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

37–360 PDF 2008

S. Hrg. 110–336

PREPARING FOR 2010: IS THE CENSUS BUREAU

READY FOR THE JOB AHEAD?

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

FIRST SESSION

JULY 17, 2007

Available via http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate

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 

LIZ SCRANTON, Chief Clerk 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

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

Senator Coburn ................................................................................................. 9

WITNESSES 

TUESDAY, JULY 17, 2007

Louis I. Kincannon, Director, U.S. Census Bureau .............................................. 3

Mathew J. Scir ́e, Director, Strategic Issues and David A. Powner, Director, 

Information Technology, U.S. Government Accountability Office ................... 22

Andrew Reamer, Fellow, Metropolitan Policy Program, The Brookings Institution ........................................................................................................................ 23

Maurice P. McTigue, Vice President of the Mercatus Project, George Mason 

University ............................................................................................................. 26

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Kincannon, Louis I.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 3

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 39

McTigue, Maurice P.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 26

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 78

Powner, David A.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 22

Prepared joint statement ................................................................................. 43

Reamer, Andrew: 

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 65

Scir ́e, Mathew J.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 22

Prepared joint statement ................................................................................. 43

APPENDIX 

Letter from Senator Don Nickles, dated May 18, 2007, and copy of a June 

18, 1982 Congressional Record ........................................................................... 82

Charts submitted for the Record by Senator Carper ............................................ 84

(1)

PREPARING FOR 2010: IS THE CENSUS 

BUREAU READY FOR THE JOB AHEAD? 

TUESDAY, JULY 17, 2007

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT,

GOVERNMENT INFORMATION, FEDERAL SERVICES,

AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY, 

OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:33 p.m., in Room 

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

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Carper and Coburn. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Senator CARPER. The hearing will come to order. Welcome, everyone. Mr. Kincannon, thank you for being our lead-off witness. We 

are going to be joined shortly by Senator Coburn, but I am going 

to go ahead and start. 

We have a vote scheduled for 2:45, and my hope is that we may 

be able to have opening statements and to actually get through 

your statement, Mr. Kincannon, and then break, go vote, and then 

come back and just grill you for about the next 5 hours. 

No, I am just kidding. We will not. It will seem like 5 hours, but 

it will not be, I promise you. Thanks for coming. 

The hearing today is not our first on the census, but it is one 

that we hope will be the beginning of our efforts to exercise effective oversight with respect to the Census Bureau’s preparations for 

the 2010 census. 

My thanks to our Ranking Member, Senator Coburn, for his commitment to this oversight work and for making it clear that the arrival of the latest decennial census does not mean that American 

taxpayers should write out a blank check. And I agree with Dr. 

Coburn on that score. 

The requirement that the Federal Government conduct a census 

every 10 years is enshrined in Article 1, Section 2 of our Constitution. It is something that we have to do and we have to do it right. 

Innumerable programs at all levels of government depend on an accurate census, as does the work of a number of academics and others out side of government. The make-up of the U.S. House of Representatives also depends on its outcome—except in States like 

Delaware where we only have one Representative. But in a lot of 

2

1 Charts submitted for the Record appears in the Appendix on page 84. 

other States, especially States like California, where I think they 

have 53, it is real important. 

So I would count myself among those who would tell the Census 

Bureau to do what they need to do to get it right. But getting it 

right should not be an excuse to break the bank. 

According to data provided by the Census Bureau and listed on 

the chart that we have on display.1 We can look at the cost of conducting the census all the way back to 1790, and we find that the 

cost of the first census was about a penny per capita. For 2010, we 

are looking for the cost of that census to be right around $11 billion, and the per capita cost of conducting the count will surge to 

something like $36. 

Now, I will grant that counting every man, woman, and child in 

our country is a bigger and more complicated task in 2010 than it 

was in 1790—or a bigger task than it was even in 2000 or 1990. 

But with the advances in technology that we have had over time, 

I personally do not understand why the price tag for the 2010 

count is so high. Maybe we will get some answers to that today. 

I am also concerned that the price tag could go higher at the end 

of the day, perhaps significantly higher. I think that was the case 

with the 2000 census, so we look with some concern at the estimate 

for 2010 as a result. 

The cost of the 2010 census is now projected, as I said, at about 

$11.5 billion. GAO has said, however, that this number may be 

based on outdated projections that do not take into account the results of testing that is currently ongoing. 

I am also concerned that the handheld computers that census 

takers will be using to count these households that do not return 

their census forms right away have not always worked as well as 

expected. These computers are a big part of the Census Bureau’s 

projected cost savings this time around. If they do not work as well 

as they should, I can see us spending more money than we planned 

between now and 2010 on staff, on paper, and on office space. 

Finally, we will hear from GAO today that some key systems 

that the Census Bureau will be heavily relying on in the coming 

years are not being tested now during the so-called dress rehearsal 

that is traditionally used to troubleshoot before the decennial census actually begins. 

I mention all of this because it sounds a lot like what happened 

10 years ago. The cost of the 2000 census ultimately hit $6.5 billion; that was 30 percent higher than originally projected, according to GAO. This increase was due in part to some of the same 

kinds of problems that we see today as the preparations for 2010 

ramp up. I believe we need to work hard in the coming months to 

ensure that the mistakes and cost overruns of the past are not repeated this time around. And I suspect that most of us in this room 

and on this panel agree with that. 

Dr. Coburn is apparently at another meeting, and we will offer 

him the opportunity, once he arrives, to offer whatever opening 

statement he wishes to make. But rather than to delay, why don’t 

we just go ahead and I am going to ask our first witness to just 

3

1The prepared statement of Mr. Kincannon appears in the Appendix on page 39. 

hold your horses for just a moment because I want to give you a 

little bit of an introduction here. 

Mr. Kincannon was confirmed in his current job in March 2002, 

a little over 5 years ago. He began his career as a statistician at 

the Census Bureau in 1963—at the age of 4. 

[Laughter.] 

In 1963, after graduating from the University of Texas in Austin. 

He held a number of positions in the Census Bureau before leaving 

in 1975 during the Ford Administration to join the staff of OMB, 

where he worked on statistical and regulatory policy. He also 

served as the statistical liaison to Vice President Nelson Rockefeller’s office. 

Mr. Kincannon returned to the Census Bureau in September 

1981. He was appointed Deputy Director and Chief Operating Officer in January 1982 by President Reagan’s first Director of the 

Census Bureau, Bruce Chapman. Mr. Kincannon has served as 

Deputy Director to John Keane in the Reagan Administration and 

Barbara Everitt Bryant in the George H.W. Bush Administration. 

Mr. Kincannon, you have probably a longer bio than almost anybody I have ever introduced. This is pretty impressive. 

Mr. Kincannon also served as Acting Director of the Census Bureau from July 1983 to March 1984 and again from January to December 1989, during which time he directed the final preparation 

for the 1990 census. So you have had a chance to do this before. 

In October 1992, Mr. Kincannon was appointed as the first chief 

statistician in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris. That sounds like a pretty good job. He coordinated the Organization’s statistical programs and advised the 

OECD Secretary General on statistical policy and he left this post 

in June 2000 to return to the United States. 

I might add he is one of the few witnesses we have ever had before this panel who knows where Flower Bluff, Texas, is, which is 

where I lived when I was stationed in the Navy at Corpus Christi 

Naval Air Station. 

Mr. Kincannon, we are delighted that you are here. We look forward to your testimony and the opportunity to ask some questions. 

You may proceed. Your entire statement will be entered in the 

record, and I will ask you to summarize as you deem appropriate. 

TESTIMONY OF LOUIS I. KINCANNON,1 DIRECTOR, U.S. CENSUS 

BUREAU 

Mr. KINCANNON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a 

pleasure to be here, and I am sorry. I thought you got the concise 

C.V., and I could have shortened your time a little bit by leaving 

out some of the repeat kind of assignments. 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the progress of the 2010 

census, the reengineered decennial census. Census Day is now less 

than 3 years away. As we look forward, we should note that the 

success of the short-form census in 2010 also depends on the success of all other components of the reengineered decennial census 

program. And even though Delaware does not have to go through 

redistricting, there are a lot of people in Delaware, State governVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:32 Apr 03, 2008 Jkt 037360 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\37360.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
4

ment and businesses alike, who are hungering after the detailed 

data from the ACS and the update for benchmarks from the census. 

The Census Bureau’s overall request for discretionary funding in 

2008 totals $1.2 billion. The request for $797 million for the decennial census, our highest priority, accounts for nearly two-thirds of 

the budget. The overall cost of the decennial census, its life-cycle 

costs, is $11.5 billion. That has changed a little bit from that chart, 

but it is the right ballpark. And that includes the cost of the annual American Community Survey and the MAF/TIGER Enhancements Program, both key to a successful short-form-only census in 

2010. 

This figure represents a slight saving to the American taxpayer 

based on if we had started out on the pathway of repeating the 

2000 census with the same methods, almost the same cost envelope, but somewhat different, and giving 10 times the information 

coming from the American Community Survey. Furthermore, at 

this point of the decade, if we were forced to replicate the design 

of the 2010 census, it would cost us $1.4 billion more than the current decennial program that includes the American Community 

Survey. 

To examine the progress we have made, it may be useful to describe briefly the status of key activities, including the MAF/TIGER 

Enhancements Program. 

The MAF/TIGER Enhancements Program is a multi-year effort 

to collect and correct the locations of streets and other geographic 

information. We are working with the Harris Corporation to realign street centerlines for every one of the 3,232 counties in this 

country. This initiative is on schedule and within budget. The Census Bureau’s budget request for next year includes $59 million to 

complete the final 367 counties in time to conduct Address Canvassing Operations, which is the first major field activity nationwide for the decennial census. 

During this operation, listers will canvass blocks and conduct 

brief interviews to verify or update address information against the 

address information on the Census Bureau’s lists and maps, including the information provided by tribal, State, and local governments as part of the Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA), 

program. The LUCA program provides every tribal, State, and local 

government the opportunity to review our address list and to submit either corrections or additions. It is the most important single 

role that State and local governments can play in improving the results of the census in their areas. 

The accuracy of the census address list and the map are vital because the census must fulfill two principal requirements: To count 

every person living in America, once and only once, we hope, and 

to count every person at the correct address because the statistics 

are only useful in their detail, not in their totality. Therefore, the 

accuracy and ultimate success of the census—our constitutional obligation—depend upon the accuracy of the MAF and TIGER systems. 

Our plans for 2008 demonstrate our commitment to achieving 

this constitutional responsibility, and we are requesting $551 milVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:32 Apr 03, 2008 Jkt 037360 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\37360.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
5

lion to sustain the continuing activities associated with the shortterm census, including the 2008 dress rehearsal. 

The sites for the dress rehearsal are in San Joaquin County, 

California, and Fayetteville and surrounding counties in eastern 

North Carolina near Fort Bragg. In April, we opened Local Census 

Offices (LCOs), in both locations and started hiring approximately 

1,300 people in preparation for address canvassing, which began in 

May. 

The dress rehearsal is our last opportunity before the census to 

ensure planned procedures and operations will function as designed 

once they are integrated. While it is still too early to evaluate the 

dress rehearsal, we completed the address canvassing operation on 

June 26, 2007, on schedule and can report its success, as well as 

some challenges with the software on the handhelds used for this. 

However, it is important to note that these challenges are being addressed and corrected and do not pose serious challenges to the use 

of handheld computers in the 2010 census. 

