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

45–579 PDF 2009

S. Hrg. 110–834 

REDUCING THE UNDERCOUNT IN THE 2010 

CENSUS 

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 TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2008 

Available via http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 

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 

BARACK OBAMA, Illinois 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN WARNER, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

BRANDON L. MILHORN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT INFORMATION, 

FEDERAL SERVICES, AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

BARACK OBAMA, Illinois 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

JOHN KILVINGTON, Staff Director 

KATY FRENCH, Minority Staff Director 

MONISHA SMITH, Chief Clerk 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statement: Page 

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

WITNESSES 

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2008 

Hon. Steven H. Murdock, Director, U.S. Census Bureau ..................................... 4 

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

Office ..................................................................................................................... 6 

Hon. Kenneth Prewitt, Ph.D., Former Census Director, Columbia University .. 16 

Roderick Harrison, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies ....................................................................................................... 18 

Karen K. Narasaki, President and Executive Director, Asian American Justice Center ............................................................................................................ 19 

Joseph J. Salvo, Director, Population Division, New York City Department 

of City Planning ................................................................................................... 21 

Arturo Vargas, Executive Director, National Association of Latino Elected 

and Appointed Officials (NALEO) Educational Fund ....................................... 23 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Goldenkoff, Robert: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 42 

Harrison, Roderick, Ph.D.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 18 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 68 

Murdock, Hon. Steven H.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 31 

Narasaki, Karen K.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 19 

Prepared statement with an attachment ....................................................... 75 

Prewitt, Hon. Kenneth, Ph.D.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 16 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 62 

Salvo, Joseph J.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 21 

Prepared statement with attachments ........................................................... 140 

Vargas, Arturo: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 23 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 151 

APPENDIX 

Questions and Responses for the Record from: 

Mr. Murdock ..................................................................................................... 160 

Charts submitted by Senator Carper ..................................................................... 168 

(1) 

REDUCING THE UNDERCOUNT IN THE 2010 

CENSUS 

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2008 

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT,

GOVERNMENT INFORMATION, FEDERAL SERVICE,

AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY,

OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:34 a.m., in 

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

Carper, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senator Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Senator CARPER. The Subcommittee will come to order. I have 

just joined all of you from another hearing that is going on, a 

Banking Committee hearing. I serve on the Banking Committee, 

and we have before us there the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, 

the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Chairman of the Securities 

and Exchange Commission. I just spoke with Senator Coburn, who 

is on the floor of the Senate, and he going to join us in about half 

an hour or so. I told him that if the census operation continues to 

make progress, if we continue to make progress in addressing some 

of the woes that we learned about over the last year, we may detail 

both of you guys to go over and help Chairmen Bernanke, Cox, and 

Paulson with their duties. 

In any event, on that note, let’s go ahead and get started. I have 

a statement, and then if we are joined by others, we will offer them 

the opportunity to give a statement, too. 

Today’s hearing is the fourth, as you may recall, in a series of 

oversight hearings looking at the Census Bureau’s preparation for 

the 2010 census. One of our responsibilities in the Congress is to 

conduct oversight. When things are going well, I think it is a good 

idea to do oversight and acknowledge that. When things are not 

going well, we have an obligation to find out why and to make sure 

that we put a spotlight on whatever is going badly in the hopes 

that we will find out ways to make it go better. And I think with 

respect to the census, I think we have rounded a turn, and we are 

heading in the right direction now. But today’s hearing will evaluate the Census Bureau’s plans to ensure the accuracy of the 2010 

census. 

2 

On April 1, 2010, the Census Bureau will conduct its 23rd Decennial Census of our Nation’s population. The decennial census is a 

constitutionally mandated activity that is designed to produce a 

baseline of information on the number of U.S. residents and their 

characteristics. Census results are used to apportion seats in the 

House of Representatives, where I once served. I represent a State, 

Delaware, where we only had one Representative. In fact, there is 

a total of seven States that have only one. And for us, the apportionment of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives is not a big 

deal. For other States, like California, where I think they have 53, 

and other States who have between 1 and 53, it can be a very big 

deal indeed. 

But our census results are used to apportion seats in the House 

to redraw Congressional and State legislative boundaries and to allocate billions of dollars in Federal assistance to State and local 

governments. 

Census data also provide information on population growth patterns and demographic information that are used by both the private sector and by Federal, State, and local officials. 

With such substantial reliance on census data, accuracy is critical. Unfortunately, every census in the Nation’s history has failed 

to count all of our residents, resulting in an undercount of the general population. 

Looking back at the 2000 census, it was unprecedented in terms 

of its budget. More money was spent on it than any other previous 

census. As a result of the hard work of the Bureau, though, it was 

able to reduce both the number of Americans who went uncounted. 

Despite the Census Bureau’s success, undercounting still remained an issue for many communities throughout this country. In 

2000, the official census count was 281.4 million, and the adjusted 

estimate was just over 284 million. The Bureau reported a net 

error of just under a half percent. And that sounds pretty good. 

The truth, though, is that there were large errors in 2000 that I 

do not believe we can afford to repeat this time around. 

The Bureau’s own Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation Survey revealed that 6.4 million people were missed and 3.1 million people 

were counted twice. In other words, the 2000 census produced a net 

undercount of some 3.3 million people. 

The undercount would be less problematic if it were evenly distributed among all Americans. However, studies show that undercounting tends to have a disproportionate impact on racial and ethnic minorities, on children, and on immigrants. In 2000, Asian 

Americans were missed nearly twice as often as whites, African 

Americans nearly three times as often as whites, and Hispanics 

were missed four times as often as whites. 

Although today’s hearing is focused on the undercount, I do not 

think that we should minimize the overcount issues that exist. In 

past censuses, the Bureau reduced its net undercount by letting 

the people counted twice substitute for those who were missed. 

That may work for statistical purposes, but it is problematic for a 

number of reasons. The people counted twice are not like the people who were missed. 

I will say that again. The people who were counted twice are not 

like the people who were missed. They are not the same race. They 

3 

do not have the same income. And they do not live in the same 

places. The importance of getting this thing right is striking when 

we think about the countless ways in which we depend on census 

data. 

For starters, the undercount affects the distribution of Federal 

funds that are allocated on the basis of population. A study performed by PricewaterhouseCoopers found that the undercount in 

2000 would cost States $4.1 billion. This loss of Federal funding 

taxes the resources of States and local governments and compromises the level of services provided to residents—the people 

that all of us work for. 

Underenumeration in the census also has serious political implications. In political representation that is based on population, 

undercounted people get less credit for their population than they 

are due. This skews the make-up of the House and results in some 

communities being underrepresented, while others get more of a 

voice than they are due. 

Reaching out to those who were historically hard to count is even 

more important when we consider that for every 1 percent of the 

population that does not respond to the census, we are going to 

have to spend about $75 million, I am told, to go door to door to 

get everyone counted, or just about everyone counted. As a result, 

it is vitally important that we do the necessary hard work now so 

that we can get an accurate, cost-effective count in 2010 that will 

serve us well into the next decade. 

So as the Census Bureau begins its final preparation for 2010, 

we need to make sure that you are reaching out as aggressively as 

we can to historically undercounted groups. This Subcommittee 

looks forward to hearing from our witnesses today and gaining 

your perspectives as we work together to ensure that this happens. 

We have two panels today. On our first panel of witnesses is 

Steve Murdock who serves as Director of the Census Bureau. Mr. 

Murdock officially became the Director of the Census Bureau on 

January 4, 2008. I do not know about you, but it seems a lot longer 

ago than that to me. It probably does to you, too. And you have the 

responsibility of overseeing the planning and implementation of the 

operation for the 2010 census. Prior to becoming Director, Mr. 

Murdock was a demographer for the State of Texas, and he played 

a leadership role in his State’s coordination activities in the 1980, 

the 1990, and the 2000 decennial censuses. 

Robert Goldenkoff is the Director of Strategic Issues at the Government Accountability Office, where he is responsible for reviewing the 2010 census and governmentwide human capital reforms. 

Mr. Goldenkoff has also performed research on issues involving 

transportation security, human trafficking, and Federal statistical 

programs. He received his Bachelor’s of Arts in Political Science 

and Master’s of Public Administration degrees from the George 

Washington University. 

Gentlemen, we are delighted that you are here. We will ask that 

you keep your comments to about 5 minutes, and if you run a bit 

over, that is OK. If you run a lot over, that is not OK. The full testimony of both of you will be entered into the record, and I would 

just invite you to proceed as you see fit. Thanks so much for joining 

us. 

4 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Murdock appears in the Appendix on page 31. 

Mr. Murdock, would you like to go first? 

TESTIMONY OF HON. STEVEN H. MURDOCK,1 DIRECTOR, U.S. 

CENSUS BUREAU 

Mr. MURDOCK. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Coburn, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to come 

before you again to discuss our ongoing efforts to address issues related to the undercount in the 2010 census. 

Although in discussing our efforts to meet this goal, we rightfully 

stress our outreach and promotional efforts, including the advertising campaign and the Partnership Program, today I want to 

stress that the Census Bureau’s commitment to improving coverage 

and addressing the undercount encompasses wide-ranging activities conducted before decennial field-based operations begin, during 

field operations, and after the conclusion of field operations. 

The census is based on addresses from which we identify households in which we count individuals. Our goal is to count everyone 

once, only once, and in the right place. This begins by taking the 

address list, referred to as the ‘‘Master Address File,’’ from the past 

census and updating it. For 2010, updates from the U.S. Postal 

Service have been obtained twice annually, and we improve that 

list by a process that allows local governments to review our address list for their areas in a process we call the Local Update of 

Census Addresses (LUCA). 

