U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

30–245 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

HEARING ON THE 2020 CENSUS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

OCTOBER 12, 2017 

Serial No. 115–58 

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

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

http://oversight.house.gov 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

Trey Gowdy, South Carolina, Chairman 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Darrell E. Issa, California 

Jim Jordan, Ohio 

Mark Sanford, South Carolina 

Justin Amash, Michigan 

Paul A. Gosar, Arizona 

Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee 

Blake Farenthold, Texas 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Thomas Massie, Kentucky 

Mark Meadows, North Carolina 

Ron DeSantis, Florida 

Dennis A. Ross, Florida 

Mark Walker, North Carolina 

Rod Blum, Iowa 

Jody B. Hice, Georgia 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin 

Will Hurd, Texas 

Gary J. Palmer, Alabama 

James Comer, Kentucky 

Paul Mitchell, Michigan 

Greg Gianforte, Montana 

Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

Carolyn B. Maloney, New York 

Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Columbia 

Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri 

Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts 

Jim Cooper, Tennessee 

Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia 

Robin L. Kelly, Illinois 

Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan 

Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey 

Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands 

Val Butler Demings, Florida 

Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois 

Jamie Raskin, Maryland 

Peter Welch, Vermont 

Matt Cartwright, Pennsylvania 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

Jimmy Gomez, Maryland 

SHERIA CLARKE, Staff Director 

ROBERT BORDEN, Deputy Staff Director 

WILLIAM MCKENNA, General Counsel 

PATRICK HARTOBEY, Counsel 

KILEY BIDELMAN, Clerk 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on October 12, 2017 .......................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

Panel I: 

The Honorable Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., Secretary, U.S. Department of Commerce 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 6 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 9 

Panel II: 

Mr. Robert Goldenkoff, Director of Strategic Issues, Census Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 41 

Joint Written Statement from Mr. Goldenkoff and Mr. Powner .................. 43 

Mr. David A. Powner, Director of Information Technology Management 

Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 84 

Ms. Carol N. Rice, Assistant Inspector General, Office of Economic and Statistical Program Assessment, U.S. Department of Commerce 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 85 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 87 

Ms. Vanita Gupta, President and CEO, The Leadership Conference on Civil 

and Human Rights 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 96 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 98 

APPENDIX 

Opening Statement of Mr. Gerald E. Connolly ..................................................... 114 

The Leadership Conference reports titled, ‘‘Counting Everyone in the Digital 

Age,’’ and ‘‘Administrative Records in the 2020 U.S.Census: Civil Rights 

Considerations and Opportunities,’’ referenced in Ms. Gupta’s written statement. ..................................................................................................................... 116 

Statement for the record of J. David Cox Sr., submitted by the American 

Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE) ................................ 117 

Letter for the record from the Interreligious Working Group on Domestic 

Human Needs ....................................................................................................... 121 

Questions for the record for Secretary Ross, submitted by Members of the 

Committee ............................................................................................................. 124 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(1) 

HEARING ON THE 2020 CENSUS 

Thursday, October 12, 2017 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, 

Washington, D.C. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in Room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Trey Gowdy [chairman 

of the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Gowdy, Duncan, Issa, Jordan, Amash, 

Farenthold, Massie, Meadows, DeSantis, Ross, Walker, Blum, Hice, 

Grothman, Hurd, Palmer, Comer, Cummings, Maloney, Clay, Kelly, 

Watson Coleman, Plaskett, Demings, Raskin, Welch, Cartwright, 

DeSaulnier, and Gomez. 

Chairman GOWDY. The committee will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. 

Secretary Ross is with us. He will be joining us momentarily. I 

will recognize myself for an opening statement and then my friend 

from Maryland. 

The census is constitutionally required. It is what ensures that, 

just as every vote should be counted, every person should be counted. This is a condition precedent for accurate redistricting and accurate reapportionment. The census is not only important for purposes of constituting our government, it is also important for apportioning the resources and services of our government. 

So the census is vitally important for a number of reasons. It is 

also eminently predictable. There are a few things that can be foreseen quite like that decennial census. It happens every 10 years 

whether you are ready or not. So it is incredibly important, beginning with the fundamental truth of counting every one of our fellow 

citizens. And we know well in advance when it is coming, so we 

can’t complain that we were caught off guard, and we can’t complain that we didn’t see it. So have a couple more years before we 

actually count everyone, but now is the time to make sure that we 

are ready to count everyone with accuracy, with security, and with 

professionalism. 

We are all concerned with cost. Our fellow citizens are hearing 

about cuts in a number of areas, and there is concern about the 

deficit and the debt, so cost is important, but it is also very important that we get this done right, accurately, professionally, with security and in a fashion worthy of the world’s great democracy. 

What would be even worse than unexpectedly high cost is unexpectedly high cost coupled with less-than-full success, so we want 

to make sure the census is a success. We don’t appropriate money 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
2 

on this committee, but we do help make sure the right questions 

are asked in a timely fashion. 

So for Secretary Ross, I appreciate his time, and I appreciate the 

time frankly that he has given our committee before today, as well 

as his appearance today. We live in a country that is increasingly 

skeptical of whether or not we can get things done right, in a timely fashion, and in an incredible responsible way. 

I think our country as a whole, irrespective of the region in 

which you may live or your political ideation, would appreciate a 

good news story, a story of how a government entity was prepared, 

efficient, and exceeded their expectations. So 2020 may seem like 

a long way off, but it is coming, and when it comes, we are going 

to have to have counted 300 million-plus people accurately, so I 

think time is of the essence even today. 

Chairman GOWDY. So with that, I would welcome all of our witnesses, especially Secretary Ross, and would yield the remainder of 

my time to my friend from North Carolina, the chairman of the 

subcommittee, Mr. Meadows. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your 

leadership on this particular issue. And as we go into this hearing 

today, I think it is critically important that we all realize that, 

while 2020 is a good ways off, we have already missed critical 

dates, critical testing, and critical implementation that should have 

already been done according to our own schedule that we have had 

in previous hearings. 

Of the IT systems that are out there, there are some 43 IT systems that need to be implemented, and yet today, only four have 

actually been fully implemented, another 31 are only partially 

done, and 18 have not been delivered in any form or fashion. And 

yet we continue to have hearings over and over and over again 

about the critical nature of making sure that we not only get these 

systems implemented but tested and that we do end-to-end testing 

on a basis to make sure that cybersecurity, other fumbles do not 

happen. And yet here we are today on another hearing, and I am 

concerned that the focus will be on the $3 billion in terms of a 

budget shortfall and not on the other critical mission steps that 

have to be addressed. And so let’s today focus not on the $3 billion 

but on the management issues that must be done. 

And in doing so, we are talking a little whole lot about disaster 

relief in every other area. Today is a day that we need to start 

talking about disaster relief for what will be a disaster if we don’t 

get on this today. 

And so, Mr. Secretary, thank you for coming. For our second 

panel of witnesses, thank you for coming. I have been informed by 

some of your staff, Mr. Secretary, that you are on this and that you 

plan to make sure that this is not just a budgetary component, that 

it is a component that actually looks at the management procurement and otherwise. And I was pleasantly assured of that this 

morning, but we look forward to hearing more from you. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership. And as we get 

this right, I look forward for this to be a good story in the months 

and years to come. 

I yield back. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
3 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentleman from North Carolina yields 

back. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

If there is one key point we can get across to those watching today’s hearing, I believe it is simply this: The Census Bureau is 

dangerously underfunded and has been for years, and unless we do 

something about it right now, not yesterday, not today, but right 

this moment, this massive deficiency could imperil the fairness and 

accuracy of the census itself. 

Americans expect us to be able to do things right, and I think 

the Chairman would agree with me; I think you just said it. We 

want to be effective and efficient in whatever we do. Mr. Meadows 

is right. We have got to—it is not just a thing of money. It is a 

thing of operation and making sure that things are done properly. 

So this is not a partisan observation. Both progressives and conservatives agree that current budget projections are way, way, way, 

way, way too low. Eli Lehrer, the president of the R Street Institute, wrote an op-ed just this Tuesday warning that the census is, 

quote, ‘‘understaffed and underfunded,’’ end of quote, and that, 

quote, ‘‘America is in serious danger of the census going wrong,’’ 

end of quote. 

Ladies and gentlemen, we cannot afford to allow that to happen. 

This is the United States of America, the exceptional nation. If we 

cannot count the 300-plus million people who are in our country, 

I don’t know how exceptional we will be determined to be. 

Last month, the Conservative American Enterprise Institute 

joined with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in warning 

Congress the current level of flat or near-flat funding, quote, ‘‘is 

unprecedented and would significantly undercut efforts to conduct 

an accurate survey,’’ end of quote. They warned that, quote, ‘‘shortchanging the census is penny wise and pound foolish,’’ that it, 

quote, ‘‘jeopardizes the Bureau’s ability to implement cost-effective 

new technologies,’’ end of quote, and it, quote, ‘‘could backfire, costing taxpayers more in the long run,’’ end of quote. I say that we 

are better than that. 

I would like to show a future that illustrate this urgent problem. 

It won’t show up on the screen, but members, it will show up on 

your screens at your desk. First, as we all know, funding for the 

Census Bureau historically increases dramatically in years 8 

through 10 of each decade to accommodate the ramp-up in activities for the census in year 10. 

The first chart shows funding for the last four decades in inflation-adjusted dollars. For the 1990 census, the Bureau increased 

from $596 million to $3 billion over the last four years. For the 

2000 census, it increased from $535 million to $6.9 billion over this 

period. For the 2010 census, it increased from $1.1 billion to $8.4 

billion over this period. 

But what are we doing now? We are basically flatlining. The 

Trump administration did not request a significant increase for 

2018. You can see the same trends when you look at the budget 

from a percentage basis, which is what this next chart shows. The 

1990 census had a massive increase in the last four years of the 

cycle, as did the 2000 census and the 2010 census, but here is 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
4 

where we are now. The administration is not on track to match 

past increases for 2020. 

If we use these historical trends to project forward, total Census 

Bureau funding would be increasing over the next several years. 

But that is not what is happening. As this last chart shows, there 

is a shortfall of about $760 million when you compare what the administration is requesting to pass trends. I say that we are better 

than that. 

Now, Congress shares part of the blame, no doubt about it. In 

2012, Congress insisted that the Census Bureau spend less on the 

2020 census than it spent on the 2010 census. Congress refused to 

acknowledge or budget for two of the most significant and predictable drivers of cost increases that occurred between each decennial 

census inflation and population growth. Aggravating this problem 

even more, Congress appropriated even less then the Census Bureau requested in every single year since 2012. 

Now, some people will argue that the Census Bureau was supposed to save billions of dollars this time around by using new IT 

innovations to reduce the number of workers it needs to hire and 

increase the number of people who submit their forms online. The 

problem is that when you starve the Census Bureau year after year 

after year, it cannot make the investments needed to implement 

these innovations. And this is exactly what happened. And I am 

sure Secretary Ross will talk about that. 

As the former director of the Census Bureau, John Thompson, 

who left his position this summer, explained to the Washington 

Post just this week, and I quote, ‘‘Had we been funded to do everything we asked for then, we would be much further ahead,’’ end of 

quote. He continued, quote, ‘‘At this point, they are going to have 

to go back and do some of it your way with paper and pencil,’’ end 

of quote. With paper and pencil. This is the exceptional nation, the 

one that has done the census over and over and over and over 

again. 

Secretary Ross, I want to thank you for being here today and for 

briefing members of the committee last week. I understand you 

have limitations on your time, but, Mr. Secretary, we beg you to— 

we have members—and I am sure the chairman will emphasize 

this. We have members that are very interested in this subject, and 

I hope that—I don’t know what—unless you are meeting with the 

President, I hope that you can spare us a few extra moments because we do want to get to have members ask. 

And as I close—and I know you will get into this during your testimony, but I appreciate that as a result of your own team’s review 

you have also recommended that the administration increase its request for 2018 by $187 million. And thank you for doing that because so often we have Secretaries come in and they don’t say exactly what they need because they don’t want to get people upset. 

But this is just too important. 

I commend you for taking this step, and I know you understand 

the importance of this issue as a former enumerator yourself. However, I believe that even this request is far too low, too low. Did 

you hear me, Secretary? Too low, especially given the number of 

tests that have been canceled and extremely low number of hires 

at the moment. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
5 

And so I know you are constrained in your current position. I 

was amazed to hear that the Office of Management and Budget rejected your request for an additional $50 million for contingencies 

that are virtually certain to occur. Nevertheless, we have a responsibility under the Constitution of the United States to ensure that 

the census is funded adequately and that the Census Bureau has 

the resources it needs to conduct a fair and accurate census. 

This should matter to each and every one of us because, while 

we historically discuss minority and immigrant populations being 

undercounted, low-income and rural communities are also at risk 

of being missed, particularly in a digital census. For this reason, 

yesterday, I joined my colleague, Representative Carolyn Maloney, 

who also chairs the Congressional Census Caucus, in introducing 

legislation to fund the Bureau at $1.935 billion this year, an 

amount that reflects budget projections from the Bureau’s fiscal 

year 2017 budget and an extra $135 million for increases in the 

necessary funds for the CEDCaP program. 

As I close, we must recognize the gravity of the situation we are 

facing. And, Mr. Chairman, I thank you. You have taken on this 

matter very, very seriously. As you said earlier, we had a very informative meeting with the Secretary. I think that helped to lay 

the foundation for this hearing, and I look forward to the testimony. And thank you very much for your indulgence. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentleman from Maryland yields back. 

We want to welcome you, Mr. Secretary. 

Pursuant to committee rules, I am going to ask you to please 

stand and we will administer the oath. If you will raise your right 

hand. 

[Witness sworn.] 

Chairman GOWDY. May the record reflect the witness answered 

in the affirmative. 

You may take your seat, Mr. Secretary. Your entire opening 

statement will be made part of the record. You will have five minutes to summarize that. 

I want to say, as Mr. Cummings did, we do appreciate the fact 

that there are other demands on your time, and we want to be good 

stewards of your time. The census is one of the unusual entities 

that is squarely within the jurisdiction of this committee, and there 

are lots of members that have questions, so what I am going to ask 

of my colleagues on both sides is to exercise the self-restraint of 

getting your questions done within five minutes. I am notoriously 

slow on the gavel because it is hard to unlock the mysteries of the 

world in five minutes, but I am going to ask my colleagues to selfdiscipline and get it done within five minutes so everyone can have 

a chance to interact with you and we can also be a good steward 

of your time. 

With that, I would invite you to turn on the microphone, and you 

are recognized for your opening statement. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
6 

WITNESS STATEMENT PANEL I: 

STATEMENT OF WILBUR L. ROSS, JR., SECRETARY, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Secretary ROSS. Thank you very much. Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Cummings, and members of the committee, thank you 

for your continuing support and your discerning oversight. Thank 

you also for allowing the opening statements to be read while I was 

reviewing some of the newly developed material so I could comment on it myself. 

An efficient 2020 census that provides a full, fair, and accurate 

count has been one of my highest priorities since being confirmed 

in February. I myself was an enumerator as I worked my way 

through business school, and so I have a strong appreciation for the 

responsibilities and the unique challenges of counting everyone in 

the United States once every 10 years. 

