U.S. CENSUS MONITORING BOARD

Presidential Members

Report to Congress

February 1, 1999

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Presidential Members

4700 Silver Hill Road

Suite 1250 – 3

Suitland, MD 20746

(301) 457-9900
February 1, 1999

The Honorable Albert Gore, Jr.

President

United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable Dennis Hastert

Speaker

U.S. House of Representatives

Washington, D.C. 20515

Re: Census Monitoring Board

Dear Mr. President and Mr. Speaker:

Pursuant to P.L. 105-119, the Presidentially-appointed Members of

the Census Monitoring Board (the “Board”) hereby transmit to Congress

our February 1, 1999 report. The report of the Congressionally-appointed

Members is being sent under separate cover.

As you know, the legislative mandate of the Board is to “observe

and monitor all aspects of the preparation and implementation of the 2000

decennial census.” To date, the Board has held six bipartisan public

hearings; has visited all three Dress Rehearsal sites (Columbia, South

Carolina; Menominee, Wisconsin; and Sacramento, California); has

examined the Census Bureau’s data capture headquarters in Jeffersonville,

Indiana; has been briefed by the General Accounting Office team in

charge of reviewing the 2000 decennial census and by the Commerce

Department’s Office of Inspector General; and has received several

extensive briefings by senior managers at the Census Bureau (the

“Bureau”) in Suitland, Maryland.

The Board also has taken testimony and met with numerous

outside experts and local community leaders, including members of the

National Academy of Sciences (“NAS”) panels on census issues, state and

local elected officials as well as career civil servants in charge of mapping

technology and address list development, representatives of community

organizations and civil rights groups; and many others.

The Board wishes to thank Census Director Ken Prewitt, Atlanta

Regional Director and former Acting Census Director Jim Holmes,

Associate Director John Thompson and all of the other dedicated career

professionals at the Census Bureau for their tremendous cooperation in

assisting the Board over the past several months.
2

Few government endeavors have been subjected to as much scrutiny by so many

oversight authorities as the 2000 census. The burden placed on the Bureau must be

acknowledged, and the Board wishes to note that throughout our proceedings, the Bureau

has never failed to comply with our many requests for written information or in-person

briefings.

I. Summary of Findings

Everyone agrees that the 1990 census was a disaster. It was the most expensive

census ever and the first in 50 years that produced a larger undercount than the preceding

census. More than eight million Americans were missed in 1990; about four million

were counted twice.

The resulting net undercount of more than four million was comprised

disproportionately of racial and ethnic minorities and children.

In addition, we would note that there is little data on the number of people with

disabilities who were missed in the 1990 census, or who were not identified as such. The

challenge of fully identifying individuals with disabilities, and collecting census data

sufficient to allow government, industry and community service organizations to respond

to their needs is a vital one. The Board will examine this issue in future reports and will

make recommendations for enhancing the quality of data gathered by the census in this

area.

Was the Bureau to blame for the 1990 undercount? Not according to the NAS.

The fact is, in a nation of 271 million or so people, 16 percent of whom change their

residence each year, it simply is impossible to produce an accurate or complete count

using traditional methods of census enumeration.

After 1990, the bipartisan leadership in Washington instructed the Bureau to work

with the nonpartisan NAS to develop a more effective methodology for the 2000 census.

The goal was to achieve better accuracy at less cost. In the end, the Bureau and NAS

agreed on a plan that combined a traditional enumeration of 90 percent of the population

with a statistically accurate count of the remaining 10 percent based on sampling of nonrespondents during the follow-up phase of the regular head count. The plan also called

for the Bureau to conduct a separate nationwide statistical survey based on a sample size

of 750,000 households to ensure that the combined head count and sampled results were

as accurate and complete as possible in every state.

It is important to note that neither the Bureau nor the NAS ever proposed

conducting the decennial census entirely by means of sampling. The original plan for the

2000 census called for the use of scientific estimation only as a supplemental means of

finding those people who do not respond to traditional census methods.
3

The NAS-Bureau plan was endorsed by every relevant scientific organization in

the country. But, that did not stop legal challenges to it. On January 25, 1999, the U.S.

Supreme Court announced that the legal challenges had some merit. Current law

apparently does not permit the Bureau to use statistical methods, even in part, to produce

census results for reapportionment of the U.S. House of Representatives. The Court did

not deny that the use of statistical “sampling” would produce a more accurate count; it

simply ruled that existing law does permit it for the sole purpose of reapportioning the

House.

So, where do we go from here?

For starters, whether one agrees with the Court’s divided 5-4 decision or not, the

Court has spoken and the Bureau’s plan to save time and money through the use of

“sampling for non-response follow-up” was barred for 2000.

Some would argue that Congress should change the law to allow for the explicit

use of statistically adjusted numbers for reapportionment. We would agree, as the

primary goal of the census every 10 years should be to produce the most accurate portrait

of America – and the consensus among nonpartisan experts is that statistical adjustment

is the only way to produce such a count. But, a statutory change seems unlikely in the

near term. Therefore, the burden now is on the Bureau, the Commerce Department and

the Congress to reach a consensus on how to conduct the 2000 decennial census in the

most successful manner possible, consistent with the Court’s ruling.

Fortunately, the Bureau has spent the past year developing an alternative (“Track

II”) to its original operational plan (“Track I”) for the 2000 census. The Track II plan,

which incorporates many if not most of the aspects of Track I, was released just two

weeks ago on January 15, 1999. At first glance, it is a sophisticated and thorough

combination of traditional enumeration efforts, along with traditional follow-up efforts to

locate nonrespondents (in place of Sampling for Non-Response Follow-Up, or

“SNRFU”), plus several new coverage improvement programs. It includes extensive precensus consultation with local governments to ensure that the Bureau’s Master Address

File is as up-to-date as possible before Census Day – April 1, 2000. It includes a firstever $100 million professional advertising campaign to encourage greater citizen

participation. And, it proposes to open 520 local field offices that will be staffed by as

many as 500,000 temporary census workers, making Census 2000 the largest peacetime

mobilization in our nation’s history.

As you can imagine, the Board has spent much of its time over the past several

months analyzing the Bureau’s proposed SNRFU plan – which is now moot. We are now

turning our attention, just as the Congress and everyone else is, to the Bureau’s traditional

follow-up plans and coverage improvement programs under Track II. We intend to

examine these aspects closely and to hold a public hearing on it in the near future. Our

next scheduled report, due April 1, 1999, will cover the Bureau’s Track II preparations

thoroughly.
4

It is worth noting now, however, that the Track II plan will cost substantially

more than Track I, and, like Track I, it will enable the Bureau to meet the December 31,

2000 deadline for delivery of reapportionment numbers.

The Track II plan also anticipates conducting a Post-Enumeration Survey (“PES”)

to evaluate the size and characteristics of the expected undercount. Such a PES was done

in 1990 and is considered an essential part of any modern census by the Bureau and

others in the statistical, demographic, business and local government communities. Some

partisans are already lining up against the PES because they do not want the Bureau to

produce a second set of “adjusted” census results that could then be used for redistricting

purposes within states.

That is a political issue outside of the Board’s purview. We would note, however,

that the Supreme Court’s January 25, 1999 ruling holds that existing law actually requires

the Bureau to produce adjusted numbers “if feasible” for all non-apportionment purposes,

including redistricting within the 50 states, the distribution of at least $182 billion in

federal funds for each of the next 10 years, and for all other federal statistical reporting

requirements (Bureau of Labor Statistics, et al.). As Justice O’Connor wrote,

“In holding that the 1976 amendments did not change the

prohibition on the use of sampling in determining the

population for apportionment purposes, we do not mean to

suggest . . . that the 1976 amendments had no purpose...

