1 September 2001

The Honorable Richard B. Cheney

President

The United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert

Speaker

The United States House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. President and Mr. Speaker:

Pursuant to P.L. 105-119, the Congressionally-appointed members of the U. S. Census 

Monitoring Board transmit our final scheduled letter-report to Congress. 

We have witnessed one of the most remarkable achievements in the American 

experience: the most accurate census in our history. Not only was this success 

unprecedented, it was unexpected. According to the then Census Bureau Director Dr. 

Kenneth Prewitt’s prediction in 2000, the Census Bureau was going to have to run 

harder, but this was only going to “allow us to stay even.” He predicted falling response 

rates and an even larger undercount than 1990. In fact, many experts did not believe 

that further coverage improvements were possible, citing statistical methodologies such 

as sampling for non-response follow-up and adjustment as the only remaining ways to 

reduce the undercount.

Yet with the release of Census 2000 data and the subsequent analyses, we now know 

that this was the most successful census in the twentieth century (without using statistical 

adjustment). The net undercount for the United States, 1.18 percent, is the lowest 

ever calculated. The Black-White differential undercount was reduced by 60 

percent — the largest ever-recorded decrease. Moreover, the undercount for every 

population group was reduced — the undercount for Latinos was reduced by 45 percent.

This success was only possible because of the support of Congress and an enormous 

effort that linked the Census Bureau to thousands of local governments, to even more 

thousands of community organizations and ultimately to the 280 million members of the 

American family. 

For these communities, the success of Census 2000 moves them closer to the fulfillment 

of American promise. This census will help these communities to realize greater 

democratic participation by providing the framework for fair representation. This census 

will also provide a better means to ensure the fair distribution of resources. A new voice 

in a state legislature; a new school for an over-crowded city school system; a new “ESL” 

(English as a Second Language) teacher for a school in a rural area with a growing 

immigrant community; a new urgent care center in a suburban community; and even a 

new street light for an inner-city street are possible because the census shows that 

there are real (and, in many cases, more and new) people living in these places. 

 

U.S. CENSUS

MONITORING

BOARD

CONGRESSIONAL 

MEMBERS

4700 Silver Hill Road

FOB #3 ~ Suite 1230

Suitland, MD 20746

Phone: (301) 457-5080

Fax: (301) 457-5081

A. Mark Neuman

Co-Chair

David Murray

Joe D. Whitley

______________________

Charles Wickliffe Caldwell III

Executive Director
Census Monitoring Board, Congressional Members 

Final Letter Report to Congress: 1 September 2001

CMBC 74-275

Page 2 of 13

The Board believes Census 2000 is an accurate depiction of the American family. The 

results of Census 2000 were not perfect. However, the Board’s research and the Bureau’s 

research indicate that it was a clear success. To be sure many people were missed or 

counted at the wrong address, but we believe that Census 2000 was a very good census, 

and, in some ways, an excellent census.

This is a census that also tells us we are changing as a nation. The Bureau counted 281.4 

million people — a 13.2 percent increase from the 1990 population of 248.7 million or 32.7 

million more people than in 1990. One of the most surprising results of Census 2000 is 

the dramatic increase in Hispanic population — from 22.4 million in 1990 to 35.3 

million in 2000, an increase of 57.9 percent. Latinos are now the largest minority 

community in the United States and account for 12.5 percent of the total population.

The Hispanic population grew by 50 percent in 39 states. In North Carolina, the Hispanic 

population quadrupled in ten years, reaching almost 400,000 people. Hispanic 

immigration and migration to the southern states and to the Midwest have significantly 

changed the demographic profile of the nation. The Hispanic population of Columbus 

Junction — a small town in southeastern Iowa centered on meat processing — grew by 215 

percent, now comprising over one-third of the town’s population. The materials in Columbus 

Junction’s schools have been rewritten with Spanish-language additions. The town’s 

schools serve the Hispanic population not only for Columbus Junction but for the 

surrounding communities as well. These changes are occurring throughout the United 

States, and as the Latino population grows, many cities and towns are changing forever. 

Census 2000 reflects these changes. 