In 2010, for the first time, this review included both addresses 

for individual households and for group quarters, which are housing arrangements such as college dormitories, nursing homes, military barracks, jails, prisons, and other facilities. 

We also work with local communities to form Complete Count 

Committees, that operate during the census to ensure that residents of their communities respond to the census. Through our 

partnership and other programs described below, we establish with 

cooperating organizations Be Counted Centers that allow persons 

who believe that they have been missed to fill out and submit a 

census form and Questionnaire Assistance Centers that will help 

people to complete the census through assistance in multiple languages. The census questionnaire has also been designed with the 

goal of reducing undercount and overcount. Questions have been 

added to the 2010 form that can check for consistency in completing the census form and then improve our ability to identify 

both overcounts and undercounts. The questionnaire is available in 

five languages in addition to English, and for the first time, we will 

mail bilingual—Spanish-English—questionnaires to about 13 million households. Language guides are available for more than 50 

additional languages. 

Prior to beginning census operations, we make concerted efforts 

to hire local residents for census jobs because we know that people 

are more likely to respond to the census when local people are asking for their assistance and participation. 

Our first extensive field operation in the decennial census is the 

formal address listing process which begins in 2009. It involves 

census employees in a process of verifying all existing addresses on 

5 

the Master Address File, adding new addresses identified, knocking 

on every door to determine, where possible, the number of households living at that address, and obtaining GPS coordinates for 

each household which expedites finding such households for future 

census operations. 

In March 2010, the massive mailing of forms to households begins, and for the first time, we will employ a second mailing, which 

has been found in many surveys to increase response rates. We will 

also employ strategies that differ by type of area so that in rural 

and other areas that do not have the city style addresses that are 

most convenient for mail delivery, we can obtain a good count as 

well. 

When the non-response follow-up process used to obtain data 

from households that did not respond to the census by mail begins, 

we complete numerous operations that result in making a minimum of six attempts to obtain data from households. During this 

period, we also conduct enumeration of service-based programs, 

such as shelters, soup kitchens, and mobile food vans. Regional offices develop and implement hard-to-enumerate programs specifically designed to reach specific hard-to-count groups, and coverage 

follow-up operations are conducted that involve telephone and 

other contacts with households where inconsistencies were found in 

their questionnaires. 

Finally, after the major decennial census operations are nearly 

complete, we will initiate and complete a census coverage measurement process through which we measure the extent to which we 

have over- or under-counted various population groups. 

Beginning in 2008 and running through the census operations 

described above is the 2010 communication program that integrates a mix of mass media advertising, targeted media outreach 

to specific populations, as well as national and local partnerships, 

grass-roots marketing, the Census in Schools program, and special 

events. 

Members of the Subcommittee, be assured that everything we do 

in the 2010 census is aimed at improving accuracy and coverage 

with an eye toward reducing undercounts and counting everyone. 

Whether the challenges are in remote Alaska, in densely populated 

urban areas like New York or Chicago, or in the colonias in South 

Texas, the Census Bureau will marshal the efforts necessary to include their residents in the 2010 census. To us it does not matter 

how hard it is to reach everyone. It matters that we reach everyone. I am happy to take questions. 

Senator CARPER. Say that last sentence again. 

Mr. MURDOCK. OK. To us it does not matter how hard it is to 

reach someone. It matters that we reach everyone. 

Senator CARPER. That is pretty good. Who writes your stuff? 

[Laughter.] 

Did you write that yourself? 

Mr. MURDOCK. Not that one, no. The gentleman is here that 

wrote that, though. 

Senator CARPER. Will that gentleman raise his hand? All right. 

You may have a second career. Thank you for that testimony. 

Mr. Goldenkoff. 

6 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Goldenkoff appears in the Appendix on page 42. 

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

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. That is a tough act to follow, but, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss reducing the undercount in the 2010 census. As you know, an accurate enumeration is a daunting task as the Nation’s population is 

growing larger, more diverse, and increasingly reluctant to participate in the census. 

An undercount occurs when the census misses an individual. An 

overcount occurs when an individual is counted in error. 

What makes these errors problematic, as you have already noted, 

is a differential impact on various sub-groups. Minorities, renters, 

and children, for example, are more likely to be missed by the census, while more affluent groups, such as people with vacation 

homes, are more likely to be double-counted. As census data are 

used to apportion seats in Congress and a number of other important purposes, improving coverage and reducing the differential 

undercount is critical. 

As requested, my remarks today will focus, first, on key activities 

the Census Bureau plans to use to reduce the differential 

undercount in 2010; and, second, the various challenges and opportunities that might help or hinder these efforts. Importantly, in my 

remarks this morning I want to stress the following: Although the 

Bureau has developed a range of activities aimed at reducing the 

differential undercount, these activities are generally in the planning or early implementation stages, and a variety of uncertainties 

and challenges lie ahead. 

Reducing the undercount begins with a complete and accurate 

address list. The Bureau develops its address list over the course 

of the decade using a series of operations that include partnerships 

with the Postal Service as well as with State, local, and tribal governments. One such operations is address canvassing where thousands of temporary Bureau employees known as ‘‘listers’’ verify the 

addresses of all housing units by going door to door across the 

country. To help find hidden housing units, such as converted basements where hard-to-count groups might reside, the Bureau trains 

listers to ask if there is more than one residence at a particular address or to look for clues such as an outbuilding or two doorbells 

that could indicate additional living quarters. 

Another effort aimed at reducing the undercount is the Bureau’s 

Integrated Communications Campaign that consists of paid advertising, earned media and public relations, Census in the Schools, 

which is a program aimed at reaching parents through their schoolaged children, and partnerships with key national and grass-roots 

organizations that have strong ties to their communities. 

The Bureau also operates a range of special enumeration programs that target hard-to-count populations. They include the Be 

Counted Program, Questionnaire Assistance Centers, and ServiceBased Enumeration, which aims at including the homeless and 

other individuals without conventional housing. Other activities, 

such as offering in-language questionnaires, can help improve coverage among people with limited English proficiency. 

7 

1The charts referred to appears in the Appendix on page 168. 

While each of these activities can help the Bureau improve the 

differential undercount, they also face open questions that, if not 

resolved, could reduce the effectiveness of the Bureau’s efforts. For 

example, with respect to address canvassing, the Bureau plans to 

provide listers with GPS-equipped handheld computers to verify 

and correct addresses. However, the companies have experienced 

shortcomings such as freeze-ups and data transmission issues, and 

the reliability has been problematic. The Bureau plans to conduct 

a limited field test of the handhelds this December. However, if the 

performance issues persist, the Bureau will have little time to 

make any refinements as address canvassing is scheduled to start 

early in 2009. 

Another challenge is that several operations aimed at hard-tocount groups, such as the Be Counted Program, Service-Based 

Enumeration, and Group Quarters Enumeration, were not tested 

during the dress rehearsal of the 2010 census, which was held earlier this year. Consequently, the Bureau missed an important opportunity to see how they might perform in concert with other activities planned for 2010 as well as identify the need for any improvements that might enhance their effectiveness. 

In summary, if the various activities aimed at the hard to count 

are implemented as planned, they will help the Census Bureau 

achieve its goal of improving coverage. At the same time, a number 

of uncertainties and challenges lie ahead, and the success of the 

Bureau’s efforts to reduce the undercount will depend in large part 

on the extent to which the activities are adequately tested, start 

and finish on schedule, get implemented in the proper sequence, 

and receive appropriate staffing and funding. 

It will also be important for the Bureau to develop effective monitoring programs to ensure the various operations are on track and 

enable the Bureau to quickly respond to any contingencies that 

might arise. In the months ahead, it will be important for the Census Bureau and Congress to focus on these issues as well as be 

alert to newly emerging challenges. And, as always, we look forward to assisting the Subcommittee in this regard. 

Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement, and I 

would be pleased to respond to any questions that you might have. 

Senator CARPER. You used exactly 4 minutes and 58 seconds. 

That is pretty good. You could have slowed down there right at the 

end and just nailed it right at 5 minutes. [Laughter.] 

The first series of questions I am going to ask actually flow from 

the two charts that are to my right,1 to your left. But before I do 

that, I will just mention something. Another subcommittee I chair 

deals with clean air and nuclear safety. And I am forever encouraging the nuclear industry to focus on safety, to adopt at every one 

of our 104 nuclear power plants a culture of safety. One of our core 

values in our Senate office is ‘‘If it is not perfect, make it better.’’ 

These first three columns—this goes back to the census from 

1940, 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000, and the darker line, 

actually the blue line, blue column, reflects the undercount for 

black Americans, African Americans, and the total undercount is 

reflected here I guess in the gray. You see the total undercount 

8 

from 1940, it looks like about 5 million people. Compared to 2000, 

the total undercount was essentially null and void, which is a great 

improvement. Unfortunately, there is still a significant undercount 

among African Americans of about—I think it is about 3 million 

people. So if it is not perfect, make it better. 

I would just ask, Mr. Goldenkoff, you just ran through a series 

of things, steps that the Census Bureau has taken to make it better; if not make it perfect, at least to make it better. Are you encouraged that we are going to see—for the most part the improvement, if you look at these numbers here for undercount of African 

Americans from 1940, 1950, 1960, bounced up a little bit in 1970, 

dropped way down in 1980, bounced up a little bit in 1990, and 

then dropped down again in 2000. 