We are pleased in general with the performance of the handheld 

computers whose overall durability and usability were affirmed 

during the address canvassing operation. In fact, out of almost 

1,400 handheld computers, only five had problems out of the box, 

and two were dropped and broken in the course of the exercise, and 

all of those were replaced under warranty. 

Based on the dress rehearsal experience, as well as our ongoing 

planning efforts, we are confident that we can and will effectively 

implement the use of handheld computers for the 2010 census as 

well as other planned improvements. 

Finally, we will implement the planned improvements we have 

tested throughout the decade through the short-form-only census, 

ranging from improved questionnaire content to a replacement second mailing, which could well increase the census response rates 

as much as 7 to 10 percent, and dramatically, therefore, increase 

the efficiency of our field operations. 

We believe these planned and tested improvements are vitally 

important to the accuracy of the 2010 census. 

Thank you for your support in the past and in the future. I will 

be happy to answer questions when the time comes. Thank you, 

sir. 

Senator CARPER. The time has come. Let us just start off by 

going back almost 220 years, and we mentioned earlier that the 

cost of the 1790 census was, I think, about a penny per person. 

And I realize we are a far different country today and we are looking for a different kind of information. But why did it cost so little? 

Mr. KINCANNON. Well, I am not sure, Mr. Chairman. I know the 

$6.4 billion in the 2000 census was in 2000 dollars, and if the 1790 

census is in 1790 dollars, then it is hard to make a good comparison. But a penny went a good deal farther, I think. I do not know 

what the marshals were paid and gasoline costs were extremely 

modest. 

In all seriousness, we did not really collect as much information. 

We only collected the name of the householder and the number of 

other people in the household, by free and slave. There was very 

little detail on that questionnaire, and that makes it easier. 

6

In addition, we were not concerned about confidentiality in those 

days, and the results were posted in local areas to see if anyone 

had been missed. So it was a collaborative effort. There were not 

so many people, apparently, as we perceive today less enthusiastic 

about being reported to the government. And we used U.S. Marshals to collect the census results, which may have added a more 

urgent tone to their visits. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Correct me if I am wrong, but let us go 

back to 2000, and I think I said in my opening statement that 

there was a cost estimate for the census in 2000, and as it turned 

out—and you may have still been in your previous job over in Paris 

at the time. But I think I indicated that the actual cost of the census exceeded the forecast by some 20 or 30 percent. And that sort 

of has us uneasy, looking to the 2010 census. 

Just go back with us in time to 2000 and tell us what happened. 

I can understand missing the estimate by 2 percent, 4 percent, 6 

percent, but not by 20 or 30 percent. What happened? 

Mr. KINCANNON. Well, you are correct. I was still in Paris at that 

time, and I remember reading in the last 1990s, even in the Herald 

Tribune—it made news, the change, the revision in cost estimates. 

The principal reason, I believe, was a court decision in 1999 which 

required the Census Bureau to redesign major elements of the 

plans for the enumeration in 2000. That was very costly——

Senator CARPER. Wait a minute. Can you just sort of flesh that 

out for us a little bit? 

Mr. KINCANNON. The plan was to conduct something—I believe 

it was called a ‘‘single-number census,’’ and that required using a 

sample non-response follow-up in order to estimate those still outstanding. That would compress the amount of time needed and, of 

course, save costs. 

A lawsuit was brought. I believe it was by one of the political 

parties, but I don’t remember which. I was not paying such close 

attention to it at that time. At any rate, the Supreme Court said 

that sample-based figures could not be used in the enumeration in 

order to apportion seats of Congress. This was based on a law 

passed, I believe, in 1975 that was to have facilitated a mid-decade 

census, really a sample exercise, and the Congress at that time did 

not want to undergo reapportionment throughout the decade, so 

they put a prohibition specifically against using sample-based figures to do that. 

Senator CARPER. Now, let us fast forward to today and then on 

to 2010. Given what happened to the costs that ultimately were incurred on the 2000 census as compared to what was anticipated, 

what costs are we looking at for 2010? And can you give us some 

comfort as to why we should not be concerned that those costs 

might be exceeded by some substantial amount 2 years hence, 3 

years hence? 

Mr. KINCANNON. Well, I do not see that in the forecast, and I 

would be very concerned if I did, and I would tell you that. Of 

course, I will not be held accountable, and you, with the good will 

of the people of Delaware, will be around to try to understand that 

and explain it. 

There is a big difference in this past decade in that we were 

strongly advised following the 2000 census by the GAO and the InVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:32 Apr 03, 2008 Jkt 037360 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\37360.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
7

spector General to plan and test the operations we were going to 

use in the census, to decide on that plan as early as we could, to 

test it at various phases, to incorporate the findings from tests in 

a revised plan for the census, test it again and so on until we got 

to the census time and had a thoroughly tested plan. 

We were, by and large, more successful in doing that than certainly in the 2000 census cycle, and my own recollection of the 

1990 census cycle was that we were less successful than in this 

decade. 

As a result, we are going forward with a plan for 2010 that has 

been pretty carefully tested and evaluated. The plans for use of 

technology have proven very successful. We have just used the 

handheld computers in the address canvass part of the dress rehearsal for 2010, and they worked very well. So we are quite confident that our plans for questionnaire design, for short-form-only 

census, and for the automation that we have planned will work 

well. And I think the variation is probably at the lower or middle 

limit of the range that you said you found tolerable. Of course, that 

is uncertain but that is what I see. 

Senator CARPER. Talk to us a little bit about these handheld 

computers. A good deal has been said about them, and recently we 

have heard—I think in the media this week—some cause for concern. What do they do? Just in simple terms, what do these computers do for us? 

Mr. KINCANNON. These computers do a great deal. 

Senator CARPER. And give us some idea about what they cost, if 

you would. 

Mr. KINCANNON. I think they cost about $400 for each one. We 

will buy a half a million or more of those. 

Senator CARPER. What do we do with them when we have finished with them? Sell them on eBay? 

Mr. KINCANNON. Well, they will not have any data in them. The 

data are encapsulated and separated and destroyed. So we could 

sell them on eBay or maybe GSA would have to sell them on eBay. 

But we may find other things to do with them. I am not aware of 

plans. That has not been my focus. It should be a focus of somebody, but not me. 

Senator CARPER. I ask the question only half seriously. But is it 

possible that other countries facing a census of their own might 

want to buy the computers from us without the information they 

have collected? 

Mr. KINCANNON. It is possible. The experience of the contractor 

that did the DRIS contract work for us in 2000 went on to do that 

same kind of work in at least two other countries, and the same 

contractor won the award for us this time. So whether this breakthrough will prove appealing to other countries is a question that 

I cannot answer, but I am sure that the contractor’s business 

agents are considering whether there is an after-market for their 

skills and equipment. 

What these handheld computers will do is to collect the information from households that have not returned their census questionnaire. They will do much more than that, though, because they will 

be used in the address canvass. They will receive the maps and address lists that we have, their work assignments for the day, by 

8

wireless signal or land signal, depending on the part of the country 

where they are working. They will carry out that work and return 

their updated changes that same way. 

They will use the handheld computers to convey their information about hours worked and units of work completed and their 

travel, and that will be the basis for calculating their weekly compensation. 

The same thing when they start out on non-response follow-up, 

they will receive their assignments on the handheld computers. 

Those assignments will be grouped in a way that is orderly for 

them to follow geographically, and they will be updated on a continual basis, based on late receipts in the office. This is a major 

cost-saving effect because when we are doing it with paper, there 

is a big gap between when we have to shut down and print an assignment to go to all the non-response enumerators in the field, 

and a number of late questionnaires are received. And this costs 

us about $75 million for every one percentage point that we follow 

up on when we did not have to, and it irritates a lot of citizens as 

well. 

When they collect their information, it will be each day, or even 

a part of a day, relayed back to the data processing center by wireless, all encrypted and protected properly, or over land line if they 

are in a part of the country without cell phone service. 

As soon as this receipt is verified as complete, then the data remaining on the handheld will be blanked out and will not be susceptible to somebody intercepting it or using it in some way. 

So it handles guidance to where they are going, their assignments both for address canvassing and for non-response follow-up, 

and payrolling and other administrative work—all handled by 

paper before. 

Senator CARPER. Alright. Thank you. I want to focus a bit on the 

dress rehearsal that is underway. Did you say in North Carolina 

and in California? Or is it in several counties of each of those 

States? 

Mr. KINCANNON. It is in San Joaquin, California, one county in 

California, and in several counties around Fayetteville, North 

Carolina. 

Senator CARPER. Roughly how many people are involved in the 

population that is being serviced there? 

Mr. KINCANNON. I do not know. Tens of thousands. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Fair enough. Thank you. 

Staying for a moment on the dress rehearsal, so far you spoke 

a little bit to this, but let me ask you to come back and I will ask 

you this directly. What problems are you running into so far during 

the dress rehearsal? How do you plan to manage your risks going 

into 2010, especially since some of your systems may not be tested 

as rigorously or in as timely a manner as you might initially have 

hoped? 

Mr. KINCANNON. Well, first, let me go through both successes 

and problems in the dress rehearsal. We completed the address 

canvassing operation on time. We started on time and we ended on 

time. The performance of the handhelds, I have mentioned that 

they were durable and so forth and so on. They were physically 

very good. 

9

The biometric identification and replacing passwords—that is, a 

fingerprint is used for the enumerator to open and access the services of the handheld—that worked very well. In the 2006 test, done 

with a handheld that required a password, 40 percent of the Help 

Desk calls were to unlock a forgotten password. We did not have 

that incidence. We had a very small percentage of people where 

there was a malfunction. It was less than 2 percent, if I recall correctly. So that works very well, and except under strange circumstances you cannot leave your fingerprints at home. So that is 

a great gain. 

We did have some software problems, operating software problems with the handheld relating to particularly the capacity for 

handling a large number of addresses where we perhaps had not 

explained carefully enough to the contractor how wide the scope of 

addresses could be in a single day’s assignment. That is going to 

have to be modified. 

There were other software problems as well, some of them remedied by transmitting patches to the handhelds in the field, and 

others that will require some more detailed changes before we go 

out for the data collection in the dress rehearsal even. 

So the significance of that is it is relatively easy to make software corrections from a central point and apply it to all users. If 

we had significant hardware problems, it is a much more difficult 

problem to solve. So I think that—I do not like to have any problems, but I am glad we found them in the dress rehearsal, and we 

will meet them. 

Another problem we had was in the Help Desk function, which 

is also handled by the contractor. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Kincannon, I am going to ask you to hold 

up for a moment, if you will, and we have less than 5 minutes to 

go on this vote. I am not as fast as I used to be, so I need to head 

over to the floor quickly to vote. 

I would say to our staffs, if Dr. Coburn arrives while I am away, 

he is welcome to reconvene the hearing and offer whatever statement he wants and to begin to ask questions, and I will finish up 

on this question with you when I return. 

But for now, let’s just stand in recess until either Dr. Coburn or 

I return. Thank you very much. 

[Recess.] 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COBURN 

Senator COBURN [presiding]. In the hope for some efficiency in 

Congress, which is rare, we will start again, and I will hold the 

gavel until Senator Carper comes back. I appreciate you, Mr. 

Kincannon, coming before our Subcommittee again. We have expressed to you some serious concerns and reservations that we 

have. That is not to belittle or demean anybody that works for your 

agency or you. We just have realistic concerns. 

You have a trial run starting next year, and I still think we have 

21⁄2 years until you are really into this full thing, and my hope is 

that we help make the appropriate—or ask the appropriate questions so that we can be as successful as we need to be concerning 

the census. 

