CENSUS DATA AND ITS USE IN FEDERAL FORMULA

FUNDING

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INFORMATION POLICY,

CENSUS, AND NATIONAL ARCHIVES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JULY 9, 2009

Serial No. 111–23

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html

http://www.oversight.house.gov

CENSUS DATA AND ITS USE IN FEDERAL FORMULA FUNDING

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

53–869 PDF 2009

CENSUS DATA AND ITS USE IN FEDERAL FORMULA

FUNDING

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INFORMATION POLICY,

CENSUS, AND NATIONAL ARCHIVES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JULY 9, 2009

Serial No. 111–23

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html

http://www.oversight.house.gov

(II)

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York, Chairman

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

GERRY E. CONNOLLY, Virginia

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut

PETER WELCH, Vermont

BILL FOSTER, Illinois

JACKIE SPEIER, California

STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio

——— ———

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

DAN BURTON, Indiana

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois

——— ———

RON STROMAN, Staff Director

MICHAEL MCCARTHY, Deputy Staff Director

CARLA HULTBERG, Chief Clerk

LARRY BRADY, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INFORMATION POLICY, CENSUS, AND NATIONAL ARCHIVES

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri, Chairman

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio

DIANE E. WATSON, California

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah

DARRYL PIGGEE, Staff Director

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on July 9, 2009 ................................................................................. 1

Statement of:

Finkbeiner, Carleton, mayor, city of Toledo, OH; Robert Bowser, mayor,

city of East Orange, NJ; Arturo Vargas, executive director, National

Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials; and Jamie

Alderslade, director of external relations, the Social Compact, Inc. ......... 159

Alderslade, Jamie ...................................................................................... 199

Bowser, Robert .......................................................................................... 175

Finkbeiner, Carleton ................................................................................. 159

Vargas, Arturo ........................................................................................... 180

Mesenbourg, Thomas, Acting Director, U.S. Census Bureau; Robert

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

Office; Todd Richardson, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary, Policy

Development, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development;

Donald Moulds, Acting Assistant Secretary, Planning and Education,

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; and Stuart

Kerachsky, Acting Director, National Center for Education Statistics,

U.S. Department of Education ..................................................................... 84

Goldenkoff, Robert ..................................................................................... 90

Kerachsky, Stuart ..................................................................................... 138

Mesenbourg, Thomas ................................................................................ 84

Moulds, Donald .......................................................................................... 115

Richardson, Todd ....................................................................................... 107

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Alderslade, Jamie, director of external relations, the Social Compact,

Inc., prepared statement of .......................................................................... 201

Bowser, Robert, mayor, city of East Orange, NJ, prepared statement

of ..................................................................................................................... 177

Clay, Hon. Wm. Lacy, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Missouri, prepared statement of .................................................................. 3

Finkbeiner, Carleton, mayor, city of Toledo, OH, prepared statement

of ..................................................................................................................... 163

Goldenkoff, Robert, Director, Strategic Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office, prepared statement of ........................................................... 92

Kerachsky, Stuart, Acting Director, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, prepared statement of ..................... 140

Maloney, Hon. Carolyn B., a Representative in Congress from the State

of New York, prepared statement of ........................................................... 214

McHenry, Hon. Patrick T., a Representative in Congress from the State

of North Carolina:

Bipartisan report ....................................................................................... 9

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 77

Mesenbourg, Thomas, Acting Director, U.S. Census Bureau, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 86

Moulds, Donald, Acting Assistant Secretary, Planning and Education,

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, prepared statement

of ..................................................................................................................... 117

Richardson, Todd, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary, Policy Development, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 109

Vargas, Arturo, executive director, National Association of Latino Elected

and Appointed Officials, prepared statement of ......................................... 183

Watson, Hon. Diane E., a Representative in Congress from the State

of California, prepared statement of ........................................................... 80

(1)

CENSUS DATA AND ITS USE IN FEDERAL

FORMULA FUNDING

THURSDAY, JULY 9, 2009

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INFORMATION POLICY, CENSUS, AND

NATIONAL ARCHIVES, COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:10 p.m., in room

2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Wm. Lacy Clay (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Clay, Maloney, Watson, McHenry, and

Westmoreland.

Also present: Representative Kaptur.

Staff present: Darryl Piggee, staff director/counsel; Frank Davis,

professional staff member; Jean Gosa, clerk; Charisma Williams,

staff assistant; Leneal Scott, information systems manager; Dan

Blankenburg, minority director of outreach and senior advisor;

Adam Fromm, minority chief clerk and Member liaison; and

Chapin Fay, minority counsel.

Mr. CLAY. The Information Policy, Census, and National Archives Subcommittee will now come to order. Good afternoon and

welcome to today’s hearing entitled: ‘‘Census Data and Its Use in

Federal Formula Funding.’’

Today’s hearing will examine the impact of using census data on

local recipients in Federal funding allocation decisions. On our first

panel, we will hear from Federal department witnesses who will

testify about how select Federal Government agencies use census

data in their funding formulas. Our second panel is comprised of

local government officials and private agencies who will tell us

about their knowledge and experience with census data and their

recommendations to improve the use of census data in Federal formula funding.

Without objection, the Chair and ranking minority member will

have 5 minutes to make opening statements followed by opening

statements not to exceed 3 minutes by any other Member who

seeks recognition.

Without objection, Members and witnesses may have 5 legislative days to submit a written statement or extraneous materials for

the record.

I will begin with my opening statement.

The purpose of today’s hearing is to examine how census data

are used in Federal funding program calculations and whether

these Federal funding formulas fairly distribute Federal moneys to

2

States, cities, and local governments. We will consider many important issues today including what criteria are used in these Federal

funding formulas, whether Congress and agencies factor in the

under-count of certain communities in these calculations, and what

steps Congress and the administration can take to improve census

data and the present formulas.

Census data are used by over 180 Federal programs in determining funding levels to cities, counties, and States. These Federal allocations to local governments and States topped over $375 billion

in 2007 alone. Federal programs that use census data in their

funding formulas include Title I education appropriations, Medicaid, and Community Development Block Grants.

This subcommittee is concerned about HUD’s Community Development Block Grant program in particular, especially with regard

to recent developments in Toledo, OH. In 2008, the Mayor of Toledo

challenged census estimates and successfully added over 20,000

city residents to Toledo’s population. However, with this increase in

population, Toledo lost over $290,000 dollars in Community Development Block Grant funding. It is counter-intuitive for HUD to

provide Toledo with less Federal funding because the Census Bureau increased the city’s under-counted population number.

Other Federal funding formulas such as Medicaid redistribute

hundreds of millions of dollars among States when census undercount data are corrected. Federal funding formulas like Medicaid

and Community Development Block Grants are sensitive to the

under-count, which causes Federal funds to be mis-allocated to cities and States, hurting traditionally under-counted populations

such as low income children and immigrant communities.

Census data are used for a large majority of all Federal funding

formulas. There needs to be clarity and transparency as to how

census data are used and if these Federal funding formulas truly

serve their targeted communities. Today’s hearing will address

these issues and reveal existing problems, solutions, and what further research needs to be done with census data and its use in Federal funding formulas.

Let me thank all of our witnesses for appearing today. I look forward to their testimony.

I now yield to the distinguished ranking minority member, Mr.

McHenry of North Carolina, for 5 minutes.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Wm. Lacy Clay follows:]

3

4

5

6

7

Mr. MCHENRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding

today’s hearing. I want to begin by thanking again Mr. Mesenbourg

and Mr. Goldenkoff for reappearing before the committee. It is good

to have you back. For the other witnesses, thank you so much for

agreeing to testify and being here today.

As the chairman has already stated, the data collected by the

Census Bureau is vitally important to the calculation of funding

levels and appropriations in Federal programs at the congressional

level and by Federal agencies themselves. Data are also used by

State and local governments to allocate resources and services, and

by the private sector to determine where to invest and develop industry.

The subject of today’s hearing underscores the importance of filling out the decennial census form when it arrives on April 1, 2010.

It is vitally important to the American people that everyone in this

country respond to that form. It is not a partisan issue. It is simply

a matter of having an accurate picture of who is in this country on

census day 2010. This is very important. It is a very core Constitutional principle that we have an accurate count of who is here in

this country.

With having a short form only census, it makes it even easier for

the American people to participate. So Members of Congress should

advocate for participation. Everyone within Government should advocate for participation. We are grateful for community groups who

are involved to ensure that people participate as well.

I would also like to thank the chairman for having this hearing

today. We last met in March. I know that we have racked up address canvassing, as Mr. Mesenbourg has related to the Congress.

From the accounts we have gotten, it has gone very well. We are

very grateful for that. That address canvassing, as Mr. Mesenbourg

has previously said, is a cornerstone to the 2010 census.

I hope that we can have Mr. Mesenbourg or the new Director,

whenever the Senate determines that they will actually act, then

we can actually get the new Director in. But approximately 140,000

census workers took to America’s streets this spring to verify addresses and assemble the Bureau’s list of where decennial forms

will be sent and where, if needed, enumerators will visit in 2010.

On separate occasions, Chairman Clay and I have stated that we

both have unanswered questions about this vast canvassing effort.

The outcome of the decennial census depends largely on this step

in the operation and so there is an obvious need to review and assess its successes and failures. Certainly, the GAO and the Census

Bureau, we would love to have you back. Mr. Chairman, I would

certainly think we would both learn a lot from that hearing. It is

my hope that we can bring you back again soon to evaluate this

step of the process.

That said, today’s hearing is an important opportunity for the

committee to ensure that the census data and Federal funding formulas are fair, accurate, and effective.

Chairman Clay, I thank you for bringing this issue to the forefront about the inequities of Community Development Block Grant

programs. I do share your concerns.

As for how census numbers affect the CDBG, I would like to

point out that the funding formula involves many factors. In the

8

109th Congress, this subcommittee published a bipartisan report

dealing with that funding formula. I ask unanimous consent to

submit this for the record.

Mr. CLAY. Without objection, the document is submitted into the

record.

[The information referred to follows:]

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

Mr. MCHENRY. It is still regarded as a strong road map of how

to improve the CDBG program by addressing the need as well as

ensuring that we have the proper numbers.

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for having this hearing

today. I appreciate your leadership and thank you for your friendship.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Patrick T. McHenry follows:]

77

78

79

Mr. CLAY. Thank you so much, Mr. McHenry. Be assured that as

soon as the new Director is confirmed by the Senate, they will momentarily be before this committee. So thank you.

I would like to recognize the gentlewoman from California for 3

minutes.

Ms. WATSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much for

holding today’s important hearing examining the role census data

plays in the formulas used for distributing Federal funds. I look

forward to hearing from today’s witnesses about the mythologies

behind these formulas and the steps being taken to promote the

census, improve participation, and decrease the differential undercount to ensure that Federal funds are appropriated to the areas

in America where they are needed most.

Since the establishment of the decennial census in 1790, every

census has experienced an under-count. According to the Government Accountability Office, the 2000 census missed an estimated 2

percent of the U.S. population, a disproportionate number of which

were minorities, low income households, and children. My district

in particular has traditionally been under-counted due to a lack of

mutual understanding and engagement with local constituencies.

This under-count is troubling because without accurate population data, it is impossible to ensure that we have a complete view

of our Nation’s demographics, that Americans have proper representation in State and Federal Governments, and that Federal

grants are targeted to where they are needed most.

According to the Census Bureau, for the fiscal year 2007, over $400 billion was allocated through Federal grants and direct assistance programs based on formulas reliant on data from the 2000

census. The amount of critical Federal funding at stake reinforces

the importance of an accurate and comprehensive 2010 census

count for local, State, and tribal governments.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank today’s panelists for their

cooperation with our proceedings and for your leadership in ensuring that the 2010 census provides the most complete enumeration

of our population in American history.

Thank you and I yield back.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Diane E. Watson follows:]

80

81

82

83

Mr. CLAY. Thank you so much. I also want to recognize a guest

here who will serve on the panel here, my good friend Marcy Kaptur from Ohio. Thank you for coming today. If you have any opening statement, you can be recognized for 3 minutes.

Ms. KAPTUR. I wanted to thank you very much for the opportunity to sit in.

Our community of Toledo, OH in the Ninth District well knows

the importance of the census and the distribution of the tax dollars

that our citizens send here to Washington and then by formula are

sent back home.