Rather, the amendments served a very important purpose:

they changed a provision that permitted the use of sampling

for purposes other than apportionment into one that

required that sampling be used for such purposes if

‘feasible.’ ”1

This issue will now be debated by Congress and the Administration. But,

regardless of how or when adjusted numbers are ultimately used, we can report with

certainty that a PES is deemed vital to the Bureau’s efforts to achieve “maximum

possible accuracy at all levels of geography.” Indeed, since the Court’s ruling, a number

of respected outside experts and community leaders have communicated with the Board

on precisely this point:

“Regardless of how sampling for non-response is used or

not used in Census 2000, a large and well carried out Post

Enumeration Survey is critically important for this

particular census. A PES is our best tool for assessing the

coverage of Census 2000 and, hence, knowing how well we

have done.” (Dr. John Rolph, University of Southern

California, Chair, Committee on National Statistics,

National Academy of Sciences)

 

1 Department of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives, No. 98-404 (U.S. January 25, 1999), at 23.
5

“The critical need for such a large scale PES is greater in

the absence of sampling for non-response follow-up than it

would have been in the original Census 2000 sampling

plan, because all evidence suggests that a so-called

traditional enumeration in 2000 will be demonstrably worse

than in 1990, in terms of both omissions and erroneous

enumerations.” (Dr. Stephen Fienberg, Carnegie Mellon

University, former Chair, Committee on National Statistics)

“While it is unfortunate that a narrow majority of the

Supreme Court reached the conclusion that current law

prohibits the Census Bureau from using sampling for

apportionment purposes, it is critical to understand that the

Supreme Court did not rule that scientific sampling

methods cannot be employed in the 2000 census for other

purposes, including the disbursement of billions of dollars

of federal funds.” (Wade Henderson, Executive Director,

Leadership Conference on Civil Rights)

“Since the Supreme Court decision did not rule out using

the PES for other purposes such as funding, I think it is

really important to do a large scale Post Enumeration

Survey to obtain an accurate estimate of the undercount.”

(Dr. Barbara Bailar, Senior Vice President for Survey

Research, National Opinion Research Center, University of

Chicago)

“If a PES is not done, the information will never be

available regardless of the political or judicial outcome.”

(Mayor Mike Morrison, Waco, Texas)

 “With a burgeoning Asian Pacific American population

that is very much one of the populations that have been

undercounted in the past, we believe it is essential for this

nation, in light of the recent Supreme Court decision, that

the Census Bureau conduct a full and accurate post

enumeration survey in the year 2000.” (George Ong,

National President, Organization of Chinese Americans)

“While we are disappointed by the Supreme Court

decision, we are encouraged that there is still a window of

opportunity for the Census Bureau to be allowed to use

sampling in ensuring a fair and accurate count in the Latino

and other minority communities who were undercounted in

the 1990 Census.” (Artura Vargas, Executive Director,

National Association of Latino Elected Officials)
6

“Our hope is that a bipartisan consensus can occur that will

see to it that we have an efficient and accurate count in the

year 2000. As we know, billions of dollars in resources did

not reach communities that gravely needed them in the

areas of education, health, law enforcement and civil rights

enforcement.” (Hilary Shelton, Director of the Washington

Bureau, NAACP)

 This does not mean Congress and the Bureau should not make every effort to

improve coverage in the hardest-to-count areas of the country. We support proposals to

hire additional enumerators and to spend additional advertising dollars to target areas

with historically high undercount rates.

But, based on all the testimony we’ve heard from within and outside the Bureau, a

traditional census will inevitably result in a huge undercount of the most vulnerable

members of our society no matter how much money Congress appropriates to the task.

Why? Because the social and demographic trends that produced the undercount in 1990

have increased over the past 10 years (for example, the growth of minority populations

and persons with limited English proficiency relative to the entire population).

Consider the just-released dress rehearsal results. Despite finishing on schedule,

on budget and on target in terms of public response, the Bureau has determined that the

problem of the undercount has gotten worse since 1990, not better. For example, in

Sacramento, an undercount of 6.3 percent – which was much larger than expected – was

found after the PES was conducted and analyzed during the rehearsal. The undercount in

Menominee was also significant. (The data in Columbia have not been finalized.)

So, the outcome of the 2000 census – in light of both the dress rehearsals and the

Court decision – really is not all that uncertain. Assuming Congress provides the

necessary funds, which we recommend it should, the career professionals at the Bureau

will conduct a sophisticated field operation in 2000. They will utilize the latest data

capture technology, the most extensive local promotion and outreach program in census

history, and numerous coverage improvement programs to find and count the hardest-tocount segments of the population.

The Bureau obviously is dedicated to producing the most accurate census

possible. But, when all is said and done, the Bureau acknowledges that total coverage

will be significantly less than 100 percent – and, at best, only on par with the 1990

results. And, as in 1990, a disproportionate number of those missed in 2000 will be the

urban and rural poor, people with disabilities, racial and ethnic minorities and children.

This outcome – another massive undercount – should be unacceptable to all

Americans.
7

There has been much talk in recent months about the risk of a “failed” census in

2000. But, now that the Court has resolved the operational question of whether the more

efficient sampling techniques can be used to produce numbers for reapportionment, there

is no reason for the census to fail. There is plenty of time for the Bureau to refine its

plans accordingly.

But, Congress and the Administration still need to decide whether to fund a

second set of adjusted and more accurate census results, as current law apparently

mandates.

We urge Congress and the Administration to resolve this issue as soon as

possible. We happen to agree with the nonpartisan experts that a PES is essential and

that an undercount must be avoided at all costs. And, we would propose that the

Secretary of Commerce agree in advance to release the adjusted data regardless of the

results in order to remove any question as to whether his decision is motivated by

partisan politics.

This seems to be the only fair and balanced resolution of this political

controversy. Individual states can then decide which numbers to use for redistricting, but

the distribution of Federal funds to states and localities, much of which is devoted to

programs for the poor, the disabled and others who typically go undercounted in the

census, would not be skewed unfairly. An adjusted set of numbers also would allow the

business community and others with a vital stake in accurate census data to make

decisions based on reality, not deficient census methodology.

But, if Congress does not fund the PES, then “failure” is inevitable. The 2000

Census would result in a record undercount of minorities and children, and it would not

be the Census Bureau’s fault.

The remainder of this report covers several of the specific areas Congress asked

us to monitor, including the Dress Rehearsal results, a discussion of the Master Address

File and Local Review, an analysis of the suggested use of Administration Records as an

alternative census methodology, and the status of the Bureau’s preparations regarding

Computer Modernization, Outreach and Promotion, Field Offices and Staff Recruitment.
8

II. Dress Rehearsal Results

Most census observers agree on the basic problem: How do we eliminate the

differential undercount of minorities and children?

By way of background, in 1940 the Census Bureau began to systematically

estimate the undercount in the decennial census, and for 50 years the net undercount fell

steadily. In 1990, however, things changed. As shown in Exhibit 1, the 1990 decennial

census was the first in 50 years to be less accurate than the one before.

Based on the results of the 1990 PES, the Bureau’s Committee on Adjustment of

Postcensal Estimates (“CAPE”) reported a net 1990 undercount of roughly 1.6% -- a bit

more than 4 million people.1

 This net figure includes a total of 8.4 million people who

were missed, and 4.4 million people who were counted twice.

 

1 Assessment of Accuracy of Adjusted Versus Unadjusted 1990 Census Base for Use in Intercensal

Estimates, Report of the Committee on Adjustment of Postcensal Estimates (CAPE), August 7, 1992, p. 3.

Exhibit 1. The 1990 Census was the first in 50 years with a higher undercount than its

Census Undercounts 1940-1990

0

2

4

6

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990

percent (%)
9

If the undercount in the Census were evenly distributed across the country and

among the nation’s racial and ethnic groups, its impact might be largely irrelevant to the

distribution of government funds and the allocation of political representation among and

within the states. But, the undercount is not evenly distributed. In 1990, the undercount

among non-Hispanic Whites was 0.7%, and White homeowners were actually

overcounted by .3%.1 As shown in Exhibit 2, undercount rates for other racial and ethnic

groups were much higher.

Second, the 1990 Census produced a substantial undercount of the most

vulnerable members of our society, and those most in need of government services:

children. It is estimated that just over half the people missed in the 1990 census were

children2, with an unfortunate effect on education and other services.

 

1

 Howard Hogan and Gregg Robinson, What the Census Bureau’s Coverage Evaluation Programs Tell Us

About Differential Undercount, Proceedings of the 1993 Research Conference on Undercounted Ethnic

Populations, May 5, 1993, p. 18.

2

 Report of the Committee on Adjustment of Postcensal Estimates (CAPE), Table 1, Attachment 3B.

Exhibit 2. The 1990 undercount showed substantial variation between the nation’s racial

and ethnic groups, with minority populations much more likely to be missed.