10

I am deeply worried about this new cost estimate, which is $200 

million more than what we had the last time we had this conversation, and I am worried that is an underestimate. I hope you can 

reassure me today that it is not. That figures out, I believe—and 

you can correct me if I am wrong—to about $90 a household in this 

country for doing the census. I think that is on individuals rather 

than per household, which to me seems extremely high. 

I also continue to believe now, with almost 70 percent of the 

American people online, 60 percent paying their taxes online, 50 

percent banking online, that we are missing a great opportunity in 

terms of not doing some type of online census. And I understand 

your position on that, and although I disagree with it, I take your 

position. And I know that you are trying to use some technology 

in terms of handheld devices that are going to be doing it. My hope 

is that they work very well and that the $90 is not anywhere close 

to what we think it was going to be. 

I guess the other thing is I would just like to hear from you on 

the problems that you see in front of you and how they have 

changed since the last time we had the hearing and what you think 

needs to happen between now and 2008 when you do your test runs 

and where we can be of assistance, either in terms of appropriations or in terms of oversight. 

So with that, I will let you comment. 

Mr. KINCANNON. Well, maybe this is the statement I really wish 

I had made but did not have a chance to with all the clearance 

process and so on. I would say I appreciate your view. I know you 

disagree with us about the view of the Internet. We are cautious 

about change at this stage and have concerns that I think are well 

based. I hope you keep raising it in the future, including for my 

successor and for out-years. But I think that we have made the 

right decision. 

What do I see as problems ahead? I recognize that you and other 

Members of Congress have not been as closely associated with the 

process of testing and evaluating as I have been over the last 5 

years and some months. And no wonder you do not feel as comfortable as I do because of the experience in 2010 with the sudden, 

sharp increase in cost. But I do feel comfortable, seeing how we 

have planned, tested, evaluated, modified, and moved forward, that 

we have a process that is working well. 

Two big dangers are significant changes in methodology at this 

stage. This is what caused the big 30-percent increase in cost of the 

2000 census because of a court decision that ruled the Census Bureau could not use sample-based non-response follow-up for figures 

that would be used for apportionment. Then a different and significant change had to be made, and it cost about $1.7 billion. 

A late change is very inefficient and costly, and I know it is frustrating to Members of Congress when some of them may not have 

been elected when we were formulating these basic plans, and they 

see something that they think would be an improvement, and it 

might be, and we do not want to make that change because we cannot keep it under control. 

A second danger that I think is quite important and it has been 

a real problem in the past years, and that is the continuing resolution. Continuing resolutions present a problem for programs that 

11

are irregular in the government. If you have a constantly funded 

program, a continuing resolution keeps that work going on very 

well. We have a lot of that kind of work at the Census Bureau. But 

the census, neither the economic census, which will be taken covering this year, nor the census of population and housing are evenly funded. So that when we are going up the scale, failing to get 

an appropriation for 2 or 3 months or more is quite destructive. If 

you miss 3 months’ work, 3 months’ hiring, you cannot hire 25 percent more people than you plan, or actually a third in that case, 

and catch up and then fire the people at the end of the fiscal year 

or something of that sort. So it is just lost time, and that would 

be a major concern on my part. 

I am not concerned—our experience in the dress rehearsal which 

began this past spring, when we were conducting the address canvass portion of that, convinced me that our handhelds are working. 

There are problems in the software, but not with the hardware. 

And the problems with the software, some were remedied by patches transmitted to the handhelds, which worked very well. Others 

will be remedied before we start the non-response follow-up phase 

next spring. 

The handhelds themselves, out of about 1,400, only five were 

flawed coming out of the box, and two more were damaged in the 

course of rather rugged operation in the field. And those are tolerable levels of shortcoming. I am very pleased with that and feel 

quite confident about the technology moving into the future. 

Senator COBURN. We are, what economists would say, at full employment with a fairly low unemployment rate, and I know as you 

gear up for the census, you are going to be hiring a significant additional number of people. Have you all anticipated the degree of 

difficulty that you will have now versus 2000 in terms of the difference in terms of employment levels and underemployment that 

might not be out there today that you utilized in 2000? 

Mr. KINCANNON. The employment levels were pretty high in 

2000, actually, and if I could tell you now what they would be in 

2010, I would be probably making some money on——

Senator COBURN. Have you anticipated that it is going to be 

much more difficult to find part-time work and full-time workers 

for the census in 2010 given the employment level that we have 

today? 

Mr. KINCANNON. I am not sure that it will be more difficult, but 

we have flexibility in setting wage rates by local area, which helps 

us respond to that difficulty. There are large areas of the country 

where the labor market is not tight. 

Senator COBURN. Where is that? 

Mr. KINCANNON. In some of the Midwestern States, the employment is not particularly tight. There are people looking for work 

and available for work, and there are other areas of the country as 

well. But labor markets are very localized——

Senator COBURN. I do not want to debate that issue with you. 

The fact is that we are at an all-time high employment, we are at 

an all-time low unemployment statistics. We are at an all-time low 

in terms of underemployment statistics. If that persists, will you 

have time and will that change your cost numbers significantly if 

you are going to have to pay a significant increase over what you 

12

1The letter from Senator Don Nickles and copy of a June 18, 1982 Congressional Record appear in the Appendix on pages 82 and 83 respectively. 

might think today? Will that significantly change this $11.2 billion 

or $11.4 billion? 

Mr. KINCANNON. It is important also to factor in the fact that the 

baby-boom generation is coming to retirement now and will be in 

many cases quite interested in short-term temporary employment, 

and a lot of them are very well qualified, not just to use the 

handhelds, which actually have seemed quite usable by people that 

are not particularly trained in technology. 

I am not particularly worried about that. We have to keep our 

eye on it. 

Senator COBURN. Do you have a planned strategy in place in the 

department now if, in fact, you were to run into those type of problems? 

Mr. KINCANNON. Yes. We are prepared to recruit more than a 

million workers to meet our half a million required workforce. 

Senator COBURN. Alright. And have you tested the phone system 

yet? 

Mr. KINCANNON. Tested the phone system? I am not sure I understand. 

Senator COBURN. In terms of the census and how you are going 

to do that. 

Mr. KINCANNON. Certain phone functions will be the same as we 

have used in the past, the caddy interviewing of people who telephone in and want to report on the phone to us. We will take those 

down with caddy type reporting that we use month in and month 

out and have used even in recent censuses. So those have not been 

tested. Again, they are based on technology that is proven. 

The interactive voice response method has been tested. It is not 

being tested in the dress rehearsal, but it has been tested in other 

means, and we are prepared, I think, to go with the telephone systems that we have, the voice-based telephone systems. And, of 

course, the telephone systems used to relay the information, the 

encrypted information, from the handheld computers have been 

tested. 

Senator COBURN. Well, the GAO had commented that certain 

parts of the phone system have not yet been tested. That was the 

purpose for my question based on their testimony. 

Mr. KINCANNON. I think they may have been referring to testing 

in the dress rehearsal, but I am not sure. 

Senator COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to put into the 

record a letter from former Senator Don Nickles dated May 18, 

2007, and also put a copy of a June 18, 1982, Congressional Record 

as to Senator Nickles’ amendment in terms of English well as limited English proficient, and I would like to quote it.1 ‘‘I appreciate 

you bringing me up to date with the current interpretation by the 

Census Bureau, which includes mandating a bilingual assistance 

for people who say they speak English well. This is a direct contradiction of the amendment I offered and that was passed to include persons who say they speak English well as limited English 

proficient is a needless waste of time and resources.’’

13

I will quote further from his letter. ‘‘It is embarrassing to see 

that the Director of the Census Bureau state in your letter to 

change the definition of limited English proficient would need to 

pass an amendment similar to my amendment, which passed in 

1982.’’

Senator CARPER [presiding]. Without objection. 

Senator COBURN. The reason I bring that up is that the very intent of Senator Nickles’ amendment is what you say needs to happen to change what you are doing, and here is the author of the 

amendment saying you have totally misread what he said in his 

amendment. And I think the record needs to reflect that because 

that was not his intention. That was not the amendment that was 

passed. And the Congressional Record which I introduced will support that with the statements on the floor. 

And with that, I will limit my questioning, and we will go on. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Dr. Coburn. 

Senator COBURN. Mr. Chairman, could we have one of your staff 

stay for the next session just so they can hear what we are doing, 

if you wouldn’t mind? 

Senator CARPER. That would be good. I would appreciate that 

too. 

I was asking a question and had to run off for the vote, and I 

did not give you a chance to fully answer it. But the question that 

I was asking was: What problems are you running into so far during your dress rehearsal? And the dress rehearsal is actually next 

year, isn’t it, in those two areas? 

Mr. KINCANNON. It began in May with the address canvass portion of the dress rehearsal in those dress rehearsal areas. So we 

are in the middle of it. The most exciting and well-known part of 

the dress rehearsal is non-response follow-up, but there is a lot 

more——

Senator CARPER. What problems are you running into so far during the dress rehearsal? Which I guess we are, what, 2 months into 

now? 

Mr. KINCANNON. The address canvass portion began in May and 

was completed at the end of June, on schedule. I went through 

some of these items, problems that we had encountered. There 

were some software problems which were being—some of them 

were being corrected by patches transmitted from the Harris Corporation to the handhelds. That worked very well. Others problems 

will need different kinds of fixes than those we worked on before. 

We have to go out in the field for the non-response follow-up portion of the dress rehearsal late next spring. 

There were some problems and challenges in the contractor’s 

Help Desk process. They had envisioned a different flow of concerns partly because of those software problems. And they are now 

readjusting to make sure up front there is enough people to respond to that. That is critical that workers not be discouraged by 

hanging on the line or getting a busy signal. 

But there have been a lot of successes as well. I mentioned that 

we replaced the password protection of the security of the data on 

the handhelds with a biometric measure, a fingerprint. And whereas 40 percent of the calls to the Help Desk during the 2006 test 

census were about people that had forgotten their password and 

14

needed to have it unlocked, that dropped to near zero because you 

cannot forget your fingers mostly. That was very good. 

The handhelds I mentioned, I think to both of you, proved quite 

durable. Only a handful, 5 out of 1,400, were defective and 2 more 

were damaged, and all were immediately replaced out of adequate 

reserves. 

We completed 100 percent of the address canvass and on time, 

so that went pretty well. Those are the main problems that I think 

we encountered with the handhelds. 

Senator CARPER. Alright. 

Senator COBURN. Just a couple other questions. My staff showed 

me an article that was in Government Executive yesterday where 

they talked about some of the older employees having trouble with 

the technology on the handheld. Is that a big problem or a small 

problem? This is from Government Executive yesterday: ‘‘. . . one 

of the leaders she trained—an older woman—quit because the technology was too intimidating.’’ Is that a small problem or is that a 

bigger problem? 

Mr. KINCANNON. I think it is a small problem. That is our experience in the test in New York in 2004, and in Texas and in the 

other test——

Senator COBURN. And it was tested with older individuals who 

are not necessarily computer savvy. 

Mr. KINCANNON. Yes, it was tested with people who applied for 

jobs and got them. 

Senator COBURN. Yes, OK. And then one other thing. The cost 

of these handhelds is about $400, correct? 

Mr. KINCANNON. Yes. I have an exact figure here, $411.43. 

Senator COBURN. And you are also paying for a wire service on 

top of that, Internet service? 

Mr. KINCANNON. Yes, that is correct. 

Senator COBURN. Just by comparison, an iPhone costs $400, and 

we bought how many thousands of these? 

Mr. KINCANNON. We will buy at least half a million. 

Senator COBURN. So we are going to buy 500,000 at $410. It 

ought to be great. 