However, it is not only these final data that tell a story. There is also the story of “how” the 

census was taken — how the millions of persons and thousands of neighborhoods were 

counted. Census 2000 reflects the stories of struggles by local communities and community 

leaders to ensure that every person living in the neighborhoods and in the communities 

throughout the United States, were counted. We know that the level of local involvement 

was unprecedented. Moreover, we know that the efforts of local governments and 

community leaders to ensure that their communities were counted were not solely about a 

population total. They were efforts to ensure the recognition that their neighborhoods and 

communities were part of the American family. 

“Discovering” and documenting those stories as a critical part of the Census Monitoring 

Board’s mission. We listened to the real stories of this struggle and to the aspirations of 

countless people over the past three years. Further, we not only listened and we learned to 

what the census meant to these communities, but how the census should be conducted to 

ensure a more accurate count, especially in those neighborhoods that were the hardest-tocount. In short, we learned from real people in real neighborhoods what worked and what 

did not work. 
Census Monitoring Board, Congressional Members

Report to Congress: 1 September 2001

CMBC 74-275

Page 3 of 13

Five Things that Worked Well — Lessons to Take Forward to the Future

1. Flexibility 

When it comes to the census, one size does not fit all.

A successful census operation demands flexibility to adapt to local conditions. Taking the 

census in a colonia such as Delmar Heights in south Texas is a much different operation 

than taking the census in Champaign, Illinois. Fear, distrust of the government, and 

linguistic isolation are obstacles that the Census Bureau confronts in many communities. 

Confronting these challenges will often mean modifying “the plan” — for example sending 

enumerators who are non-citizens who know and understand their own neighborhoods who 

speak not only the language, but the dialect appropriate to the neighborhood; sending 

enumerators out in teams; sending enumerators out at non-traditional hours; and using 

special promotional efforts tailored for the hardest-to-count communities. In Los Angeles, 

flexibility meant the creation of a special team that analyzed hard-to-count areas in Los 

Angeles and then sent teams of several specially-trained enumerators to count in these 

areas. For Census 2000, Regional Offices were given unprecedented flexibility and 

resources to meet the needs of local communities. Regional Directors were allowed 

to implement solutions according to local needs. For instance, in some areas this 

meant reducing the average enumerator hiring test score, for others this meant hiring 

temporary workers who took a Spanish-language hiring test. The Local Census Office, 

Chicago Central, that was responsible for the State Street Corridor completed non-response 

follow-up in record time, before most of the other Chicago Local Census Offices. In 1990, 

the Local Census Office for this area (one of the hardest-to-count neighborhoods in all of 

America and includes Robert Taylor Homes, the nation’s largest housing project) was the 

last office in Chicago to finish. Why was this possible in 2000? The ability to hire 

enumerators who were local residents and the availability of community partnership 

specialists who could answer the community’s concerns contributed significantly. 

One of the best examples of the Bureau’s ability to adapt to local conditions was the 

approach used in the enumeration of Native Alaskan communities. Enumerators were not 

required to pass tests and were hired on their ability to locate houses and communicate with 

members of their community. Many persons were hired as guides for the crew leaders who 

were often from outside of the community. The Bureau’s success in Native Alaskan villages 

is a model for success in 2010. We know that decentralization works and should be 

expanded even further in the future.

2. Partnership

Partnership was expanded and contributed to the success.

Over 140,000 organizations joined the Census Bureau’s national partnership program and 

thousands more joined the Regional Offices and Local Census Offices to promote Census 

2000 in their communities. These invaluable partners included groups such as the NAACP, 

MALDEF, Pacific Islander Community Council (PICC), AKA Sorority, PIMA County 

Association of Governments, National Urban League, Asian Pacific American Legal Center, 
Census Monitoring Board, Congressional Members 

Final Letter Report to Congress: 1 September 2001

CMBC 74-275

Page 4 of 13

Valdosta-Lowndes Chamber of Commerce, the City of New York. These partners 

promoted the census before the mail-out; provided local perspective to Local Census 

Offices in identifying hard-to-count areas and concerns; and helped to encourage 

trust during the non-response follow-up phase. Regional Directors and Local Census 

Office Managers extolled the value of the partnership program to the Monitoring Board at 

every meeting, as their jobs were easier due to the efforts of local governments, community 

organizations, and community leaders. 