On the second panel I will have the pleasure of introducing our

Mayor and his team, who have traveled very far, Mayor Carleton

Finkbeiner. I would like to recognize him now. He is a 12-year

Mayor of our city and the first strong Mayor in Toledo’s history. We

are very proud of him. No one has fought harder for accurate census counts than he has, having been someone who helped to do the

census when he was a youngster and having seen what actually

happened when people went out into the field. So we look forward

to his testimony this afternoon.

I thank you very much for the time.

Mr. CLAY. You are very welcome. We look forward to your service

on this committee today. Without further ado, I want to start by

introducing our first panel.

We will first hear from Mr. Thomas Mesenbourg who is currently

serving as the Acting Director of the U.S. Census Bureau. He has

more than 36 years of Census Bureau experience and now oversees

the day to day operations of the Federal Government’s perennial,

preeminent statistical agency.

Next we will hear from Mr. Robert Goldenkoff, a Director on the

U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Strategic Issues team. He

has over 20 years of program evaluation experience with GAO and

is currently responsible for reviewing the 2010 census and Government-wide human capital reforms.

Our third witness is Mr. Todd Richardson, the Associate Deputy

Assistant Secretary in the Office of Policy Development for the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development. At HUD, he leads

a team of staff responsible for analyzing current data and drawing

on the results of past research to assist the Secretary with making

informed policy decisions.

Our next witness is Mr. Donald Moulds, the newly appointed

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation

in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. In this capacity, he provides leadership, direction, and management of policy

research, analysis, evaluation, and coordination of Departmentwide science and data policy activities and issues.

Our last witness on the first panel, Mr. Stuart Kerachsky, is the

Acting Commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics in the U.S. Department of Education. His career has been devoted to applying the best scientific methods to bringing information and evidence to bear on improving social programs.

Let me thank all of you for appearing today before the subcommittee. It is the policy of the committee to swear in all witnesses before they testify. I would like to ask each witness to

please stand and raise your right hands.

84

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. CLAY. Thank you. You may be seated. Let the record reflect

that the witnesses answered in the affirmative.

Each of you will have 5 minutes to make an opening statement.

Your complete written testimony will be included in the hearing

record. The yellow light in front of you will indicate that it is time

to sum up. The red light will indicate that your time has expired.

When you hear this, that means shut it off. [Laughter.]

Mr. Mesenbourg, you may proceed with your opening statement.

STATEMENTS OF THOMAS MESENBOURG, ACTING DIRECTOR,

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU; ROBERT GOLDENKOFF, DIRECTOR,

STRATEGIC ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

OFFICE; TODD RICHARDSON, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, POLICY DEVELOPMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT

OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT; DONALD MOULDS,

ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY, PLANNING AND EDUCATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; AND STUART KERACHSKY, ACTING DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

STATEMENT OF THOMAS MESENBOURG

Mr. MESENBOURG. Chairman Clay, Ranking Member McHenry,

and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity

to discuss the role that data produced by the Census Bureau plays

in Federal funds distribution. I appreciate the subcommittee’s attention to this important issue and I am pleased to be testifying

alongside four of the agencies that use our data.

This helps make an important distinction. The Census Bureau is

not involved in developing, administering, or evaluating the funding formula or the programs that use our data. However, the Census Bureau through the decennial census, the American Community Survey, and our Population Estimates Program is the producer

of many of the data sources used by agencies in their funding formula. Our job is to produce the most accurate and complete data

possible.

Today I will focus my testimony on how the Census Bureau produces the three major data sources used for funding formulas. The

decennial census program includes both the 2010 census and the

detailed demographic, social, economic, and housing characteristics

information produced by the American Community Survey. The

American Community Survey collects data monthly for population

and housing characteristics that previously were collected in the

decennial census long form. Of course, we publish that data annually.

The Population Estimates Program produces population estimates for the Nation, States, counties, cities, and towns on an annual basis. These population estimates update the most recent decennial counts each year with new information using births,

deaths, and net migration information. The population estimates

are used in many formulas to allocate funding. They are also used

in the production of the final American Community Survey estimates released to the public. Thus the quality of the official popuVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:36 Feb 01, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\53869.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
85

lation estimates and the American Community Survey are inextricably linked to the accuracy of the decennial census.

Federal agencies that administer grants and other Federal funds

allocation programs typically use a mix of the decennial census,

population estimates, and information from the American Community Survey. I make this point to stress the importance of the upcoming 2010 census. Our Governments Division recently analyzed

140 Federal grant and direct assistance programs for fiscal year

2007 and concluded that over $400 billion are distributed annually

using one or more of these Census Bureau data sources. There is

no better way to emphasize the importance of the 2010 census for

local, State, and tribal governments than by acknowledging this.

In the years between the decennial censuses, the Population Estimates Program of the Census Bureau produces the official population estimates for the United States. They are considered estimates because they are population figures that do not arise directly

from a complete count. They are determined by using available

data, for example, from available administrative record data on

births and deaths as well as information from the IRS to track net

migration flows. The estimates rely heavily on data from the latest

available decennial census as those census data serve as the basis

on which the population estimates are constructed.

Again, though, the most important contributing factor to a

State’s estimated population at any given point in time is the count

of that State’s population in the most recent decennial census. To

ensure the population estimates are as accurate as possible, it is

important and critical to have an accurate census count upon

which the estimates can be built. To that end, we encourage everyone to participate in the 2010 census.

In closing, I want to stress that the Census Bureau’s goal is to

produce complete and accurate data that meet the needs of our customers. For Federal funds allocation, the single most important

contribution the Census Bureau can make is to count everyone,

count them once, and count them where they usually reside. This

is the daunting challenge but we are committed to making the

2010 census the most successful ever.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mesenbourg follows:]

86

87

88

89

90

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Mesenbourg. Mr. Goldenkoff, you are

recognized.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT GOLDENKOFF

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Chairman Clay, Ranking Member McHenry,

and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity

to be here today to discuss the role that population data plays in

the allocation of Federal funds to States and localities.

In my written statement, we reported that in past years the Fed- eral Government has annually distributed over $300 billion in Federal assistance through grant programs using formulas driven in

whole or in part by census population counts. According to a new

Census Bureau study, this figure is now over $400 billion for fiscal

year 2007. What is more, the American Recovery and Reinvestment

Act will obligate an additional $161 billion to Federal grant programs for fiscal year 2009, including some programs that depend

to some extent on census population data to determine the amount

of Federal assistance.

As agreed with the subcommittee, my testimony describes how

census data are used in the allocation of Federal formula grant

funds and how the structure of the formulas and other factors can

affect those allocations. In particular, I want to stress two key

points. First, although population counts play an important role in

the distribution of Federal funds, other factors such as the design

of the grant formulas can mitigate the effect that any population

changes have on funding levels.

Second, because population estimates are important for Federal

funding allocations and the decennial census is the foundation for

these estimates, an accurate enumeration in 2010, including the reduction in the historic under-count of minority and other populations as well as a complete count of communities affected by Hurricane Katrina and other natural disasters, is absolutely essential.

Federal grants use various sources of population data in their

funding formulas. The largest of these is the decennial census,

which the Census Bureau conducts every 10 years.

The Bureau also estimates the population for the years between

censuses, known as post-censal estimates. For example, the allocation formula for Social Services Block Grants, which help States

fund day care, health, substance abuse, and numerous other programs, uses the most recent post-censal population estimates to

distribute funds.

Another source of population data is the Bureau’s American

Community Survey, which provides detailed annual data on socioeconomic characteristics for the Nation’s communities. It is used to

allocate Federal funds for such programs as the Section 8 Housing

Voucher Program, which is aimed at increasing affordable housing

choices for very low income households.

A third source is the Current Population Survey, which is conducted by the Census Bureau for the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

CPS data are used to allocate funds for programs under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, which provides work force development services to employers and workers.

Among funding formulas that rely on population data, the degree

of reliance varies. On the one hand, the Social Services Block

91

Grant formula allocates funding based on States’ population relative to the total U.S. population. On the other hand, some formulas such as Medicaid use population plus one or more other

variables to determine funding levels.

As the completeness and accuracy of population data can modestly affect grant funding streams and other applications of census

data, the Bureau has used a variety of programs to address possible errors in population counts and estimates.

Importantly, however, while accurate population data play an

important role in allocating Federal assistance, various grant-specific factors can also affect the distribution of Federal funds and

can mitigate the impact of population changes. For example, some

grant programs including Medicaid employ floors in order to mitigate the outcome that would result if a particular grant allocation

were determined by the funding formula alone. Further, in order

to prevent funding losses from a formula change, programs can include hold harmless provisions guaranteeing a level of funding that

is based on a prior year’s funding.

In conclusion, while population data play an important role in allocating Federal assistance through formula grant programs, the

design of a grant can also affect funding allocations and in some

cases can mitigate or entirely mute the impact of a change in population. Further, shifts in population, inaccuracies in census counts,

and methodological problems with population estimates can also

impact the distribution of Federal grant money.

Nevertheless, given the importance of census data as a baseline

for post-censal estimates used for grant programs as well as for

congressional apportionment and redistricting, counting the Nation’s population once, only once, and in the right location in 2010

will be absolutely critical.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks and I will be glad to

answer any questions that you or other subcommittee members

may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Goldenkoff follows:]

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

Mr. CLAY. Thank you so much for your testimony, Mr.

Goldenkoff. Mr. Richardson, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF TODD RICHARDSON

Mr. RICHARDSON. Thank you. Chairman Clay, Ranking Member

McHenry, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify today.

HUD annually allocates directly or through guided competitions

more than $10 billion to cities, counties, States, Indian tribes, and

other grantees using several different formulas based on census

data. The Community Development Block Grant program, proposed

for fiscal year 2010 to allocate nearly $4.2 billion, allocates the

largest share of the dollars.

CDBG is a relatively complicated dual formula with one formula

allocating toward communities that have growth and higher poverty and other formula allocating to communities that generally

have old housing and population loss. These formulas rely on five

variables from the Census Bureau. From census 2000 data, we

have persons in poverty, overcrowded households, and housing

units built prior to 1940. These variables are fixed until we integrate American Community Survey data in fiscal year 2011. From

annual Population Estimates data, including updated data as a result of challenges, we have the number of persons and a variable

called growth lag.

I am going to talk a little bit about growth lag because it affects

the question that you raised about Toledo. The growth lag variable

is used to fund communities that have had historically declining

populations. If a community that has historically declining populations does a population challenge that shows its population is actually larger than we had thought it was, the net result on the

CDBG formula, unlike most formulas, is to result in a funding

change that would reduce funding under the CDBG program. So

that is a little unusual in terms of how formulas operate. But that

has been in place since 1977 when the formula was put in place.

Mr. CLAY. I am going to ask you to explain it in more detail

when we get to the questioning period. But go ahead.

Mr. RICHARDSON. Absolutely. Other programs that allocate funding using the basic CDBG formula are the Emergency Shelter

Grant Program and the guiding initial pro-rata need allocation for

the Continuum of Care homeless program competition.

Separate formulas relying on census data largely sample data

from the census 2000. They include the HOME, Native American

Housing Block Grant, Indian CDBG, Section 202, and Section 811

programs. The Housing Trust Fund, created in HERA and proposed by the President to receive $1 billion for fiscal year 2010

would also be allocated to States using special tabulation data on

housing needs.

In 2010, as you know, the Census Bureau plans to publish the

first 5-year data products based on American Community Survey

data collected in 2005 through 2009. Beginning in fiscal year 2011,

HUD plans to use ACS 5-year average data in place of the census

2000 sample data that are used to allocate most of the funding for

the programs I just described.

108

Our understanding is that the 5-year ACS data will be weighted

to the average of the population controls over the 5-year period.

This is a very good thing since it leads to an integration of updated

population and updated counts for all of the variables for each formula on an annual basis. That said, the initial move to the ACS

data in fiscal year 2011 is very likely to cause some significant

changes in allocation amounts for program grantees.

Quality of data is only half of the equation in allocation formulas.

Quality of the formula is equally important. Because housing and

community development needs are not static, it is important to regularly assess whether these formulas need updating so they remain

well targeted to the intended needs and treat all grantees fairly.

In 2005, HUD published a report that identified some problems

with how the CDBG formula targets funds. The 2005 report demonstrates some stark examples of how the CDBG formula is currently not as fair as it could be. It over-funds some less needy

places, it under-funds some very needy places, and it allocates very

different grant amounts to places with similar needs. The current

formula on average will target more funds to the most needy communities but does so much less so than it did when it was developed in the 1970’s.