Mr. KINCANNON. It ought to fit its need perfectly and yet not be 

desirable for anybody else because it will not have any other use 

than collecting census information. 

Senator COBURN. Alright. Thank you very much. 

Mr. KINCANNON. If we had 500,000 iPhones, if we could get 

them, I am not sure how long they would stay in our hands, frankly. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Kincannon, in 2004, GAO recommended 

that the Census Bureau develop a comprehensive, integrated 

project plan for managing decennial operations complete with milestones, complete with, I think, itemized cost estimates and risk and 

mitigation plans. I understand that this document has yet to be 

produced despite the fact that Census Day is less than 3 years 

away and we are in the middle, as you said, of the 2010 dress rehearsal as we speak. 

When do you expect the Bureau’s strategic plan will be finalized? 

And what are the impediments to completing this plan? 

15

Mr. KINCANNON. We did submit to GAO in December of last year 

our research and development management plan, and they have 

found that useful, I believe. They can corroborate that or deny——

Senator CARPER. When you say ‘‘they,’’ what does that mean? 

Mr. KINCANNON. The General Accounting Office, yes. Let the 

record show I pointed to my friends and colleagues over there. And 

there are plans in order to develop other versions and next levels. 

They understand that and have, as I believe, agreed that we are 

proceeding in the proper manner to get that done. 

Some of that is supposed to be August. It is not another version 

of this research plan, but it is the next layer of planning that will 

be available toward the end of August. 

Senator CARPER. What are the impediments to completing the 

plan? 

Mr. KINCANNON. Well, there is a lot of work to get it completed, 

and we are working on that diligently and we will complete it. 

Senator CARPER. By when? 

Mr. KINCANNON. End of August. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. KINCANNON. I answered somewhat speculatively about the 

population in the areas covered by the dress rehearsal. 

Senator CARPER. Oh, yes. 

Mr. KINCANNON. I said several tens of thousands. Actually, in 

the Fayetteville area, it is 334,000 households, and in San Joaquin 

County, California, 231,000 households. So it is a much more substantial area. 

Senator CARPER. What is the rationale for having chosen those 

particular locales with that kind of population? 

Mr. KINCANNON. The areas were selected based on having some 

language diversity, some group quarters, and some military bases 

and personnel who present unique kinds of enumeration problems. 

Senator CARPER. Alright. As you know, there are segments of the 

population that are always harder or easier to count than others. 

What are some of the reasons for that problem? What is the Census Bureau planning for 2010 to make it easier to capture those 

who have been difficult to reach in the past? 

Mr. KINCANNON. We have found over the years that difficulty to 

count or reluctance to respond correlates with low-income levels, 

low education levels, and youthfulness. Older people, those with an 

education, and those with higher incomes——

Senator CARPER. When you say ‘‘youthfulness,’’ just describe 

what you mean by ‘‘youthfulness’’? 

Mr. KINCANNON. Say up to 25, maybe younger than that. Rather 

young people. I have a very broad spectrum of what I see as young 

nowadays, but there would be a few young people in the second 

row up there. Some of them are not quite so young as that, I guess. 

Senator CARPER. They look pretty young to me. 

Mr. KINCANNON. Yes. I find it difficult adapting to the age of my 

own children, but now that they have children themselves, I have 

to face up to their adulthood. 

So it is very young people, teenagers, maybe early 20s, people 

who have lower incomes, people who have less educational attainment. That often in our society, but not always, correlates with minority group status. But poorer white people also do not always 

16

have good response cooperation. It has to do with your involvement 

in society, your comfort with society, and the stakes you have in 

society, I suppose. 

What are we doing to address this? Of course, we have a large 

and growing immigrant population, legal and illegal. That is not a 

technical use of the term ‘‘illegal,’’ but you know what I mean. This 

means that we have much more language diversity, and we pay 

close attention to that. This year, or this census, because we have 

a short-form-only census, we will be able to mail in certain areas 

a bilingual, side-by-side, English-Spanish questionnaire. That is 

going to be very helpful with the largest language minority group 

in the country. 

We will target the neighborhoods where we send that based on 

the results from the American Community Survey, which tells us 

where there are neighborhoods with people who do not speak 

English very well. It is the same standard we use with the Voting 

Rights Act. And there we will mail bilingual questionnaires. That 

has tested very well, and we believe it will have a positive effect 

on response. 

Other languages will be provided. There will be some translated 

questionnaires for the five largest other languages than English 

and Spanish, and then we will have questionnaire guides, that is, 

a translation of the questionnaire but not a full questionnaire, so 

that you will have to look at an English questionnaire and look at 

the number on the translation guide and understand it and be able 

to fill it out that way. That will be for about 30 other languages. 

There are other things, too, of course. We have a partnership 

program planned. This was very successful in the 2000 census. We 

formed partnerships with national organizations like NALEO and 

the NAACP and so forth, as well as groups that are not concerned 

particularly with minority groups but with other parts of society. 

We also have a cadre of partnership workers in the regions working with grass-roots leaders in their area. This raises the awareness of people who are leaders in all the communities in our country and who have, let’s face it, more credibility than someone coming out from the regional office, and certainly from Washington, to 

say this is important to you and it is safe to report because we hold 

it confidential. And these groups not only convey a sense of confirmation about the importance and safety of responding to the census. They also are able to secure the cooperation of these local 

groups in providing space for our use for recruiting, for training, 

and for promoting the census. And an evaluation in 2000 indicated 

that the value of space provision alone more than paid for the partnership program. And we are quite confident that GAO is positive 

about this, too, that the partnership program did improve the cooperation and turnout of people who otherwise might not have answered the census. 

We will have a promotion, an advertising campaign. The advertising will be paid advertising, as it was so very successful in 2000. 

We will have a private contractor. That contract will be awarded 

probably at the end of August, early September, for a single integrated plan for all of our promotional activities—advertising, partnership, other kinds of promotional things. 

Senator COBURN. Will that be competitively bid? 

17

Mr. KINCANNON. Yes, sir. It has been competitively bid. It has 

been out for some time, and as I say, we are in the stage of approaching the award decision now. That contractor will produce a 

plan for all these activities in consultation with us by February of 

next year. Then we will be able to get moving on all this. 

Senator COBURN. Is that a fixed-price contract? 

Mr. KINCANNON. I think they have bid, and we look at the bid 

made and the value we get in return. 

Senator COBURN. Is it a fixed-price or a cost-plus contract? 

Mr. KINCANNON. Cost plus. 

Senator COBURN. OK. 

Senator CARPER. I have just one more issue to raise, and I think 

Senator Coburn raised this while I was voting. The issue deals 

with the option that we have chosen not to pursue, at least this 

time, and that is the option of doing at least a portion of the census 

on the Internet, an online approach. Apparently, you looked at it, 

you thought about it, and decided, at least this time, not to do it. 

What would have had to be different for you to have come to a 

different conclusion? 

Mr. KINCANNON. What we would have to have is some test results that showed we gained from it, that we increased the response rate overall, that some people replied that otherwise would 

not; or a large enough proportion of the population replied that we 

would not have to print so many questionnaires; or could otherwise 

save on processing costs. And we would have to have a comfortable 

feeling in our anatomy about the security of that and the control 

of risk of phishing and other kinds of dangers that occur on the 

Web. 

The nature of the census is such that you have a very limited 

period to get things in. And if a rumor starts about identity theft 

through the census response, we are concerned about that. 

Senator CARPER. In Delaware, our State slogan in the First State 

of Delaware is ‘‘It is good being first.’’ I can tell you from experience there are some things you do not want to be first in. 

Mr. KINCANNON. Yes, sir. 

Senator CARPER. But there are other countries, as I recall, that 

have actually done an online census. In fact, has Canada done—

what are some other——

Mr. KINCANNON. They offer an online option in their census, as 

did Australia and New Zealand. 

Senator CARPER. Those are countries with which we have actually a fair amount in common and a lot of affinity for. Canada is 

our neighbor to the north and we have a lot of interaction with that 

country, especially. 

Why do you suppose they found value in and decided to use the 

Internet as an option and we have not? Why does it seem to work 

for them but not for us? 

Mr. KINCANNON. Why did the Canadians try it? I think their law 

requires them to try it, requires all government services to have a 

Web-based way of using that service. I do not want to suggest that 

at this stage of the decade, but I think that is a fact. 

There are a number of differences in the Canadian census. These 

are people that we work with closely, we admire them very much, 

but they have different requirements laid on them. They do not 

18

have any statutory deadline by which they produce results, so that 

if some failure occurs, they can take the time to recoup. We have 

to report the results by December 2010. I am sure we could suggest 

a change in that, but we would not like to have to do that. 

Also, Canada does not produce nearly the geographic detail, so 

you can also take more leisure and have less demanding requirements. They produce data for the provinces and for around 45 metropolitan areas and about 5,000 census subdivisions. They produce 

track data in the metropolitan areas only. They have about 5,000 

tracks, I think it is. California alone has 7,000 tracks, and in the 

country as a whole, we have over 8 million tracks. So there is 

quite—I am sorry, 8 million blocks and a large number of tracks 

as well. So we produce a lot more geographic detail, and it may be 

that our population is—I do not know. Our response rate was in 

between New Zealand and Australia. One of those was at 9; we had 

a test at 6, 7, and one at 7.2, and the second of those was at a little 

over 6, I believe. 

Senator CARPER. I am sorry. Just a clarification. What is the significance of——

Mr. KINCANNON. The percentage of the population replying by 

Internet. In Canada it was higher, about 18 percent, and so although they did not save any money in 2000—I am sorry, their 

2006 census it would have been. They believe they have confidence 

that they can print somewhat fewer questionnaires in their 2011 

census. 

Senator CARPER. I do not know how long in this country we have 

had the option of filing our taxes online, but my guess is that the 

first time we did it, the number or the percentage of people who 

elected to do so was not so great. I think now it is probably over 

half. 

Senator COBURN. Sixty percent. 

Senator CARPER. Yes, about 60 percent. 

Your successor has been nominated, and so there is, I would say, 

a fair chance that you will not hold the same position 10 years 

from now that you hold today. Senator Coburn will probably still 

be around. I am not sure where I will be in 10 years. 

But looking down the line 10 years from now, somebody else will 

be sitting in your seat. Do you think 10 years from now we will 

still be debating whether or not it makes sense to do a portion or 

have as an option an Internet alternative as part of the census? 

Mr. KINCANNON. I do not know any way to answer that. I cannot 

tell whether we will have a more secure Internet with less cyber 

crime than we do now. I do not know whether there will be broader 

uses by the Census Bureau in household surveys with the Internet 

and whether that will justify the investment in a very secure system that might be robust under those circumstances. Trying to 

foresee what will happen with technology is difficult. 

There was a film 20 years or so ago called ‘‘A Clockwork Orange,’’ and it looked into the future, and the future of sound reproduction was a very fancy tape cassette. Even by the time the film 

came out, CDs had replaced that, and now we see CDs have been 

replaced by DVDs and super DVDs and HD DVDs and all kinds 

of things so that one’s head almost spins at the evolution of technology. 

19

We will continue exploring and testing the Internet, not for 2010, 

but to see how it evolves and whether we can make use of it. It 

is very attractive in theory, and if we can make it work for us, then 

that will be——

Senator COBURN. I am just appalled. If the Internal Revenue 

Service that has 10 million pages worth of regulations can have a 

secure Internet service where 60 percent of the people in this country can file online, all the businesses have to file online, to tell me 

that we are waiting on technology to be able to catch up in the census, I just do not buy that, Mr. Kincannon. I am sorry. But that 

technology is out there today. It is the fact that we have not had 

the vision to go get it, and it does not sound like we are going to 

have the vision to do it in 2010. 

