some of the attributes that we ask, questions that we ask people that do appear on record system that the 

Federal Government has collected. For those variables, we could 

have alternative ways of estimating. If it were done jointly with 

ACS, it would be even more powerful, in my professional judgment, 

and that is the vision we have for the future. 

Senator CARPER. OK. If I could, for Mr. Goldenkoff and Mr. 

Zinser, if the American Community Survey is de-funded or made 

voluntary, how would these changes impact planning, designing, 

and executing the next decennial census? 

Mr. ZINSER. The biggest impact that we forsee relates to how we 

recommended that the Census Bureau use the ACS as a test bed 

for the 2020 decennial, for example with questionnaire content— 

Senator CARPER. Would you have it be done over the Internet? 

Mr. ZINSER. That would be one of the tests, yes; the Bureau, in 

fact, is going to use the Internet for the ACS. With respect to Internet response options for the 2020 decennial having the ACS in 

place gives the Census Bureau the opportunity to perfect using the 

Internet for 2020 because it is not something that can be put in 

place overnight. It has to be developed. Security measures have to 

be developed. 

If the Bureau does not have an ACS, it will have to come up with 

another way to develop that capacity. That is one of the biggest impacts on the decennial that we have identified. 

Senator CARPER. Good, thank you. I appreciate that. Mr. 

Goldenkoff. 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. It throws a monkey wrench into the future 

plans because so much is riding on having, as Todd said, the ACS 

as a test bed for all these various systems, as well as puts the future costs to possibly raise them, because what has happened in 

the past is that the census systems will be designed for use in the 

decennial, one-time use. They would have to perform flawlessly the 

first time and they would never benefit any other survey. 

And so, the whole approach here is to start developing systems 

that can be used for the ACS, for the decennial, and other surveys, 

and greatly reduce costs. And that throws that whole plan into 

doubt. 

Senator CARPER. OK, thanks. Earlier I said the last question 

would kick it back to you and just say, is there anything here today 

that you would like to just reiterate, whether it is from one of your 

fellow witnesses or a thought that came to mind, parting shots? 

But do you want to go first, Mr. Goldenkoff? Anything you want 

to underline for us? 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Constructive oversight, that leads to the transparency that was so important the last couple of years. It has been 

very effective. We have all been able to get together here to talk 

about problems, solve them as a group. No surprises. And that is 

what is going to be so important going forward. 
28 

Senator CARPER. OK, thank you. Mr. Zinser. 

Mr. ZINSER. I was struck by how focused everybody is on cost. 

When I first arrived at the Department, what I was told is that, 

at the end of the day, Congress is going to give the Census Bureau 

the money that it needs. 

I would be concerned that attitude might resurface, but—if the 

Bureau were to run into the same trouble as with 2010 and had 

to ask Congress for an extra $2 billion for 2020—I really question 

whether or not Congress is going to be able to give the Bureau an 

extra $2 billion. 

As a result, this issue of cost containment is what everybody is 

focused on and that is very important. 

Senator CARPER. Good, thanks. I do not know how long I will be 

around here; that is really up to the people of Delaware, but for 

however long, I am here. We are going to focus in this Subcommittee and our Committee, at least from my perspective, on 

how do we get better results for less money or better results for the 

same amount of money, just about everything that we do. 

Dr. Coburn intimated we are going to be focused on that, I think, 

for probably as long as he and I will be here. Dr. Groves. 

Mr. GROVES. Well, let me take on something Robert said, my own 

version of it. I think this is a decade where we need help from Congress and we need an Executive Branch and Congress to come together on matters involving the decennial census. And the two 

principal ones we have talked about, but let me reiterate. 

Freeing up our ability to use administrative records to save 

money and improve quality is critical for where we want to go. And 

second, that will lead to a discussion this decade of trade-offs, of 

how much money is worth spending for what outcome. And we believe we are trying to assemble the kind of information to allow 

Congress to make wise decisions on that. 

But these are hard decisions to make and it is, if I read the Constitution right, the role of Congress to make that decision. So our 

job is to give enough information about these trade-off decisions 

and then for Congress to pay attention at the right time. One of 

the great difficulties we have is that 2020 seems like forever away 

in today’s world, but the decisions we need are going to be much 

closer to mid-decade to allow us to reduce risk on where we are 

going in 2020. So we need your help. 

Senator CARPER. Well, God willing and the voters of Delaware 

are willing, you will have it, and your successor will have it as 

well. I want to again echo the comments of Mr. Zinser and Mr. 

Goldenkoff about you and your leadership just to say what a joy 

it has been, a real privilege, for us—and I know I speak for Dr. 

Coburn—to have had a chance to work with you and your colleagues at the Census Bureau. 

You are not going to be that far away and my hope is that if you 

get a phone call from us somewhere along the line you will take 

it. My other hope is that you would spend some time, and it may 

be months from now, be willing to spend some time with your successor when he or she is confirmed. 

We presume there will be an interim director and hopefully 

somebody could—I am not sure who that is going to be, but I think 

I have an idea. We just hope that you will be willing to impart 
29 

some guidance from time to time to whoever does succeed you on 

a more permanent basis. In the Navy, when people are ready to 

ship out—when do you leave? 

Mr. GROVES. August 10 is my last day. 

Senator CARPER. And what is today, the 18th? So it is like 23 

days. That is 23 days and a wake-up, so we say in the Navy when 

we are thinking about coming home from overseas 23 days and a 

wake-up and it will be your time to ship out and actually sail for 

home. 

I just want to say, as we say in the Navy, fair winds and a following sea. And whenever people, in the Navy, do something especially good, well done, we say, bravo zulu, and for you and your 

team, bravo zulu. Thank you so much. 

Mr. GROVES. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. I am going to call just a brief recess and I am 

going to ask our next panel to go ahead and take their place and 

then we will resume as soon as I get back. Thank you. [Recess.] 

All right. Let us go ahead and resume our hearing. Thank you 

for understanding the brief recess. Dr. Jason Providakes. Did I get 

it close? Is that correct? 

Mr. PROVIDAKES. Providakes. 

Senator CARPER. So I got it right actually. Senior Vice President 

and the General Manager of the Center for Connected Government 

at MITRE. He leads the delivery of MITRE expertise to civilian 

agencies through the federally-funded research and development 

centers. The goal for the Center for Connected Government under 

his leadership is to provide enduring technical capabilities supporting the missions of civilian agencies accountable for leading 

critical national challenges. 

Mr. Providakes holds his doctorate from Cornell University, 

along with his master’s and bachelor’s degrees in electrical engineering from—is it Worcester? 

Mr. PROVIDAKES. Worcester. 

Senator CARPER. Worcester. All right. I should know that. 

Worcester. I apologize. Thanks a lot for joining us today and for all 

of the help that MITRE has provided. 

Dr. Jack Baker, an easier name to pronounce, is Senior Research 

Scientist at the Geospatial and Population Studies program at the 

University of New Mexico and serves as New Mexico’s representative to the Census Bureau programs on population estimates and 

projections. 

He participated extensively in the preparation for the 2010 census and chaired the group to redesign the 2010 count review program. In the fall of 2009, he was named a member of the National 

Academy of Sciences Panel to Review the 2010 census. He holds a 

B.A. from the University of North Dakota. Are you a native of 

North Dakota? 

Mr. BAKER. No, sir. 

Senator CARPER. All right. And M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from the 

University of New Mexico, all in anthropology. We are glad you are 

here. We have got three of them, three doctors here. 

Dr. Andrew Reamer, Research Professor at George Washington 

Institute of Public Policy at the George Washington University 

(GWU) where he focuses on Federal statistical policy and pro-
30 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Providakes appears in the appendix on page 99. 

grams, sources and uses of socioeconomic data, State and local economic analysis and strategy, and the geography of innovation and 

other regional studies. That is a lot. That is a mouthful, is it not? 

Mr. Reamer holds a bachelor’s degree in Economics from the University of Pennsylvania, right up the road from where I live, and 

a Ph.D. in economic development and public policy from MIT, 

where our oldest son went to school. He is a lot smarter than his 

dad, I can assure you. 

But we are happy you all are here and welcome your testimony. 

It is an important hearing. I am glad that Dr. Coburn suggested 

it. He will be back if he can and we will just say your whole statement will be made part of the record and feel free to proceed. I let 

the first panel go on for a while and we will do that a little bit, 

but I have some time constraints at the end here, so we will not 

be able to go quite as long. All right. Dr. Providakes, welcome and 

thanks so much. 

Mr. PROVIDAKES. Thank you and I can actually keep to the 5 

minutes to allow questions. I know that. 

TESTIMONY OF JASON PROVIDAKES, PH.D.,1 SENIOR VICE 

PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER, THE MITRE CORPORATION 

Mr. PROVIDAKES. Chairman Carper, thank you for the invitation 

to produce a more complete and effective enumeration of the census. Let me talk about that today for you. As you know, MITRE 

is a long-standing partner with the Department of Defense and 

many civilian agencies; the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), for example. We also work with the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA), 

the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS). 

As you mentioned earlier, MITRE is a not-for-profit company. 

Our sole activity is the operation of federally funded research development centers (FFRDCs), which operate for the benefit of their 

Federal Government sponsors. As alluded to earlier, our expertise 

is in scientific research and the analysis, development, and acquisition of system engineering and integration. 

I am here today sharing with you my perspective as a system engineer and as a technologist derived from many years of experience 

in large and complex systems, and as a contributor, also, to several 

scientific advisory boards. 

MITRE supported the Census Bureau in preparation for the 

2010. We continue to work with the Census as they prepare for the 

2020. Our role in helping to mitigate large risks that developed 

during the 2010 program informs my comments today. So I am 

going to try to get to those lessons learned that we alluded to earlier. 

The single most important question, in my view the Census 

needs to think about is—and indeed all government departments 

and agencies—how do we effectively and affordably capture technology innovation. I heard that most of today. How do you capture 

that innovation in terms of bending that cost curve that some of 

us are concerned with. 
31 

The good news is that today there is no shortage of hardware, 

software, and middleware that enables more efficient and accurate 

census taking that does exist. We are in the midst of geometric 

growth of technologies, in fact, and will continue through 2020. In 

fact, by 2020, we at MITRE join many others in predicting that the 

snapshot of today’s available technologies will feel as antiquated 

as, for example, the rotary dial phone did in 2010. 

The bad news is that challenges of technology selection and implementation in order of magnitude are more complex than they 

were in previous planning and R&D cycles. So how can the Census 

Bureau effectively and affordably capture the value from technology innovation? That is really the question we are trying to address. 

Our experience suggests there are two areas of operational 

changes in order for the Census to be more effective. I will try to 

address those two quickly. The first is—we heard this theme 

again—engineering for a data rich ecosystem. These datasets today 

across government are inter-dependent and lend themselves to 

some very valuable insight— 

Senator CARPER. Let me just interrupt you here. You can slow 

down just a little bit. Do not feel you have to rush. OK? 

Mr. PROVIDAKES. All right. Of that data rich ecosystem, and that 

is what we are trying to get to, my hope is that technology exists 

today. That for a paperless census, the technology will likely exist 

through 2020 for the automated census. I should also point out, 

without the physical storage space and logistics required for massive amounts of paper, the field infrastructure which lends itself so 

much for cost, can be radically reduced and re-envisioned. 

In MITRE’S extensive experience with the IRS, FAA, and others 

in the government, we found it is most effective with regard to enterprise modernization when ownership and control of this technical baseline exists within the agency. I will say more about that. 

The technical baseline effectively defines the capabilities and characteristics needed to deliver specific outcomes and guides the priorities for an acquisition program. 

It permits continuous trade space analysis of the optimal design. 

Our observation is that successful programs that use engineering, 

particularly enterprise engineering, and the technical baseline as a 

compass for navigating uncertainty and complexity of tomorrow’s 

technological advances. 

The second area is really this alignment of budget cycle and 

spending to realities of technology planning and acquisition. The 

census is a 10-year planning cycle. MITRE continues to recommend 

that agencies be given flexibility to adapt funding to react to 

changes in technology requirements. 

This should include multi-year authority and the authority to 

fund the up-front systems engineering and necessary trends of 

analysis and to evaluate and estimate the scope, cost, and schedule 

of their proposed investments without prior approval. 

This up-front investment is not trivial. In fact, perhaps up to 20 

percent of the total life cycle costs of an acquisition would be expensed. Overall program success is highly correlated to early investment in concept development and systems engineering. It is 
32 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Baker appears in the appendix on page 105. 

critical to successful execution, but today not available to the management budget process. 

There are two specific benefits really to this budgeting flexibility. 

First, it would permit utilization of contemporary risk mitigation 

techniques like beta testing we heard earlier. How do you test? 

Agile development, which we talked about, identification of trade 

space and negotiation, open source, and non-proprietary solutions, 

to name a few. 

Second, capability development could be undertaken on a continuous improvement basis rather than the point in time delivery 

basis we see many times by programs. I think those two areas and 

recommendations should be considered and I welcome your questions. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks so much. Dr. Baker, please. 

TESTIMONY OF JACK BAKER, PH.D.,1 SENIOR RESEARCH SCIENTIST, GEOSPATIAL AND POPULATION STUDIES, THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO 

Mr. BAKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you said in your introduction, I am a member of the National Research Council panel to 

review the 2010 census. Last year, the panel’s chair, Tom Cook, reviewed the findings of the panel’s first report, ‘‘Change and the 

2020 census, Not Whether, But How.’’ Today I would like to continue the conversation that Dr. Cook started and offer further suggestions on 2020 planning. 

From my own background as an experienced demographic methodologist, I need to make the disclaimer that my opinions in this 

testimony and this hearing are my own and should not be construed as formal word from the panel or the National Academies. 

It is fair to say that the panel supports the basic conclusion from 

its first report that the 2020 census can and should be conducted 

in a way that sees large scale reductions in costs per housing unit 

while maintaining quality. In the report, we identified four priority 

areas for 2020 R&D. These include applying modern operations engineering to field operations and making fuller use of administrative records. 

My comments today mainly cover the other two areas, emphasizing multiple response modes to the census, particularly the 

Internet, and continuous improvement of the Bureau’s geographic 

resources. I think the Bureau has embraced the notion that ongoing testing and experimentation are important aspects of 2020 

planning. 

The Bureau is working on a more adaptive process in operations 

and field management for its data collection programs. This will be 

tested and implemented first in the Bureau’s other surveys and 

then eventually form 2020 census systems. Under this process, respondents may move between different response modes and interviewer approaches based on past contact attempts and contextual 

information. 

This process of rethinking census taking as a more organic process rather than a string of only loosely integrated operations is cru-
33 

cial. It fosters the kind of exploratory and bold thinking that I 

think is necessary for the Bureau to meet its challenges. 

For decades, the Bureau has tended to layer on more and more 

operations, often in the name of improving overall quality, without 

stepping back to consider costs and benefits and cost/quality tradeoffs. I think that a management framework built on adaptive design can allow a better understanding of redundancies of effort and 

the resulting need to prioritize. My hope is that analogs of the 

same adaptive design may be brought to bear in other parts of the 

census besides managing contacts. 

That said, successful retooling of the census is only possible if 

2020 planning and R&D activities that will directly inform it are 

made an adequately funded priority. I believe the short-term upfront costs associated with 2020 planning are worthwhile investments with major long-term cost offsets. 

Gains from changes in the census processes will be undermined 

if the Bureau’s geographic resources are inadequate if individual 

census responses cannot be accurately linked to precise geographic 

coordinates specifically. Therefore, effective means for updating the 

Bureau’s geographic data resources, its master address file, and its 

TIGER geographic database are a key aspect of any census design 

effort. 

To this end, the Bureau faces a major decision on the extent to 

which it will conduct address canvassing prior to 2020. As you 

know, the Bureau sent staff to every block in most of the country 

in 2009 to verify or correct address list entries, and as others have 

noted, that is quite expensive to do. 

Looking ahead to the decision for 2020, the Census Bureau 

launched its Geographic Support Systems Initiative, which the 

panel generally endorsed in our first report. As this work progresses, I suggest that, first, there is a pressing need for quality 

metrics for both MAF and TIGER. To its credit, I think the Bureau 

has been candid in noting shortcomings in recognizing the need for 

improvement. This is just to say that there is a danger in slipping 

into the mind set that the Bureau’s own files are some sort of unassailable gold standard which they should avoid. 

Second, the Bureau’s geographic research should focus on the 

coverage properties of MAF and TIGER and those of alternative resources as others have mentioned. Those alternative sources include commercial databases such as Google maps as well as additional data from the U.S. Postal Service and other agencies. In a 

nutshell, my point is that it is exceedingly unlikely that there will 

be one single source that is universally best. 

The Bureau’s research should consider differences in quality and 

their effect on the resulting accuracy across different sources and 

for specific geographic and demographic subgroupings. 

Third, I think that the Census Bureau should consider the same 

kind of adaptive or flexible approach for updating its geographic resources as it hopes to implement in field operations. In approaching 

the address canvassing, my hope is that the Bureau can avoid the 

one-size-fits-all approach that has driven operations in the past. 

The geography and the housing address stock of downtown Chicago is different from that in the pueblos in New Mexico where I 

reside. Likewise, I think that developing models of MAF/TIGER 
34 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Reamer appears in the appendix on page 110. 

coverage and using them to strike a balance between field collection and tapping existing resources should lead to different approaches for those areas, too. 

Fourth, the Census Bureau can learn a great deal from outside 

its walls, from private and public sector organizations faced with 

similar challenges, as well as from statistical agencies in other 

countries. The Bureau should consider the techniques used by commercial MAF vendors in updating their products, draw from the experience of firms such as UPS, and study the specific operations 

conducted by agencies such as Statistics Canada. 

In closing, I understand that recent developments involving the 

ACS are a secondary topic for today’s hearing. As a regular user 

of ACS data, my personal hope is that the Senate will undo the appropriations amendment passed in the House. But in keeping with 

the main theme of this hearing, I would like to close by emphasizing that a healthy ACS is critical to an improved 2020 census. 

The ACS will be a critical proving ground for the adaptive process 

I spoke about earlier prior to ruling it out in 2020. 

I think that one flaw in 2020 planning to date is that the role 

of the ACS has not been fully fleshed out and trust that that will 

change. But, of course, the ACS cannot be a test bed for 2020 if 

it does not exist or exists in a severely hobbled form. I thank you 

again for the opportunity to testify and I welcome your questions. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, thanks very much for those words. Dr. 

Reamer, you are recognized, please. 

TESTIMONY OF ANDREW REAMER,1 PH.D., RESEARCH PROFESSOR, GEORGE WASHINGTON INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC POLICY, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY 

Mr. REAMER. Chairman Carper, I appreciate the opportunity to 

discuss recent developments concerning the American Community 

Survey. I will indicate why ACS cancellation would be destructive; 

review the negative consequences of a voluntary ACS, including exacerbating rather than reducing constituent concerns; and then I 

will offer an alternative approach to addressing those concerns. 

For decades, small area census data have been essential to the 

proper functioning of government, the economy, and our communities. Today, for example, the Federal Government uses ACS data 

to build statistics such as State personal income and annual population change, design, implement, and evaluate policies and programs, distribute over $450 billion in financial assistance across 

the States, and enforce the Voting Rights Act. 

State and local governments use ACS data to allocate scarce resources, calculate caps on taxing and spending, and redraw legislative districts. Economic development groups, businesses, non-profit 

organizations, and research organizations use ACS data to make 

informed decisions in their respective domains. And the public uses 

ACS data to understand changes in their communities. 

The origins of the ACS begin with Congressman James Madison, 

who on the floor of the House in 1790 said he wished that each census would gather information beyond bare enumeration so that fu-
35 

ture Congresses can adapt public measures to the particular circumstances of the community and mark the progress of society. 

For 222 years, Congress has fulfilled Madison’s wish, and in 2004 

approved the long-sought collection of census data more often than 

once a decade, through the American Community Survey. The advent of the ACS has made possible more informed public, business, 

and personal decisions in light of widespread long-term reliance on 

long form-type data. The survey’s cancellation would cause economic disruption, misapplication of scarce community resources, 

and increase waste of government funds. 

In terms of the issue of voluntary versus mandatory response, 

since 1790, the government has had the authority to fine anyone 

refusing to answer census questions or providing a false response. 

While current census law says the fine for not responding to the 

ACS can be up to $100, this cap has been superseded by a uniform 

sentencing act that Congress passed in the 1980s that sets the 

limit of the fine at $5,000. 

Members of Congress are hearing several types of complaints 

from constituents receiving the ACS. Some constituents experience 

the questions as an invasion of privacy; some distrust the government’s use of the data; some feel terrified or coerced by a possible 

$5,000 fine; and some who do not mail back the form feel harassed 

by Census Bureau staff. 

Several members have responded to these complaints by proposing to prohibit the government from imposing a fine for ACS 

non-response, in effect making the survey voluntary. However, a 

voluntary ACS would have the perverse effect of aggravating, not 

eliminating, constituent concerns. 

In memos, the Census Bureau says that to produce sufficiently 

reliable small area estimates, it needs to maintain the current 

number of completed ACS surveys and that failure to reach that 

number would lead to, quote-unquote, unacceptable estimates. It 

also says that based on field tests, a voluntary ACS would lead to 

a 20 percent drop in the mail-back response rate. 

The Bureau has asked, under a voluntary ACS, what changes 

would need to be made to get the current number of finished surveys, and the answers, as I understand them reading through the 

memos is, one, 23 percent more households would get an ACS form. 

So a sample almost a quarter larger. 

Two, 18 percent more households would get a follow-up phone 

call because if the response rate falls, there are more phone calls. 

And then three, 39 percent more households would get a visit from 

Census Bureau staff. So if the goal is to reduce the number of 

touches of the Census Bureau, to households this is going in the 

opposite direction. 

And then finally, the cost of these extra efforts would be about 

between $70 and $100 million added to the current $242 million 

base to get the same number of completed surveys. So I do not 

think these are the impacts of a voluntary ACS proponents are 

seeking. 

And in light of these findings, I suggest an alternative approach 

that relies on better information in communications and a minor 

tweak, a legal tweak, while maintaining a mandatory response. 

First, to address constituent concerns about privacy and data mis-
36 

use, I suggest that the Census Bureau offer the public access to information on ACS uses by State and place. 

With spidering technology, the Bureau could build a searchable 

online database with links to thousands of national, State, and 

local ACS applications. My belief, and it is a testable one, is that 

when seeing these applications, recipients would be more willing to 

complete the survey. 

Second, I encourage the Bureau to create an ACS partnership 

program modeled on the one it created for the decennial census. 

The Bureau would find and train trusted third-party organizations 

willing to give constituents information and reassurance on ACS 

data uses and confidentiality. To address concerns about the $5,000 fine, I suggest that Congress exempt the Census Bureau from the uniform sentencing statute and allow it to revert to fine caps of $100 for non-response and 

$500 for false statements, caps that were set in 1929, by the way. 

I recommend that the Bureau review and revise staff protocols 

and incentives so that non-respondents do not feel harassed. The 

Bureau might consider creating a hotline or an ombudsman for 

constituents. 

And finally, I encourage the Census Bureau to communicate 

more with Members of Congress about the ACS. The Bureau could 

periodically provide examples of recent ACS uses in a Member’s 

State or district, provide updates on efforts to encourage constituent response, and with each ACS release, provide the new socioeconomic profile of each Member’s State or district. 

In these several ways, I think constituents’ discomforts with the 

ACS can be addressed while avoiding steps that compromise the integrity of the data. 

So to conclude, going back in history once again, in George Washington’s 1790 State of the Union message, he offers a statement 

rich with relevance for the management of the ACS, to paraphrase, 

In every country, knowledge is the surest base of public happiness. 

Increased knowledge contributes to the security of a free Constitution in multiple ways, including teaching those in authority the 

need to gain the enlightened confidence of the people and teaching 

the people to distinguish between necessary exercise of lawful authority and oppression. 

I believe that with the Subcommittee’s guidance, the Census Bureau can find an approach that results in constituents experiencing 

a proper balance between an individual’s rights and duty to community and Nation. Thank you and I look forward to your questions. 

Senator CARPER. You bet. Thank you very much—let me just ask 

Dr. Providakes and Dr. Baker just to react briefly to what you have 

heard from Dr. Reamer. Any particular aspect of his testimony that 

you just want to underline, rebut— 

Mr. PROVIDAKES. I would not say rebut. 

Senator CARPER [continuing.] Hold up for ridicule? 

Mr. PROVIDAKES. We do throw technology around a lot as sort of 

the lynchpin to many of these solutions, almost like the Savior in 

terms of how do we deal with some of these issues. And it reminds 

me of the topic we just heard about, the Internet, and they want 

to use the Internet. To do that, to be informed for doing some ex-
37 

perimentation or testing of that with a large population, I think, 

is critically important. 

I think if you go back and look at what happened during the 

FDCA days, there was a vision and a view of handheld devices, but 

we did not really have full understanding of in terms of how people 

and their behaviors and how they do their jobs, actually utilize 

those. The same thing, I think, with the populace, understanding 

what people will do when you give them surveys and tell them to 

come to the Internet and come to a location. 

Getting some experience from that would have a lot to do with 

understanding not just that modality, but we heard about other 

modalities as well in terms of wireless devices. Getting some experience with that from a Census construct, I think, would add a lot 

of insight and value in terms of what that final architecture would 

look like going into the 2020. 

Senator CARPER. OK, thanks. Dr. Baker, just a brief reaction to 

some of what you heard from Dr. Reamer? 

Mr. BAKER. Well, I think my experience is most relevant to what 

Dr. Reamer was mentioned, was in working in the Local Updated 

of Census Addresses Program in 2007–2008, in which there was a 

large interplay between State and local governments and the Census Bureau in an interchange of address data. 

I think my experience reinforces Dr. Reamer’s comment that in 

some sense, the local governments, and this extends down to the 

constituents of those governments who are hesitant about these responses, not see a reward specifically for them in filling out the response. In other words, there is a burden, but they do not see how 

there is something within those returns. 

I think building the sort of partnerships that Dr. Reamer had 

mentioned becomes essential because people need to understand 

and see that there is something concrete that they get out of their 

participation. So I would just reinforce that comment and I do not 

have any other. 

Senator CARPER. OK, good. Thanks. Any response to what you 

just heard there, Dr. Reamer? No? OK, good. Maybe I will go back 

to a couple questions I would like to ask. The first one would be 

for Dr. Providakes, if I could, and we will work you in this line up, 

Dr. Baker, and maybe Dr. Reamer, too. 

In your testimony, you describe how it is important that the Federal agencies effectively and affordably capture value from technological innovation. You pretty much said that again here. Could 

you again help us understand how the Census Bureau could use 

cloud computing in its 2020 design? And also, what specific applications or services do you see the Census contracting for? 

Mr. PROVIDAKES. Well, I think clearly from a cloud computing 

perspective, that really talks to the fundamental infrastructure of 

how the Census collect data and would share data. One of the challenges I think one would find from a lesson learned from the 2010, 

when we did eventually rule out these handheld devices, the fundamental infrastructure that the people were talking to—there was 

a fundamental performance topics associated with that. 

What cloud computing eventually does, and I think the Director, 

Dr. Groves, mentioned that, is that it allows one to scale affordably 

in time for your needs. As you attempt to build out this infrastruc-
38 

ture for what you think that 2020 architecture will look like, cloud 

computing gives you an affordable way of doing that. You do not 

have to buy it all at once tomorrow. You can buy as you need. 

So that provisioning is a very powerful tool in terms of agility as 

the technology evolves. So by 2020, I would suspect you would see 

quite a bit of advancement in public clouds. I think you would also 

see significant advancements in whether we call them private or 

hybrid clouds where there is some dimension that is closed, but 

then again, there is some access to that hybrid cloud by other agencies and institutions in terms of sharing information. 

So that is just one example of how cloud computing can help 

bend that cost curve. Its agility of provisioning technology, when 

you need it and size and cost. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Dr. Baker, Dr. Reamer, do you want 

to respond or react to what we just heard from Dr. Providakes? 

Mr. BAKER. Well, I would respond just to reinforce and add. My 

special area of expertise is really in geographic mapping resources, 

and from the perspective of sharing information back and forth between the Census Bureau, that allows them to enumerate effectively, and local governments, who have information that would 

help them to do that, building this sort of infrastructure makes a 

lot of sense in that, because often times, it is very difficult to detect, for example, like with like a targeted address canvassing sort 

of program where you should be looking, but locals always know 

where you should be looking. 

And so, this sort of infrastructure would allow that to be done 

efficiently and at a very low cost and very effectively. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. Dr. Reamer, anything you would 

like to add or take away? 

Mr. REAMER. I am not a technical person or a statistician or an 

engineer, but I am doing something that is complementary to this. 

Senator CARPER. OK. 