There are several problems with the current formula including

the use of housing built before 1940 as a proxy for population loss,

aging infrastructure, and dilapidated housing. While this may have

worked in the 1970’s, since the 1970’s the more distressed communities have torn down that old housing while the less distressed

communities have retained it. This leads to a shift in dollars from

distressed communities to less distressed communities.

Other variables like poverty are good measures but they create

some anomalies such as college towns getting large grants because

of the large number of students that are counted in poverty and

the growth lag variable which generally targets places that are losing populations. There are some well off communities that have

been static in population since 1960 that get significant grants as

well.

The other problem is that this is a dual formula. A dual formula

creates some anomalies in itself, funding similarly needy communities at very different amounts.

As you are well aware, changing the CDBG formula to correct its

targeting problem is politically challenging. If funding is held static

or declining, a change in the formula that results in increases in

funding for some communities also results in decreases for others.

Fiscal year 2010, however, offers a rare opportunity to change the

CDBG formula without causing a funding decrease for any community relative to the fiscal year 2009 allocations. This is because for

fiscal year 2010 President Obama has proposed to fully fund CDBG

at $543 million more than the amount funded in 2009. This gives

us an opportunity to implement a hold harmless provision.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Richardson follows:]

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

Mr. CLAY. Thank you. Mr. Moulds.

STATEMENT OF DONALD MOULDS

Mr. MOULDS. Good afternoon, Chairman Clay, Ranking Member

McHenry, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank

you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the

topic of how data from the U.S. Census Bureau are used by the Department of Health and Human Services in the allocation of Federal program funds through formula grants.

HHS is the U.S. Government’s principal agency for protecting the

health of all Americans and providing essential human services, especially for those who are least able to help themselves. We administer more than 300 programs covering a wide spectrum of activities and representing almost a quarter of all Federal outlays.

HHS administers more grant dollars than all other Federal agencies combined and awards approximately 60 percent of the Federal

Government’s grant dollars. In fiscal year 2008, HHS awarded

nearly $265 billion in grants representing 38 percent of total Departmental spending. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services awarded the largest amount of grant dollars and the National

Institutes of Health awarded the largest number of grants.

For most of the formula grants administered by HHS, the grant

allocation formula and data elements are specified in statute. Attached to my written statement is a table listing the HHS-sponsored grants that specified the used of data from the Census Bureau in allocating grant funds.

I would like to highlight a few examples of how HHS uses specific census data elements in grant programs. They are representative of a variety of grant programs administered by HHS as well

as the types of census data that are used in calculating grant

award amounts in carrying out statutory intent.

The first is the Child Care and Development Fund, which is the

primary Federal program specifically devoted to providing families

access to child care and improving the quality of child care. Grants

are awarded to States through three component funding streams,

two of which rely on the use of Census Bureau data in their funding formulas. One allocates block grant funding to States using a

formula that includes the State’s share of the Nation’s children

under five. The other awards funding to eligible States based on

their share of the Nation’s children under age 13. Data for both

children’s ratios are obtained from the Census Bureau.

The Congregate Nutrition Services and Home-Delivered Nutrition Services programs provide meals and related nutritional services to older individuals to help them remain independent and in

their communities. Grants for Congregate Nutrition Services and

Home-Delivered Nutrition Services are allocated to States and territories by a formula based on their share of the population aged

60 and over using data issued by the Census Bureau.

The mission of the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant is to

improve the health of mothers, children, and their families by improving access to health care, eliminating health disparities, and

improving the quality of health care. Funding for one component

of this program is allocated to States in proportion to their popuVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:36 Feb 01, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\53869.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
116

lation of low income children relative to the Nation’s. The formula

uses census data.

The majority of HHS’s grant allocations, however, are not driven

by Census Bureau data. For example, over three quarters of mandatory grant funds awarded by HHS are received by States

through the Medicaid program. Census data are used by the Bureau of Economic Analysis but not by HHS to produce State and

national per capita income data, which then are used in calculating

the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage [FMAP]. State spending

on covered Medicaid services is matched by the Federal Government at the FMAP rate.

The authorizing statues that specify funding allocation formulas

for HHS grant programs typically specify the use of either the decennial population figures or the most recent population estimates

from the current Population Survey published by the Census Bureau. The statutory formulas do not direct the Department to use

the census data that have been adjusted for population under-count

and HHS does not make any adjustments of its own.

In summary, HHS uses a variety of data from the Census Bureau in calculating funding levels for Federal grant programs. Of

the 300 programs administered and managed by the Department

of Health and Human Services, 50 are grant programs. Of them,

census data are used to calculate funding levels in 35. Census data

are used by HHS in all cases where authorizing legislation dictates

its use and the manner in which it is to be used. HHS does not

exercise any discretion to adjust funding formulas.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Moulds follows:]

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Moulds, for your testimony. Mr.

Kerachsky, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF STUART KERACHSKY

Mr. KERACHSKY. Chairman Clay, Ranking Member McHenry,

and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the

opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the topic of the

use of Census Bureau data in the allocation of Federal formula

funding of the Department of Education’s programs.

Since the mid-1960’s, the National Center for Education Statistics has computed or provided data to other entities within the Department to compute Federal funding allocations of various Department formula grant programs. We prepare the allocation tabulations in a statistically accurate and apolitical manner.

Most allocations for the Department’s elementary and secondary

education programs are based on the latest data for some relevant

subset of the population. In 2009, of more than $50 billion that the

Department of Education is spending on elementary and secondary

education, approximately 80 percent is being allocated based on

census calculations of population subgroups. Let me provide examples.

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 Title I

grants to local education agencies is the single largest Federal elementary and secondary education program. For fiscal year 2009,

Congress provided $24.5 billion for this program. From its inception, Title I’s formula has been based primarily on the number of

children ages 5 through 17 and families with incomes below the

poverty level.

In the spring of each year, NCES renews its interagency agreement with the Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates Branch

of the Census Bureau to develop and to deliver to the Department

school district-level Title I poverty and population estimates. These

estimates cover most of the Nation’s public school districts.

Before publication, census provides the estimates to State agencies and gives States an opportunity to review the estimates and

challenge them. This so-called challenge period allows States to

present information regarding boundary changes that may need to

be updated in the Census Bureau’s geographic data base.

Second, since the mid-1970’s, NCES has provided assistance for

calculation of career and technical education allocations under the

Perkins Act. The population groups used in the formula have remained consistent throughout the years, ages 15 to 19, 20 to 24,

and 25 to 65, from the census’s annual State population estimates.

States’ allocations are based on their shares of the count for each

of the three age groups multiplied by a factor based on per capita

income, which we currently obtain from the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Next, the eligible groups for Adult Education State Grants have

traditionally consisted of those who are aged 16 and over, do not

have a high school diploma or equivalent, and are not currently enrolled in school. Until 2006, these data were available only from

the decennial census. The Census Bureau will now collect these

data using the American Community Survey, the ACS.

139

Finally, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is the

law authorizing funding for services to individuals with disabilities

throughout the Nation. Under Part B, Section 619, services must

be provided to children with disabilities between the ages of three

through five. Under Part B, Section 611, services must be provided

to children with disabilities between 6 and 21. Each of these formulas requires annual population and poverty data of 3-through

21-year olds. These come from the Census Bureau’s annual Population Estimates and the ACS respectively.

By statute, the Department accepts the Census Bureau’s data

and does not question the incidents of over- or under-counts. We

understand that to the extent feasible, the Census Bureau adjusts

post-censal annual population estimates, small area estimates, and

ACS data for known shortcomings in the prior decennial census. It

is also our understanding that the annual estimates used in our

formula grant allocations are informed by recent demographic

changes that might affect the distribution of funds.

In summary, these examples cited illustrate how the Department

of Education uses the array of Census Bureau tabulations to distribute our formula grant funds. We have a history of more than

30 years cooperating with the Census Bureau to provide the data

needed for the U.S. Department of Education grants.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I would be pleased

to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kerachsky follows:]

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

Mr. CLAY. Thank you very much, Mr. Kerachsky. Thank you all.

I thank all of the witnesses for your testimony today.

We will begin the question and answer period now. Each Member

will have 5 minutes to ask questions of the panel. I will begin.

This first question is a panel-wide question. I guess it would

have to be the last three to answer and Mr. Goldenkoff may have

to answer, too. Do your formulas account for the under-count that

always occurs in certain communities? Should they account for

that? If they should or shouldn’t, tell me why. Mr. Richardson, we

can begin with you.

Mr. RICHARDSON. The sample data that is used in most of our

formulas are the published sample data. So most of our variables

for our formulas are based on the census sample data. To the extent those are adjusted, and generally they aren’t, our formulas are

driven by those. One exception is in the CDBG formula with the

population variable and the growth lag variable, which are indeed

changed each year to reflect the published population estimates. If

those are challenged estimates, we include those.

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Moulds.

Mr. MOULDS. We are statutorily required to use the most recent

census data in the vast majority of cases. There are no instances

where we adjust. It is our view that statute requires us to do that.

Mr. KERACHSKY. We are similarly statutorily required to use the

census data. But in addition, we wouldn’t have a firm basis to adjust the data on our own, would we have the statutory authority

to do so. We are only able to use what is presented to us by the

Census Bureau as the best available data.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you. On that point, and we will start with you,

do the yearly census estimates adequately adjust formula funding

to make up for the discrepancies that result from the under-count?

Mr. KERACHSKY. I really can’t answer that. Where we are allowed to use those data, and we do in some instances, our statisticians just simply don’t have the basis to make that interpretation.

Mr. CLAY. But when census sends you data, don’t you adjust for

that?

Mr. KERACHSKY. Yes. We have formulas that allow us to use the

post-censal data and we do use them in those instances. Yes.

Mr. CLAY. All right. How about you, Mr. Moulds?

Mr. MOULDS. Again, we don’t use any adjusted data. We just use

census data. We similarly wouldn’t be in a position to comment on

the accuracy of that data because we are not in the business of

counting people. That would be a question that is probably better

suited for others.

Mr. CLAY. But when data are adjusted and when data are corrected, don’t you have an interest in getting it correct, too?

Mr. MOULDS. Clearly we have an interest in having population

figures that are as accurate as possible. But again, we are not

statutorily allowed to make those adjustments ourselves.

Mr. CLAY. Common sense would say do the right thing by adjusting the data, correct?

Mr. MOULDS. It is our view that the law tells us that we are required to use the actual census data. So if there were to be changes

in how that data would be collected, those would have to be statutory changes that would be done by Congress.

149

Mr. CLAY. Or adjusted data that come in on an annual basis.

Mr. MOULDS. The annual adjusted data that come through that

is produced by the census, we do use. I am sorry for the confusion.

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Richardson.

Mr. RICHARDSON. Well, as I noted, we do use the data that are

adjusted for population and growth lag in the CDBG formula. With

the American Community Survey, which we will be rolling that

into our formula starting in fiscal year 2011. To the extent that

census updates those numbers to reflect the current population estimates and any challenges that are brought against those population estimates, we would include those in our formulas going forward as we use the American Community Survey.

Mr. CLAY. OK. Then how do we make up for the funding discrepancies once you get new data? Do you adjust your formulas for the

new data and new population like in the case of Toledo?

Mr. RICHARDSON. Actually, the CDBG formula is an unusual formula in that it is one of the few formulas where if you have a declining population you actually get more money for having fewer

people. It is an unusual formula in that way.

That was the case with Toledo, which successfully challenged its

population estimates. By successfully challenging its population estimates, we rolled in that challenge. Because Toledo was receiving

money because of how many people it had relative to 1960, when

that number increased, it led to a smaller CDBG grant.

The CDBG funds are intended to serve communities in decline.

Communities that have lost a lot of population get substantially

more than communities that have gained population.

Mr. CLAY. That CDBG formula can be changed here in Congress

or by the Agency?

Mr. RICHARDSON. It is in statute and it has to be changed by

Congress. President Obama’s fiscal year 2010 budget proposal is

proposing that formula actually be updated and be changed. We

are looking forward to working with the Congress on that.

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Goldenkoff, did you have anything?

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. I think, to the extent that these formulas compensate for the under-count, it all depends on the approach used

to correct the data. As Mr. Mesenbourg said, the census data are

updated throughout the decade but those updates are largely the

result of administrative records. The extent to which those administrative records capture those people who tend to be historically

under-counted, the better quality data. But that is an open question on how good those administrative records are.

I think it is important to keep in mind that no census has ever

been actually adjusted using statistical means to compensate for

the differential under-count or any under-count. So as we have

been saying, the accuracy of all these post-censal estimates really

starts with the quality of the decennial census. To the extent that

there has always been an under-count and that under-count has

never been adjusted, that affects the data going forward.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you for that response. Mr. McHenry, you are

recognized.