3. LUCA, the Local Update of Census Addresses program

Due to local involvement, the address list was dramatically improved.

An accurate address list and the corresponding TIGER1 files are integral parts of the 

decennial infrastructure. The address list, or Master Address File, enables the Census 

Bureau to mail out questionnaires and to determine which housing units enumerators should 

be sent to during non-response follow-up. Over the last decade local governments, as well 

as private companies, have made great strides in the development of accurate and timely 

address lists. They use these lists to create taxation registers and to deliver services such 

as E-911, water, and utilities. Local governments have, since the development of the 

TIGER system, created sophisticated mapping systems that allow them to track the 

progress of their communities, as well as map new roads and subdivisions. These local 

sources are often more accurate than the Census Bureau’s address list/TIGER system, 

barely updated since 1990, or the U.S. Postal Service’s Delivery Sequence File. 

During the last census and throughout the decade it was apparent to local governments, 

Congress and the Census Bureau that one potential source of census undercount was an 

incomplete address list. In planning for Census 2000, census shareholders strongly 

advocated for allowing local governments the opportunity to “partner” with the Census 

Bureau to create and update the Master Address File. The passage of PL 103-430, the 

Census Address List Improvement act of 1994, allowed the Census Bureau to invite the 

cooperation of the 39,000 tribal and municipal governments across the country. For the 

first time, local governments were allowed to see and correct their local address lists 

prior to Census day. 

However, even this program had its share of problems — indicating that there is room for 

improvement for the 2010 census. The Census Bureau consistently missed deadlines and 

did not consider the extent of effort required on the part of local governments — often limited 

by a lack of the resources of time, people and expertise — to participate in the program. 

However, LUCA contributed over eight million housing units to the address mailing 

list. Many of these were housing units that otherwise would not have been counted. 

This program was an essential part of the decennial census and allowed the Bureau to 

access local address and geographic information that was often more accurate and more 

reflective of local conditions than the Census Bureau’s traditional sources. LUCA was one 

of the best advancements made during the course of Census 2000.

 

1

 TIGER: Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing system, the Census Bureau’s mapping system.
Census Monitoring Board, Congressional Members

Report to Congress: 1 September 2001

CMBC 74-275

Page 5 of 13

4. Advertising

The first-ever paid advertising campaign boosted the mail return rate.

One of the most historical aspects of the Census 2000 operation was the use of a highly 

creative paid advertising program. The Census Bureau awarded an advertising contract, 

ultimately totaling over $160 million, to Young and Rubicam and four partner agencies: 

Chisholm-Mingo Group, The Bravo Group, Kang & Lee; and G & G. These groups worked 

together to develop an overall national strategy to reach diverse communities throughout the 

country. While Young & Rubicam developed the national English-speaking “Diverse 

America” campaign, the partner agencies developed specially targeted media programs for 

African-Americans, Latinos, Asians, and American Indians. Creative ads such as “Census 

Rap,” “Generations,” “Icons,” and “Lift,” reached millions of Americans. The Census Bureau 

believes that the ad campaign, ranked by a USA Today poll as the second most effective, 

contributed to increased awareness. This may have contributed to an increase in the 

mail response rate from 65 percent to 67 percent — the first time in history that a census 

mail response was higher than the previous census. The case can be made that a creative, 

well-planned, and targeted advertising program could pay for itself by increasing the mail 

return rate.

5. Competitive Pay-Rates

Competitive pay-rates ensured a quality workforce.

In spite of record “full employment” in many areas of the country, the Census Bureau hired 

and trained hundreds of thousands of temporary workers to take the census. Almost every 

Local Census Office met, surpassed, and maintained their hiring targets — ensuring 

the non-response follow-up operation was not affected by attrition. The Board was told by 

Local Census Office staff and by community members in Atlanta, San Diego, New York City, 

Washington, DC and in other areas that the draw of high hourly wages — “top dollar” —

enabled people to take these temporary jobs. The Bureau’s hourly pay rates ranged 

from $8.50 to $18.50 for enumerators. Other pay scales were as high as $21.50 for Field 

Operations Supervisors; $26.00 for Assistant Managers for Field Operations; and as high as 