1990 Undercount by Race and Ethnicity

0

2

4

6

Total Non-Hispanic

White

Black Hispanic Asian/ Pacific

Islander

American Indian/

Alskan Native

percent (%)
10

As Sacramento City Councilwoman Lauren Hammond told the Monitoring Board,

“In my whole district there is no middle school. So what

does that mean, there are no children that are 13 or 14?

Really, it is ridiculous. I have four high schools and eight

elementary schools and not one darn middle school because

there aren’t the numbers to reflect that.” 1

Her sentiments echo those of other community leaders around the country,

especially those in state and local government. In a letter to Census Monitoring Board

Co-Chair Ken Blackwell, Buck McVeigh, Administrator of the Wyoming Department of

Administration and Information’s Division of Economic Analysis, wrote:

“Attempts to locate and enumerate everyone have fallen

short as prior censuses have shown. People were left out

and costs were exorbitant. Sampling will allow the Bureau

to make scientific estimates of the population . . .” 2

Jan Perry, Executive Director of Census 2000 for the city of Los Angeles, wrote:

“(I)t is the City’s position that the Bureau’s proposal to use

the [statistical adjument] process to correct the differential

undercount is the best method to ensure a complete count

for the City of Los Angeles.” 3

The 1990 census produced a substantial differential undercount between states.

The undercount ranged from a high of 3.4 percent in the District of Columbia to a low of

.13 percent in Rhode Island.4 These declines in the quality of the census data came

despite the fact that the $2.6 billion 1990 census was the most expensive decennial

census ever conducted, 65 percent more expensive than the 1980 census.5

In 1997 and 1998, the Bureau carried out three major field tests of its operational

plans for the 2000 census. Included in those test plans were a variety of strategies

designed to improve operations and to decrease the undercounts expected for 2000.

 

1

 Testimony of the Hon. Lauren Hammond, Transcript, Hearing of the U.S. Census Monitoring Board,

12/16/98,Sacramento, California, p. 99.

2

 Letter from Buck McVeigh to the Hon. J. Kenneth Blackwell, September 8, 1998.

3

 Letter from Jan Perry and Jessica F. Heinz to the Hon. J. Kenneth Blackwell, December 9, 1998.

4

 Report of the Committee on Adjustment of Postcensal Estimates (CAPE), Attachment 4.

5

 U.S. General Accounting Office, Decennial Census: 1990 Results Show Need for Fundamental Reform,

1992, p.p. 34-35.
11

Preparations for 2000 intensified last year when the Bureau conducted three fullscale Dress Rehearsals at different locations:

n Sacramento, California – selected because of its urban

setting and the racial and ethnic diversity of its

population.

n Columbia, South Carolina – encompassing the City of

Columbia and the surrounding 11-county area. The

area was chosen due to its mix of urban and rural areas.

n Menominee, Wisconsin – conducted in the area

surrounding the Menominee Indian Reservation.

At both the Sacramento and Menominee Dress Rehearsal sites, the Bureau was

allowed to test the full methodology it had proposed for the 2000 Census, including

sampling for non-response follow-up (“SNRFU”) and the Integrated Coverage

Measurement (“ICM”) survey. At the direction of the Congress, the Bureau chose one

dress rehearsal site to test a traditional census plan without the use of integrated statistical

sampling techniques. Still, this dress rehearsal, which was carried out in the area of

Columbia, South Carolina, did include a Post-Enumeration Survey (“PES”) like the one

used nationwide in 1990.

Based on our observations, it is clear that the regional and local Bureau staff that

carried out each dress rehearsal did a very sound job in testing its operational plans,

assessing the results and making changes where needed. The final report from the

Bureau has not been released yet. However, some preliminary results should be noted:

Schedule and Budget: Activities at all three dress rehearsal sites were completed

on-schedule, and with one exception were completed on-budget.

n Columbia: In Columbia, non-response follow-up costs

were roughly $2,643,000, 13 percent below budget

projections and producing a savings of more than

$350,000.

n Sacramento: Non-response follow-up costs in

Sacramento were $1,446,000, about $1,300 below the

Bureau’s original budget estimate.

n Menominee: Menominee non-response follow-up

costs proved to be higher than originally projected.

Actual total cost was $44,985, which exceeded the

Bureau’s original budget estimate of $30,754.
12

Personnel: The ambitious hiring goals the Bureau established for itself in all three

dress rehearsal areas proved much easier to meet than had been anticipated. Both the

General Accounting Office (“GAO”) and the Commerce Department’s Office of the

Inspector General (“OIG”) acknowledged the success of the Bureau’s recruiting efforts in

accomplishing this goal. In particular, rates of turnover were significantly lower than

expected and acceptance rates of individuals offered jobs were much higher. The Bureau

had originally projected that 50% of those offered jobs would accept them, and that 100%

of employees hired would turn over during the course of dress rehearsal operations. In

fact, actual performance during the dress rehearsals far exceeded those projections. One

reason for the success in recruitment and retention is that the Bureau instituted a policy of

adjusting its wage scales based on local labor market conditions, which we agree is a

good idea and should be continued.

n Columbia: 90 percent of candidates receiving job offers

accepted them. The turnover rate among Columbia

dress rehearsal employees was below 25 percent.

n Sacramento: The job acceptance rate among those

offered positions with the dress rehearsal was 78

percent – 28 percent higher than the Bureau’s

projections. Turnover among dress rehearsal

employees was less than 25 percent.

n Menominee: Seventy-one percent of those offered

census jobs accepted them, 21 percent higher than the

Bureau estimates. The job turnover rate was 38

percent.

Mail response rates: The Bureau’s estimates of the number of households likely

to complete and return their census forms proved to be on target, or slightly pessimistic.

Mail response rates exceeded Bureau projections in two of the three dress rehearsal sites:

n Columbia: The mailout/mailback response rate for the

Columbia dress rehearsal was 54.1 percent, slightly

below the Bureau’s projection of a 55 percent return

rate.

n Sacramento: The Sacramento dress rehearsal’s

mailout/mailback response rate was 53.7 percent,

exceeding the Bureau’s original prediction of a 50

percent response to this phase of the operation.

n Menominee: As in Sacramento, actual

mailout/mailback response rates exceeded the Bureau’s

projections. A total of 40.6 percent of households

responded during the mailout/mailback phase of the
13

dress rehearsal, slightly higher than the expected 40

percent response rate.

Local Update of Census Addresses (“LUCA”): Participation by local

governments in the Bureau’s LUCA program produced mixed results. As discussed

elsewhere in this report, many local governments felt overwhelmed by the work involved

in LUCA. In Columbia, 39 of the 62 two governmental units in the dress rehearsal area

signed up to participate in the LUCA process. Thirty-two actually submitted address lists

for review. In both the Sacramento and Menominee dress rehearsal areas, only one local

governmental unit was involved. Both local governments participated in LUCA during

the dress rehearsals.

Most significantly, despite the best efforts of the Bureau and the successful

implementation of the dress rehearsal operational plans, the preliminary results released

by the Bureau two weeks ago on January 15, 1999 revealed significant undercounts at

both the Sacramento and Menominee dress rehearsal sites.

As shown in Exhibit 3, the total undercount in Sacramento was 6.3 percent, and

there were significant differentials between the undercounts for the city’s racial and

ethnic minority populations. African Americans had the highest undercount at 8.7

percent. Hispanic city residents were undercounted by 8.3 percent and 6 percent of Asian

Americans were missed by the traditional count. Meanwhile, the undercount rate for

non-Hispanic Whites was 4.7 percent, significantly lower.

Exhibit 3. Dress Rehearsal results from Sacramento show a clear and persistent

differential undercount for the 2000 Census.

1998 Sacramento Dress Rehearsal

Undercount Rates

0

2

4

6

8

10

Total Non-Hispanic

White

Hispanic Black Asian Native

Hawaiian/

Pacific

Islander

American

Indian/

Alaskan

Native

percent (%)
14

Similar results were seen in

Menominee, which had an overall

undercount of 3 percent. American

Indians were undercounted by 4.1

percent. (See Exhibit 4)

Recall that the national

undercount in 1990 – which was

considered unacceptably large – was 1.8

percent.