Mr. MCHENRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for

your testimony.

150

Mr. Mesenbourg, although the focus of this hearing is obviously

with the American Community Survey and the data put out in the

funding formulas in that regard, we haven’t had you back since address canvassing was finished. Our staffs have been briefed from

your folks at the Bureau. We thank you for that. I know you had

a pretty strong assessment of how well it went. I know the GAO

has a less rosy assessment. But could you touch on your view of

how successful the address canvassing was?

Mr. MESENBOURG. Certainly. We view it as a very successful undertaking. As you recall, a year ago there was much angst about

our ability to make the handheld computers work. We did a lot of

testing in December and prior to the address canvassing.

We actually started in eight of the local census offices a week

early. We also, rather than doing it in two waves as originally

planned with waves of about 5 weeks each, we split that into five

different waves and we started it in most of the local census offices

at the same time. The result of that is we were pretty well 99 percent done with this nearly a month ahead of schedule.

The areas that we had to wrap up had to do with areas that had

flooding like the Red River. We had mud slides in Puerto Rico. We

had a tornado in Kentucky. In fact, our finish date is July 17th.

We have three assignment areas that we are completing right now.

They are in Jackson, Mississippi, which faced flooding. We will

complete those. In fact, we are helicoptering canvassers into that

area because, once they can get into that area, they can actually

walk the streets. They will finish that operation this week.

So I see it as a very successful operation. We are doing lessons

learned as a result of that.

We had great success recruiting. The goal was to recruit about

700,000 folks to fill 140,000 jobs. We had 1.2 million applicants for

those 140,000 jobs. So we probably had the most highly skilled

work force that we have had on a decennial census and that was

huge for us.

Mr. MCHENRY. Are you on budget?

Mr. MESENBOURG. Right now we have run about 15 percent over

budget. A good amount of that—we are doing a detailed analysis,

as you would expect, right now—was because we went into the address operation with an assumption that we would have 10 percent

of the addresses be deletes, that we would go to there and we

would actually remove them from the list. We don’t have the final

number on that but it is more like almost double, a little less than

double of that.

What that means is we are going to error in the direction of

keeping an address on the address list rather than removing it. So

if we have an address that we leave as delete, we are going to send

an additional person out to verify that. That requires more mileage, more effort, and more enumerator time. We expect that most

of that will be associated with the underestimation of the deletes.

Mr. MCHENRY. We have had a lot of discussion about the

handheld computers. Do you believe they worked?

Mr. MESENBOURG. Yes. I believe they worked effectively. We had

some glitches during the first startup operation. Most of those were

associated with getting enumerators in touch with the help desk.

But originally we were assuming something like a 30 percent volVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:36 Feb 01, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00158 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\53869.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
151

ume for help desk. It turned out to be much less than that. We had

about a week of shakiness there but the handhelds performed well.

Mr. MCHENRY. Mr. Goldenkoff, what is GAO’s initial survey of

how well address canvassing went?

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. I think it is too early at this point to make any

blanket statements about the overall success of address canvassing.

I think you need to parse it out to different components.

As you know, there was a lot of concern over the handheld devices. As Mr. Mesenbourg said, there were some initial glitches but

the Census Bureau did an excellent job in overcoming those with

workarounds. We were out in the field in about 30 different locations. I myself was out in Meridian, Mississippi and also New Orleans so I saw some of this myself. The handhelds really were very

effective in helping the address canvassers figure out where they

were and to not go over boundaries or into other areas. So that was

a positive story.

They also finished largely ahead of schedule, which was good

news. One of the things that we are looking at there, though, was

whether quality was sacrificed at the cost of speed. So we are looking into that.

In terms of some other things, though, that perhaps could have

gone better, Mr. Mesenbourg said they are over budget.

Fingerprinting, as you know, that was an issue and is something

that we have been looking at pretty closely. About 23 percent of the

fingerprint cards were unreadable. My understanding is that those

individuals whose cards could not be read or scanned by the FBI—

so they had an initial applicant name check but they did not have

their fingerprints reviewed by the FBI—were still allowed to work.

So there is a security issue in that, of course. There is also cost,

too, because basically the money that was spent on those fingerprints and having them reviewed by the FBI just went to waste.

There were some transmission issues with the cell phone service

in rural areas. It was not a major issue but it did affect some of

the efficiency of the address canvassers.

Recruiting went well. They had a very good quality work force,

very conscientious. I think all of the GAO folks that were in the

field were very impressed with how hard and how conscientiously

the temporary workers did there jobs.

So at this point, as I said, it is just too early to make any comprehensive or overarching statements. But we will be looking at

each of those different components as we move forward.

Mr. MCHENRY. Thank you.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. McHenry. Ms. Kaptur, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

Ms. KAPTUR. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.

I really appreciate being able to participate today. Thank you for

your leadership.

Mr. Mesenbourg, I wanted to ask you if the Census Bureau is

aware of such communities as Toledo, OH that have suffered

under-counting of their populations in previous years. We have

seen what has happened in the New Orleans region.

One of my concerns is the rising and extraordinary level of housing foreclosures. In these foreclosure regions like Toledo and obviously the New Orleans area and others, what is the Census Bureau

152

doing to offer additional financial support or assistance training

personnel that could help these types of communities that have

been so damaged by the economy or natural circumstances to

achieve a proper count of their populations? It isn’t clear that these

individuals who are being foreclosed on are leaving their communities?

Mr. MESENBOURG. I would be glad to talk about that. Perhaps

I should just take a second to talk about the Population Estimates

Program and the challenge program.

As we described before, at the national, State, and county level,

basically we are starting with the census 2000 count. Then we are

adding in births and subtracting deaths for that location, and then

doing an adjustment for migration, both international and domestic. So for someone that immigrated into the United States from

Europe or wherever, we use the American Community Survey to do

that. We also look at migration within States and within counties,

across counties, and we use the IRS data typically to do that. That

is what we call the ADREC data and we believe that methodology

is performing very well.

At the sub-county level, for example for Toledo, what we would

use is the housing unit method. So we would start with the estimate of the number of housing units in Toledo in 2000. Then we

take what the occupancy rate was in 2000 and what the persons

per household was in 2000, and we also have an adjustment for

group quarters. Right now, the Population Estimates Program for

this sub-county level data is using the census 2000 average persons

per household and the census 2000 occupancy rate.

I can give you an example for Flint, MI of what the impact is

of this methodology. Our 2008 population estimate for Flint, MI is

112,900 individuals. In the challenge method, people come in and

tell us they have additional housing units. When they do that, we

use the census 2000 average per persons per household and we use

the occupancy rate. So, for example in Flint, the occupancy rate in

census 2000 was 81.9 percent. From our most recent American

Community Survey, which is the 3-year estimate spanning 2005

through 2007, the occupancy rate is 78.5 percent. By using the existing challenge method, which uses census 2000, we would have

estimated a population growth in Flint of 9.3 percent. If we actually updated that persons per household and the occupancy rate

using the most current data, Flint would have had a reduction of

6.4 percent.

So what I want to clarify is the challenge process. We invite any

locality to challenge. Typically, of the 39,000 jurisdictions that we

publish data for, about 100 ask for a challenge proposal package

and about 64 actually challenge. When they challenge, if they can

come in and demonstrate to us that they have additional housing

units, then we will go back and use the census 2000 persons per

household and the census 2000 occupancy rate.

Given, as you are talking about Congresswoman, the decline in

occupancy rate, the challenge biases the population estimates up.

So if we flash forward a year or two, we probably do not want to

be using the 2010 average persons per household or the 2010 occupancy rate. So this is one of the things that we have on our research agenda, to look at the housing unit estimate component,

153

which is sub-county, and to also take another look at the challenge

process itself.

Now, what are we doing to improve the count? We are going to spend over $300 million on paid advertising with a huge increase

in the advertising that goes into the local areas. Probably the biggest single thing we are going to do is we are going to have nearly

2,900 partnership specialists working in our local offices. We will

have nearly 500 local census offices scattered across the United

States.

In census 2000 we had about 600 people reaching out to local organizations. This time it is more like 2,900. So they are the folks,

they are the trusted voices that we want to be in Toledo to convince

the Mayor to convince others to form a Complete Count Committee.

We will work with you to improve that count. In brief, that is what

we are doing.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I am sure my time has expired but

in a community like Toledo, over 12 percent of our housing stock

is now foreclosed and the rate is rising. I was in a neighborhood

in Cleveland, OH, now declared the poorest city in America over

the weekend, we were in Slavic Village, a neighborhood where they

claim 75 percent of the homes have been foreclosed. I just wonder,

when you go door to door and when you send out material, how you

really find the people that used to live in those homes.

Mr. MESENBOURG. So what we have done through the address

canvassing is identify all of the addresses. If it exists, it is on the

address list. We did not attempt to make a determination whether

it was occupied or vacant because obviously that could change by

April 2010. We think we have done a good job in terms of identifying the addresses.

What we are doing is taking a look at our procedures for the nonresponse followup. You are 100 percent correct. If that is a vacant

housing unit and we mail out a census form, we are not going to

get a census form mailed back. So starting May 1, 2010, we are

going to send an enumerator out to knock on that door. In some

cases it is obvious that is a vacant housing unit. In other cases, it

is not so obvious. In some cases, maybe someone else is living there

or multiple families are living there.

We know that is going to be a challenge. That has to be part of

our communication message to get trusted voices. If someone is

doubling up in a housing unit, they need to actually report that accurately. If they don’t, we will miss people.

Mr. CLAY. Just on that point, Ms. Kaptur, I would hope that the

Bureau’s research would bring to light that there may need to be

different methodologies in this era of housing foreclosures and postKatrina.

I was down in New Orleans for the address canvassing. Believe

you me, the enumerators do not have an easy time. They have to

go up to buildings that may look vacant but there are electric wires

going into the buildings so perhaps there is someone living there.

They have to keep coming back day after day to figure it out. So

their task is not easy either.

Hopefully the research will bring us a new methodology.

Ms. KAPTUR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know that we will

have between 10 million and 20 million people in this country

154

whose homes will be foreclosed by next year. That is a shocking figure.

Mr. CLAY. But the people are somewhere, though.

Let me go to our colleague from Georgia, Mr. Westmoreland. You

are recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Mesenbourg, I want just to clarify that. You can’t do the

2010 census based on where people are living in 2009, correct?

Mr. MESENBOURG. That is correct.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. You have to wait until you send the forms

out in 2010?

Mr. MESENBOURG. That is correct. The address canvassing has

been to build as complete a list of housing unit addresses as we

can. Then that is the vehicle to help us deliver report forms.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. That is being done with the handheld computers, correct?

Mr. MESENBOURG. That was done with the handheld computers.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. In prior testimony that you have given in

front of this committee, you stated that a lot of the data that you

get does come from local city and county governments. Is that correct as far as housing starts, permits, births, and deaths?

Mr. MESENBOURG. Well, the construction information will come

from the local government permit office. Information on births and

deaths come from the vital record agencies, not from the local government.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. But you do get some information from local

governments?

Mr. MESENBOURG. Certainly, in terms of the updates to our construction program and new construction activity. So any construction that has occurred since we finished address canvassing near

the end of June and before we do the census, we will be getting

building permits flowed to us from local governments. We will have

an opportunity to send an enumerator out to actually collect information from those new units. That will happen in late July and

August 2010.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Mesenbourg, you say that you have

been at the Census Bureau for 36 years. Is that correct?

Mr. MESENBOURG. That is correct. Maybe it is almost 37.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. So this is not your first rodeo when it

comes to the census. Would you say that the process of doing the

census has gotten better over the years?

Mr. MESENBOURG. I think it has become more challenging if we

look at just the diversity in terms of additional languages and the

recent economic problems that the Nation has faced. I think it is

clear that this is going to be one of our most challenging censuses.

We feel we have the procedures in place to conduct a successful

census but we believe our partnership program especially is key to

deliver that message, to mobilize the communities. I think we have

all been very impressed by the energy of the different constituencies and how committed they all are to making this a successful

census. I think having nearly 2,900 partnership specialists in the

field is going to be key for us to connect with local areas. Of course,

we will hire locally also. That is a key strategy.

155

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Just to go back over a little bit of your Population Estimates Program, it is my understanding that you start

off with the decennial number or the census.

Mr. MESENBOURG. The census count, right.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Then you add births and subtract deaths,

is that true?