$30.50 for the Local Census Office Managers. These pay scales allowed the Bureau to 

customize the wages to localities. For example, in New York City the enumerator pay rate 

was $18.50 an hour; in Chicago, the pay rate was $15.00; and in Corbin, Kentucky the pay 

rate was $8.50 an hour. These differential pay scales (first used in the 1990 census) and 

the ability to compete with the prevailing wage rates were major contributing factors in the 

Bureau’s ability to hire and retain census workers. The accurate count of individual 

neighborhoods requires an emphasis on local hiring — ensuring that the people who are 

living the neighborhoods should be involved in the enumeration of the neighborhood.
Census Monitoring Board, Congressional Members 

Final Letter Report to Congress: 1 September 2001

CMBC 74-275

Page 6 of 13

Room for Improvement

Each of these programs may have contributed significantly to the success of Census 2000 

and represent innovations or enhancements over previous censuses. They are a part of the 

enormous effort made by the Census Bureau and local partners to improve the decennial 

census. 

However, as successful as the census proved to be, it is evident that there are still members 

of the American family who are undercounted. Many believe that this census was the best 

ever and there is little room for improvement. This is not true. The census can be more 

accurate and more inclusive. The differential undercount can be further reduced or even 

eliminated. This must be the Census Bureau’s fundamental goal for the future. 

Statistical adjustment will never completely eliminate the differential undercount or 

the overall net undercount. No statistical methodology available to the Bureau can 

replace the thousands of real people living in real neighborhoods who are missed. 

Moreover, as this Board has reported, statistical adjustment does not eliminate the 

undercount by putting the people who were missed back in the neighborhoods in 

which they were missed in the census. In no instance have we found a severely 

undercounted neighborhood, such as Washington Heights in New York City or San Ysidro in 

San Diego, which will receive the full count of who is missed as a result of statistical 

adjustment. Instead, people are added back randomly throughout the census. So that 

persons missing from the Second Ward in Houston are added throughout Houston — and 

throughout the country. 

The Board believes that the Clinton Administration’s insistence on the use of 

“sampling for non-response follow-up” significantly detracted from the Census 

Bureau’s ability to pursue creative solutions to improve the census count —

especially in the hardest-to-count neighborhoods. 

The Census Bureau is currently planning for the decennial census in 2010. The Bureau is 

making decisions now that will affect the outcome of the 2010 census. The Board believes 

the Bureau should use their energy to focus on methods that will work to reduce the 

actual undercount in the census and to actually help empower the hardest-to-count 

neighborhoods to be counted. In order to make a full effort to count every person, the 

Census Bureau must make an effort to reach every person and to create every opportunity 

for people to participate in the census. By “working smarter” with increased sensitivity to the 

needs and concerns of the hardest-to-count communities, the Census Bureau can develop 

methods to improve the census even further and to potentially eliminate the differential 

undercount
Census Monitoring Board, Congressional Members

Report to Congress: 1 September 2001

CMBC 74-275

Page 7 of 13

Six Things to Improve the Census for the Future

1. Spanish-Language Questionnaire

A targeted Spanish-language mailing

 is critical to reducing the undercount of Latinos

The Census Bureau knows that there are many neighborhoods in the United States in which 

almost every resident speaks and reads only Spanish. According to the Bureau’s own 

Planning Database, based on 1990 data, there were over 1000 census tracts in Texas and 

over 540 in California that were “linguistically isolated” at 95 percent or above. However 

there are also linguistically isolated tracts in states such as Arkansas, Georgia, Missouri and 

North Carolina. The Bureau printed questionnaires, available upon request, in Spanish. 

This is not enough. For 2010, the Bureau needs to ensure that those residents who require 

such a form have ready access to the Spanish-language form. 

In 2000, the Census Bureau sent pre-census letters in English and English census 

questionnaires to every household in America — even those households that were known to 

speak and read only Spanish. In order to receive a census questionnaire in a language 

other than English, a person had to respond to a letter written in English. This failure to 

ensure that the census is accessible to these members of the American family who 

speak and read only Spanish contributes to a persistent undercount in the Hispanic 

population. For 2010, the Census Bureau should use the Planning Database, as well as 

local expertise, to determine where the nation’s most severely linguistically-isolated census 

tracts are located. To encourage full participation in the census, the Bureau should provide 

Spanish-language questionnaires in these census tracts as a matter of standard operating 

procedure. 