Are you encouraged that the Census will, if not make it perfect, 

make it better in 2010? 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. We are certainly encouraged from what we 

have seen so far in terms of the level of effort that the Bureau has 

put forth. The good news is that they are applying a lot of the lessons learned from the 2000 census. A lot of what they are doing 

is data driven. They are taking information, demographic information, to target their resources, which is extremely important now 

that the budget is constrained. They also recognize the importance 

of working with local members of the community. So for all those 

reasons, we are certainly encouraged by what we are seeing. 

What we do not know is how well these various operations will 

work once they go live, and what we have seen, for example, in 

2000 that a lot of the plans on paper, they look really good on 

paper, but things happen. And so one of the things that concerns 

us is that some of these activities were not tested during the dress 

rehearsal. And while it is true that the Bureau has performed a lot 

of these activities before, some of them encountered glitches in 

2000. Also, the dress rehearsal provides an opportunity to make 

improvements as another data point there. Every census is different, so even if the Bureau has performed these operations before, they have to be—we do not know how they are going to perform in 2010 because the environment is different. And there are 

a bunch of new operations that, again, while good—and we certainly commend the Bureau and give them a lot of credit for things 

like the bilingual questionnaires—the census has a lot of moving 

parts. It is a big, complex machine, and without testing these different operations, it is unclear whether they are going to work in 

concert with one another. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

Dr. Murdock, why don’t you just briefly respond to some of the 

comments that Mr. Goldenkoff has just made? 

Mr. MURDOCK. Well, we certainly appreciate the comments regarding the additional efforts that we are making because there 

are an extensive number of those. And as he has pointed out, the 

census is a very complex process. We have attempted in every way 

that we could to discern how well operations will work. We did 

have to curtail some things in terms of the dress rehearsal because 

of rescoping efforts, because of some funding issues last year. But 

we are making every effort possible to assess how these various acVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:00 Jun 11, 2009 Jkt 045579 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\45579.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
9 

tivities will do, and we are using our databases from previous censuses to look at where we are going. 

One of the things we have from that is a very good idea in most 

of these operations from looking at the past how a change in those 

will likely affect the response we get because many of these are 

spin-offs of programs and ideas that we have been following for 

some time. 

So, yes, we did not in all cases have the full dress rehearsal kind 

of event that we would have liked, but these activities are ones we 

feel confident that we are going to be able to perform well within 

all of the constraints and all of the issues that are involved in a 

decennial census and all of the imponderables, the economic, social, 

and other circumstances that may exist at the exact time when the 

census occurs. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

Dr. Murdock, can you tell us, if you will, the Bureau’s specific 

plans for reducing both the net and differential undercounts now 

that you will not have the handheld computing devices to conduct 

non-response follow-up? 

Mr. MURDOCK. Well, in large part, we believe that the program 

that we have instituted will get us an adequate undercount; that 

is, we would, of course, like to have no undercount, but we do have 

a wide variety of things that we are doing that are new. And let 

me just for a minute mention those, because I think what tends to 

happen is to look at just a few operations. But let me just give you 

an idea of some of the things we are doing this time that we did 

not do last time. 

We have been using more frequent updates of USPS information 

to update our mailing lists. We are using a GPS during the address 

canvassing that will help us locate households and go back to 

households who do not participate. We have had a much more consolidated and much more activistic LUCA program. That is the 

Local Update of Census Addresses. And we have had very good 

participation in that. We estimate that about 85 percent of all the 

addresses in the country are involved in LUCA governmental entities that have agreed to cooperate and look at our address lists, see 

if they are right, make corrections, tell us where we are wrong, 

help us adjust those. 

We have an address canvassing process this census that involves 

knocking on every door. The last census we knocked on every third 

door in terms of verifying where we were at. We have a coordinated 

Communications and Partnership Program. Last time, we had a 

program—two different programs that sometimes meshed and 

sometimes did not mesh, meaning that things sometimes were not 

available on time or were available in large quantities after they 

were needed. The new questionnaire, with the questions that we 

have put on there specifically to help us identify undercount and 

overcount, to look for consistencies or inconsistencies in the responses. And very important, we believe, is the multiple language, 

not only the bilingual questionnaire that we make available, but 

we are making questionnaires readily available in five languages. 

And we are making questionnaire assistance guides available in 

over 50 languages. 

10 

So as we look at the diversity of the U.S. population and the 

challenge that creates for work in terms of counting the hard to 

count, we believe we have initiated a large number of activities this 

census that are better than last census that should help us address 

these needs. 

That is not to say that this is not a tremendous challenge, because the increasing diversity of the United States—I should say 

it this way: The diversity of the United States has increased substantially from 2000. And as a result, the challenges for us in 

terms of making sure we count all of the individual population 

groups is extensive. 

Senator CARPER. That is a pretty impressive list that you just 

ran through for us. 

Let me stick with, if I can, the handheld computers for maybe 

one more minute. I am going to ask you to be brief in responding 

to this, and this will be for both of you. And, Mr. Goldenkoff, why 

don’t you go first? But just how confident are you in the 

functionality of the handheld computers for the upcoming address 

canvassing operations? 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Well, I think it remains to be seen. The key 

event is what happens in the test in December. So far, as I said, 

they have had a bunch of technological problems that have reduced 

their reliability, reduced the productivity. So what happens in December, that I think will be key to what we can foresee for when 

the address canvassing actually starts in the spring. So we will be 

there. We are planning to observe the field tests. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Good. 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. But right now it is a big unknown. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

Dr. Murdock, same question. How confident are you? 

Mr. MURDOCK. Well, as you know, when we began the process of 

rescoping early this year, we had found a number of difficulties. We 

have instituted a much more complete and comprehensive management program and a testing program so that we have, for example, 

during September and October of this year, we are doing some 

product integration testing. During October and November, we will 

be doing validation system testing. And we have scheduled for December an operational field test, and that will be a case where we 

will take the handhelds into the field to be used exactly as they 

will be used in the 2010 decennial census. 

When you look at census operations, one of the things that we 

recognize is that the census remains a high-risk activity. It always 

is, and there is no way to reduce all of that risk. Nothing is going 

to change this. But I believe the program of oversight that we have 

instituted, the program of testing that we have instituted, which is 

much more rigorous than what existed previously, we are confident 

that those sets of procedures put in place will lead us to a good result related to the 2010 census. 

Senator CARPER. All right. OK. Thanks to both of you for your 

responses there. 

I am going to telegraph a pitch. I am going to ask you just before 

we conclude this portion of the hearing, so that the folks who are 

with you can be thinking about this, and maybe if you need some 

information, they can be pulling it together. But I am going to ask 

11 

you right before we excuse this panel, Dr. Murdock, I am going to 

ask you a question in conjunction with the continuing resolution 

that we will adopt here in probably the next several weeks, and 

maybe even several days. To what extent are the needs of the Census Bureau reflected or likely to be reflected? What are your needs 

going to be? And so just be thinking about that as it pertains to 

the continuing resolution. Don’t answer the question now, but just 

know that before I excuse you, I am going to ask you to give us 

some thoughts on that. And if you are not comfortable in answering 

it right now on the record, then we will just ask you to respond in 

writing. 

OK. In its final report to Congress, the U.S. Census Monitoring 

Board in 2000 made several recommendations that were offered in 

an effort to improve future censuses. And one of those recommendations was that gross error rather than net error should be 

used as the primary basis for evaluating the accuracy of the census. 

For example, the net undercount in the 2000 census, I think it 

was about 3.3 million, but the number of people missed is, I think, 

6.4 million, while the number of people counted twice was around 

3 million. At first glance, it may seem that the people counted 

twice cancel out those that were missed. And while that may work 

for statistical purposes, it just does not work out when we are trying to understand the characteristics of the population that we are 

counting. 

The people who were missed, as I said earlier in my opening 

statement, are unlike those who were counted twice. They live in 

different places. They may speak different languages. They come 

from different socioeconomic backgrounds. And I think both of you 

have mentioned it, the idea that folks who are fortunate to own vacation homes may get counted twice. Families that are fortunate 

enough to be able to send their children to school away from home, 

in some cases those students get counted twice. This can be problematic for State and local governments that rely on Federal funds 

that are allocated on the basis of population estimates. 

Has the Bureau decided to implement the board’s recommendations and use gross error as its standard measurement of census 

error? 

Mr. MURDOCK. We have not really made a decision in terms of 

how that will specifically be reported, but historically, although it 

is the net that tends to get the attention, the Census Bureau’s reports have indicated both, so that we have looked at both in our 

ongoing operations because we are very aware that there are 

groups that we have overcounted, and that has been reported, and 

there are groups that we have substantially undercounted. So we 

look at both of these as we look at our census and evaluate how 

well we have done. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Goldenkoff, do you have any comment on 

that? 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. We would agree with the Census Monitoring 

Board. Since the early 1990s, we have been recommending that the 

Bureau calculate gross error as that is a better measure of the actual amount of error in the census. Just because you count someVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:00 Jun 11, 2009 Jkt 045579 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\45579.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
12 

1The chart referred to appears in the Appendix on page 60. 

body twice, that does not compensate for missing one person because of the demographic differences between the two groups. 

Senator CARPER. I do not underestimate how difficult it is to 

count everybody. And I appreciate all the efforts that are ongoing, 

that are undertaken and ongoing to do a better job. But just in 

terms of basic equity, the folks that we are counting or overcounting are really people that are more privileged than those that 

we are undercounting. And that violates my sense of what is fair 

and equitable, and I am sure that it does that of almost everybody, 

maybe everybody in this room. So I would ask that we just keep 

focusing on that. 