For the Columbia Dress

Rehearsal, the Bureau conducted a PES

like that used in 1990. However, the

results have not yet been finalized.

In sum, there is both good news

and bad news from the dress rehearsals.

The good news is that the Bureau has

proven itself capable of implementing a

complicated operational plan on

schedule and on budget. The bad news is that the probable undercount in 2000 will be

bigger than anticipated, despite the Bureau’s best efforts.

As GAO, NAS and other independent bodies have concluded, with a population

of 271 million people, 43 million of whom move every 12 months, America is no longer

well-served by traditional census techniques. American households receive more mass

mailings than ever; people have less free time to fill out forms; many Americans are

mistrustful of government queries about their lifestyles; and more and more U.S.

residents speak languages other than English.

Moreover, there have been dramatic demographic changes over the past 10 years.

For example, the number of traditionally undercounted minorities has grown relative to

the population as a whole. As a result, the differential undercount of minorities and

children is now projected to be 1.9%, even larger than in 1990. According to this

estimate, a net total of 5,218,046 people would be missed by Census 2000, an increase of

almost 30% over the size of the 1990 undercount.

However, even if the 1990 undercount were to be repeated, a substantial

differential undercount among the states would be seen. Exhibit 5 shows the number of

individuals that would be missed state-by-state if the 2000 undercount equals that seen in

1990.

Exhibit 4. Menominee Dress Rehearsal

results show a continued undercount is

1998 Menominee Dress 

Rehearsal Undercount Rates

0

5

Total American Indian

percent (%)
15

Projected State-by State Undercount

(assuming a repeat of 1990’s undercount)

State

1990 Net

Undercount

Estimated 2000

Population

Estimated Net 2000

Undercount

Alabama 1.763% 4,451,000 78,471

Alaska 1.998% 653,000 13,047

Arizona 2.373% 4,798,000 113,857

Arkansas 1.738% 2,631,000 45,727

California 2.728% 32,521,000 887,173

Colorado 2.050% 4,168,000 85,444

Connecticut 0.641% 3,284,000 21,050

Delaware 1.799% 768,000 13,816

D.C. 3.407% 523,000 17,819

Florida 1.962% 15,233,000 298,871

Georgia 2.124% 7,875,000 167,265

Hawaii 1.854% 1,257,000 23,305

Idaho 2.183% 1,347,000 29,405

Illinois 0.986% 12,051,000 118,823

Indiana 0.504% 6,045,000 30,467

Iowa 0.417% 2,900,000 12,093

Kansas 0.689% 2,668,000 18,383

Kentucky 1.612% 3,995,000 64,399

Louisiana 2.169% 4,425,000 95,978

Maine 0.743% 1,259,000 9,354

Maryland 2.066% 5,275,000 108,982

Massachusetts 0.475% 6,199,000 29,445

Michigan 0.705% 9,679,000 68,237

Minnesota 0.446% 4,830,000 21,542

Mississippi 2.118% 2,816,000 59,643

Missouri 0.621% 5,540,000 34,403

Montana 2.351% 950,000 22,335

Nebraska 0.649% 1,705,000 11,065

Nevada 2.344% 1,871,000 43,856

New Hampshire 0.837% 1,224,000 10,245

New Jersey 0.569% 8,178,000 46,533

New Mexico 3.074% 1,860,000 57,176

New York 1.487% 18,146,000 269,831

North Carolina 1.844% 7,777,000 143,408

North Dakota 0.660% 662,000 4,369

Ohio 0.685% 11,319,000 77,535

Oklahoma 1.784% 3,373,000 60,174

Oregon 1.859% 3,397,000 63,150

Pennsylvania 0.294% 12,202,000 35,874

Rhode Island 0.134% 998,000 1,337

South Carolina 2.029% 3,858,000 78,279

South Dakota 0.978% 729,000 7,130

Tennessee 1.743% 5,657,000 98,602

Texas 2.763% 20,119,000 555,888

Utah 1.727% 2,207,000 38,115

Vermont 1.113% 617,000 6,867

Virginia 2.000% 6,997,000 139,940

Washington 1.841% 5,858,000 107,846

West Virginia 1.403% 1,841,000 25,829

Wisconsin 0.614% 5,326,000 32,702

Wyoming 2.153% 525,000 11,303

U.S. Total 1.584% 274,634,000 4,350,203

Exhibit 5. A repeat of 1990’s undercount in the 2000 Census – an overly optimistic

assumption – would result in a net undercount of 4.3 million people. There is no

mechanism other than scientific estimation to correct for this error.
16

III. Master Address File and Local Review

The Constitutional requirement to carry out a decennial census involves a process

of identifying households – the actual addresses – and then counting the individuals who

live there. Indeed, the primary uses of the census, such as apportioning the House of

Representatives, redrawing legislative district lines, distributing Federal funds, and

providing reliable data to business for investment and planning, all depend on a census

that accurately locates and counts the American people as of April 1, 2000.

Since the decennial census must count people at their residences, a wellconstructed list of the nation’s residential addresses is indispensable to carrying out the

census and to controlling costs. Thus, the Bureau’s Master Address File (“MAF”) is key.

It determines where census forms are mailed or hand delivered, and where census

enumerators visit to seek out nonrespondents.

The job of identifying all the residential addresses in the nation is not an easy one,

particularly when they must be distinguished from business addresses. Today’s singlefamily home is tomorrow’s law office. Residences identified as vacant today may be

occupied tomorrow. In addition, the recent economic boom has resulted in substantial

residential development and the creation of new addresses that did not exist a short time

ago.

With the expectation that the number of households in the United States would

grow from 102 million in 1990 to roughly 118 million in the year 2000, several key

changes to the Bureau’s address list development process were made in preparation for

the 2000 Census.

First, the Bureau discontinued the program it used in 1990 to purchase mailing

lists from commercial mailing firms and direct marketers. The Bureau had determined

that these sources did not provide sufficient address information for minority

communities and lower income areas.1

Next, two significant changes to the address listing process resulted from

Congressional passage of the Census Address List Improvement Act of 1994.2 The Act

established two key efforts by the Bureau to enhance address listing operations:

n For the first time, it authorized a partnership between

the Bureau and the U.S. Postal Service for the ongoing

exchange of address information. The Bureau

continuously updates its MAF from the 1990 census

using addresses provided by the Postal Service’s

Delivery Sequence File (DSF).

 

1

 U.S. General Accounting Office, Decennial Census: Overview of Historical Census Issues, 1998, p. 27. 2

 P.L. 103-430.
17

n Second, it also authorized the Bureau to share address

information with state and local governments to afford

them the opportunity to correct any errors prior to the

census. This provision of the Act resulted in the

Bureau’s creation of the Local Update of Census

Addresses (“LUCA”) program.

The concept of the LUCA program is a straightforward one, and represents a

significant advance over the 1990 Post-Census Local Review (“PCLR”) program it

replaced. Rather than being limited to sharing block-level housing unit and population

counts, LUCA allows the Bureau to share full address lists with participating local

governments. Local governments then work to refine the lists, adding new or missing

housing units and deleting units demolished or converted to non-residential use.

Local and tribal governments participating in LUCA are given substantially more

time to review the data than they were given in the PCLR program in 1990. On

November 6, 1998, the Board heard from Shoreh Elhami, Director of the Geographic

Imaging System (“GIS”) project of Delaware County, Ohio, concerning her participation

in the LUCA program.

Ms. Elhami praised the cooperative relationship the Bureau staff in the Detroit

office have established with her. She also noted that the LUCA process was far

preferable to PCLR, because it allowed more time for local governments to participate:

“What happened in 1990...I happened to be the principal

planner for the regional planning commission...so I was

given 15 days to look at all of those maps and get back with

the Bureau. Of course, we didn’t have any of these tools

available at the time so it was a moot point, we couldn’t

really do anything ... What has changed for 2000 ... we

were given the opportunity to participate in LUCA. And

the three months that we were given is a lot better than 15

days.” 1

Should a LUCA participant and the Bureau disagree on the disposition of

submitted address changes, the participant can request a Bureau review. If the conflict is

not resolved, a final appeals process to be conducted by the Office of Management and

Budget is available.