Mr. MESENBOURG. That is true.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Then I guess for the internal migration, let

us say somebody moves from Patrick’s district to a good congressional district in Georgia—[laughter.]

What kind of data would you use to track that?

Mr. MESENBOURG. For the population that is under 65, we use

the IRS tax data to do that year to year movement. That has about

80 percent coverage of the population. For the population 65 or

older, we use the Medicare information. We use that address information on that.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. OK, so that is kind of your formula for coming up with that. Now, how about the American Community Survey? Can you kind of explain how you use that?

Mr. MESENBOURG. Well, the American Community Survey is the

replacement for the old long form. In 1990, 2000, and previous censuses, one in six households got a long form. And it was long. It

was over 50 pages. That was the source of all the social, economic,

and household information. We have replaced that once in a decade

long form survey with the American Community Survey.

The American Community Survey samples about 250,000 households a month and then publishes data annually. In September,

probably September 22nd, we will produce the 2008 estimates for

all jurisdictions with a population of 65,000 or more. Then in December, we will produce the 3-year estimate, which will be 2006,

2007, and 2008, for all jurisdictions with a population over 20,000.

Next December will be the first time we produce the 5-year estimate and that will go down to the very smallest geographic areas.

So it is really the primary source of the social, economic data like

poverty statistics, income, information on disabilities, and so on.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. I have one final question, if I could, Mr.

Chairman. I know that the population estimates that you have

had, at least from the numbers that I have seen, that over the past

three decades you have been really I guess plus or minus about 2.5

percent of the decennial number. Is that correct?

Mr. MESENBOURG. That is correct. In 1990 and 2000, it was

about 2.5 or 2.4 percent under the census number.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. In 1 year it was over?

Mr. MESENBOURG. I think both years it was under but I can double check that.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Both years were under a little bit? OK. But

2.5 percent based on the information you are getting is pretty darn

close. I want to commend you and the people at the Census Bureau

for the job you have done.

I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CLAY. We will do a second round of questioning with this

panel. I will start with Mr. Mesenbourg.

Tell me how does the Census Bureau notify other Federal departments of changes in population?

156

Mr. MESENBOURG. Well, we produce the population estimates on

a regular schedule. Let me just use the 2008 population estimate.

So in December 2008, we provided the national and the State population estimate for 2008. In March 2009, we produced the countylevel population estimates. Then, as of July 1st, we produced the

sub-county level. So we just put those statistics out in the last couple of weeks.

Mr. CLAY. You share that with Federal agencies?

Mr. MESENBOURG. It is on the Web site and I think all of the

agencies that are using population estimates data in their formulas

are very familiar with the release schedule.

Mr. CLAY. OK. Mr. Mesenbourg, along those same lines, is there

a plan afoot to put a moratorium on the census challenge program?

Mr. MESENBOURG. Well, the sub-county data, using our schedule,

would come out in July 2010, basically a year from now. So we will

put a moratorium on the 2009 challenges because by the time we

would evaluate and produce those data, information from the 2010

census will be produced at the State level no later than December

31, 2010.

Mr. CLAY. So we are talking 6 months? How long will the moratorium last?

Mr. MESENBOURG. Let me be clear. There will be no challenge

process on the 2009 estimate because by the time we would act on

it, we will have better 2010 census data. Now, when we come to

calendar year 2010, then we have the estimates from the decennial

census so we do not produce public estimates of the population estimates for 2010. The census counts stand as the count.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you so much for that response.

Let me go to Mr. Richardson. Mr. Richardson, I and many others

have concerns about the design of formulas that correct the undercount and result in an increased number in the population count

yet and yield fewer moneys to the municipalities because of the increase. This is the result of applying a mechanism called a growth

lag. The growth lag is to assist areas with stagnant population

growth. Low income areas normally have population growth and

wealthier areas tend to have fewer children and more stagnant

growth.

Can you show me where the benefit of having the growth lag applied to these under-counts counteracts the loss of funds in these

poorer areas that seemingly would need the funding more?

Mr. RICHARDSON. I think that is an excellent point. The growth

lag variable in the CDBG formula was developed in the 1970’s to

try to address the needs of a lot of communities at that time that

were facing significant population loss due to a number of factors.

The formula was put into statute and has not been changed.

HUD has done a number of studies looking at the different variables, including growth lag, and how well they target the need.

Growth lag does have the problems you note. Communities that are

relatively well-off communities that have had populations that

stayed the same or gone down even because of smaller household

sizes, they get substantial grants under the Community Development Block Grant Program, as do other communities that are seriously distressed. Saint Louis, Detroit, and Toledo get substantial

amounts of funding because they have lost population since 1960.

157

In the studies we have done, there are recommendations on how

that could be fixed to make the formula so that it doesn’t create

these anomalies and so it ensures that the money is directed to the

communities that most need it. As I noted earlier, President

Obama in his 2010 budget proposal has indicated a desire to work

with the Congress to try to make the changes to make this formula

target better.

Mr. CLAY. Yes. Let us begin by you sharing those studies with

the subcommittee.

Mr. RICHARDSON. Absolutely. We will provide you a copy of that

study. In fact, I have one with me. I can leave that with your staff.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you so much.

I will recognize my colleague from North Carolina, Mr. McHenry.

Mr. MCHENRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mesenbourg,

there has been some discussion about Hurricane Katrina. It was

devastating and still is a devastating event for the Gulf Coast.

Some parts of the Gulf Coast region still haven’t recovered. The

chairman discussed the difficulties of the address canvassing there.

But to look at how devastating that was, it was obviously a horrible event for the people of the Gulf Coast, but to look at the data

that the Census Bureau produced, I have given you two tables,

Table 1 and Table 2, that come from your Bureau. One is about

East Baton Rouge Parish and the other is about Orleans Parish.

New Orleans and Baton Rouge, in essence. These are your population estimates for those two counties. You can see the massive

loss of population in Orleans parish and the uptick in East Baton

Rouge. It is obvious to deduce that some moved to East Baton

Rouge. In Table 2, you actually determine where people migrated

from, too.

Could you talk about a study by three people that work for you,

Roger Johnson, Justin Bland, and Charles Coleman, who tracked

the dislocation of people as they left the path of Katrina and the

aftermath?

Mr. MESENBOURG. Certainly. Of course, Katrina posed real challenges to the population estimates. I talked about how at the county level we start with census 2000, add births, subtract deaths, and

then use the tax records and the Medicare records to try to estimate migration. One of the first things that happened post-Katrina

is that the IRS provided I think it was a 6-month extension in

terms of filing taxes. It was clear that we had to come up with a

different way of tracking that migration.

What we did is we availed ourselves of the Postal Service National Change of Address record. We identified all the housing

units and the individuals pre-Katrina. Then, using this postal

change of address, we found out where they moved to. They not

only moved, of course, within Louisiana. They moved to Houston.

They moved to Atlanta.

The study you referred to, Congressman McHenry, basically

shows large maps of exactly where all of those people that we identified pre-Katrina, where they ended up.

I guess I would see that as a demonstration that when faced with

real challenges, the staff can come up with a way to produce the

data. We knew we needed to do something there.

158

Mr. MCHENRY. Are there additional administrative data that you

used aside from the Postal Service or was that the crux of it here?

Mr. MESENBOURG. It was primarily this National Change of Address record. Once we found out where the people had actually

moved, then we could also leverage the other administrative record

data. But the real challenge was to find out where they had migrated to from New Orleans.

Mr. MCHENRY. OK. That is the Table 2. I am sorry we don’t have

it for the screens. Unfortunately, the screens are not working

today.

How confident are you in these estimates?

Mr. MESENBOURG. Quite confident. I think they have been vetted

by folks. Given the extraordinary challenges that the New Orleans

area faced, I think this is about as good a job as an agency can do

in terms of tracking those individuals.

Mr. MCHENRY. OK. Has the Mayor of New Orleans quibbled with

the data?

Mr. MESENBOURG. I believe the Mayor has challenged the population estimate. That is not unusual. As I say, we typically have

about 65 primarily larger cities that challenge the estimate.

Mr. MCHENRY. So it is a pretty regular occasion?

Mr. MESENBOURG. It is a very open procedure to challenge. If jurisdictions have the data to support an increase in their number of

housing units, then typically they are going to win the challenge

process.

Mr. MCHENRY. Oh, I see. So you do incorporate that on a regular

basis?

Mr. MESENBOURG. Yes.

Mr. MCHENRY. OK. Additionally, is it more difficult to track race

and ethnicity following Katrina? Is that an additional challenge because of using different administrative data? Or is it hard to say?

Mr. MESENBOURG. I don’t want to give you the wrong answer.

We provide the race data at a certain level. We do produce the race

information at the county level. I am confident in it at that level.

We do not produce the race data at the sub-county level. It is the

total population that we are producing there. So for Fulton County,

we would be confident in that number.

Mr. MCHENRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. McHenry.

This panel will be dismissed and we will set up for the second

panel. Thank you all for your testimony today.

[Recess.]

Mr. CLAY. The meeting will come back to order. We will now

hear from our second panel.

Our first witness will be Mr. Carleton Finkbeiner, who is the

mayor of Toledo, OH. As Mayor of Toledo, he has helped bring new

living opportunities to the downtown area. The Mayor is also active

in the U.S. Conference of Mayors and was a national chairman of

Rebuild America. Thank you for being here, Mr. Mayor.

Next we will hear from Mr. Robert Bowser, who is the mayor of

the city of East Orange, NJ. It is good to see you again. Welcome

back. Mayor Bowser is the founder of the New Jersey Conference

of Black Mayors and was selected as president in 2003. He is also

159

a member of the U.S. Conference of Mayors and is vice chair of the

2010 Census Taskforce.

Our third witness, Mr. Arturo Vargas, is the executive director

of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, a national membership organization of Latino policymakers

and their supporters. He is a nationally recognized expert in Latino

demographic trends, electoral participation, voting rights, the census, and redistricting. He currently serves on the 2010 Census Advisory Committee. Welcome back to the committee, Mr. Vargas.

Our final witness is Mr. Jamie Alderslade. He is the director of

external relations at Social Compact, a non-profit agency dedicated

to fostering private investment in inner city communities. He

works on projects that utilize asset-based information as a platform

for consensus between local governments, investors, and communities to promote sustainable investment in the under-served urban

neighborhoods. Welcome, Mr. Alderslade.

Welcome to all of you. Thank you for appearing today before the

subcommittee. It is the policy of this committee to swear in all witnesses before they testify. I would like to ask you to stand and

raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. CLAY. Thank you. You may be seated. Let the record reflect

that the witnesses answered in the affirmative.

Each of you will have 5 minutes to make an opening statement.

Your complete written testimony will be included in the hearing

record.

Mayor Finkbeiner, you may proceed with your opening statement.

STATEMENTS OF CARLETON FINKBEINER, MAYOR, CITY OF

TOLEDO, OH; ROBERT BOWSER, MAYOR, CITY OF EAST ORANGE, NJ; ARTURO VARGAS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LATINO ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS; AND JAMIE ALDERSLADE, DIRECTOR

OF EXTERNAL RELATIONS, THE SOCIAL COMPACT, INC.

STATEMENT OF CARLETON FINKBEINER

Mr. FINKBEINER. Thank you, Chairman Clay. I appreciate this

opportunity a great deal.

I have been mayor of Toledo for 12 years. My experiences in attempting to get an accurate count of Toledo during that 12 year period of time have been rather frustrating. That we why we hired

Social Compact on the recommendation of the Mayor of Cincinnati,

Mark Mallory, where Social Compact had helped them significantly.

I think I can speak today with perhaps as much knowledge as

any Mayor coming before you, not because I am a Mayor but because I was a census leader in 1970 in Toledo, OH. I want to tell

you what I learned from that experience.

Many of my counters were elderly females. We began the census

count in affluent, upper middle and middle class neighborhoods.

My elderly enumerators felt very comfortable as they walked up

and knocked on the doors of rather spacious, extremely well-kept,

160

and trendy suburban-type households. My enumerators enjoyed

themselves immensely.

As the weeks progressed and my enumerators completed their

tasks in these middle class neighborhoods, they methodically

worked their way toward central city Toledo. As they did, their enthusiasm began to taper off. Their gusto for enumerating poor

neighborhoods of significant diversity became really and readily apparent.

With multiple story apartment buildings as part of their daily

agenda, I began to lose my crew. Ultimately, of the three dozen

members of my staff that began, one remained to tackle central

city Toledo neighborhoods. Even though others were brought onboard, they did not have the same degree of training and enthusiasm my initial crews did. I began to worry about a serious undercounting of the poor, the disadvantaged, and men and women of

color.