Mr. Goldenkoff, GAO has done several studies on how inaccurate 

census data can affect Federal funding to States and to local governments. What was the estimated impact of the projected census 

2000 undercount on the allocation of Federal funds to State and 

local governments? What was the estimated impact of the 2000 

census on the allocation of Federal funds to State and local governments? That is the first question. The second one is: Which States 

were expected to receive the biggest dollar losses as a result of incorrect population estimates? 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Sure. What we did was we did not look at all 

grants. What we did was we looked at social services block grants 

because that grant program relies exclusively on population to allocate funds, and so it would be the most sensitive to any changes 

in population. And what we found, there would have been a total 

of—I think it was a $4.1 million shift. Some States, a group of 

States—and I forget the exact proportion—would have gained $4.1 

or $4.2 million, and another set of States would have lost $4.2 million. So it was pretty much—it was a wash from that perspective, 

and I think the District of Columbia would have lost the most. And 

I have some information in my formal statement. We have a graph 

there that shows more of the details.1 So it would have had a modest impact. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

Let me sort of pivot here and go in a little bit different direction. 

Maybe I will ask two more questions, and then I am going to excuse this panel and bring on our next panel. 

I think we all agree that having a complete and accurate address 

list is the cornerstone of a successful census. Nearly half of the 

undercount arises from missed housing units and households. As a 

result, we need to know every address in the country—a daunting 

task. We need to get a questionnaire to each address. That is not 

easy either. We need to have them return it, and then we need to 

be able to capture that information provided accurately. 

Again, for Dr. Murdock, just to start here, how does the Bureau 

plan to develop a complete mailing list so that a mail survey can 

reach each household? You have spoken to this a little bit, but I 

just want to ask you to go back and pick it up again. 

Mr. MURDOCK. OK. Certainly. There are several activities involved in this. One is that we start with the address list from the 

last census, but twice a year since then, we have obtained from the 

U.S. Postal Service their delivery sequence file, which gives us an 

13 

update of addresses. And in the last couple of years, as a result of 

a process called the Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA)— 

we have shared our information on addresses with local communities—cities, towns, etc., and with States, who have reviewed 

those data and are telling us of addresses that they have that we 

do not have on our list, providing information on new subdivisions 

that may have come into place. So with a combination of our ongoing efforts and theirs, we are building this list. 

We also have an ongoing effort on census address update which 

involves all of our other field activities that are non-decennial, and 

as we locate addresses that are not on our Master Address File, 

those are added as well. 

So we are using the best, if you will, palette that we can start 

out with, with the U.S. Postal Service data. And then we are adding to it what we think is the best of all in many ways, and that 

is locals’ information about their own communities and their own 

cities about where addresses are and where the new developments 

have begun. And we will be including that, continuing that 

throughout this decade. And, in fact, we will, even in 2010, be getting some materials on new additions from local communities. 

So it is really a very good partnership, if you will, between us 

and other Federal agencies and local governments in assisting us, 

and their assistance has been instrumental to having a good address list. In addition, as we indicate when we go out to do address 

listing, which is this massive effort that we will begin next year, 

our people, our listing people, will find addresses. They will note 

those addresses that will go onto our list. And even during the nonresponse follow-up, which is the part that occurs after the 2010 response to the mail questionnaire has occurred, we will be identifying addresses and ensuring that households at those addresses 

get census forms to complete. 

So we have an ongoing set of field operations combined with, we 

think, a quite good base from the Postal Service combined with assistance from local jurisdictions. 

Senator CARPER. Well, I am encouraged to hear about the cooperation of the local jurisdictions, the State and local governments. But when you think about it, they do have a dog in this 

fight, and they do have some skin in the game. They have an obligation to help, but they also have a special interest in helping. And 

I am glad to hear that they are meeting that obligation, or at least 

a bunch of them are. 

A question really for both of you, and then I am going to go back 

to that question I telegraphed earlier. But what additional measures, Dr. Murdock, is the Bureau taking to ensure hard-to-count 

populations in communities affected by a bunch of hurricanes— 

Katrina, Rita, Ike, and the list goes on—are counted given that 

many residents are displaced from their homes in various States of 

rebuilding? And your comments—I am just going to ask you to 

comment on that. 

Mr. MURDOCK. Well, these incidences we really have to take on 

a case-by-case basis. But what we have found, for example, in 

Katrina-impacted areas is that we are going to use somewhat different procedures than we used there. We cannot simply rely on 

Postal Service addresses. So we will be using a combination of UpVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:00 Jun 11, 2009 Jkt 045579 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\45579.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
14 

date/Leave, and that is where we go in and find a housing unit, 

leave a questionnaire to ensure that they get it. And in other cases, 

in other places, we will use an Update and Enumerate, which 

means that we will actually locate the housing unit, come back and 

do an enumeration of that. So it will be a much more intense kind 

of effort and a recognition that standard addresses and standard 

address lists will not work necessarily in such areas. So we are giving them very special attention. 

For example, the Dallas office that covers both the Hurricane 

Katrina- and Hurricane Rita-impacted areas and now the Hurricane Ike-impacted area are working with local jurisdictions to discern how best to ensure that all persons are counted. 

Obviously, given the recency of Ike, we are developing those procedures right now for those areas, and we will do those over the 

next few months. But we recognize that these raise unique challenges, and it means that we are going to have to put more people 

in the areas doing door-to-door kinds of work than we would in an 

area that had not experienced such devastating circumstances. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Goldenkoff, you may have a comment on 

that. You may not. If you do—— 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. I think that what the Bureau is doing is very 

encouraging. They know what needs to be done. They have done it 

before. They recognize that the housing stock is not stable. And I 

think most importantly is that under the Bureau’s protocols, they 

always err on the side of inclusion. So even if something does not 

look inhabitable, even if it just looks like a concrete slab, it will 

still be included in the address list because a mobile home or a 

house can be built on that slab come census day. So I think that 

we can be encouraged by the efforts the Bureau is putting forth. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

As I said earlier, Dr. Murdock, as you know, we are working on 

a continuing resolution that is likely to take us some time into the 

first part of next year, maybe as far as into March. We have been 

told that the Census Bureau will be taken care of, but you may 

want to take this opportunity to tell me just what that means to 

be taken care of and what are your needs likely to be, an interim 

funding measure that will carry us, we will say, through March? 

What do you need to get through until then? Do you think you will 

get what you need in terms of recommendations from the Administration? I know you are working with the Commerce Secretary and 

with OMB. 

And, last—and you may want to answer this for the record, but 

what happens if you do not get what you believe you need? 

Mr. MURDOCK. Well, let me answer it, first of all, that we have 

received good support from the Administration in recognizing that 

the Census Bureau will need an anomaly in order to go forward, 

and that is because if we were to have to continue at our budget, 

which we have for this year, which is about a third of what we 

need for next year, it would have devastating effects on the 2010 

census. We would, for example, not be able to open all of our local 

census offices, the first 150 that are critical for the address canvassing operation. If it were delayed long enough, it could impact 

the very address canvassing process itself that begins early next 

year. 

15 

So it is very critical that we not operate under a circumstance 

of continuing resolution. 

Senator CARPER. All right. OK. I think that does it for this panel 

for now. Thank you for an encouraging report. If it is not perfect, 

make it better. Keep working hard. 

Mr. MURDOCK. We will. 

Senator CARPER. And maybe someday we will have a hearing 

and say you got it perfect. I hope to still be around. I hope you will 

be, too. Thank you both. 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Thank you very much. 

Senator CARPER. I will just invite the second panel to go ahead 

and take your seats, if you would, please, and I will begin introductions. 

I am going to start with the introduction of the Hon. Kenneth 

Prewitt. Mr. Prewitt served as the Director of the Census Bureau 

from 1998 to 2001. As Census Director, Dr. Prewitt managed decennial operations in the 2000 census. Dr. Prewitt is now the Vice 

President and Carnegie Professor of Public Affairs at Columbia 

University. Is that true? 

Mr. PREWITT. Of course. 

Senator CARPER. Is it Dr. Prewitt? 

Mr. PREWITT. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. Congratulations. And I understand you have 

served on many professional advisory committees, and you are currently most active on the Committee on National Statistics of the 

National Research Council. Welcome. 

Mr. PREWITT. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Good to see you. 

Next, Roderick Harrison is a Senior Fellow at the Joint Center 

for Political and Economic Studies, a research and public policy institution that focuses exclusively on issues of particular concern to 

African Americans and other people of color. Mr. Harrison was the 

founding Director of DataBank, an online clearinghouse of data on 

African Americans and other ethnic populations. Previously, I am 

told, Mr. Harrison served as Chief of the Census Bureau’s Racial 

Statistics Branch. When did you serve in that role? 

Mr. HARRISON. From 1990 to 1997. 

Senator CARPER. OK. And in that role you helped to expand the 

content and number of the Bureau’s publications and releases on 

racial and ethnic populations. Mr. Harrison, we are glad you are 

here. Thank you. 

And Karen Narasaki, the President and Executive Director of the 

Asian American Justice Center, one of the Nation’s leading voices 

advocating for the rights and interests of Asian Americans. I understand you serve in a number of leadership positions in the civil 

rights and immigrant rights community, and that you are Vice 

Chair of the Leadership Council on Civil Rights. 

Ms. NARASAKI. Correct. 

Senator CARPER. In addition, I am told that Ms. Narasaki is the 

Chair of the Rights Working Group, a coalition of human rights, 

civil rights, civil liberties, and immigrant rights groups, and working to address a variety of issues important to our immigrant community in this country. Welcome. We are happy you are able to join 

us. 

16 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Prewitt appears in the Appendix on page 62. 