I would just say—and I told you this at the last hearing. I am 

going to do everything I can to force Internet census down your 

throat, and I am going to do it with amendments on the floor. They 

may lose, but the American people are going to say—when 70 percent of the people in this country are online and the head of the 

Census Bureau is saying we do not think we can do this safely or 

appropriately, they will not buy that either. 

And so I think you all are living in the past instead of the future, 

and I would recommend heartily to you that you get on board so 

that when we are doing this in 2020 that we are online and that 

everything has been planned now to make sure we get there. It is 

appalling that we are not doing the American Community Survey 

online right now. I spent 30 minutes on the phone with one of your 

people answering questions that I did not want to answer just out 

of the American Community Survey. I could have done the whole 

thing on the Internet in 10 minutes. But I spent 20 minutes filling 

it out on paper and then another 30 minutes with your agent. It 

is impossibly inefficient, and it needs to change. 

And so I am just offering a challenge to you today that I am 

going to be there—you know it. I am very plain-spoken. I am very 

forthright in what I am going to do. It is unconscionable that we 

are not doing some of this on the Internet, and it does not have 

anything to do with security, and it does not have anything to do 

with technology that is out there today. It has everything to do 

with the lack of vision of getting it done. And I know you have run 

a test and you were not happy with the test. But nobody gets to 

see that test. 

One other thing. Why in the world are you doing a cost-plus contract on the promotion for the census rather than a fixed-price contract? 

Mr. KINCANNON. Well, I do not know the answer to that. 

Senator COBURN. Well, you are in charge of it. Why are we not 

doing a fixed-price contract for something you know what is going 

to do, rather than have a cost-plus contract that people are—whatever it costs, we are going to pay it plus. You cannot manage that 

at the same time you manage the census. Why is there not a fixedprice contract so that the American people know what we are going 

to get, here is the value of what we are going to get, and here is 

what we are going to pay? Because we have a terrible record on 

cost-plus contracts throughout this government. So why would we 

not have a fixed-price contract? 

20

Mr. KINCANNON. I will send you an answer about that. I am not 

sure I agree with you, but I appreciate your point. 

Senator COBURN. Well, I tell you, this Subcommittee has looked 

at a ton of cost-plus contracts, and we have not seen many that 

have been very beneficial to the American taxpayer. Most of them 

have been very beneficial to the contractor. Most businesses would 

not do it in a cost-plus. They would do it with a fixed price. Why 

aren’t we? And I would be happy to have your answer. And I have 

three other questions to submit for the record. 

Mr. KINCANNON. Well, I did not exactly answer some of your implied questions about that. 

On the IRS—and I do not manage the IRS. I am a taxpayer. I 

have once filed online and once not filed online and had the option 

to do so. The IRS does not operate a secure website that 60 million 

people can file on. You buy software from a private company, send 

it to them, and they relay it to the——

Senator COBURN. Why couldn’t the Census do that? The technology is out there. As I said, the technology is there. It is the vision of using the technology to get us to where we want to go. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Kincannon, you may want to have a chat 

with your nominated successor to say to get ready to answer that 

question when we have our hearing for his or her nomination. 

Mr. KINCANNON. I think my nominated successor is familiar with 

the Senator from Oklahoma’s views on this matter, and I do not 

know what his views are, and I do not intend to discuss them with 

him prior to his confirmation. 

Senator CARPER. Alright. I think that pretty well wraps it up for 

today with respect to your testimony. Anything you want to add before you——

Mr. KINCANNON. I defer to the authority of the Subcommittee 

and the full Committee, but I hope that you are assiduous in conducting hearings on my successor and free me to maybe do one of 

these cost-plus contracts with——

Senator COBURN. Fixed price. 

Mr. KINCANNON. Oh, OK. Fixed price. that would be alright. 

Senator CARPER. I will say on that subject, we had a full Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing today 

on, among other things, contracting out. And one of the questions 

I asked of our panel was: Give us some examples of where cost-plus 

or no-bid contracts make sense. They struggled to come up with the 

answers. 

How many years of service do you have to the people of this 

country? 

Mr. KINCANNON. Thirty-five years of Federal service and 8 years 

at the OECD, so that is enough, I think. 

Senator CARPER. That is a lifetime. And while we may have some 

disagreement with you with respect to our use of the Internet as 

an option in regard to the 2010 census, I think I speak for all of 

us in thanking you for your service to the people of our country. 

We will try not to prolong too long the consideration of your successor and to give you the opportunity to head on to the rest of 

your life. Thank you very much. 

Mr. KINCANNON. Thank you both. 

21

Senator CARPER. You bet. With that, let me invite our second 

panel to join us, please. 

Senator Coburn, you are recognized. 

Senator COBURN. While you are coming forward, I just wanted 

to put a couple of things up that we have looked at. First, the one 

that is up there now shows per capita cost of the census in terms 

of individuals. With technology, we are getting behind. The next 

sign is after inflation cost of the census, which I think is very telling. These are in 2000 dollars, I believe. In 1970, we spent $900 

million, 1980, $2.2 billion; 1993, $3.3 billion; 2000, $6.6 million; 

and in constant dollars, we are going to spend $9.3 billion this year 

on census, which is essentially 6 percent more people. So we are 

going to have at least a minimum, in constant dollars, 50-percent 

increase in dollars for a 6-percent increase in the number of people. 

The cost of the census shows the absolute total cost in thousands 

and increase percentage from 40 percent—from 2000 to 2010, we 

are anywhere from 79 percent or above, 2000 was 152 percent 

above the one in 1990, 120 percent, 1980, 350 percent. The point 

is we cannot afford to keep growing as a population because we are 

going to go bankrupt counting it. 

Finally, to make my point, 74 percent of the American public 

adults are online right now; 60 percent of the people and 100 percent of business pays their taxes online. So I have a challenge, and 

the challenge is to the American public. Help us make the census 

better. Take the challenge. Can you beat Uncle Sam? Figure it out. 

Less than $90 for a household to get all the counts that we need. 

And Mr. Kincannon is not here anymore, but he missed my point 

on the piece of equipment. For $400, you can get an iPhone that 

does 20 things. And we got a piece of equipment that is going to 

be good for one census, $220 million, and then we are going to 

throw it away. It is not going to be good for anything. 

So, first of all, we have overpaid for what we have bought in 

terms of technology, which was probably another cost-plus contract 

instead of a fixed-price contract. And those are the kind of things 

that we need to be paying attention to here. 

I again will say—and I said this to Mr. Kincannon—the American public will not buy the fact that we are not doing this online. 

There is no excuse for us not to do a portion of it online, even at 

this late date. I know they are risk averse because of the criticisms 

they get from this body. But this is not a hard thing to do, and the 

technology is out there, and we just need the leadership and vision 

to do it. 

I thank the Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. You bet. Thank you, Dr. Coburn. 

We have our four witnesses here. I am not going to give a full 

introduction, but I would like to just mention that Mathew Scir ́e, 

who I understand will be delivering the oral statement for both of 

our GAO witnesses, is Director of GAO’s Strategic Issues team. 

Welcome, or as we say in Delaware, ‘‘Bienvenue.’’

Mr. Powner is Director of GAO’s Information Technology team. 

I believe you are here to respond to questions but not to testify. Is 

that right? Welcome. Thank you. 

Mr. Reamer, a fellow at The Brookings Institution, Metropolitan 

Policy Program, thanks for joining us. 

22

1The prepared joint statement of Mr. Scir ́e and Mr. Powner appears in the Appendix on page 

43. 

And, finally, Mr. McTigue comes to us from the Mercatus Center 

at George Mason University, where he works as Vice President of 

the Center and Director of the Government Accountability Project. 

Welcome. 

We are delighted that you are all here. Your entire testimonies 

will be entered into the record, and we will recognize each of you 

for roughly 5 minutes. If you go a little bit long, we will not make 

a big deal of it, but try to keep pretty close to 5 minutes. Thank 

you. 

Mr. Scir ́e, you are on. 

TESTIMONY OF MATHEW J. SCIR ́ E,1 DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC 

ISSUES, AND DAVID A. POWNER, DIRECTOR, INFORMATION 

TECHNOLOGY, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. SCIR ́ E. Mr. Chairman, Senator Coburn, my colleague and I 

thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss preparations for the 2010 census. Thorough planning is important to the 

success of any large, long-term project. To enhance the Census Bureau’s performance and accountability, we recommended that it develop a comprehensive project plan and annually updated life-cycle 

cost estimates. The Bureau is now developing such a plan and has 

updated its cost estimates. However, more robust information on 

the likelihood of key assumptions and their impact on life-cycle 

costs could help inform the Congress not only what the census is 

likely to cost, but also the confidence of that estimate. One key assumption is the productivity of field workers. 

Mr. Chairman, Census 2010 relies as never before on the use of 

contractor-developed automation and technology. At the request of 

this Subcommittee, we are assessing four key technology investments. Thus far, we see mixed progress. For example, while the 

Decennial Response Integration System is expected to meet cost 

targets during the dress rehearsal, the Field Data Collection Automation program is projected to experience cost overruns. Also, the 

Bureau has delayed some key functionality that was expected to be 

part of the dress rehearsal and did not complete plans for end-toend testing that is critical to understanding the performance of 

interrelated systems. Finally, we believe project teams could do 

more to identify risks, establish mitigation plans, and report risk 

status to higher-level officials. 

It is important today for the Bureau to monitor closely the costs, 

schedule, and performance of its IT acquisitions and aggressively 

manage the risks that they face. Mr. Chairman, we have entered 

a new and critical stage in the planning and operations of the decennial census. Dress rehearsal operations are well underway, and 

the very first operation of Census 2010 in which the Bureau enlists 

the help of local governments has been launched. More recently, we 

observed the first use of the handheld computers by field workers 

in the address canvassing operation of the dress rehearsal. These 

devices are keystone to the reengineered census. We observed technical difficulties with the devices, however. Without correction, 

23

1The prepared statement of Mr. Reamer appears in the Appendix on page 65. 

these inefficiencies can affect worker productivity and ultimately 

the cost of the census. 

Finally, I would like to draw attention to Bureau plans for enumeration in the Gulf Coast region. The effects of Hurricanes 

Katrina and Rita are still visible today, and numerous housing 

units have been or will be lost. Conversely, in some jurisdictions, 

there is new development. This continuing change in housing stock 

may affect census operations. For example, the productivity of Bureau field staff conducting address canvassing could be affected as 

they potentially face challenges of distinguishing between occupied, 

uninhabitable, as well as temporary housing units doubled up on 

lots. On the other hand, non-response workload could be increased 

if the Bureau mails questionnaires to housing units that are vacant 

on Census Day. 

In summary, we believe that the challenges highlighted today require careful monitoring and oversight. More transparent planning 

and cost reporting will help. Likewise, the costs, schedule, and performance of key technology investments demand greater attention. 

As in the past, we look forward to supporting the Subcommittee’s 

oversight efforts to promote a timely, complete, accurate, and costeffective census. 

This concludes my opening remarks. Thank you again for the opportunity to speak today. My colleague and I would be glad to take 

any questions that you may have. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Mr. Scir ́e. 

Mr. Reamer, you are recognized. Your full statement will be entered into the record. 