Mr. REAMER. In May, I held at G.W. a data fair. 

Senator CARPER. I am sorry. Say that again. 

Mr. REAMER. A data fair where we had 50 different organizations 

that provide, in an innovative way, data that was not possible to 

provide even 10 years ago. We had Federal agencies and we had 

the private sector. We had Amazon, we had Microsoft, we had big 

data organizations. And the purpose was to have people meet each 

other. 

And so, I think Dr. Groves can attest to this, he was there, it was 

basically a 2-day opportunity for people, through serendipity, to 

find technologies, both from the public side and the private side, 

with synergies, I hope to get funding to do the fair again. I think 

we learned that a number of agencies, I believe including the Census Bureau, found some positive connections there in relation to 

cloud computing and other activities. Our role at G.W. in facilitating this process. 

Senator CARPER. OK, thanks. If I could come back to Dr. Baker, 

for the 2010 census, the Bureau dropped plans to use the Internet 

as a method for collecting data. What challenges might the Bureau 

face with an Internet response option for the census in 2020? 

Mr. BAKER. Well, I think first off, the consideration of Internet 

would be a considerable improvement. It is probably the one thing 
39 

that I can think of that could reduce costs, wholesale across the 

board in taking the census. The main challenge that I see with 

this—actually comes from where the sort of work that I do—is in 

geographic location of respondents. 

The Census is geographically grounded because it is used for apportionment, but often people are unaware that locally within the 

State it is also used for recalculating voting districts. And so that 

becomes important about where you place them on the ground, and 

there are a lot of open methodological questions about how you do 

that when it is an Internet-based response. 

They have given us a lot of thought. It is done in other places, 

so I am not saying it is insurmountable, but it does present a challenge that may be specific and unique to a highly mobile population 

such as we have. 

Senator CARPER. OK, thank you. Dr. Providakes, if you want to 

take a shot at that question as well? 

Mr. PROVIDAKES. I think on the Internet perspective, there is 

this view—that there is this significant cost saving that is going to 

come with going with one of the modalities of using the Internet 

as a replacement to, for example, mailings. I think that is a legitimate modality to look at. I think it is going to provide significant 

improvements, not just in cost, but, for example, in quality and engagement with the population. 

As I think Dr. Groves alluded to, the significant cost that I 

found, particularly in 2010, generally has to do with that smaller 

population, the ones that you have got to go out and touch, and the 

question is, do these modalities like the Internet help you really 

improve on that significant cost factor that we struggle with? It is 

that last 20, 30 percent. 

Today I think I saw a number of something like 70 percent people did mail in. I would expect that same sort of number of users 

would use the Internet. Can the Internet or other modalities get at 

those other elements where you try to go and touch where you have 

a higher massive number of people and hit the streets and actually 

count and get information from? 

That is where I think the 2020 time frame technologies of different modalities, people with wireless devices getting access to the 

Internet. Absent, then provide opportunities not just the Internet, 

but other modalities to get at those remaining 20 or 30 percent 

non-response. 

Senator CARPER. OK, thank you. I want to come back to the 

American Community Survey and pose maybe a couple of questions. Before I ask a question, let me just set it up this way, Dr. 

Reamer, if I could. This would be just for you. In recent months— 

and we have talked about this a fair amount today, but in recent 

months, there have been several proposals put forth in Congress 

that call for the elimination of the American Community Survey or 

to prohibit the government from penalizing those individuals that 

decline to respond to the survey. 

I would just ask, you talked about this a little bit already, but 

I just want to ask you more directly. How would the loss of the 

American Community Survey affect the cost and the scope of planning for the 2020 census, as well as future decennial censuses, and 

other Census Bureau surveys and estimate programs? 
40 

Mr. REAMER. Well, in terms of the relation between the ACS and 

planning for the 2020, I do not feel I have the expertise for that 

question. But if there were no ACS, Congress would then have to 

make a decision, does the Nation go back to a 2020 long form? And 

so, that would be an extra expense. I do not know if this is actually 

the case, but when the Census Bureau asked Congress to fund the 

ACS, it said it would make every effort to make the change from 

the long form to the ACS cost neutral. 

And so, the cost over a decade is $2.4 billion, so that could add 

that amount of money again, people at Census could tell you, but 

it would be an extra expense. If there were no ACS, the impact on 

the decennial would be the least—it would be an issue, it would be 

the least of the issues, because so much of the operation of the public and the private sector rely on the ACS for decision making in 

ways that are obvious and ways that are not obvious. 

So, for instance, the Medicaid reimbursement formula that Delaware gets is based on a Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) state 

per capita income, and the richer the State is, the lower its reimbursement rate. So per capita income is total income for the State 

divided by its population, and each of those numbers depends on 

the ACS. 

Total income. There are a lot of people who live in Delaware but 

do not work in Delaware. The ACS allows BEA to adjust people’s 

place of work earnings to place of residence earnings so that Delaware gets the right amount of total income for the State. 

On the population side, the ACS provides the data for international migration to the United States. So both those numbers, 

and then the ratio, which is how Medicaid’s reimbursement is determined, depend on the ACS. The ACS goes—we just would have 

to rely on old ACS data until 2022 or 2023 if there is a long form. 

And I can go on, there are many examples. 

Senator CARPER. OK, thank you. A follow-up question if I can. 

We know that many Americans who were asked to complete the 

ACS do not understand the rational for a number of the questions 

and how the data that they are being asked to provide is actually 

going to benefit their communities, their quality of life. Any ideas? 

And this would be a question for you and maybe for other panelists 

as well. But what could the Census Bureau do? Any specific ideas 

that you have to better explain to the American people the purpose 

not only of the survey generally, but of each question, as well as 

the data each question yields? Any advice? 

Mr. REAMER. Yes. In the testimony, I mentioned two ideas and 

I probably can think of a few more right here, but one is to create 

a uses database. I gave each Member of the Subcommittee a packet. In the packet is a 10-page listing of the uses of the ACS that 

I put together in 3 days. 

The Census Bureau has the ability to find uses on the web that 

are specific to a community. In your packet also are examples of 

uses specific to Delaware. We just did a search on Delaware and 

American Community Survey. So the Census Bureau could, in its 

cover letter, say, If you would like to learn more about how the 

data are used in your community, go our Web site, put in your ZIP 

code, and we will provide you with links to examples. 
41 

The Census Bureau could tag the examples by category. If people 

are interested in health or people are interested in bicycling or people are interested in disaster management, that those uses for 

Delaware could come up. So that is one. 

The second way, I think, is, as I mentioned, having an ACS partnership program so that there are Delaware-based partners, 

whether it is community groups or the State of Delaware or the 

City of Wilmington, or any of the above. I think there were over 

a thousand partners for the decennial census who would be trusted, who would be seen as trusted by local constituents, who could 

call them and ask, Is this for real, how is this stuff being used, and 

get a third party opinion about that. 

And then I think the Census Bureau could also, on its Web site, 

take each question and have someone click on that question and 

show nationally just the wide array of ways that the data collected 

from that particular question, whether it is flush toilets or journey 

to work, are used. So, I think in all those ways, the Census Bureau 

can make it easy and accessible for people to get information. 

Senator CARPER. Gentlemen, anything you want to add to that? 

Mr. PROVIDAKES. I would like to just echo that. There is great 

opportunity here in 2020. This is where I think the power of the 

Internet really comes into play. If, in fact, you put out an ACS on 

the Internet, you can almost envision where I go to fill out my survey, there is not just a form that pops up, but there are other links. 

There is information. There is a way to incentivize the user to better understand why Census is asking—what is the meaning of this 

question, what is the value of answering those questions. 

It gives more interactiveness as opposed to even a letter or a 

form in the mail. It is an opportunity to really help inform the people who are filling out the forms why the Census is important. It 

is at the point of experimenting with some of that behavior early 

to get a sense of what will people react to, what are they missing 

that is inhibiting them to just want to fill out or answer certain 

questions. 

You really gain a lot from that knowledge and you can actually 

see that reaction just like social networking does today, to how people are reacting in what districts, how they are reacting to certain 

questions and the like. So I think it is an opportunity to just think 

a little bit out of the box in terms of what the Internet could bring 

from that perspective. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks. Dr. Reamer, did you want to add something? 

Mr. REAMER. Yes. The ACS is facing a start-up challenge now because it is being sent to homes in the absence of any to-do about 

a decennial census. People have received a long form since 1960, 

but it was always preceded by a Presidential proclamation, that it 

is everyone’s duty to fill out the form. So, when people got it, it 

was, Oh, geez, I got the long form. One out of six households got 

the long form. 

Now, people are getting an American Community Survey and 

they do not have enough context. So it is easy to be fearful, it is 

easy to lack understanding, it is easy to have concerns because 

there is no infrastructure—informational infrastructure around it. 

One of the challenges of the Census Bureau is to build up recogni-
42 

tion and trust and information and familiarity with the American 

Community Survey. 

Actually, the Census has faced this issue before, in the 1790 census. All right? There was an argument in Congress—not argument—debate about a concern: Would people fill out the census 

form, because the Nation had never done a national census before? 

Well, it turns out that people in the north, in what used to be the 

northern colonies, Massachusetts and New York, were comfortable 

with the census because as colonies, they had censuses before, but 

people in the south had never seen a census and there was more 

difficulty. 

So it took a couple times for all the States to understand the 

value of the census, and in some ways, the ACS is facing the same 

situation that the original census did in 1790. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Before we wrap up, you heard the first 

panel testify and then respond to questions and have some discussion among themselves with us, and we have had a little bit of that 

here. Anything you may add? I just like to ask for closing statements. Just maybe take a minute, if you would, something you 

would like to underline, emphasize, change, or just something you 

thought of. But I would welcome that. I really do not care who goes 

first. Dr. Baker, would you like to go first? 

Mr. BAKER. Sure, I would be happy to. Thank you. I think the 

two things that stand out for me are a commitment to early planning, which I think is evidenced in the recent actions of the Bureau, so I would want to reinforce that. And also reinforce the idea 

of a more flexible, adaptive planning and operational set of processes that are enabled by existing technology, but that are really 

driven by the desire for accurate information. 

And so, balancing the use of technology and the gaining of statistically valid information, I think, really has to go in the direction 

of that process to be successful in the world that we live in today, 

and those two points, I think, are worthy of a take-home message. 

Senator CARPER. OK, good. Thanks. Dr. Reamer. 

Mr. REAMER. Yeah. Two things. One is, in looking back over 

Congress’s discussions about data collection in the 18th and 19th 

Centuries, I was struck by the passion that these Members of Congress had about data collection, because it was so difficult to do. 

And they just kept trying and trying, both on the demographic side 

and the economic side. 

And finally, by the end of the 19th Century, they had figured a 

lot of things out, the Executive Branch did, and I am struck by the 

difference between that and the lack of passion— 

Senator CARPER. The what? 

Mr. REAMER. A lack of passion, to a large degree, about some 

Members of recent Congresses regarding data, because data have 

become like the plumbing. There is, I think, a great under-appreciation of the value of data, of the teeny amount of money it costs 

the Federal Government to collect data that have orders of—uses 

valued at orders of magnitude beyond the original cost. You could 

not run the country without the decennial census. 

So, for instance, Mr. Webster, who introduced the amendment to 

prohibit carrying out the ACS, oversaw the redistricting process in 

Florida when he was Senate Majority Leader there, and set up an 
43 

open process for people to go online, My Redistricting, and you 

could use software to draw districts in Florida. 

Well, guess what those data are based on? The American Community Survey. Because you need the ACS for the citizenship data 

to be compliant with the Voting Rights Act. And then the—so, that 

is an example. I think Mr. Webster does not really understand the 

extent to which the ACS data are necessary. 

The second point is this. The Census Bureau—we were talking 

culture in the first panel, about the culture of the Census Bureau— 

and for decades, the culture of most Federal statistical agencies 

was one of production shops. Right? It was their job to just produce 

the data. Experts, the Council of Economic Advisors, Congress in 

developing formulas for allocation, they would use the data. 

It was not the Census Bureau’s role to figure out how the data 

should be used or even whether the data should be collected. That 

has changed. Right? With the Internet, all of a sudden all these 

data are accessible and 20 years ago for me to look at census data, 

I had to go to a Federal depository library. Right? 

Now it is instantaneous. It has been instantaneous for 15 years, 

but the Census Bureau is delivering data in a way—there are parts 

of the Census Bureau culture—that don’t understand that the Census Bureau has spun off as an independent organization. Parts of 

the Census Bureau still think they are a back-office shop. 

I think one of the great accomplishments of Dr. Groves has been 

to have the Census Bureau recognize that it is in business. It has 

customers. It needs to understand what its customers are looking 

for in terms of data, customers including Congress, but the public 

as well. And to have a back and forth, have a relationship with the 

users. This historically has not been the case because historically 

it was very difficult to do. So I think in this day and age, it is necessary for that cultural change. 

Senator CARPER. Something you just said. A question I often ask 

myself, even in government, who is our customer? And in thinking 

of the Census Bureau, the customers are obviously businesses, they 

are State and local governments that are involved in redistricting, 

and there are variety of others. But in a way, the customers are 

the people who are going to be filling out the surveys, because if 

they do not provide the information in a timely and accurate way, 

then what is being provided to the other customers that we have 

alluded to is not going to be as valuable. Dr. Providakes, last word? 

Mr. PROVIDAKES. I do want to echo the whole data topic and 

what I said the two key elements are, one of them being engineering a data rich ecosystem. I can just imagine by 2020 such an opportunity here looking at how do you understand and interconnect 

these various data sources which exist today, particularly at the 

administrative data sources, and engineering that construct, how 

you would use it for the 2020, I think, is an important imperative 

for the census and for broader government as a whole. 

Second, there has been this theme about how do you capitalize 

on technology? I think from a government perspective, which is not 

unique to Census, is how does an organization or a department become a smart buyer of technology. That is where the real challenge 

is. So getting a handle on what does that mean? It is getting smart. 
44 

I mentioned earlier it is about getting a handle on what is your 

technical baseline, what are you trying to do to find those requirements to some degree so industry can best respond and even partner with you as you are thinking through conceptually what that 

technical baseline will look like going into the future? 

And then finally a third, which is the organization. In my experience with Census through the 2010, I have to agree with the previous speakers that there has been a sea state change in terms of 

an organization being very transparent. So when I alluded earlier 

of empowering organizations to have more accountability of the life 

cycle and making decisions, I think that goes hand in hand with 

greater transparency. 

If Congress decides, OK, I am going to give you guys more leeway, that means you have got to provide greater transparency. So 

there is an opportunity here. It is a two-way street between accountability and transparency. When you talk about organizations 

and government which I have seen are exceptional, and I see Census moving down that way in terms of leadership, particularly with 

the current leadership in place, I think what I see that they fundamentally have instilled is what I call a learning organization. 

I see a substantial shift in Census being a learning organization. 

And when organizations are in that State of learning, I think that 

is where you find the greatest innovation. I think you find people 

having a better sense of purpose. They are willing to take risks. 

They are willing to be uncomfortable, because you learn the most 

when you are most uncomfortable, and I think the leadership is 

pushing the organization to be uncomfortable, to think outside the 

box, and I think that is very positive, particularly for the challenges for the 2020. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. Velvet handed me another question. 

I am not going to ask for you to respond right now, but I just want 

to—Dr. Reamer, you talked a little bit about partnerships, I think 

in one of your earlier comments, but I will ask you all to respond 

for the record to this question and that is, can you describe the 

value of the partnership program and assess its overall effectiveness in ensuring full participation of hard-to-count groups? And 

what should Census do in 2020 to keep stakeholders better informed? And we will provide that in writing. 

Appreciate you to kind of amplify, build on what you have said 

earlier. And for other witnesses, if you would like to respond, that 

would be great. It would help me. In terms of how long our colleagues have to submit any questions that they have, 2 weeks. All 

right. Two weeks. I can think of a lot by then. 

We would just ask as you receive those questions from Dr. 

Coburn and myself or Senator Brown, or from others, that you respond in a timely and prompt way. It has been a most informative 

hearing. Not one where people are actually beating down the doors 

to get in, Members or the press, but I think it is just really a very 

important, very important subject and an important point, timely 

point to ask, have this kind of hearing, and we appreciate you making it a real beneficial one. 

I think it was largely Dr. Coburn’s idea, but one I readily joined 

in, in saying let us do that. So with that having been said, we 

thank you all for your testimony. Sitting here, I can envision like 
45 

the clouds darkening outside. If it does not rain tonight, we have 

missed a great opportunity here. So hopefully it will because we 

could sure use all that. Obviously it is not just God playing a trick 

on us in getting our hopes up and then saying, Ah. Like in a Charlie Brown cartoon where Lucy pulls the football away. So hopefully 

that is not going to be the case here. 

Thank you all. It was a great hearing. We appreciate very much 

your participation. With that, we are adjourned.[Whereupon, at 

5:11 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(47) 

A P P E N D I X 

Opening Statement -Senator Carper 

This hearing will come to order. 

Today's hearing will examine lessons leamed from the 2010 Census while identifying initiatives 

that show promise for producing an even more accurate and cost-effective census in 2020. 

I would like to begin by thanking Dr. Groves for his commitment to public service and his 

willingness to help the Bureau navigate through such challenging times. I must admit the news 

of his decision to leave his post of Census Bureau Director is bitter sweet. When Dr. Groves 

came on board in 2009, the Census Bureau faced many challenges that threatened the success of 

the 20 I 0 Census. Dr. Groves, along with his dedicated staff, confronted these challenges head 

on and through his impressive skill set and background in issues related to the Census and to 

statistics, he helped right the ship, ensuring the completion of the 20 I 0 Census. 

Under his leadership, the Bureau completed key operations on schedule, hired nearly 900,000 

temporary workers, obtained an acceptable participation rate of seventy-four percent, and 

managed to report its population figures in time to support redistricting. The Bureau has also 

realigned its national field office structure and implemented key management reforms, reducing 

costs by an estimated $15 million to $18 million annually beginning in 2014. Three years after 

his arrival, Dr. Groves definitely leaves the Census Bureau in better shape than when he found it. 

However, despite these achievements, the 2010 Census was the most expensive in the nation's 

history by far, even taking inflation into account. The total cost of decennial operations 

escalated from an initial estimate of$I1.3 billion to around $13 billion. Even more disturbing is 

the fact that, with all the modem scientific improvements and technological advancements that 

have been made over the years, the framework for conducting the 20 I ° Census was based off of 

a model we first used in the 1970s. 

Although the methodological basics of the census have remained the same over the past forty 

years, the cost of the census has decidedly not. The average cost per household was $97 in 2010, 

compared to $70 in 2000 and $16 in 1970. And I've been told that the total cost of the 2020 

Census could rise to as much as $30 billion. This, in my view, is not acceptable. It's especially 

not acceptable at a time when we're struggling to find solutions to the serious deficit and debt 

crises our country is currently facing. 

I've spoken at previous hearings about the need for us to look in every nook and cranny of the 

federal government and ask this question, "Is it possible to get better results for less money?" 

The hard truth is that many programs' funding levels will need to be reduced. Even some of the 

most popular and necessary programs out there will likely need to do more with less. The 

Census Bureau, despite the vital and constitutionally-mandated nature of its work, cannot be 

immune from this sort of examination. 

Today, we will look at the Bureau's planning efforts for the 2020 decennial. Although it's eight 

years away, it's never too early to start to think about ways to reduce costs and improve quality 
48 

through more efficient data collection. More importantly, we need to make certain that the 

issues that lead to the failures and cost overruns we saw the last time around have been addressed 

and will not reoccur. Taxpayers should not be expected to pick up the tab for them again. 

Looking ahead, the Bureau's research should focus on how existing technology can be 

incorporated into the 2020 design. Obviously, the internet is here to stay and, according to 

experts, an internet response option could have saved the Bureau tens of millions of dollars in 

processing costs in 2010. 

Future research should not only focus on how to implement internet data collection, but also on 

how to reap the benefits - financial and otherwise of it and other technologies the next time 

around. We also need to make certain that the people who make up our growing and changing 

country are comfortable enough with the security of the data collection methods we use to allow 

for an accurate census. 

Moreover, steady leadership will also be critical in reversing a trend of decennial censuses 

marked by poor planning and escalating costs. The 20 I 0 Census experienced several changes in 

leadership and vast spans of time with acting or interim Directors, further putting the operation at 

risk. In the 27 months leading up to Census Day, the Bureau had three different Directors. 

Dr. Groves undoubtedly leaves some very big shoes to fill, but it is imperative that we get 

someone just as good in place as soon as possible so that we can avoid the operational and 

management challenges that plagued prior decennials. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, who will help us to identify ways to best 

balance the need for an accurate census, with the need to ensure a reasonable cost for this 

endeavor. 

Now, I'd like to turn to Senator Brown for any comments he would like to make. 
49 

Opening Statement by Senator Scott P. Brown 

July 18th, 2012 

Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, 

Federal Services, and International Security 

U.S. Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee 

"Census: Planning Ahead for 2020" 

The decennial census due to its size is probably the most schedule-driven 

project mounted by the federal government. The Census is a vital undertaking. 

The results are used to apportion seats to the House of Representatives, 

redistricting and to determine the annual distribution of billions of dollars in 

federal and state funds. 

The results ofthe 2010 Census were both encouraging and discouraging. 

It's encouraging that as our population has expanded to become more diverse and 

that the Census Bureau achieved a high degree of accuracy in the 2010 count. The 

discouraging news is that the cost of the 2010 count exploded from $8.2 Billion in 

2000 to $12.8 Billion in constant 2010 dollars. We simply cannot afford to repeat 

this growth in cost. As I have learned in my brief tenure here, we simply cannot 

continue to do things the way we always have and expect a different result. 

For the most part, the basic model of conducting the Census has not changed 

since the 1970 Census, including relying on the maHout and mail back of Census 
50 

questionnaires. As last year's hearing revealed the Census Bureau must innovate 

and bring the Census into the 21 st century. I am encouraged that Director Groves 

has recognized this need to change the Census and has begun many reforms aimed 

at reducing costs while maintaining quality. For example, I look forward to filling 

out my 2020 questionnaire on the internet. With Director Groves pending 

departure it becomes more imperative than ever that these reforms become 

institutionalized into the 2020 Census effort. 

I also want to voice my support for the continuation of the American 

Community Survey (ACS). The ACS is our country's only source of micro area 

estimates on social and demographic characteristics. The ACS Survey is critical to 

many businesses like AIR Worldwide of Boston which founded the catastrophe 

modeling industry in 1987 and utilizes the ACS survey in development of 

catastrophe modeling. Eliminating the ACS survey would be shortsighted and 

hinder the ability of the Census Bureau to achieve efficiencies in the 2020 Census. 

This is the second hearing this Subcommittee has had on the Census this 

session and I want to emphasize the importance of Congress maintaining vigilant 

oversight over the 2020 Census to ensure that reforms begun under Director 

Groves are successfully implemented. To accomplish this oversight we depend on 

the help of our oversight partners the GAO and the Commerce Inspector General, I 

would like to thank them for their excellent work on this topic and I look forward 

to all the witnesses' testimony. 
51 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF 

ROBERT M. GROVES 

DIRECTOR 

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU 

Census: Planning Ahead for 2020 

Before the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, 

Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security 

18 July 2012 

I am pleased to appear before the committee and to discuss the future of the 

Census Bureau. 

During my tenure as director, one of my greatest pleasures has been 

working closely with you, Chairman Carper, and with ranking member, 

Senator Brown, and especially, Senator Coburn. I thank you for your interest 

in and support for the work of the Census Bureau. 

Below I review the 2010 Census evaluations to date, the Bureau's current 

efforts to increase efficiencies of processes and quality of its product, the 

current budget Situation, and mid-term challenges that are relevant to the 

committee's oversight. 

A. Retrospective on the 2010 Census 

First, let me remind us all that at my nomination hearing in spring, 2009, 

most forecasts (OIG-19217, GAO 08 886T) warned that the 2010 Census 

was headed for disaster. That actually energized a whole group of people in 

the country who care about the Census Bureau as an institution. And that 

support clearly was related to my decision to take this position. 

1 
52 

But it turned out that all of those predictions were wrong. The team that was 

assembled late in the decade to run the 2010 census was really much, much 

better than anyone knew at the time. They had organized things in a way 

that made for success. So I was the beneficiary of good things that were 

done before I arrived. 

There were a variety of design decisions that created the success: the move 

to a short form led to higher response rates than in 2000; the replacement 

form sent to nonrespondents, although it generated a lot of grumbling, 

actually helped the return rate; and the bilingual form improved return rates 

for Latino households. 

Recently, we announced the statistical evaluation of the census through the 

post-enumeration survey, the Coverage Measurement Program. And this 

showed that the 2010 census was one of the best (if not the best) censuses 

this country's ever seen. The results found that the 2010 Census had a net 

overcount of 0.01 percent, meaning about 36,000 people were overcounted 

in the census. This sample-based result, however, was not statistically 

different from zero. By way of comparison, the 2000 Census had an 

estimated net overcount of 0.49 percent and the 1990 Census had a net 

undercount of 1.61 percent. We recognize there are still some groups we 

have a harder time counting, for example, renters, young children, young 

adult males, blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians on reservations. 

Correspondingly, we tend to overcount owners of homes, older persons, 

females, and White non-Hispanics. 

We returned nearly $2 billion dollars of taxpayer money and presented the 

key results before the deadline. All the glory for these accomplishments 

should go to the incredible public servants at the Census Bureau. The 

Bureau has demonstrated the competencies to be a modern, efficient 

organization. 

In addition to apportionment and redistricting results, we have released a 

number of other major data products including demographic profiles which 

show data for age, sex, race, Hispanic or Latino origin, household, 

relationship, household type, group quarters population, housing occupancy, 

and housing tenure. They were released for each of the 50 states, the 

District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, down to place/functioning minor civil 

divisions, as well as for the U.S., regions, divisions, and other areas that 

cross state boundaries. 

Our 2010 Census Program for Evaluations and Experiments (CPEX) is 

progressing well, and with requested funding we expect to wrap it up on 

schedule in 2013. Results from the 2010 CPEX will greatly inform how the 

2020 Census is designed, tested, and implemented. We expect to complete 

75 of 100 planned reports by the end of September, and the rest in 2013, 

funding permitting. 

2 
53 

We are in the middle of the 2010 Census Count Question Resolution (CQR) 

Program by which State, local and Tribal area elected officials may challenge 

their jurisdiction's 2010 Census counts. We offer this program because 

historically, there has been a small percentage of cases where an incorrect 

geographic boundary or coding of a housing unit was used to produce the 

official census population and housing counts for a local area. There may 

also be Census processing errors that need to be considered. 

For the 2010 Census program, we have several important activities that 

need to be wrapped up in 2013: a) dissemination of the final 2010 Census 

data products, b) completion of the Census Program of Evaluations and 

Experiments (CPEX) crucial to 2020 planning, and 3) completion by 

September 2013 of the Count Question Resolution program. 

B. The Census Bureau and Change 

The stimulus for change at the Census Bureau comes from five external 

sources: 1) increasing difficulties gaining the public's participation in 

censuses and surveys; 2) increasing demand for timely, and small area 

social and economic statistics to help the country make key decisions; 3) 

new technologies that may make data collection more efficient; 4) new 

statistical methods of blending multiple data sources together; and 5) the 

real prospect of flat or declining budgets to do our work. 

To adapt to these forces, we've tried to increase efficiencies and create new 

ways of doing our business. 

B1. Restructuring and realigning key functions in the Census 

Bureau for efficiency. 

Building a research and methodology directorate. With the approval of 

Congress, we have restructured the Census Bureau, adding a research and 

methodology directorate (the basic division of the Bureau), led by a rotating 

chief scientist from outside the Census Bureau on a 3-year 

Intergovernmental Personnel Act agreement. The purpose of the new 

directorate is to discover innovations in statistical operations that reduce 

cost. This group is working with other directorates to increase our use of 

modern statistical methods to produce more efficient statistics for small 

geographical units, greatly expanding the utility of our information products 

for communities throughout the nation. This group is leading our effort at 

intensive analytics on our data collection operations, building cross-agency 

capabilities of modern management by quantitative data. 

Realigning the regional offices. We reduced the number of regional offices 

of the Census Bureau from 12 to 6, simultaneously modernizing the 

supervisory structure and software support systems. We now have 24-hour 

reporting of initial statistics during data collection, along with richer process 

tracking of the operations. We attempted to keep ties with local communities 

3 
54 

by increasing the number of public outreach staff. All of these combined are 

saving money. 

Using matrix organization to increase efficiencies in survey data collections. 

The Census Bureau provides survey data collection services for other 

Federal agencies, amounting to about 25% of its budget. Our clients face 

the same declining budget resources that we do. We have built crossfunctional survey teams with technical and management resources to 

innovate and find efficiencies in our operations. Succeeding in this effort will 

benefit the budgets of these other agencies. 