And Joseph Salvo, Director of the Population Division of New 

York City’s Department of City Planning. The Population Division 

serves as the city’s in-house demographic consultant and provides 

expertise in the development of population estimates, projections 

for infrastructure and capital planning. The division is also working closely, I am told, with the Census Bureau on the tactical preparation for the 2010 census and evaluation of the new American 

Community Survey. Mr. Salvo currently serves on the Census Advisory Committee of Professional Associations. 

And, finally—last, but not least—Mr. Arturo Vargas is the Executive Director of the National Association of Latino Elected and 

Appointed Officials, a national membership organization of Latino 

policymakers and supporters. Prior to joining NALEO, Arturo was 

Vice President for the Community Education in Public Policy at the 

Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, where he 

supervised and directed the organization’s community education 

and leadership development programs. Mr. Vargas is a nationally 

recognized expert in Latino demographic trends, electoral participation, voting rights, the census, and redistricting. 

We are delighted that each of you made time to be here today. 

I just want to thank a number of you who have been working for 

years to make sure that we do, as best as we can, count everyone 

in this country, count them accurately. And so thank you for those 

past efforts and thank you for your willingness to be with us here 

today. 

Mr. Salvo, I am tempted to put you at the front of the line so 

you can be our ‘‘opening Salvo.’’ [Laughter.] 

But I am going to withhold from that temptation, and we are 

going to turn to Dr. Prewitt and ask him to lead us off. Mr. 

Prewitt. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. KENNETH PREWITT, PH.D.,1 FORMER 

CENSUS DIRECTOR, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 

Mr. PREWITT. Well, of course, what that means is that Mr. Salvo 

can correct me when it gets down to his turn. 

Just a quick prefatory comment, if I might, Mr. Chairman, since 

you raised the issue of the CR in talking to the last panel. There 

are three dimensions to the CR that really matter. One, is it adequate? Second, is it timely,? Is it going to be—because if it is adequate but late, it is the same consequences for the census. And I 

hope it has some flexibility. Certainly in 2000, if we did not have 

some budget flexibility, we could not have responded to unexpected 

circumstances which happened. So as the Congress deliberates 

about the CR, I would hope all three of those dimensions are attended to. 

Senator CARPER. Good. That is good advice, and I did not say 

this but I am going to say it now. Your comments do not count 

against your 5 minutes that we have asked you to use, so we will 

start the clock over again. But I would ask everybody to try to stick 

to the 5 minutes if you could. That would be a big help. 

Thank you. 

Mr. PREWITT. OK. Thank you very much. 

17 

The word ‘‘accuracy’’ has been around in census conversation 

since the beginning. In 1790, Thomas Jefferson gave the first count 

to George Washington, and the President was unhappy with that 

count because he said it was too low. This was not an idle concern 

on Washington’s part. He felt like the European powers would 

think that we were weak, that our independence was fragile. So he 

actually instructed Jefferson to report higher numbers, and Jefferson did some complicated arithmetic and actually sent out the diplomatic corps, and he actually adjusted the census in 1790 upward 

to try to compensate for the undercount. 

Senator CARPER. So that is how we ended up with 72 million people that year? [Laughter.] 

Mr. PREWITT. And then as late as the most recent census, the 

2000 Census, it was Commerce Secretary Evans who described it 

as ‘‘the most accurate census this Nation has ever conducted.’’ 

Well, based on your opening remarks, and I think my own judgment of the Census 2000, I think that is—I appreciate what Commerce Secretary Evans said, but I think it is an inaccurate statement itself about accuracy because of your focus on the gross error. 

Anytime you have a census which overcounts and undercounts in 

the magnitude that we do it, it is not fair to call it ‘‘the most accurate census ever conducted.’’ 

I want to try to focus on—you have talked about the undercount. 

You understand it. But I think it would be very helpful if the full 

Congress understood that you can have a very good census down 

to the last 1 percent, and that is when the undercount kicks in. But 

you can also have a very good census all the way from top to bottom, but if the address file leaves out those households which are 

disproportionately undercounted, you can go in at the top level and 

get an undercount or you can wait until the last 1 percent and get 

an undercount. So the problem with the census is you have got to 

get each one of those steps, from the address file all the way down 

to counting that last 1 percent, if you want to try to do something 

about the differential undercount. 

Now, of course, in that last 1 percent, you can also get your 

overcount because that is when you are counting, double-counting 

the college kids and so forth and so on. 

So the important thing, it seems to me, is to understand the distributional accuracy and numerical accuracy are two dimensions of 

the accuracy conversation. And numerical accuracy is how close do 

we get to the true count, but distribution accuracy is the proportionality, of course. And anytime things are being allocated on a 

share basis, as congressional seats, of course, and as Federal funding, then distributional accuracy is the name of the game. Because 

in some fundamental sense, you could undercount; but if you 

undercount evenly across all geographic areas and across all demographic groups, then you would not be as unfair as you are in trying to get a better census, a more numerically accurate census, but 

one which builds in distributional inaccuracies. And it is extremely 

difficult for the Census Bureau to manage the tension between trying to reach everybody and yet worrying about getting distributional inaccuracies in that. So I just want to focus the Subcommittee’s attention, if I can, on constantly as you do your oversight, 

18 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Harrison appears in the Appendix on page 68. 

your question has to be about distributional accuracy, not just accuracy. 

I would like to conclude by saying that the Census Bureau takes 

much pride in finding its mistakes as it takes in not trying to make 

the mistake in the first place. It is a scientific organization. It is 

in its DNA to be self-correcting, self-improving. And the most important report card that it produces is its Coverage Evaluation report card. It wants to know how it did. I certainly strongly concur 

with your judgment about the gross error. I do think we ought to 

be basing this on gross error, not net error. But I would just again 

urge the Subcommittee to pay attention to how well the Coverage 

Evaluation Survey is funded, is designed, is timely, and so forth. 

It is the only report card. There is nobody else to tell the Census 

how poorly it did other than the Census Bureau itself and, therefore, to tell the American people. So focus on distributional accuracy, and the net error matters but so does the gross error, and 

worry about the Coverage Evaluation as a measure. 

Finally, I would like to say that we actually did do well in 2000 

on many dimensions. Oddly, we gave back almost half a billion dollars to the Federal Government. We came in under budget. 

Senator CARPER. Did you ever get a thank-you note for that? 

Mr. PREWITT. Well, can I take a few more seconds? Or I will not 

stop on time. 

Senator CARPER. All right. 

Mr. PREWITT. What was really interesting is no one wanted to 

admit it because no one wanted to ‘fess up that somebody had not 

sort of gotten this down to the right last penny and so forth. It is 

what gave us the flexibility. I would much rather have given money 

back and had flexibility to cover some of the problems we ran into. 

But that is obviously not the way the government normally thinks. 

Thank you, sir. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you so much. Mr. Harrison. 

TESTIMONY OF RODERICK HARRISON, PH.D.,1 SENIOR FELLOW, JOINT CENTER FOR POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC STUDIES 

Mr. HARRISON. Yes, I am going to begin by quoting Dr. Prewitt’s 

comment before the 2000 census. The 2000 census was the first 

that the Bureau planned to actually use all this technical apparatus that it has for estimating the undercount after the census is 

conducted, to do a one-count census where it would adjust—it 

would use the surveys that it uses to estimate the undercount to 

adjust the numbers to be more statistically accurate. And the Supreme Court ruled in 1999 that this would not be constitutional for 

purposes of meeting constitutional requirements for apportioning 

the Congress. And the Bureau had to change, within a year, years 

of planning for the one-count census. 

Dr. Prewitt said at the time that using traditional counting 

methods, the Bureau must run harder to stay in place. It will run 

harder. It hopes to stay in place. I think you did much better than 

staying in place. And, actually, I think during the questioning one 

thing that you might ask is about the very specific steps—again, 

19 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Narasaki with an attachment appears in the Appendix on 

page 75. 

I think the testimony earlier today that this is a very complex sequence of events that build upon each other, of operations that 

build upon each other, and it requires success at any stage. If you 

start failing with the address list, with the canvassing, the probability of undercounts growing will accumulate and your likelihood 

of overcoming them in later stages. 

So I think you want to pay particular attention to the test in December, to the results of the handhelds, and, if the test suggests 

that everything is not resolved, to alternatives for making sure 

that the address list is as complete as possible. 

That said, a few points that have come up. Yes, the undercount/ 

overcount, the net undercount is a poor measure. The thing that 

is important to note is that the undercount and overcounts for the 

small geographies for which they are calculated in the estimates of 

the undercount, or for geographies small enough that it does not 

affect apportionment, so what it does affect is all the other uses of 

the census. So if you are switching off individuals, you still are 

counting the same number of people, roughly, for purposes of apportionment and redistricting. It is when you get to the characteristics of those people, what their needs are, the planning that is 

built upon that, that this matters. 

The block grants mentioned, the difference is about a quarter of 

a percentage point in funds, and the amounts involved—this is heretical to say, but I think we must realize that to get greater accuracy to correct those errors might not be possible and might not be 

cost-effective. You are talking about something like $67,000 in the 

district’s budget. You could allocate this by other means much more 

effectively than getting a more accurate count. 

So I do think, however—I think we should not overestimate the 

degree to which—we should not underestimate the consequences, 

but we should not overestimate it either. Some of these issues 

would be more directly and effectively dealt with as social policy 

issues than as census count issues. 

That being said, clearly one thing that contributes to the 

undercount, and these hard-to-reach populations particularly, is 

distrust of the government, feeling that the government is not necessarily fair. And the census, it is absolutely essential, I think, that 

people participate in the census and leave it feeling that the count 

has been fair, that they have counted equally with everyone else. 