TESTIMONY OF ANDREW REAMER,1 FELLOW, METROPOLITAN 

POLICY PROGRAM, THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION 

Mr. REAMER. Chairman Carper, Senator Coburn, I am pleased to 

be here. My role today is twofold: First, I will describe the extraordinary return on investment the Nation gets from the decennial 

census; and, second, I will review key issues with regard to the 

Census Bureau’s readiness to conduct the census. 

The census is fundamentally important to the Nation in terms of 

our democracy and conducting public policy, as well as to the functioning of our $13.6 trillion economy. The architecture of our representative democracy rests on the foundation provided by the census. The House is apportioned according to the census. The Electoral College votes, therefore, are based on the census. And because 

the President is selected by the Electoral College, the judiciary is, 

in fact, affected by the census as well. So every Federal branch is 

affected by the census. 

State legislatures rely on the census to redraw congressional and 

State districts. Local governments use the census to create county 

council districts and school board districts and voting precincts. 

The decennial census is also critically important for the effective 

performance of government. When I discuss the value of the decennial census, by extension I am including two additional census programs: One is the Annual Population Estimates Program, which 

uses the decennial census counts as a basis to provide annually upVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:32 Apr 03, 2008 Jkt 037360 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\37360.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
24

dated population estimates; and the second is the American Community Survey, which provides on an annual basis detailed characteristics of population down to the neighborhood level. 

The Federal Government relies on the census data in three ways. 

First, the census data guide the distribution of hundreds of billions in Federal financial assistance. In fiscal year 2004, I estimate 

that at least $287 billion across 75 grant programs were allocated 

across the country on the basis of census numbers or census-derived numbers. That is about 62 percent of the total, and I have 

given each of you a packet that has the figures for your State. 

Second, census data provide key benchmarks for Federal enforcement of civil rights and anti-discrimination laws and court decisions in voting and in the workplace. 

Third, census data play an important role in informing the design, implementation, and evaluation of a variety of Federal efforts 

beyond financial assistance and regulation, including, for instance, 

adult education, small business development, veterans’ health, affordable housing, transportation planning, disabled students, and 

even groundwater contamination. 

And the census provides the basis for giving Members of Congress up-to-date profiles of their constituent population through the 

American Community Survey. 

State and local governments rely heavily on census data to make 

on-the-ground investment decisions across all domains of government, including education, highway transportation, affordable 

housing, access to health care, workforce training, criminal justice, 

and, very importantly, responses to and planning for natural and 

manmade disasters. 

The influence of the census is also pervasive across the private 

sector. Businesses of all types—retail, manufacturing, services—

and all sizes—from J.C. Penney, Wal-Mart, and Target, down to 

sole proprietorships—use census data to identify markets, select 

business locations, make investment decisions in plant and equipment and new product development, determine goods and services 

offered, and assess labor markets. Nonprofits such as hospitals and 

community service organizations use them, and the public and private sector work together in local economic development using census data to create jobs and expand the tax base. 

Fundamentally, then, in my view, census data are essential for 

the effective operation of the entire $13.6 trillion economy. 

Now, with regard to preparedness for 2010, clearly we need a 

complete and accurate census for all these public purposes. Achieving such a census requires an accurate Master Address File. We 

need to know every address in the country, we need to get a questionnaire to each address, have them return it, and capture the information provided accurately. 

There are several issues in this regard. One is the Census Bureau needs adequate funding. It is the largest peacetime operation 

that the Nation undertakes, and it is important—whatever the appropriate cost is, it is important for Congress to recognize that 

preparations take several years in advance before the count and 

that the count does not start in 2010. 

The second issue is the management of the Local Update of Census Addresses program (LUCA). This program is critical to having 

25

an accurate Master Address File (MAF). This Census Bureau program gives States and localities the list of addresses currently in 

the MAF, and the localities can update it. Clearly, LUCA is important because it affects the flow of Federal funds, apportionment, 

and business investment decisions. In 2000, New York City added 

over a third of a million households through the LUCA process, so 

it is vital to localities. The 2010 program seems to be designed very 

well. However, there seem to have been some problems in the implementation in the 2008 dress rehearsal, and also in terms of actually getting OMB approval and asking for public comment. I encourage the Subcommittee to look into these issues of implementation. 

The third issue, mentioned earlier in your conversation with Mr. 

Kincannon, is the community partnership program. It is one thing 

to know where people live. It is another thing to get them to answer. And it is important that the Bureau have the funding it 

needs in a timely way to create a community outreach program to 

reach the hard-to-count. 

For fiscal year 2008, the Administration did not provide the Census Bureau with money for a community partnership program. The 

House Appropriations Committee added those funds, and I encourage this Subcommittee to support your colleagues in the conference 

committee to see that those funds are provided. 

There are several other issues listed in my testimony: An important way to count people called ‘‘Update Enumerate,’’ which I 

would be happy to talk about in the Q&A period; the process of 

training half a million temporary workers; managing technology 

contracts; back-up and contingency plans; and then, last, as Mr. 

Kincannon mentioned, a lot of people with senior experience are retiring, and how does the Census Bureau capture the knowledge 

that they have regarding the proper conduct of a census. 

I hope you have found my remarks of value, and I would be 

happy to answer any questions. 

Senator CARPER. I think we did. Thank you very much. Dr. 

Coburn. 

Senator COBURN. I just might note for our audience that Mr. 

McTigue is a former Minister of Labor from New Zealand and a 

Member of the Parliament of New Zealand. 

Senator CARPER. Is that right? Which island are you from? 

Mr. MCTIGUE. I am from the south. 

Senator CARPER. One of my favorite places on Earth is the South 

Island of New Zealand, especially Queenstown. 

Mr. MCTIGUE. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator CARPER. What a great place. 

Mr. MCTIGUE. We are still accepting migrants. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. In a couple of years, I might be tempted. Every 

now and then, I think the voters of Delaware would probably like 

for me to look in that direction. 

Well, we are delighted that you are here. You come from a beautiful place. 

26

1The prepared statement of Mr. McTigue appears in the Appendix on page 78. 

TESTIMONY OF MAURICE P. McTIGUE,1 VICE PRESIDENT OF 

THE MERCATUS CENTER, AND DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT, GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY 

Mr. MCTIGUE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you for the invitation to present testimony in front of this Subcommittee again. 

My expertise is not as a statistician but, rather, in organizational 

performance, and in that organizational performance work, trying 

to understand how organizations might be able to improve their 

level of performance. So my comments are really couched in those 

terms. 

While it is a constitutional requirement to gather the census 

each 10 years, it should not be considered to be a bureaucratic 

process. In my view, it should be considered to be a dynamic process, because its real function is to enable better decisionmaking by 

decisionmakers at the level of Congress and right down through 

the private sector and the public sector. That means that there are 

two criteria that become very important for the Census Bureau in 

conducting the census. The first, of course, is accuracy, but the second is the utility of the information. How useful is this information 

going to the parties that use it in decisionmaking? And, of course, 

if you look at utility, one of the questions then is timeliness. And 

timeliness, of course, is something that we have become much more 

critically aware of as we move into the information revolution. So 

improving the quality of information and improving the access to 

it would indeed improve the quality of decisionmaking. 

Electronic measures are the best way to do that, and some of the 

experience that I have had with the IRS here in the early stages 

of their online work was that response rates were low. It might 

come as a surprise to both of you that the public are not normally 

very happy about responding to government requests. In fact, from 

time to time they are even suspicious about it, and they need some 

encouragement. 

The early response rates for the IRS were quite low, but they did 

a lot of work on identifying those who did not file online and trying 

to find ways of encouraging them to do just that. It is wrong for 

the Census Bureau to think that you just offer the option and it 

will be taken up. You have to do something to quell the concerns 

of those people who are currently non-responsive. And I think that 

is one of the challenges for the Census Bureau going through to 

2020. 

Even at this late stage, with the quality of technology today, an 

option is something that, in my view, could easily be provided or 

manufactured. It is also, in my view, wrong to consider that the security issues are too difficult. The short census form this time contains very little information that is sensitive. Well, maybe some 

people care a lot about their age, but the rest of it really just identifies our name, our birth date, where we reside, and our background in terms of ethnicity—not things that are very sensitive. It 

was different when you had the long form. So I think that some 

of the arguments put up by the Census Bureau do not really hold 

water as far as that is concerned. 

27

The last comment that I want to make in that area, though, was 

that one of the discoveries of revenue organizations around the 

world as they move to online filing was not just the huge cost reduction of online filing, but it was the dramatic improvement in accuracy. The error rate for the IRS went down to 1/20 of what it was 

before. With the best will in the world, all of those people who voluntarily respond to the census are not going to get it right. More 

of them would get it right if they were doing it online, and that 

would improve the quality of that information for decisionmakers. 

Another point that I picked up in my research was this: There 

seems to be an undue concentration of the efforts of the whole process on the non-responders. One of the things that the IRS did very 

well was recognize that the more people that they could get to respond online, the more effective their tax collection process was. So 

they put a lot of effort into trying to get voluntary compliance and 

voluntary filing. There does not seem to be the same effort going 

on in the strategy for the census to encourage people to respond 

first so you have a lower cohort or a smaller cohort of people that 

you have to follow up with the very expensive non-response process. And concentrating on that, in my view, would reduce costs; it 

would also improve accuracy. 

I hope these comments are helpful to the Subcommittee, and I 

would be very happy to answer questions. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks very much to all of you. 

I want to stick with this idea, for at least a little bit, of an online 

option. When was the first time New Zealand used it? 

Mr. MCTIGUE. New Zealand conducts census every 5 years, even 

though I know that is an incorrect interpretation of the word, but 

it does it every 5 years because that also matches up with Boundary Review Commissions for setting electoral boundaries. I think 

that they have done one census. 

There would also be some differences in making comparisons. If 

you look at Dr. Coburn’s figures here, the percentage of adults online in New Zealand is probably closer to 50 percent, and the saturation of broadband access on the Internet would be even lower 

than it is in the United States, and some of these things require 

broadband access to be able to conduct the returns online effectively. So those might be two of the criteria. 

But I would expect that the first time you do something, you 

have to expect a low response and gradually build confidence in 

people being able to trust the process and to use it. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Powner, let me ask you a question, and this 

requires really some judgment, and I know you cannot answer this 

definitively. But if you were running the census, if you were our 

nominee for—and I do not think you are going to be, but if the 

President should call you tonight and say, ‘‘I want you to run the 

census for 2010. Can I submit your name to Coburn and Carper 

and that crew?’’ and for some reason you would say yes and you 

got confirmed, do you think you would have time to alter the game 

plan for 2010 so that at least we would have some mechanism that 

would help inform the process going forward to suggest—to learn 

from the experience, to see if it is a total disaster or if there is 

some virtue to it so that when we approach 2020 we will at least 

have had a head start? 

28

Mr. POWNER. Well, a couple of key points. I think that when you 

look at the feedback so far with all the testing that has occurred, 

the dress rehearsal is what is key. So we really want to look at the 

dress rehearsal, and you will be able to determine whether the 

handhelds are going to be successful at this point in time. 

As my colleague here mentioned, we are very concerned about 

the performance of those handhelds based on our observations to 

date. So I think going forward what we would want to do is place 

a lot of faith in that dress rehearsal. 

Now, here are some concerns with the acquisitions. Some of 

those acquisitions we have backed off in terms of including them 

in that dress rehearsal. There is a dissemination system referred 

to as DADS II. The contract was delayed one year. That will not 

be part of the dress rehearsal. The system that integrates Internet, 

phone—was to include Internet, phone, and the paper responses, 

there is some functionality that is being deferred, and that will not 

be included. 