Consolidating IT development and operations. We have new leadership in 

the IT directorate and given it enterprise-wide authorities. Instead of 

building different IT systems that serve single directorates, whenever 

feasible, we are sharing services. We have a standard internet survey tool, 

that has been used by hundreds of thousands of Americans to reduce the 

burden of responding to surveys. We have utilized public cloud services for 

efficiencies in peak load demand for key statistical releases. We have 

consolidated data centers. We have virtualized our servers, building a private 

cloud environment, and storage systems to maximize usage of processing 

power and achieve economies of scale. We have committed to shared 

building block capabilities for internal collaboration tools, data base 

structures, and central software systems. We created a center for applied 

technology, which is increasing efficiencies in exploring the use of mobile 

computing for data collection and enterprise-wide tools of data processing. 

We have committed to computer systems that decouple the user device from 

any sensitive data, giving secure access to our private cloud through 

virtualization and expanding our telework capabilities without having to 

provide government-provided and purchased equipment. 

Modernizing dissemination of statistical information. Through the new 

Center for New Media and Promotions, we have standardized the metadata 

structure of many of our statistics, and completed an application 

programming interface (API) that permits developers to build apps to access 

our statistics in new ways tailored to the needs of diverse audiences. Over 

the next several weeks, we will release our economic statistics app, running 

on diverse platforms, to provide mobile access to the latest economic 

statistics from the Census Bureau, Bureau of Economic Analysis, and the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics. More will come. We are simultaneously 

increasing the use of visualization tools in presenting our statistics, because 

that works for more audiences than reams of tables. 

82. Annual internal challenge grants for operational efficiencies. 

We have instituted an annual challenge to our staff - write down your ideas 

to make us more efficient and, if they're meritorious, we'll do them. 

Hundreds of proposals come forward each year; they're voted on by all staff 

using a new intranet social media tool; business cases are written for the 

4 
55 

best of them; and we implement the very best of the best. We've 

discovered that many of the ideas don't require any investment; they 

immediately produce savings, and we do them. Through this process we are 

attempting to build a culture of innovation, one that empowers each staff 

member to replace old, inefficient processes with modern, efficient ones. 

B3. Building better statistics through new analysis 

Just increasing efficiencies won't serve the American public's demand for 

better statistics. We're attempting innovations to produce more useful 

information. 

Statistical modeling for small domain estimates. Every mayor, every 

community group, every small business wants to know the statistical 

characteristics of small groups. These may be a neighborhood in a city, a 

set of potential consumers with common characteristics, or a set of 

businesses in a certain industry. They want timely information - knowing 

what a group looked like two years ago is generally of little value in our fast 

paced society. We have launched a team devoted to using modern 

statistical modeling tools to produce more timely, small group estimates that 

our country needs. These require blending together data sets to produce 

new information; we can do this without launching expensive new data 

collection operations. 

Combining data resources within Census Bureau firewa/ls. We have 

matched together data sets that then produce new information. For 

example, we have linked data on businesses to administrative and other 

data on their employees. This produces statistics on commuting patterns to 

work, and changes in the composition of growing and declining businesses. 

Once again, this new statistical information is created without creating 

expensive new data collections. 

Partnerships with extemal scientific talent. The Census Bureau can never 

possess all the talent it needs to build its future. Through collaboration with 

the National Science Foundation, we have established a network of 

university research teams working on inventing new solutions to key 

statistical, geographical, and computing problems we face. These nodes will 

also act as a graduate student pipeline for new technical talent the Bureau 

needs to solve its problems. We hope the best of them will work at the 

Bureau. 

Challenge grants to seek solutions from external talent. We plan to launch 

our first public challenge grant to produce statistical models predicting the 

patterns of participation in our demographic surveys and censuses. This will 

call on the collective statistical talent of the US to help us learn how best to 

identify areas and subpopulations that require new solutions for data 

acquisition. 

5 
56 

C. An Example of the New Way of Doing Business - the 2020 Census 

Planning Effort 

The Census Bureau recognizes that the rising cost of the decennial census 

in recent decades cannot be sustained. The cost of the 2010 Census (which 

includes the American Community Surveyor ACS) represented a 38 percent 

increase in the cost per housing unit over Census 2000 costs, which in turn 

represented a 76 percent increase over 1990 Census costs. If the Census 

Bureau makes no changes to the design of the decennial census, projected 

costs for the 2020 Census will increase at a similar rate. This is untenable. 

We must find a way to maintain the quality of data produced by the decennial 

census while increasing efficiency and controlling costs. Accordingly, we 

have embarked on a research and testing program focused on major 

innovations to the design of the census oriented around the major cost 

drivers of the 2010 Census. 

In restructuring the Bureau, we invented a new but small 2020 directorate 

charged with implementing new ways of planning the Census. As the design 

for 2020 becomes clear, the directorate will define its internal structure not to 

replicate the past but to tailor its organization to the needs of the next 

census. As the new structure grows, it will replace the old 2010 decennial 

directorate. And because we launched the 2020 research and testing 

program after we launched the organizational changes just listed, it will take 

advantage of their impacts. 

Enterprise-wide synergies inform the 2020 planning effort. As a measure of 

our devotion to reducing the "siloed" inefficiencies, we have created an 

executive-level steering committee that directs cross-directorate 

collaboration in the planning. This permits, for example, the implementation 

of the method by which the IT directorate will facilitate enterprise-level 

systems, avoiding the 2010 experience of building one-use decennial-only 

systems. 

We have restructured the research teams, making them smaller and more 

nimble. This will make the planning effort more efficient. 

We have explicitly targeted cost efficiency as a key attribute for 

developments. 

We are using many, small tests to evaluate alternative ideas rather than a 

very small number of very large tests. 

C1. Key design features 

There are key design features that we are working toward: 

Targeted Address Canvassing. In the 2010 Census, the Census Bureau 

mounted a substantial operation late in the decade to update the Master 

6 
57 

Address File (MAF) and the associated mapping system we call TIGER 

(topologically integrated geographic encoding and referencing) used as the 

basis of the census. While the Census Bureau took the important step last 

decade of bringing TIGER into GPS alignment, we still conducted the 

decennial operation called address canvassing. During address canvassing, 

staff in the field walked almost every street in the Nation to ensure that we 

captured every housing unit in the correct geography. This was one of the 

more expensive components of the census. 

Updating the MAFrrtGER system continually throughout the decade will 

enable us to reduce costs by targeting our canvassing efforts. This ongoing 

update also will benefit other census programs, including the ACS, other 

current surveys, and the Population Estimates program. Congress already 

has provided support for this ongoing initiative by appropriating funds for the 

Geographic Support System (GSS) in FY 2011 and FY 2012. The initiative 

supports ongoing geographic partnership efforts with federal, state, and tribal 

governments, as well as commercial entities, so that the Census Bureau can 

acquire the most up-to-date address and mapping information available. 

Multiple Mode Response Options. The population is increasingly diverse, 

and the general public's willingness to participate in government surveys has 

declined in recent decades. Traditional procedures that offer the public only 

one way to provide us with their data, and then follow up in person with 

households that do not respond to the census, are inefficient. 

The vast majority of costs during the collection phase come from following up 

with households that failed to return their census questionnaires. The 2020 

Census will be a "multiple-mode" census, using mail, telephone, internet, 

face-to-face interviews, and other electronic response options that may 

emerge to ensure that diverse subgroups of the population, including those 

that speak languages other than English, have every opportunity to submit 

their information. 

We also must fundamentally redesign the operations we use to enumerate 

households that do not initially provide their information to us. These 

operations, collectively referred to as non-response follow-up (NRFU), used 

a massive national infrastructure to manage hundreds of thousands of 

interviewers. This is the most expensive component of the decennial 

census. The Census Bureau must explore using existing data sources like 

the ACS and administrative records to obtain data about those households 

that do not otherwise respond to the census. Using administrative records 

for a SUbstantial number of non-respondents could result in substantially 

smaller field and labor infrastructure, thereby saving billions of dollars. We 

can also save money by modernizing the Information Technology (IT) and 

field support infrastructure. 

7 
58 

Increased Program Management and Systems Engineering Efforts Early in 

the Decade. Based on lessons learned, there were areas of program 

management that have potential for improvement. More robust models 

could have been developed for use in cost estimation. Project plans and 

schedules could have been formulated earlier in the program development 

process that included a decision matrix for determining the most effective 

utilization of evidence from research and testing. Moreover, the Census 

Bureau needed to take an enterprise approach for linking major acquisitions, 

schedule, and budget. The 2010 cycle experienced: (1) premature cutoffs 

for several design components, precluding technology upgrades; (2) a large 

mid~decade technology acquisition; and (3) a few very large field tests. 

These factors and others led to major, expensive design changes late in the 

decade, including the implementation of two high~risk contingenciesmoving to a paper-based non~response follow~up operation and the last 

minute development of an operational control system for non-response 

operations. 

To achieve the goals of the 2020 Census, the program's budget, schedule, 

and scope are being integrated, and an iterative process is being put in place 

that will allow flexibility in planning and design. The goal of this extensive upfront effort is to hold down costs later in the decade without compromising 

quality. 

The Census Bureau will adopt a new approach to budget, schedule, and 

scope. Initial 2020 Census planning began in FY 2011 with preliminary 

analysis and discussions of operational design and program management 

options. We now have entered a 3~year phase for the FY 2012-2014 budget 

period. During this phase, we are conducting the initial research and 

planning that will lead to the major design decisions for the 2020 Census. In 

later phases of the 2020 Census lifecycle, particularly during the FY 2015-

2018 period, we will continue efforts to research, test, and refine specific 

components of the program that follow from the major design decisions. 

During this second phase, we also will focus on operational development 

and system testing of the various components of the program. In FY 2019-

2021, we will move into readiness testing and executing the census. An 

increasingly more informed approach will enable decisions to be made 

based on continually increasing information and analysis. We will be able to 

develop cost estimates that are adjusted annually and synchronized with the 

schedule, requirements, and scope of the 2020 Census program as the 

design matures in keeping with the objective for controlling costs. 

The bottom line is that the more we can innovate, the more we can contain 

costs without sacrificing the high quality census that the country requires. 

This final point is important, and speaks to the direction from the Congress 

that the Census Bureau should discuss "challenges the Bureau anticipates 

that could prevent it from staying below the 2010 or even the 2000 spending 

leve!." The Census Bureau is tasked with producing the most accurate data 

8 
59 

possible in every census, including the 2020 Census. However, obtaining a 

complete and accurate census every ten years becomes more complex and 

difficult with each successive cycle. For the 2020 Census, a larger, more 

diverse population will be more difficult and expensive to count. While we 

can reduce costs considerably by utilizing advances in technology and 

innovations in the design of the decennial census as described in these 

documents, there is a point at which reducing costs could lead to a reduction 

in the quality of census data. The 2020 research and testing program will 

help us gain a better understanding of the extent to which we can contain 

costs without sacrificing coverage and data quality. 

C2. The mixed mode data collection system 

As an example of our new way of doing business, we are building an 

enterprise-wide system for collecting and processing survey and census 

data. This one system will replace multiple systems now in use, each 

requiring maintenance and upgrade costs each year. We plan to use the 

system for the American Community Survey, the 2017 Economic Census, 

the 2020 decennial Census, and many of our ongoing surveys. Of special 

relevance to the 2020 Census, it guarantees that the decennial will not be 

forced to use core systems for the first time. 

It will have the capabilities of ingesting sample identification data linked to 

administrative data or aggregate statistics informative of the likelihood of the 

unit participating in different modes of data collection. Through a set of 

prespecified business rules it will assign cases to internet, paper, telephone, 

face-to-face, and other modes of data collection, optimizing the cost and 

quality tradeoffs inevitable in modern surveys and censuses. It will use 

prespecified quality-cost tradeoff thresholds, and real-time estimation on key 

statistics in order to determine when the data collection efforts should 

optimally stop. 

As a measure of the new way of doing business, the team working on this is 

a small, cross-directorate, multi-disciplinary team, consisting of some of the 

best talent the Bureau has. This team will serve all directorates and will 

report to the key executive committee of the Bureau when cross-directorate 

conflicts arise. It has the full support of the director's office. 

Through such an effort we attain real benefits of 1) risk reduction for the 

2020 system development; 2) shared system development to all directorates; 

3) cross-directorate innovation diffusion; and 4) cheaper operating costs. 

D. The Census Bureau Budget 

Our country faces important Federal government funding challenges. On the 

Census Bureau's part, we have been striving to cut administrative costs, 

reengineer our survey processes, and find innovative ways to squeeze every 

cent of taxpayer money we get. This is an important duty, I believe, we have 

9 
60 

as public servants, and I am proud of the hard work of my Census Bureau 

colleagues on this score. It is also my duty to inform the country of the 

impact of budgets on the scope and quality of the nonpartisan statistical 

information the Census Bureau provides. 

The FY 2013 House Appropriations Bill has the effect of cutting the 

President's Budget request by $358 million or 37 percent and preventing 

implementation of core Census activities. The House bill lacks adequate 

funding to conduct the Economic Census, which measures the health of our 

economy. Moreover, due to a floor amendment, it does not permit spending 

for the American Community Survey, which produces the social and 

demographic information that monitors the impact of economic trends on 

communities throughout the country. In addition, the cuts will halt crucial 

development of ways to save money on the next decennial census and it 

eliminate many of the remaining 2010 Census data products and evaluation 

reports. It severely damages our efforts to build a cheaper 2020 census. In 

the last three years, the Census Bureau has reacted to budget and 

technological challenges by mounting aggressive operational efficiency 

programs to make these key statistical cornerstones of the country more cost 

efficient. Eliminating them halts progress to build 21st century statistical 

tools through those innovations. This bill, if enacted, will devastate the 

nation's statistical information about the status of the economy and the larger 

society. 

01. The American Community Survey 

The ACS is our country's only source of small area estimates on social and 

demographic characteristics. Manufacturers and service sector firms use 

ACS to identify the income, education, and occupational skills of consumers 

and employees in the local product and labor markets they serve. Retail 

businesses use ACS to understand the characteristics of the neighborhoods 

in which they locate their stores. Homebuilders and realtors understand the 

housing characteristics and the markets in their communities. Local 

communities use ACS to choose locations for new schools, hospitals, and 

fire stations. There is no private sector substitute for ACS small area 

estimates. The prohibition for spending money on the ACS would have 

devastating consequences on what the United States businesses and 

communities know about their markets and socioeconomic conditions. 

Even if the funding problems were solved in the proposed budget, the House 

bill also bans enforcement of the mandatory nature of participation in the 

ACS. 

Concerns of intrusiveness regarding ACS. First, we take seriously all 

concerns expressed by our respondents. Some feel that the questions in 

ACS are intrusive. I understand that without knowledge of the benefits to the 

respondent's local community or the nation as a whole, the questions asked 

on the ACS would seem unusual and unnecessarily intrusive. We have 

10 
61 

found that once people's concerns are addressed, they tend to participate in 

the ACS. In fact, over 97% of the households in the ACS sample participate 

in the survey. 

Our research shows that having a message about the mandatory nature of 

the survey acts to convey the importance of the survey to the respondent. 

Rather than tossing out the letter, the mandatory nature leads to people 

opening the envelope to entertain the request. These census questions 

have been mandatory for the sampled units for over 70 years, since the long 

form of the census was formed. Individual actions that produce important 

common good results are often sanctioned by the central government: young 

men are required to register with the selective service; we are all required to 

reduce our auto speeds by posted speed limits; and we're not allowed to 

smoke on airplanes. So too the first Congress in 1789-90 decided that 

answering Census questions would be mandatory. They did this because of 

the importance of the information to the country. 

We train interviewers to inform persons of the mandatory nature and to 

address their concerns about their participation. We offer to do the survey in 

separate pieces if they're pressed for time. We deliberately offer paper, 

telephone, and face to face interviewing, to fit the different lifestyles of the 

American public. We will add an internet option in January 2013 

Impact of making ACS voluntary. At a recent House Joint Economic 

Committee hearing, it was noted that we get useful statistics from the 

Current Population Survey (CPS), yet it is a voluntary survey, so why not 

apply the same methods to make ACS voluntary. As a statistician, I know 

the purely technical response to this is that it probably could be done. 

However, ACS was designed specifically as a different way to collect 

decennial census long-form sample. As part of the decennial census, our 

assumption from the beginning was that we were designing a mandatory 

survey. This had major implications for the survey design--e.g., we assumed 

it could start with a mailoutlmailback mode because it was likely we'd get at 

least 50% response rate to a mandatory survey. A voluntary survey with this 

scope of content would likely have had such a low mail response rate as to 

make mailoutlmailback impractical (not cost effective), which would have 

meant designing a survey for all personal visit interviewing (perhaps 

augmented with some telephone interviewing), as is done for the CPS. In 

short, a voluntary ACS achieving the same quality of estimates costs much 

more than the current design. 

If we did have to design a voluntary ACS, given the expected reductions in 

response rates from the mail and Internet response options, we would need 

to increase the sample size for the survey in order to maintain current levels 

of reliability of the estimates. Working closely with House appropriations and 

authorizing staff, a test was conducted in 2003 to provide answers to key 

questions about a voluntary ACS. The ACS currently employs three 

11 
62 

sequential modes of ACS data collection to maximize response and 

minimize cost: first mail, followed by telephone, and finally a sample of the 

unresolved cases are selected for personal visit. During the 2003 test, 

national cooperation rates fell across all three modes when the ACS was 

implemented as a voluntary survey. 

The mail cooperation rate fell by over 20 percentage points. This decline has 

important consequences. Given the sequential design of mail, telephone 

and personal visit for the ACS, a lower response in earlier modes leads to 

higher workloads in the later more expensive modes. 

Using the results of the 2003 test, and applying them to our current ACS 

sample size of 3.54 million addresses per year, we would expect that the 

telephone workload would increase by approximately 180,000 cases per 

year, and the personal visit workload would increase by approximately 

219,000 cases per year, but the estimated number of completed interviews 

would actually decrease by approximately 320,000. Therefore, we would 

spend more money given the increased workloads, but the reliability of the 

survey estimates would decrease: 

The design of the ACS seeks high rates of response by mail and telephone 

for two reasons. First, they are cheaper than personal visit follow-up 

activities. Specifically, based on the FY 2013 congressional submission of 

$242M, the cost per case in the mail workload is approximately $12.50, 

whereas it is $20.89 per case in the telephone workload and $149.57 per 

case in the personal visit workload. Second, the non-respondents after mail 

and telephone attempts are subsampled for personal visit follow-up, with 

inevitable loss of precision of the final estimates. 

Although the logic above is correct, ACS is implementing an Internet 

response option in 2013, and the 2003 test provides no information about 

how a change to voluntary methods would impact response on the Internet. 

If the ACS were to become a voluntary survey, the inter-related impacts on 

response, cost, sample size, and reliability would lead to the following 

options: 

Option 1. Maintain the same reliability of estimates from a voluntary 

design. In order to preserve the current reliability of the survey estimates 

using voluntary methods, the initial sample size of the program would 

need to increase to compensate for the reduced overall number of 

addresses interviewed to approximately 4.25M addresses per year. 

Given the significant additional program funding required to support this 

(an increase of between $78 and $103 million based on the FY 2013 

congressional submission of $242 million), it is not reasonable in the 

current budget climate to support this option. 

12 
63 

Option 2. Maintain current costs by reducing the personal visit workload. 

Without any increase in funds, the workload of cases sampled for 

personal visit would need to be reduced from 1,031,000 to 660,000 cases 

per year. This would have a significant negative impact on the reliability 

of the survey estimates (between 25 and 28 percent reduction), and 

would also have a significant detrimental impact on survey estimates for 

population groups that tend to be included at higher proportions in 

personal visit operations, such as households speaking a language other 

than English, households in rural areas, and American Indians to name a 

few, which puts at risk the ACS' mission to provide high quality estimates 

for small population groups and small areas. 

Option 3. Maintain current costs by reducing the initial sample size. In 

order to keep the cost of a voluntary ACS consistent with current funding 

levels, the initial sample size would need to be reduced to approximately 

2.9M addresses per year and reduced funds to support the lower mail 

workload would be moved to support the increased workloads in the 

telephone and personal visit operations. This would result in a reduction 

in the reliability (between 20 and 22 percent reduction) of the survey 

estimates, still putting at risk the ACS' mission of providing estimates for 

small areas and small population groups. 

Option 4. Maintain current sample size. Keeping the initial sample size at 

the current level of 3.54M addresses per year, the ACS would become 

more expensive as a voluntary survey (between $37 and $58 million 

increase), given the higher workloads for the more expensive modes. 

Despite the additional cost, we would still experience a reduction in the 

reliability of the survey estimates. The reduction in the reliability 

(between 10 and 12 percent reduction) would put at risk the ACS mission 

to provide estimates for small areas and small population groups, but 

would be less damaging than options 2 or 3. 

Finally, we are in the middle of a full scale program review of the ACS, 

assisted by an expert panel of the National Academy of Sciences. This has 

generated new ideas of seeking input from the public about our data 

collection procedures. We are restructuring the process of evaluating what 

questions are asked in the ACS, assisted by an interagency group led by 

OMB. We have improved our tracking of respondent concerns in order to be 

quicker at any needed interventions in data collection activities. Our 

eventual success is dependent on our ability to convey the large benefits of 

the ACS information made possible only with the participation of the sampled 

persons. 

02. The Economic Census 

13 
64 

The 2012 Economic Census provides comprehensive information on the 

health of over 25 million businesses and 1,100 industries. Done once every 5 

years, it provides detailed industry and geographic source data for 

generating quarterly GDP estimates. The Economic Census is also the 

benchmark for measures of productivity, producer prices, and many of the 

nation's principal economic indicators. At this moment, we are poised to 

request the key data from individual firms. The internet infrastructure is 

nearing completion. We have already printed 7.5 million forms, and are 

preparing the October mailing. The House bill reduces Economic Census 

funding by $44 million or 29 percent. Cuts of this magnitude will force the 

Census Bureau to terminate the 2012 Economic Census. 

Such an outcome would have negative consequences that include the 

following: 

• Without benchmark data from the 2012 Economic Census, the quality 

of the U.S. National Accounts and their GDP measure would degrade 

progressively, rendering these key statistics less useful for gauging 

economic performance, making effective economic policy, promoting 

jobs, and guiding recovery from the Great Recession. 

• The loss of business list updates and benchmarks from the 2012 

Economic Census would lead to progressive degradation in the 

quality of estimates from monthly and quarterly surveys that track the 

business cycle and provide much of the source data behind quarterly 

GDP estimates. 

• For similar reasons, there would be progressive degradation in 

producer price indexes, productivity indexes, and indexes of industrial 

production. 

• Without uniquely detailed statistics on industries, geographic areas, 

products, the characteristics of business owners, and specialized 

subjects from the 2012 Economic Census, state and local 

governments, businesses, and the American public would be deprived 

of information that guides decisions on hiring, starting or expanding a 

business, developing new products, or opening new business 

locations. 

• Cancelling the program now wastes $227 million already spent on 

preparatory activities. 

Done every five years, the Economic Census program produces basic 

statistics on employment, payroll, dollar volume of business, and related 

content for nearly 1,100 industries, from anthracite mining to zoos, and 

nearly 15,000 geographic areas, from the nation as a whole to towns (for 

selected industry sectors, it also presents limited data for more than 41,000 

ZIP Code areas). Economic Census statistics also provide details on 

business output for some 13,000 goods and services products, information 

on the characteristics of business owners, and many specialized measures, 

such as recently expanded data on franchising and employers' cost of 

14 
65 

employee benefits. Additionally, new data for 2012 will highlight key 

characteristics of U.S. enterprises, including measures of globalization and 

innovation. 

I have noted the Census Bureau's efforts to reduce administrative costs, reengineer survey processes, and improve the operational efficiency of its 

programs. The Economic Census is no exception. This program's costsaving measures include efforts to increase electronic response by offering 

web-based reporting for the first time; an improved data capture system that 

will incorporate optical character recognition for numeric data; use of the 

Postal Service's new Intelligent Mail Barcode to track report forms in the mail 

stream and optimize follow-up for businesses that are late in responding; 

targeted outreach to industries that are typically poor responders to reduce 

follow-up activities; and better data editing and review tools to reduce clerical 

and analytic intervention in the review of completed questionnaires. 

03. Implications on 2020 Census efforts of FY 2013 House 

Appropriations Bill 

The House appropriations bill reduces the funding for 2020 Census activities 

by $51.6 million in FY2013. A cut of this magnitude seriously undermines 

efforts to reduce the cost of the 2020 Census by delaying or reducing the 

research and testing, and delaying the final design for the 2020 Census. 

The cuts to the Census budget by the House will result in the reduction of up 

to 150 permanent headquarters staff. Staff with knowledge of census 

operations drawn from their work on the 2010 Census will be lost. This cut 

will also minimize most of our contracts for technical expertise and services, 

and prevent us from contracting for people with skills and experience we do 

not have in house. Staff with technical skills, primarily in IT, that can only be 

gained from the private sector, will be lost as well. 

Further, the detrimental effects of the proposed cut to the 2020 Census 

program is compounded by the proposed termination of the American 

Community Survey (ACS). The 2020 Research and Testing program plans to 

leverage the ACS as a test bed for the 2020 Census. If the ACS is not 

funded, a key underpinning of the 2020 research plan will be lost, increasing 

the cost of the 2020 Census, perhaps significantly so. 

E. Near-term Challenges Facing the Census Bureau 

Modern societies run on statistical information. Businesses, governments, 

nonprofit institutions, and, increasingly, households make their decisions 

only after seeking statistical information for relevant issues. In all other 

developed countries, a central government organization like the Census 

Bureau produces this information. In most other countries, the populace is 

asked to provide their own answers to survey and census questions, under 

strict confidentiality pledges, which are aggregated to produce the statistics 

that are freely given to all in the society. A key challenge for the Census 

15 
66 

Bureau is to effectively demonstrate how these small intrusions for the public 

produce sufficiently valuable common good information for the society. We 

must "make our case" every day, to diverse subpopulations with diverse 

attitudes toward the Federal government. 

The world of statistical information is changing at a rapid rate. A key 

challenge for the Census Bureau is to develop effective ways to adopt new 

technologies useful for data collection, as soon as possible after they prove 

their ability to offer efficient solutions. This will require nurturing the ties we 

have developed with university researchers and extending our ties with 

technology firms. The challenges are greatest with mobile computing 

technologies, new features of the internet, and new geographical information 

technologies. 

The world of data is changing at a rapid rate. In this country the private 

sector is assembling vast data sets, describing characteristics of households 

and businesses. Some internet-based data and other "big data" sources are 

relevant to the statistical information that the Bureau produces. A challenge 

to the Census Bureau is developing access to these data sources and 

learning how best to combine them with traditional surveys and census data 

to improve our understanding of the society and the economy. 

The world of statistics is changing at a rapid rate. Government statistical 

agencies must utilize new statistical modeling techniques that can enhance 

the quality of estimates by combining data sources. Every program in the 

Census Bureau can potentially benefit from such usage. We have built a 

core team that is identifying rich targets for such improvements. The 

challenge to the Census Bureau will be to gain access to auxiliary data from 

other Federal agencies that is needed in the models. 

It is my fervent hope that the future oversight provided by this committee can 

facilitate the Census Bureau in meeting these challenges. 

16 
67 

Testimony of 

THE HONORABLE TODD J. ZINSER 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

before the 

Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government 

Information, Federal Services, and International Security 

Wednesday, July 18, 2012 

Census: Planning Ahead for 2020 

Mr. Chairman. Ranking Member Brown. and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for inviting us to testify today on lessons learned from the 20 I 0 decennial and 

methods the Census Bureau could employ to design a cost effective and accurate enumeration 

in 2020. 

The constitutionally mandated decennial census is perhaps the most schedule-driven project 

mounted by the federal government. Each decade the Census Bureau must enumerate the 

population in years ending in zero and deliver the results by December 31 to support 

apportionment of Congressional representation. a cornerstone of our democracy. My 

testimony today is informed by the oversight we have provided last decade to both the planning 

of the 20 I 0 decennial and its execution. 