And that is something that I do not think you can put a price tag 

on. I think the entire integrity of the Nation, its commitments from 

the very beginning of the census, does depend on that, and that is 

priceless. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. You were exactly 5 minutes. 

Ms. Narasaki, I do not know how you top that, but good luck. 

TESTIMONY OF KAREN K. NARASAKI,1 PRESIDENT AND 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ASIAN AMERICAN JUSTICE CENTER 

Ms. NARASAKI. Thank you for inviting the Asian American Justice Center to testify on an issue that is one of the top priorities 

for the civil rights community over the next 2 years. And I have 

20 

longer testimony that I am asking for it to be submitted for the 

record. 

Senator CARPER. Your entire testimony will be part of the record. 

Ms. NARASAKI. In 2000, we helped lead a census outreach campaign with our partners—the Asian Law Caucus the Asian Pacific 

American Legal Center, and Asian American Institute. And over 

the next 2 years, we will be working with the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund, NALEO, the NASP, and 

the National Congress of American Indians to really help reduce 

that differential undercount. 

Many civil rights laws, as you know, rely on the census data for 

their enforcement and implementation, and one of the keys for the 

decennial is the enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. This is what 

makes it even more critical, as you point out, that the right people 

are counted in the right places. 

For these reasons, we think it is particularly important to make 

sure that there is going to be adequate resources and strategies to 

try to reach the growing minority and other historically undercounted populations. I am going to focus on language barriers, 

fears, and concerns about privacy. In addition, as we saw, as you 

noted in Hurricane Katrina and now Hurricane Ike, many immigrants and minorities live in non-traditional households and are 

more likely to be displaced. So we are very concerned about what 

the Bureau will be doing to address that. 

In 2006, almost 55 million persons spoke a language other than 

English at home. Almost half have a difficulty speaking English 

well, and this lack is one of the biggest barriers for immigrant 

households. 

In addition, many immigrants have fled countries with corrupt or 

oppressive governments. Moreover, the hostile rhetoric of some 

elected officials in the heated immigration debate we hear and the 

institution of some hostile policies and widely publicized raids on 

the local level of homes as well as of businesses is going to discourage immigrant participation. 

Finally, concern about privacy overall, confidentiality, and misuse of data is held by many Americans, but particularly, as Mr. 

Harrison notes, minority communities. This concern has increased 

because of the controversial post-September 11, 2001 policies and 

practices, and the Bureau’s 2004 provision to the Department of 

Homeland Security of Arab American data at the zip code level reinforced this concern. 

The communications plan, the partnership plan, and the language assistance plan, therefore, are really critical to overcoming 

these challenges and reducing the differential undercount. Also, 

these policies, though, have to be put in place early to enable the 

Bureau to hire people locally to the communities and with the 

needed language skills. 

The Bureau has wisely sought to integrate the partnership, outreach, and paid marketing campaign in one communications strategy. However, the plan is not yet final, and it is not clear to us yet 

whether there will be sufficient resources targeting each minority 

and hard-to-count community. 

In 2000, the Partnership Program is credited for having reduced 

the differential undercount. It has empowered locally known and 

21 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Salvo with attachments appears in the Appendix on page 

140. 

trusted messengers to be able to speak knowledgeably and persuasively. And because of this lack of trust, it is very important to 

have locally known people be able to tell their communities why it 

is important and safe to participate. 

The partners also helped the Bureau to hire a diverse talent pool 

with the needed skill and local knowledge of their communities. 

And we believe to maximize the effectiveness of this program the 

Bureau needs to mandate that regional offices share and consistently use best practices, and certainly more resources are needed 

for this program. 

Chairman Carper, we very much appreciate your commitment to 

ensuring that we achieve an accurate count, and we are counting 

on your leadership in ensuring that there will be sufficient funding 

for the census, particularly in this critical year that is coming up. 

We also commend the Bureau’s work to date to ensure that 

Spanish speakers are adequately assisted, but we are concerned 

about the other language minorities that need to be counted, particularly the smaller Asian American ethnic communities who have 

the highest levels of linguistically isolated households. 

Finally, we think the Bureau needs to begin to work with the 

necessary agencies to set citizenship and retiree exemption hiring 

policies in place as soon as possible. Without the citizenship exemption, the Bureau may not have a sufficient pool of bilingual community partner specialists and enumerators who can overcome the 

language barriers and the fears of census in these immigrant communities. 

Finally, while this hearing is focused on the preparation of 2010, 

I would be remiss if I failed to urge the Subcommittee to review 

the implementation of the American Community Survey, which is, 

as you know, replacing this year the traditional decennial long 

form. We have concerns about the accuracy of data for small and 

particularly migrant populations. 

Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you very much, Ms. Narasaki. Mr. Salvo. 

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH J. SALVO,1 DIRECTOR, POPULATION 

DIVISION, NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING 

Mr. SALVO. Thank you, Chairman Carper. It is a pleasure to be 

here. On behalf of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, I want to thank you 

for the opportunity to speak about issues affecting undercount in 

the 2010 census. 

Regardless of your political leanings or assessments about past 

performance of the Census Bureau, I think we can all agree that 

the Bureau is struggling right now with the daunting task of trying 

to engineer a successful 2010 census within a very tight timeline. 

At this point, those of us who are on the outside looking in are very 

concerned. We are concerned because we would not like to see the 

census reduced to making a census happen as opposed to creating 

a high-quality enumeration, of course, that counts all Americans. 

We have heard the Census Bureau’s pledge that the 2010 census 

will fully enumerate the population of the Nation. I am here today 

22 

1The pictures referred to appears in the Appendix on page 147. 

to ask the Subcommittee to hold the Census Bureau to its pledge 

in two areas of concern to those of us who are avid users of the 

data. 

The first relates to the fact that the Census Bureau needs to provide us with their plan regarding how it intends to mail questionnaires to millions of housing units that lack apartment information—information that links a questionnaire to occupants of a specific housing unit. Remember, when questionnaires are delivered, 

there are no names on those questionnaires. This goes to the heart 

of what you just heard about how the address list is the foundation 

for the census. From a local community standpoint, which is where 

I stand, March 2009 is as important as April 2010. 

This problem affects many communities in the Nation because 

there are problems with addresses in many communities—addresses that, frankly, may not cut it for census delivery purposes. So I 

would like to refer you to a series of photos that I have in the back 

of my written testimony. Chairman Carper, do you have my—— 

Senator CARPER. I do. 

Mr. SALVO. At the end my written testimony, there are four pictures of two buildings that contain housing units without apartment numbers.1

Senator CARPER. Yes, got them. 

Mr. SALVO. OK. The first two pictures show a building with three 

apartments, each with its own separate entrance. Since there are 

no apartment numbers, the Census Bureau needs to have a procedure to create labels when the building is examined in the 2009 address canvass so that each questionnaire can be attached to each 

individual apartment. These need to be labels that the Postal Service can use to deliver questionnaires, for example, Apartment 1R, 

for one right; Apartment 2, upper, lower, basement. 

In the second example, we see two pictures of a larger building 

with five doorbells and one mailbox, which is common in places 

where people sort or retrieve their own mail by name of occupant. 

Putting all five census questionnaires into a single mailbox with 

apartment designators can cause confusion when trying to attach 

a questionnaire to each apartment, especially when non-response 

follow-up is required. The Census Bureau can avoid this problem 

by issuing specific instructions to field workers in the address canvass operation on how to label each apartment using descriptors. 

To its credit, the Census Bureau has undertaken extensive research in the post-2000 period to explore the best ways of dealing 

with apartments like these that are not labeled in preparation for 

the address canvass. Indeed, I have had conversations with the 

New York Regional Director Lester Farthing, regular discussions 

about the frustration that this can produce in address canvassing. 

A resolution is at hand. The Census Bureau has done research, 

but they have yet to formally adopt a procedure to handle this 

problem. Right now the danger is that with all the pressure on the 

Bureau to keep its time frame and with the block canvass of the 

Nation fast approaching, this innovative work may fall by the wayside; therefore, having a serious ripple effect on the enumeration 

itself. 

23 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Vargas appears in the Appendix on page 151. 

A recent GAO report points out that the cost of the address canvass can dramatically increase if the Census Bureau cannot accurately anticipate the number of housing units per hour that can be 

examined. The problems that exist in small, multi-unit buildings 

can complicate the address canvass and greatly increase costs in 

many areas if the Census Bureau fails to implement a strategy 

that deals with these problematic addresses. 

Therefore, I would like to request that the Subcommittee ask the 

Census Bureau if they plan on implementing a procedure in the 

block canvass to label problematic housing units in these buildings 

and, if so, when the details of this plan will be released. 

Can I run over a little? 

Senator CARPER. I am going to ask you to go ahead and wrap it 

up, please. 

Mr. SALVO. OK. The other point I wanted to make is that the 

Census Bureau needs to make good on its promise to form meaningful partnerships with local governments. It is hard to overstate 

the importance of proactive community involvement in the census. 

The only way to produce what would be considered a good enumeration, as we actually have heard, is that local residents need 

to produce messages for the people in their own neighborhoods. 

And the Census Bureau needs to reach out to the locals in a way 

that is, frankly, going to be more difficult than in the past because 

of all the issues involved in privacy and everything that has happened since 2000. 

So as a second point, I would like to ask the Subcommittee to require that the Census Bureau provide in detailed terms their plans 

for the outreach and to consult with organizations that deal with 

the local communities so that they can report to the Subcommittee 

exactly what those plans are and how they are manifesting themselves at a local level. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator CARPER. Those are two reasonable requests. I am going 

to ask at the end of the hearing if you will spend a little time with 

the folks on our Subcommittee who work with me on the Census 

Bureau and just discuss those requests further. 