In the 40 years that have gone by since, there are more poor people than ever living in the hearts of our cities, including Toledo.

Some are homeless men and women. Some are regular visitors at

the shelters that provide food on a daily basis. Others have been

released from mental hospitals and seek counseling and medicines.

These men and women cling to the heart of the city where assistance is available and they are able to fit in as opposed to looking

extremely out of the normal in those suburban and middle class enclaves I mentioned earlier.

Fast forward to my 12 years as Mayor. I asked my Neighborhoods Department staff to help me estimate how many Jane and

John Does were being left uncounted. It is the John and Jane Does

who need the help of the Federal Government as well as State and

local governments, 501(c)(3)’s, and non-profit agencies.

If people are not counted because U.S. census workers are tentative at best as they count the central city, marching door to door,

apartment to apartment, homeless shelter to homeless shelter, how

can we ensure we are identifying all of our citizens?

One thing I know for sure is that there are more men and

women living in mobile housing unit conditions in bleaker environments and in growing numbers today than back in 1970 when I

had my experience. These men and women desperately need the

help of our Federal Government and our Federal agencies. Our responsibility is to find out how to get each and every one of these

men and women counted by the U.S. census.

During the past few years, there have been numerous reports

saying that the city of Toledo, as well as Lucas County, is losing

population. In preparation for our 2010 census, the staff of the Toledo Planning Commission at my direction and with the help of Social Compact identified over 1,400 addresses previously not recorded on the U.S. Census Bureau’s current address list. This confirmed my suspicion that there was a population under-count of

housing units from 2000 to 2007 in the city of Toledo.

In fact, the adjusted estimate meant that Toledo’s population in

2007 was actually higher than in 2000, far from declining as had

been consistently reported over several years. To the credit of the

Department of Commerce and the U.S. Census Bureau, they acknowledged that Toledo had a population of 316,851, some 21,822

161

more people than the U.S. Census Bureau’s original 2000 population estimate. The date of that acknowledgment was January 9,

2009. I attach a copy of the letter.

To my surprise, on June 2, 2009, I was sent a letter from HUD’s

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development. It stated that as a result of Toledo’s successful challenge, the city will actually be receiving $293,585 less in Community Development Block Grant funding in fiscal year 2009. A copy

of that letter is also attached.

CDBG entitlement community grants are a vital source of funding from HUD directly to Toledo. The ability to use the grants

flexibly allows my administration the freedom to respond to the

very specific housing and development needs of Toledo’s low and

moderate income communities. At a time when great efforts are

being made to stimulate the economy, CDBG funding serves a vitally important role in that endeavor.

Having successfully participated in the census challenge program, we expected to receive a larger allocation in CDBG funding,

particularly because there are more poor men and women now

moving toward the centers of our cities, including Toledo, than ever

before. If there are more people in the city of Toledo, as confirmed

by Federal Government, with increasing poverty and unemployment, and ours tops at about 12 percent, why would the city of Toledo’s CDBG allocation be reduced? I can only conclude that the

CDBG allocation formula needs to be addressed to rectify the situation facing the city of Toledo.

In closing, the city of Toledo, regardless of current formula allocations, will continue to strive for accurate data for investment and

planning purposes. We will continue to work cooperatively with our

community and the U.S. Census Bureau to make sure every

Toledoan is counted.

Each human being is given a name at birth. Until death, they

are to remain a concern of a caring society. Without a name or an

identity, they may as well be condemned to death. None of us want

that. Therefore, let us make sure every person is counted.

I have one concluding comment. A death occurred in our community 48 hours ago. The man that died was 68 years of age. He had

been a homeless man in Boston for about 15 to 20 years. He was

born and raised in Toledo. He got some aid and assistance when

he was in Boston and his family urged him to come back to the

family home in Toledo. Fifteen years ago he returned. The last 15

years, that man has made such an impact on life in the neighborhood in which he lived. He still looked very skinny, very bearded,

and very disheveled and he rode a bike everywhere. But that man

was going to Board of Education meetings. He was going to Social

Services meetings and Criminal Justice meetings. That man made

such a difference.

It was about 10 days ago that he unfortunately was knocked off

his bike by a youngster and hit his head on the pavement. He was

in a coma for 10 days. Our community came to a stop for 10 days

while Bob was in a coma in a hospital. He died 48 hours ago.

That man was once homeless. Because he was identified as a real

person as a result of the Boston metropolitan area Social Services

people, he came back and made a very, very significant contribuVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:36 Feb 01, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00169 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\53869.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
162

tion to Toledo the last 15 years of his life. He will be deeply missed.

That is why every man or woman needs to be counted.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Finkbeiner follows:]

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

Mr. CLAY. Thank you so much, Mr. Mayor, for your testimony.

Mayor Bowser, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT BOWSER

Mr. BOWSER. Good afternoon, Chairman Clay, Ranking Member

McHenry, and members of the subcommittee. I am always glad to

be in Washington to see where my money is going.

On behalf of the city of East Orange, NJ, I urge all of our people

to be counted in the 2010 census. Everyone’s participation is vital

to ensure our voices are heard in Congress. A complete count also

almost guarantees our community would get its fair share of Federal dollars, which would mean money for schools, hospitals, roads,

and social services. This count includes the homeless, the legal, and

the undocumented. We are all entitled to the same services provided within our city. It is easy, important, and safe to participate.

All of this information is confidential.

To ensure an accurate count in the city of East Orange, we plan

to engage our community with a team of people, coordinators and

leaders of various ethnic backgrounds, who look like and speak the

same language as the people we are counting.

A complete and accurate count means a sustainable, better way

of life for all people. Historically in the city of East Orange, we believe that the last two census counts were seriously flawed, resulting in an under-count in excess of 12 percent.

As a city, we rely on accurate population figures for all county,

State, and Federal applications for grants and supplemental aid for

many if not all programs. In this present economy, municipal government has to fight for and look for fiscal help wherever it is

available. The census figures are the one common factor in all applications and the compelling argument for jurisdictions in need.

We at the local level must meet our obligation to provide services

and the opportunity for services for all our constituents.

At this hearing, we were asked to comment on the impact of the

under-count on funding formulas and how this would affect local

communities. First, let me say that it is important to distinguish

between concerns about funding formulas and the concerns about

allocations under the formulas. The question of whether funding

formulas are designed properly and whether they take into account

the conditions Congress desires to address is separate from the

question of the accuracy of the data used to allocate funds under

the formulas.

Without going into the details about CDBG funding, there are

two formulas, A and B. Both of them rely on census data. When

they are calculated, the formula, either A or B, that gives more justification for funds, that is the one that is used. Under these formulas, jurisdictions always receive more funds than the total

amount available through appropriations. To bring the allocation

within the appropriated amount HUD uses, they use a pro-rated

reduction that may be different annually.

If East Orange’s population is not correctly calculated in the

most recent census, the argument could be made that neither formula A nor B can be calculated accurately to allocate to this jurisdiction because 50 percent of formula A and 20 percent of formula

B rely on the accurate population count. Even if one formula is

176

used instead of the other, an inaccurate census count could greatly

impact East Orange’s CDBG allocation, ensuring this jurisdiction

receives less than the community needs.

Also, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s

formula calculations rely on several factors that are directly impacted when the U.S. Census Bureau under-counts, especially because in East Orange we also have a high number of house rentals

and apartment units.

Let me just give you a little information about the city of East

Orange. We are only 3.9 square miles but 83 percent of our

buildable land is residential. We were cut in half by the Garden

State Parkway and then we were quartered by Interstate 280. We

are 15 miles from New York and we border six other towns or cities

right along the city of Newark.

The U.S. Conference of Mayors Metro Economies Committee reported that of cities within the category of 50,000 to 100,000 people, East Orange has the highest percentage of people of color in

all of the United States of America. It is close to 95 percent.

One other factor that we found out is that home ownership in the

city of East Orange was less than 35 percent 8 years ago. Because

of the census and the fact that it was inaccurate, we went out and

checked about 40 of the census tracks. We had no means to challenge that count. But because of that fact that percentage of home

ownership was so low, we went into a first time home buyers program. What we did was to educate the population. We made sure

we helped people get their credit better and we gave them counseling. Now, in 2009, we are at 47 percent home ownership and we

have avoided a lot of the foreclosures in our city because of the fact

that we were challenging some of the census numbers in our own

right.

Also in our city, compounding our problem is that of homes that

are one and two families, 40 percent of them are owned by senior

citizens. Of that number, 43 percent of them are on fixed income,

retired, and have no mortgage. Every time we look to increase

taxes, this is the group that is most vulnerable.

When you look at and talk about under-counting, the historic fact

is the factors that affect an under-count are people of color, low income populations, immigrants with limited English proficiency,

young people, and unemployed people. The city of East Orange is

in a lot of trouble because that fits our demographics right away.

What we need to do to make sure is that we count everybody.

If you take a few things that you can use as parameters, because

our population right now is said to be, with all of the adjustments

and I have no idea how they make them, 69,824 people, but if you

look at our water consumption, it should be somewhere around

77,000 people. If you look at our school population, which includes

public schools, charter schools, private schools, and day care, it

should be somewhere between 73,000 and 75,000. If you look at

solid waste disposal, it should be somewhere around 72,000 people.

Something went awry at the first count. In this count coming up,

if it is wrong in the first year, it is wrong for the next 9 years. That

is a problem.

[The prepared statement for Mr. Bowser follows:]

177

178

179

180

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Vargas, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF ARTURO VARGAS

Mr. VARGAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member

McHenry, for the opportunity to appear before you on behalf of the

NALEO Educational Fund.

You know, a successful census requires an accurate count of the

estimated 47 million Latinos in the Nation. We are the second largest population group and the fastest growing population. An undercount of the Latino population means a failed census. It will skew

the distribution of Federal resources to States and localities.

Many of the Federal programs allocated using census data are

critical to the education and health of Latino families, such as the

Department’s of Education Title I grants and Department’s of

Health and Human Services’ Head Start and SCHIP programs.

These programs are just three of the Federal initiatives that have

proven successful in helping children living in poverty to succeed

in school and lead healthy lives. Without accurate 2010 census

data, we would not be able to accurately assess the number of children in need nor allocate sufficient resources for them.

An under-count of the Latino population will also have a significant impact on the fair distribution of Federal funding to States

and cities with large Latino populations. Nearly half of the Nation’s

Federal funding allocated using census data is distributed to nine

States where nearly 80 percent of the Nation’s Latinos reside.

These amounts range from $3.5 billion for New Mexico to nearly

$42 billion for California. In addition, $43 billion in Federal funding allocations that rely on census data, about 11 percent of the

Nation’s total, are distributed to the five metropolitan areas where

one out of four Latinos live.

Latino elected officials at the State and local levels know the

harm caused by the under-count. In my written testimony, we

present four examples of elected officials around the country who

are dealing with the problems caused by the under-count. These officials recommend changes to the Bureau’s census challenge program to ensure that yearly population estimates are more accurate.

The Latino elected officials we have surveyed recommend that the

Bureau help jurisdictions to better understand the data and evidence required for a successful challenge and the criteria that the

Bureau use to accept challenges.

To help avoid an under-count and the harm that it brings, we

offer the following recommendations for the 2010 census: First,

Congress must provide the Census Bureau with sufficient funding

to conduct the census. The House has approved census funding

that is $206 million below the President’s request. This seems to

be the result of a misunderstanding between House appropriators

and the Department of Commerce over certain carryover funds.

The Senate Appropriations Committee has approved census funding at a level closer to the President’s request. We urge the Senate

to adopt the committee recommendation and urge appropriators to

restore the $206 million in conference that appears to have been

inadvertently cut by the House.

181

Second, the U.S. Senate must expeditiously confirm the nomination of the Director of the Census Bureau. The delay on Dr.

Groves’s confirmation is impairing the ability of the Bureau to proceed on track.

Third, the Census Bureau must implement a communications

and outreach plan that takes into account the current economic

and social realities. The security measures implemented after September 11, including provisions of the Patriot Act, have raised concerns about confidentiality. Hurricane Katrina and other natural

disasters have displaced thousands of residents. We are in the

worst economic crisis since the Great Depression with thousands

having lost their homes through foreclosures. Millions are living

disengaged from our country’s civic life. The paid advertising campaign needs to reach these Americans.