As we look ahead. there can be no question that the 2020 decennial must incorporate bold 

approaches in order to achieve cost containment while maintaining or improving accuracy in 

enumerating an ever-growing and increasingly hard-to-count population. Since the 20 I 0 

decennial completed operations. we have issued reports that offer the Census Bureau and 

Congress recommendations with those goals in mind (see appendix for details). The next 

decennial calls for new design elements and meticulous planning and testing-along with 

unprecedented transparency on the part of the Bureau. including early and continuous 

engagement with key stakeholders. 
68 

While it seems that the 20 I 0 decennial has just completed, we are rapidly approaching a critical 

decision point for the 2020 decennial, a point that must be engaged in a significantly more 

constrained budget environment. The critical juncture is that the Census Bureau must analyze 

the 2020 decennial design alternatives and make a design decision by the end of fiscal year (FY) 

2014. We must pay attention now because, as Congress is discussing agency budget authorities 

for FY 2013, all federal agencies are developing their FY 2014 budget submissions. The Bureau's 

budget seeks to leverage its current survey operations with the research and testing of new 

decennial design options and drive critical decisions the Bureau makes in setting the cost 

trajectory for the next census. 

The Census Bureau has vowed to contain costs of the 2020 decennial to an amount at a similar 

level to 20 I O. That is an important and admirable goal. However, last decade the Census 

Bureau made a similar vow: "Contain costs by conducting ... a reengineered census for an 

amount that is less than the cost of repeating the methodology used in Census 2000." The life 

cycle cost of the 2000 decennial was $8.2 billion in constant 20 I 0 dollars. The Bureau estimated 

in June 2003 that the cost of repeating the 2000 methodology in 20 I 0 would be $12.2 billion. 

The final cost ofthe 20 I 0 decennial was $12.8 billion. We simply cannot afford to repeat the 

cost growth experienced over prior decennials. Census must employ a new methodology. 

Our testimony today will address three points: first, we will review some important challenges 

the 20 I 0 decennial encountered. Next, we will detail some of the changes the Census Bureau 

and its stakeholders expect to improve the 2020 decennial. Finally, we will highlight key issues 

for the Bureau, the Department, and Congress to consider as the Bureau works to bring about 

these changes. 

Congress must pay early and sustained attention to the Census Bureau's development of design 

alternatives, adaptation of strategy, and development of budgets to support the 2020 decennial. 

This attention includes monitoring program developments, developing any necessary legislation 

to enable a reengineered census, and support for early and mid-decade research and testing 

requirements. Without this attention and oversight, there will be Significantly greater risk to the 

Bureau's ability to contain costs. 

I. Long-Standing Challenges the 2010 Census Faced 

The Census Bureau successfully completed decennial field operations in 20 I O. In May 20 I I, 

Census issued its assessment of decennial accuracy, which showed laudable results. The Bureau 

could even point to participation rate success that corresponded to cost savings: it had 

projected earlier in the decade that each I percent increase in the mail response rate would 

reduce the Bureau's costs by an estimated $85 million. It is generally accepted that the United 

States has been experiencing declining mail response due to decreasing public participation in 

surveys over the past 3 decades. The 20 I 0 decennial nonetheless achieved a higher than 

expected participation rate of 75.8 percent (versus the planned 69 percent). The Department 

attributes the higher response to conducting the paid advertising campaign and public relations 

efforts as well as implementing a short-form-only questionnaire. 

Despite these successes, the 20 I 0 decennial carried with it a high cost and a level of risk that 

should not be repeated. Oversight bodies-including Congress, GAO, and OIG-held hearings 

2 
69 

and issued reports that examined the costs and risks that the 20 I 0 decennial incurred during its 

decade of planning and execution. At the request of Congress. we issued quarterly reports. 

including a final report in June 20 I I that identified management challenges and included 

recommendations for the 2020 decennial. Some of the challenges OIG found most Significant in 

our quarterly reports to Congress concerned: 

• Cost estimation; 

• Data collection; 

• Administrative records; 

• An Internet response option; and 

• Risk management 

Cost estimation. Throughout the decade. the Census Bureau remained uncertain of what 

the 20 I 0 decennial's total cost would ultimately be. With a life cycle cost estimate of more 

than $11 billion in 2003. the projection topped $14 billion in 2008 and ultimately totaled in 

excess of $12 billion as decennial operations concluded in 20 I O. The final cost was nearly 

twice the cost of the 2000 Census (nominal dollars)--due in part to a late-stage design 

change and higher-than-expected contractor costs. In recent history. the cost of the 

decennial census has roughly doubled during each cycle. In a December 20 I 0 report, GAO 

estimated that using the 20 I 0 decennial design in 2020 could end up costing up to $30 

billion (see figure I). 

Figure I. Projected 2020 Decennial Life Cycle Costs 

in Nominal Dollars (Billions) 

$30 

$25 

$20 

$15 

$10 

$5 

$0 

Proposed 2020 <lesign Proposed 2020 design GAO 2020 estimate 

option low option high using 2010 methodology 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau business plan; GAO reporting 

Data collection. In preparation for the 20 I 0 decennial. the Census Bureau tried to contain 

costs by automating the largest. most costly decennial operations through the use of 

handheld computers (HHCs). Unfortunately, it lacked the knowledge and experience to 

effectively manage the large. complex IT acquisition. greatly limiting the value of automated 

field data collection efforts. For one of the lengthiest, most cost-intensive operations 

3 
70 

(nonresponse followup), the Bureau abandoned use of the HHCs and resorted to penciland-paper field data collection. 

Administrative records. The Census Bureau used administrative records-information 

collected for the administration of programs and provision of services by federal, state, and 

local governments and commercial entities-to a very limited extent (e.g., United States 

Postal Service data) during the 20 I 0 decennial. More extensive administrative records use 

could have reduced the cost of the non response operations (which, at $2 billion, were the 

most costly of the 20 I 0 decennial) and helped the Bureau avoid inaccurate enumerations. 

An Internet response option. The Census Bureau offered an Internet response option in 

the 2000 decennial but did not publicize its availability. While it received only 65,000 unique 

electronic submissions, the Internet was deemed a viable response option. The Bureau did 

not, however, implement this option for the 20 I 0 decennial; consequently, it relied 

primarily on paper-intensive operations, which were cumbersome, error-prone, and 

expensive. 

Risk management. OIG quarterly reports on the 20 I 0 decennial identified significant 

problems in project planning (e.g., not employing critical path management or thoroughly 

reviewing project start and end dates up front) and risk management (e.g., starting such 

activities late in the decennial life cycle and not completing contingency plans on time) that 

the Bureau needs to resolve to contain costs and maintain information quality for future 

decennials. 

In May 2012, the Bureau issued its assessment ofthe quality of the 20 I 0 counts. Currently, it is 

implementing an ambitious program to evaluate the design, methods, processes, and operations 

to build upon its past successes, while overcoming its shortcomings, as it plans the 2020 

decennial. 

II. The 2020 Census: A More Complete, Cost·Effective Enumeration Requires 

Fundamental Changes and Bold Approaches 

First, the Census Bureau must make fundamental changes to the design, cost estimation, and risk 

management of the decennial census to obtain a quality count for a more reasonable cost. 

Decisions made during this decade's early years will be critical for setting the course for how 

well the 2020 count is performed and how much it will ultimately cost. Table I shows a highlevel timetable of the 2020 decennial life cycle and the required deliverables. Failure to meet the 

deliverables imperils the schedule, which could drive up the costs of this decennial census as in 

2010. 

4 
71 

Table I. 2020 Census Life Cycle and Corresponding Major Deliverables 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau information 

Design. As part of its effort to redesign the 2020 decennial. the Census Bureau has 

generated rough order of magnitude cost estimates for four preliminary design options. 

referred to by the Bureau as Design Alternatives I. 2. 3. and 4. spanning the decennial life 

cycle of FYs 2012-2023.' Each ofthe four known design alternatives varies to the extent of 

address listing. mode of enumeration. and infrastructure setup. Table 2 (next page) provides 

a high-level summary of the differences among the different decennial design alternatives. 

! There are two other design alternatives for which the Bureau has yet to generate cost estimates. Design 

Alternatives 5 and 6 rely heavily, or nearly exclusively, on the use of administrative records and include no address 

field operations. Testing involving these two options remains ongoing and the extent of their potential use is 

unknown. 

5 
72 

Table 2. Comparison of Four Decennial Census Design Alternatives 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 

Design Alternative I, the most expensive option, would cost a projected $17.8 billion and 

makes few changes to the 20 I 0 decennial design. Design Alternative 4, the least expensive 

option at a projected cost of $12.6 billion, relies most heavily on new approaches (e.g., 

targeted field operations and administrative record use). The costs of the remaining two 

options fall between these figures. The Census Bureau bases these costs on assumptions 

that the American Community Survey (ACS) program will continue. With Congress 

debating the elimination of funding for this survey, which replaced the long-form 

questionnaire for the 20 I 0 decennial, the Bureau must prepare to factor the significant 

uncertainty this would create into ACS planning and 2020 decennial designs. 

Cost estimation. The Census Bureau plans to update estimates annually to improve future 

budget requests. Per its decennial business plan, the Bureau will have a preliminary 

operational design by FY 2015 based on initial research and testing. From then on, the 

budget for 2020 decennial should provide more accurate estimates for the finalized design 

and associated costs. This is important because 71-80 percent of decennial costs, depending 

on the design, are incurred in the 3 years leading up to enumeration (FYs 2018--2020). Ifthe 

Bureau is successful with its testing for a new design, the best-case scenario would be a 

2020 decennial that ends up costing roughly the same as the 20 I O. 

Risk management. In previous work, we recommended that risk management activities 

begin from the outset of the current decennial census life cycle, rather than just before field 

operations (which defined risk management for the 20 I 0 effort). Similarly, a National 

Research Council report on redesigning the 2020 decennial encouraged planning for the 

next decennial to start early in the life cycle to ensure a more cost-effective design. For the 

next decennial, the Census Bureau should implement appropriate risk management from 

the outset and finalize contingency plans prior to the start of decennial operations. 

Next, the upcoming decennial must incorporate bold approaches in order to achieve cost 

containment while maintaining or improving accuracy in enumerating an ever-growing and 

increasingly hard-to-count population. The Census Bureau has mapped these new directions 

with five major 2020 design research tracks (see figure 2, next page). Specifically, the Bureau is 

6 
73 

considering strategies for reducing cost and increasing quality: automating data collection, 

reorganizing the field infrastructure, reengineering the IT infrastructure (including an Internet 

option), enhancing map quality through continual address updating, and using administrative 

records. 

Figure 2. Five Major Research Tracks for the 2020 Census Design 

These design tracks are new to the 2020 decennial planning process. However, the impending 

departure of the Bureau's director puts these initiatives at risk, as they require strong 

leadership. 

Data collection. Tailoring response options and automating data collection in the field 

could replace millions of paper forms and maps, and it remains a viable goal. To that end, 

the Census Bureau is launching a project to establish an adaptive design approach to 

conducting data collection faster and cheaper than the current prevailing survey philosophy, 

which strives for the highest response rate until time or money runs out. The "Adaptive 

Design" project creates a centralized, data-driven system that enables the Bureau to realize 

efficiencies in data collection, make knowledgeable tradeoffs between costs and errors, and 

to make better decisions on when to stop data collection efforts. However, in order to 

automate data collection in 2020, Census must improve its IT acquisition process early in 

the decade. 

Field infrastructure. In June 20 I I, the Census Bureau announced a significant regional 

office restructuring. Marking the first such change since 1961. the Bureau expects to 

complete restructuring by January I, 2013. The number of offices that manage nationwide 

surveys using thousands of permanent field representatives will decrease from 12 to 6 (see 

figure 3, next page). 

7 
74 

Figure 3. Census Regions, Effective January I, 2013 

.-~ 

Source: u.s. Census Bureau -- According to the Census Bureau. this reorganization aims to lower costs, improve 

efficiency, and increase responsiveness. The Bureau used objective criteria to select office 

closures and expects to save $15-18 million annually, starting in FY 2014, with few staff 

reductions. With the new 2020 decennial design still under development, it is unknown how 

these changes in the field will impact the Bureau's goal of containing the cost of the 

decennial census while preserving data quality. 

IT infrastructure. The Census Bureau must improve its IT acquisition process early in the 

decade. To effectively implement a cost-effective and high-quality, redesigned data-collection 

operation for 2020, the Bureau must leverage emerging technologies. It is currently 

exploring the idea of a program similar to the U.S. Department of Defense's Venture 

Catalyst Initiative (DeVenCI)? Such an operation could increase the Bureau's awareness of 

emerging commercial technologies developed by nontraditional suppliers, as well as provide 

insight on census redesign needs and requirements to potential new suppliers. 

The Internet is another tool that should reduce decennial IT costs. Statistical agencies in 

other countries, including Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, have 

employed the Internet to collect census data. An Internet response option would not be 

new to the United States either. The Bureau intends to provide an Internet response option 

, According to the Department of Defense, DeVenCI fosters interaction among venture capitalists, small 

innovative companies, and potential Defense customers to identify and adopt emerging commercial technolOgies to 

meet Defense needs; see Department of Defense. DeVenCi (Defense Venure Catalyst Initiative). http://devenci.dtic.mil. 

8 
75 

in 2020 and as part of the ACS. Given the pervasiveness of the Internet and the public's 

ever-increasing reliance on it, we find it difficult to envision a 2020 Census without an 

Internet response option, albeit one that addresses IT security concerns. 

Continual address updating. The Census Bureau describes "an accurate, comprehensive, 

and timely [address] list" as "one of the best predictors of a successful census." If the list is 

incomplete or inaccurate, people may be missed or counted more than once. Errors in the 

Bureau's master address file also increase the costs of nonresponse followup and other 

census operations. To reduce costs for the 2020 decennial-as we reported in May, the 

bureau spent nearly $1.4 billion in the decade preceding 20 I 0 to produce the decennial 

census address list-the Bureau intends a continuous program of more robust updates of 

its maps and addresses database. A continuously updated, accurate database would improve 

the address lists and maps throughout the decade and support a less costly targeted address 

canvassing operation. To achieve this for 2020, the Bureau has introduced a $407 million 

initiative, called the Geographic Support System (GSS), to reduce costs. The Bureau also 

looks to gain enhanced address-list sharing capabilities with tribal, state, county, and local 

governments; this would bolster their Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) Program 

and the improvements it can make to the Bureau's address list. 

Using administrative records. Greater use of administrative records offers the potential to 

enhance the decennial census in a number of important areas: from improving the master 

address file to finding households or individuals who may otherwise be missed to providing 

quality control for the enumeration process. These personal records contain information 

that individuals have already provided to the government. such as their names. addresses, 

age. sex. race, and a wide variety of demographic, socioeconomic. and housing information. 

As indicated in the Census Bureau's 2020 business plan, supplementing decennial operations 

with information from these records could potentially reduce enumeration costs and help 

the Bureau avoid inaccurate enumerations in the follOWing ways: 

• Improving the address list; 

• Supplying answers to questions with invalid or blank responses; 

• Providing information for households that do not respond to the questionnaire, an 

in-person visit, or a phone interview; 

• Offering quality control; and 

• Helping assess overall decennial accuracy (i.e., coverage measurement). 

However. relevant statutes governing other federal agencies do not facilitate the use of 

administrative records by the Census Bureau because these statutes either do not compel 

agencies to provide their records to the Bureau in response to requests or state that 

agencies are only required to provide certain information to the Bureau. 

Finally. as we stated in our final 2010 decennial quarterly report to Congress, Census must 

implement a more effective decennial test program using the American Community Survey (ACS) 

as a test environment. 

9 
76 

Background. ACS data are used in countless ways; its strength is in supplying a timely. 

consistent set of data. nationwide. across various levels of geography. The ACS provides: 

• Annual statistics for all areas with populations greater than 65.000; 

• 3-year estimates for all areas with populations greater than 20.000; and 

• 5-year estimates for all areas. 

Replacing the census long-form questionnaire with the ACS was a key goal of the 20 I 0 

decennial redesign. After eliminating the long-form questionnaire for 20 I O. the Census 

Bureau anticipated an improved 20 I 0 response rate by featuring a short-form-only 

questionnaire. The ACS simplified the once-a-decade population and housing enumeration 

and provides the detailed demographic. housing. social. and economic characteristics 

throughout the decade in support of government programs. the business community. and 

the general public. 

The ACS and testing for the 2020 decennial. Leading up to the 20 I 0 decennial. the 

Census Bureau conducted three large site tests in 2004. 2006. and 2008. Although the 

Bureau scheduled its site tests at 2-year intervals. each one transpired over 3 years of 

planning. implementation. and evaluation-resulting in overlap with prior or subsequent 

tests. This overlap made it difficult for the Bureau to build on experiences and incorporate 

feedback from previous tests into the operational design it examined in the next test. For 

the 2020 decennial. the Bureau intends to implement smaller. focused research and testing. 

The ACS infrastructure allows for the creation and testing of enterprise-wide solutions to 

obstacles that face all survey and decennial operations. In our final 20 I 0 report, we 

suggested that the Census Bureau use the ACS to explore areas such as questionnaire 

content and design. response options (such as the Internet). use of administrative records. 

and targeted field data collection procedures and methodologies. According to the Bureau. 

Internet-response option tests have already produced useful results and will soon be 

implemented in the ACS. An ACS Internet response option that meets federal security 

standards would help the Bureau develop an IT infrastructure for its 2020 decennial 

program earlier in the decade. The cost and expense of building a secure Internet response 

option. for one-time decennial use, was cited by the Bureau as one reason for not using the 

Internet in 20 I O. 

The ACS ond a more efficient Census workforce. We have also suggested using the 

existing trained workforce. based primarily in the Census regions. for enhancing the 2020 

decennial. This permanent workforce conducts other Census surveys such as the ACS on 

an ongoing basis. Using these workers to continuously update the maps and address list 

throughout the decade could reduce the size and improve the accuracy of the end-ofdecade map and address updating operations. 

By meeting these challenges. the Census Bureau and its stakeholders can maintain or improve 

on the quality of the 2020 decennial while containing cost. 

10 
77 

III. Key Issues for the 2020 Decennial 

The Census Bureau. the Department of Commerce. and Congress should take immediate 

action to lay the groundwork for a cost-effective 2020 decennial. We have identified the 

following key issues for consideration: 

Departmental oversight of automated data collection. Departmental oversight should 

playa role: early in the process. it can reveal whether the Census Bureau has considered all 

reasonable project alternatives or if it is assuming too much risk. In this way. the 

Department can work with the Bureau to address problems before unnecessary costs 

accumulate. Supported by early independent cost estimates and independent assessments. 

its oversight can playa critical role in ensuring decennial IT investments stay on track. 

Planning within a constrained Census budget. As research and testing continues. the 

Census Bureau must contend with and plan for several challenges that could adversely 

impact the next decennial. Like the rest of the federal government. it is operating in a 

constrained budget environment. In FY 2012. as a result of a reduction in its budget request 

for FY 2012. the Bureau canceled 20 of 109 studies that aimed to measure its performance 

in the 2010 decennial. The Bureau must be strategic in how it spends it available funding. 

And it must provide the Secretary and Congress reliable and transparent budget requests. 

Continuity of leadership. Leadership continuity is essential to maintain momentum as 

planning progresses for the 2020 decennial. Absent stable. committed leadership. any 

organization tends to revert to its embedded culture. Because of the long planning cycle for 

the decennial. it is particularly critical that stable leadership chart the direction for the 

Census Bureau according to a consistent vision. A leadership void adds risk to the Bureau's 

management of critical issues (e.g .• budget, operational design. and questionnaire content). 

Reverting to historical practices is a particular risk for the Bureau in the absence of strong 

leadership. It will be important to make the appointment of a new Director a priority. 

Internet use and data-sharing. The Census Bureau is in the process of testing several 

design strategies for the 2020 decennial. In order to prepare for 2020. the Bureau must 

make a preliminary design decision by the end of FY 2014. Decisions made during the next 

2 years will largely determine the cost and quality of the next decennial; thus. the Bureau 

must use the lessons learned from 20 I 0 to guide its future decisions. and Congress may 

need to consider plans and legislation related to an Internet option and data-sharing to help 

achieve a cost-effective 2020 decennial census. For improving the address list through data 

sharing. the Bureau will need to look to Congress to address Title 13 restrictions on the 

Bureau reciprocating address information with the very partners who assist the Bureau. 

Specifically. while the Census Address List Improvement Act of 1994 helped by authorizing 

the LUCA program. further legislative action would help establish even better methods of 

two-way address sharing. 

Administrative records use. The Census Bureau possesses appropriate authority to 

request and use administrative records from all government sources under 13 U.S.c. § 6. 

and the Privacy Act permits other agencies to disclose their records to the bureau. 

However. legislation governing other federal agencies either does not compel those 

II 
78 

agencies to provide their records to the Bureau in response to requests or states that 

agencies are only required to provide certain information to the Bureau, limiting its 

usefulness. Congressional guidance on the disclosure and permitted uses of administrative 

records for the decennial census would be necessary to facilitate administrative records use 

by the Bureau. 

The ACS and the 2020 decennial. Two recent developments may potentially impact both 

the ACS and the Census Bureau's decisions on decennial design, planning, and 

implementation. 

First, Congress has initiated debate as to whether the ACS, which currently requires a 

response from each sampled household, should become voluntary. As part of its 

deliberations, Congress will consider the implications of making this a voluntary survey. 

Census Bureau research conducted in 2002 and 2003 indicated that a voluntary ACS would 

result in: 

• Mail response rates falling by over 20 percentage points; 

• Annual costs increases, by at least 38 percent, to achieve a comparable level of 

reliability; and 

• Reduced data quality for areas of low response and small population groups (e.g., 

blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and American Indians). 

The Census Bureau's concern about a lower response rate appears to be consistent with 

the recent results of the Canadian census. That country's 20 I I census, which occurs every 

5 years, shifted its long-form data collection from mandatory to voluntary-and 

experienced a 25 percent decline in its long-form questionnaire response rate. 

Congress is also considering whether or not to completely eliminate funding for the ACS. 

As part of its deliberations, Congress will consider the implications that defunding the 

survey will have on the 2020 decennial, including: 

• The replacement of a continuous nationwide testing process with discrete largescale site tests, upon which the Census Bureau can determine a more cost-effective 

decennial design; 

• The loss of a trained and experienced workforce, distributed across the nation to 

support decennial operations; 

• The ability to establish an IT infrastructure to support an Internet response option 

that meets federal security standards; and 

• The potential need to reinstate the long-form decennial questionnaire, currently not 

a factor in any design alternative. 

Considering the Census Bureau's goal of maintaining the quality and containing the costs of 

the 2020 decennial, defunding the ACS would create significant uncertainty for decennial 

planning. 

12 
79 

Appendix 

2020 Decennial Recommendations to the Census Bureau Director 

from 20 II and 2012 OIG Reports 

Recommendation 2020 Decennial Life Cycle Phase 

Census 2010: Final Report to Congress (OIG.II.OJO-I; June 27, 2011) 

I. Conduct an analysis of the causes of the 'significant cost ' 

savings for 20 I 0 field operations and incorporate those 

findings into any future validation studies to generate a 

more accurate final cost estimate . 

. 2. Obt.lna;;d .. I;e·io"dependentCOSt estimates·iovalldate ·c 

Research and Testing 

i internally derived cost estimates (that include i Research and Testing 

contingency reserves). ~T .. Develop a transparent-deciSioo'documentatioo strategy· ., ....... --.... -.-.. - .......... --.... - ...... . 

I to account for 2020 census program and spending i Research and Testing 

i decisions. \ [4.'· Improve the transparencY-of thedecenni3Tbudget' ··-·-rResearchand·Testiiig-; --... 

! process, especially the presentation of surplus (or : Operational Development and Systems 

: elimination of the surplus) as shown in the monthly i Testing; 

i _~.nancial management reports. ._ .. _.._._ .. ~eaclir1"~s.I,,sti~~,.l:xecution, andC::~()~",,~~ ... rs. Reevaluate the practice of frontloading and develop a i Operational Development and Systems 

i better process for developing workload and cost : Testing; 

i . assiJ.."'.p!i.Cl"s. ____ ................ . ................. _. __ .j Readirl<l~s.,.estin~,.E)(ecution'. and Closeout 

'-6: Explore alternative approaches for conducting the 2020 

Census that include (I) Internet and web-based response 

options, (2) automated field data collection alternatives, 

(3) utilizing administrative records, and (4) incorporating 

into the decennial process experienced field 

representatives who conduct non decennial Census 

surveys each year. 

Research and Testing; 

Operational Development and Systems 

Testing 

--)-:-lmprove'·com-munlCation"with"the-pubTic·on-co-ncUrrent --" -... ~.--.-.--.-------.-~~-------~- -----~---

enumeration surveys and better inform people who did Research and Testing; 

not receive decennial census forms at their homes how Operational Development and Systems 

, they might participate. Testing 

ca:··lncreasethe sample sizeof the AmeriCan·Community········ 

Survey (or other surveys) to use as a test environment 

for conducting smaller tests of new processes, Research and Testing 

___ ~~_~.:9~!~_~:._~~.~_~~~~~~: __ .~_~ ____ ~ .. "_ .. ·······-·-·ResearCh·and Testing;· _ ..... 

9. Thoroughly review and improve decennial census Operational Development and Systems 

training methods. Testing 

.~--..... ~ .... -.---... - ....... ~Researchao(fTestirig;--·--···· 

10. Explicitly address enumerator safety in collaboration Operational Development and Systems 

with the Department, law enforcement agencies, and Testing; 

Congress . ... __ .... ... .......... .. Readiness Testil1~ .1?<..."cution'.~119.c:I()s.e.o.".t .. 

13 
80 

,iiis.!,'ii"!".",.!. 

~ I I. Regarding requirements management: 

a. Institutionalize effective requirements management 

processes that balance Census stakeholder needs and 

make appropriate cost, schedule, and performance 

tradeoffs; 

b. Ensure that major stakeholders fully participate 

throughout the entire acquisition process; and 

c. Maintain accurate cost estimates on cost 

reimbursement contracts to align them with 

identified requirements and subsequent changes. 

3

1

'3".'939,'1'6"5"""99'6+1* 

Research and Testing; 

Operational Development and Systems 

Testing 

12. Align system development schedules witi;~oper,ii:iOnal-+-~---' ~-.-. -.~~-~--~-.----~--.-

deadlines to allow adequate time to test systems before Research and Testing 

their deployment. If'Continuously update'the-maps~an-daddress lists---'--~ ~- ......... -._ .. _-.. -._-- ---.. -~~-.. ---

i Research and Testing; throughout the decade, supplementing these activities . Operational Development and Systems 

with targeted address canvassing at the end of the 

decade. Testing 

i4:~ ReVlewhothacfdressc;;nvassing practices and post:data 

collection processing to minimize errors on the maps 

that support subsequent operations. 

~15. [)evelop acq"lsitl,),,-jjfecycleoversigl1tproceduresto 

manage project risk that correspond to government and 

Research and Testing;- .. 

Operational Development and Systems 

T estin_g ___ ~ 

Research and Testing 

__ ._i"dustry best practices. ._--.---.... - '-+ResearCl1~a;'dTesi:ing;--~'-----' 

16. Strengthen and implement a risk management strategy Operational Development and Systems 

and relevant contingency plans before starting 2020 Testing; 

decennial census operations. : Readiness Testing, Execution. and Closeout 

~.----.~----.. ----~--.. --.------~ '"--~----".- '--'-+--ResearChancl Testini""-·--"·-~-----··----·--·--

17. Develop a 2020 decennial lifecyde schedule early in the Operational Development and Systems 

decade, finalizing the operational schedules as soon as 

practicable after research and testing are completed. TRest ding; T . Ex . d CI i ea mess estlng. ecutlon. an oseout 

~--nr Regarding the-part,,-erSiilp programandspecial'- ------' ..... .-------.--.--- --.-.--~--.---

enumeration operations: 

a. Improve advance coordination with partnership 

organizations. 

b. Ensure Partnership specialist skills are aligned with 

project requirements, 

c. Establish procedures to mitigate the risk of duplicate 

enumerations, and 

d. Institute a more effective process for selecting and 

confirming sites to enumerate. -19.-------.----.-.-.---... -"-.-~-- -

a. Specify how to align Partnership activities and 

objectives with local Census office schedules to 

remedy current systemic shortcomings. 

b. Ensure jOint Partnership- local Census office manager 

training as part of the decennial process. 

c. Refine the recruitment and hiring process and 

training of Partnership assistants. 

d. Provide Partnership assistants adequate electronic 

______ I'E!sour_~~.c:J.c>..t.heir j()~~ ___ ~ __ ~ 

14 

Readiness Testing, Execution, and Closeout 

Readiness Testing, Execution, and Closeout 
81 

of improving methods of sharing MT db information 

throughout the decade with governmental entities 

national list. 

ungeocoded address records. which had been designated 

as valid U.S. Postal Service delivery addresses. from the 

20 I 0 census. 

use of administrative records. to ensure that updates to 

the MAF are accurate. 