2. The Long-Form 

Good riddance!

The Census Bureau has known for decades that the long form suppresses response 

rates and may contribute to the differential undercount. The long form includes 

questions that ask for a person’s income, whether a person pays for a second mortgage on 

their home, and whether a person may have a “physical, mental or emotional condition” that 

causes difficulty in their daily lives. Many, as evidenced during this census, believe that 

these questions are intrusive and are an invasion of privacy. There is as much as a 12 

percent differential in the response rates between the short and long forms. The long form 

costs more to process and also costs more during non-response follow-up operations due to 

the amount of time it takes to complete the form. 

The Census Bureau has tried to counter resistance to the long form by citing the uses of the 

data for funding purposes and by pointing out that the long form is only sent to one in six 

households. However, the Bureau has not always been forthcoming in admitting that that 

the one-in-six is a national average. There are many areas where the long-form is sent to 

one-in-two households. This is an inappropriate burden to rural areas that on average 

receive more long forms than urban areas, and is inappropriate for households in public 

housing and rental housing where many of the questions are irrelevant. 
Census Monitoring Board, Congressional Members 

Final Letter Report to Congress: 1 September 2001

CMBC 74-275

Page 8 of 13

Current planning for 2010 indicates that the Bureau is moving toward the elimination of the 

long form. This is a fundamental change that must happen. By eliminating the long form, 

the Bureau will have more resources to devote to the core purpose of the census —

counting every person at the correct address — without having to ask 15 million 

households questions such as “how much is your regular monthly payment on all 

second or junior mortgages and all home equity loans on this property.”

3. Local Hiring

The best enumerator is the one who looks and sounds 

like the person answering the door.

Trust is a major factor in reducing the differential undercount. The Census Bureau, when it 

enters many hard-to-count neighborhoods, encounters generations of suspicion and 

mistrust of government. Many immigrants have left countries where government lists were 

linked to persecution. While the Census Bureau has an unbroken record of ensuring 

confidentiality, it is still not possible to rely on this in many communities. In these areas, it is 

the face of a trusted neighbor who is best able to talk with the residents and complete 

the census. 

In 2000, the ability to exceed hiring goals for Census 2000 almost surely contributed to the 

record-breaking finish of non-response follow-up. Further, the Census Bureau made great 

strides in the area of local hiring. They set out with the goal of having “indigenous 

enumerators” for every census tract. We understand that this is hard to do, but it is 

essential, and in many areas the Bureau met this goal. However, in other areas schedule 

concerns prompted Local Census Offices to send non-residents, who were unfamiliar with 

the community and therefore less culturally sensitive, to complete the non-response followup operation. This discourages trust. 

In many areas (especially hard-to-count neighborhoods or linguistically-isolated 

neighborhoods) it is crucial to understand the perspective of the residents: to understand 

when an enumerator would have the best opportunity to find residents; to understand how 

individual families may be living together in one physical structure; and to understand, the 

fears and concerns of the residents. For example: Hillsborough County, Florida, has a large 

seasonal migrant population which numbers in the thousands. These primarily Hispanic 

workers live and work on various farms in rural areas. These agricultural workers leave their 

dwellings (which are almost always located on the land they work) well before dawn, 

returning often times late into the evening. While the Census Bureau’s enumerators had 

considerable difficulty counting them, the County was able to conduct their own count by 

using local individuals who knew the area, they knew where the workers were, what hours 

they worked, and most importantly, their language. The Bureau could effectuate a much 

more accurate count of these important residents, if they followed the lead of the County 

and hired knowledgeable local individuals to count their neighbors.

Individual enumerators and even teams of enumerators face challenges that are

difficult to overcome — such as locked buildings, dangerous streets, and unfamiliar 

cultural practices. By sending enumerators who are not “indigenous”, these 

challenges are magnified. The Bureau should consider (in neighborhoods where they 

encounter difficulty hiring qualified enumerators who are residents) turning to the use of 
Census Monitoring Board, Congressional Members

Report to Congress: 1 September 2001

CMBC 74-275

Page 9 of 13

facilitators, or “ambassadors,” to help guide enumerators through hard-to-count 

neighborhoods. 