 

1

 Testimony of Shoreh Elhami, Hearing of the U.S. Census Monitoring Board, 11/6/98, Washington, D.C.,

p. 110-111.
18

While the LUCA program holds great long-term potential, and promises to

provide substantially greater benefits than PCLR, it became clear to the Bureau by late

1997 that there were barriers to full implementation of the program. First, some local

governments did not have the wherewithal to fully participate in the program.1 Second,

while the Postal Service’s DSF is an excellent source of addresses, adapting it for census

use as mandated by Congress presented more challenges than were initially anticipated.

Regional variations in the speed with which the DSF is updated were identified, and

differences in the ways addresses are used by the Bureau caused some incompatibilities. 2

These differences require substantial field verification to resolve.

It became clear during the dress rehearsals that these factors would prevent LUCA

from realizing its full potential for developing the most accurate MAF the Bureau needs

to conduct the 2000 Census. (However, it should be pointed out that the whole point of

conducting the dress “rehearsals” was to identify what is working and what needs to be

fixed.) In September of 1997, the Bureau announced a re-engineering of its address

listing operation to reinstitute the nationwide address listing operation it used in 1990.

LUCA remains as an opportunity for local governments to share information with the

Bureau, but an accurate MAF should be generated for non-participating communities

with the support of the Bureau’s other address listing operations.

Local governments that may not have the resources for full participation in LUCA

are being urged to target their workload by concentrating on counts of addresses and

housing units, rather than attempting to review every address.

The Board heard extensive testimony on the LUCA program during its field

hearings, and the program’s operations for the dress rehearsal and for Census 2000 were

the subject of extensive discussion during field investigations and staff briefings. The

overall impression was that the process holds great potential, but is far from perfect. At

the Board’s field hearing in Sacramento, the Board heard testimony from Kelly Grieve of

the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (“SACOG”). Mr. Grieve had done

extensive work with LUCA leading up to the Sacramento Dress Rehearsal and was

involved at the time in the LUCA process for Census 2000. While noting that there was a

great advantage to seeing the Bureau’s address information prior to the census, an

opportunity that did not exist in 1980 and 1990, he expressed frustration over a variety of

problems that occurred during the dress rehearsal. These included Bureau challenges to

address data submitted by SACOG, slow processes for submitting address changes and

difficulties with maps provided by the Bureau.3

 

1

 Testimony of Christopher Mihm, General Accounting Office, before the U.S. Senate Committee on

Governmental Affairs, July 30, 1998, p.7.

2 Preparing for the 2000 Census, Interim Report II of the Panel to Evaluate Alternative Census

Methodologies, National Academy Press, 1997, pp. 16-17.

3

 Testimony of Kelly R. Grieve, Hearing of the U.S. Census Monitoring Board, 12/16/98, Sacramento,

California, pp. 88-89, 102.
19

At the Board’s field hearing in Columbia, South Carolina, testimony was heard

from Jack Maguire of the State of South Carolina’s Office of Research and Statistics

(“ORS”). ORS had been approached by several governments in the South Carolina Dress

Rehearsal area who felt overwhelmed by LUCA and asked for assistance. In the end,

ORS signed agreements with several county and city governments in the Dress Rehearsal

area to carry out the LUCA work on their behalf.1

Despite these challenges, the benefits of the LUCA process are borne out by the

participation rates in the LUCA program for the 2000 Census. The Census Bureau

estimates that 18,000 local government jurisdictions will participate in LUCA.2

Moreover, the LUCA program, which is underway now, allows much more time for local

and tribal governments to consult with the Bureau for Census 2000 than was available in

1990.

Finally, while there have been difficulties with the accessibility of LUCA for

local governments, it is important to note that LUCA has drawn almost twice the number

of participant governments as PCLR did in 1990. See Exhibit 6.

 

1

 Testimony of Jack Maguire, Hearing of the U.S. Census Monitoring Board, 8/5/98, Columbia, South

Carolina, p. 201.

2 Additional Steps Needed to Improve Local Update of Census Addresses for the 2000 Decennial Census,

Final Report of the Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Commerce, September, 1998, p. 7.

Exhibit 6. Creation of the Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) program has

resulted in a substantial increase in participation by local governments over 1990’s

Local Government Participation Rates: Local Update of 

Census Adresses (LUCA) and 1990 Post Census Local 

Review

0

10

20

30

40

50

LUCA PCLR

percent (%)
20

Important changes have been made to LUCA as a result of the Bureau’s

experience in the Dress Rehearsals. Additional staff have been added to provide

technical assistance to local governments requesting it. Addresses in the Dress

Rehearsals were not placed on maps, or geocoded, which caused some confusion. The

addresses are now geocoded for easier review by local governments.

While LUCA remains a valuable opportunity for local governments to improve

the census results for their areas, and is a vital part of the Bureau’s local partnership

efforts, the program highlights key concerns that should be borne in mind as future

changes to address listing programs are considered.

As an example, the Bureau’s preliminary calculations of the rate at which

questionnaires were returned as “undeliverable as addressed,” were 12.9% in the South

Carolina Dress Rehearsal area and 9.5% in the Sacramento Dress Rehearsal.1 In the

Census Bureau’s 1995 tests of the address list in Oakland, California and Paterson, New

Jersey, between 4.7% and 7.7% of the addresses were missing from the address file.2

Elimination of these errors currently requires extensive independent verification,

such as the nationwide address canvassing operations the Bureau has undertaken as part

of its re-engineering effort. A long-term program of consultation between local

governments, the Postal Service and the Bureau will be required to reduce or eliminate

the error rate.

Some have suggested that PCLR should be reinstated. While we certainly support

the concept and practice of local review, we believe that the Bureau’s current program of

“pre-census” local review is more effective, more efficient and more practical than

PCLR. For starters, the value of PCLR in 1990 in terms of adding people who were

missed to the census count was small in relation to the work and cost required. Out of the

6.5 million census blocks nationwide, only 4.2% were challenged by local and tribal

governments during PCLR (a total of 270,650 blocks). The evaluation criteria for a

recanvass were met for 62% of the challenged blocks (168,255) and a recanvass

operation was conducted.3

 Yet, the recanvass of 168,255 census blocks added only

124,900 people to the count – less than 1/10th of 1% of the total 1990 population count.

PCLR resulted in a net decrease of housing units in the 1990 count: 80,929 housing units

were added to the count, but 102,000 housing units were deleted.4

As a “quality check” on the census results, as some are proposing, PCLR is also

lacking. A far superior quality check would be a fully funded Post-Enumeration Survey,

which by definition would be free of any possible geographic or other bias, unlike PCLR.

 

1

 Letter from Anthony Black, Bureau of the Census, to The Hon. J. Kenneth Blackwell, October 14, 1998.

2

 Testimony of Christopher Mihm, General Accounting Office, before the U.S. Senate Committee on

Governmental Affairs, July 30, 1998, p.7.

3 Id.

4 Id., at p.5.
21

Finally, not only is LUCA far superior to PCLR, but the fact that it takes place

before and during the census – not after – means that it will not delay the delivery of final

results to the states. Given the Supreme Court’s ruling, the traditional census will take

several weeks longer to complete because sampled estimates are no longer allowable.

PCLR would add at least six weeks to the process, with minimal benefit. Under existing

law, the Bureau must deliver reapportionment numbers by December 31, 2000 and

adjusted numbers for non-apportionment purposes starting early in 2001. PCLR would

throw a very large wrench into that timetable.

However, we do recommend, as several of our witnesses have suggested, that

Congress agree to fund grants to state and local governments to allow them to modernize

and standardize their own address list and mapping technologies. As it stands today, the

nation’s 39,000 local governments have widely varying levels of expertise in these areas.

Future censuses would be greatly aided if Bureau-friendly data capture systems were

developed throughout the country.
22

IV. Administrative Records

In the midst of the debate over Track I vs. Track II, some census observers

proposed a possible Track III – the use of “administrative records” as an alternative

census methodology. Government agencies at the federal, state, and local levels collect

extensive personal data on individuals within their jurisdictions. Medicare, Social

Security, motor vehicle registrations, gun registrations, driver licenses, voter rolls, Food

Stamp and other administrative lists contain valuable information about the American

people.

The idea of conducting the census by adding up names on lists is theoretically

possible and efficient. But, based on our research and the expert testimony we received,

the use of administrative records as a major component of the 2000 operational plan –

beyond what the Bureau already has in store – is not feasible.