So one of the key things is when we have this dress rehearsal, 

that will inform us a fair amount, but we also have to look at what 

is being deferred, and that raises the level of importance of future 

testing between 2008 and 2010, especially when you look at interfaces and all the interactions with the systems and the business 

processes. 

So dress rehearsal will give us a fairly informed position at that 

point in time, but that is not the end game, and we have got to 

look at that testing and take that very seriously going forward. 

Senator CARPER. Alright. You may have answered my question. 

I am not sure that you did. Is there some way to modify over the 

next year or so, as we approach the 2010 census, to include in the 

process at least a demonstration that would help inform us going 

forward as to whether or not the idea of doing an online census is 

something that we should consider expanding in 2020? 

Mr. POWNER. Well, in terms of the online census, if we were 

going to reconsider that, I think a key point—if you recall, the 

DRIS contract, which included the Internet response, was let—I believe it was October 2005. It included the Internet response at that 

point in time, and it was somewhere around spring of 2006 that we 

got word that the Internet was now not included. 

I think a key question, if you want to revisit the online response, 

is to go back to the contractor who has that contract—at one time 

it was in the contract, and they were planning for it: Internet, 

mail, phone. How easy or how difficult would that be to reinsert 

that, and what are the associated costs? That has been kind of a 

blind spot to us because usually when there is a contract modification, even pulling things out, I am not aware that the cost actually 

went down when we took the Internet response out. 

Senator COBURN. Twenty-two million dollars is the cost of that 

contract. 

Senator CARPER. Anybody else want to respond to the same question? 

Mr. SCIR ́ E. Well, I think I would just add that it is a little bit 

unclear what the process was in terms of deciding whether or not 

to include or exclude the Internet——

29

Senator COBURN. Is your microphone on? I am not sure I can 

hear you. 

Mr. SCIR ́ E. It is not clear what the process was for the Bureau 

as it went through and made the decision on the exclusion of the 

Internet. I think that is part of the point that Mr. Powner was trying to make here. And so it is tough to say what the analysis was 

at that point in time. The analysis that they have done most recently, which is about a month old, they look at the $22.5 million 

cost, and they look at various potential savings and conclude that 

the savings do not come anywhere near the cost. But part of the 

assumptions here have to do with the conditions under which they 

test what the Internet response would be, but these tests did not 

include advertising, for example. In a real use of the Internet, you 

would have advertising, which would promote the use of the Internet and so forth. 

So I do not believe that we really know what the Internet response would really be if it were offered. 

Senator COBURN. One of the things they could do is you could 

run the Internet census first, advertise and promote it, and then 

re-engage all your address book and everything else to lessen that 

cost. 

Can I follow up with a question or do you want to finish? 

Senator CARPER. Let me ask one more question, and then I will 

pass it over to you. 

Mr. Scı ́re, I gather from your testimony that you are not entirely confident that the 2010 census will actually cost $11.5 billion, as 

Mr. Kincannon said that he expects that it will. What were some 

of the factors that led to the last-minute cost increases that we saw 

in 2000? I asked Mr. Kincannon that question. Have you seen anything in your oversight that tells you that we are not about to see 

the same kind of escalation this time? And what, if anything, can 

we do to prevent the cost rise in 2010 that we experienced a decade 

or so earlier? 

Mr. SCIR ́ E. OK. Part of the explanation for the change in cost, 

the actual cost in 2000 was the late change in the form of the census, that they had the Supreme Court decision which took sampling off the table, and so they had to go to complete enumeration. 

So I think that is a major cost driver for the increase that they experienced in 2000. 

You asked about the $11.5 billion and the confidence that we 

have in the $11.5 billion estimate for 2010, and I would say that 

the Census Bureau does not know what confidence it has in the 

$11.5 billion estimate. One of the things that we had recommended 

is that the Bureau in its life-cycle cost estimation do sensitivity 

analysis, which would take a look at the factors that drive costs 

and to describe what the likelihood is of those particular assumptions. 

So productivity, for example, is a major assumption and driver 

for cost. If productivity is not what you would expect and the cost 

is going to increase, the Bureau could be reporting to the Congress 

what a 1-percent difference in productivity might translate into in 

terms of the ultimate life-cycle cost. And by doing that and looking 

at all the different factors that go into the estimate of cost, it could 

provide you an estimate of $11.5 billion, plus or minus the range 

30

of whatever they think it might actually be. So you can get sort of 

a range. 

I heard Mr. Kincannon talking about not seeing a forecast of 

large cost increases. He is not worried about wage rates. I think 

we would say we are more interested in an objective fact-based assessment of the likelihood of those various outcomes, and how a 

percentage difference in what they assume might translate into the 

ultimate cost. 

Senator CARPER. Alright. I am going to go back—and you may 

have answered this but I missed it. What, if anything, can we do 

in our oversight role and the Census Bureau in their role as the 

operational manager, what can we do to prevent costs in 2010 from 

going up dramatically, as they did a decade earlier? 

Mr. SCIR ́ E. Well, the one thing that I wanted to mention in part 

of my response was the census could provide better information to 

you about what these cost drivers are. So, for example, if the performance of the handheld computers really is what is going to ultimately drive the cost of the census, then the focus of oversight 

should really be on that. If it is wage rates—you talked about that 

earlier—then focus on that. 

But that is something that I do not see, is information that 

would permit you to identify the areas where there is the greatest 

sensitivity and the greatest influence on cost. That I think would 

help with oversight. 

Mr. POWNER. Chairman Carper, if I could also add from a tech- nology point of view that we are spending $3 billion of the $11.5 

billion on new technologies. And if you look historically at what has 

happened, a major cost driver is requirements creep. This is nothing new. We testified before you on the high-risk list and watchlist. 

That is a big reason for cost growth on many programs throughout 

the Federal Government. 

There is a concern about requirements creep. On the FDCA contract, which includes the handhelds and some of the other contracts, we are seeing evidence of requirements creep, and this is 

not anything new. Several years ago, we recommended to the Census Bureau that they ought to define those requirements as completely as possible up front so that there is not this ambiguity 

going forward. And sure enough, that is coming back to bite them 

at this time. 

Senator CARPER. OK. 

Senator CARPER. I believe its $220 million? 

Senator COBURN. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. We are doing our math up here on how much 

of the $11.5 billion is going to be spent for these handheld devices, 

and Senator Coburn says it is about $220 million, which is actually 

a fairly small percentage of the overall cost. It is, what, about 2 

percent or something, I think. 

Senator COBURN. But the whole contract is $600 million. 

Senator CARPER. Alright. OK, Dr. Coburn, you are on. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you. A couple of things. Mr. Scir ́e, you 

were talking about field data and cost overruns. Would you describe that a little bit more for me? In your opening statement you 

talked about you were worried about cost overruns on field data. 

Please go into a little more depth on that. 

31

Mr. SCIR ́ E. Yes, there are a couple of things, and I will ask my 

colleague to join in. 

First, what we observed at the dress rehearsal and the reason 

that we went out to do this was we realized that the handhelds are 

a keystone to the reengineered census, and so we are very interested in seeing how they perform. And, again, our observations are 

preliminary. I have to stress that. But what we did see is the inefficiencies in terms of being able to link multiple addresses to a single 

map spot, a slowness of the devices when it had a large assignment 

area or data for large assignment areas. Those affect efficiency. 

That affects productivity. And so the advantages that you would 

get—or part of the cost advantages that you would get from the introduction of this technology would be lost. So that is why we 

looked at that. 

We are working with the Bureau and with Harris Corporation to 

understand——

Senator COBURN. Mr. Kincannon says that is all software, not 

hardware. Is that right? 

Mr. SCIR ́ E. I would say we are still working to figure out what 

are the explanations for these. 

Senator COBURN. You do not know the answer to that. OK. 

Mr. SCIR ́ E. I also want to raise another point. Mr. Kincannon 

said that the address canvassing dress rehearsal started and finished on time. I think what we are interested in looking at is the 

productivity. How did these devices perform? Did the Bureau have 

to bring in additional resources in order to complete the address 

canvassing on time? So it is not just the starting and completing. 

It is also the conduct and——

Senator COBURN. What was the cost per contact? 

Mr. SCIR ́ E. We are looking at all those, but we also in the statement talk about cost overruns in the FDCA contract and the dress 

rehearsal, and I think my colleague can add to that, if you would 

like. 

Mr. POWNER. Yes, Dr. Coburn, we actually look at earned value 

data. I think you are familiar with that——

Senator COBURN. Yes. 

Mr. POWNER [continuing]. Where it is a requirement of the Administration; all contractors are required to provide that on major 

IT acquisitions. You can actually take that earned value data and 

project trends based on historically what has happened. And we 

are starting to see increases with the field data contract. It is projected right now only about $20 million, but there is still a ways 

to go. And given the uncertainty with requirements, as our written 

statement mentions, we are concerned about additional requirements growth and even more increases with that contract. 

The other thing to keep in mind, too, the DRIS contract, that is 

on schedule and within cost right now, but they are delaying 

functionality. So sometimes when you start delaying that 

functionality, it will catch up to you eventually. You will start seeing those. 

Senator COBURN. Does that belie the fact that it is supposedly on 

schedule and—that they are delaying the functionality, is there a 

problem? 

Mr. POWNER. Then it is not really on full schedule, correct. 

32

Senator COBURN. That is what I am saying. So you are saying 

opposite things with the same statement: Yes, we are on schedule 

and under budget, but we are delaying functionality, which means 

it is not working. 

Mr. POWNER. Yes, exactly. And that is why that earned value 

data—I mean, that is a common technique where you can say, hey, 

we are on schedule and budget. But with that earned value data, 

you get that third leg on whether you are on track with the delivery of functionality. And so that is the criticality, and we will continue to review that for your Subcommittee going forward. 

Senator COBURN. Your observations of the question Senator Carper asked about this plan from the census and contingency plan 

and here is what we are going to be and he said it was going to 

be available by, I believe, August. Do they have the planning in 

place and ready to go for options and contingencies that are not expected today but they have sat down and talked about what they 

are going to do? Do they have that plan? Is that there? Are they 

working toward what if this happens? Do they have the plans in—

or are they going to have to spend a ton more money to throw 

money at it because they have not planned? And I know that is 

general, so——

Mr. POWNER. Historically, what has happened is because we 

have the immovable deadline, you throw more money at it. Historically, that is what has happened. 

Senator COBURN. If you go back to this number from the 2000 census—did you say it was $1 billion, the reformatting because of 

the Supreme Court decision cost, a portion of that $1.4 billion 

or——

Mr. SCIR ́ E. The total additional cost is $1.5 billion, I think. 

Senator COBURN. OK. So you take $1.5 billion away from $6.3 

billion, you have $4.8 billion. So we are talking about almost—that 

is not going to happen this time. We know what is out there. So 

what you are really talking about is a 300-percent increase for this 

census over the one from 2000. And that is in spite of advanced 

technology in this country. 

By canceling the Lockheed Martin Internet contract, that is the 

reverse of requirement creep. That goes the opposite. Yet we did 

not see any savings from it. We are seeing increased costs; whereas, we save money here. 

I am going to go back to Senator Carper’s question. Can you perceive—kind of like our challenge to the American public, can you 

come up with a way to collect the census for less than $90? Go to 

my website, coburn.senate.gov/ffm, sign on, and we will give you 

the instructions on how you help us do oversight in the Federal 

Government. 

Can you perceive of a way where we could interject, either in a 

pilot study or another study, where we could have secure, advanced 

Internet responses to the census that is promoted prior to 2010? 

Can you imagine that in the realm of possibilities? 

Mr. POWNER. Absolutely. I mean, security, that is not an issue. 