Facilitators could act as liaisons between enumerators who are qualified to ask census 

questionnaires and residents who are unsure of whether or not to participate. These 

facilitators can give the census a “familiar face” and encourage trust. In 2000, facilitators 

were used successfully in some areas such as the El Paso local census area and along the 

Gulfcoast of Mississippi. In remote Alaska, the Anchorage census office relied on village 

leaders to instruct the crew leaders on hiring issues. As a result, many villages not only 

trusted the Bureau intentions but felt integrally involved in the success of the census. 

Efforts to include input from local leaders and hire local residents for guidance to 

enumerators are practices that should be continued and expanded for the future. 

4. Master Address File 

A sensitive solution to the “Post Office Box problem”

should be a priority for the 2010 census.

The Census Bureau’s partnership with local governments to create the address list for 

Census 2000 was revolutionary. However, there is evidence that suggests that the Master 

Address File was not as complete or as accurate as it could have been for 2000. The 

foremost example of this is what is now known as the “Post Office Box problem.” Many 

communities and small towns have street addresses, but use Post Office (PO) Boxes for 

mail delivery. As the Census Bureau constructed the Master Address List, they recorded 

such addresses to be included in the mailout-mailback phase of the census. However the 

United States Postal Service (USPS) does not deliver to these houses in these 

communities. Rather, mail comes to the PO Boxes. Furthermore, because the decennial 

census is a count of persons living in housing units, the Census Bureau decided, early in 

their planning, not to use PO Boxes. Therefore, the USPS did NOT deliver census 

questionnaires to PO Boxes — only to physical addresses with “city-style” addresses. At the 

same time, the USPS did not allow enumerators to deliver questionnaires to PO Boxes. As 

a result, there were hundreds of thousands of households throughout the nation —

especially in small towns and rural communities — that did not receive questionnaires via 

the mail. For these households, a census enumerator was sent to hand-deliver the form —

attaching it to a fence post, hanging it from a door, or placing it in the yard.

In many areas, Local Census Offices were responsible for delivering tens of thousands of 

Undeliverable as Addressed (UAA) questionnaires. The Conway, South Carolina office was 

responsible for over 10,000 UAA questionnaires; the Orleans Parish office in Louisiana 

delivered over 15,000; the Battle Creek, Michigan Local Census Office was responsible 

17,000 forms; and there were over 60,000 forms returned to the Tampa office that included 

other areas of Hillsborough County. Many of these UAAs were addressed to houses in 

communities that rely on PO Boxes. 

As the need to deliver these UAAs was unforeseen during initial census planning and was a 

burden in terms of staffing, many Local Census Offices were unable to do this effectively. In 

central and southwest Mississippi, areas covered by the Jackson Local Census Office —

many towns and subdivisions of Jackson reported not receiving a census questionnaire in 

the mail or from an enumerator. These reports came from Hattiesburg and Brandon, as 

well as smaller communities such as Amory, Corinth, Laurel and Mound Bayou. Later 
Census Monitoring Board, Congressional Members 

Final Letter Report to Congress: 1 September 2001

CMBC 74-275

Page 10 of 13

reports indicated that the Jackson Local Census Office did not deliver all of the UAAs and 

was forced to enumerate those households during the non-response follow-up operation, 

causing confusion and inflating costs. 

The decennial census must fulfill two principal requirements: 1) To count every 

person living in America and 2) To count every person at the correct address. 

Ensuring the accuracy of the location — the address — is the only guarantee for the 

fair distribution of political representation and resources. The Master Address File, 

therefore, is the foundation of the decennial census. In 2000, there were too many 

“holes,” such as the UAAs, that allowed hundreds of thousands of households to potentially 

slip through. The Census Bureau must take steps during the early parts of this decade 

to ensure that the address list is complete and accurate. Moreover, the Census Bureau 

should make every effort to work with the United States Post Office to effectively use 

the mail system and avoid reliance on enumerators for delivering questionnaires. 

5. Post-Census Local Review 

There is no reasonable justification 

for not reinstating post-census local review for 2010.

As this census has proven — and what many knew always to be true — local governments 

are indispensable sources of information. Their knowledge is far more attuned to real-time 

data than the Census Bureau’s once-in-a-decade approach to local communities. Local 

governments are literally involved in the lives of the neighborhoods and communities. 