Any operation that must hire and manage half-a-million temporary employees with complex and new technological systems and 

with rigid completion dates is bound to be a difficult undertaking 

for even the most experienced managers. And it has been clear to 

me from the beginning of my tenure that census would be one of 

the most challenging aspects of the entire Commerce portfolio. 

I agree with the members of this committee. The census is the 

bedrock upon which we construct our system of democratic representation. It provides for apportionment, redistricting, and the 

distribution of hundreds of billions of dollars of Federal funding. 

Accordingly, some of my first meetings as the newly confirmed Secretary of Commerce were with the Commerce staff. In those meetings I sought to identify and then address the key issues faced by 

the decennial census. 

My early concerns were heightened when, only two months into 

my tenure, the Census Bureau suddenly announced a 40 percent 

cost overrun in one component, namely, the Census Enterprise 

Data Collection and Processing, CEDCaP, program, a critical part 

of the technology infrastructure for the 2020 census. 

In terms of the broader decennial census, the prior administration’s last lifecycle cost estimate in the—October 2015 was $12.5 

billion. When testifying before Congress in June, I did not accept 

that figure. Instead, I vowed to return to Congress after a thorough 

review with a vetted 2020 census lifecycle cost that I could support. 

The product of that review is what brings me here today. 

As promised, we assembled a team of experts to conduct an independent review of the estimate, and they have come back with 

numbers I can now stand behind as we continue our preparation 

for 2020. The team was comprised of financial management experts 

from the Department of Commerce, from the Office of Management 

and Budget, former census employees, two former technology executives with experience in rolling out complex systems, as well as 

other experts with extensive private sector experience. 

In conducting our review, we looked at the many concerns raised 

by the GAO and Members of Congress, including those on this committee about the Census Bureau’s cost estimates. I am aware of the 

funding statistics presented by Ranking Member Cummings and 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
7 

can assure you that the $760 billion budget shortfall and its impact 

is encompassed within our new lifecycle projections. 

You will hear testimony from both the GAO and the Commerce 

IG discussing their concerns with the prior 2015 lifecycle cost estimate. For example, the GAO estimated that the IT budget would 

be at least $4.8 billion. Our estimate is $4.96 billion, so $160 million over the floor that the GAO estimated would be the correct 

number rather than the previously used one. I share their concerns, and their testimony will underline the need and justification 

for this new lifecycle cost estimate. 

GAO also points out that there are 43 technology systems involved in the 2018 end-to-end test. Only four of those systems had 

completed development and integration tests as of August 2017. 

And of the 39, a portion of the functionality has been deployed in 

the 2018 end-to-end test, but that is not yet true for the remaining 

18. With so much still under development, the need for a contingency to address possible overruns seem self-evident. These are 

just a few examples. 

The IG provided another example regarding address canvassing 

where they found that it would cost at least three times the 

amount the Census Bureau estimated in 2015. We agree with that, 

and we have incorporated that into our numbers. 

On the whole, we found that the prior administration provided 

Congress and the public with overly optimistic assessments of both 

the ease of implementing new technologies and the cost savings 

they would provide. These issues were undoubtedly compounded by 

initial appropriation constraints. 

Also, procurement decisions created a series of silos, most of 

which had a small firm as the general contractor and a number of 

major firms as subcontractors, a very complex structure. Worse yet, 

many segments were on a time-and-materials basis, and in my 

view, that’s the most dangerous form of a contract. The prior administration also failed to follow basic management practices like 

using certified cost estimators and checking estimates against actual costs. We have addressed these failures and corrected the 

record with this new lifecycle cost estimate. 

We identified key areas where census programming would likely 

create costs above the 2015 estimate. Those include declining selfresponse rates, increased public concerns about privacy and 

cybersecurity, high levels of mistrust of the Federal Government, 

tightening in the labor markets since 2010, development and integration of new technologies and the complex array of contractors 

and subcontractors. 

This leads us to now project a revised lifecycle cost estimate of 

$15.6 billion. The increase includes contingency funding of $1.2 billion to address additional potential risks and associated challenges 

such as national disasters, potentially even lower self-response 

rates, the difficulty and cost of hiring 500,000 temporary workers 

in a tight labor market, and the complexity of developing and integrating multiple information technology innovations. 

Over 80 percent of the projected spending, over 80 percent will 

occur post-2018, so it’s a very back-ended expenditure, as Congressman Cummings pointed out in his charts. And this rapid ramp-up 

in the future brings its own challenges to implementation and to 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
8 

cost control. Our $1.2 billion reserve, a contingency of 10 percent 

of the post-2018 budget, on top of the independent cost estimate 

level, will be managed at the secretarial level and used only if unforeseen developments occur. A 10 percent contingency is commonplace in estimating complex private-sector projects. Government 

tends not to set up reserves but instead funds overruns in subsequent appropriation requests. 

Our new $15.6 billion 2020 census lifecycle cost estimate includes 

a request for a $187 million adjustment for fiscal year 2018. We are 

working with our House and Senate appropriators on this request. 

These funds would allow us to make a significant course correction 

to keep crucial programs on track and provide much-needed financial oversight and better management at the Census Bureau. The 

Census Bureau and the Department of Commerce will be held accountable to manage the 2020 census efficiently while maintaining 

the highest quality. 

The Under Secretary for Economic Affairs Karen Dunn Kelley 

has been in place since late August and has direct oversight over 

the 2020 census, the Census Bureau, and the Bureau of Economic 

Analysis. She brings over three decades of management experience 

in the financial investment sector with experience managing people, strategy, budgets, operations, public relations, and thought 

leadership across the globe. 

Seasoned and experienced senior management is also in place at 

the Census Bureau itself. Ron Jarmin, performing the nonexclusive 

duties and functions of the director of the U.S. Census Bureau, and 

Enrique Lamas, performing the nonexclusive duties and functions 

of the deputy director and chief operating officer of the U.S. Census 

Bureau, are jointly leading the census, and each has nearly three 

decades of experience in census. 

Commerce now conducts weekly 2020 census oversight reviews 

and will require metric tracking and program execution status on 

a real-time basis. Commerce also has monthly meetings with OMB, 

census program managers, and Commerce’s 2020 leadership team, 

headed by Under Secretary Kelley to review issues related to the 

program’s budget, scope, schedule, and risks. These management 

meetings include detailed reviews of the evolving budget and 

lifecycle cost estimate for the 2020 census. The results of these 

meetings are reported directly to me by Under Secretary Kelley 

and her staff, and we maintain a free flow of access and information so that I can personally oversee the progress of the decennial. 

We are now just 30 months away from the 2020 census. There 

are still many challenges ahead, and these additional resources I 

have described are urgently needed. But with the changes I have 

detailed and with the additional resources requested, I am confident we will have a full, fair, and accurate census. 

I look forward to working with this committee, your staff, and 

the rest of Congress over the months and years to come, and I 

thank the committee for the opportunity to come before you today. 

I look forward to your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Secretary Ross follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
9 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 30245.001

WRITTEN STATEMENT 

WILBUR ROSS 

SECRETARY OF COMMERCE 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

U.S. House of Representatives 

12 October 2017 

Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Cummings, and Members of this Committee, thank you for 

your continuing support and discerning oversight of the 2020 Census, a critical, constitutionally 

mandated endeavor. An efficient 2020 Census that provides a full, fair and accurate count has 

been one of my highest priorities since being confirmed in February. When last before 

Congress, I promised to come back, after a thorough review, with numbers for the 2020 Census 

lifecycle cost estimate that I could support. Thank you for the opportunity to bring this 

Committee up to date on where we are, how we got here, and what we are doing to manage the 

cost, scope, and schedule of the 2020 Census going forward. 

The Census is the bedrock upon which we construct our system of democratic representation. It 

provides for apportionment, redistricting, and the distribution of hundreds of billions of dollars of 

federal funding. 

As you may know, I have personal experience as a former U.S. Census Taker in college, and 

have first-hand knowledge of the unique challenges of conducting a census. The Census Bureau 

faces latent challenges that have evolved over a long period of time, such as an increase in the 

diversity of our population, the complexity of living arrangements, the mobility of people in the 

United States, and a steady decline in self-response rates across all surveys. In addition, there 

are less predictable challenges, such as potential cyber security attacks or natural disasters. 
10 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 30245.002

To address these matters looking ahead, the 2020 Census will be the first Decennial Census to 

incorporate innovative methods and technologies into our work. After the 2010 Decennial, a 

decision was made to modernize technology across all Decennial Census operations. These 

changes include decisions to introduce and promote Internet responses; introduce telephone call 

centers as an additional mode of response; use aerial imagery to conduct in-office address 

canvassing; automate hiring, payroll and mileage reimbursements; use administrative records to 

increase accuracy; automate field procedures with mobile devices; and use routing algorithms to 

improve enumerator efficiency. 

We are keenly aware of the challenges, risks and costs associated with this new approach. 

However, we believe these innovations are promising and will serve as a solid foundation for 

future Decennial Censuses. 

Where WeAre 

Our revised 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate is $15.6 billion, which was informed by an 

independent cost estimate of$14.1 billion conducted this summer. I know this Committee is not 

responsible for providing this funding; however, your oversight responsibility is significant to 

ensuring the successful execution of the 2020 Census. 

This estimate is the product of a rigorous deep dive by cost estimate and management experts, as 

well as a thorough review of Census programming. The team of experts includes certified cost 

estimators and financial management experts from the Department of Commerce (DOC), the 

Census Bureau, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), former Census employees, two 

former executives from a large technology company with experience in rolling out complex 

technological systems, as well as other experts with extensive private sector technology and 

financial management experience. There was no such group originally. 

We carefully reviewed the serious concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO), the Commerce Department's Office of the Inspector General (DOC/IG), and the OM B. 

We also listened to requests by Members of Congress who have oversight, authorizing, and 

2 
11 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 30245.003

appropriating authority for the Census Bureau to conduct a thorough evaluation of the 2020 

Census program. 

We just completed a detailed review of the 2020 Census program and indeed, GAO and 

Congress were right to be concerned. We discovered an overestimation of savings and an 

underestimation of the difficulty of implementing and integrating technological innovations to 

conduct the Decennial Census. 

This new $15.6 billion dollar 2020 Census Jifecycle cost estimate includes a request for a $187 

million adjustment for FY2018. We are working with our House and Senate appropriators on 

this request. The $187 million in additional FY2018 funds would allow us to make a significant 

course correction to keep crucial programs on track for the 2020 Census and provide muchneeded financial oversight and better management at the Census Bureau. 

We are now just 30 months away from making these changes a reality. There are still many 

challenges ahead, and these additional resources are urgently needed. 

How We Got Here 

At my confirmation hearing, I shared my concern about the state of Census preparations. My 

first meetings as the newly confirmed Secretary of Commerce were with the Census staff. Only 

two months into my tenure, those concerns were heightened when the Census Bureau suddenly 

informed me of a 40 percent cost overrun of the Census Enterprise Data Collection and 

Processing (CEDCaP) program, a critical part of the technology infrastructure for the 2020 

Census. 

At my hearing before the Appropriations Committee, I reported the cost overrun and committed 

to launch a comprehensive review of what happened with CEDCaP and the status of the entire 

2020 Census operation. In conducting that review, we also looked at the many concerns raised 

by GAO, the DOC/IG and Members of Congress, including those on this committee, about the 

Census Bureau's process to create program cost estimates. 

3 
12 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 30245.004

As previously mentioned, the multidisciplinary team we assembled performed a deep dive on the 

Census program. A subset of this group, produced an Independent Cost Estimate (ICE). The 

team members brought decades of expert experience in cost estimation at the Department of 

Defense and with the DOC satellite programs. The ICE team used standard methodologies and 

approaches to conduct the revised cost estimate taking into account the GAO and DOC/IG 

recommendations for best practices. Their effort resulted in an ICE of $14.1 billion. 

The key GAO recommendations, emphasized by Congress and DOC/IG, asks the Secretary of 

Commerce to "take specific steps to ensure the Census cost estimate meets the characteristics of 

a high-quality estimate and improve control over how risks and uncertainty are accounted for in 

the cost estimate." We did just that. 

The team of experts from outside the Census Bureau identified and accounted for major potential 

risks and cost drivers beyond the assumptions in the ICE. We identified potential risks and 

associated challenges for the 2020 Census, which include declining self-response rates, 

cybersecurity concerns, recruitment size and wage rate, and field management staffing ratios. 

The revised lifecycle cost estimate of$15.6 billion includes additional contingency funding of 

$1.2 billion to address additional potential risks and associated challenges such as natural 

disasters, significantly lower self-response rates, and the complexity of multiple, integrated 

information technology innovations. This $1.2 billion funding-a contingency of 10% of the 

post 2018 budget on top of the ICE level-will be managed at the secretarial level and used only 

if unforseen developments cause significant changes to Decennial operations. 

We also had a group of outside experts look at program integration, reviews of major contracts, 

and the budget. I am staying closely involved in these areas going forward. 

4 
13 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 30245.005

What We Are Doing Going Forward 

My teams have reviewed the Census Bureau's efforts to address challenges with technological 

innovation. The Department of Commerce will continue to take every step possible to ensure 

that the Census Bureau manages and operates the program as close to the $14.1 billion ICE 

estimate as possible, while remaining vigilant in assessing unknown risks that could jeopardize 

the program and its operations. Even at the higher cost estimate of $15.6 billion, implementing 

an innovative design has the potential to save the taxpayer billions of dollars in contrast to 

repeating the paper and pencil methods of the 2010 Census, which the Census Bureau has 

previously estimated would cost $17.5 billion when applied to the estimated number of 

households in 2020. We must 'bend the curve' of rising costs by investing in technological 

innovations now. 

These technical solutions have not been built from scratch but rather have been 

developed by leveraging and integrating smart uses of existing technology into a cohesive, 

system-of-systems tailored to the needs ofthe 2020 Census. Using existing technology helps to 

mitigate the costs, but there are still significant risks and challenges as modifications are made to 

integrate the systems and to provide specific functions that are unique to the Census. These 

systems will continue to be tested to ensure scalability and flexibility when the 2020 Census goes 

live on April 1, 2020. 

In addition to these technological innovations, I can assure the Committee that we are committed to 

accurate cost estimation practices and effective oversight and management going forward. I have put 

into place the people, processes and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight. 

The Under Secretary for Economic Affairs, Karen Dunn Kelley, has been in place since late August 

and has direct oversight of the 2020 Census, the Census Bureau, and the Bureau of Economic 

Analysis. She brings over three decades of management experience in the financial investment sector, 

with experience managing people, strategy, budgets, operations, public relations and thought 

leadership across the globe. Seasoned and experienced senior management is in place at the Census 

Bureau. Ron Jarmin, performing the non-exclusive duties and functions of the Director of the U.S. 

5 
14 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 30245.006

Census Bureau, and Emique Lamas, performing the non-exclusive duties and functions of the Deputy 

Director and Chief Operating Officer of the U.S. Census Bureau, are jointly leading the Census and 

each have nearly three decades of experience at the Bureau. The DOC conducts weekly 2020 Census 

Oversight Reviews and will require metric tracking and program execution status on a regular, realtime basis. 

The DOC also holds meetings with Congress and has monthly meetings with OMB, Census Program 

managers and Commerce's 2020 leadership team headed by Under Secretary Kelley to review issues 

related to the program's budget, scope, schedule and risks. All of these management meetings include 

detailed reviews of the evolving budget and lifecycle cost estimate for the 2020 Census. 