There are various methods of encrypting that——

Senator COBURN. Technology is not a——

Mr. POWNER. The technology is there. How much time do you 

need to set it up, to test various interfaces and those types of 

33

things that will need to be put in place, especially with integrating 

that with the other data. But, sure, that is a possibility. 

Senator COBURN. All these firms that Mr. Reamer talked about 

who use census data to make business and economic decisions also 

employ a slew of private contractors who do exactly the same thing 

as the census. In other words, they are data collectors, they are 

screeners, they are survey takers. And, Mr. McTigue, you might respond to this. Is it off the wall to think that we couldn’t do this 

in the private sector more efficiently, cheaper, and better, and in 

an accurate way if, in fact, it was legal to do so? 

Mr. MCTIGUE. Well, certainly I am prepared to respond and say 

yes, of course, there are many organizations in the private sector 

that gather large quantities of highly secure data and handle it 

very securely. We would all be very unhappy if our banking information went astray, but much of it is handled online. Insurance information is handled online. A lot of medical information is sent 

around electronically, and it is done very securely. 

But there are other functions as well. For example, credit rating 

agencies gather huge quantities of information, and they send that 

product on to others who use it, and it is done in a very secure 

way. And that is information that we would be very unhappy if it 

became public, and it is very rare that it actually does. So the capability is out there. Do they actually do censuses? No. But they do 

lots of other counting. 

Even if you looked at a major grocery chain, every night they 

take the information from the cash registers, which supplies the information to restock all of the chain the following day, and that is 

extremely precise. 

So there are systems and capabilities out there and the experience to be able to do it. Can you do it between now and 2010 if 

you are allowed to? I think the answer is no, it is getting too close. 

But certainly that capability would exist in the private sector. 

Senator COBURN. Let me ask our GAO panelists, given what you 

are looking at, given the canvassing, the runs that we have seen, 

when should we look at this again as a Subcommittee, your recommendation, to be able to have the most impact on the Census 

Bureau, knowing that we are going to look at it? In other words, 

when would you recommend we come back up and have this discussion again to see if we are meeting any of the earmarks that you 

all see as deficit now? 

Mr. SCIR ́ E. Well, I think that Mr. Kincannon mentioned this upcoming August operational plan. What we had seen back in December was a research and development plan, and that had detailed 

milestones. It went through, I think, 2006, actually, not beyond. 

And that is why I have been looking forward to this kind of operational plan that would lay out the interrelationships among the 

operations. Looking at that might provide a baseline for understanding what are the key points, what are the key risks that the 

Bureau faces in Census 2010. And so that might help provide a 

road map, and looking at that road map itself I think would be a 

valuable oversight exercise. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. You bet. 

34

Mr. Powner, let me just go back and ask you a question, and 

maybe a question or two for Mr. Reamer. 

Mr. Powner, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you worked 

in the private sector and have some experience managing large 

procurements. Is that a fair statement? 

Mr. POWNER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. I also believe you have spent some time examining large IT projects in the Federal Government. Is that correct? 

Mr. POWNER. Correct. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Thinking back on some of that experience, 

some of what you have seen elsewhere, what mistakes—when you 

look at what the Census Bureau is doing as we approach the 2010 

census, any mistakes that—even if we have already talked about 

them, or if we have not—some mistakes that you think they may 

be making that we just ought to stop for a moment and say, ‘‘This 

is a mistake’’? 

Mr. POWNER. Well, I have mentioned five areas that we would 

like to see greater rigor. One is requirements. We still have moving 

baselines and requirements creep. We need to solidify those requirements as soon as possible on these major acquisitions. That 

is one. 

The other item is there are many interfaces involved with all of 

these systems. It is going to be very important that we identify all 

these interfaces and ensure that those interfaces are tested adequately. And then from a testing perspective, because not everything is going to be tested in the dress rehearsal, we still do not 

see some of the post-dress rehearsal test plans in place. It is not 

only—I mean, we are concerned about the execution of the plans, 

but we ought to have those plans in place now. 

Executive level involvement, one of the major issues where IT 

projects go awry is the executives are not as engaged in mitigating 

risks. And as you well know, we are looking at risk management 

of these major acquisitions for you, and there are a couple items 

with risk management that we are concerned about. One is, are all 

the risks clearly identified? I can tell you right now on the FDCA 

contract, the performance issues on the handhelds. 

Senator CARPER. Which contract? 

Mr. POWNER. This is the Field Data Collection, which includes 

the handhelds. If you look at the risk logs, the software problems 

associated with the handhelds are not listed on their risk log. So 

there is a concern about the completeness of those risks. There is 

a concern about having the appropriate mitigation plans in place. 

And, finally, getting those key risks reported to the executives, we 

do not see evidence on all the projects that the executives are going 

through the appropriate reviews. 

Senator CARPER. Alright. Thank you. 

Mr. Reamer, are you satisfied with the steps that the Census Bureau has taken to address some of the problems in the account that 

showed up in 2000? Do you think they are doing what they need 

to do to make the 2010 census more accurate and more inclusive 

of those segments of our population that are historically undercounted? Any ideas where they might need to make some improvement in this regard? 

35

Mr. REAMER. I am not a methodological expert in terms of the 

collection process, but from what I have read and what I understand, yes, I think they are making some improvements. 

In any census there is an undercount and a double count, and 

I think they are taking steps now to remove the double count 

where people can be counted in two——

Senator CARPER. How do they do that? 

Mr. REAMER. I am actually not familiar with the details. I think 

a different approach in terms of the application of residence rules 

to help people understand who they are and who they are not to 

include as they fill out the form. The Bureau can give you great 

detail on this. 

Senator CARPER. OK. 

Mr. REAMER. So that leaves the undercount. I think the Community Partnership Program was quite successful in trying to reduce 

the undercount. There is a need for that program going forward. 

Senator CARPER. OK. 

Mr. REAMER. Sorry. One other thing. 

Senator CARPER. Go ahead. 

Mr. REAMER. Which is improvements in the LUCA program. The 

first time the Census Bureau was required to do LUCA was in 

2000, and it was an uneven process. You needed a lot of resources 

as a city or a town to actually comply with the Census Bureau 

process. You could not call in the State government to help you out, 

and so I think the participation in LUCA was lower than it could 

have been. Places like New York—I mentioned New York added a 

third of million plus households through the LUCA process—were 

able to do it. They have the resources. But towns of 10,000 could 

not. 

This time around, I think, the Bureau has learned from its experience and has significantly improved the LUCA process, opened up 

the options that localities can use. State governments can come in 

and help. State governments have lots of resources, such as drivers’ 

records, that can help augment the review of addresses. And the 

Bureau I think has improved training, as I understand it, and 

lengthened the time. So my expectation—and I think the expectation of observers—is that LUCA will do better this time around. 

This is an instance where the Bureau has learned a lot from its 

first experience and so should provide a more accurate Master Address File. 

Senator CARPER. OK. Let me just say to each of our witnesses, 

if anybody has a short closing thought you would like to leave with 

us, that would be fine. Anybody at all? 

Mr. MCTIGUE. Mr. Chairman, if I could just make one additional 

comment, and it would be that it would be nice if some entrepreneurial thinking at the Census Bureau looked either at the Community Survey or at the 2010 census on the presumption that in 

2020 most of us will be filling in our census forms online, and using 

that as an experimental basis, either to run in parallel, the experiment would identify these are the things that we need to answer 

between now and 2020 if we are going to do that. But even more 

importantly, being able to get better responses from the Community Survey, which is conducted every month online, would be a 

36

good harbinger of having the potential capacity to do all of the census on line in 2020. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you for that thought. 

Anyone else a closing thought? 

Mr. SCIR ́ E. Yes, if I might add, part of what we are seeing is that 

the introduction of technology also introduces risks, and it is not 

enough to identify those risks. It is also necessary to develop risk 

mitigation strategies and alternatives should that technology not 

perform as expected. 

The other is that in terms of oversight, it is important to make 

more transparent what the plans are and what the costs are and 

how sensitive they are to underlying assumptions. 

Senator CARPER. Alright. Anyone else? Mr. Reamer. 

Mr. REAMER. Just a suggestion, that a lot of the conversation 

here has focused on cost, and it is appropriate to focus on cost. I 

believe one of my roles here today was to place cost in the context 

of return on the Nation’s investment—to encourage people to think 

about that return in terms of political governance of the country 

and in terms of the entire economy. It is quite remarkable the return we get on the census, and clearly the cost should be appropriate, but I want to suggest keeping the ROI in mind as well. 

Senator CARPER. Alright. Thank you. Mr. Powner. 

Mr. POWNER. I will just further comment on what Mr. Scir ́e said. 

I think it is about risk mitigation at this point and really managing 

and tracking those costs down to fine details, so that when we see 

little blips in the process that we effectively jump on those risks 

and attempt to move them in the other direction. 

Senator CARPER. To my colleague, Dr. Coburn, any closing 

thought? 

Senator COBURN. No. I just would submit for the record that the 

$600 million contract for the handheld device, it was another costplus contract, which I think we are going to see—I hate to be the 

prophet of doom in terms of success or increased cost, but had we 

had one out there where we said here is the performance, you get 

paid when it works, and here is the fixed price you get paid, we 

would have seen faster response, better quality, rather than on the 

concept of cost-plus, because people do not have to be responsible 

when it is cost-plus. 

Senator CARPER. Well, I hope experience proves you wrong. I will 

be delighted—and I am sure you will be, too—if that does not turn 

out to be the case. 

Let me again thank our witnesses. I have been calling Dr. 

Kincannon, Mr. Kincannon, most of the afternoon. Who is here 

from the Census Bureau? Somebody is still here? Which is it—Dr. 

Kincannon or Mr. Kincannon? Mister. So I was right? Everybody 

else was wrong. That is a first. Mister or Doctor—we are glad he 

was here. 

Our thanks to each and every one of you for being here with us 

today and for your testimony, actually quite helpful testimony, and 

for your responses to our questions. The census is a big deal, and 

we are reminded of that every 10 years that it is important to our 

country, not just for the folks in the U.S. House of Representatives 

or those who might want to run for the U.S. House of Representatives, not only for governors and legislators, State legislators, that 

37

are trying to figure out how to apportion their State’s voting districts, but also for our Nation’s economy and for a whole host of 

other reasons. It is important we get it right. It costs a lot of 

money, and it is important that we spend that money wisely. 

This Subcommittee has a number of responsibilities, but one of 

them is to try to make sure that we get it right, and we appreciate 

your help in enabling us to meet our responsibilities in that regard. 

There may be a question or two that will follow in writing, and 

if there is, we would appreciate very much your timely response to 

those questions. 

Good to be with all of you this afternoon. Thank you for joining 

us, and with that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:44 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(39)

A P P E N D I X 


37360.001
40


37360.002
41


37360.003
42


37360.004
43


37360.005
44


37360.006
45


37360.007
46


37360.008
47


37360.009
48


37360.010
49


37360.011
50


37360.012
51


37360.013
52


37360.014
53


37360.015
54


37360.016
55


37360.017
56


37360.018
57


37360.019
58


37360.020
59


37360.021
60


37360.022
61


37360.023
62


37360.024
63


37360.025
64


37360.026
65


37360.027
66


37360.028
67


37360.029
68


37360.030
69


37360.031
70


37360.032
71


37360.033
72


37360.034
73


37360.035
74


37360.036
75


37360.037
76


37360.038
77


37360.039
78


37360.040
79


37360.041
80


37360.042
81


37360.043
82


37360.044
83


37360.045
84


37360.046
85

Æ


37360.047