However, one of the “missing pieces” of Census 2000 was a final quality check — the 

opportunity for local governments to see their block housing unit counts before the 

census was finalized. The Census Bureau argued that LUCA was a replacement for postcensus local review and the final quality check will be easier because of LUCA. Yet, it 

should also be pointed out that a good LUCA is a good partner to post-census local review. 

There are two justifications for implementing this final quality check. The first is obvious, to 

ensure that every housing unit was accounted for in the census count — one more way of 

ensuring a reduction of the undercount. The second justification is as important. By 

allowing local governments to verify the block information, the Census Bureau can ensure 

that housing units, and especially group quarters locations, are located in the correct census 

block and tract. This location, or geocoding, is as important as counting — as the 

responsibility of the census is not only to count every person but to count every 

person at the accurate location. Representation and resources are distributed according 

to geography — not demographic groups. When determining which neighborhoods should 

get new schools or that lack fair representation on city council or county supervisors, it is 

important to know where people are living. 

In 1990, 9,847 local governments participated in a similar program, Post-Census Local 

Review. This program yielded an addition of 80,923 housing units or 127,000 persons that 

otherwise might have been missed. Post-Census Local Review also corrected the location 

for 198,347 housing units that were not geocoded accurately. 

The lack of such a program in 2000 may account for reported errors in the location of group 

quarters throughout the country. In almost every state, the locations of group quarters 

(prisons, colleges dormitories and other institutions) were reported incorrectly for many 
Census Monitoring Board, Congressional Members

Report to Congress: 1 September 2001

CMBC 74-275

Page 11 of 13

jurisdictions. Unfortunately, the census data are final and official. In order to correct these 

errors, thousands of local governments must participate in the Count Question Review 

Program. Had local jurisdictions been given the opportunity to review the census data 

before they were final, the Bureau would not have released those incorrectly geocoded data. 

Census 2010 should allow local governments to review housing unit block counts or 

similar data before the census is finalized. This is the only reliable and effective way 

to correct errors such as geocoding and to ensure that every known housing unit was 

counted. 

6. Proven Coverage Improvements

The smart, but limited, use of administrative records may be the only way 

to find the last and most challenging portion of the hard-to-count.

Finally, the Census Bureau must really examine the undercount to develop ways to reach 

the sub-groups who comprise it. In the past, the Census Bureau used proven coverage 

improvements — such as administrative records — to ensure that every person was 

counted. These coverage improvements will not replace the census in severely 

undercounted communities, but can provide a method to count real people at real 

addresses who may have been missed. 

In 1988, the Bureau hired Dr. Jerusa Wilson, a professor at Coppin State College in 

Baltimore, Maryland, to examine the causes of the differential undercount and present 

possible ways to reduce it. Dr. Wilson concluded that the differential undercount resulted 

from certain characteristics of hard-to-count populations, such as poverty, high 

unemployment rates, low education, fear and crime. Dr. Wilson believed parolees and 

probationers were highly representative of the hard-to-count Black male group that he 

observed as having the highest rates of undercount. Since parolees and probationers were 

required to report regularly to officers of the court (and may have been unlikely to report 

themselves on a census questionnaire) the Bureau reasoned that the administrative records 

were an ideal source to ensure that these individuals were counted. The Bureau developed 

the Parolee/Probationer Coverage Improvement programs in 1990 to count this particular 

segment of the hard-to-count population. The Bureau matched forms that were completed 

by court officers to the census. When they found a name with an address that was not 

reported on the census, they added the person to the census. These programs added 

447,757 persons that otherwise would have been missed in the 1990 census — 0.2 percent 

of the population. Moreover, a disproportionate number of the persons added were 

members of minority communities. The Bureau reported that approximately 27.1 percent of 

all persons added were Black males — in reality only 6 percent of the total population. For 

some states this program significantly improved the census count. In Mississippi, for 

instance, 40 percent of the parolees and probationers were not counted. Had the Bureau 

not used this program, Mississippi’s undercount in 1990 would have been 15 percent higher.