Conclusion 

My top priority and commitment to you is to produce a 2020 Census of the highest quality that 

provides a full, fair and accurate count of every person in the United States. I believe this innovative 

2020 design reflects a flexible approach to the growing challenges that takes advantage of new 

technologies, methodologies, and data sources while simultaneously minimizing risks, controlling 

costs, and maintaining an efficient, reliable schedule. 

The lifecycle cost estimate I have delivered to you today will help us address challenges that place the 

success of the 2020 Census at risk and potentially jeopardize the quality of data collected. And be 

assured, we will continue to work to build confidence and accountability in the financial management 

of the 2020 Census Program. 

I look forward to working with this Committee, your staff and the rest of Congress over the 

months and years to come. I want to thank the many dedicated people who worked tirelessly to 

create a course of corrective action in the way we do the business of cost estimates and financial 

management at the Census Bureau. I also want to thank Members of Congress and your staff 

who have been devoted to ensuring we have the resources necessary for an accurate count in the 

upcoming 2020 Decennial Census. 

6 
15 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 30245.007

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to testifY before the House Oversight and Government 

Reform Committee. 

7 
16 

Chairman GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. 

Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Mr. Secretary, thank you for being with us. And I have two 

questions. I will just asked them both so we get them in. Many of 

us who were here at the time of the last census received a lot of 

complaints about this American Community Survey, and some privacy advocates were very critical. And our colleague Ted Poe has 

led a charge against this. He called that survey, quote, ‘‘an unnecessary and completely unwarranted government intrusion,’’ and he 

has led a charge to make that survey voluntary. And I am wondering if you have looked into that to see if you can make that survey a little less intrusive so that we won’t get as many complaints 

this time as we did the last time. 

And secondly, the second question I have is many States are 

going to be trying to do everything they can to make sure that they 

don’t lose a Member of Congress or maybe that they pick up one, 

and many Federal appropriations are based on population. Can you 

assure us that steps are being taken or are you satisfied that 

things are being done so that no States can inflate their populations in those kinds of—with the goal of getting more money or 

another congressional seat? 

Secretary ROSS. Well, thank you. Those are two questions. I will 

try to answer them in sequence. The American Community Survey 

is one of the Department of Commerce’s most valuable data products, and it’s widely used in the business community to make decisions. A voluntary survey would have a negative effect on the reliability of the data, especially for rural and small communities. At 

the same time, the Census Bureau continues to look for ways to reduce the burden on respondents such as removing questions by 

using other data sources, including information that people have 

already provided to government in a different form. So we’re trying 

to reduce the scope of the burden as a means of making it easier 

for people. 

In terms of trying to assure that we really do count everyone, 

we’ve made a number of changes. First of all, the communications 

budget for the 2010 decennial census was $350 million, and that 

included outreach to non-primary English-speaking communities. 

We have increased that budget to $500 million this year or for 

2020, and that equates to an inflation-adjusted $420 million that 

would have been in 2010. So we have had a material step up in 

the communications budget. 

And in the 2010—2020 census, about half of that will go for our 

partnerships, the various faith-based and other community organizations that help us get to the more difficult-to-enumerate parts of 

the population. So we are keenly aware of the need for even greater 

effort than was used before. 

And finally, we have added internet response as an additional 

tool to make it more convenient for that portion of the population 

that likes to use internet. So we have made a number of very specific modifications, all of which we believe will lead to the end result of a more accurate and more complete census. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thank you very much. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
17 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentleman yields back. 

The gentleman from Maryland. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Ross, Secretary Ross, in 2012 Congress directed the Bureau 

to spend less than the 2000 census, and I quote, ‘‘not adjusting for 

inflation,’’ end of quote. Since that time, Congress has basically 

starved the Bureau of funds and has appropriated less than the 

Census Bureau requested in every single fiscal year since 2012. 

And this must have negatively affected the Bureau’s investments 

in new technologies. Is that right? In other words, did it affect your 

investment in new technologies, sir? 

Secretary ROSS. Well, the expenditures you’re describing, if I understand it correctly, are the ones prior to the present period. And 

I have seen the chart, and it roughly parallels—even though the 

distribution year-by-year isn’t the same, the 2020 one roughly parallels the expenditures for the 2010 census. 

The 2020 census is heavily back-ended, as were the prior ones, 

but it’s even more so because of the nature of the technological 

changes that we’re making. So if you would superimpose on your 

chart and in the supplemental material that I file after today, I 

will fill in the blank for you and show you how our projected budget for 2020 would compare both with the fluctuations, the amplitude in the prior ones, and you will see we are coming to a significantly higher absolute level than they had been. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Okay. In previous decades this is the year, year 

eight when there are larger funding increases as the Census Bureau historically ramps up towards census day. However, the 

Trump administration did not seem to recognize this precedent earlier this year. The President requested only a 1.8 percent increase 

in funding for the Bureau in fiscal year 2018. Is that right? 

Secretary ROSS. I believe so, and I believe that was based on the 

information he then had from the prior management of census. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Well, you presented our committee with data last 

week showing that this level of funding is inadequate and could impair our ability to provide for a fair and accurate census. You are 

now requesting an additional $187 million to make up for what 

your Department termed a, quote, ‘‘shortfall,’’ end of quote, in the 

budget request for fiscal year 2018. Is that figure correct? 

Secretary ROSS. Yes, sir. I believe we do need $187 billion—million more than was in. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And OMB supports that request, is that right? 

Secretary ROSS. I’m sorry? 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And OMB supports that request? 

Secretary ROSS. That’s my understanding. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. You also informed the committee last week that 

you at the Commerce Department, as well as the Census Bureau, 

believe that you need more than that amount to fully be prepared 

for all eventualities. You asked for an additional $50 million to 

cover contingencies that almost certainly will occur. Is that correct? 

Secretary ROSS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. But OMB denied this request, isn’t that right? 

Secretary ROSS. I don’t know —— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. For the contingencies. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
18 

Secretary ROSS. I don’t know that they have taken a position on 

the overall lifecycle cost. Our focus, because of the urgency of the 

budget, had been on getting their support for the immediate request for an additional appropriation. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Do you know whether that came to the attention 

of Mr. Mulvaney? 

Secretary ROSS. Well, it’s been brought to Mr. Mulvaney’s attention —— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Okay. 

Secretary ROSS.—by me. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And I see I am running out of time, but do you 

know if the President is aware of your request for the additional 

$50 million? 

Secretary ROSS. I have not personally spoken to the President 

about it. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Last question. So what will happen if problems 

arise? How will you obtain funding to cover them? 

Secretary ROSS. Well, we believe that the $187 billion will cover 

us through the fiscal year 2018. We’re reasonably comfortable with 

that. The bigger risk comes after 2018 because that’s when 80-plus 

percent of the money will be spent. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Right. 

Secretary ROSS. So 2018 we think is pretty high visibility, pretty 

well within hand. It’s post that period that needs that big contingency. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Comer from Kentucky. 

Mr. COMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Bureau’s contracts— 

I’m going to ask a question about the contracts— are set up as 

time-and-material contracts, which means there are limited incentives for contractors to control labor hours and costs. To your 

knowledge, what was the thinking behind this type of contract? 

Secretary ROSS. I have no idea, sir. I have been less worried 

about re-exploring the past than about trying to make sure we get 

our arms around the future. 

Mr. COMER. What do you think the Department can do to manage these contracts more effectively? 

Secretary ROSS. Well, we’re interacting quite aggressively with 

the contractors, and that’s about all that we can really do. The— 

many of the contracts have very severe cancellation provisions and 

would be very disruptive to cancel at this stage in the game in any 

event. So I think we have to manage through the process pretty 

much with the existing group of contracting parties. But the intensity of interaction I can promise you is a lot more than it had been. 

Mr. COMER. Okay. One more quick question, Mr. Secretary. With 

respect to IT, are you concerned that certain IT products and systems may not be delivered in their final form and time for testing 

during the 2018 end-to-end test? 

Secretary ROSS. So far as we can tell, the ones that are incomplete are reasonably unscheduled, but it’s always the last 10 percent that’s the devil. Just like in any contract, the devil’s in the details. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
19 

Mr. COMER. Okay. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary. It is an honor 

to have you here. I am a big fan of yours when you were on CNBC 

a lot over the years —— 

Secretary ROSS. Thank you. 

Mr. COMER.—but I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentleman yields back. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you. First of all, Secretary Ross is from 

the great State and city of New York —— 

Secretary ROSS. Yes. 

Mrs. MALONEY.—and I would like to welcome you here today and 

thank you for your public service. 

Secretary ROSS. Thank you. 

Mrs. MALONEY. In your comments you seem very committed to 

getting an accurate count, which is mandated in our Constitution, 

but if you look at the spending levels—granted, you are just new 

in this job, but for the census for 2020, the spending, the red line 

is way behind, you know, the prior censuses from 2010, 2000, 1990. 

And as a businessman —— 

Secretary ROSS. Could you raise the chart a bit? I can’t see the 

whole thing. Okay. Thank you. 

Mrs. MALONEY. You know what, let’s take it down and give him 

one of these. But anyway, this is a chart that we have on the ratio 

of the census budget to year one of the decade. But in any event, 

as a businessman, it is hard to achieve the results without spending, so I certainly support your spending requested $187 million. I 

think it is a good start, but I don’t think it is good enough. You 

have a lot to catch up on. Several of the dress rehearsals were canceled. The foreign-language rehearsals canceled. This is a major 

undertaking. It is one of the major undertakings of our country. 

And if we don’t have a good census, you know we don’t have good 

data for government policy or business policy, so I want to know 

what you are doing to address the immediate problem. And as I understand it, your increase of $187 million is basically 

for IT work, but in your new lifecycle estimate, you identified seven 

major cost drivers, and the first two of these are all about public 

confidence, public response, and public concern. And these cost 

drivers can be addressed through education and outreach and promotion of the census, and we have seen that before. 

The 1990 census was called a failure because there was a declining response rate, so in 2000, the 2000 census, the Congress allocated more money and called for a paid advertising campaign and 

for partnership outreach and all types of efforts to build up participation. And both in 2000 and 2010 we were successful in increasing 

the public response rate, which is what it is all about, getting people to participate. But by getting the public response rate up, it 

was critical in keeping the expensive follow-up methods that you 

have to do if there is an undercount, so that is very important. 

Now, I read recently in the Washington Post that the ad contract 

Congress mandated for the 2020 has not been funded yet, and the 

partnerships have not been fully filled, and the census has to start 

early to be successful, so these partnerships with communities like 

the NAACP, like La Raza, like the Hispanics and LGBT community, you have to fill those contracts, and they haven’t been filled 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
20 

with people yet as I understand. And nowhere in your testimony 

or your documents do you propose fully funding the ad contract as 

originally planned, let alone increasing the contract to start addressing the later start in tracking these cost drivers that you identified in public outreach. 

So, yesterday—I am supporting your efforts, Mr. Secretary. I introduced the 2020 American Census Investment Act, which would 

provide more funding for the census and mandate that funds be 

used on promotion, education, outreach, in addition to the IT that 

you are addressing. And I just would like to hear your comments 

on that on whether or not you will be funding. 

By the way, I want to thank Ranking Member Cummings for 

supporting the bill and the efforts to increase funding for it. 

And do you feel that—will you be funding the ad contract? Will 

you be funding the partnership outreach? Will you be funding education and outreach to get participation up in the census? 

Secretary ROSS. Well, thank you, Congresswoman Maloney. I am 

not used to being granted more money than I asked for, so that’s 

a totally new experience for me. 

Mrs. MALONEY. We want to make sure we get an accurate account, and as you look at this chart, we are way behind spending 

in the prior censuses in this decade. 

Secretary ROSS. Well, as I said earlier to Ranking Member Cummings, we believe that that cumulative shortfall of the $176 

million and its impact on the overall program is made up for by 

the funding we’ve requested in the total lifecycle cost. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Will you be investing in promotion and education 

and advertising? 

Secretary ROSS. Yes, we are investing in all sorts of things. For 

one thing, our communications budget will be $500 million as opposed to the $350 million that was spent in 2010. Inflation adjusting the 2010 would bring it to $420 million, so we’re running $80 

million more than—on an inflation-adjusted basis than the 2020. In 

addition —— 

Mrs. MALONEY. My time is almost up. The economic survey, is 

that on track, the economic survey? 

Secretary ROSS. I think so, so far, but that’s not the most urgent 

part of the problem of the communications. What we’re doing is 

several things. We have more ways that people can respond than 

ever before. We’re doing more language training than before. For 

example, we’ve introduced telephone call centers, and they will 

have the capability of operating in 10 languages, naturally including Spanish, but our population is more diverse than just that. So 

the call centers will be able to do up to 10 languages. 

In addition, the census enumerators will be able to provide support through the nature of people we select in multiple languages. 

We’re trying to match the characteristics of the enumerators to the 

characteristics of the population in the area that they will be surveying. 

As to the partnerships, we certainly agree that those are a big 

key, and those will include national organizations, State and local 

governments, churches, and other faith-based organizations, health 

clinics, legal aid centers, and other support mechanisms, so we’re 

trying to work with all of those. And the partnership program will 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
21 

consume approximately half of the $500 million budget for communications. It’s about $248 million will go for the partnerships. So 

we believe that we are dealing adequately with the need for those. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentlelady —— 

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentlelady yields back. 

The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Farenthold. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am over here in the corner, Secretary Ross, other direction. 

Secretary ROSS. Oh. Oh, sorry. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. I have got a couple of questions for you. It 

seems to me that the Census Bureau has this attitude of we have 

got to do it ourselves and aren’t looking to products that may be 

already out there or companies that we might be able to contract 

with to save some money. 

For instance, it is my understanding that the Census Bureau 

have received numerous recommendations, including some from the 

GAO and the Census Scientific Advisory Committee, as well as the 

private sector how the Census Bureau could better use commercial 

mapping and GIS—that is geographic information technologies— 

which would yield a large cost saving and increase productivity. 

However, to date the Census Bureau doesn’t appear to have recognized or implemented any of these recommendations. How come we 

haven’t been looking at some things like that? 

Secretary ROSS. Well, there were very many private organizations contacted in the original process. I can’t vouchsafe the process 

by which they made the final selections they did. That, as you 

know, basically occurred years before. But we are dealing with the 

contracts that we do have. We believe that these are qualified people, and we believe that we will be able to get the job done if we 

get the additional funding that we have requested. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Well, can you maybe provide —— 

Secretary ROSS. In terms of lessons learned, one of the things we 

intend to do as we go along is to keep careful track of further improvements that should be made in subsequent censuses. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. I —— 

Secretary ROSS. I think with having only 30 months between 

now and the 2020 decennial, making radical changes would probably guarantee that we didn’t get it right. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. I am a little concerned about the path we are 

on not getting there, too, but if you could get me a list of some of 

these proposals and recommendations, I sure would like to take a 

look at them. I mean, just as an old computer guy, we do the census every 10 years, and there are very few computer systems that 

have an effective life beyond 10 years, so we are going to gear up 

with this new computer system in 2020. And here we are in 2030, 

we are going to be sitting here doing the exact same thing when 

it seems to me you could get with a cloud service that is secure. 

We have got those that the government uses now, and get an application written for people’s phone. This seems a whole lot simpler. 