We heard from experts who raised a range of issues which have already been

identified, and extensively studied, regarding the many challenges of using administrative

records in the decennial census.

First, research suggests that while most of the U.S. population is included on one

or more existing administrative databases, no single record system contains all the

information the Bureau needs.1

 For example, in addition to identifying individuals, the

Bureau must match individuals in the census to an address for purposes of redistricting,

and collect race and ethnic data for Voting Rights Act purposes. Even when several

federal, state and local databases are combined, there is no guarantee that enough

information will be gleaned from them to determine if a person has been missed in the

census count.

It is believed that the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) has the most extensive

administrative records system. Roughly 90 percent of the population files returns and

another six percent can be identified through “informational documents” like W2’s.2

However, even if we were to merge the information from this system with the Social

Security Administration and the Medicare system’s records, a huge cross section of

people would be missed. And, this cross section includes many of the same people who

would be missed in the census.

Second, administrative data bases don’t contain all the information the Bureau is

required by law to ascertain. For example, IRS files do not contain race and ethnic data

at all,3

 and older Social Security files collect this information in ways that no longer

match federal data collection standards.

 

1 Modernizing the U.S. Census, Report by the Panel on Census Requirements in the Year 2000 and Beyond p. 64. 2 John L. Czjaka at a Joint Statistical meeting Panel August 1996.

3 Modernizing the U.S. Census, Report by the Panel on Census Requirements in the Year 2000 and Beyond p. 64.
23

While the federal government sets standards for the collection of race and ethnicity

data in its own programs, there is no universal standard. As an example, there is no

single standard to identify certain characteristics such as Hispanic origin. On most

records, providing ethnic information is voluntary.

Based on these concerns and his extensive experience in the field, Dr. John Czajka

of Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., a member of the National Academy of Sciences,

told the Board that:

“The more important question for coverage improvement is

whether our principal administrative records systems

capture a high proportion of the persons who are actually

missed on the Census. This is an area where we flat out

need to know more before we can design an effective

coverage improvement strategy (using administrative

records).” 1

Some point to the Bureau’s experience in 1990 with parole and probation records

as a model for using administrative records in 2000. Unfortunately, of the 447,757

people added to the census count through the use of these records in 1990, 57 percent

were incorrectly enumerated.

John Thompson, the Bureau’s Associate Director for the Decennial Census, told

us:

“We concluded [in 1990] that administrative records varied

in accuracy and quality, and while they did have the

potential for coverage improvement, we could only get that

if we did extensive amounts of field verification before we

actually put them into the census.” 2

Third, the regularity with which administrative records data bases are updated is a

serious and ongoing problem. It has been estimated, for example, that there are more

deceased people in administrative records systems than the total number of people who

were undercounted in 1990.3 In other words, the use of administrative records at this

point in time would introduce more error into the census than they would remove.

 

1

 Testimony of John L. Czajka, Hearing of the U.S. Census Monitoring Board, 11/23/1998, Suitland,

Maryland, p. 20.

2

 Testimony of John Thompson, Hearing of the U.S. Census Monitoring Board, 11/23/1998, Suitland,

Maryland, p.107.

3

 Testimony of John L. Czajka Hearing of the U.S. Census Monitoring Board, 11/23/1998, Suitland,

Maryland, p. 23.
24

In addition, an accurate census requires that an individual be identified at his or

her residence as of April 1, 2000. Few administrative record systems keep address

information this current. For example, the majority of tax forms are updated once a year,

motor vehicle records are updated even less frequently, and once a social security number

has been issued there is no need to update that record again until the individual has retired

or otherwise begins receiving benefits. As a result, people who move to another state but

fail to change their driver’s license could be improperly counted in a census if these

records were among those used to enumerate the population.

Fourth, there is the problem of “matching” the administrative files to the actual

census results. This is a difficult, uncertain and expensive process. As shown in Exhibit

7, evidence from the Bureau’s 1995/1996 Administrative Records test shows that there is

a low rate of matches between whole census households and whole administrative record

households. Consider this example: a person might list his formal name, “Robert

Smith,” on the census questionnaire. But, the same person’s voter registration could be

listed as “Bobby Smith.”

Fifth, there are some European countries that use administrative records to

conduct their censuses, including Denmark and Sweden. However, unlike the United

States, these countries have a “national ID” system. Without such an individual

identifier, the task of matching would be very difficult. Does Congress want to establish

a national ID for all Americans?

Exhibit 7. The Bureau’s 1995/1996 administrative records tests showed low rates of

whole household matches between census data and administrative record data sets

1995/1996 Administrative Records Test

Whole Household Matches 

0

10

20

30

Paterson, NJ (11%) Oakland,CA (25%) Chicago, IL (7.5%)

percent (%)
25

It also is interesting to note that many of the nations which rely on administrative

record censuses also supplement their national data with statistical sampling to correct for

errors in their administrative record systems.1

Sixth, another important question for the use of administrative records is one of

verification. Previous tests have shown that, when the Bureau was unable to match its

census data to an administrative record placing an individual at a specific address, it was

the census data that proved accurate far more often (see Exhibit 8). Because of these

inconsistencies in the files, the Bureau feels that verification would have to come from

two independent sources before an individual could be confidently added to the count.2

 

1 Modernizing the U.S. Census, Report by the Panel on Census Requirements in the Year 2000 and Beyond,

National Academy Press 1994, p. 63.

2

 Dr. Cynthia Clark, Census Bureau Briefing to the Census Monitoring Board, 10/28/98.

Exhibit 8. 1995 and 1996 Census Bureau administrative records tests showed that,

where administrative data said the census missed an individual living at a particular

address, the administrative data were wrong between 68% and 84% of the time.

1995/1996 Administrative Records Test

 Non-Residency Rate of Unmatched Persons 

(by test site)

0

25

50

75

100

Oakland, CA (82%) Paterson, NJ (68%) Chicago, IL (84%)

percent (%)
26

Seventh, traditional American notions of privacy and a preference for limited

government intrusion have erected a number of barriers to the widespread sharing of

information on individuals between government agencies. Clearly, a comprehensive

system of using administrative records for census purposes would require substantial

legislative action. As Dr. Czajka told us:

“I think it very likely that a significantly broader use of

administrative records for census purposes may not be

possible without legislation that recognizes the legitimacy

of such uses and provides both guidelines and safeguards.”1

 Despite the many practical obstacles, the Bureau is not opposed to using

administrative records where feasible. In fact, the Bureau already uses a number of

records to help facilitate the decennial census, primarily in the area of address list

development.

As described above, the MAF is built from the Postal Service’s Delivery

Sequence File (“DSF”.) The DSF is updated as letter carriers identify addresses for new

delivery points or changes in the status of existing addresses. Even so, there are

problems. Updates are delayed. Not all carrier routes provide the same quality

information. Rural addresses contain imprecise geographic descriptions and some

addresses do not appear on the list at all.

In addition, the Bureau uses files from the Department of Health and Human

Services, the Department of Justice, the Veterans Administration and the Department of

Energy to compile lists of group quarters or institutions. Files from the Department of

Defense are used for enumeration of the military population, and files from colleges and

universities are used to supplement the enumeration of their student populations.

The Congressional Members of the Monitoring Board have proposed targeting

America's major urban areas – where most of the undercounted population lives – and

using Medicaid and other records to enumerate individuals, especially children, who

might otherwise go uncounted in the 2000 census. The concept is admirable. If it can be

done, we’re all for it. The problem is, the Bureau and all the outside experts we

consulted agree that it cannot be done in time for 2000. The records are not current,

many of the children who probably will be missed in a traditional census have not even

been born yet, and there is not enough time between now and April 1, 2000 to design –

much less implement – a system for pursuing this project without introducing substantial

flaws into the census count itself. There also is the problem of asking Congress to

appropriate funds to address the problem of the undercount in some areas of the country

but not all.

 

1

 Testimony of John Czajka, Hearing of the U.S. Census Monitoring Board, 11/23/1998, Suitland,

Maryland, p. 36.
27

But, this does not mean that we are opposed to greater use of administrative

records. In particular, we support extensive research in 1999 and 2000 that will lead to

much greater if not complete reliance on administrative records during the 2010 census.