As a member of the Joint Advisory Advertising Review Panel, I

joined with my fellow members in raising concerns about the proposed advertising campaign that was initially developed. We are

heartened to see that the communications contractors have taken

into consideration the views of the JAARP and have retooled the

messaging of the campaign. Last week, we were presented with a

plan that was much more cohesive, better promoted the confidentiality and safety of the census, and reflected the economic times.

This retooled campaign will need further testing and refinement

but time is of the essence. We encourage Congress to continue its

vigilance over this crucial component of the 2010 communications

plan.

In addition, the lack of an English language paid media strategy

directed at Latinos is problematic. The Census Bureau will fail to

reach a large segment of the hard to count population if it relies

exclusively on Spanish language media to reach all Latinos.

Special strategies will also be required to count immigrants because our Nation’s ongoing immigration policy debate has exacerbated their fear of contact with Government agencies and have increased hate crimes. The Bureau must use strategies that overcome

this distrust and all public agencies must work to promote public

confidence in the census.

The Census Bureau must ensure that its 2010 work force reflects

the diversity of the Nation’s population from its highest managerial

positions to its field enumerators. Latinos are the most under-represented segment of the Bureau’s permanent work force, comprising less than 6 percent. As the Bureau continues to deploy its massive work force, it must hire a diverse group of top managers to

lead its regional operations.

To effectively reach the hard to count population, the Bureau

must also hire enumerators who are familiar with local communities and their residents. In many neighborhoods, these workers

must be bilingual. We have heard reports from some areas that

sufficient bilingual enumerators are not available to hire, particularly in areas with emerging populations.

Congress should closely monitor the implementation of the census in schools program. This was one of the success stories of census 2000. We are concerned that we are not going to have the same

aggressive implementation of census in schools in 2010 that we had

in 2000.

182

Finally, Congress must reject any proposals that would prevent

the full enumeration of every U.S. resident in the census. These

proposals are contrary to the fundamental precepts of our Constitution that call for a full count of every person residing in the Nation.

We strongly condemn the efforts of a small group of extremists and

even a Member of this legislative body calling for a census boycott.

Encouraging anyone to not participate in the census is simply

wrong.

The NALEO Educational Fund remains committed to being a

partner with the Congress and the administration in ensuring the

success of the 2010 count. We look forward to working with you on

this and I look forward to any questions you may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Vargas follows:]

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Vargas, for your testimony. Thank you

for the work you do.

Mr. Alderslade, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF JAMIE ALDERSLADE

Mr. ALDERSLADE. Good afternoon, Chairman Clay. Good afternoon, Ranking Member McHenry. Good afternoon, Congresswoman

Kaptur. Many thanks for this opportunity to discuss the important

matter of how census data is used in Federal formulae.

On a personal note, I came to this country 4 years ago to Social

Compact and now I am testifying on Capitol Hill. It is incredible.

[Laughter.]

Today, I want to make three brief points. Accurate demographic

data is critically important as a component of driving sustainable

economic development in our cities, especially in our under-served

neighborhoods. Close collaborative partnership between local governments and the Census Bureau is the Nation’s most important

driver for generating that data. Third, every conceivable effort

should be made to ensure that the evolution and strengthening of

this vital partnership between the Census Bureau and the cities

continues.

If there is one lesson that we have learned over the course of 10

years of conducting our pioneering drill-down research in 350

under-served neighborhoods across this country, where we found

under-served neighborhoods to be far larger, far safer, and with far

greater buying power than previously thought, is that information

matters. There is no more important source of information in this

country than that produced by the Census Bureau.

As you have heard from my fellow esteemed panelists, census

data defines everything from how much Federal and State funding

a city may receive to its prospects for attracting investments. When

demographic data is accurate, investment decisions are more informed, policy more refined, and funding allocations fairer.

To ensure accurate census information, it is imperative that

there are strong partnerships between local governments and the

Census Bureau. We therefore fully support the Census Bureau’s

development of the census challenge program, a major step in the

evolution and strengthening of alliances between local governments

and the Bureau.

Since 2001, 251 challenges by local governments have been recognized by the Census Bureau, resulting in population adjustments

of 1.8 million people to the contesting jurisdictions. So far, Social

Compact has worked with six cities, including the great city of Toledo, OH, across the country to provide the Census Bureau with

better local data, resulting in an aggregate adjustment of almost

200,000 additional residents.

The very existence of the census challenge program, a program

designed by the Census Bureau, and the city of Toledo’s participation in that program is the clearest signal possible that both the

Bureau and local governments are committed to building stronger

alliances. When that alliance is weakened or compromised, no one

benefits. The Census Bureau gets incomplete and irregular data

from cities; cities and States don’t get their appropriate share of

funding from Federal Government sources; investors don’t get the

200

accurate market information that they need; and perhaps most importantly, communities get under-counted.

As you heard from my fellow panelists, suspicion or a lack of understanding over how census data is used in Federal formulae

greatly compromise this crucial partnership. Indeed, the example of

the reduction in CDBG funding to Toledo as the result of its participation in the census challenge program actually discourages cities and local governments from working with the Census Bureau.

This must be addressed immediately.

For local governments to continue to submit accurate local data

to the Census Bureau, the formulas that include population factors

and are used by Federal agencies need to be transparent and trusted by cities. Specifically, I have four recommendations:

An immediate review is required of the formulas that HUD uses

to determine allocations of the CDBG entitlement grants. As it

stands, the current formulas used by HUD discourage cities from

submitting accurate local data to the Census Bureau.

Greater research is urgently required on the impacts of census

figures on all funding for local governments that is determined by

formulae. The city of Toledo knows to the dollar amount the reduction in CDBG funding as a result of participating in the challenge

program but has little idea of the dollar impacts on other funding

it receives. Cities need to know this.

Once this research has been completed, tools should be developed

for local governments so that they may plan for changes in population and corresponding changes in funding. For instance, could a

funding calculator be developed that enabled local governments to

plug in their population to calculate their predicted funding from

Federal and State programs?

Finally, there may be more that cities and the Census Bureau

could do to support the development of sound and transparent

funding formulae. One suggestion is a review of the current data

collected by local governments by the Census Bureau to determine

annual population estimates. Are there additional local data

sources that can be collected that will not only improve accuracy

but perhaps inform future funding formulae developments?

In conclusion, the census is the best and most important demographic data base we have in the United States. But it can be

greater still by ensuring close collaboration with local governments,

especially with populations with high minority and other undercounted communities. Social Compact will continue to work diligently to foster mutually beneficial partnerships between local governments and the Census Bureau. By urgently addressing these

issues outlined today, in partnership with Federal agencies, the

Census Bureau and local governments will have taken a major step

toward achieving our common goals.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Alderslade follows:]

201

202

203

204

205

206

Mr. CLAY. Thank you. Thank you so much for your testimony. I

thank the entire panel for their testimony.

I will defer to my colleague, Ms. Kaptur, to begin questioning.

You are recognized for 5 minutes.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you so much for

that. Mayor Finkbeiner of Toledo has to be leaving. His plane is

on the runway. I appreciate your graciousness and that of Ranking

Member McHenry. I very much appreciate it.

Mayor, thank you for your excellent testimony, which will be

made a part of the permanent record, and for your experience in

the area of census. I am going to ask my questions real quickly so

you can get them and any other matter you think we should know

regarding the census on the record.

No one has worked harder than you have to gain a full count and

funding to support the count inside the city of Toledo and Lucas

County, which are now suffering from double digit unemployment.

Can you tell us how easy it was for you to share your discovered

under-count with the Census Bureau? Did you face any challenges?

If so, how did you overcome them? What recommendations do you

have for this panel as we face the next census?

Mr. FINKBEINER. That is a great question, Congresswoman Kaptur. As you know, I was elected in 1993 and took office in 1994.

I think for the better part of that 8 years, it bothered me that I

did not feel that the consistent reporting of Toledo’s population

dropping, dropping, and dropping could be validated.

Our efforts to reach the regional office in Detroit and the local

office in Toledo were met with respect and were met with dignity

but we basically, in my judgment, got a cold shoulder. It was like,

‘‘we know what we are doing. We are the professionals and you are

just like every other Mayor in America: You think you have more

people than we do.’’

But having had that experience that I referred to in 1970 where

I lost 35 out of 36 of my crew, and that was the trained crew; the

people that were brought in behind them were nowhere near as

well trained as that initial crew, I have had great concerns.

When I learned that Cincinnati had gained over 20,000 people in

population, I called Mark Mallory, the Mayor. Mark told me that

he had done that only because he had felt the same frustration and

inability to reach the census people as I had. He said there is a

firm, Social Compact. They are very, very modest in what they

charge you and they helped me find 25,000 Cincinnatians. Then

the suburban communities plugged into it and they actually found

another 10,000 people in suburbia that were under-counted. So I

think their total gain was 35,000. That would be, I believe, Hamilton County.

We got in touch with Social Compact and they helped us know

the formula. Boy, it was very quick. It was only a matter of probably 60 to 90 days before we felt we were in a great position to

claim there were approximately 22,000 or 23,000. When it all came

down, this is very interesting Congresswoman, we were only off by

11. Really, the number we submitted was corrected by 11 persons

by the U.S. Census Bureau.

But then we get into this. That was 2007 count. Now, just recently, they released the 2008 count and they subtracted 2,500 peoVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:36 Feb 01, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00214 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\53869.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
207

ple from us and didn’t give us credit for the 22,600 people we had

gained. So it is rather confusing.

Then there was the letter saying we are going to have money

subtracted. The most important thing about this is, and I did listen

to the explanations, Congresswoman, that were given, that it

doesn’t make sense. If you think there is a recession going on in

48 States, come visit Michigan and Ohio. There is a depression in

Michigan and Ohio with 25 percent unemployment in Detroit, MI

and 12.5 percent in Toledo. At the very same time, we are saying

there are more people in Toledo. We know a fair share of them are

the socially disadvantaged and the economically disadvantaged because all of the services are in the heart of our city and our unemployment is 12.5 percent. Yet we have money pulled back from us.

That just doesn’t make any sense.

So to answer your question very directly, I am grateful for the

recognition of the fact that there are 22,600 more Toledoans than

thought but I don’t think I should have had to actually go and hire

an agency to get that point across to the Census Bureau.

Ms. KAPTUR. I think the testimony of our Mayor is very, very revealing, Mr. Chairman. I know that what you said will be taken

into consideration. I don’t know if we have representatives of the

Census Bureau still in the audience. I hope we do and that they

are listening as well.

Mr. CLAY. They are here.

Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the chairman for that. I thank you, Mayor

Finkbeiner, for your great leadership over so many years. It is the

toughest job in America to be a Mayor.

Mr. FINKBEINER. If you will allow me to make one more statement that I think it is important, Chairman Clay, Congresswoman

Kaptur, and Congressmen? God bless them, but do you note today

that the leadership that spoke to you was all white? The largest

group of uncounted men and women in America is not, I don’t believe, the white population. I believe it is the African American,

Hispanic, Latino, and Asian populations.

People still fear people who are different than themselves. We

are getting over it. Slowly but surely, we are getting over it. But

we are not there yet. In the very hearts of the cities is a significant

proportion of your African American, Latino, Hispanic, and Asian

populations. We can’t have them under-counted.

The best way we can get them counted is to have people that are

familiar with them doing the counting who not afraid to be in those

tall tenement buildings or in the poorer neighborhoods. That is

something that the U.S. Census Bureau needs to make a commitment to, in my judgment.

I do have to catch that plane. [Laughter.]

The Census Bureau will not be dismayed by that. [Laughter.]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much, Congress

Members. This is a hugely important issue to this Nation.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, too, Mr. Mayor, for your service to Toledo

and the country. We understand. You are excused.

Mr. McHenry, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. MCHENRY. Thank you, Chairman Clay. Thank you all for

your testimony. I really appreciate you being here. I know it has

been a long day with the votes and everything else. Thank you.

208

Mr. Alderslade, can you provide just a sort of quick synopsis of

what your organization does?

Mr. ALDERSLADE. Absolutely. We are a national non-profit organization, based literally 10 blocks away from here, of business leaders committed to promoting investment in low and moderate income, usually minority, communities. Through our pioneering market analytic tool, something called the drill-down, we conduct market analyses in these typically under-counted and under-served

communities to essentially make the business case for the first

time.

Usually these communities are defined by what is bad about

them. We know to a science what is bad about these communities

but we have no narrative for what is good and what their market

opportunities are. Without market opportunities, you don’t get private sector investments. So we make the business case.

We have done this in 350 under-served neighborhoods across 20

cities, including Washington, DC. We found 1.5 million more people, $35 million more buying power, and that these communities

are far safer than previously thought.