And this cloud service that we would use would buy the computers and size them the way they need to be sized so they worked, 

and then when we are done with needing that massive capacity, 

they are there for them to use for their other clients. And to me 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
22 

that just makes economic sense. Rather than trying—this government attitude of we have got to do everything ourselves, especially 

in IT where I think the government really struggles—we are 

damned by some of our own contracting laws on that—it just seems 

like this is a great opportunity to look for some cost savings. 

And, you know, it is something that I brought up to your predecessor several years ago, but apparently it fell on deaf ears. So I 

—— Secretary ROSS. Well, we do believe that the cost will come in 

below the inflation-adjusted cost of the 2010 census, notwithstanding that there are the overruns. My predecessors estimated 

that the inflation-adjusted cost of 2020 using the 2010 methodology 

would have been $17.5 billion, so we are way more than $1 billion 

below that with all the problems that have occurred. 

Second, in terms of using existing databases, we do what we can. 

For example, we are making a lot of use of administrative records, 

the postal system records, local—the IRS records, Social Security 

records to check IDs, things of that sort. But the truth is Americans are a very mobile population. Something like 12 percent relocate each year. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. And I do—I am running out of time. I do want 

to make one more comment. I do think the Postal Service is an unused government resource that could be more help to the census 

than I think they are currently using. You have got Postal Service 

employees that visit almost every American residence five, six 

times a week, so I think there is a great resource there that may 

be underutilized. 

My time is expired, but if you would like to comment further, I 

am sure the chairman would —— 

Secretary ROSS. We are. We’re using the Postal Service and, as 

I say, the IRS, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare records, the Indian Health Service, every database that we can imagine because 

we really are trying to make sure we count everyone and that we 

count everyone one time. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentleman from Texas —— 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you, sir. I yield back. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentleman from Texas yields back. 

The gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Clay, is recognized. 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Chairman Gowdy. 

And also, thank you, Secretary Ross,—on the top—for your testimony today. 

Secretary ROSS. Sorry. I don’t know the geography of the committee well enough —— 

Mr. CLAY. I understand. 

Secretary ROSS.—where everybody is sitting. 

Mr. CLAY. I understand. And really, the census is about three 

things: money, information, and power. And no community or State 

wins if we fail to get this right. And our nation will be the ultimate 

loser. 

And as you all know, our country is more mobile, as you said, 

and much more diverse than ever before. And sadly, in some parts 

of our nation, residents have a high level of distrust for the Federal 

Government, which makes them less inclined to take part in the 

census. That is true in urban communities like the one that I repVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:59 Jun 26, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\30245.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
23 

resent in St. Louis, which always struggles with a lower self-reporting response. And generally, across the nation, African Americans, 

Latinos, Asians, new immigrants, and the rural poor are at a much 

greater risk of not being counted, a costly mistake they will pay for 

for an entire decade. And that is why underfunding the census 

2020 outreach programs to hard-to-count groups is such an enormous bipartisan threat to every state and every district that we 

represent. 

And I guess I want to start the line of questioning following up 

on Ms. Maloney’s questioning. Hard-to-count, hard-to-reach audiences and lack of funding for this initiative, Mr. Secretary, which 

is part of your communications contract, must receive the full attention of your administration. And I say that because the component of the communications contract needs—they need to be made 

full partners in the communications effort because that is where 

the challenge will be on how we get to those hard-to-count populations. So if I could just hear your concerns about that —— 

Secretary ROSS. Surely. 

Mr. CLAY.—and where we are going with it. 

Secretary ROSS. Surely. The entity overall in charge of communications is Young & Rubicam —— 

Mr. CLAY. Yes. 

Secretary ROSS.—which also was involved in the 2020 decennial. 

So, first of all, we have the institutional knowledge that they gain 

by their role 10 years ago. Second, the—they have retained something like 15 individual firms that specialize either in different 

forms of media or different ethnic groups, so we tried to pinpoint. 

Further, I may not have made it clear in what I said before, but 

the $500 million of communications is in addition to the $248 million for the partnerships. So altogether we’re spending $748 million 

on this outreach initiative. And when you consider how many total 

households there are, that’s quite a bit per household. And if you 

take out of that the ones that are easy responders, you’ll find we’re 

spending an enormous amount per household on the ones that are 

difficult to reach. And that is quite a deliberate thing. 

We have been conservative in our estimate of those who will give 

voluntary response. Last census was 63.5 percent. We’re assuming 

that that may drop down to 55 percent. So we’ve assumed—despite 

massive communications, we’ve assumed that a higher percentage 

of the population will still need the foot soldiers clogging around 

ringing doorbells. 

Mr. CLAY. Sure. And your partnership program also calls for testing of communications methods, all communications elements. 

Secretary ROSS. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CLAY. And that has been canceled for 2018, so how will these 

elements be tested adequately? 

Secretary ROSS. Well, it hasn’t been canceled; it’s just been postponed. 

Mr. CLAY. It has been postponed —— 

Secretary ROSS. Yes. 

Mr. CLAY.—so sometime in the calendar year of 2018 —— 

Secretary ROSS. Yes. 

Mr. CLAY.—it will be tested? 

Secretary ROSS. Yes. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
24 

Mr. CLAY. And I thank you for that response, and I yield back. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentleman yields back. 

The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Hice, is recognized. 

Mr. HICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate you being 

here, Mr. Secretary. 

Who is responsible to deliver the IT products on time? 

Secretary ROSS. Who is responsible? Well, the Census Bureau is 

responsible, and they have a whole series of contracting parties. If 

you count them all up, there are probably 100 individual entities. 

Mr. HICE. But at the end of the day somebody has got to be responsible that the product is delivered. 

Secretary ROSS. Well, ultimately me at Commerce and Karen 

Dunn Kelley has the oversight of census. 

Mr. HICE. So why are the IT products not delivered on time? 

What is the holdup? 

Secretary ROSS. Of? 

Mr. HICE. For the delivery of the modernization IT products. 

Here we are going to end-to-end and we don’t have what we need. 

Secretary ROSS. Well, I think the original estimates as to how 

long it would take and how much it would cost to get to those products were flawed, so some of it may be contractor not performing 

as well. I can’t judge what went on prior to the present, but I think 

it’s a combination of over-optimism on the part of census and 

maybe some errors on the part of the contractor. 

Mr. HICE. So is there any accountability, is there any penalty for 

not delivering on time what was promised to be delivered? 

Secretary ROSS. Well, each contract is different, but when you 

are on a time-and-materials contract, the concept of penalty doesn’t 

really work very well. That’s why —— 

Mr. HICE. So we are just going to have ambitious—we hope to 

deliver but we won’t deliver, and there is no accountability. 

Secretary ROSS. There’s not as much accountability as there 

would have been if there were fixed-price, fixed-time contracts, but 

that’s not the situation that we’re faced with. 

Mr. HICE. So when do we have—when can we possibly even 

guess under these circumstances that we will receive what we 

have? 

Secretary ROSS. Well, we have given more than what we think 

is a guess. We have done lots of work out in the field. We’ve done 

lots of analysis of what’s been done thus far, lots of analysis of the 

contracts, and we believe that this budget phased in the way that 

we have proposed will deliver the product that we need. 

Mr. HICE. Well, I don’t share your optimism. I don’t see how in 

the world you can either with the type of situation we are dealing 

with. 

And then you look at cybersecurity. How confident are you that 

this information gathered with an IT that hasn’t even been tested 

is going to be secure? 

Secretary ROSS. Well, in today’s world you can’t be sure of anything in terms of cybersecurity, but I can assure you the systems 

we’re putting in are far more robust than anything that has ever 

been done before in census. 

Mr. HICE. Well, I know last year the CIO for Bureau made a 

similar statement, said he had great confidence that the 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
25 

cybersecurity was intact, and yet the system hadn’t even been tested. How in the world can you have that kind of confidence on something we know nothing about? 

Secretary ROSS. Well, first of all, I didn’t say I have confidence 

that it’s impenetrable. What I said is it’s a lot more robust than 

had been true in 2010. 

Mr. HICE. How do you know that is my question. 

Secretary ROSS. Because of discussions with the people who are 

doing the implementation of it. 

But having said that, I’m not aware that there’s any system 

that’s flawless. 

Mr. HICE. Sir, so you are giving great confidence to us about the 

cybersecurity based on conversation. 

Secretary ROSS. No —— 

Mr. HICE. Conversation is not enough to give us the assurance 

that this information is protected. 

Secretary ROSS. What I’m telling you, sir, is that the systems 

themselves will be far more robust than anything census has used 

before. 

Mr. HICE. And yet we have not seen those systems? 

Secretary ROSS. Well, no, because they’re works in progress. 

Mr. HICE. So it’s all based on conversation, not on tests? This is 

all part of the problem. We get promises that are never delivered 

on, and we get—now, we have cybersecurity promises, commitments that are the most robust thing we have ever seen before, but 

it is simply based on conversation, not on tests. It looks to me like 

we are going to go back to the same thing that happened in 2010 

when we were promised all kinds of modernization, but it was a 

faulty IT program, so we end up with a paper-based census. I don’t 

see how we can proceed with this any further without going back 

to paper-based and just be honest with what we are dealing with. 

Secretary ROSS. Well, it’s impossible to test something that 

doesn’t yet exist. Eighty percent —— 

Mr. HICE. My point precisely. 

Secretary ROSS. Eighty percent of the spending will be post-2018. 

But let me describe to you what it is that we are doing. All of the 

data on the census systems are being protected. We’re applying 

some rigorous security protocols to the perimeter of the census’ own 

network. The census has an existing network, so we’re applying 

rigorous protocols to that. We’re putting in routers and firewalls. 

We also have our own detection intrusion and prevention systems 

in place at census. Census Bureau now has an unprecedented level 

of engagement with the best resources elsewhere in the Federal 

Government. We’re working closely with cybersecurity experts 

across the Department, including NIST, which is part of Commerce, the Federal CIOs office, the Department of Homeland Security, and the intelligence and law enforcement communities. We’re 

also putting a new level of cybersecurity Federal management in 

place for the 2020 census over and above what was done in 2010. 

Mr. HICE. Mr. Secretary, all due respect, our time is gone. I 

know we want to respect the time. I appreciate your answers. They 

just sound like talking points to me with not much beyond that. 

I yield back. 

Secretary ROSS. You can’t test something that isn’t in place. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
26 

Chairman GOWDY. All right. The gentleman yields back. 

The chair will now recognize the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands, Ms. Plaskett. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 

having this committee hearing. 

Good morning, sir. How are you? 

Secretary ROSS. Good, ma’am. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Good. I wanted to ask you some questions which 

of course are something that is on the minds of quite a number of 

Americans right now is undertaking census in areas that have recently been ravaged by disaster and the mechanisms and processes 

that are potentially in place to be able to do that. We know that 

millions of Americans have been displaced by Hurricanes Harvey, 

Irma, and Maria in the States of Texas, Florida, and in the areas 

of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. 

As the communities work tirelessly to rebuild, large-scale 

changes are likely to occur that, I would assume, would greatly impact the 2020 census. If we have learned anything from Hurricane 

Katrina in 2005, it is that recovery from large-scale natural disasters take time and often quite a lot of that time. 

A 2011 report by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human 

Rights illustrated that challenges to enumeration activities still 

exist in the Gulf region in 2010, almost five years after Katrina 

took place. And the report highlighted issues such as large numbers of individuals in temporary housing, informal housing arrangements, high rates of vacant units, significant changes in both 

new housing stock, and population shifts in those affected areas. 

Mr. Secretary, do you agree that the Bureau is likely to encounter many if not all of these challenges due to the destruction 

caused by this year’s hurricanes and perhaps future hurricanes before the census takes place? 

Secretary ROSS. Well, you’re surely right in pointing out issues. 

Here’s what we’re doing. During the 2010 census they changed the 

operations in the areas that were hit by Katrina and Rita. Basically, what it involved was putting more people on the ground to 

deliver questionnaires directly to housing units and updating the 

addresses while doing so. 

We can do something similar in 2020 as needed. If it does turn 

out that we need that, it will cost more money, but we’ve tried to 

allow an amount for these types of contingencies, provided that the 

natural disasters are not more extreme than we’ve experienced in 

the past. 

In addition, we have a particular problem in the U.S. Virgin Islands and for that matter in Puerto Rico. We conduct the decennial 

census in those territories by working directly with territorial governments to build and implement the operations that best fit their 

respective situations. We’re currently developing our approach for 

the 2020 with the government of the Virgin Islands and will ensure 

that the operations take into account the impact of the recent hurricanes. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Excuse me, sir. When you say particular challenges, what have you seen in the past as being uniqueness of trying to find census data in areas like Puerto Rico and the Virgin IsVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:59 Jun 26, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\30245.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
27 

lands besides the obvious that I know, which is that we don’t have 

street addresses? 

Secretary ROSS. Right. Well, as you know, the census has confronted those basic problems over and over and over. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Yes. 

Secretary ROSS. So every time that they’ve gone through it, 

they’ve learned something from the process. The difficulty we have 

now is that the issue with residence has been terribly compounded 

by the awful destruction that occurred. So the magnitude of the 

task has become greater than it ever had been. 

Ms. PLASKETT. And will your budget reflect the magnitude of 

these hurricanes? 

Secretary ROSS. We have tried our best to do so. 

Ms. PLASKETT. And I know in the past that you have done a good 

job of not just partnering with the local governments but with community organizations as well, that they have been somewhat a 

boots-on-the-ground for you. 

Secretary ROSS. Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. And that’s why we 

have allocated $248 million for partnerships with local community 

organizations. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. I yield 

back. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentlelady from the Virgin Islands yields 

back. 

The gentleman from Alabama is recognized. 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today. 

I understand some of the frustration that my colleagues have expressed, and to give you an example, the GAO and the Office of Inspector General have cited a number of issues with the Census Bureau that honestly you inherited to be totally truthful about it. But 

the frustration is that these don’t appear to have been adequately 

addressed. For instance, the GAO included the 2020 census on its 

high-risk list for 2017. In fact, over the last three years, they have 

issued 30 recommendations, but as of January this year, only six 

have been implemented. Are you familiar with this list? 

Secretary ROSS. Well, we have been working closely with the 

GAO. You will be hearing from them a bit later. And we are cooperating with them in their audit of the work that we’ve been 

doing. 

Mr. PALMER. My question, Mr. Secretary, and we only have five 

minutes and I want to give you an opportunity to answer this as— 

a yes or no would be sufficient. Are you familiar with this list of 

30 recommendations? 

Secretary ROSS. I couldn’t hear you, sir. 

Mr. PALMER. Are you familiar with this list from the GAO, the 

30 recommendations that they have made in the last —— 

Secretary ROSS. Oh, sure. 

Mr. PALMER.—three years? 

Secretary ROSS. Sure. 

Mr. PALMER. And you are aware that only six have been implemented—have been followed up on as of January of this year? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
28 

Secretary ROSS. As of January, that was true. I believe there’s 

been some further progress since then and there will be continuing 

progress. 

Mr. PALMER. I think it is extremely important that when the 

GAO or the OIG make recommendations when they have findings 

of issues that Federal agencies, Federal departments act on them. 

I mean, it is frustrating to the folks who are doing the work. It is 

frustrating to us in our oversight capacity. And it is not just with 

the Census Bureau. This has occurred in other agencies, but there 

is a mounting frustration that we identify problems and they don’t 

get addressed. 

So my question to you, sir, is this a top priority, mid-level? I 

mean, how serious are you taking these? 