However, for Census 2000, the Census Bureau chose not to use administrative records, a 

proven coverage improvement method. The Bureau cited flawed conclusions from PES 

research and stated their belief that the efforts to use of administrative records would 

“detract from a more pressing need to build consensus for the use of sampling to account 

for nonresponding households.” Further, when several states, including Pennsylvania, 
Census Monitoring Board, Congressional Members 

Final Letter Report to Congress: 1 September 2001

CMBC 74-275

Page 12 of 13

asked to make use of their parole and probation offices as “Be Counted” sites, the Bureau 

refused. 

In the end, it is reasonable to believe that the use of administrative records could have 

reduced the differential undercount even further. Records such as Medicaid and Food 

Stamps could have allowed the Bureau to reach thousands of children (a group who 

accounted for as much as 50 percent of the undercount in the past). Moreover, the use of 

administrative records could compensate for correlation bias that is undetected by 

statistical methodologies such as adjustment. The Board believes that the Census 

Bureau must re-evaluate their position on proven coverage improvement methods, such as 

administrative records, that ensures counting real people at real addresses. The 2010 

census should make use of these records. Proven coverage improvements, like 

administrative records, would enhance the Bureau’s ability to count hundreds of 

thousands of adults and children who might otherwise remain uncounted.

Conclusion

The Congressional Members of the Census Monitoring Board are proud of our oversight role 

and its contribution to the success of the 2000 census. Among the issues we raised to the 

Census Bureau before the census was completed (and we believe contributed positively to 

Census 2000) are the following:

• The need for Spanish-language materials to promote the census

• The importance of allowing Regional Directors to have the flexibility to adapt the 

census operations in ways that were sensitive to local needs

• The need for waivers to allow people to take temporary census jobs without 

losing important government assistance benefits

In fact, it was not until our involvement, by taking the unprecedented step to contact 

governors’ offices, that many states joined the waivers programs developed by federal 

agencies. Mississippi, New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas were among those states that 

allowed people to take work in these temporary jobs, without fearing that they would lose 

their benefits. We provided the relevant letters of instructions developed, by the federal 

agencies, and helped many states by providing information (that the Census Bureau had not 

supplied) regarding these waivers. 

Further, by devoting our time equally between field operations and statistical methodology, 

we have developed an in-depth understanding of the census process. We visited over 50 

Local Census Offices, observed the enumeration in places such as Remote Alaska and 

Cheyenne, Wyoming to Washington, DC and Los Angeles, California. 

In spite of exhaustive research by the National Academy of Science, the General 

Accounting Office, the Commerce Inspector General’s Office and numerous Congressional 

committees, only the Monitoring Board’s original and groundbreaking analyses of the 

methodology determined that adjustment of the 1990 census would not have put people 

back in the neighborhoods where they were missed. It was not until the Monitoring Board 

had acquired the original results of the Post-Enumeration Survey (PES) of 1990, that 

anyone outside of the Census Bureau had attempted to assess the effects of adjustment at 

local levels. This research and our analyses were presented at a formal meeting of the 
Census Monitoring Board, Congressional Members

Report to Congress: 1 September 2001

CMBC 74-275

Page 13 of 13

National Academy of Science and to the Census Bureau. To date no one has offered a 

data-based argument to refute this research. We have demonstrated that severely 

undercounted neighborhoods remain severely undercounted — even after statistical 

adjustment. Severely undercounted congressional districts will also remain severely 

undercounted. 

We need to understand that the census is like many things: you get what you pay for. The 

Congress’ decision to fully fund the 2000 census was an expensive decision. However, we 

believe that this was a wise decision to invest in a program that will provide fair 

political representation for every person living in America. The Congress and the 

American people have spent the necessary time, resources and efforts on an accurate 

census and the dividends of this investment will be paid for the next ten years.

Finally, we hope that the success of the 2000 census is the mark that future census 

shareholders will view as the starting point. The success of Census 2000, the first census of 

the next millennium, should assist the planning for future censuses. We hope that each 

census in the future is more accurate and that the differential undercount will be completely 

eliminated.

Thank you, once again, for the opportunity to serve as members of the Census Monitoring 

Board.

Respectfully submitted,

A. Mark Neuman

Chairperson, Congressional Members

Dr. David W. Murray

Congressional Member

Joe D. Whitley

Congressional Member