Mr. MCHENRY. On your Web site, you mention that your organization uncovers census errors. One interviewer stated that Social

Compact’s researchers are like inner city bloodhounds. They sniff

out people who are overlooked by the census. How do you do that?

I don’t want you to give away any secrets for your organization, but

how is that done?

Mr. ALDERSLADE. I don’t know whether to be pleased about that

description or not. I don’t know. There are two things we do:

The drill-down, which is using public and private sector data, is

about purely making the business case and helping Mayor

Finkbeiner, Mayor Mallory, and all sorts of Mayors make much

more investment information oriented policy decisions in a bid to

attract investments.

In terms of these cities that we have helped and are currently

helping now with census challenges, that methodology is defined by

the Census Bureau. It has been around since 2001. Challenge is

the wrong word. It sounds combative but it is the name of the program, unfortunately. The census challenge program allows local

governments to participate every year, just as New York City does

and just as Toledo did last year, using defined methodology that

was created by the Census Bureau. It allows local governments to

contribute construction data over the course of the last 10 years.

What we found is that there have been some issues with it. In

a sense, the existence of this program is fantastic. When cities are

successful in their challenge, there is no better signal that the Census Bureau and local governments can work together to produce accurate results.

Mr. MCHENRY. Do you use enumerators or do you use existing

data?

Mr. ALDERSLADE. We use existing data. So when we did Toledo’s,

we used existing construction data that they had lying around their

departments, collected as a result of just being a city government.

Mr. MCHENRY. Is this an error? Is it a willful omission or is it

an error on the Census Bureau’s part?

209

Mr. ALDERSLADE. No, it just needs some improvements. The acting census director is exactly right. There are 39,000 jurisdictions

that can challenge but we have only had 251 in the last 10 years.

It is not that cities are happy with their estimates. It is that essentially every month the Census Bureau sends a construction

form, the C–404 form, to 39,000 jurisdictions across the country.

They are meant to fill this out and send it back in. If you don’t

know what the value of that form is, if you don’t know what the

implications are for your funding, your investment prospects, or the

perception of your city, it either gets send to the wrong person, the

Mayor doesn’t think it is important, or it just gets lost in the hundreds of thousands of things that cities have to do.

So in a sense, what we are trying to do is correct that relationship, to say to Mayors that this information, if you work in partnership on an ongoing basis and provide the data locally that the

census needs, will counter the need for census challenges going forward. The census challenge is a great program because it is a partnership branch given out by the Census Bureau to say that we will

work with you.

Mr. MCHENRY. Would you contend that the decennial enumeration is more accurate than the estimates?

Mr. ALDERSLADE. That is a tricky question. Our experience

through the drill-down work that we do, our experience of counting

the populations in central city, minority low and moderate income

populations would suggest that no, it isn’t. For those communities,

it is still a challenge. We found in just 350 under-served communities 1.5 million more people.

Mr. MCHENRY. But that is based off of the estimates, correct?

Mr. ALDERSLADE. No, this is based off transactional data and——

Mr. MCHENRY. You found extra people than the Census Bureau

estimated were there in 2007, correct?

Mr. ALDERSLADE. Exactly. That is what we found.

Mr. MCHENRY. That was based off of the population estimate of

the census, not the actual enumeration?

Mr. ALDERSLADE. That is based off of the drill-down methodology

which uses administrative data and private sector data to buildup

a real time population number. So just from our experience on the

under-count in those communities, for the enormous missed markets that we identify in low income communities, the evidence

would suggest that in low and moderate minority communities, the

decennial count and estimates are under-counts.

Mr. MCHENRY. Mr. Vargas, I appreciate your leadership within

the Latino or Hispanic community to say participate. The Constitution is very clear about participation in the census and it is who

is here on census day. I appreciate you being vocal about this.

Within your testimony, what you said during your testimony is

that you have concerns about a lack of an English speaking media

campaign toward the Hispanic community. Are there other recommendations specifically like that you have for the Bureau?

Mr. VARGAS. There are, sir. Thank you for that question. As a

member of the Joint Advisory Advertising Review Panel, I had an

opportunity to see the initial campaign that had been developed by

the communications vendors. I don’t know if you got word, but we

issued a vote of no confidence in the contractor’s ability to carry out

210

that campaign because the messages were not messages for 2010.

They were messages for 1990. They were a feel good campaign to

come, join, and participate.

People right now, it is hard to feel good when you are losing your

homes and you are losing your jobs. We are thinking that the Bureau really needs to bring some sense of reality about how important the census is to help this country move forward. That was the

kind of messaging we think that can resonate certainly within the

Latino population.

With respect to language use, obviously to reach the immigrant

population, it is absolutely critical to use Spanish language media.

But many of the hard to count populations have been here three

or four generations. Many of them may be living in poverty and

feel marginalized from society. They don’t watch Spanish language

media, necessarily. They are watching English language media.

The Bureau, their effort is to say well, we will cover them with

the Diverse America Campaign. Our recommendation is that you

have to talk to them specifically and overcome the cynicism that it

doesn’t matter to be counted. These are the kind of folks who also

believe that ‘‘my vote doesn’t count,’’ ‘‘no one cares what I have to

say,’’ and ‘‘I am on the outs.’’ That is the population that doesn’t

participate. That is the population that we need to invest money

in and reach them.

Mr. MCHENRY. You said that there is some difficulty to get enumerators within emerging communities? For instance, in my district there is a significant emerging Hispanic population.

Mr. VARGAS. That is right, sir.

Mr. MCHENRY. Going to the Bureau, they have been fantastic

and very open about wanting input. We have a significant Hmong

population, for instance, in my district as well. Very few areas of

this country actually have a Hmong population. So those types of

regional issues, has the Bureau been open and collaborative with

you and been a partner in trying to find those enumerators?

Mr. VARGAS. They have, but I think they are hamstrung with

some policy concerns. Working for the Bureau is a Federal job and

you need to be a U.S. citizen. I have no problems or concerns that

the Bureau will not find enough U.S. citizens who speak Spanish

in Los Angeles, San Antonio, Chicago, or New York. I am more concerned about the communities like the ones you represent where it

is an emerging population, more immigrant than established communities, and so you have less of a U.S. citizen population that is

bilingual that the Bureau could tap into to hire.

In addition, foreign nationals from Mexico who are work authorized cannot be hired by the Federal Government today. So in those

communities where you have growing Mexican immigrant populations, that is a double hamstrung that the Bureau has.

Those are some policy concerns that we think the Congress

should look into.

Mr. MCHENRY. Thank you. Mayor Bowser, just in conclusion before I hand it back over to Chairman Clay before he gives me the

hook, you mentioned some discrepancies between your number for

sewer users versus water users and these different numbers that

you have. What are your recommendations for the Bureau to get

a better count of your residents?

211

Mr. BOWSER. I think, unlike putting it all on the Census Bureau,

I think it incumbent upon Mayors and leaders in the communities

to make sure we get the proper representation. In my city, we historically have talked at least for the last 15 years about having an

over 20 percent Haitian population. We haven’t counted them yet.

So what we are doing is making sure that we have representatives in the enumerators. It should be insisted upon by the Census

Bureau that we cover all of these. We have a large South African

population, a Caribbean population. Our Latino population is growing. It is somewhere, and this is an estimate, around 3 to 6 percent. But we are making sure that we have people that can go to

those places and speak to them, speak their same language, and

dress like some of the other folks. So we do that.

But we can’t put that all on the Census Bureau. This is our one

opportunity to make this thing work. What the Census Bureau

needs to do is insist to their regional coordinators that they get the

proper people that can go out there and count folks. Don’t put it

all on them.

All you have to do is make sure they have the money to do it.

So if you are talking about cutting some money from the Census

Bureau, don’t do it. Please.

Mr. MCHENRY. Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CLAY. Mr. McHenry, you asked almost all of my questions,

too.

Let me start with Mayor Bowser. In your testimony, you mentioned HUD’s HOME program and how the under-counting of rental units by the U.S. Census Bureau has negatively impacted funding for your city of East Orange. Please elaborate on your specific

frustrations with the Census Bureau and HUD. How do you believe

either Federal department can improve their programs?

Mr. BOWSER. As I said early on, we have a large population that

is pretty much of fixed income. We have a waiting list to rehabilitate homes based on access to HOME dollars. Somebody might be

out there for 3 years waiting to just bring the houses up to basic

code. That is all the money is really for. But in addition, some of

the HOME money can be used for affordable housing and in

startups and things like that.

The problem that we have is that if you look at the numbers

based on the census, we think that we are shortchanged. So we

don’t have the dollars to really help our total population that is

asking for and looking for some of that help. It has been a problem.

I just hope that this time going around we are able to fix those

numbers.

Mr. CLAY. To get it right. But have you as the Mayor or as the

city of East Orange, have you challenged the census estimates

through the challenge program?

Mr. BOWSER. We didn’t do it this past time for 2000 like we did

in 1990 because it was such a large number that we felt was

wrong. Basically, there are areas in your city that do not change.

They are very stable families and homes. So what you need to do

is put your effort into the areas that have the most problems that

are very difficult to get into.

212

Mr. CLAY. I hope you make acquaintance with Mr. Alderslade

today when we end this.

Mr. BOWSER. I got his card, sir.

Mr. CLAY. Let me move on to Mr. Vargas. Given that there is a

historical under-count, do the yearly census estimates, appeals, and

adjustments adequately rectify the discrepancies in funding to local

Latino communities that result from that under-count initially?

Mr. VARGAS. No, I don’t believe so, sir. I think the point has been

made earlier that if the baseline data are inaccurate to begin with

from the decennial census, then all subsequent data throughout the

next 9 years continue to be inaccurate.

I would like to point out, however, that we are going to be following very closely the use of the American Community Survey data.

When Congress reauthorized the Voting Rights Act of 1965, for example, it indicated that the ACS data could be used every 5 years

to update the jurisdictions that would be required to be covered

under Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires language assistance in voting to our citizens who are limited English

proficient. So we will be following that very closely to see if in fact

the ACS has a sufficient sample size every year to accurately determine whether or not we are targeting implementation of our voting

rights laws accurately.

Mr. CLAY. So for your community, it is like a moving target. We

have estimates that there are 47 million Latinos within our population but it is hard to get a gauge of it. You are coming in at 28

million, 29 million?

Mr. VARGAS. Well, the last census put us at some 30 million. But

I think one of the most interesting statistics the Census Bureau

has recently indicated is that this country grows by a person every

15 seconds. Every 30 seconds, that person is a Latino or Latina.

Mr. CLAY. I have read that somewhere. Thank you for your response.

Mr. Alderslade, if GAO is able to determine a new and accurate

per year value of dollars lost for each under-counted person in local

communities, what would this number mean for your work with Social Compact and your interest to secure private investments in

inner city neighborhoods?

Mr. ALDERSLADE. That is a great question. There are two sides

to this. On that assumption, you would assume that the cities,

counties, and State governments would get more Federal funding

dollars to spend on CDBG economic development programs and the

programs that support Mayors in creating jobs and attracting investments.

On the other side of things, a report done by the Brookings Institute estimated that 80 percent of all retail investment decisions use

data derived from the census. Now, conservatively, even within the

economic downturn that we are in, there are estimates that there

will be $250 billion of commercial investment over the course of the

next 4 years.

So if you have accurate counts, just as we found in New Orleans

50,000 more people, and had 48,000 more added to Detroit’s population, those are new markets for investors. Those are new markets

for retailers, new markets for banks. That changes the way Mayors

make decisions about economic developments.

213

Mr. CLAY. Thank you so much for your response. Let me thank

this panel for their responses.

I thank my colleagues as well as the staff for their indulgence

on this hearing. As you heard, the bells are ringing so that will

conclude this hearing. I am sure there will be subsequent hearings.

Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 5:42 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[The prepared statement of Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney and additional information submitted for the hearing record follow:]

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

295

296

297

298

299

300

301

302

303

304

305

306

307

308

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

320

321

322

323

324

325

326

327

328

329

330

331

332

333

334

335

336

337

338

339

340

341

342

343

344

345

346

347

348

349

350

351

352

353

354

355

356

357

358

359

360

361

362

363

364

365

366

367

368

369

370

371

372

373

374

375

376

377

378

379

380

381

382

383

384

385

386

387

388

389

390

391

392

393

394

395

396

397

398

399

400

401

402

403

404

405

406

407

408

409

410

411

412

413

414

415

416

417

418

419

420

421

422

423

424

425

426

427

428

Æ