Secretary ROSS. Well, it certainly is a top priority, and, you 

know, I think you’ll find the OIG testimony pretty well mirrors the 

top management challenges report that we put together. What happened prior to January of this year I can’t account for. 

Mr. PALMER. I —— 

Secretary ROSS. I was confirmed February 28, so —— 

Mr. PALMER. I realize that, and I made that clear that you inherited most of these problems, but the thing that we want to know 

is that under your leadership that this is taken seriously. 

Secretary ROSS. Oh, it is. 

Mr. PALMER. I mean, the cost estimates, for instance, we have 

known this—the GAO began questioning that in 2008. 

Secretary ROSS. No, it certainly is, and my testimony today focused on a lot of it. One of their recommendations is the Bureau 

needs to manage the risks of implementing innovation. Well, you 

heard my testimony. I totally agree with that, and we are much 

more heavy-handed in the management than there had been before. 

Second, the Bureau continues to face challenges in implementing 

and securing key IT systems, 100 percent true for sure. And the 

2018 end-to-end test will probably reveal some more deficiencies 

that we’ll have to deal with. 

Mr. PALMER. But my colleague from Georgia expressed frustration with the testing process, and I appreciate your response that 

you can’t test a system until the system is in place, but —— 

Secretary ROSS. Right. 

Mr. PALMER.—the Bureau has had a number of problems in 

terms of failing to adequately test systems and products, and when 

they do test them, they are not using the results to inform their 

decision-making. 

Secretary ROSS. Well, we will. 

Mr. PALMER. Well, that is comforting to know, and I am certain 

under your leadership that that will happen, but that is one of the 

frustrations again that we have is that you have the GAO, the 

OIG, this committee making recommendations, and it is not just 

the Commerce Department or the Census Bureau. This has happened a number of times with other agencies, but we want to make 

sure—this is such a serious issue, we want to make sure that systems are tested and the results are used in decision-making. 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to submit the questions —— 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
29 

Secretary ROSS. Absolutely. 

Mr. PALMER.—and I yield back. 

Secretary ROSS. And the IT part was a very key one in the GAO 

recommendations. And as I had mentioned earlier, our budget is 

more than what they felt was the minimum required. They came 

in thinking that—as opposed to I think it was $3.6 billion that the 

former administration had estimated, I think they recommended 

$4.8 billion or more. We came in at $4.96 billion. So we are not ignoring any of those recommendations, not by a longshot. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentleman from Alabama yields back. 

The gentlelady from Florida is recognized. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Secretary Ross, thank you so much for being with us today. 

You have already talked about undercounted populations, but 

this issue has been in the news recently because of a lawsuit filed 

by the NAACP which it filed in part because of concerns about the 

undercount of communities of color, young children, home renters, 

low-income persons, and rural residents. I am concerned that the 

undercount could be exacerbated in 2020 if minority groups are 

less inclined to share personal information with the government 

due to the climate of mistrust created by this administration’s immigration policy. 

Secretary Ross, can you assure immigrant families and other— 

it is a bad word but—marginalized groups that their data will be 

kept confidential and not used to pursue any law enforcement or 

immigration action? 

Secretary ROSS. I believe it would be illegal for those data to be 

used for other purposes, so unless someone commits a crime, I don’t 

think that’s going to happen. But on the NAACP lawsuit, they filed 

a Freedom of Information Act request with us on the June 29th. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Secretary Ross, excuse me just a second. So you 

are saying if the information was used for law enforcement purposes or for immigration policies, that that would be illegal? 

Secretary ROSS. My understanding is that the information about 

specific individuals is not to be used for any other purpose but —— 

Mrs. DEMINGS. And using it would be illegal is—I am just trying 

to understand that that is what you are saying. 

Secretary ROSS. I am not a lawyer, so I can’t parse that, but as 

I understand it, it is not to be used for any other purpose. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Okay. Well, you know, one way—I know you have 

also spoken about partnership programs, and certainly I believe 

that additional programs of that nature may lessen some of the 

concern. How many partnership specialists have you hired and how 

many do you anticipate hiring by census day? 

Secretary ROSS. Oh, there are quite a few. Let me see if I can 

get you the exact number. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Okay. And while you are looking for that, I think 

—— 

Secretary ROSS. Well —— 

Mrs. DEMINGS.—my colleague Mr. Clay talked about testing of 

new processes —— 

Secretary ROSS. Okay. 

Mrs. DEMINGS.—particularly —— 

Secretary ROSS. The answer is 40, 40 people. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
30 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Forty? And how many do you anticipate hiring by 

census day or is that the total number? 

Secretary ROSS. Forty I believe is the total number. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Okay. 

Secretary ROSS. To date. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. To date, okay. Thank you very much. Any anticipated numbers by census day at this point? 

Secretary ROSS. Well —— 

Mrs. DEMINGS. We aren’t sure? 

Secretary ROSS. We’ll see how much comes in. A lot of firms— 

a lot of community organizations are well aware of the census, 

have participated in it before, and are signing up themselves. So 

depending on whether we get a good flow, consistent with improving it over the last time, that’ll determine how many people will 

need it. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Okay. Thank you for that. I know you also spoke 

about testing of new procedures. I would like to talk particularly 

about in rural island and tribal areas and also tie in those procedures to the budget constraints that we currently face. Secretary 

Ross, what are you doing to ensure that these new processes will 

work smoothly in rural island and tribal areas? 

Secretary ROSS. Well, the tribal areas are one of the specific segments that are being tested so that we can get real-world results, 

seeing how the procedures that we’ve introduced work. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Okay. And for rural and islands? 

Secretary ROSS. Same. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Okay, same. Okay. Thank you very much for 

that. On the census website it says, and I quote, ‘‘We promise that 

we will use every technology, statistical methodology, and physical 

security procedure at our disposal to protect your information,’’ unquote. Could you talk, Secretary Ross, a little bit about how the 

adequate or inadequate funding might affect that promise? 

Secretary ROSS. Well, we believe that the funding we have requested will provide us the resources we need for that purpose. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. And if you do not get the funding that you requested, are you still able to fulfill the promise that is on your 

website? 

Secretary ROSS. Well, we will do the best we can with the resources we get, but we think that the optimal amount for the proper job is the amount we’ve requested. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Thank you, Secretary Ross. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you. 

Chairman GOWDY. Yes, ma’am. The gentlelady from Florida 

yields back. 

The gentleman from Iowa is recognized. 

Mr. BLUM. Thank you, Chairman Gowdy. 

Secretary Ross, thank you for being here today. Good to see you 

again, my friend. 

Fifteen-point-six billion I guess is the latest estimate. 

Secretary ROSS. Yes. 

Mr. BLUM. In Iowa that is a lot of money. 

Secretary ROSS. It is to me too, sir. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
31 

Mr. BLUM. A hundred and twenty-five million households I think there are, so the math, if I am correct, is about $125 per household 

—— Secretary ROSS. That’s about right. 

Mr. BLUM.—to do what we want to do. Does that strike you as 

a large number per household? 

Secretary ROSS. It’s a large number —— 

Mr. BLUM. What are your feelings about that? 

Secretary ROSS.—and it’s an even larger number when you consider that the vast bulk of that is spent on getting the last few million in because the ones who respond to the initial mailed document or respond over internet, the cost of those is very small. It’s 

the more-difficult-to-enumerate people that are really the most expensive to get to. The last few million people are going to cost infinitely more than the first few million —— 

Mr. BLUM. I’m —— 

Secretary ROSS.—and that’s why the response rate is so critical. 

Mr. BLUM. You are a private sector guy. I am a private sector 

businessperson as well. Can you just in 60 seconds let me know 

how much—are we utilizing the private sector? I am thinking of, 

for example, Google probably didn’t spend $15 billion to map the 

entire United States visually. Are we utilizing the technology and 

the resources available in the private sector to the extent possible? 

Secretary ROSS. I believe so. I believe so. 

Mr. BLUM. Can you expand on that just briefly or—especially the 

technology piece of this. 

Secretary ROSS. Right. Well, where the Google-type technology is 

helpful is in locating physical structures. It doesn’t really go within 

the structure to the individual person, so our task is first to identify the physical structures that have residents in them, whatever 

the nature, whatever the formality or informality of the living arrangements, but then the real test is to get inside them and find 

out exactly how many people are there. So that’s where the selfresponses are very helpful. 

And we’re providing for internet self-response. We’re providing 

call centers to make it easy. Everybody’s going to be getting mailings. And then finally, as a last resort, we’ll use the primitive thing 

of a guy knocking on the door. 

Mr. BLUM. And speaking of—I am glad you said a guy knocking 

on the door. Back in my district in Iowa I have delivered the mail 

with postal carriers. One of them brought an idea to me. They said, 

‘‘Why is it when we do the census, why don’t they use us more?’’ 

He said, ‘‘For example, I know exactly on my route how many people live in each house. I know their names.’’ He said, ‘‘I know a lot 

about them.’’ He said, ‘‘Why don’t they utilize us?’’ 

Secretary ROSS. We do. 

Mr. BLUM. I thought it was a great question. 

Secretary ROSS. Oh, we do. 

Mr. BLUM. I would like to pose that to you. 

Secretary ROSS. Oh, we do. Our fundamental database is the 

postal system, no question. But because people move, people die, 

people—all kinds of things happen. Something like 12 percent of 

the population relocates during the course of a calendar year. And 

within the more difficult-to-enumerate portion, there’s probably 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
32 

even more mobility than there is, say, in a single-family home in 

a little town. So it’s very, very complicated, but we do begin with 

the postal system records for sure. 

Mr. BLUM. So you use their database. Can we also utilize the 

man knocking on the door? 

Secretary ROSS. The man knocking on the door —— 

Mr. BLUM. Can we utilize the postal carrier for that? 

Secretary ROSS. The man knocking on the door is the last resort, 

only when all the more efficient mechanisms have already been 

used. 

Mr. BLUM. I got looking at the $15.6 billion and I thought, Mr. 

Secretary, if you and I formed a company, I am guessing we could 

do for $8 billion, save the government $7 billion, and you and I 

would put a few dollars in our pocket I am guessing. Is there any 

truth to that? 

Secretary ROSS. Well, I don’t know. We are where we are, and 

we do think under the circumstances we really need the $15.6 billion. Thank you very much. Thanks for being here, Mr. Secretary. 

I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentleman from Iowa yields back. 

The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Chairman 

Gowdy, I want to express my appreciation for this hearing. 

People don’t think about the census that much, but it is such an 

important thing, not just because it is constitutionally mandated 

that we need to get it right. We need to get it right so our American Federal Government can work better for everybody. We need 

an accurate census. We need to know where the people are, we 

need to know where the jobs are, we need to know where the poverty is, we need to know how the economy is changing, we need to 

know what the government needs to do and maybe needs to stop 

doing and where these things need to happen. So, so much of policy 

depends on an accurate census. We need to get it right. 

Secretary Ross, it is good to see you again. I saw you in May 

when you came and testified before the House Appropriations Committee. And I want to touch on some areas that we do have concerns about. I think all of us in this room share the concern we 

need to get this census right. We want to learn from past mistakes. 

We don’t want to be—we don’t want to have rose-colored glasses 

and really unjustified hopes. We need to be very practical and 

pragmatic about this, and I think you are that kind of person, Secretary Ross, so I want to touch on a few things. 

First, warning signs of trouble, I mean, May 3 was when Census 

Director Thompson appeared before my subcommittee on appropriations, and we asked him hard questions, much like the ones 

you are getting here today, Secretary Ross. And he resigned the 

next week. That is a warning sign of trouble to me. And he hasn’t 

been replaced. 

First question, are there immediate plans to replace the census 

director? 

Secretary ROSS. Yes. We had actually come up with a nominee 

and then that fell away during the vetting process, so we’re actively trying to recruit. But I have very good confidence in the team 

that we have assembled right now, namely, the two people who colVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:59 Jun 26, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\30245.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
33 

lectively have some 30 years each of experience are there, they’re 

functioning every day. And Karen Dunn Kelley now is providing 

very direct oversight of them. Plus, I’m being very personally involved, and we have the whole series of oversight meetings, meetings with the contractors. We’re all over this thing as best we can 

be. 

So it’s not to say that we don’t want to have a permanent approved census director; we do and we will. It’s not an easy task to 

fill because you need someone who has subject matter command 

and management experience to deal with an enormously challenging task of hiring a half-million temporary workers, getting 

them out there, getting them productive, and getting this big technological change introduced. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Well, you have a lot of other things that demand your attention, Secretary Ross, so I urge you to devote the 

maximum effort into finding that person to be a strong, active, 

knowledgeable census director, and let’s get that done quickly. 

Secretary ROSS. We’re trying our very best. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Now, we need to get this census right, and one 

of the problems, one of the red flags is we know there are underreported communities, and a number of them have been mentioned 

by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle today, but one of them 

I notice is the LGBT community. They are historically underreported. We know that they face higher levels of poverty, particularly older LGBT people, that LGBT young people are more likely 

to be homeless, making it all the more likely that they will be not 

counted. And, in fact, the Census Bureau itself has recognized that 

the LGBT community is a hard-to-count population, yet the Bureau 

has declined to put questions about sexual orientation and gender 

identity into the census. 

Secretary, did you determine that there was no Federal need for 

this information? 

Secretary ROSS. No, there were hearings held about it. There 

were requests put in, and it was concluded that that particular set 

of questions did not meet the requirements for being put in. One 

of the problems with adding questions is it reduces response rates. 

It may seem counterintuitive, but the more things you ask in those 

forms, the less likely you are to get them in. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Well, I —— 

Secretary ROSS. So there’s a balancing act between more information and fewer responses. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Secretary Ross, my time is up, but I want to 

associate myself with the hard questioning you got from my colleague, Congressman Hice of Georgia. I urge you to devote a great 

deal of attention to the online, the self-reporting, increasing public 

confidence in the cybersecurity of the system because, as you have 

said yourself today, that is the cheapest way we get this job done 

with the self-reporting, with the online work, and I urge you to devote a lot of attention to increasing the public’s trust in the online 

system and giving them good reason to have trust in that system. 

And with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary ROSS. We share your concern. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Thank you. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
34 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentleman from Pennsylvania yields 

back. 

The gentleman from California is recognized. Sorry about that, 

the gentleman from Texas, I apologize. And I do want to say this 

in Will’s defense. He was up several times ago and he let others 

go, so, Will, I apologize. You’re up, and then the gentleman from 

California. 

Mr. HURD. Thank you, Chairman. 

And, Secretary Ross, it is great to have you here, and it is great 

to know that there is C-suite attention to this important issue. You 

have a very important portfolio, but it is great that you are involved in providing leadership for this. 

And I know you have inherited I think the technical term is a 

mess, and I recognize and I appreciate your comments about how 

to prevent the next census from being in a similar position, so I appreciate that. 

And when some of your predecessors were here last time, there 

was a debate about whether the Census Bureau should develop a 

widget that uses the telecommunications backbone that the enumerator can put data in, and the question was that widget already 

exists; it is called a smartphone. And I am glad to know that the 

Census Bureau decided to use I believe smartphones. 

And my question around that is have we discussed or have plans, 

have you and the CIO for the Census Bureau had some conversations around the security of whatever device is going to be used by 

the enumerators? 