OIG-I 2-030-T 

15 

Operational Development and Systems 

Testing; 

Readiness 

Research and Testing 

Research and Testing 

and Closeout 
82 

GAO 

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 2:30 p.m. EDT 

Wednesday, July 18, 2012 

GAO-12-905T 

United States Government Accountability Office 

Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on Federal Financial 

Management, Government Information, Federal Services, 

and International Security, Committee on Homeland 

Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate 

2020 CENSUS 

Sustaining Current Refonn 

Efforts Will Be Key to a 

More Cost-Effective 

Enumeration 

Statement of Robert Goldenkoff 

Director 

Strategic Issues 

GAO 

Accountability.,. Integrity * Reliability 
83 

Highlights o( GAO·12·905T,a t~$"mony 

befpt:&the ~Ubpommlttee on Federal ~ina~iat 

Management, GoVl!(lllllel\t Infbrlnation, ' Feder:.a1 $er'Vic~/ahd Intemation;.tl Security~ 

committ~ on Homet~nd S~and 

Govemmentl\l A(falrs, 1!S-S_. 

Why GA.O DidThi& Study 

O~ining .an accurate census itt llie 

face 'Of SOCietal trends such as 

increased privacy cor)cems and a 

more diverse population has: greatly 

increased the cost (If the census,At 

$13 billion: 2010 was too eostliesl 

census iI)U.s. history, Wrt~ut, •• 

changes, future enumerations ~Idbe ' 

fiscally unsus)alnable.GAO'spast 

work noted that eally plannil1g, lea(!ing 

matlagetnentpractices; and strong 

congressionaloversight, can help 

fllduce the coSts 'alid risksofthe . 

ertHmeraUon.GAO also idenUlied four 

key lesS!)l1s teamed from 2010 that 

could help secu,e.a ,more cost.effeCUve 

2020 Census. The Bureau agreed and 

is taking steps to address them, As 

requested,this lestimonyftlCuses on 

t!1e Bureau's progress !lit these I"ssons tearned and what remains to 

bedQne~oing forward. It ls~ased on 

GAO's col\1Pleted work, including an 

3!1alysls of Elureau dotuments; 

interviews with. Bureal! officials, :and 

~e~~~d';e;:;; l!fa~~:S:=:~s country. 

What GA.O ReCOlllltlelids 

Gi\O Is no! making new 

recommendations in this teSUmony, bUt 

past reports .recommendedlhat the Bureau strengthen its testing of key .IT 

systems, develop policies and 

:~=::~a:~~:~~:~;~iml planning mare co.nslslent witl:ltellCling 

mSQsgementpractlc13s, The Bureau 

g"neraHy agreed wi\h GAO's findings and re<;ommendations and is taking 

steps to implement them •. 

View ~AO.12.905i Of key to~pon~ f« more infOrmation, contact RObert Gokjenkoff 

at (202) 512·Zt67 "'9Ofdenk_9",o,gov, 

2020 CENSUS 

Sustaining Current Reform Efforts Will Be Key to a More Cost-Effective Enumeration 

What GAO Found 

Overall, the u.s. Census Bureau's (Bureau) planning efforts for 2020 are off to a 

good start, as the Bureau made noteworthy progress within each of the four 

lessons learned from the 2010 Census. Still, additional steps will be needed 

within each of the lessons learned in order to sustain those reforms, 

1. Reexamine the nation's approach to taking the Census. The Bureau has 

used a similar approach to count rnost of the population for decades. However, 

the approach has not kept pace with changes to society, Moving forward, the 

Bureau has begun to rethink its approach to planning, testing. implementing, and 

monitoring the census. For example, the Bureau is researching how it can use 

administrative records, such as data from other government agencies, to locate 

and count people including nonrespondents. Use of administrative records could 

help reduce the cost of field operations, but data quality and access issues must 

first be resolved, 

2. Assess and refine existing operations focusing on tailoring them to 

specific locations and population groups. The 2010 Census had several 

operations tailored to specific population groups or locales. For example, the 

Bureau mailed bilingual English/Spanish forms to some areas and sent a second 

questionnaire to areas with historically lower response rates. Preilminary 

evaluations show these targeted efforts contributed to an increased awareness of 

the census and higher mail·back response rates. For 2020, the Bureau is 

considering expanding these efforts. Designing future studies to better isolate the 

return on investment of key census operations would help the Bureau further 

target its operations to specific population groups and locations and potentially 

gain significant cost savings, 

3, Institutionalize efforts t(l address high·risk areas. Focus areas for the 

Bureau include improving its ability to manage information technology (IT) 

investments and develop a reliable cost estimates. In January 2012, GAO 

reported that the Bureau did not have pOlicies and procedures for developing the 

2020 Census cost estimate. In moving forward, it will be important for the Bureau 

to improve its IT acquisition management policies and develop better guidance to 

produce more reliable cost estimates. 

4. Ensure that the Bureau's management, culture. and business practices 

align with a cost-effective enumeration, In May 2012, GAO reported that the 

Bureau's early planning efforts for the 2020 Census were consistent with most 

leading practices for organizational transformation, long term planning, and 

strategic workforce planning, Nevertheless, GAO found that additional steps 

could be taken to build on these early efforts. For example, the Bureau's 

schedule does not include milestones for key decisions to support the transition 

between planning phases. These milestones are important and could help with 

later downstream planning. 

_____________ United States Government Accountability Office 
84 

Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Brown, and Members of the 

Subcommittee: 

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

Census Bureau's (Bureau) planning and reform initiatives for the 2020 

Census. As you well know, the nation's population has been growing 

steadily larger, more diverse, increasingly difficult to count, and less 

willing to participate in the census. The bottom line is that securing an 

accurate count in the face of these trends has greatly raised the difficulty 

and cost of the enumeration. Unless changes to the census are made 

going forward, future headcounts could be fiscally unsustainable. 

With a life-cycle cost of around $13 billion, the 2010 Census was the most 

expensive population count in U.S. history, costing over 50 percent more 

than the $8.1 billion 2000 Census (in constant 2010 dollars). While some 

cost growth is to be expected, in part because there are more people to 

count with each decennial, enumeration costs grew more than three times 

faster than the workload between 2000 and 2010 with a 39 percent 

increase in costs to count each housing unit compared to a 12 percent 

increase in workload. These trends do not bode well for future costs. 

Indeed, the Bureau estimates that if it used the same approach to count 

people in 2020 as it did in 2010, it would cost $151 to count each housing 

unit compared to 2010's $97 (assuming real costs grow at the same rate 

they did between 1990 and 2010). 

Moreover, as shown in figure 1, while census costs have steadily 

increased since 1970, the mail response rate-a key performance 

measure because of its implications for both cost and accuracy-declined 

over this same period from 78 percent in 1970 to around 63 percent in 

2010. 

Page 1 
85 

Figure 1: The Average Coat of Counting Each Housing Unit Escalated Each Decade 

While Mall Response Rates Declined 

-.. 

100 

10 

10 

.. 

o 

"'-*!oO 100 

10 

10 

,.", _ ,_ .."., 2IMO 

-

_ ....... _porhouall1g .... (IO_201._.., ____ ...,~nltI- _*"""", .. u.~ ...... __ ,

'The 2010 life cycle runs from 2002 through 2013, meaning that costs for the 2010 Census are not 

yet final. 

bin the 2010 Census, the Bureau used only a short-form questionnaire. For this report, we use the 

1990 and 2000 Census short-form mail response rate when comparing 1990,2000, and 2010 mailback response rates. Census short-fonn mail response rates are unavailable for 1970 and 1980, so 

we use the overall response rate for both the short- and long-form questionnaires. 

In terms of quality, a post-census Bureau evaluation found that the 2010 

Census generally accurately counted the total population of the country 

as well as each state. As in past enumerations, renters, young children, 

young adult males, Blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians on 

reservations were more likely to be undercounted, while home owners, 

older persons, females, and White non-Hispanics were more likely to be. 

included more than once in the census. Moreover, despite some 

significant initial setbacks that raised the cost of the enumeration, the 

Bureau eventually developed workarounds to the challenges facing the 

2010 Census and it was ultimately an operational success as the Bureau 

generally completed its peak census data collection activities consistent 

with its plans and released the state population counts used to apportion 

Congress on December 21, 2010, several days ahead of the legally 

mandated end-of-year deadline. 

Page 2 GAO·12·90ST 
86 

Mr. Chairman, these trends, facts, and figures all point to one simple fact: 

the basic design of the decennial census-mail-out and mail-back of the 

census form with in-person follow-up for nonrespondents (the same 

general approach the Bureau has used since 1970)-is no longer capable 

of a cost-effective enumeration. Thus, gOing forward, the singular 

challenge for Bureau officials will be balancing the need to control the 

cost of future enumerations with the need to assure their accuracy. 

The Bureau is well aware of the need for reforms, and its business planwhich describes its efforts for the early research and testing phase of the 

2020 Census-notes that the Bureau is committed to conducting a 

census that costs no more than the approximately $100 per housing unit 

that was spent on the 2010 Census, and has already developed six broad 

design alternatives for 2020. This is a noteworthy goal. However, fulfilling 

it will be an ambitious task as the Bureau's research and planning efforts 

over the next few years will take place in an uncertain environment owing 

to the extent and magnitude of the reforms being considered, budget 

constraints, and the planned August 2012 resignation of the current 

Bureau Director with the likelihood that it may be a number of months 

before a permanent replacement takes office. 

When we last testified before this Subcommittee in April 2011, we 

discussed four lessons learned from the 2010 and earlier decennials that 

could help secure a more cost-effective enumeration in 2020.' They 

included: 

1. reexamining the nation's approach to taking the census; 

2. assessing and refining existing operations, tailoring them to specific 

locations and population groups; 

3. institutionalizing efforts to address high-risk areas; and 

4. ensuring that the Bureau's management, culture, and business 

practices align with a cost-effective enumeration. 

The Bureau generally agreed with these lessons and is taking steps to 

address them. As requested, in my remarks today, I will focus on the 

Bureau's progress in each area and what remains to be done going 

forward. In summary, while the Bureau's preparations are off to a good 

start-as evidenced, for example, by its use of leading practices in such 

2010 Census: Preliminary Lesson Learned Highlight the Need for Fundamental 

Reforms, GAO·11-496T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 6, 2011). 

Page 3 GAO·12·905T 
87 

key management areas as organizational transformation, long-term 

project planning, and strategic workforce planning, moving forward, 

sustaining those efforts, focusing on priorities, winnowing down design 

options, and keeping the entire enterprise on-track-all within tight 

timeframes-will be a tremendous challenge. Furthermore, it will be 

important for Congress to hold the Bureau accountable for results through 

strong and continuing involvement in preparations for the 2020 Census, 

including weighing in on key Bureau decisions and providing the 

necessary funding. 

My testimony today is based on our completed work related to key 2010 

Census operations, on 2010 Census cost drivers and the 2020 life-cycle 

cost estimate, and the Bureau's planning efforts for 2020. 2 For this body 

of work, we analyzed key documents-such as budgets, plans, 

procedures, and guidance-for selected decennial activities; interviewed 

cognizant Bureau officials; reviewed existing leading practices for 

organizational transformation, long-term project planning, and workforce 

planning that we and other organizations have previously developed; and 

identified leading practices that are most relevant to the Bureau's early 

planning for the 2020 Census. 

Additionally, for our work on 2010 operations, we made on-site 

observations of key census-taking activities across the country including 

such urban locations as Los Angeles, California; Atlanta, Georgia; 

Brooklyn, New York; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; New Orleans, 

Louisiana; and Washington, D.C.; as well as such less populated areas 

as Meridian, Mississippi, and New Castle, Delaware. We selected these 

locations because of their geographic and demographic diversity, among 

other factors. More detail on our scope and methodology is provided in 

each of our issued products. 

On June 29,2012, we provided the Bureau with a statement of facts 

related to the information included in this statement, and Bureau officials 

provided technical comments, which we included as appropriate. The 

work on which this statement is based was conducted in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards 

require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate 

evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

GAO products at the end of this statement. 

Page 4 GAO-12-905T 
88 

Background 

based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained 

provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on 

our audit objectives. 

At first glance, it might seem premature to discuss preparations for the 

decennial census; after all, Census Day, April 1 , 2020, is still almost 8 

years away. However, our reviews of the 1990, 2000, and the 2010 

Censuses have shown that early planning, the use of leading 

management practices, and strong congressional oversight can help 

reduce the costs and risks of the national headcount. Indeed, the 

characteristics of the decennial census-long-term, large-scale, complex, 

high-risk, and politically sensitive-together make a cost-effective 

enumeration of the nation's population and housing a monumental 

project-planning and management challenge. 

Despite the complexity, cost, and importance of the census, however, 

recent enumerations were not planned well. Indeed, shortcomings with 

managing and planning the 2000 and 2010 enumerations led to 

acquisition problems, cost overruns, and other issues, and, as a result, 

we placed both enumerations on our list of high-risk programs. 3 

For example, leading up to the 2010 Census, we found that additional 

costs and risks associated with the data capture technologies used in the 

2010 Census were related to a failure to adequately link specifications for 

key information technology systems to requirements. 4 Additionally, the 

lack of skilled cost estimators for the 2010 Census led to unreliable lifecycle cost estimates, and some key operations were not tested under 

census-like conditions. 

Importantly, some of the operational problems that occurred during the 

2010 and prior censuses are symptomatic of deeper organizational 

issues. For example, a Bureau self-assessment carried out in October 

2008 found that its organizational structure made overseeing a large 

3GAO, Information Technology: Signif;cant Problems of Critical Automation Program 

Contribute to Risks Facing 2010 Census, GAO-08-550T (Washington, D.C. Mar. 5, 2008), 

and High-Risk Series: Quick Reference Guide, GAO/HR-97-2 (Washington, D.C.: 

February 1997). 

4GAO, Information Technology Census Bureau Needs to Improve Its Risk Management 

of Decennial Systems, GAO-08-79 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 5, 2007). 

PageS GAO-12-90ST 
89 

Lesson Learned 1: 

Reexamine the 

Nation's Approach to 

Taking the Census 

program difficult and hampered accountability, succession planning, and 

staff development. 

Since then, we and other organizations-including the Bureau itselfhave stated that fundamental changes to the design, implementation, and 

management of the census must be made in order to address these 

operational and organizational challenges. 5 For its part, the Bureau has 

stated that to contain costs and maintain quality, bold innovations in both 

planning and design of the 2020 Census will be required, and has 

launched a number of change initiatives. Some of these efforts are 

directed at transforming the Bureau's organization, while others focus on 

reexamining the fundamental approach to the 2020 Census. 

Although bold reform plans are critical steps in the right direction, the 

Bureau's past experience has shown that the more difficult challenge will 

be sustaining those efforts throughout the course of the decade. Indeed, 

preparations for both the 2000 and 2010 Censuses started with ambitious 

plans that gave reason for optimism that major improvements were on the 

way. However, in the subsequent ramp-up to those enumerations, the 

Bureau had difficulty identifying and implementing promising innovations, 

progress on reforms slowed, and as Census Day drew closer, the 

success of those head-counts became an open question. 

In our April 2011 testimony, we noted that based on the results of prior 

enumerations, simply refining current methods-some of which have 

been in place for decades-will not bring about the reforms needed to 

control costs while maintaining accuracy given ongoing and newly 

emerging societal trends such as concerns over personal privacy and an 

increasingly diverse population. 6 Consequently, the Bureau will need to 

reconsider the nation's approach to the census including rethinking such 

activities as how it plans, tests, implements, monitors, and evaluates 

enumeration activities. The Bureau concurred and its 2020 Census 

business plan states that the Bureau needs substantial innovation to 

achieve its cost and quality targets and to meet its strategic goals. 

'GAO-11-496T. 

PageS GAO-12-905T 
90 

As one example, with respect to its research and testing efforts, the 

Bureau plans to use the American Community Survey-an ongoing 

Bureau survey of population and housing characteristics that is 

administered monthly throughout the decade-as a vehicle to test certain 

decennial census processes and information technology (IT) systems. 

According to the Bureau, this approach will enable it to conduct many 

small tests throughout the decade in a production environment instead of 

relying on a small number of large, expensive tests as was the case in 

past decennial planning cycles. According to the Bureau, refining systems 

in the American Community Survey reduces the risk of building one-use 

systems for the decennial that need to operate ftawlessly the first time 

they are put into production. 

With respect to implementing the census, among other activities, the 

Bureau is researching potential electronic methods of promoting the 

census and collecting data, including with the Internet via social 

networking sites, e-mail, and text messages, as well as with automated 

phone systems. For the 2010 Census, the Bureau initially investigated the 

use of an Internet response option but dropped plans based on concerns 

over information technology security, and after completing a cost-benefit 

analysis that led the Bureau to conclude that Internet data collection 

would not significantly improve the overall response rate or reduce field 

data collection. 

The Bureau is also researching how it can use administrative records to 

reduce the cost of certain decennial activities. Administrative records from 

government agencies, including driver licenses and school records, can 

be used to identify persons associated with a particular household 

address. Administrative records could save the Bureau money because 

they could help reduce the need for certain costly and labor-intensive 

door-to-door visits by Bureau employees to collect data in-person from 

non-respondents. During the 2010 Census, the Bureau made only limited 

use of administrative records. Expanding their use to supplement 

respondent data on a national level will present a certain degree of risk, 

and issues concerning data quality and access to records must first be 

resolved. 

With so many innovations underway at the Bureau, strong and continuing 

stewardship at the senior level will be critical for ensuring they stay on 

track moving forward. However, the announced reSignation of the Director 

coming up this August could mean that it will be a number of months 

before an agency head appointed by the President and confirmed by the 

Senate will be in place. 

Page 7 GAO-12-90ST 
91 

As with the heads of all federal agencies, it will be important for the 

Bureau Director to possess the requisite leadership and management 

skills and background to successfully address the challenges facing the 

Bureau in the years ahead, On the basis of our knowledge of past and 

present census operations and a review of readily available literature, 

certain general stewardship roles that the Director, as a senior executive, 

will play in managing the institution, and their related qualifications, merit 

particular attention in this regard, These roles and qualifications are not 

necessarily unique to the Bureau, and it is unlikely that anyone person 

will excel in all of these areas, That said, based on our knowledge of past 

and present census operations and review of available literature on 

leadership-particularly of federal agencies-we identified the following 

characteristics of a successful leader: 

Strategic leader, As the head of the Census Bureau, the Director is 

responsible for, among other activities, (1) leading change and (2) 

leading people, In leading change, the Director will be expected to 

build a shared vision or long-term view for the organization among its 

stakeholders, as well as be a catalyst for developing and 

implementing the Bureau's mission statement and strategic goals, and 

be cognizant of the forces affecting the Bureau, Moreover, in addition 

to the decennial census, the Bureau is also responsible for a number 

of other vital national data gathering and statistical programs such as 

the American Community Survey, As a result, it will be important for 

the Director to ensure the Bureau's information products continue to 

meet the current and emerging needs of its numerous and diverse 

customers, including Congress, state, local and federal government 

organizations, and a wide array of other public and private 

organizations. 

In leading people, the Director should ensure that human resource 

strategies, including recruitment, retention, training, incentive, and 

accountability initiatives are designed and implemented in a manner 

that supports the achievement of the organization's mission and goals 

and addresses any mission critical skill gaps, In particular, it will be 

important for the Director to motivate headquarters, field, and 

temporary staff to ensure they function as an integrated team rather 

than a stovepiped bureaucracy, 

Technical professional, It is logical to expect that the Director would 

have at least a general background in statistics or a related field, 

Although no one person will have the full range of knowledge needed 

to answer the many methodological and technical questions that the 

PageS GAO-12-905T 
92 

Lesson Learned 2: 

Assess and Refme 

Existing Operations 

Focusing on Tailoring 

Them to Specific 

Locations and 

Population Groups 

Director may face, it is important that he or she have sufficient 

technical knowledge to direct the Bureau's statistical activities. In 

addition, the Director should manage for results by developing and 

using performance measures to assess and improve the Bureau's 

operations. 

Administrator. Like other agency heads, the Director is responsible for 

acquiring and using the human, financial, and information technology 

resources needed to achieve its goals and mission. The Director 

should, for example, be capable of setting priorities based on funding 

levels. Further, because the Bureau's product is information, the 

Director should ensure that the Bureau leverages technology, such as 

the Internet, to improve the collection, processing, and dissemination 

of census information. 

Collaborator. It will be important for the Director to continually expand 

and develop working relationships and partnerships with those in 

governmental, political and professional circles to obtain their input, 

support, and participation in the Bureau's activities. For example, it 

will be important for the Director to continue working with local 

government officials to have them playa more active role in taking the 

census. 

We previously found that leveraging such data as local response rates, 

census socio-demographic information, as well as other data sources and 

empirical evidence, might help control costs and improve accuracy by 

providing information on ways the Bureau could more efficiently allocate 

its resources. For example, some neighborhoods might require a greater 

level of effort to aChieve acceptable results while in other areas those 

same results might be accomplished with fewer resources. 7 

The 2010 Census had several census-taking activities tailored to specific 

population groups. As one example, the Bureau budgeted around $297 

million on paid media to raise awareness and encourage public 

participation in the census. To determine where paid media efforts might 

have the greatest impact, the Bureau developed predictive models based 

on 2000 Census data and other sources. Other efforts included mailing a 

7 GAO.11.496T. 

Page 9 
93 

bilingual English/Spanish questionnaire in some areas, and sending a 

second "replacement" census questionnaire to about 53 million 

households in areas with historically lower response rates. Preliminary 

Bureau evaluations suggest that some of these targeted efforts 

contributed to an increased awareness of the census and were 

associated with higher questionnaire mail-back response rates. 

For the 2020 Census, the Bureau is considering expanding its targeting 

efforts to activities such as address canvassing, an operation where 

Bureau employees go door-to-door across the country verifying street 

addresses and identifying possible additions or deletions to its address 

list. This operation is important for building an accurate address list. In the 

2010 Census, address canvassing was conducted at the vast majority of 

housing units. For the 2020 Census, the Bureau believes it might be able 

to generate cost savings by using existing address records for those 

neighborhoods that have been stable, and only canvass those areas 

where significant changes have occurred. 

We previously found that studying the value added of a particular 

operation, such as the extent to which it reduced costs and/or enhanced 

data quality, could help the Bureau make more cost-effective use of its 

resources. As one example, in addition to address canvassing, the 

Bureau has several other operations to help it build a complete and 

accurate address list. This is to help ensure that housing units missed in 

one operation get included in a subsequent operation. However, the 

extent to which each individual operation contributes to the overall 

accuracy of the address list is uncertain. This in turn makes it difficult for 

the Bureau to fully assess the extent to which potential reforms such as 

targeted address canvassing or other operations might affect the quality 

of the address list. Indeed, the Bureau's formal program of assessing and 

evaluating various 2010 Census operations and activities, with which it 

expects to have completed over 100 studies by early in 2013, has only a 

few studies designed to produce information describing the return on 

investment. Designing future studies to better isolate the return on 

investment would help the Bureau further tailor its operations to specific 

population groups and locations and potentially generate substantial cost 

savings. 

Page 10 GAO·12·905T 
94 

Lesson Learned 3: 

Institutionalize 

Efforts to Address 

High-Risk Areas 

A key priority for the Bureau will be to continue to address those 

shortcomings that led us to designate the 2010 Census a high-risk area in 

2008. including strengthening its ability to develop reliable life-cycle cost 

estimates and following key practices important for managing information 

technology (IT) 50 that they do not recur in 2020. 8 In February 2011. we 

removed the high-risk designation from the 2010 Census because of the 

Bureau's progress and strong commitment to and top leadership support 

for addressing problems. among other actions. 9 The Bureau has made 

progress in these areas. However. additional efforts are needed. 

Processes for developing a life-cycle cost estimate. In our January 

2012 report. we found that the Bureau had not yet established 

policies, procedures. or guidance for developing the 2020 Census life 

cycle cost estimate and is at risk of not following related best 

practices. 10 A reliable cost estimating process. according to our Cost 

Estimating and Assessment Guide. is necessary to ensure that cost 

estimates are comprehensive. well documented. accurate. and 

credible." The Bureau intends to use our cost guide as it develops 

cost estimates for 2020 and follow best practices wherever 

practicable; however. as we reported. the Bureau has not yet 

documented how it plans to conduct its cost estimates and could not 

provide a specific time when such documentation would be finalized. 

Developing this necessary guidance will help ensure the Bureau has a 

reliable life-cycle cost estimate, which in turn will help ensure that 

Congress. the administration. and the Bureau itself can have reliable 

information on which to base decisions. 

IT management issues. As the Bureau prepares for 2020. it will be 

important for it to continue to improve its ability to manage its IT 

investments. Leading up to the 2010 Census. we made numerous 

recommendations to the Bureau to improve its IT management 

procedures by implementing best practices in risk management. 

9GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-11-278 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 16,2011). 

10GAO, Decennial Census: Additional Actions Could Improve the Census Bureau's Ability 

to Control Costs for the 2020 Census, GAO-12-80 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 24. 2012). 

11GAO, GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide.' Best Practices for Developing and 

Managing Capital Program Costs. GAO-09-3SP (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2, 2009). 

Page 11 GAO-12-905T 
95 

Lesson Learned 4: 

Ensure that the 

Bureau's 

Management, Culture, 

and Business 

Practices Align with a 

Cost-Effective 

Enumeration 

requirements development, and testing, 12 The Bureau implemented 

many of our recommendations, but not our broader recommendation 

to institutionalize these practices at the organizational level. The 

challenges experienced by the Bureau in acquiring and developing IT 

systems during the 2010 Census further demonstrate the importance 

of establishing and enforcing a rigorous IT systems development and 

management policy Bureau-wide, In addition, it will be important for 

the Bureau to improve its ability to consistently perform key IT 

management practices, such as IT investment management, system 

development and management, and enterprise architecture 

management. The effective use of these practices can better ensure 

that future IT investments will be pursued in a way that optimizes 

mission performance, We have ongoing reviews of the Bureau's early 

2020 Census planning for its IT investment management, as well as 

its information security program, which we expect to report out in the 

months ahead, 

As we noted in our May 2012 report, the Bureau's early planning and 

preparation efforts for the 2020 Census are consistent with most leading 

practices in each of three management areas we reviewedorganizational transformation, long-term planning, and strategic workforce 

planning,13 For example, the Bureau is in the middle of a major 

organizational transformation of its decennial operations, and consistent 

with our leading practices, top Bureau leadership has been driving the 

transformation through such activities as issuing a strategic plan for the 

2020 Census, incorporating annual updates of its business plan, and 

chartering an organizational change management council comprised of 

Bureau-wide executives and senior managers, The Bureau also has 

focused on a key set of prinCiples as it begins to roll-out the 

transformation strategy to staff, and has created a timeline to build 

momentum and show progress, Although the decennial directorate is 

progressing with its organizational transformation, the person responsible 

for this effort-the Bureau's organizational change manager-is 

12Forexample, GAO, Information Technology: Census Bureau Testing of2010Decennia( 

Systems Can Be Strengthened, GAO-09-262 (Washington, D,C,: Mar, 5,2009); 

GAO-08-79; and Census Bureau: Important Activities for Improving Management of Key 

2010 Decennial Acquisitions Remain to be Done, GAO-06-444T (Washington, D.C.: MaL 

1,2006), 

13GAO, 2020 Census: Additional Steps Are Needed to Build on Early Pfanning, 

GAO-12-626 (Washington, D,C .. May 17, 2012), 

Page 12 GAO-12-905T 
96 

responsible for a number of tasks, including transformation planning and 

implementation, and leading two working groups. At this point in the 

process, the amount of change-related activity the Bureau is considering 

may exceed the resources the Bureau has allocated to plan, coordinate, 

and carry it out. As a result, the planned transformation efforts could be 

difficult to sustain. 

We also noted in May 2012 that the Bureau is taking steps consistent with 

many of the leading practices for long-term project planning, such as 

issuing a series of planning memorandums in 2009 and 2010 that laid out 

a high-level framework documenting goals, assumptions, and timing of 

the remaining four phases of the 2020 Census. 14 The Bureau also 

created a high-level schedule of program management activities for the 

remaining phases, documented key elements such as the Bureau's 

decennial mission, vision, and guiding principles, and produced a 

business plan to support budget requests, which is being updated 

annually. These are important steps forward that, if continued, could help 

the Bureau's planning stay on track for 2020. However, the Bureau's 

schedule does not include milestones or deadlines for key decisions 

needed to support transition between the planning phases which could 

result in later downstream planning activity not being based on evidence 

from such sources as early research and testing. 

Also in the area of long-term planning, to help incorporate lessons 

learned, in 2011 the Bureau created a recommendation follow-up 

process, built around a database it created containing various oversight 

and internal Bureau recommendations. Not having a formal process for 

recommendation follow-up for prior censuses made it difficult to ensure 

that recommendations were considered by those at the Bureau best able 

to act on them. The Bureau has provided these recommendations to 

relevant Bureau research and testing teams and is beginning to take 

steps to hold the teams accountable for reporting on how they are 

considering them. 