We urge the Bureau to follow through on its plans to conduct several tests of

administrative records data bases in the upcoming census. These plans include:

n The Bureau will assemble a number of national level

administrative record files. These files will be

unduplicated using Social Security numbers and

assigned block level geographic codes using the Master

Address File/Topologically Geographic Encoding and

Referencing system (MAF/TIGER). No attempt will be

made to assign records to individual housing units.

n The Bureau will also assemble a number of

administrative records sets that will be unduplicated

using the SSN and addresses, which will then be

matched to a complete list of possible residential

addresses on the Master Address File. These locations

will include about one million housing units and a

population of about 3 million. About 50 percent of the

housing units will be selected based on criteria

associated with a high likelihood that a person can be

captured in an administrative record census. The

remaining units will be selected from those less likely

to be included in an administrative records capture.

n The Bureau also will evaluate the use of administrative

records for non-response follow-up activities. The

study will assess the feasibility of using administrative

records in place of field interviews to obtain data on

nonresponding households. The project will be

conducted in four phases. Phase one conducts a sample

of nonresponding households in the AREX2000 sample

will be selected for enumeration. During phase two, a

computer match will be made between the census and

the administrative records database. During the third

phase, information obtained from administrative

records will be reconciled with information obtained

from the AREX2000 research project. During the

fourth phase, a comparison and analysis of the

computer match and subsequent reconciliation will be

conducted.
28

n The Bureau also will assess the potential of

administrative records systems to reduce the cost and

workload associated with maintaining the Master

Address File. The Bureau plans to acquire and process

national files from the IRS Individual Master File

(Form 1040), the IRS Information Return Master File,

the Health Care Finance Administration’s Medicare

enrollment database, HUD’s TRACS file, the Selective

Service’s registrants file, the Indian Health Service file

and the National Telephone Data Base or Standard

Statistical Establishment List. These files would be

combined to produce a single administrative records

data base that would be used to update the MAF in

selected areas prior to the recanvass operation.

n Finally, the SSN, Privacy Attitudes and Notification

Survey (SPAN) Experiment will determine whether

including a request for the Social Security number of

each household member on a Census 2000

questionnaire would be a valuable matching tool and

could reduce the cost and improve the accuracy of the

decennial census. The Bureau will also conduct a

telephone survey of households that will, among other

things, determine the public’s attitude toward an

administrative record census.

Research into the potential uses of administrative records and the census has been

carried out by a wide range of expert bodies and organizations, including the 2000

Census Advisory Committee, the Census Advisory Committees on Race and Ethnicity,

the Census Advisory Committee of Professional Associations, the Association of Public

Data Users, the Working Group on Ancestry on the U.S. Census and the Council of

Professional Associations on Federal Statistics.

In particular, the NAS convened two panels which addressed this issue. Panelists

agree that while administrative records could play a significant role in decennial census

activities in the areas of content evaluation, content improvement, and content collection,

the use of scientific estimation will be necessary to make the process manageable and

cost effective.1

 

1 The Bicentennial Census: New Directions for Methodology in 1990, Report by the Panel on Decennial

Methodology, National Academy Press 1985, p. 264.
29

Although the NAS panels have endorsed the concept of using administrative

records to support census activities, they concluded that:

“An administrative records census is not a feasible option

for 2000,” but the Bureau “should intensify its efforts to

use administrative records, recognizing that the expanded

use of administrative records is an evolutionary process.” 1

GAO also has determined that there is no reason to believe that it is viable for the

2000 Census to attempt to rely fully or even primarily on administrative records.

According to the GAO, the technical obstacles facing an administrative records census

are too great and the amount of research that needs to be completed is too significant to

meet challenges in time for the 2000 Census.2

However, as many experts have noted, the potential use of administrative records

in the 2010 census is quite high. As the Board continues its investigations, we intend to

consult with experts both outside and within the Bureau to identify a list of specific

policy, technological and other reforms that would be needed to conduct an

administrative records census in the year 2010.

 

1 Modernizing the U.S. Census, Report by the Panel on Census Requirements in the Year 2000 and Beyond,

National Academy Press 1994, p. 68.

2

 U.S. General Accounting Office, Census Reform: Major Expansion in the Use of Administrative Records

for 2000 is Doubtful, 1992, GAO-GGD PP. 92-54.
30

V. Computer Modernization

The Census Bureau has awarded several key contracts for the modernization of its

computer and office automation systems in preparation for the 2000 Census. Some of

these major contracts are:

Data Access and Dissemination (DADS). To design a new, web-based system for

easy access to data generated by the Census Bureau, including results from the 2000

Decennial Census. The contract has been awarded to IBM.

Data Capture System 2000 (DCS 2000). To provide imaging equipment, data

keying equipment and processing systems for the Data Capture Centers (“DCC”) to be

used in the 2000 Decennial Census. The contract was awarded to Lockheed Martin.

Data Capture Services. To provide all DCC functions not included in the DCS

2000 contract. TRW was awarded this contract, which includes DCC facilities

management, office automation services, staff, office equipment and supplies.

Telephone Questionnaire Assistance (TQA). To provide a fully integrated

nationwide network of call centers capable of supporting high-volume, limited duration

inbound Telephone Questionnaire Assistance calls from the general public during the

2000 Census. In addition, the system provided will support outbound follow-up calls to

residential telephone numbers furnished by the Census Bureau. EDS was awarded the

TQA contract.

Contract Company Award Date

Data Access and Dissemination IBM $26,000,000 4/97

Data Capture System Lockheed $73,000,000 3/97

Data Capture Services TRW $87,000,000 1/98

Telephone Questionnaire Assistance EDS $100,000,000 12/98

Source: Bureau Briefing for the Board, “Census 2000 Issues and Updates,” Nov. 6, 1998.

On October 23, 1998, the Board visited the Bureau’s Data Capture Center in

Jeffersonville, Indiana. The 2000 Decennial Census will mark the first time in which the

Bureau is outsourcing the management of most of its data centers.

The Jeffersonville DCC will carry approximately 25 percent of the overall data

processing workload for the decennial, but will narrow its focus to special cases and will

be exclusively responsible for the nationwide adjustment survey. It also will process the

address listing and code the questionnaires before they are sent out.
31

The other three DCCs (located in Phoenix, Arizona; Pomona, California; and

Baltimore, Maryland) will be responsible for check-in mail returns, questionnaire edits,

data capture and payroll and personnel administration systems management.

TRW is providing management services for the DCCs. As the National

Processing Center, Jeffersonville’s management will remain under the Bureau’s

command but will follow TRW’s management plan for the other DCCs.

Important questions concerning DCC operations and contractor performance have

been raised in recent months, and we will turn to a full examination of these issues in a

future report.
32

VI. Outreach and Promotion

The Bureau’s outreach, partnership and promotional efforts are critical

components to increase awareness about Census 2000, to increase mail response rates

and to reduce the undercount.

The Bureau will ultimately hire approximately 320 partnership specialists to

coordinate local partnership and outreach during the 2000 census. Partnership specialists

have a wide range of tasks, including responding to media inquiries, assisting in the

recruitment of enumerators, obtaining space for recruiting and training census workers.

The four major components to the Bureau’s community outreach and partnership

plan are: 1) Complete Count Committees; 2) Census in the Schools Project; 3) paid

advertising; and 4) Advisory Committees.

Local government officials establish the Complete Count Committees (CCC) and

may include representatives from, but not limited to, community, business, media, civic,

religious and educational institutions and organizations. These committees help to

develop a local outreach strategy to encourage public participation in the census,

particularly for hard-to-enumerate communities. CCCs provide the Bureau with local or

regional knowledge, expertise and insight into reaching undercounted communities.

While CCCs are a critical component to the success of Census 2000, the Bureau

should be cautious in relying too heavily upon them for outreach efforts. The

committee’s resources may vary for each city, town or county. Committee members are

not Bureau employees; they are unpaid local consultants who may become involved as

volunteers or local appointees.

The Census in the Schools project aims to increase response rates and facilitate

awareness of Census 2000 by targeting students enrolled in school. The Bureau hopes

that students will be effective conduits and encourage their parents or guardians to

complete census questionnaires. The project includes components for students in

kindergarten through grade 12 and includes components for use in classes for adult

English as a Second Language, citizenship and high school equivalency degrees. The

Bureau awarded a contract to Scholastic, Inc., to develop the curricula.