Secretary ROSS. Yes, we’ve had consultation not only within the 

Department but with Homeland security, with FBI, with the intelligence community, with the overall CIOs in the government and 

in Commerce. So we’re building in the best firewalls and routers 

that we possibly can. 

But having said that, there’s probably some 13-year-old kid in a 

garage somewhere trying to figure out how to penetrate it, so in 

today’s world, you do your best, but you can’t be 100 percent sure 

unfortunately. 

Mr. HURD. You have to begin with the assumption of breach. I 

did this for a living. I never not got in, but the fact that there is, 

again, focus from your office on the security of the systems—and 

I know that there is 43 systems that have to be delivered for endto-end testing in 2018 and only four of those have been delivered. 

I know there has been some conversations on that. And, you know, 

my concern is the Bureau is going to have to get the authorizations 

to operate the ATOs for each one of these systems, and I know 

some of these—a section of these 43 systems already have ATOs, 

but they’re going to need to get new ones because the system is 

evolving. And I am curious in the strategy that you and your IT 

team have discussed on ensuring that we have those ATOs in time 

to protect those personally identifiable information, especially on 

those 33 systems that do have PII. 

Secretary ROSS. Well, there are actually more than 50 systems 

that will be involved. And their uses are to update and maintain 

the address list to enable people to respond via the internet, to 

identify the households that have not responded in order to send 

interviewers to them, to manage the work of the interviewers, and 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
35 

to recruit and pay the field workforce. Those are just a few examples of the kinds of systems. 

Systems also capture, process, and tabulate all of the data collected on the people living in the United States. We’re monitoring 

the progress of all of these systems, and each one is at a different 

stage of completion as we sit here. 

Mr. HURD. And so what is your strategy to ensure that these systems are delivered and they have the ATOs necessary to get this 

done? 

Secretary ROSS. Well, we’re trying to apply enough pressure on 

the contractors and enough surveillance of them to deal with the 

glitches that inevitably will come up. There will be unexpected 

problems in each area, and that’s why we have allowed the 10 percent contingency because most of these problems that come up can 

be solved. It’s a question of how many people it takes and at what 

cost. 

Mr. HURD. And, Mr. Secretary, I would like to offer that we 

would love to talk to those folks, those contractors that may not be 

delivering on time and have them join you at this table to ensure 

that this census is done properly. 

And my last question in my remaining two seconds, why did the 

head of the census, the former Director Thompson leave the Bureau? 

Secretary ROSS. Well, I think he has issued a public statement 

about why he left. I did not know him very well, so I can’t really 

judge if—what his motivations were. He has found other employment in the statistical community, and he actually held a press 

conference at the National Press Club a week or two after he resigned and explained what his motivations were. 

Mr. HURD. Good. Copy. Thank you. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the time I do not have. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentleman from Texas yields back, and I 

apologize again for not counting the gentleman from Texas, particularly embarrassing at a census hearing. So I apologize for that. 

The gentleman from California is recognized. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t mind you calling 

him the gentleman from California. We have had so many Californians moved to Texas. 

Chairman GOWDY. I should have specified the other gentleman 

from California, Mr. Gomez. 

Mr. GOMEZ. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, thank you so much for 

sticking around. I am over here. I am the newest member of the 

House and of this committee, so you sticking around is very helpful 

to me because I never get to ask these kind of questions. 

First, I am a big fan of the census. It is a subject I studied in 

graduate school at the Kennedy School of Government, took classes 

on it. It is very important just to the entire country and how we 

operate. One of the issues is definitely the undercount when it 

comes to certain communities. African Americans were undercounted by 2.1 percent in 2010 and Hispanics by 1.5 percent. I am 

fearful that that will go up in this next census because of the immigration policies, especially the interior enforcement policies of this 

new administration. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
36 

The acting ICE Director Homan issued a statement last week in 

response to a bill that was passed in California, S.B. 54, the California Values Act, that they would have no choice but to conduct 

large-scale raids and enforcement within neighborhoods and workplaces. What kind of—you know, and you mentioned—this also 

kind of made me think about—you mentioned the response rate 

would be 55 percent. Has I guess the new interior enforcement 

policies of the administration been taken into account when determining the response rate, the undercount, and just trying to figure 

out what kind of impact they will have on these communities. 

Secretary ROSS. Well, the—there are quite a lot of questions in 

what you’ve said, but the response rate in 2010 had been 63.5 percent. The original estimate that the census folks had used was 60.5 

percent this time. We took that down to 55 percent for the very 

reasons that you are describing. Is that exactly the right number? 

Who knows, but it certainly is a lot safer number than 60.5. So our 

starting point is a much more conservative one, and as a result of 

that, we’ve allocated more money to the difficult-to-enumerate part. 

Second, we have increased the communications budget from the 

$350 million that was spent in 2010 to $500 million, and even if 

you look at 2010 on a 2020 inflation-adjusted basis, that would only 

bring it to $420 million, so it’s almost a 20 percent increase over 

the inflation-adjusted basis. So we’re increasing the communication 

is one thing. Second, were spending $248 million on these partnership arrangements. That’s over and above the $500 million that 

we’re spending on communications. So if you add that all up, that’s 

$750 billion essentially devoted to outreach, and most of that, when 

you really think about it, is in fact devoted to the last few million, 

the last few percentage points to try to minimize the danger of 

undercounting because the ones who respond immediately to the 

mailings, the ones who respond immediately to a phone call, those 

don’t cost too much to get. It’s the last few that take up most of 

the money. 

We’re making use of 10 different languages. We’re doing all 

kinds of things that were not done before by way of training in 

order to improve the efficiency of the process. 

Mr. GOMEZ. Mr. Secretary, thank you. I am glad that is being 

taken into account, and I guess that is why you have a lower number. That is why also the partnerships are so important. I noticed 

that you mentioned that only 40 partnerships specialists have been 

currently budgeted. In 2000 there was 590 if that is correct. What 

is your goal on the number of partnerships for the 2020 census? 

Secretary ROSS. Well, our goal is—our target is to get to a number on the order of magnitude of 800. 

Mr. GOMEZ. Okay. Thank you. The reason why it is so important 

is that there is a historic undercount in these communities. We 

need to make sure they are accurately counted. You have a tough, 

tough job. I appreciate that there has been thought about the political environment and the immigration enforcement. What I have 

seen in some of my— even in talking to community hospitals and 

community clinics, you don’t think there is a correlation, but some 

community clinics have seen increases in the no-show rate up to 19 

percent. That is a big jump. So if they are not showing up to get 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
37 

physical and health checkups, you are going to see a lower response rate and lower counts in some of these communities. 

So thank you so much. I appreciate having the time to ask the 

questions, and I yield back. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentleman California yields back. 

The gentleman from California, Mr. Issa, is recognized. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, you know, around here we always say that all 

questions have been asked but not by all of us here. Seeing as I 

appear as though I am the last up to bat, I will try not to repeat 

any more than necessary. 

Earlier on, Mr. Duncan apparently asked about the American 

Community Survey. I just want to plant something. I have the 

same concerns he has of intrusiveness and so on, but I also have 

a concern of inaccuracy. It is anecdotal, but I have been living in 

the same house when I am here for years. The last census and this 

census, for whatever reason, they threaten my very livelihood if I 

don’t answer questions about a place I don’t live. And so the absence of a targeting pursuant to the survey that would reasonably 

determine whether or not there is a resident. In other words, the 

place that I reside in when I am here, except for a corporate name 

on the title, there is no way to trace it back to anybody. 

It is a house that receives no mail, has no bank accounts, absolutely nothing to it, and yet, for whatever reason, it is the target 

of the Community Survey for which I ignore to be honest. I don’t 

really ignore it; I take it into my staff and they then send it to the 

Census Bureau to say this is silly. 

So the one thing that I would ask is that you, going forward, ask 

the question of to get accuracy, do you have to be random and 

without looking, or in this modern age can you use tools to determine the high likelihood of places that should be surveyed? Just a 

thought. 

Now, here is the bigger thought. This is going to be my third census, and as I came in as the first census—and the gentleman from 

California has departed talked about we inherited it from the Clinton administration, and it did have some differences. In 2010 under 

the Bush era and then Obama, he really inherited it from President Bush, who had done most of the preparatory work. What I 

will tell you is I saw very little difference in the fact that the Census Bureau always seemed surprised that 10 years had passed. 

They always seem a little shocked that they didn’t make it, and 

then they start talk about funding for something they had 10 

years. 

So here is a question from yours and my years in business. Decades ago when we were younger businessmen, companies closed for 

as much as a week to do their annual shutdown and inventories. 

Everybody except those counting went home. And that once-a-year 

inventory was the way it was. That was before a great many advances both in statistical accuracy and in the ability to continuously monitor inventories. Today, no sensible company ever has to 

shut down because they are continuously making sure their inventories are accurate. 

The Constitution does enumerate a once-every-10-year requirement, but the Constitution could be changed if necessary. If we 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
38 

were to ask the question wouldn’t America be better off with continuous accurate counting, a system in which the Census Bureau, 

in its many activities, including the aforementioned American Community Survey, would be constantly doing its job. It would not be 

trying to do something once every 10 years, which seems to be Herculean simply because they only do it once every 10 years. 

So I would ask you to draw on the evolutions that you have seen 

over decades in how we look at accounting for things and ask the 

question, on your watch, shouldn’t we begin the process, even if it 

requires congressional action, to go to a continuous-counting system to make it constitutional but to make it much more accurate, 

which today, with tools both in counting and, to be honest, with the 

modern computer accuracy of what we know and where we know 

it, couldn’t we do the American people a better service? 

Secretary ROSS. Well, I must confess with trying to get my arms 

around the existing process, I’ve not given much thought to changing the whole thing. There are probably pluses and minuses to the 

idea of the continual survey. At some point I will try to give some 

thought to it, but as you correctly point out, that would take a constitutional amendment, and I would think that’s going to be a big 

challenge in and of itself to make such a radical change in something so fundamental to the allocation of seats and allocation of 

monies. 

Mr. ISSA. I would agree with you that if, in, fact the certification 

once every 10 years that the count was as accurate or more accurate than it would be by the current system would require some 

action. The question is when the Census Bureau certifies what our 

population is and where it is in 2020, they will be doing so with 

the best efforts they can have, most of which will be done based 

on a once-every-10-year count. 

What I would say to you, Mr. Secretary, is if we look at what we 

should do for our progeny in the decades and centuries to come, if 

we begin now with some sort of an effective study—and of course, 

this would be based on the people behind you for the beginning, 

but then a commission that would in fact check out the feasibility, 

run the questions, create the question of could we have a higher 

confidence, and could we have it every day of every month of every 

year rather than the estimates today, which we rely on the estimates during the interim period. Why are they not as accurate or 

more accurate than the once every 10 years? 

So I plant this for you because your real legacy can only be affected slightly in what you do from the time you take over to the 

time we have our census. You have a short period of time, and 

most of the time has expired. But for 12 years from now plus, there 

is a question of whether or not we could improve the system just 

as any of the portfolio of companies that you are familiar with 

would never close for a week once a year and think that that is the 

best way to count inventory. 

Secretary ROSS. No, I certainly agree with your analogy about 

the private sector. That is 100 percent accurate. I do think that 

would be a very large undertaking to try to figure out the pluses 

and minuses of a continual thing, so I really do think that would 

require additional congressional appropriation. I don’t want to divert any of the census people from the task at hand because this 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
39 

is a heavy enough lift the way it is. So to take some of them off 

that job and think about a possible alternative I really don’t think 

is in the public’s interest. So that would have to be a separate appropriation. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GOWDY. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. We have 

got one more member to go. I am going to go last. 

Secretary ROSS. Oh. 

Chairman GOWDY. I think one thing you and I both heard today, 

the census is constitutionally significant. It is incredibly important 

for purposes of our democratic republic, counting people, apportionment, even the apportionment of goods and services. And what I 

learned from you last week is this causal link between cost and 

compliance. The compliance numbers are going down, the cost is 

going up. 

I don’t remember a lot from my childhood because it was a long 

time ago. I do remember the seriousness with which my parents 

took the census. It was almost a form of public service, maybe not 

to the level of jury service, but it was important. So if you accept 

the belief that most of our fellow citizens would like to help, particularly in an area that is constitutionally significant and important and kind fundamental to our form of government, what are 

the impediments to the compliance rate? How do we reverse the 

trend of our fellow citizens not voluntarily complying? 

Secretary ROSS. Well, I can only speculate, but I will give you a 

couple of thoughts on it. I think the fabric of the relationship between the public and the government has been deteriorating. I 

think there is less public confidence in government than there has 

been for a long time, and I think that is one of the problems. 

I think a second problem is there is so much input that comes 

into everyone, whether it is over social media, whether it’s through 

the conventional media, from whatever source. I think everybody is 

overdosed on information flow, junk mail, the whole thing. So I 

think information clutter is a separate problem, and it’s one of the 

problems even with the call center. A lot of people don’t like to get 

incoming calls from strangers for whatever reason. 

And the do-not-call lists have proven quite ineffective. I find even 

though I have only been in government a short while I got these 

robocalls on my official government cell phone. I think if we got— 

if we want to get response rates improved, we have to get rid of 

a lot of the intrusions that people find in the normal course. I was 

astonished to get—I would say I probably get two or three junk 

calls a day on my official government cell phone. 

Chairman GOWDY. Well, we might ought to switch that number, 

and I am happy to help you there if you want to get a different 

number. Maybe it won’t help. I think you put your finger on something, the disconnect between the citizenry and the government 

and the lack of trust, which leads to the next two areas. I don’t 

think people mind answering questions where they see the relevance. How many folks live in your household, that is directly relevant to apportionment and therefore redistricting and the provision of goods and services. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
40 

I made a note you said in response to one of my colleagues that 

the more questions you ask, the lower the compliance rate is, and 

you —— 

Secretary ROSS. Absolutely. 

Chairman GOWDY.—used the word counterintuitive, and in fact 

I think it is not counterintuitive. It makes perfect sense. The longer 

something takes me, the less likely I am to do it. The more intrusive I view it, the less likely I am to do. 

Secretary ROSS. Right. 

Chairman GOWDY. So I would—there are two things. I don’t want 

to dwell on the Community Survey because it has been touched 

upon by a number of my colleagues. It is not lost on me that American citizens can reject a jury trial, they can reject a lawyer, they 

can refuse to talk to the government, they can refuse to talk to law 

enforcement, they can refuse to vote. It is surprising to me to see 

that little line at the bottom of the Community Survey that you can 

be punished for failing to tell the government how many bathrooms 

you have and what kind of fixtures you have. 

So given that you and I agree that the disconnect between the 

citizenry and the government is one of the reasons we have a low 

compliance rate, I would encourage you to be very judicious and 

thoughtful about what questions government does ask. 

And the other thing I would—two other points and then we are 

done. Cost matters. It matters, period, new paragraph. I think in 

lots of facets of life we are willing to pay for quality. We do it with 

automobiles, we do it with sporting events. I think if you were 

somehow able to convince our fellow citizens that they are going to 

get an A-plus product—you are not happy about the extra costs, 

but if they can swallow that, they will get an A-plus product. I 

think it is when you get the higher cost and a substandard product 

that also actually feeds the disconnect. 

So I don’t know you well. You were kind enough to come over 

last week. I know nothing about your background, don’t even know 

anything about your politics. I will tell you this. You come across 

as an authentic person. You come across as someone that our fellow citizens would believe on an issue like this. I would encourage 

you to pair up with someone who has a different political ideology. 