The Bureau is also taking steps consistent with leading practices for 

strategic workforce planning, including identifying current and future 

critical occupations with a pilot assessment of the competencies of 

selected information technology 2020 Census positions. However, the 

14GAO_12_626. 

Page 13 GAO-12-905T 
97 

Concluding 

Observations 

Bureau has done little yet either to identify the goals that should guide 

workforce planning or to determine how to monitor, report, and evaluate 

its progress toward achieving them, which could help the Bureau identify 

and avoid possible barriers to implementing its workforce plans. 

While the Bureau's efforts are largely consistent with leading practices in 

each of these areas, in our May 2012 report, we noted that additional 

steps could be taken going forward to build on these early planning 

efforts. Specifically, we recommended that the Director take a number of 

actions to make 2020 Census planning more consistent with key 

practices in the three management areas, such as examining planned 

transformation activity to ensure its alignment with resources, developing 

a more-detailed long-term schedule to smooth transition to later planning 

phases, and setting workforce planning goals and monitor them to ensure 

their attainment. The Department of Commerce concurred with our 

findings and recommendations and has taken steps to address our 

recommendations. For example, to support to its organizational 

transformation activities the Bureau has added additional staff and 

contractor support. 

The Bureau is moving forward along a number of fronts to secure a more 

cost-effective 2020 enumeration. Many components are already in place, 

a number of assessment and planning activities are underway, and the 

Bureau has been responsive to our past recommendations. Further, the 

Bureau is generally applying key leading practices in the areas of 

organizational transformation, long-term project planning, and strategic 

workforce planning, although additional efforts are needed in the months 

ahead. In short, the Bureau continues to make noteworthy progress in 

reexamining both the fundamental design of the census as well as its own 

management and culture. 

While this news is encouraging, it is still early in the decade, and the 

Bureau's experience in planning earlier enumerations has shown how 

ambitious preparations at the start of the census life-cycle can derail as 

Census Day draws near. Thus, as the Bureau's 2020 planning and reform 

efforts gather momentum, the effectiveness of those efforts will be 

determined in large measure by the extent to which they enhance the 

Bureau's ability to control costs, ensure quality, and adapt to future 

technological and societal changes. Likewise, it will be important for 

Congress to hold the Bureau accountable for results, weighing-in on key 

design decisions, providing the Bureau with resources the Congress 

believes are appropriate to support that design, and ensuring that the 

Paae14 GAO-12-90ST 
98 

GAO Contacts and 

Staff 

Acknowledgements 

progress made to date stays on track. The Bureau's initial preparations 

for 2020 are making progress. Nonetheless, continuing congressional 

oversight remains vital. 

Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Brown, and Members of the 

Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be 

pleased to respond to any questions that you may have at this time. 

If you have any questions on matters discussed in this statement, please 

contact Robert Goldenkoff at (202) 512-2757 or bye-mail at 

goldenkoffr@gao.gov. Other key contributors to this testimony include 

Richard Hung, Ty Mitchell, Lisa Pearson, Mark Ryan, and Timothy 

Wexler. 

Page 15 GAO-12-905T 
99 

Census: Planning Ahead for 2020 

Dr. Jason Providakes 

Senior Vice President, The MITRE Corporation and 

General Manager, the Center for Connected Government 

United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services 

and International Security 

July 18, 2012 

Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Brown, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for the invitation to discuss the effort to produce more complete and cost-effective 

enumeration by the Census Bureau in 2020. 

MITRE is a long-standing partner for systems engineering and enterprise modernization with the 

Department of Defense and many civilian agencies and departments within the U.S. Government, 

including the Departments of Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs, the Centers for Medicare 

& Medicaid Services, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Federal Aviation Administration. 

MITRE is a not-for-profit company and our sole activity is the operation offederally funded 

research and development centers, known as FFRDCs, which we operate for the benefit of 

federal government sponsors. Our expertise is scientific research and analysis, development and 

acquisition, and systems engineering and integration. The government establishes FFRDCs for 

the purpose of addressing long-term complex problems. Our operating model is unique and 

intentional, designed to preserve our ability to serve in the public interest with objectivity, 

independence, and freedom from commercial interests. 

I'm sharing insights with you today from my perspective as a system engineer and technologist, 

derived from my experience in large and complex systems programs and as a contributor to 

several scientific advisory boards in the national interest. It is also our privilege at MITRE to 

serve with talented engineers and other professionals who supported the Census Bureau in its 

efforts to prepare and conduct the 2010 census, and we continue to work with Census today as 

they prepare for 2020. Our role in helping to mitigate large risks that developed during the 20 I 0 

program informs my comments today. 

Because the decennial census is such an enormous undertaking in terms of both volume and 

complexity, the Census Bureau invests in technology in an effort to achieve efficiencies and 

increase accuracy. Today, the single most important management question for the Census Bureau 

-and indeed all government departments and agencies-is how to effectively and affordably 

capture value from technology innovation. 

It is important to recognize that technology is never a complete solution. Technology "way 

points" are transient, fast-moving, and risky. Investments must be accompanied by changes in 

the roles of people and the work processes they implement. Operating models and governance 

structures must be designed to support flexibility in order to take advantage of emergent 

technologies. 

Census: Planning Ahead for 2020 IIMITRE 
100 

So how can the Census Bureau navigate this rapidly changing ecosystem? By starting with a 

vision-a guidepost-for what is possible in 2020, in 2030, and beyond. This vision must 

anticipate change but be anchored on principles of affordability, continuous improvement for 

quality and on-going integration of thoroughly tested advances in technology. 

A Future Census 

In this vision, the Census Bureau avoids the need for a massive end-of-decade mobilization of 

people and fiscal resources by using technology effectively, eliminating paper, maintaining highquality and current geographic resources, maximizing the use of administrative records and 

maintaining the trust of the people by ensuring security and privacy of the collected data. It 

includes: 

• Paperless operation, enabled by technology, using devices and applications to streamline 

navigation, address operations, field-based enumeration, and administrative tasks. Without 

the physical storage space and logistics required for massive amounts of paper, the census 

infrastructure can be radically reduced and re-envisioned. 

• Shared use of administrative data will enable routine, real time corrections of missing 

addresses and additions of new residential developments, which makes field operations 

deployment more efficient. 

• Cloud computing, digital ubiquity and wireless communications which transmit and receive 

data from cloud systems will lower infrastructure costs and increase efficiency for all 

aspects of enumeration. U.S. residents will be able to use text, voice or mobile apps to 

securely and conveniently respond to the census questionnaire, and field operations may be 

liberated from the capacity limitations of person-to-person outreach. 

• Security and privacy is assured at all levels within the system through the application of 

best security practices and protecting the data throughout its lifecycle. 

Drivers and Enablers 

Technology Trends 

The good news is that there is, today, no existing or predicted shortage of hardware, middleware 

and sofrware to enable more efficient and accurate census-taking. We are in the midst of 

geometric groVlth of technologies and usage. 

However, there are challenges. Technology selection and implementation are an order of 

magnitude more complex than they were in the previous planning and R&D cycle. The market 

cycle time for design to widespread adaption of emergent, transformational capabilities with 

technology has compressed, in our view, from five years to less than two. 

A snapshot oftoday's capabilities would show a wide range of technologies that did not exist or 

were not mature in planning for the 20 I ° census, such as mobility platforms, wireless coverage, 

use and capacity, cloud computing, internet availability and use, biometrics, autonomous 

systems, global positioning and remote sensing. By 2020, we at MITRE join many others in 

predicting that these technologies will feel as antiquated as a rotary dial phone ... replaced by 

commercial availability of quantum computing, advanced robotics, ubiquitous digital devices in 

clothing and automobiles, artificial intelligence and massive predictive analytics, among others. 

Census: Planning Ahead for 2020 ilMITRE 
101 

Technology trends that are relevant to the 2020 census include: 

o Today, approximately 75 percent of US square miles are covered by one or more wireless 

services, and 98 percent of the population has access to wireless broadband services. 1 

o The percentage of U.S. population using the Internet has grown from 44 percent in 2000 to 

77 percent in 2010 and will likely reach 95 percent by 2020.' 

o The speed, capacity and coverage of digital networks increased by an order of magnitude in 

the past decade, to over 12 megabits per second. 

o Forrester Research projects the global market for "cloud computing"---services delivered 

over the Internet-is going to increase from $41 billion in 2011 to $241 billion in 2020.' 

o Today, citizens regularly use online services for banking, purchase transactions, bill 

paying, and other secure data exchanges. At the state level: 98 percent offer online tax 

filing; 92 percent offer online renewal of vehicle registration; 78 percent accept online 

requests for copies of birth, death, marriage, divorce, and adoption certificates; 58 percent 

accept payments for fines online; 58 percent offer online interactive customer service; and 

48 percent offer a website designed for smartphone users. 4 

o GPS and other personal location tracking technologies were capable of locating a device as 

small as a mobile phone within a few dozen meters in 2010. The quality, accessibility, and 

volume of personal location data will improve and expand. 

During the 2001-2004 planning cycle for the 2010 census, mobile computing technology was not 

mature. Separately, secure internet response channels were not a part of the census design 

solution. Today, however, the Census Bureau is well positioned to take advantage of these now 

mature and prevalent technologies. 

1 Federal Communications Commission Fifteenth Report (FCC 11-103) Implementation of Section 6002(b) of the 

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions with 

Respect to Mobile Wireless, including Commercial Mobile Services. 

'Pew Internet and American Life Project. Adult Usage over Time Trend Data. 

'Forrester Research. Sizing the Cloud - A BT Futures Report. Understanding and Quantitying the Future of Cloud 

Computing [for 201lJ. 

4 Center for Digital Government. Digital States Survey [fur 2010J. 

Census: Planning Ahead for 2020 3 IIMITRE 
102 

Census Bureau Capabilities 

The Census Bureau is streO!,>1:hening its core capabilities by implementing recommendations 

resulting from the lessons of decennials past. These improvements will benefit not only the 2020 

census, but all future surveys and censuses. A few examples include: 

• An enterprise investment management process for prioritization of all Census Bureau 

investments in order to ensure alignment to strategic goals and objectives. 

• Development of common standards and infrastructure, virtualization, privacy and security 

policies, and a mobile computing strategy that becomes the blueprint for advancing the use 

of information technology on future surveys and censuses. 

• The use of project and system development lifecycles to define key decision points and 

phase gate reviews to ensure appropriate progress has been made before proceeding to the 

next phase of development. 

• The development and utilization of a program work breakdown structure to form the 

framework for a fully integrated master schedule of all tasks to be performed to support 

more effective cost estimation, budget formulation and execution, and overall program 

performance. 

In addition, the approach to risk management has been significantly strengthened, and the 

Census Bureau has begun analyzing alternative solutions to inform design and investment 

choices using modeling, operational scenario analysis and analysis of alternatives techniques. 

Recommendations 

The decennial census is characterized by a high degree of complexity and uncertainty. The 

complexity is based on the interactions and interdependencies among people, organizations, 

technologies, tools, techniques, procedures, and economics. The Census Bureau invests in 

technology as a means toward both achieving efficiencies and increasing accuracy, but given the 

technology growth curve any design that is currently feasible will almost certainly be surpassed 

by innovations occurring before 2020. 

Engineering for a Data Rich Ecosystem 

The internet has evolved over the past 10 years from a tool for data transport and unstructured 

data exchanges into today's rich semantic web. Now, structured data transactions exist that allow 

data sharing and reuse across applications and the entire enterprise. The result is the most 

uniquely data rich communication environment in history. The ubiquity of online access and 

experience within the American population creates an exciting, but infinitely complex, 

technology trade-space for the designers of future decennials. 

The Census Bureau can use existing technology to move from exploration to aggregation, from 

discovery to synthesis. It can engineer itself to take maximum advantage of the data rich 

ecosystem-a web of interdependent data connections. 

The technology exists today for a paperless census, and the technology will likely exist in 2020 

for a fully automated census. This requires systems thinking, systems engineering expertise, and 

coordinated investment planning. The Census Bureau can continue to build on the successful 

foundation of traditional systems engineering methods and tools to complement its strong 

mission-oriented math and statistics skills. 

Census: Planning Ahead for 2020 4 IIMITRE 
103 

However, government funding for technology investments is typically based on a return-oninvestment (ROI) assessment of point solutions. MITRE believes the Census Bureau is well 

positioned to re-define itself and its approach to supporting technology. It can move away from 

point-solution perspective and toward a true business enterprise, modeled and planned as an 

integrated and continuously evolving system that incorporates people, interfaces and data. 

Technology itself is not a panacea, nor can systems be implemented in isolation. As noted 

earlier, the most efficient solution will meet business needs through technology married to welldesigned operations. This enabling technology spawns changes in personnel roles and business 

processes as well. In our experience at MITRE, planning, acquiring, and coordinating the 

changes to this combination of people, processes, and technology is the most significant 

predictor of implementation success and value realization for technology investment. This is the 

"system-of-systems" view. 

MITRE's extensive experience with the Internal Revenue Service, Federal Aviation 

Administration and others leads us to observe that government is most effective in enterprise 

modernization when ownership and control of the technical baseline exists within the agency. 

The technical baseline provides the requirements framework and the reference design where 

adaptations and changes, and their consequences, are forecasted and controlled across the entire 

enterprise. 

The technical baseline describes all essential aspects of a complex system. It includes 

requirements, components, interfaces, performance parameters, activity flows, and use cases. 

This technical baseline can be used to capture, maintain, and trace requirements; drive 

acquisitions; specify components; define system tradeoff analysis; drive system verification and 

testing; and coordinate system integration. Standardized methods for capturing and sharing these 

technical baselines have been developed by international system engineering bodies and have 

been adopted by numerous industry system developers. They are mature and ready for 

application to the census. The technical baseline permits continuous trade space analysis in order 

to optimize the total solution. 

We observe that successful programs use enterprise engineering and the technical baseline as a 

compass for navigating the uncertainty and complexity of tomorrow's technological advances. 

Based upon our observations of success, MITRE recommends that the Census Bureau take the 

following steps in the near term: 

• Invest adequately early in the lifecyc1e to develop an overall design with iterative 

improvement throughout the planning decade. By defining the design space early in the 

research and testing phase, the Census Bureau can determine the key questions, risks, and 

issues that need to be addressed by the research projects to provide the evidence needed to 

support the design decisions. This will enable all of the stakeholders to reach a preliminary 

design that addresses the uncertainty and risks. 

• When considering the initial design, set aggressive goals for self-response through 

automated channels. This approach, which drives investment, has been successfully applied 

at other agencies, such as the IRS. 

• Leverage solutions that are available within other government agencies. Leveraged 

solutions begin with solution reuse, and go on to include shared solutions (e.g., government 

cloud, shared hosting, shared applications, etc.) and user-focused integrated services. 

Census: Planning Ahead for 2020 5 !!MITRE 
104 

• Use industry, academia and federally funded research partners to perform environmental 

scans, redlblue teams for security and privacy, forecast technology trends and advise on 

successful engineering practices. Take advantage of the breadth of engineering expertise 

available externally. 

Align the Budget Cycle to Realities of Technology Planning and Acquisition 

As our MITRE CEO Al Grasso has noted previously to this Subcommittee, succeeding in a 

rapidly changing environment requires a balance between discipline and flexibility. The 

planning-centric investment and acquisition environment of today is based on process discipline, 

but management must have the tools and authorities to shift investments and resources as 

conditions change, opportunities arise, and risks present themselves and are identified. This 

balance is important in an effective technology governance model. 

Aligning the budget process with the technology cycle offers the flexibility to shift resources to 

address changing needs and increase agility. Furthermore, streamlining governance and ensuring 

accountability strengthens the role and authorities of agency leadership and allows it to execute 

important responsibilities. However, these actions will fall short if the link and timing between 

the investment decision process and the budget formulation process is not addressed to afford 

increased flexibility. 

MITRE continues to recommend that the government adopt a consolidated, portfolio-based IT 

budgeting model. This model will allow the flexibility for agency leaders to adapt funding to 

react to changes in technology requirements. This should include multi-year authority and the 

authority to fund the up-front systems engineering and alternatives analysis necessary to evaluate 

and estimate the scope, cost, and schedule for their proposed investments without prior approval. 

Overall program success is highly correlated to early investment in concept development and 

system engineering. This up-front investment requirement for effective planning and field testing 

is non-trivial, perhaps up to 20 percent of the totallifecycle costs of an acquisition. It is critical to 

successful execution, but not available to management with today's budget process. 

Adoption of the technical baseline widens the aperture on the opportunities for IT investment and 

extends the "design-test-acquire" planning horizon. This longer-range perspective improves 

outcomes for the portfolio of technology investments because the planning and investment 

cadence permits spending on contemporary risk mitigation techniques (beta testing, agile 

[iterative] development, identification of trade-space and negotiation of open-source and nonproprietary solutions, etc.). With a more flexible budgeting model, capability development for 

the decennial census could be undertaken on a continual improvement basis rather than a pointin-time delivery basis. 

Closing Remarks 

In conclusion, MITRE is a committed partner to the Census Bureau for the successful 

completion of the 2020 census and other Census Bureau initiatives. 

I thank the Subcommittee for this opportunity to discuss the 2020 census preparation and would 

be happy to answer questions. 

Census: Planning Ahead for 2020 6 IIMITRE 
105 

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES 

Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine 

Panel to Review the 2010 Census 

Committee on National StatiStics 

Division of Behavioral and Socia! Sciences and Education 

Prepared Statement of 

Jack Baker 

The Keck Center 

500 Fifth Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20001 

Phone: 202 334 3096 

Fax: 202334 3751 

www.national~academies org/cnstat 

Senior Research Scientist, Geospatial and Population Studies, 

University of New Mexico 

and 

Member of the National Research Council Panel to Review the 2010 Census 

before the 

Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, 

Federal Services, and International Security 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

U.S. Senate 

July 18,2012 

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Brown, and members of the 

subcommittee. Let me first thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I am Jack 

Baker, a member of the National Research Council! Panel to Review the 20 I 0 Census. This 

panel was sponsored by the Census Bureau to provide feedback on methodological and 

operational aspects of the 2010 Census as well as to provide expert advice on how to design a 

more cost-effective 2020 effort. It is comprised of numerous experts in the fields of operations 

research, information technology, systems engineering, statistics, and demography--chosen to 

provide a broad perspective ranging among government, academia, and the private sector. In 

April 2011, the panel's chair (Dr. Thomas Cook) addressed this subcommittee and reviewed the 

findings of the panel's first interim report: Change and the 2020 Census, Not Whether But How. 

Today, I will update this subcommittee on developments since then that speak more directly to 

the Bureau's current planning efforts with respect to preparing for a more cost-effective 2020 

Census. Some of these appear crucial, and worthy of strong Congressional support, for achieving 

a goal of successfully maintaining and even reducing Census costs without jeopardizing its 

quality. 

I come to you from the perspective of an experienced demographic methodologist who 

has been involved in a number ofpre-2010 data preparation programs as well as subsequent 

efforts to both evaluate the coverage of the census and to plan for improved future usage of 

I The National Research Council is the operating arm oflhe National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of 

Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, chartered by Congress in 1863 10 advise the 

government on matters of science and technology. 

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES • NATiONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING • INSTIME OF MEDiCiNE • NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCil 
106 

spatial data resources (such as the Geographic Support Systems Initiative). As was the case 

when Dr. Cook testified to the subcommittee. I am sure that you understand that my expressed 

opinions in this testimony (and particularly in addressing any questions you may have) are my 

own, and should not be construed as formal guidance from either the panel or the Academies. 

The panel's work on both reviewing 2010 and advising on 2020 planning is ongoing, but 

it is fair to say that the panel supports the basic conclusion from its first interim report: with eight 

years remaining before the 2020 Census, it is very possible for the Census Bureau to conduct the 

next census in a way that achieves large-scale reductions in cost (per housing unit) while 

maintaining quality. Last year, Dr. Cook testified about the necessity of attitudinal and 

perspective shifts on the Census Bureau's part in relation to this planning effort, and the need of 

a sufficient commitment to and prioritization of the planning process. Though I will not repeat it 

here, that guidance remains extremely valid. 

In the panel's first interim report, we identified four priority topic areas for research and 

development, leading to an improved 2020 census: 

I. The application of modern operations engineering to census field data collection 

operations; 

2. Emphasizing multiple modes of response to the census, including response via the 

Internet; 

3. Using administrative records-based information to supplement a variety of operations, 

and; 

4. The continuous improvement and updating of the Bureau's geographic resources. 

I would like to offer some general comments on the 2020 research and planning processes, and 

then focus on the last-mentioned of these topic areas. 

From my perspective, the Census Bureau has been surprisingly receptive to the notion 

that ongoing testing, experimentation, and reformulation are important aspects of the 2020 

planning process. The Bureau is moving to implement a more "adaptive" process of operational 

planning and field management for its data collection programs, to be tested and implemented 

first in the Bureau's major demographic surveys and then eventually to form the basis for 2020 

census systems. I think that the Bureau's steps in this regard-developing a system in which 

survey respondents may be transferred to different response modes and approaches by 

interviewers, based on past contact attempts and contextual information-will allow the sort of 

exploratory thinking that our panel feels is crucial to addressing the challenges that lay ahead. I 

hope, and expect, that this same kind of approach may migrate into other census operations such 

as updating geographic resources like the Master Address File (MAF) or structuring field 

contacts in general (such as in nonresponse follow-up). 

I think that this process of reformulating census-taking as a more organic, adaptive 

process rather than a string of only-loosely-integrated operations is a crucial step. For decades, 

the Bureau has tended to layer on more and more operations--often in the name of improving 

overall quality-without stepping back to consider costs, benefits, and cost-quality tradeoffs. (An 

earlier National Research Council panel made the same argument, with more supporting detail, 

in its 2010 final report Envisioning the 2020 Census.) I think that a management framework built 

on "adaptive design" can allow both a much more nimble consideration of the relationships 

Baker Testimony • 2 
107 

between census cost and census quality as well as a more detailed understanding of redundancies 

of effort (and resulting need to prioritize). Making this planning effort-and the research and 

development activities that will directly inform it-a funded priority with appropriatelycommitted Bureau resources is a must. In the long run, cost-savings and quality maintenance 

will only come with prior planning, and I believe that short-term up-front costs associated with 

this 2020 planning process is a worthwhile investment with major long-term cost offsets. 

Effective means for updating the Bureau's geographic data resources are a key aspect of 

any census design effort. I think it is very clear that shifts in response modes to the census 

(converting many, ifnot most, responses on paper questionnaires to Internet responses), coupled 

with a more adequate use of administrative records databases could reduce census costs 

considerably. But I think it equally clear that those gains would be undermined if the Bureau's 

geographic resources were not up to par. Census respondents must be linked to specific physical 

locations (for purposes of apportionment and redistricting), and this requires high-quality spatial 

data resources that allow individual census forms to be linked to precise geographic coordinates. 

One major element in 2020 census planning is a choice that the Census Bureau will have 

to make in the middle of this decade, and that is the extent to which it will conduct Address 

Canvassing prior to the 2020 census. As you know, the Bureau conducted Address Canvassing 

for 2010 one year earlier, in 2009, sending enumerators to every block in most of the country to 

verify or correct address list entries; this was the one 2010 census operation that was able to 

make use of handheld computers. Looking ahead to 2020, the Census Bureau has launched its 

Geographic Support Systems Initiative, which I and my panel colleagues have followed with 

great interest and which we endorsed in broad outlines in our first interim report. 

As this work progresses, I make the following suggestions: 

• First, the Bureau should not enter into its geographic research with a 

preconceived notion that either MAF or TIGER is an unassailable "gold 

standard. " To be clear, I am not suggesting that the Bureau is currently laboring 

under such a notion; indeed, I think that the Bureau has been quite candid in 

noting shortcomings and in suggesting the need for quality metrics. This is just to 

say that change and improvement are only possible if it is acknowledged that 

there is room for improvement. 

• There are significant limitations at present to the use of purely commercial 

mapping resources (e.g., Google Maps, NokialNavteq, databases maintained by 

ESRI) in the census context, or even the address list resources of the U.S. Postal 

Service). What I think is important is that the Bureau's geographic research 

shouldfoeus on the coverage properties of MAFITIGER and those of alternative 

resources. The census has to accurately represent all subgroups of the nation's 

population, and some of these groups live in locations or housing stock where 

standard addressing procedures are lacking and where field enumeration practices 

can be extremely challenging; this is as true of populations in intensely remote 

locations (e.g., Alaska Natives) as it is of residents of intricately built-up locations 

(e.g., individual blocks in New York City). Very little is actually known about the 

quality of spatial data or its impact on the accuracy of a census, or the subsequent 

demographic estimates that derive from those data. 

Baker Testimony • 3 
108 

• Finding the right balance between field work (direct address canvassing or "map 

spotting") and drawing from existing computerized resources will be difficult; my 

own sense is that neither of the "pure" outcomes of zero canvassing or 100 

percent canvassing is going to be satisfactory. So, I reiterate my hope: the Census 

Bureau should consider the same kind of "adaptive "/responsiveljIexible 

approach for updating its geographic resources as it hopes to implement in its 

field operations. That is, by considering the coverage properties of various 

alternative data sources for some subgroups or geography types and balancing 

those with the cost/quality trade-offs associated with new field data collection 

methods, I hope that the Bureau can avoid the same "one size fits all" approach 

that has driven census operations in the past. The geography and housing/address 

stock of downtown Chicago is different from that in pueblos in New Mexico, and 

the best means of ensuring up-to-date geographic coverage in those areas will 

vary, too. 

• The ability to effectively plan is predicated on the ability to commit Bureau 

resources into prospective testing of alternative field data collection methods and 

to appropriately assess the impact of alternative methods on coverage of 

addresses. Retrospective testing (looking at past patterns of coverage and the 

operations that produce it, for example) can be a powerful way to address 

questions about how operational procedures relate to Census coverage and to 

model the trade-offs between costs for data collection and anticipated coverage. 

However, only prospective testing provides the promise of assessing alternatives 

that have not been previously considered. 

• In the maintenance of its geographic resources as in the reshaping of its field 

operations, the panel noted in its first interim report that the Census Bureau can 

learn a great deal from outside the Bureau-from private and public sector 

organizations faced with similar challenges as well as from statistical agencies in 

other countries. That is, the Bureau should consider the techniques used by 

commercial map vendors in updating their products, draw from the experience of 

firms such as UPS, and study the specific operations conducted by agencies like 

Statistics Canada. 

In closing, I understand that recent developments involving the American Community 

Survey (ACS) are a secondary topic for today' s hearing. As a regular user of ACS data for a 

wide range of projects, I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to state my own 

personal hope that the Senate will undo the appropriations amendments passed in the House to 

make ACS response voluntary rather than mandatory and then to cut off funding to the ACS 

altogether. And I would welcome the chance to answer any questions regarding uses ofthe ACS. 

But-in keeping with the main theme of the hearing-I would like to close by stating my belief 

that a healthy, vigorous ACS is critical to an improved 2020 census, and essential to a 

worthwhile and effective planning process for that 2020 census. Of the Census Bureau's other 

major activities, the ACS is a particularly strong test-bed for 2020 census approaches and 

systems. ACS field operations include a nonresponse follow-up component that permits address 

list updating by field data collection staff, particularly in rural areas where the regular MAF 

updates (from the U.S. Postal Service) are thought to be weakest; hence, the ACS is an ideal 

forum for testing geographically-targeted updating of the address list base to areas of suspected 

Baker Testimony • 4 
109 

undercoverage. The "methods panel" in the ACS gives the Bureau an opportunity to pilot-test 

revised questionnaire wording or formatting of concepts. And, perhaps most fundamentally, 

implementation of an "adaptive" data collection process in the ACS is not just a useful test-bed 

but a critical proving ground, before such process rolls out in the 2020 census. Utilization of 

ACS as a test-bed is not a new idea-Director Groves and many other outside observers have 

suggested precisely that-but I think it is a critical one for decision-making aimed at optimizing 

coverage in light of cost constraints. Of course, the ACS cannot function as a test-bed for 2020 if 

it does not exist (or exists in a severely hobbled form) after enactment of fiscal year 2013 

appropriations, and so (again, my personal opinion) I urge the Senate to support continuance of 

the ACS. 

I thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you today and I welcome your 

questions. 

Baker Testimony • 5 
110 

Census: Planning Ahead for 2020 

Testimony of Andrew Reamer, Research Professor 

George Washington Institute of Public Policy, George Washington University 

Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate 

July 18,2012 

Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Brown, Senator Coburn, and other distinguished Members 

of the Subcommittee: 

I appreciate the opportunity to talk with you about recent developments regarding the Census 

Bureau's American Community Survey, specifically the House-passed prohibition on spending 

FY2013 funds to conduct the ACS as well as House and Senate efforts to prohibit enforcing 

penalties for refusing or willfully neglecting to answer ACS questions. 