Mr. SALVO. A pleasure. Thank you very much. 

Senator CARPER. We will see what we can do. Thank you for 

bringing them to our attention, and thanks for the pictures, too. 

Pictures are worth a thousand words, and these are good ones. 

They help make your point well. 

Mr. Vargas, you are our last witness today. Thank you. Please 

proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF ARTURO VARGAS,1 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LATINO ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS (NALEO) EDUCATIONAL FUND 

Mr. VARGAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The NALEO Educational Fund is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that facilitates the full Latino participation in the American political process, 

and we are the leading census policy development and public education organization in the Latino community. Since 2000, we have 

24 

been working with the Census Bureau as a member of the Census 

Advisory Committee on planning for Census 2010, as well as the 

American Community Survey. Next year, we will transition our 

award-winning campaign ‘‘Ya es hora’’—which means ‘‘It is time’’— 

to educate Latinos about the importance of being counted in the 

2010 census. We will devote the full weight of our capacity and influence to help make the 2010 census a success because we know 

that the Latino population, the Nation’s second largest population 

and fastest growing, is at greater risk than ever before of being 

undercounted in the next census. An undercount of the Latino community will mean a failed census, and to avoid such a disaster, we 

offer the following recommendations: 

First, Congress must fully fund the Census Bureau. The groundwork done in the final year before the census will determine its 

success. Any delay in these activities, as we have heard this morning, will undermine the count. The Bureau faces a daunting challenge with respect to its decision to abandon the use of the 

handhelds. The Bureau must now undertake intensive and more 

costly preparations to switch back to the traditional enumeration 

method, such as hiring more enumerators than originally planned. 

We urge Congress to fund the administration’s revised fiscal year 

2009 request of approximately $3.1 billion. We are concerned that 

if full funding is not provided, other critical programs will be shortchanged, such as partnership programs or the paid media outreach. 

Two, the Census Bureau must implement a communications and 

outreach plan that uses culturally appropriate outreach materials 

and takes into account the special challenges in reaching Latino 

sub-groups. Earlier this month, the NALEO Educational Fund 

helped the Census Bureau convene several other Latino national 

organizations to meet with the communications vendor, GlobalHue 

Latino, to help coordinate these efforts. These firms need to continue to meet with us to create a wide range of promotional materials in language appropriate for Latino audiences, and utilize 

print, broadcast, and digital media in their efforts. 

Three, special strategies and preparations will be required to 

enumerate the Nation’s immigrant population. Our Nation’s current debate about immigration as well as actions by State and local 

governments have created a climate which has exacerbated immigrants’ distrust of Government, including the Census Bureau. It 

will be formidable challenge to convince immigrants, legal permanent residents, and U.S. citizens who live in households where family members have varying immigration status to answer the census 

and that the census is, in fact, safe and confidential. 

Four, the Census Bureau must ensure that its Census 2010 

workforce reflects the diversity of the Nation’s population, from its 

highest managerial position to its field enumerators. The Bureau 

must strengthen its existing efforts to increase the number of 

Latinos at the Census Bureau where they are currently the most 

underrepresented population group among the workforce. We also 

urge the Bureau to implement a waiver in its hiring practices to 

allow the hiring of work-authorized non-citizens to ensure that 

there are sufficient enumerators with non-English-language speaking abilities. This will be especially critical in areas that have expeVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:00 Jun 11, 2009 Jkt 045579 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\45579.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
25 

rienced population increases of the non-English-speaking population. 

Five, the Census Bureau must quickly adjust its plans based on 

the outcomes of the 2008 dress rehearsal. As we heard earlier 

today from the GAO, they are offering several recommendations. 

We are concerned that many aspects of the 2010 plan were not included in the dress rehearsal, which raises so many uncertainties. 

Six, Congress must reject any proposals which would prevent the 

full enumeration of every person living in the United States on census day. There have been a number of legislative and policy efforts 

to exclude the undocumented from the census enumeration. These 

proposals are contrary to one of the fundamental precepts of our 

Constitution. We urge the Administration and all Members of Congress to reject these flawed proposals and to go about the business 

of promoting a full enumeration of all persons living in the United 

States, as required by the Constitution. 

And, seven, the U.S. Senate must support a seamless and expeditious transition in the leadership of the Census Bureau once a new 

Administration takes place in January. It is critical that there be 

no disruption in census operations with the advent of a new administration. Although various components of these operations will be 

overseen and carried out by career employees who will stay on regardless of changes at the White House, the head of the Census 

Bureau plays a key role by inspiring confidence and trust in the 

Bureau. Any delay in the Bureau’s leadership transition will impair the Agency’s ability to keep its 2010 operations completely on 

track. 

We are devoted to working closely with the Subcommittee, with 

the Administration, and with the Census Bureau in ensuring a full 

count come Census 2010. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Vargas, thank you. This is a really good 

panel, and each of you have given valuable testimony. We thank 

you for that. 

Sitting here listening to you—and some of you know each other 

and have worked together before. Mr. Vargas, do you know this 

cast of characters? Have you worked with these people before? 

Mr. VARGAS. Yes, I do, sir. 

Senator CARPER. All of them? 

Mr. VARGAS. I think this is the first time I have met Mr. Salvo 

and Mr. Harrison, but I have worked with Mr. Prewitt, during the 

2000 census, when he was the Director there. And Ms. Narasaki 

and I have a long history of working together on a variety of civil 

rights issues. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Mr. Salvo, do you know these other 

folks? 

Mr. SALVO. Well, I certainly know Ken Prewitt and Roderick 

Harrison from his days at the Census Bureau. 

Mr. VARGAS. Have we met? 

Mr. SALVO. You know, I am not sure. Mr. Vargas and Ms. 

Narasaki I have not met. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Ms. Narasaki, recognize these guys? 

Ms. NARASAKI. Yes, and it is a great team and cast. The Census 

Bureau—and the people who work on the censuses—is actually a 

fairly small family in terms of who works on it all 10 years and 

26 

not just when the actually decennial is happening. So I am pleased 

to be up here with my colleagues. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Harrison, how about you? 

Mr. HARRISON. Yes, I know everybody by name. I am terrible by 

sight. And we know half the people in the audience, too. 

Senator CARPER. Good. All right. I saw a bunch of them nodding 

their heads yes or no. 

Dr. Prewitt, let me come back to you, if I could. My colleague Dr. 

Coburn has been detained over in the Senate chamber, unfortunately, but one of the issues that he has been very much interested 

in, as have I, has been our ability to use technology to enable us 

to do a better job in conducting our census in 2010 as compared 

to 10 years earlier. 

One of our questions we have asked of the Census Bureau and 

Dr. Murdock and the Secretary of Commerce over and over again 

is why are we not able to make some greater use of the Internet. 

And the question, rather than—let me just add, going back 8 years 

when we were doing the 2010 census, did you have an expectation, 

kind of looking ahead from that point up to now, that we would be 

able to use the Internet more broadly than we are planning to do? 

Mr. PREWITT. Yes. I will preface it by saying that the Bureau has 

been a technological innovator for a very long time. The huge technological innovation in 2000 was data capture, intelligent character 

recognition, enormously sophisticated, and we did extremely well 

with our contractors on that. 

So I certainly think the mood going into preparation for 2010 on 

the basis of that success was that it would be a technologically 

more based, if you would, census especially because it is the short 

form only. It is much more complicated if you are carrying the long 

form. But only with the short form—I myself in 2000 answered by 

Internet. It was an option presented but not publicized. But since 

I knew it was there, I recognized it, I did it immediately, and it 

must have taken me 10 seconds. I got just the short form. 

So, yes, I think the expectation was we would be using the Internet by now, and I have not followed the pros and cons, although 

I have followed the handheld issue. I would like just quickly to say 

on the handheld, using the handheld in address canvassing is itself 

a technological breakthrough innovation. So, in some respects, we 

will look back on 2010, if it is successful in the address listing 

thing, as another technological step forward. It is too bad it cannot 

be used in non-response follow-up, but that is what has happened. 

With respect to the Internet, I personally am disappointed. On 

the other hand, I am certainly not second-guessing the decision of 

the current management at this stage of the game. At this stage 

of the game, the strongest thing I can urge is do not try to put in 

any new procedures. We already have procedures that are going to 

go out on the field untested, as you heard from GAO, and we simply cannot burden it with any untested procedures. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

I have one question that I am going to ask all of our witnesses 

to respond to, if you would. And then I am going to promise you 

some follow-up questions and ask for you to respond to those in 

writing. Much of the Bureau’s success in 2000 was attributed to its 

partnerships with community-based organizations. Let me just ask 

27 

you to describe the value of the Partnership Program, the value of 

that Partnership Program or those Partnership Programs, and to 

assess its overall effectiveness in ensuring full participation of 

hard-to-count groups. 

Mr. Vargas, would you like to lead us off? 

Mr. VARGAS. Thank you, Chairman, for that question. The Partnership Program is absolutely critical to the success of the census 

because, in essence, what happens is that the Bureau counts on 

local organizations, local leaders to become the messengers for the 

census that the census is safe and confidential. In many ways, we 

put ourselves on the line relying on the Census Bureau’s faith that 

they will, in fact, keep this safe and confidential. So not only does 

there need to be a partnership at the Bureau, but a level of trust 

and working relationship. And in order for that to happen, it needs 

to be developed over time. We cannot have the Census Bureau 

show up in January 2010 saying, ‘‘OK, it is time for the census.’’ 