Whatever yours is, find somebody on the other side, and communicate to our fellow citizens, look, we get the disconnect. We are not 

trying to change that. 

It would be really helpful to all of us as Americans, not Republicans, not Democrats, not Southerners. It would be helpful as 

Americans if we got that compliance number up. It is going to save 

money. It is also more accurate. So I am not talking about an ad 

campaign where you are on an ad at the Super Bowl, although I 

am sure you would be great. Just use the bully pulpit of being a 

Cabinet-level official to kind of reassure our fellow citizens that you 

want to do it the right way, and you want it to be accurate, and 

you could use their help. 

Secretary ROSS. Well, I think that is very good advice, and I will 

try very hard to use whatever bully pulpit comes with Commerce 

to try to achieve that. 

Chairman GOWDY. Well, on behalf of everyone, I want to thank 

you not just for today but also the briefing you gave us yesterday. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
41 

We have another panel. I know that you have other things to do, 

so we are going to recess and then allow the second panel to come 

forward. And with that, thanks on behalf of all of us for your time 

this morning. 

Secretary ROSS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GOWDY. Yes, sir. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman GOWDY. I want to welcome our second panel. I want 

to thank you for your patience. It was a little longer morning, but 

we made it, so thank you. I will introduce you, recognize you for 

your five-minute openings. And Mr. Cummings is coming, and he 

graciously told me to go ahead and start. 

From my left to right, Mr. Robert Goldenkoff, director of strategic 

issues, census issues at the Government Accountability Office; Mr. 

David Powner, director of information technology management 

issues at the Government Accountability Office; Ms. Carol Rice, assistant inspector general for economic and statistical program assessment at the Department of Commerce Office of Inspector General; and Ms. Vanita Gupta, president and CEO of the Leadership 

Conference on Civil and Human Rights. 

I think all of you have testified before. You know what the little 

coloring system means. Green means go, yellow means run through 

the light as quick—yellow is speed up, get through it as quick as 

you can, and red, you are going to get stopped. I won’t stop you 

right at five minutes because it is really important, but your opening statement is part of the record. 

So with that, Mr. Goldenkoff. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS PANEL II: 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT GOLDENKOFF 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member 

Cummings, and members of the committee, GAO is pleased to be 

here today to discuss the Census Bureau’s readiness for the 2020 

headcount. As you know, in recent years we have identified a number of operational, management, and other challenges that raise serious concerns about the Bureau’s ability to conduct a cost-effective 

enumeration, and in February 2017, we added the 2020 census to 

our list of high-risk government programs. 

My remarks today will focus on two such challenges: implementing design innovations aimed at controlling costs, and developing reliable cost estimates that better account for risks and inform annual budget requests. My colleague David Powner will then 

discuss the challenges the Bureau faces in implementing and securing critical IT systems. 

The bottom line is that, while the Bureau has made considerable 

progress in redesigning the census, significant risks and uncertainties remain. Moreover, as Secretary Ross mentioned, the decennial 

is now projected to cost $15.6 billion, more than $3 billion above 

the Bureau’s original estimate. 

Going forward, continued management, attention, and congressional oversight will be needed in the short time remaining until 

census day to ensure that key components and IT systems are fully 

tested and will function as required, that preparations stay on 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
42 

schedule, that cost estimates follow leading practices, and any further cost growth is capped. 

To help control costs while maintaining accuracy, the Bureau will 

use new procedures and technology for 2020, including greater use 

of automated data collection methods, administrative records in 

place of—collected by enumerators, verifying addresses using aerial 

imagery and other in-office procedures, and allowing households 

the option of responding to the census via the internet. While these 

new methods may control costs, they also introduce new risks in 

part because they have not been used to a great extent and prior 

decennials, if at all. 

To help ensure that key systems and procedures will function as 

planned, the Bureau has held a series of tests since 2012 at various 

sites across the country. The Bureau is currently conducting the 

2018 end-to-end test in Pierce County, Washington; Providence 

County, Rhode Island; and the Bluefield-Beckley-Oak Hill areas of 

West Virginia. The test began in August 2017 and is scheduled to 

run through April of 2019. 

Essentially, a dress rehearsal for the actual enumeration, the 

2018 test is the Bureau’s final opportunity to demonstrate that essential census-taking activities will perform under operational conditions. However, in May 2017, because of budgetary constraints, 

the Bureau de-scoped the test and only plans to conduct a complete 

test in Rhode Island. The Washington and West Virginia sites will 

only assess address canvassing. 

This is not the first time the Bureau has curtailed its testing. 

Citing funding uncertainties, the Bureau canceled field components 

of a 2017 test. Importantly, without sufficient testing across a 

range of geographic locations, housing types, and demographic 

groups, operational problems can go undiscovered, and the opportunity to refine procedures and systems will be lost. 

Another risk factor is the quality of the Bureau’s estimate of the 

cost of the 2020 census, which does not conform to best practices. 

Quality cost estimates can help an agency manage large complex 

activities like the decennial, as well as help Congress make funding 

decisions and provide sufficient oversight. However, the Bureau’s 

2015 cost estimate only partially met the characteristics of two best 

practices, that of comprehensiveness and accuracy, and minimally 

met the other two best practices well-documented and credible. 

Additionally, the Bureau has not yet publicly released an update 

to its 2015 cost estimate, yes several events since then, including 

changes in system requirements and procedures, indicate that the 

decennial lifecycle cost will be substantially higher than the original estimate of $12.5 billion. 

The Bureau’s preparations for 2020 have been further complicated by ongoing vacancies in the positions of census director 

and deputy director. Although acting leadership has since been 

named, turnover in the Bureau’s top ranks makes it difficult to ensure accountability and continuity, as well as to mitigate risks and 

control costs over the long term. 

This concludes my prepared remarks. I will now turn it over to 

my colleague Dave Powner, who will discuss the risks facing the 

Census Bureau’s IT efforts. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Goldenkoff follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
43 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 30245.008

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10:00 a.m. ET 

Thursday, October 12, 2017 

GA0-18-141T 

United States Government Accountability Office 

Testimony 

Before the Committee on Oversight and 

Government Reform, House of 

Representatives 

2020 CENSUS 

Continued Management 

Attention Needed to 

Oversee Innovations, 

Develop and Secure IT 

Systems, and Improve 

Cost Estimation 

Statement of David A. Powner, Director, Information 

Technology 

Robert Goldenkoff, Director, Strategic Issues 
44 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 30245.009

2020 CENSUS 

Continued Management Attention Needed to Oversee 

Innovations, Develop and Secure IT Systems, and 

Improve Cost Estimation 

What GAO Found 

Expected increase (as of August 2017) 

-------------United States Government Accountability Office 
45 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 30245.010

Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Cummings, and Members of the 

Committee: 

We are pleased to be here today to discuss the U.S. Census Bureau's 

(Bureau) progress in preparing for the 2020 Decennial Census. As you 

know, one of the most important functions of the Bureau is conducting the 

decennial census of the U.S. population, which is mandated by the 

Constitution and provides vital data for the nation. The information that 

the census collects is used to apportion the seats of the House of 

Representatives; redraw congressional districts; allocate billions of dollars 

each year in federal financial assistance; and provide a social, 

demographic, and economic profile of the nation's people to guide policy 

decisions at each level of government. Further, businesses use census 

data to market new services and products and to tailor existing ones to 

demographic changes. 

For 2020, a complete count of the nation's population is an enormous 

undertaking as the Bureau seeks to control the cost of the census while it 

implements several innovations and manages the processes of acquiring 

and developing new and modified information technology (IT) systems. In 

recent years, we have identified challenges that raise serious concerns 

about the Bureau's ability to conduct a cost-effective count of the nation, 

including issues with the agency's research, testing, planning, scheduling, 

cost estimation, systems development, and IT security practices. Over the 

past 4 years, we have made 33 recommendations specific to the 2020 

Census to help address these issues and others; however, only 10 of 

them had been fully implemented as of October 2017. We also added the 

2020 Decennial Census to the High-Risk List in February 2017. 1 

The Bureau's preparations for 2020 have been further complicated by late 

changes to the 2018 End-to-End Test (a "dress rehearsal" of the actual 

enumeration) and by current vacancies in the positions of Bureau director 

and deputy director. These vacancies are due to the previous director's 

retirement on June 30, 2017, and the previous deputy director's 

appointment to be the Chief Statistician of the United States within the 

Office of Management and Budget in January 2017. Although interim 

1

GAO, High~Risk Series: Progress on Many High-Risk Areas, While Substantial Efforts 

Needed on Others. GA0-17-317 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 15, 2017). GAO maintains a 

high-risk program to focus attention on government operations that it identifies as high risk 

due to their greater vulnerabilities to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement or the 

need for transformation to address economy, efficiency, or effectiveness challenges. 

Page 1 GA0~18·141T 
46 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 30245.011

leadership has since been named, in our prior work we have noted how 

turnover in the Bureau's top position makes it difficult to ensure 

accountability and continuity, as well as to develop and sustain efforts 

that foster change, produce results, mitigate risks, and control costs over 

the long term. 2 With the operations for the End-to-End Test beginning in 

August 2017, 3 and as preparations for 2020 ramp-up, addressing the 

risks jeopardizing the 2020 Census by implementing our 

recommendations is more critical than ever. 

Our testimony today focuses on the Bureau's progress in three areas: (1) 

implementing innovations aimed at controlling costs and enhancing 

accuracy, (2) implementing and securing critical IT systems, and (3) 

ensuring the reliability of the Bureau's cost estimate for the 2020 Census. 

The information in this statement is based primarily on prior work 

regarding the Bureau's planning efforts for 20204 For that prior body of 

work, we reviewed, among other things, relevant Bureau documentation, 

including the 2020 Census Operational Plan, recent decisions on 

preparations for the 2020 Census, and outcomes of key IT milestone 

reviews. We also interviewed Bureau staff. Other details on the scope 

and methodology for our prior work are provided in each published report 

on which this testimony is based. 

2

GAO, 2010 Census: Data Collection Operations Were Generally Completed as Planned, 

but Long-standing Challenges Suggest Need for Fundamental Reforms, GA0-11~193 

(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 14, 2010). 

3

1n August 2017, the Bureau began the address canvassing operation in three locations: 

Pierce County, Washington; Providence County, Rhode Island; and Bluefield-Beckley-Oak 

Hill, West Virginia. 

4

For example, GAO, 2020 Census: Bureau Is Taking Steps to Address Umitatlons of 

Administrative Records, GA0-17-664 (Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2017); 2020 Census: 

Bureau Needs to Better Leverage Information to Achieve Goals of Reengineered Address 

Canvassing, GA0-17-622 (Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2017); 2020 Census: Sustained 

Attention to Innovations, IT Systems, and Cost Estimation Is Needed, GA0-17-584T 

(Washington, D.C.: May 3, 2017): 2020 Census: Additional Actions Could Strengthen 

Field Data Collection £fforts, GA0-17-191 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 26, 2017): Information 

Technology: Better Management of Interdependencies between Programs Supporting 

2020 Census is Needed, GA0-16-623 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 9, 2016): 2020 Census: 

Census Bureau Needs to Improve Its Life-Cycle Cost Estimating Process, GA0-16-628 

(Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2016): and 2020 Census: Additional Actions Would Help the 

Bureau Realize Potential Administrative Records Cost Savings, GA0-16-48 (Washington, 

D.C .. Oct. 20, 2015). 

Page 2 GA0-18-141T 
47 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 30245.012

Background 

In addition, we included information in this statement from our ongoing 

work on the 2018 End-to-End Test examining the address canvassing 

operation and the readiness of IT systems. For our ongoing work on the 

2018 address canvassing operation, we reviewed plans for and execution 

of the address canvassing portion of the 2018 End-to-End Test at each of 

the three test sites-in Pierce County, Washington; Providence County, 

Rhode Island; and Bluefield-Beckley-Oak Hill, West Virginia. Across the 

three test sites, we observed 18 census workers conduct address 

canvassing operations and interviewed local office staff at each location. 

These observations are not generalizable. 

For our ongoing work on the readiness of the Bureau's IT systems, we 

collected and reviewed documentation on the status and plans for system 

development, testing, and security assessments for the 2018 End-to-End 

Test, including the Bureau's integration and implementation plan, solution 

architecture, and memorandums documenting outcomes of security 

assessments. We also interviewed agency officials. 

We provided a copy of the new information we are reporting in this 

testimony to the Bureau for comment on September 18, 2017. The 

Bureau provided technical comments, which we addressed as 

appropriate. 

We conducted the work on which this statement is based in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards 

require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate 

evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained 

provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on 

our audit objectives. 

The cost of the census has been escalating over the last several 

decennials. The 2010 decennial was the costliest U.S. Census in history 

at about $12.3 billion, and was about 31 percent more costly than the 

$9.4 billion 2000 Census (in 2020 dollars). 5 The average cost for counting 

a housing unit increased from about $16 in 1970 to around $92 in 2010 

5rhe fiscal year 2020 constant dollar factors the Bureau used are derived from the 

Chained Price Index from "Gross Domestic Product and Deflators Used !n the Historical 

Tables: 1940-2020' table from the Fiscal Year 2016 Budget of the United States 

Government 

Page3 
48 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 30245.013

2020 dollars). According to the Bureau. the total cost of the 2020 

is estimated to be approximately $12.5 billion dollars (in 2020 

As discussed later in this statement, however. the cost of the 

will likely be higher than this current estimate. 

enumerations . 

•• 

•• 

40 

20 

1970 

Fiscal year 

1900 1990 

Average cost per housing unit (in 2020 dollars) 

-- Mal! response 

Sou...::e·GAOanaly:sisofCensusBureaudata. j GAO·HH41T 

Page 4 

1970 

the Bureau's largest and 

the Bureau has had to invest 

to match the resutts of prior 

2000 2010 

GA0-18-141T 
49 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 30245.014

and accurate census is 

in part, because the nation's 

growing more and more reluctant to 

census misses a person who should have been results in an 

undercount; conversely, an overcount occurs when an individual is 

counted more than once. Such errors are oamcammv nr<>hl••ma!ic 

because of their impact on various subgroups. renters, and 

children, for example, are more likely to be undercounted by the census6 

The Bureau faces an additional of locating unconventional and 

hidden units, such as basements and attics. For 

example, as in figure 2, what appears !o be a small, ""'u"'-""""v 

house could contain an by its two 

an address is not in the its residents are less likely 

to be included in the census. 

Page 5 
50 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 30245.015

The Bureau Has 

Redesigned the 2020 

Census to Help Control 

Costs 

The basic design of the enumeration-mail out and mail back of the 

census questionnaire with in-person follow-up for non-respondents-has 

been in use since 1970. However, a key lesson learned from the 201 0 

Census and earlier enumerations, is that this "traditional" design is no 

longer capable of cost-effectively counting the population. 

In response to its own assessments, our recommendations, and studies 

by other organizations, the Bureau has fundamentally re-examined its 

approach for conducting the 2020 Census. Specifically, its plan for 2020 

includes four broad innovation areas (re-engineering field operations, 

using administrative records, verifying addresses in-office, and 

developing an Internet self-response option). 