I'll first discuss why ACS termination would have a destructive impact. I'll then talk about the 

significant negative consequences of making the ACS voluntary, including increasing rather than 

eliminating the problems that voluntary ACS proponents want to solve. I'll then offer a series of 

recommendations that I hope will address the interests of the various parties in the debate about 

mandatory response. 

In my remarks, I'll refer to several materials that you have in the packets that were distributed to 

your offices on Monday. 

The Value of the American Community Survey 

Today, as has been the case for decades, small area census data are essential to the proper 

functioning of government, the economy, and communities. Annually updated ACS data are 

used by 

• the federal government to 

o construct important geographic statistics, including 

annual population estimates 

total and per capita income 

the housing component of the Consumer Price Index 

metropolitan statistical area boundaries 

occupational employment projections and classifications 

o inform the design, implementation, and evaluation of programs and policies in 

education, health, housing, transportation, small business development, human 

services, and environmental protection 

o distribute over $450 billion in federal domestic assistance to states and 

communities 
111 

o provide benchmarks for enforcement of the Voting Rights Act and other civil 

rights laws 

• state and local governments to 

o determine the best allocation of scarce fiscal and human resources in criminal 

justice, transportation, education, public health, and disaster management 

o calculate annual limits in the growth of state government revenue and spending 

o redraw legislative districts 

• chambers of commerce and economic development partnerships to analyze regional 

strengths and weaknesses and encourage business attraction, expansions, and startups 

• businesses of all types and sizes to identify markets, select locations, make investment 

decisions, determine product offerings, and assess labor markets 

• nonprofit organizations such as hospitals and community service organizations to better 

understand and serve the needs of their constituencies 

• researchers to identify social and economic dynamics that can guide public policy 

• the public to understand changes in local socioeconomic conditions and to hold their 

elected officials accountable as appropriate 

The origins of the ACS can be traced to Congressman James Madison's efforts to have the 1790 

Census gather information on age, sex, the race of free persons, and occupation in order to 

inform public policy, He wished that future Congresses would see to the collection of census 

data beyond "bare enumeration ... to adapt the public measures to the particular circumstances 

of the community ... and [mark] the progress of the society .... " To date, Congress has fulfilled 

Madison's wish. (A longer discussion of the origins of the ACS can be found in the appendix.) 

The implementation of the ACS in 2005 represents a great advance in the availability of current 

small area census data, as such data had been produced but once a decade since the nation's 

founding. As far back as 1872, President Grant asked Congress to authorize a mid-decade census 

because "the information obtained at the decennial period as to the material condition, wants, and 

resources of the nation is of little practical value after the expiration of the first half of that 

period." 

My understanding is that there are no efforts in this chamber to terminate the ACS. Given the 

House's action, though, I will say that, in light of the widespread public, private, and nonprofit 

reliance on data from the ACS, its elimination would cause economic disruption and job loss, 

misapplication of scarce community assets and services, and increased waste, fraud, and abuse of 

government funds. 

It is often suggested that the private sector could readily replace the government's effort. That is 

by no means the case. Only the federal government 

2 
112 

• has the capacity and motivation to produce socioeconomic data that is current, 

objective, reliable, consistent over space and time, and available at each level of 

geography 

• can cover a wide array of topics essential for the performance of congressionallymandated functions 

• provide the great public good of open data access 

• produce a dataset that gives decision-makers and analysts the flexibility to produce 

nearly unlimited cross tabulations (such as male Hispanic military veterans over 35 

with an advanced degree) to fit a multitude of purposes 

Addressing Issues in the Implementation of the ACS 

Consistent with census law since 1790, the government has the authority to impose a penalty on 

any adult who refuses or willfully neglects to answer ACS questions or deliberately provides 

false responses. The current census law says that the fine for not answering ACS questions can 

be up to $100, a range set in 1929. However, in the 1980s, this dollar amount was superseded by 

provisions of a comprehensive crime control law that establish a fine of up to $5,000 for any 

misdemeanor or infraction offederallaw. 

Since the implementation of the ACS, Members of Congress have heard several types of 

concerns from constituents who have received the ACS. First, some ACS questions are 

experienced as an invasion of privacy. Second, there is distrust about the government's use of the 

data. Third, the possibility of a fine of up to $5,000 for nonresponse feels coercive or terrifying. 

Fourth, the Census Bureau's practice of nonresponse follow-up is experienced as harassment. 

The response of some Members to these complaints has been to propose removing the 

government's power to impose a fine for nonresponse, in effect making the ACS voluntary. 

However, moving to a voluntary ACS would have the perverse effect of increasing the number 

of constituent complaints and so aggravating the problem rather than eliminating it. 

In 2003, at the direction of Congress, the Census Bureau conducted a field test on the difference 

in household response rate between a mandatory and voluntary ACS. The bureau's primary 

finding was that the mail-back response rate for the voluntary ACS was 20 percentage points 

lower than that for the mandatory ACS. 

On the basis of this finding, in June 2011 the Census Bureau published a memo titled "Cost and 

Workload Implications of a Voluntary American Community Survey." The memo finds that "to 

support production of sufficiently reliable ACS small area estimates," the bureau would need to 

increase sample size by 23 percent, at an additional annual cost of $66 million (based on the 

2009 workload). So, for example, each year an ACS form would be sent to 13,000 additional 

households in Oklahoma, just to pick a state. 

Memo data suggest that the combination of the much lower mail-back rate and larger sample size 

would substantially increase the number of personal Census Bureau contacts with constituents. 

The memo says that a voluntary ACS at the 2009 sample size would require a 15 percent 

increase in the number of nonresponse households contacted by telephone and a 32 percent 

increase in the number of nonresponse households visited by Census Bureau field staff, at an 

additional annual cost of $28 million. Even so, the number of completed surveys would fall by 

3 
113 

more than 15 percent, resulting in an estimated, and unacceptable, increase in variances (a 

measure of data reliability) of 23 percent. 

Putting memo's various figures together, one can calculate that maintaining current data 

reliability under a voluntary ACS will require a 23 percent increase in the number of households 

getting the survey, an 18 percent increase in the number of households telephoned, and a 39 

percent increase in households visited in person. I don't believe that this is the impact that 

proponents of a voluntary ACS are looking for. 

Further, while the memo suggests that this expansion would cost $66 million annually, this 

estimate is lower than would be the case today, for one or both of two reasons. First, the analysis 

is based on the 2009 ACS sample size, not the larger 2012 sample size. (Congress supported 

sample expansion to allow the bureau to address declining data reliability due to population 

growth.) Second, the memo notes that "It is very possible that public reaction today could yield 

different results with significantly greater cost implications especially if there was considerable 

media attention given to the shift." 

The memo concludes by saying that if Congress were to make the ACS voluntary and does not 

provide sufficient funding to maintain the current number of completed surveys, "the quality of 

survey estimates would be unacceptable and the ACS would not meet its responsibility to 

produce data of sufficient quality to replace the estimates from the census long form." 

In light of these findings, particularly the increased burden that a voluntary ACS would place on 

Members' constituents, I will suggest an alternative approach, one that relies on the Census 

Bureau offering more carrots and reducing emphasis on sticks. 

As noted earlier, two constituent concerns are invasion of privacy and distrust of government use 

of the data. It's worth noting that both these concerns have been raised by households and in 

Congress since 1790, and in some states, like Massachusetts and New York, since before the 

Revolution. These concerns did not deter prior Congresses from asking questions and making the 

responses mandatory. 

It's also worth noting the periodic decrease in the percentage of households contacted to generate 

census small area estimates. From 1790 through 1930, every household had to answer every 

census question. The 1960 long form reduced the response burden for most questions to onefourth of households. By 2000, only one-sixth of households received the long form. Today, to 

generate ACS small area estimates, about one-eighth of households are contacted. 

At the same time, constituent do have privacy and data misuse concerns. To address them, I first 

suggest that the Census Bureau provide constituents with far more information about the benefits 

of the data to their states and communities. Currently, ACS recipients receive only general 

statements such as: 

This survey collects critical up-to-date information used to meet the needs of 

communities across the United States. For example, results from this survey are used 

to decide where new schools, hospitals, and fire stations are needed. This information 

also helps communities plan for the kinds of emergency situations that might affect 

you and your neighbors, such as floods and other natural disasters. 

4 
114 

I recommend that the Census Bureau provide the American public with web access to an up-todate compilation of links to many thousands of uses of the ACS at the national, state, and local 

level. The bureau would 

• use low-cost web spider technology to find these uses on public websites 

• tag each use by geography (such as a state, metro area, or neighborhood) and type of 

use (such as for education, emergency planning, or business development) 

• provide open web access to the database, allowing visitors to select their state, city, or 

ZIP code to get a listing, with links, of relevant ACS uses 

• in the mailed ACS packet, include information on the web database of ACS uses and 

a list of 6-1 0 generally compelling uses, such as the state's use of the data to allocate 

federal highway funds and manage spending and revenues 

My hope is that with readily accessible examples of personally meaningful uses of the ACS, 

recipients would be more open to filling out the survey to help their state and community. 

To address constituent concerns about government misuse of ACS data, I encourage the Census 

Bureau to create an ACS analog to its well-received decennial census partnership program. The 

bureau would seek out, and provide training to, trusted national, state, and local third-party 

organizations that would be willing to provide individual constituents with information and 

reassurance on data confidentiality and limitations on use. The Census Bureau could provide 

local ACS partner contact information on its website and partnership program information in its 

mail packet. Partners also would be available to discuss how ACS data are used to benefit the 

local community. 

To eliminate fear and sense of coercion raised by the possibility of a fine of up to $5,000, I 

suggest that Congress pass legislation that exempts the Census Bureau from the Title 18 criminal 

justice statute, allowing it to revert to fines of up to $100 for nonresponse and $500 for false 

statements. The Census Bureau finds that simply saying ACS response is legally required boosts 

the mail-back response rate to the desired level. At present, the bureau does not appear to believe 

that it needs to seek prosecution for nonresponse, as it has not done so since the 1960 Census. 

My understanding from congressional staff is that a substantial number of constituent ACS 

complaints concern their experience of being harassed by Census Bureau field staff conducting 

in-person nonresponse follow-up. I strongly suggest that the bureau review and revise current 

staff protocols and incentives to the extent needed for nonresponse households to not feel 

harassed. The bureau might consider creating a hotline or ombudsman for constituents. 

Finally, I ask that the Census Bureau increase its communications with Members regarding the 

ACS. Specifically, the bureau could provide regular updates on recent ACS uses in a Member's 

state or district, information about positive efforts to encourage constituent response, and, with 

each ACS release, the updated protile of each Member's state or district. 

In these several ways, I think, constituent discomforts with the ACS can be addressed while 

avoiding steps that compromise the integrity of its valuable data. 

5 
115 

Conclusion 

In George Washington's first State of the Union message to Congress, he says 

Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness, In one in which 

the measures of government receive their impressions so immediately from the sense 

of the community as in ours it is proportionably essential. To the security ofa free 

constitution it contributes in various ways - by convincing those who are intrusted 

with the public administration that every valuable end of government is best answered 

by the enlightened confidence of the people, and by teaching the people themselves to 

know and to value their own rights; to discern and provide against invasions of them; 

to distinguish between oppression and the necessary exercise of lawful authority; 

between burdens proceeding from a disregard to their convenience and those resulting 

from the inevitable exigencies of society; to discriminate the spirit of liberty from that 

of licentiousness - cherishing the first, avoiding the last - and uniting a speedy but 

temperate vigilance against encroachments, with an inviolable respect to the laws. 

This statement is rich with relevance for management of the ACS-the importance of good 

information, gaining the trust of the people, and teaching the people to "distinguish between 

oppression and the necessary exercise of lawful authority" and "between burdens proceeding 

from a disregard to their convenience and those resulting from the inevitable exigencies of 

society." 

I believe that, with this Subcommittee's guidance, the Census Bureau can find an approach that 

results in constituents experiencing a proper balance between individual rights and duty to 

community and nation. 

Thank you for your time and look forward to your questions. 

6 
116 

Appendix: History and the ACS 

The origins of the ACS can be traced to Congressman James Madison's efforts to have the 1790 

Census gather information beyond the "bare enumeration" of free people and the human property 

of free people, as required by the Constitution for apportioning taxes and representation among 

the States. In particular, Mr. Madison wanted to collect information on race, gender, age. and 

occupation. He said: 

(I)f this bill was extended so as to embrace some other objects besides the bare 

enumeration of the inhabitants; it would enable them [future Congresses] to adapt the 

public measures to the particular circumstances of the community .... This kind of 

information ... all legislatures had wished for; but this kind of information had never 

been obtained in any country .... If the plan was pursued in taking every future 

census, it would give them [future Congresses] an opportunity of marking the 

progress of the society, and distinguishing the growth of every interest. 

The House agreed with his request. The Senate did as well, with the exception of occupation. 

In 1800, Thomas Jefferson, seeking to ascertain "sundry facts highly important to society," asked 

Congress to further enlarge the census questions to include citizenship and immigration status, 

occupation, and greater detail on age. Congress complied with the latter request. 

Future Congresses found that they agreed with Madison. Throughout the 19th century and early 

20th centuries, Congress regularly expanded the census data collected for the purposes of public 

policy. Because of questions added to understand and address the Great Depression, the 1940 

census included the first supplementary sample survey. The long form was used from 1960 

through 2000. The ACS debuted in 2005. 

Presidents throughout the centuries have asked Congress to include certain questions for the 

purposes of public policy; touted census data, as Madison had predicted, to show the nation's 

dramatic growth; and used other data to identify pressing issues such as the pool of men 

available to fight (Jefferson), illiteracy (Garfield, Arthur, Coolidge), unemployment (Hoover), 

immigration policy (Truman, Eisenhower), rural telephone access (Truman), substandard 

housing (Kennedy, Johnson), poverty (Nixon), and education (Clinton). 

In asking Americans to fill out their 1990 Census form, President Bush said 

Abraham Lincoln once observed: "If we could just know where we are and whither 

we are tending, we could better judge what to do and how to do it." The census helps 

to provide us with such insight. 

Moreover, as early as 1872, President Grant asked Congress to authorize a mid-decade census 

because "the information obtained at the decennial period as to the material condition, wants, and 

resources of the nation is of little practical value after the expiration of the first half of that 

period." In 1976, for the same reason, Congress finally authorized a mid-decade census, but it 

was never funded. The ACS is the fulfillment of Grant's request. 

Tracing the line from Madison to the ACS, we can see the "democratization" of census data as 

the nation advances in its ability to analyze and communicate. Initially, the data were used to 

7 
117 

inform public policy. Increasingly throughout the 19th century, they were studied by social 

scientists. By the 1880s, an explicit purpose of census data was to inform business decisionmaking, particularly to improve market efficiencies and firm competitiveness overseas. In the 

1960s, Congress began relying on "long fol'll1" census data to distribute federal domestic 

financial assistance. For the last 15 years, the Internet and increasingly advanced software have 

allowed anyone anywhere instantaneous access to ACS tables and public use data and the 

capacity to analyze them in sophisticated ways. 

8 
118 

Post-Hearing Questions for the Record 

Submitted to the Direetor Robert Groves 

From Dr. Tom Coburn 

"Census: Planning Ahead for 2020" 

July 20, 2012 

1. In your testimony, you discussed how the Census Bureau could improve its efficiency and 

accomplish its mission better if it had access to other federal agencies' data and information 

about citizens. Can you please describe what type of infonnation sharing between agencies 

currently exists and what is needed? Please describe any legislative or regulatory changes 

that would need to be made to allow the Census Bureau to access other agencies' data and 

information. 

Response: 

The Census Bureau has broad authority to acquire administrative records from other federal 

agencies, state and local governments, and other organizations based on 13 U.S.C. § 6, which 

allows the agency to "acquire, by purchase or otherwise, ... such copies of records, reports, and 

other material as may be required for the efficient and economical conduct of censuscs and 

survcys .... " The Census Bureau has traditionally relied on this authority to acquire such records 

from many agencies, such as the Social Security Administration, Housing and Urban 

Development, Indian Health Service, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, as 

well as information from some states, such as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and 

commercial entities such as InfoUSA. In addition, the Census Bureau also receives federal tax 

infOlmation based on 26 U.S.C. § 61030), which specifically provides for the disclosure of 

federal tax information to the Census Bureau to assist with the "structuring of censuses and 

national economic accounts and conducting related statistical activities as authorized by law." 

It is important to note, when the Census Bureau acquires information from other entities. the 

intolmation is protected. In addition to any statutory or policy requirements from the data 

provider, the Census Bureau protects information under 13 u.s.c. § 9. which protects 

confidentiality and limits the use ofinfonnation solely for statistical purposes,just as it does for 

information collected by its surveys. 

However, there are some impediments to receiving data from other federal and state agencies, 

most notably disclosure prohibitions. For example. the Fanlily Educational Rights and Privacy 

Act of 1974 (FERPA) prohibits disclosure of personally identifiable information from education 

records to the Census Bureau for statistical purposes, unless that intormation has been 

appropriately designated as directory infOlmation (20 U.S.c. § 1232g). In addition, the 

Department of Education has been restricted in sharing information from the electronic versions 

of the Free Application tor Federal Student Aid with the Census Bureau by the privacy 

restrictions contained in the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (20 U.S.C. § 

1090(a)(3(E»). The National Directory of New Hires. a national databasc of wage and 

employment information used for child support enforcement, containing new hire, quarterly 

wage, and unemployment insurance infolTIlation, is another example of administrative records 

which the Census Bureau cannot access (42 U.S.c. § 453), although H.R. 4282, cUlTently 

pending in the Senate, would rectify this situation. Even where therc is no statutory prohibition 
119 

on disclosure of program data for statistical purposes, the Census Bureau is often compelled to 

enter lengthy negotiations with the agency to address confidentiality and disclosure concerns. 

Acquiring data where a federal program is administered by individual states is even more 

difficult where there is no federal directive or guidance to sharc program data, and/or when a 

state statute further prohibits disclosure. The fact that the Privacy Act includes a specific 

statutory exception for disclosures "to the Bureau of the Census for purposes of planning or 

carrying out a census or surveyor related activity pursuant to the provisions of Title 13" helps to 

mitigate federal agency concerns about the release of data to the Census Bureau. Nevertheless, 

these negotiations may be prolonged in the absence of specific authority in the program's statute 

to share information with the Census Bureau. 

It is also important to note that the Census Bureau is not the only federal agency that cannot 

obtain data when there are statutory limitations, but such limitations apply to the Federal 

statistical system at-large. Legislative changes to improve access to administrative records for 

statistical purposes could include a new authority that would permit programmatic agencies to 

disclose information to statistical agencies for exclusively statistical purposes, which may require 

revisions to existing agency/program authorities. The Census Bureau is a member of the 

Interagency Committee on Statistical Policy (ICSP), which was codified in the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, is chaired by OMB's Chief Statistician, and includes heads of the major 

statistical agencies and representatives of some smaller statistical programs. The ICSP is 

cUITently identifying such authorities and opportunities to improve access to administrative data. 

These opportunities extend beyond the Census Bureau, which may be able to save billions of 

dollars in field infrastmcture for the 2020 census if able to use data about many non-responding 

households from the ACS and administrative records, to many of the other principal statistical 

agencies, where for example, administrative data on school and eourse emollment could decrease 

survey burden by the National Center for Education Statistics and where granting the Bureau of 

Economic Analysis and the Bureau of Labor Statistics access to the same administrative data as 

the Census Bureau could synchronize their business lists, significantly improving the consistency 

and quality of principal economic statistics while simultaneously reducing the burden on 

businesses. 

2. During the hearing, the topic of how the Census Bureau can or should work with state 

governments to accomplish its mission was discussed. Can you please describe how the 

Census Bureau is working with state or local governments, how this could work better, and 

any legislative or regulatory ehanges that would need to be made to improve this 

cooperation? 

Response: 

In support of the Geographic Support System Initiative (GSS- I) and its upcoming national 

partnership program, the Census Bureau is working with tribal, state, and local governments in 

the implementation of five pilot projects. 

In September 20 II, the Census Bureau hosted a 2-day Census Address Summit. There were 60 

attendees, including 44 external stakeholders representing Federal agencies and various state, 

county, and local governments. Summit goals included (1) educating partners on the GSS 

[nitiative, (2) gaining a common understanding regarding the detinition of an address, (3) 

2 
120 

learning how the Census Bureau's partners are collecting, utilizing, and maintaining addresses, 

and (4) brainstorming about potential pilot projects that will contribute to the improved quality of 

the Master Address File. 

Five pilot projects proposed at the Census Address Summit began in spring 2012; participants 

include Geography Division subject matter experts and tribal, state, county, and local 

government partners, as well as representatives from academia and non-profit organizations. 

1. Address Authority Outreach and Support for Data Sharing Efforts - Goal: To research and 

develop an approach for identifying and creating an inventory of address authorities, which 

facilitates address data sharing activities and provides guidance on overcoming barriers 

(legal/policy) at the local level. 

2. FGDC Address Standards and Implementation - Goal: To educate local authorities on the 

benefits, use, and implementation of the Federal Geographic Data Committee's United States 

Thoroughfare, Landmark, and Postal Address Data Standard (FGDC Address Standard). 

3. Project for FederallStatefTribalfLocal Address Management Coordination - Goal: To create 

a formalized model 10 allow for the development, maintenance, and bi-directional (statelocal-tribal and state-federal) sharing of high quality multiple use address data. 

4. Data Sharing - Loeal, State, USPS, and Census - Goal: To create an address data 

sharing/exehange model that will allow for address data sharing between loeal governments, 

state governments, the USPS, and the Census Burean. It will provide a business process that 

increases the accuracy and coverage of local government address lists, while streamlining the 

process of sharing those externally. 

5. Capture of HiddenlHard to Capture Addresses - Goal: To detennine how to capture hidden 

addresses and/or hard to capture addresses in the MAF and make them useful for 

enumeration purposes. 

All five pilot projects began implementation in March 2012 with a planned completion date 

of December 31, 2012. Final Reports/Recommendations will be issned at that time and will 

contribute to the development of a national partnership program designed to continually 

update the Census Bureau's MAFITIGER System. 

We should note that we conduct all ofthese activities solely to assist the Census Bureau in its 

activities, in accordance with Section 9, Title 13 of the United States Code (the Census Act). 

Under this provision, the Census Bureau must use information collected from or on behalf of a 

respondent only tor the statistical purposes for which the Census Bureau collected the 

int(.lfmatiol1, must not disclose personally identifiable data, and may not permit anyone other 

than sworn ot1icers or employees to examine cenSllS questionnaires or returns. Addresses are 

personally identifiable infonl1ation collected £i'om or on behalf of respondents. Baldrige v. 

Shapiro. 455 U.S. 345, 355 (1982). From time (0 time, Congress has exercised its authority to 

amend the Census Act to provide for exceptions that permit the limited sharing of address 

int()]1l1ation. In 1994, Congress passed the Address List Improvement Act, authorizing access to 

3 
121 

census address infonnation by local governments to "verify the accuracy of the address 

infornlation of the Bureau for census and survey purposes:' The Census Bureau conducts the 

current Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) program in accordance with this law. 

However, the Census Bureau is also aware of the burden such cooperation and assistance placcs 

on local governments, as well as the competing needs for an integrated and national authoritative 

source for address infonnation, The Census Bureau is open to further discussion on these 

matters. 

3. During the hearing, we discussed the need for the Census Bureau to consider new strategies 

to encourage participation in the American Community Survey ifit is changed to voluntary. 

Can you please share your ideas for an incentive-based approach to encouraging 

participation? 

Response: 

The Census Bureau periodically conducts evaluations and experiments to improve ACS 

efficiency, specifically methods to improve self·response. We would need to conduct additional 

research to dctcnninc if new messaging strategies (e.g., in postcards. letters, or other mailings) or 

other incentives could improve participation in a voluntary ACS. Research the Census Bureau 

conducted in 2003 included testing motivational and mandatory messaging on the envelopes and 

in the survey letters, and we recognize that additional research may be necessary. In 2013, the 

ACS will change its contact stratcgy to encouragc response by the Internet. We expect this 

design to improve the timeliness of sclf-response and convert response from mail to internet; 

however, we arc not certain how a change to voluntary response would affect this new mode of 

data collection and contact strategy. Many of the 2010 Census communications strategies are 

impractical in a sample survey setting because the survey is only being sent to a small portion of 

the population. The Census Bureau would need to conduct focus groups and other research, as 

well as work with local partners to develop possible new approaches. Promising approaches 

would need to be tested in large-scale experiments to examine impacts on response. 

4. What does the Census Bureau spend on mapping? Please provide an estimate for what was 

spent on mapping for the 20 I 0 cycle, what is spent alillually, and what is expected to be spent 

on the 2020 Census. 

Response: 

In FY 2012, the Census Bureau expects to spend $3.5 million on mapping. In response to this 

question, thc Census Bureau has interpreted "mapping" to mean the production and 

dissemination of electronic or paper maps. The Cartographic Products Management Branch 

within the Geography Division is responsible Jor this work. Their tasks includc: 

• Designing and producing cmiographic products to support the data dissemination 

requirements of censuses and surveys. 

• Designing, developing, and implementing state-of-the-art mapping systems (using COTS 

and in-house software) to meet data product mapping requirements. 

• Developing and maintaining mapping systems that meet requirements for cllstomized 

cartographic products on demand. 

4 
122 

It is importanllo note that mapping is only one piece of the Census Bureau's geographic 

infrastructure. In FY 2012, the Census Bureau expects to spend $67.7 million on this 

infrastructure. The Census Bureau maintains a foundation of geographic data within the Master 

Address File/Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) 

System. The MAF contains address information such as house number, street name, unit 

designator, city, state, and zip code. The TIGER Database contains spatial data such as roads, 

hydrography, boundaries and their identifiers and names. Together, these systems provide the 

ability to relate an address to a specific geographic location. This relation is necessary to ensure 

the correct allocation of population and housing for censuses and surveys. Accurate allocation of 

population and housing is critical for the accuratc apportionment of the U.S. House of 

Representatives, congressional and legislative redistricting, and the allocation of federal funds. 

All geospatial data and maps produced by the Census Bureau are dcrivcd from the MAF/TIGER 

System. 

5. In a 2011 hearing, you said that the Census Bureau was reducing costs by "actively 

partnering" with the commercial mapping industry. During last week's hcaring, you 

expressed openness to the idea of such partnerships, but did not indicate whether this was 

currently being done or a part of the 2020 Census strategic plan. Will the Census Bureau 

work to reduce costs through partnerships with private sector mapping sources and the use of 

commercially available maps? 

Response: 

In April 2011, the U.S. Census Bureau issued a Request for Information (RFI) regarding the 

availability and feasibility of creating a partnership between the Census Bureau and a 

government contractor through market research focused on exchanging geographic data 

commonly used by both partners. Specific objectives of the partnership follow: 

Objectivc I: To focus on sharing information including, but not limited to: 

• The contents of each organization's respective databases. 

• The quality of information in the databases; how does each partner measure/evaluate? 

• The quality of the sources of the data; what is acceptable quality, how does each 

partner measure/evaluate? 

• The coverage of data and data sources. 

• Each organization's knowledge about data collection, sources, feature updating, etc. 

Objective 2: To design a potential feature data exchange process by: 

• Realigning existing roads, if necessary, in either database. 

• Adding new features. if necessary, in either database. 

• Work related to this objective would encompass: 

o Selecting a county with transportation features of varying positional accuracy, 

some of which exist only in the MTdb and some of which exist only in the 

partner· s database. 

o Determining how roads can be matched between databases based on 

geographic position and attributes. 

o Detennining the attributes of importance. 

5 
123 

o Detelmining the criteria for identifying which database has the best positional 

accuracy, by feature type. 

o Determining whether it is necessary to realign existing roads prior to moving 

forward with updating new roads. 

o Identifying new roads and update appropriate databases. 

o All the above will contribute to developing a process to facilitate updating of 

databases. 

Three private sector mapping sources responded to the RFI Nokia/NA VTEQ, TomTom, and 

Esri. The Census Bureau began working with NokiaINAVTEQ in February 2012 to address 

cach objective. The Census Bureau will initiate work with the other two mapping sources in 

2013. 

6. During last week's hearing, many of the witnesses suggested that one way to improve 

response to a "voluntary" ACS was through the use of a partnership program similar to what 

was used in the 2010 Census. Can you please discuss any plans the bureau may have in 

regards to this solution? 