We need to develop that trust beginning today, which is why funding for the Partnership Program is so critical so that we develop 

those relationships over time, so that come April 2010 we can 

stand up and, with a certain amount of certainty, tell our people, 

our constituents, ‘‘Fill our your census form. It is safe and confidential.’’ 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Salvo. 

Mr. SALVO. I am in a position where almost on a daily basis people come to me for their numbers. And these are the people that 

know that numbers matter, and these are the people that need to 

communicate the message within their own communities that the 

census message or the census process actually could be very invigorating and exciting. I know it sounds strange when you talk about 

numbers, but the fact is that once people understand the linkage 

between their own destiny, living within their own communities, 

and the numbers that are produced in the decennial census—and 

also, I might add, in the American Community Survey—once they 

get it, then response rises. And the only way to get it is to have 

it delivered by one of their compatriots right in their own community. 

All of the national media attention that the Census Bureau 

wants to generate, all those TV ads at a national level will not 

work unless that connection is made. 

Senator CARPER. Good point. Thanks. Ms. Narasaki. 

Ms. NARASAKI. Yes, I would like to start out by commending the 

Census Bureau who, over the last 10 years, has done a lot in terms 

of doing focus groups of many different new or emerging communities to really understand what the barriers are and working 

much more closely with the advisory committee in trying to work 

on what the outreach and advertising campaign is going to be. 

Last time around, for example, the Bureau came out with a very 

catchy slogan: ‘‘It’s our future. Don’t leave it blank.’’ But it turned 

out not to translate very well into many Asian languages. 

So it is that partnership at the national level and at the local 

level that will help make sure that the money that the Bureau is 

investing in the advertising is actually going to effectively reach 

our communities. 

28 

But as Mr. Salvo notes, some of the strongest persuaders are 

going to be not the government, and not the paid advertising. It is 

the earned media who is going to turn to people in the community, 

the faith-based leaders, the small business owners, the teachers 

and others—they are the people who are going to be most effective 

in reaching out to those in our community who are afraid and do 

not understand what the census is about. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, ma’am. Mr. Harrison. 

Mr. HARRISON. I think the major points have been well made. 

The partnership is perhaps the only way that many of these hardto-reach populations get the message of the importance of answering the census, how it pays off. And, yes, some of the people who 

know the concerns of the communities, what issues, the education, 

if we have undercounts of children and do not plan our schools, 

etc., for the population that has grown, where it is. So it is that, 

the importance of answering the census. 

Second, particularly now in the post-PATRIOT Act environment 

and in many immigrant communities, the reassurance that, in fact, 

answering the census will not lead to any kind of difficulties with 

government agencies at the national or city—Federal, city, local, 

that is absolutely essential in many communities. 

And then, third, I am not sure that this has been mentioned, but 

there are—answering the census is not simple, particularly if you 

do not speak English. There are complex issues of who belongs in 

the household, who does not. Partners need to learn—I think the 

Bureau is going to have to rely more in 2010 than even in 2000 

on partners to be able to convey some of the complexities of residence rules to households that might not know whether they count 

this child as part of the household or not. And these are often, 

again, more complex households than the standard nuclear twochildren/two-adult family. 

Senator CARPER. I am reminded of in our State, when I was governor, we launched an effort to recruit 10,000 mentors to work with 

kids who just needed an extra person in their life. The young man 

I have mentored for the last 10 years does not live with his nuclear 

family, either his mom or dad, but he bounces back and forth between a great aunt and a grandparent. 

Mr. HARRISON. Very likely to be undercounted. 

Senator CARPER. Yes. He is just a prime example of the kind of 

person that can slip through the cracks. 

Dr. Prewitt, you have the last word. I am going to ask you to just 

use it briefly. 

Mr. PREWITT. Certainly, I think the odds of accurately or reasonably accurately counting the new immigrant population, especially 

the undocumented, is zilch without a good Partnership Program. 

The Bureau itself cannot do that population group at all. And other 

population groups are equally important, but not like—we are 

going to have a huge undercount in that population in 2010. 

On the other hand, what I would quickly say about the Partnership Program is that from the point of view of the Census Bureau 

Director, when you really are exhausted in Washington, being beaten up by the Subcommittee and having a GAO—— 

Senator CARPER. Not by this Subcommittee. 

29 

Mr. PREWITT. No. Let me do a detour here. Oddly, the Senate forgot us after I was confirmed. I did not have Senate hearings. I had 

some 23 House hearings, but the Senate just let the census go. 

Senator CARPER. Wow. 

Mr. PREWITT. Yes, it is interesting. But the whole IG, GAO, the 

whole apparatus, it was an unusual census environment politically. 

You cannot imagine how nice it was to go out to the partnership 

meetings where people were excited about the census, cared about 

the census, making noise about the census, understood the census, 

and so forth. 

The thing I would most hope to happen in 2010 with respect to 

partnership is a different kind of partnership with the U.S. Congress, which was a bifurcated—individuals very good on both sides 

of the aisle, but as an entity it was not very good. 

Just imagine the following: April 1st, live feed, 535 Members of 

Congress sitting at their desks filling out the census form as a 

statement to the country. Or just imagine April 1st, the President 

and his Cabinet and the leadership of the Congress on the steps 

of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial filling out their census forms. 

Some statement like that by the Congress and the Executive 

Branch would be enormously important for the census. And I hope 

something like that can happen. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

When I look at this panel—well, let me back up a little. When 

I put together my staff in the Senate, when I put together my administration as governor, and in teams that I led before that, I always tried to put together a team that was reflective of my State 

in terms of its age, its gender, its ethnic background. And I look 

at this panel, this is a pretty diverse panel, and I think one that 

has provided excellent testimony for us today. And I thank you 

very much for that. And for those of you who have been working 

in these vineyards for a while, to try to make sure that we do come 

as close as we can to counting everybody, I thank you on behalf of 

all those people who did not know you were working for them. But 

you are doing the Lord’s work there. 

We are going to leave the hearing record open for about 2 more 

weeks, and that will enable some of my colleagues who have statements that they wanted to give or will give, and also to ask a couple of questions. And I would just ask if you do receive some posthearing questions—you will probably get one or two from me as 

well. But I would ask that as you receive those, you try to come 

back with your responses in a timely way. 

I want to thank the Members of my Subcommittee staff, some of 

whom are here today, and Dr. Coburn’s staff, for helping put together, I think, a very good hearing. With that having been said, 

I have two other hearings that are underway right now, and I am 

going to head back to them and see if we cannot figure out how 

to get our Nation’s economy and our banking system and our financial and credit systems functioning again. 

Mr. PREWITT. We do not want to hold you up. 

Senator CARPER. But I feel better about the work that we are 

doing to address the undercount in the census. 

Thank you all. This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(31) 

A P P E N D I X 


45579.001
32 


45579.002
33 


45579.003
34 


45579.004
35 


45579.005
36 


45579.006
37 


45579.007
38 


45579.008
39 


45579.009
40 


45579.010
41 


45579.011
42 


45579.012
43 


45579.013
44 


45579.014
45 


45579.015
46 


45579.016
47 


45579.017
48 


45579.018
49 


45579.019
50 


45579.020
51 


45579.021
52 


45579.022
53 


45579.023
54 


45579.024
55 


45579.025
56 


45579.026
57 


45579.027
58 


45579.028
59 


45579.029
60 


45579.030
61 


45579.031
62 


45579.032
63 


45579.033
64 


45579.034
65 


45579.035
66 


45579.036
67 


45579.037
68 


45579.038
69 


45579.039
70 


45579.040
71 


45579.041
72 


45579.042
73 


45579.043
74 


45579.044
75 


45579.045
76 


45579.046
77 


45579.047
78 


45579.048
79 


45579.049
80 


45579.050
81 


45579.051
82 


45579.052
83 


45579.053
84 


45579.054
85 


45579.055
86 


45579.056
87 


45579.057
88 


45579.058
89 


45579.059
90 


45579.060
91 


45579.061
92 


45579.062
93 


45579.063
94 


45579.064
95 


45579.065
96 


45579.066
97 


45579.067
98 


45579.068
99 


45579.069
100 


45579.070
101 


45579.071
102 


45579.072
103 


45579.073
104 


45579.074
105 


45579.075
106 


45579.076
107 


45579.077
108 


45579.078
109 


45579.079
110 


45579.080
111 


45579.081
112 


45579.082
113 


45579.083
114 


45579.084
115 


45579.085
116 


45579.086
117 


45579.087
118 


45579.088
119 


45579.089
120 


45579.090
121 


45579.091
122 


45579.092
123 


45579.093
124 


45579.094
125 


45579.095
126 


45579.096
127 


45579.097
128 


45579.098
129 


45579.099
130 


45579.100
131 


45579.101
132 


45579.102
133 


45579.103
134 


45579.104
135 


45579.105
136 


45579.106
137 


45579.107
138 


45579.108
139 


45579.109
140 


45579.110
141 


45579.111
142 


45579.112
143 


45579.113
144 


45579.114
145 


45579.115
146 


45579.116
147 


45579.117
148 


45579.118
149 


45579.119
150 


45579.120
151 


45579.121
152 


45579.122
153 


45579.123
154 


45579.124
155 


45579.125
156 


45579.126
157 


45579.127
158 


45579.128
159 


45579.129
160 


45579.130
161 


45579.131
162 


45579.132
163 


45579.133
164 


45579.134
165 


45579.135
166 


45579.136
167 


45579.137
168 


45579.138
169 

Æ 


45579.139