In 1990, the Bureau relied solely on free public service advertising to get its

message out through television, radio and the print media. For the first time, the Bureau

has opted to use a paid advertising campaign to encourage participation in 2000. The

campaign is aimed at increasing mail return from the public at-large, targeted groups and

populations that were disproportionately missed in previous censuses.
33

The Bureau awarded a $100 million contract to Young & Rubicam, Inc.,

(“Y&R”), along with four partnering advertising agencies. Y&R has developed a

layered media strategy designed to increase awareness and mail response rates and to

support partnership and outreach efforts to all segments of the population. The focus of

the advertising campaign is on those least likely to respond to the Census Bureau’s initial

mailing of census forms.

Members among both the Presidential and Congressional appointees to the

Monitoring Board have expressed interest in the details of the Y&R contract and the

company’s plans to accomplish the ambitious goals required of the Census 2000

advertising program. We will turn to an examination of this program in upcoming

hearings before the design of the advertising campaign is finalized, and will address the

advertising plan in subsequent reports.
34

VII. Field Offices and Staff Recruitment

In order to support the full range of Census 2000 activities, the Bureau will open a

nationwide network of Local Census Offices (“LCOs”).

The Bureau’s original operational plan for the 2000 census called for the opening

of 476 LCOs. However, as a result of last week’s Court’s decision, the Bureau will be

required to hire and supervise a substantially larger number of enumerators and support

personnel. These increased demands will require the Bureau to open roughly 520 LCOs.1

In response to the uncertainty over the methodology to be used in Census 2000,

Congress required the Bureau to prepare to carry out the census whichever way the issue

was resolved. This “dual track” planning requirement had raised the specter of a

substantial number of LCOs being opened, and then closed as unnecessary when a final

decision on methodology was made.

In order to avoid that outcome, the Bureau compared LCO placement in both

plans and forced as much overlap as possible. As a result, 400 LCOs were made

common to both plans. By focusing on opening these offices first, the Bureau was able to

delay the opening of offices unique to one plan or the other until March 1999. The

arrival of the Court’s decision prior to that time will allow the Bureau to avoid opening

any unnecessary LCOs.

To date, the Bureau has signed leases for 130 LCOs. Locations for all 520 LCOs

have been identified through the General Services Administration (“GSA”).

In its original plan for the 2000 census, the Bureau calculated that more than

285,000 census takers and support personnel would be needed in order to enumerate the

anticipated 118 million housing units and 275 million people in the United States.2

 In

mid-1998, the Bureau estimated that filling those positions would require evaluating over

2.7 million applicants.3

Last week’s Court decision will require the hiring of a substantially larger

enumerator workforce at a substantial increase in cost.

Performance of the Bureau’s personnel systems to date, as tested during the dress

rehearsals, received generally favorable reviews. The OIG applauded the Bureau’s

personnel successes during the Dress Rehearsals to recruit, screen and hire competent

staff and to meet their hiring goals. However, some minor procedural problems were

identified, which are now being reviewed and will be discussed in future reports.4

 

1

 John Thompson, briefing to Census Monitoring Board.

2

 “How America Knows What America Needs!” Bureau of the Census Fact Sheet, D-3240, June 1998.

3

 “Census 2000 in a Flash” Bureau of the Census Fact Sheet, D-3237, June 1998.

4

 Office of the Inspector General, “Bureau of the Census, Sacramento Dress Rehearsal Identifies Needed

Improvements in Personnel Administration,” September 1998.
35

VIII. Freedom from Political Bias

Congress asked the Board to determine if politics has played an undue role in the

decision-making process at the Bureau. We have examined this issue closely and raised

it with several of the career civil servants who testified at our hearings.

At no point have we detected any public or private concern among Bureau

personnel about any inappropriate political interference on the part of the Administration

or Congress. To the contrary, we are confident that the Bureau’s senior managers have

been and are guided only by the desire to fulfill their legislative mandate to produce the

most accurate count possible. It should also be noted that only three of the Bureau’s

9,500 permanent employees nationwide are political appointees of the Clinton

Administration.

We would note that our view on this matter is shared by Christopher Mihm of

GAO and by President Bush’s Census Director, Dr. Barbara Bryant, both of whom

testified on the issue last year:

“I must say, though, that based on the knowledge that I

have now stretching back over a decade with the

professionals working in senior levels within the Census

Bureau, my impression, very strong impression, is that if

any of them even got the whiff that there was political

manipulation, The Whistleblower Protection Act would

kick into overdrive.” (Mr. Mihm) 1

“The Plan for Census 2000 is not a scheme conceived by

the present Administration. Rather it is an experienced

driven plan based on evaluation of the 1990 census to

improve on the methods used then. A research driven plan

that in mid-decade combined two streams of research: First

five years of research by Census Bureau professionals and

second, recommendations of a Congressionally-mandated

study by experts assembled by the National Academy of

Sciences. Research began in 1991.” (Dr. Bryant) 2

While the Bureau’s decision making process for Census 2000 has been free from

political bias, we must mention the degree of political and media scrutiny that the Bureau

has been subjected to in its planning for this decennial.

 

1

 Testimony by Christopher Mihm before the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs July 30, 1998.

2

 Testimony by Dr. Barbara Bryant before the Subcommittee on the Census Committee on Government

Reform and Oversight (U.S. House of Representatives) September 17, 1998.
36

The 2000 Census has been the subject of great deal of oversight activity: eight

audits by OIG, three audits by GAO, six hearings by the Monitoring Board, and extensive

requests for testimony and documents from the Bureau’s oversight committees in the

Congress. Each of these entities has generated numerous requests for materials from,

meetings with and briefings by Bureau management and staff.

The Bureau’s ability to maintain its objectivity and professionalism in the midst

of this extraordinary level of scrutiny and questioning is an achievement for which it

should be recognized.
37

IX. Conclusion

In sum, the major findings and recommendations of the Presidential Members of

the Board as of Feburary 1, 1999 are:

n The Census Bureau is on track to conduct a traditional census without the use

of statistical methods, but will require a substantial budget increase. We have

requested a detailed estimate from the Bureau.

n Additional personnel and advertising dollars should be devoted to nonresponse follow-up efforts in areas with historically high undercount rates.

n The dress rehearsal results confirm that no matter how sophisticated and well

funded a traditional census is, a massive differential undercount of minorities

and children will be the inevitable result.

n Only a timely Post-Enumeration Survey can erase the differential undercount

within states, and the Supreme Court’s January 25, 1999 ruling not only

allows but says that current law requires the Bureau to transmit statistically

adjusted census results to the states and other federal agencies for all nonapportionment purposes if “feasible.”

n Those who oppose full funding of a PES are effectively endorsing a massive

undercount of minorities and children.

n LUCA is a far superior means of ensuring adequate local review than PCLR,

which would produce little coverage improvement while delaying the delivery

of adjusted numbers beyond the required deadlines imposed by Congress and

thus would make it “infeasible” to deliver adjusted census results by the

statutory deadlines. The program for local review has been moved to the

beginning of the process based on the substantive recommendations of

nonpartisan professionals, and politics should not overrule this decision.

n Congress should fund grants to state and local governments to develop a

modern and nationally standardized Bureau-friendly address list development

and maintenance effort.

n Congress should require the Bureau to follow through on its plans to conduct

extensive research into the use of administrative records for future censuses

and should provide additional funds for these efforts if requested. The Board

intends to undertake its own effort in this regard to ensure that the 2000

census is not wasted as a research opportunity.

n The Bureau’s day-to-day preparations for the 2000 census have not been

unduly influenced by political considerations one way or the other.
38

More than anything else, we urge Congress and the Administration to resolve the

remaining operational issues as soon as possible. Census Day is exactly 14 months away.

That’s not much time. The nonpartisan professionals at the Bureau need definitive

direction now.

Sincerely,

TONY COELHO GILBERT CASELLAS

Co-Chair, Presidential Members Presidential Member

DR. EVERETT EHRLICH LORRAINE GREEN

Presidential Member Presidential Member

cc: The Honorable John Podesta, Chief of Staff, The White House

The Honorable William Daley, Secretary of Commerce

Members of the 106th Congress