Response: The Census Bureau currently has developed local and national partnership progranls 

and plans to build on 2010 Census efforts, although on a smaller, more targeted scale appropriate 

to the survey's sample size. Partnership specialists, located in our regional offices, are trained 

on ACS data collection and data dissemination, and these individuals work with local officials, 

business, non-profit organizations, advocacy groups, media, and other interested parties to 

educate them on all aspects of the ACS and encourage participation among their 

constituencies. Census Bureau staft~ both at Headquarters and in the regional offices, also work 

with national organizations and associations representing a range of interests and constituencies 

in a similar manner. A new initiative is underway to improve and increase both efforts, focusing 

specifically on the benefits and return on investment for survey participation, and to help 

respondents understand the uses of ACS data. 

6 
124 

Post-Hearing Questions for the Record 

Submitted to the Commerce Inspector General Todd Zinser 

from Dr. Tom Coburn 

"Census: Planning Ahead for 2020" 

July 20, 2012 

1. In your testimony, you discussed how the Census Bureau could improve its efficiency 

and accomplish its mission better if it had access to other federal agencies' data and 

information about citizens. Can you please describe what type of information sharing 

between agencies currently exists and what is needed? Please describe any legislative or 

regulatory changes that would need to be made to allow the Census Bureau to access 

other agencies' data and information. 

Information Sharing Between Agencies and the Census Bureau 

Congress has authorized the Department of Commerce and, ultimately, the Census Bureau 

to acquire and use information available from any sources by purchase or otherwise--from 

states, counties, cities, or other units of government, or their instrumentalities, or from 

private persons and agencies-for the conduct of statistical activities instead of direct 

inquiries. I Congress has provided additional legislative support for these activities with the 

Bureau's specific exemption in the Privacy Act of 1974 (as amended).2 The Bureau actively 

uses these authorities to collect information and minimize respondent burden. 

The Census Bureau receives billions of records each year from a variety of other federal 

agencies to conduct its own demographic and economic statistical programs, as well as 

statistical activities it conducts for other federal agencies,3 through the Statistical 

Administrative Records System (StARS). The Bureau began building this system in the mid19905, and agencies currently providing data for this system of records include the 

Departments of Agriculture, Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, 

Housing and Urban Development, Labor, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs, as well as the 

Office of Personnel Management, the Social Security Administration, the Selective Service 

System, and the U.S. Postal Service.· In addition, StARS includes data from state 

governments and private entities. 

Most federal agencies, state governments, and private organizations collect and maintain 

basic information on the individuals and businesses they serve. Their records typically 

include the type of contact information (e.g., names, addresses, and telephone numbers) 

that could be used to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of statistical programs such as 

the decennial census. In addition, organizations maintain a wide array of other information 

that they have individually determined to support their mission. The types of information 

I 13 U.S.C. § 6. 

2 5 U.s.c. § 552a(b)(4). 

, Censuses, surveys, and other statistical studies as authorized by 13 U.S.c. §§ I - 402 and 15 U.S.C. § 1525. 

4 As defined in its Privacy Act System of Records notice COMMERCE/CENSUS-B, Statistical Administrative Records 

System (74 FR 12834-02). 
125 

vary by source agency and program within those agencies. Therefore. the records the 

Bureau maintains in StARS may contain the following types of information: 

• Demographic information such as date of birth, sex, race, ethnicity, household and 

family characteristics, education, marital status, tribal affiliation, and military veteran 

status; 

• Geagraphical and respondent contact information such as name, address, telephone 

number, and geographic codes; 

• Mortality information such as cause of death and hospitalization information; 

• Health information such as type of provider, services provided, cost of services, and 

quality indicators; 

• Economic information such as housing characteristics, income, occupation, 

employment and unemployment information, health insurance coverage, federal 

program participation, assets, and wealth; and 

• Business information such as business name, revenues, number of employees, and 

industry codes. 

Data Use Constraints 

The Census Bureau's receipt of information from supplying agencies has required years of 

negotiations. Each data-providing agency, guided by its own statutes and policies regarding 

acceptable disclosure and use, places constraints on the information it supplies. When the 

Bureau uses records from multiple agencies to conduct a spedfic operation, the interplay 

between these legal constraints can be quite complex and limiting. As a result, the Bureau 

has only used administrative records in a limited fashion in prior decennial census 

operations. In some cases any presentation of data that describes the source of the record 

would violate a confidentiality provision. The merger of information from multiple data 

sources, such as the Internal Revenue Service and the Bureau, while removing information 

that describes a specific record's source, protects confidentiality. According to the Bureau, 

in a recent request for information from the Department of Education, there is a question 

as to whether that department can even provide information to the Census Bureau due to 

the privacy requirements mandated by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.' 

The Census Bureau has its own constraints on the return of information to other federal 

agendes. Agency information that it merges with data collected under the authority of Title 

13 cannot be returned to that agency in an identifiable form, even if that entity is another 

federal statistical agency.6 Legal exceptions have been required to authorize the sharing of 

information for statistical purposes. One exception was permitted with the Census Address 

, 20 U.S.c. § 1 232g; 34 C.F.R. Part 99. 

• 13 U.S.C. § 9. 

2 
126 

List Improvement Act of 1994.' which allowed the Bureau to share address information 

with local government entities for the conduct of the decennial census and other statistical 

activities. provided they signed a confidentiality agreement. 

Another important example of a Congressional mandate to share data is the Confidential 

Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002.8 This Act provided a baseline 

of confidentiality protections for statistical information in Subtitle A; it also authorized the 

Census Bureau. the Bureau of Economic Analysis. and the Bureau of Labor Statistics to 

share business data for the efficient and consistent representation of businesses and the 

national economy in Subtitle B. Much of the business data held by the Census Bureau comes 

from the Internal Revenue Service. and the Bureau adds value through processing. coding. 

and merger with its own economic data collections. 

All agencies operate under confidentiality and data sharing constraints that have been 

developed and promulgated after more than a century of federal laws and Supreme Court 

decisions. The United States has grappled with the often contradictory priorities of the 

government's need for information. to effectively and efficiently provide appropriate 

representation and services to its populace. and an individual's right to privacy and 

protection from harm. The conduct of a census or a statistical survey. by its very nature. 

places burden on respondents and impacts their privacy. However. this need for statistics 

versus the burden placed on respondents is balanced by legislative controls such as the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. 

Considerations that Could Improve the Census Bureau's Efficient Production of 

Information 

Agencies are only custodians of personal and business information that is owned by the 

people of the United States. and the use of that information is directed by Congress. The 

federal statistical system uses those records to create important economic indicators. as 

well as demographic and socio-economic statistics. to help inform the apportionment of 

representation. determine policy. and direct resources. In addition. these statistics inform 

the populace and provide businesses with the information they need to make sound 

decisions that eventually fuel our economy. Given the staggering cost growth experienced 

over prior decennials. the Census Bureau needs a new method of conducting the decennial 

census to reduce costs while maintaining or improving accuracy. 

It is in the government's interest to foster a thriving statistical system even in a constrained 

budget environment, and the Census Bureau is a key component of our national statistical 

system. The government's ability to enhance the use, or reuse. of information that people 

and businesses have already provided reduces the burden placed on them to respond to 

questionnaires and reduces intrusion of their privacy. Agencies have already incurred the 

cost of collecting and processing the information they house. Reusing existing data 

minimizes the cost incurred by the government to collect data for statistical activities. 

7 P.L. 103-430. 

, P.L. 107-347, Title V. 
127 

We are not recommending that the Census Bureau conduct a cost-effective decennial 

census solely through the use of existing data. It is important that individuals have the 

capacity to inform the government where they live and provide the basic characteristics 

required for a functioning representative democracy. However, if individuals are not directly 

contacted in the decennial census process, or they do not to provide their information, they 

can still be enumerated through information the government already holds.9 In addition, 

existing information can help the Bureau develop more cost-effective and efficient census 

and survey data collections. There are potential ways to improve the statistical system, and 

reduce costs, while minimizing the impact on individual privacy: 

I. Congress should consider whether address information could be shared more freely and 

continuously among agencies, including state and local governments, for the purpose of 

statistical operations. Address and map information is widely available on the internet 

and through data vendors. These data alone do not impact the privacy of individuals. 

However, the confidentiality constraints under which the Census Bureau operates do 

not allow the sharing of this type of information with other agencies and leads to 

inefficient and perhaps ineffective government-wide operations. This new approach 

might require legislation and the further development and promulgation of address 

and mapping standards. 

2. Congress should consider a legislative requirement for federal agencies to pravide unclassified 

information to the Bureau for the sole purpose of producing relevant, high-quality statistics. 

Even though the Census Bureau has the legal authority to request data from other 

federal agencies for statistical activities, those agencies are not required to provide the 

information to the Bureau. Furthermore, when agencies do provide information, it 

comes with legal constraints on data access and use and often requires labor intensive 

negotiations. New legislation requiring federal agencies to provide the Bureau their 

information could reduce this burden and enhance statistical operations-including, 

but not limited to, the decennial census and the long-form replacement American 

Community Survey. 

3. Congress should consider legislation that tronsfers the custodial requirements from the source 

agency to the Census Bureou when that agency provides its informotion. Agencies are very 

diligent about data confidentiality and appropriate use of information they collect. 

maintain, and eventually provide to the Census Bureau. Serving as custodians of the 

public interest and national records, these agencies continue to encounter the burden 

of overseeing and reporting on the Bureau's use of the data they have provided. This 

burden remains with agencies, despite the fact that the Bureau's confidentiality 

protections are more restrictive than the protections applicable to most federal 

unclassified information. New legislation would help eliminate this burden. 

, As provided by 13 U.S.C § 6. 

4 
128 

2. Do you think that the Census Bureau's strategy for mapping is efficient? Could the 

Census Bureau improve its efficiency by using commercially available maps? Please 

provide any recommendations for how the Census Bureau could improve its mapping 

strategies. 

OIG has not specifically conducted an analysis of the Census Bureau's strategy for the 

acquisition and use of commercially available products either to replace or improve its own 

maps. Our evaluation efforts have focused on addresses, the critical means for locating and 

enumerating the population in the decennial census. As required by Congressional 

apportionment and redistricting, the Bureau maps link each address and other living quarter 

identifiers to a specific spot on a map through a process called geocoding. These addresses 

and map also provide tallies for political and statistical geographic entities. 

In May 2012, we released our evaluation of the impact that various address-updating 

operations (including U.S. Postal Service address updates) have on the Census Bureau's 

combined master address file (MAF) and topologically integrated geographic encoding and 

referencing (TIGER) map database (combined, the MAF--TIGER database, or MTdb).ln this 

report, we identified trends that introduced error in its production process. 'O In addition, 

we reviewed the process by which Bureau field staff and local governments provided 

address, map, and boundary updates in the 20 I 0 decennial. 

We found that the Census Bureau's efforts to assess MT db quality were unsuccessful in 

20 I O. In addition, the Bureau did not realize its goal of updating address and map 

information from tribal, state, county, and local government partners. It must meet both of 

these goals to implement a 2020 decennial address-canvassing operation with reduced 

costs. Furthermore, as of June 20 II, the MAF contained 3.5 million ungeocoded records-a 

number likely to rise, as it did during the 20 I 0 decennial. Without maintenance of the MT db 

by continuous geocoding throughout the decade, the Bureau will again have to rely on an 

expensive end-of-decade address-canvassing operation. Finally, the MAF updating process of 

accepting more recent address changes without adequate verification may result in a lowerquality address list. 

We recommended that the Census Bureau: 

I. Develop an MTdb measure for determining address list quality at a low level of 

geography that (a) provides a fair and equal opportunity for targeting selection, (b) 

drives selection and planning decisions, and (c) is well-documented and verifiable. 

2. Work with the Department to determine the feasibility of improving methods of sharing 

MTdb information throughout the decade with governmental entities (partners) to 

create a uniform, national address list. 

10 See U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Inspector General. May 2012. High-Quality Maps and Accurate 

Addresses Are Needed to Achieve Census 2020 Cost-Saving Goals. OIG-12-024-1. Washington. DC: Department of 

Commerce OIG. 
129 

3. Investigate and remedy the exclusion of 500,000 ungeocoded address records, which 

had been designated as valid U.S. Postal Service delivery addresses, from the 2010 

decennial. 

4. Conduct the necessary research, develop a proven methodology, and allocate the 

necessary funds to continuously reduce the number of ungeocoded records throughout 

the decade. 

5. Develop and implement quality indicator tO'ols, including use of administrative records, II 

to ensure that updates to the MAF are accurate. 

Congress should continue to encourage the use of administrative records to improve the 

address list and reduce the number of visits to housing units that do not return the 

questionnaire. Although tribal, state, county, and local governments share address 

information with the Census Bureau, Title 13 forbids the Bureau from reciprocating with 

those partners--except for a few very narrow exceptions, such as the once-a-decade 

address-updating program. The Census Address List Improvement Act of 1994 did amend 

Title 13 to provide a limited exception to these restrictions for local governments, allowing 

two-way sharing of address information between the Bureau and officials designated by local 

government units. However, the program has several requirements, including an invitation 

and review phase, as well as an appeals process. The 20 I 0 decennial's program occurred 

from January 2007 through March 20 I O. Although it may require legislative action, a more 

informal method of two-way sharing of address lists earlier in the decade could improve 

address updating and geocoding as well as the cost-effectiveness of the Bureau's 

demographic censuses and surveys throughout the decade. 

II The Census Bureau receives administrative records from a variety of sources. Bureau use of these records in 

the address updating and verification process could substantially reduce the size and scope of expensive field 

operations in the 2020 decennial. See the first consideration. at the end of our first response. for a more detailed 

discussion of the potential legislative issues inherent in these uses of administrative records. 

6 
130 

Written Statement of 

Direct Marketing Association 

Submitted for the Hearing Record 

"Census: Planning Ahead for 2020 " 

Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal 

Services, and international Security 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

United States Senate 

July 18,2012 

The Direct Marketing Association (DMA)! thanks Senator Carper and Senator Brown for this 

opportunity to present its views supporting the American Community Survey (ACS). 

DMA members universally rely upon data to compete in the American and world markets. 

Reliable data allow marketers to determine to whom relevant marketing offers should be sent (by 

location, by demographic grouping, etc.). Without data available to marketers, consumers would 

receive fewer and fewer offers of interest and more and more non-relevant offers. This would 

increase the costs of commerce for marketers, and, thus, increase the costs of goods for 

consumers. In the current economic situation government should not create job losses or restrict 

job creation by increasing the costs of business operations. Nor should government reduce retail 

growth by increasing the costs of goods for American consumers. 

There is no substitute for ACS data in the marketplace. The face of America changes 

significantly in the ten years between the decennial census, and ACS fills that gap. ACS directly 

provides or is the foundation of much of that data. 

Lack of ACS data would have a disproportionate impact on small and startup businesses. These 

businesses do not have the resources to conduct extensive market research to determine to whom 

they should direct their advertising or where they should open their retail outlet. ACS provides 

those data. Due to the sample size and strata of ACS data, they are reliable to the town level. 

Any restrictions on ACS that would reduce the statistical reliability of town-level data would 

undermine significantly the efficacy of these data for many businesses, particularly small 

businesses. 

To remain competitive in the information age the United States should foster the creation of new, 

secure and anonymous data to help businesses, federal, state and local governments better serve 

their customers and constituents. ACS data available to the public are anonymous and do not 

I DMA is the leading global trade association of businesses and nonprofit organizations using and supporting direct 

marketing via communication channels, including mail, telephone, direct TV, radio, the Internet, email and mobile. 

Founded in 1917, the DMA currently has over 2,000 member companies and organizations across the United States 

and 53 foreign countries. 
131 

present personally identifiable information on any American. The Census Bureau has strong 

protections surrounding these data and a track record of keeping data secure for decades. 

Businesses do not obtain data on particular individuals from the Bureau through ACS. 

DMA urges the Subcommittee to support ACS and to continue its existence. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Jerry Cerasale 

Senior Vice President, Government Affairs 

Direct Marketing Association 

1615 L Street, NW, Suite 1100 

Washington, DC 20036 

202-861-2423 

icerasale@the-dma.org 
132 

AAUW 

Written Testimony of 

Lisa Maatz, Director of Public Policy and Government Relations 

American Association of University Women (AAUW) . 

United States Senate Subcommittee on 

Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, 

and International Security 

Hearing on 

The 2020 Census and American Community Survey 

July 18,2012 

Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Brown, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the 

opportunity to submit testimony for the hearing on the 2020 Census and the American Community 

Survey. 

On behalf ofthe nearly 150,000 bipartisan members and supporters of the American Association of 

University Women (AAUW), I am pleased to share AAUW's input on the importance of the 

American Community Survey (ACS) data. AAUW is proud of its 13 I-year history of breaking 

through barriers for women and girls and has always been a strong supporter of gender equity. 

AAUW believes the ACS is an essential service, and that its funding should be preserved. We stand 

with many other groups in supporting the ACS and its important role.' AAUW fears that recent 

moves by the House of Representatives to strip the Census Bureau of ACS funding will endanger the 

federal government's ability to gather and disseminate important infonnation used not only by the 

government, but by organizations such as AAUW. 

One of AAUW's central priorities is promoting pay equity and closing the wage gap between men 

and women in the workforce. AAUW's member-adopted Public Policy Principles affirm our 

opposition to "all forms of discrimination" and commitment to "an economy that provides equitable 

employment opportunities."'; To further this goal, AAUW has published several original research 

reports analyzing the national gender pay gap as well as the gap in all fifty states and Washington 

DC. The ACS is the only source for this information. 

AAUW uses the ACS data to calculate the wage gap at the state level. According to ACS data, in 

2010 the pay gap was smallest in Washington, D.C., where women earned 91 percent of what men 

earned, and largest in Wyoming, where women earned 64 percent of what men earned.';; Differences 

at the state level are significant because it shows which sub-populations are better at implementing 

social, economic and legal policies to promote pay equity, and this understanding helps our 

organization fashion its advocacy and public education. 
133 

Testimony of Lisa M. Maatz - AAUW 

AAUW analyzed ACS data to determine the wage gap at the state level for members of the 

subcommittee. As you can see, the wage gap persists. 

State Median Annual Earnings, Earnings Ratio (for Full-time, Year-round Workers, Ages 16 

and Older, by State and Gender 2010 , and National RanklV 

State Men Womeu Earnin!!s Ratio National Rank 

Arizona $43,594 $35,947 82% 8 

Massachusetts $56,959 $46,213 81% 9 

Delaware $49,013 $39,508 81% 11 

Hawaii $45,443 $36,242 80% 16 

Wisconsin $45,523 $35,490 78% 25 

Ohio $45,859 $35,284 77% 30 

Missouri $42,282 $32,481 77% 32 

Oklahoma $40,458 $30,901 76% 35 

Alaska $56,643 $42,376 75% 38 

Arkansas $39,082 $29,148 75% 41 

Michigan $48,953 $36,413 74% 42 

The ACS captures the most accurate statistical portrait of the wage gap. Before the ACS, wage gap 

information was difficult to ascertain with certainty because the Census was conducted only every 

ten years even though salaries did not remain constant over that timeframe. A survey taken only once 

per decade misses a lot of economic fluctuation, particularly changes in the rate of inflation, cost-ofliving, and the wage gap. For example, more frequent measurement of wage information is necessary 

to determine whether a particular public policy change or new law has any effect on the wage gap. 

Policies adopted in response to decade-old data do little to solve the problems they are meant to 

address. 

Not only is ACS data useful for analysis, it's also necessary for activism. It's not enough to tell 

people that there's still a gender wage gap - you need to allow them to use the data. The ACS web 

based tools enables non-technical people to engage directly with the facts. 

The ACS is the only source of objective, consistent, and comprehensive information about the 

nation's social, economic, and demographic characteristics down to the neighborhood level. The 

importance of high-quality, objective, and universal ACS data for public and private sector decisionmakers cannot be overstated. AAUW strongly believes the ACS, and the valuable data it provides, 

should be protected. 

Thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony to the committee on this important issue. 

Sincerely, 

Lisa M. Maatz 

Director, Public Policy and Government Relations 

American Association of University Women 

2 
134 

Testimony of Lisa M. Maatz - AAUW 

'The Census Project. (May 16, 2012). Letter to Senate Leadership on FY 2013 Census Bureau Funding, Including 

American Community Survey Funding May 16,2012. Retrieved July 13,2012, from 

www.thecensusproject.org/letters/2012-05-21 Senate Census Budget Ltr-SenateLeadership-Final-Signed.pdf 

"AAUW. (June 2011). Public Policy Principles 2011-13. Retrieved May 29, 2012, from 

www.aauw.argi.cUissue advocacy/principles priorities.cfrn #pri nei pIes 

'" AAUW. (2012). The Simple Truth about the Gender Pay Gap. Retrieved May 29, 2012, from 

www.aauw.arg/learn/research/upload/simpletruthaboutpaygap I.pdf 

" U.S. Census Bureau, 20 J 0 American Community Survey data. 

3 
135 

The leadership Conference 

on Civil and Human Rights 

162g K Street, ~,w ,07.466,3311 voice 

10m Floor 702.466.3,135 fax 

Wa~hingtoni DC vv\W/,dvilrights.org 

20006 

" T'" The Leadership 

Conference 

STATEMENT OF WADE HENDERSON, PRESIDENT & CEO 

THE LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS 

HEARING ON 

"CENSUS: PLANNING AHEAD FOR 2020" 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT 

INFORMATION, FEDERAL SERVICES, AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

JULY 18,2012 

Washington, DC 

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights (The Leadership Conference) 

appreciates the opportunity to submit a statement for the record on this important topic. 

The Leadership Conference is a coalition charged by its diverse membership of more than 210 

national organizations to promote and protect the civil and human rights of all persons in the 

United States. Founded in 1950 by A. Philip Randolph, Arnold Aronson, and Roy Wilkins, The 

Leadership Conference works in support of policies that further the goal of equality under law 

through legislative advocacy and public education. 

The Leadership Conference is ideally positioned to address many of the most pressing issues 

affecting the successful implementation of Census Bureau programs, surveys, and initiatives. 

The Leadership Conference's coordinating role among so many diverse organizations allows for 

the sharing of different perspectives, as well as the development of broader strategies that occur 

within the purview of any individual organization. All of our work draws on the expertise of the 

cross-section of national organizations, and examines the impact of civil rights policy on a broad 

range of constituencies. 

The Leadership Conference considers a fair and accurate census and comprehensive American 

Community Survey (ACS) to be among the most significant civil rights issues facing the country 

today. Our wide-ranging efforts to promote equality of representation and economic opportunity 

are informed by objective, inclusive data on America's diverse communities and populations. 

The Leadership Conference and member organizations appreciate the importance of fact-based 

analyses for identifying disparate access and outcomes and devising effective solutions. 
136 

,. T" The Leadership 

Page 2 of 4 

Conference 

American Community Survey 

FY 2013 funding to support reliable ACS data is critical for sound government and business 

profitability, and the pursuit of national economic prosperity. We believe the president's FY 

2013 budget request of $252.7 million sufficiently invests in the ACS program to ensure that the 

sample size is large enough to produce reliable and useful data for less populated geographic 

areas, such as towns and rural counties, and especially for less populous subgroups. This funding 

also would allow for improved telephone and field data collection; sufficient follow-up of 

unresponsive households in remote areas; and a comprehensive review of three-year and fiveyear ACS estimates. These activities are imperative for ensuring the ACS can continue to 

provide valid data about the socio-economic and demographic characteristics of the American 

people on an ongoing, annual basis. 

The fact that the ACS has been the target of multiple legislative attempts to gut, undermine, 

underfund, and even do away with the survey altogether, is extremely troubling for The 

Leadership Conference and our members. For our members, the ACS is not an end in and of 

itself, but a foundation for future policies, allocations of funds, and political representation. The 

ACS' greatest strength is that it gives detailed information about us as a people. This, in turn, can 

show where populations are growing and new schools or hospitals may be needed. It can 

provide the impetus for government intervention in areas of high unemployment or influence 

local government to build a new highway or expand a public bus system. It's also the basis for 

the distribution of trillions of dollars in public - and private - investment. 

Simply put, the loss of ACS data would thwart both public and private efforts to address the 

needs and interests of our diverse country. 

That's because, for an ever-diversifying nation, the ACS provides the only accurate, reliable 

source of data that helps us understand who we are. For example: 

• The Voting Rights Act relies on ACS data to determine which jurisdictions must offer 

multi-lingual ballots. 

• The ACS collects information on place of birth, citizenship, year of entry, and language 

spoken at home in order to better serve the needs of immigrants and refugees. 

• The ACS is our communities' major source of state and local data on poverty, household 

income, education level of the workforce, types of disabilities of local residents, and 

scores of other major indicators. 

We are also troubled by efforts to convert the ACS from a mandatory to an optional survey, 

despite evidence indicating voluntary participation would not yield accurate and reliable data. 

For example, in 2003, Congress directed the Census Bureau to explore the possibility of making 
137 

" I " The Leadership 

Page 3 of 4 Conference 

the ACS voluntary. In two reports' and several more recent analyses, the Bureau concluded that 

mail response rates to a voluntary ACS would drop "dramatically," by more than 20 percentage 

points. Cooperation in traditionally low mail-response areas (which tend to equate with hard-tocount communities, such as people of color, low income families, people with disabilities, and 

rural households) declined even further when ACS response was voluntary. In addition, a 

significantly higher percentage of traditionally easier-to-count populations, such as non-Hispanic 

Whites, also failed to respond during the mail and telephone phases of the ACS. These findings 

suggest that the quality of estimates produced from a voluntary ACS would be severely 

jeopardized for all segments of the population and all types of communities. 

Additionally, decline in mail response rates would force the Census Bureau to use more costly 

modes of data collection, such as telephone and door-to-door visits, thereby increasing the cost 

of the survey by thirty percent ($60 million at the time of the 2003 field test). Without an 

increase in funding in an amount necessary to overcome low initial response rates, the Census 

Bureau will be left with insufficient response to produce reliable data for smaller (e.g. rural 

communities; towns; urban neighborhoods) areas and population groups (e.g. people with 

-disabilities; veterans; immigrant groups). Because optional response would significantly 

diminish the quality of estimates for less populous areas and smaller demographic groups, it is 

likely the Census Bureau would stop producing these data sets. That means we might not have 

these vital measures of the nation's socio-economic condition and progress for the majority of 

counties, for large swaths of suburban areas, and for diverse urban neighborhoods. 

In short, making the ACS optional would undermine the only source of reliable data to guide 

decision-makers. For all of these reasons, losing the ACS-whether through decreased funding 

or making the survey optional-would have serious adverse consequences that could leave the 

nation in a precarious decision-making vacuum and hinder our economic recovery and future 

growth. And for The Leadership Conference and its 200-plus member organizations, losing this 

data would mean hurting every community and population we represent. 

2020 Census 

The ACS also plays a critically important role with respect to planning for the decennial census. 

We support the president's FY 2013 request for 2020 Census activities, which is nearly double 

the FY2012 funding level, from $66.7 million in FY 2012 to $131.4 million in FY 2013. As the 

Government Accountability Office has consistently documented, reasonable investments in 

census planning in the early part of the decade will help save hundreds of millions, and perhaps 

I "Meeting 21st Century Data Needs - Implementing the American Community Survey. Report 3: Testing the Use of 

Voluntary Methods" (Dec_ 2003) (http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/library/2003/2003 Griffin OI.pdD 

and an update. "Report 11: Testing Voluntary Methods Additional Results" (Dec. 2004) 

(http://www.census.govlacs/wwwIDown!oads/library/2004/2004 Griffin 02.pdf). 
138 

Æ 

I, T" The Leadership 

Page 4 of 4 Conference 

billions, of dollars in census costs down the road. The FY 2013 budget will also support the 

ability of the Census Bureau to design programs and operations for the 2020 Census that have 

residual benefits for other Census Bureau data collections. 

The president's FY 2013 budget request may also allow for the resumption of the critically 

important Partnership Program, which was an integral component of2010 census outreach 

efforts, especially with respect to hard-to-count populations. We believe that the Partnership 

Program is necessary in order to reach hard-to-count populations and ensuring their participation 

in future surveys and censuses. The Leadership Conference and its members are aware of 

numerous cases across the country where the vitality of local partnerships with Census Bureau 

staff played a critical role in the success of local outreach efforts around the 2010 census. In 

short, the Partnership Program ensures that timely and locally relevant information from the 

Bureau reaches community leaders, and that local enumeration efforts are able to use limited 

resources efficiently. 

Conclusion 

The civil rights movement of the 1960's was a fight to stand up and be counted at the voting 

booth and in the fullness of American life. And in today's data-driven society, we shouldn't need 

to fight again just to be counted by our census. 

Given the enormous stakes, we applaud the subcommittee for holding this hearing, and hope that 

this information is helpful to you. Thank you for your leadership on this important topic.