The Bureau has estimated that these innovations could result in savings 

of over $5 billion (in 2020 dollars) when compared to its estimates of the 

cost for conducting the census with traditional methods. However, in June 

2016, we reported that the Bureau's life-cycle cost estimate of $12.5 

billion, developed in October 2015, was not reliable and did not 

adequately account for risk/ as discussed later in this statement. 

Bureau Plans to Use IT to Drive Innovation 

To help drive these innovations, the Bureau plans to rely on both new and 

legacy IT systems and infrastructure. For example, the Bureau is 

developing or modifying 11 IT systems as part of an enterprise-wide 

initiative called Census Enterprise Data Collection and Processing 

(CEDCaP), which is managed within the Bureau's IT Directorate' This 

initiative is a large and complex modernization program intended to 

deliver a system-of-systems to support all of the Bureau's survey data 

collection and processing functions, rather than continuing to rely on 

unique, survey-specific systems with redundant capabilities. 9 In addition, 

8

The Bureau is pursuing enterprise·wide technology solutions intended to support other 

major surveys the Bureau conducts as well, such as the American Community Survey and 

the Economic Census_ 

9

1mportantty, as a result of the Bureau's challenges in implementing key IT internal 

controls and its rapidly approaching deadline, we identified CEDCaP as an IT investment 

in need of attention in both our February 2015 and February 2017 high-risk reports. 

Page& GA0·18-141T 
51 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 30245.016

according to Bureau officials, the 2020 Census Directorate or other 

Bureau divisions are developing or modifying 32 other IT systems. 

To help inform, validate, and refine the operational design of the 2020 

Census, and to test several of the IT systems, the Bureau has held a 

series of operational tests since 2012. Among these, in March 2017, the 

Bureau conducted a nationwide test (referred to as the 2017 Census 

Test) of households responding to census questions using paper, the 

Internet, or the phone. This test evaluated key new IT components, such 

as the Internet self-response system and the use of a cloud-based 

infrastructure. 10 

The Bureau is currently conducting the 2018 End-to-End Test, which 

began in August 2017 and runs through Apri12019. It is the Bureau's final 

opportunity to test all key systems and operations to ensure readiness for 

the 2020 Census. The Bureau's plans for this test include, among other 

things, address canvassing, 11 self-response (via paper, Internet, and 

phone), and nonresponse follow-up. 12 

To support its 2018 End-to-End Test, the Bureau plans to deploy and use 

43 systems incrementally to support nine operations from December 

2016 through the end of the test in April 2019. These nine operations are: 

(1) in-office address canvassing, (2) recruiting staff for address 

canvassing, (3) training for address canvassing, (4) in-field address 

canvassing, (5) recruiting staff for field enumeration, (6) training for field 

enumeration, (7) self-response (i.e., Internet, phone, or paper), (8) field 

enumeration, and (9) tabulation and dissemination. Appendix I includes 

additional details about the 43 systems, the operation or operations they 

support, and key deployment dates. 

1

°C!oud computing is a means for delivering computing services via IT networks. When 

executed effectively, cloud-based services can allow agencies to pay for only the IT 

services used, thus paying less for more services. 

11The purpose of address canvassing is to deliver a complete and accurate address list 

for enumeration purposes. 

121n non-response follow-up, if a household does not respond to the census by a certain 

date, the Bureau wm conduct an in-person visit by an enumerator to collect census data 

using a mobile device provided by the Bureau. 

Page 7 GA0·18·141T 
52 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 30245.017

The Bureau Needs to 

Manage Risks of 

Implementing 

Innovations 

The Bureau Plans Four 

Innovation Areas for 2020, 

but Has Scaled Back Key 

Census Tests 

The four innovation areas the Bureau plans for 2020 show promise for a 

more cost-effective head count (see table 1 ). However, the innovations 

also introduce new risks, in part, because they include new procedures 

and technology that have not been used extensively in earlier decennials, 

if at all. Our prior work has shown the importance of the Bureau 

conducting a robust testing program, including the 2018 End-to-End 

Test. 13 However, because of funding uncertainty the Bureau canceled the 

field components of the 2017 Census Test including non-response followup, a key census operation. 

Table 1: The Census Bureau (Bureau) Is Introducing Four Innovation Areas for the 

2020 Census 

Innovation area 

Re--engineered field operations 

Administrative records 

Verifying addresses in-office 

Internet self-response option 

Source GAO analysts of Census Bureau data. 1 GA0-18-141T 

PageS 

Description 

The Bureau intends to automate data 

collection methods, including its case 

management system 

In certain instances, the Bureau will reduce 

enumerator collection of data with 

administrative records {information already 

provided to federal and state governments 

as they administer other programs). 

To ensure the accuracy of its address list, 

the Bureau will use "in-office~ procedures 

and on-screen imagery to verify addresses 

and reduce street-by-street fie!d 

canvassing 

The Bureau will offer households the option 

of responding to the survey through the 

Internet. The Bureau has not previously 

offered such an option on a large scale. 

GA0-18-141T 
53 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 30245.018

New Uses of 

Administrative Records 

Are Promising, but 

Introduce Challenges 

In November 2016, we reported that the cancelation of the 2017 field 

tests was a lost opportunity to test, refine, and integrate operations and 

systems, and that it put more pressure on the 2018 End-to-End Test to 

demonstrate that enumeration activities will function under census-like 

conditions as needed for 2020. 14 In May 2017, the Bureau scaled back 

the operational scope of the 2018 End-to-End and, of the three planned 

test sites, only the Rhode Island site would fully implement the 2018 Endto-End Test The Washington and West Virginia state test sites would test 

address canvassing. In addition, due to budgetary concerns, the Bureau 

decided to remove three coverage measurement operations (and the 

technology that supports them) from the scope of the test 15 Without 

sufficient testing, operational problems can go undiscovered and the 

opportunity to improve operations will be lost, in part because the 2018 

End-to-End Test is the last opportunity to demonstrate census technology 

and procedures across a range of geographic locations, housing types, 

and demographic groups. 

Administrative records-information already provided to the government 

as it administers other programs, such as mail collection by the U.S. 

Postal Service-have been discussed and used for the decennial census 

since the 1970s, and for 2020 the Bureau plans a more significant role for 

them. In July 2017, we reported that the Bureau had taken steps to 

ensure that its use of administrative records would lower the cost and 

improve the accuracy of the 2020 Census. 15 

For example, the Bureau set a rule that it would only use administrative 

records to count a household when a minimum amount of information 

was present within data sources. According to the Bureau, this would help 

ensure that administrative records are used only in circumstances where 

research has shown them to be most accurate. Additionally, before using 

any administrative records to support census operations, the Bureau 

determined it will subject each source to a quality assurance process that 

includes, among other things, basic checks for data integrity as well as 

Decennial Census: Progress Report on Preparations for 2020, GA0-17 -238T 

0N••shingt<m, D.C; Nov. 16, 2016). 

15Coverage measurement evaluates the quality of the Census data by estimating the 

census coverage based on a post-enumeration survey_ 

16GA0-17-664. 

Page9 GA0-18-141T 
54 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 30245.019

assessments by subject matter experts of the information's fiTness for 

various uses by the Bureau. (See figure 3.) 

Figure 3: Census Bureau Implements Quality Assurance Steps before Using Administrative Records 

Source GAOanalystsofCensusBureaudata. l GA0.18-141T 

According to the Bureau, it links administrative records data sources to 

complement each other, improving their reliability and completeness. The 

Bureau also creates an anonymous personal identifier for each individual 

in the data to reduce the risk of disclosure once the data are linked across 

sources. 

In July 2017, we reported that the Bureau had already tested the uses of 

administrative records that hold the most potential for reducing census 

costs, such as counting people who did not respond to census mailings. 17 

The Bureau planned to test additional applications of administrative 

records for the first time during the 2018 End-to-End Test. For example, 

the Bureau planned to use administrative records to support quality 

control during its non-response field enumeration. The Bureau planned to 

compare response data collected by enumerators to administrative 

records and flag significant differences based on predefined rules. The 

differences might be in the total count of persons in a household or in 

specific combinations of personal characteristics, such as age or race. 

According to the Bureau, flagging such differences could be used to help 

identify which enumeration cases to reinterview as part of the quality 

control operation. 

Page 10 GA0-18-141T 
55 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 20 here 30245.020

Fundamentally ReEngineered Address 

Canvassing for 2020 

However, we reported in October 2015 that the Bureau faced other 

challenges with using administrative records for the 2020 Census. 18 For 

example, although the Bureau has no control over the accuracy of data 

provided to it by other agencies, it is responsible for ensuring that data it 

uses for the 2020 Census are of sufficient quality for their planned uses. 

Another challenge we identified in 2015 is the extent to which the public 

will accept government agencies sharing personal data for the purposes 

of the census. The Bureau has recognized these challenges within its risk 

registers. 

In-Office Address Canvassing. The Bureau has re-engineered its 

approach to building its master address list for 2020. Specifically, by 

relying on multiple sources of imagery and administrative data, the 

Bureau anticipates constructing its address list with far less door-to-door 

field canvassing compared to previous censuses. 

One major change the Bureau has rnade consists of using in-office 

address canvassing-a two-phase process that was to systematically 

review small geographic areas nationwide, known as census blocks, to 

identify those that will not need to be canvassed in the field, as shown in 

figure 4. 

Page 11 
56 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 21 here 30245.021

Figure 4: Re-Engineered Address Canvassing 

The Bureau estimated that the two phases of in-office canvassing would 

have resulted in roughly 25 percent of housing units requiring in-field 

canvassing, instead of canvassing nearly all housing units in the field as 

done in prior decennials. Wrth in-office address canvassing census 

workers compare current aerial imagery for a given block with imagery for 

that block dating to the time of the last decennial census in 2010. During 

this first phase, called Interactive Review, specially trained census 

workers identify whether a block appears to have experienced change in 

the number of housing units, flagging each block either as stable-free of 

population growth, decline, or uncertainty in what is happening in the 

Page 12 GA0~18-141T 
57 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 22 here 30245.022

imagery over time-or "active," in which case it moves to the next phase. 

Addresses in stable blocks are not marked for in-field canvassing. 

For blocks where change is detected or suspected, the Bureau was to 

use a second phase of in-office canvassing, known as Active Block 

Resolution, to attempt to resolve the status of each address and housing 

unit in question within that block. During this phase, census workers use 

aerial imagery, street imagery, and data from the U.S. Postal Service, as 

well as from state, local, and tribal partners when reviewing blocks. If a 

block can be fully resolved during this phase of in-office canvassing, the 

changes are recorded in the Bureau's master address file. If a block 

cannot be fully resolved during the second phase of in-office canvassing, 

then the entire block, or some portion of the block, is flagged for inclusion 

in the in-field canvassing operation. A first pass of the entire country for 

in-office address canvassing began in September 2015 and was 

completed in June 2017. In-field canvassing for the 2020 Census is 

scheduled to begin in August 2019. 

However, in July 2017 we reported that the Bureau altered its design for 

re-engineered address canvassing because of budget uncertainty by 

suspending the second phase of in-office address canvassing. 19 Without 

the second phase of in-office address canvassing, blocks that are not 

resolved by phase one will have a greater chance of requiring in-field 

canvassing. 20 Bureau officials told us at that time that they anticipated 

that canceling the second phase of in-office address canvassing 

altogether would increase their estimated in-field canvassing workload by 

5 percentage points, from 25 percent to 30 percent of housing unitsincreasing costs. 

The Bureau did not develop cost and quality information on address 

canvassing projects, and detailed information on cost tradeoffs was not 

available when we requested it. The information the Bureau had did not 

break out the estimated cost of the different phases of in-office address 

canvassing through 2020. However, the total estimated cost for both 

phases one and two was approximately $22 million. Thus, this 

suspension might save a portion of the $22 million, but it will potentially 

19GA0-17-622. 

20During phase one of in--office review the Master Address File continues to receive 

updates prior to in-field canvassing. Such updates could potentially change the status of a 

block from active to stable, thus eliminating the need for that block to be sent to the field 

for canvassing. 

Page 13 GA0-18-141T 
58 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 23 here 30245.023

increase the cost of the address canvassing operation downstream. Our 

July 2017 report recommended, and the Bureau agreed, that the Bureau 

should use its evaluations before 2020 to determine the implications of inoffice address canvassing on the cost and quality of address canvassing, 

and use this information to justify decisions related to its re-engineered 

address canvassing approach. 21 

In-Field Address Canvassing for the 2018 End-to-End Test. On 

August 28, 2017, temporary census employees known as address listers 

began implementing the in-field component of address canvassing for the 

2018 End-to-End Test. Listers walked the streets of designated census 

blocks at all three test sites to verify addresses and geographic locations. 

The operation ended on September 27, 2017. As part of our ongoing 

work, we visited all three test sites and observed 18 listers conduct 

address canvassing. Generally, we found that listers were able to conduct 

address canvassing as planned. However, we also noted several 

challenges. We shared the following preliminary observations from our 

site visits with the Bureau: 

Internet connectivity was problematic at the West Virginia test site. 

We spoke to four census field supervisors that described certain 

areas as dead spots where Internet and cell phone service were not 

available. We also were told by those same supervisors that only 

certain cell service providers worked in certain areas. In order to 

access the Internet or cell service in those areas, census workers 

sometimes needed to drive several miles. 

The allocation of lister assignments was not always optimal. Listers 

were supposed to be provided assignments close to where they live in 

order to optimize their local knowledge and to limit the numbers of 

miles being driven by listers to and from their assignment area. 22 

Bureau officials told us this was a challenge at all three test sites. 

Moreover, at one site the area census manager told us that some 

listers were being assigned work in another county even though 

blocks were still unassigned closer to where they resided. Relying on 

local knowledge and limiting the number of miles can increase both 

the efficiency and effectiveness of address canvassing. 

22The Bureau pays listers for the time it takes to drive to and from assignment areas, as 

well as, reimbursing them for mileage. 

Page 14 
59 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 24 here 30245.024

The Bureau 

Continues to Face 

Challenges in 

Implementing and 

Securing Key IT 

Systems 

The Bureau Continues to 

Face Challenges 

Implementing and 

Managing IT Systems 

The assignment of some of the large blocks early in the operations 

was not occurring as planned. At all three 2018 End-to-End Test sites 

Bureau managers had to manually assign some large blocks (some 

blocks had hundreds of housing units). It is important to assign large 

blocks early on because leaving the large blocks to be canvassed 

until the end of the operation could jeopardize the timely completion of 

address canvassing. 

The global positioning system-derived location for the lister was not 

always corresponding to the location on the map. A Bureau official 

confirmed that at all three test sites, the location icon jumped around 

or was on the wrong street. According to a Bureau official, listers were 

told to override the global positioning system-derived location when 

confirming the geographic location of the residence. 

We have discussed these challenges with Bureau officials who stated that 

overall they are satisfied with the implementation of address canvassing 

but also agreed that resolving challenges discovered during address 

canvassing, some of which can affect the operation's efficiency and 

effectiveness, will be important before the 2020 Census. We will continue 

to monitor address canvassing operation and plan to issue a report in the 

winter of 2018. 

We have previously reported that the Bureau faced challenges in 

managing and overseeing IT programs, systems, and contractors 

supporting the 2020 Census. Specifically, it has been challenged in 

managing schedules, costs, contracts, and governance and internal 

coordination for its IT systems. As a result of these challenges, the 

Bureau is at risk of being unable to fully implement key IT systems 

necessary to support the 2020 Census. We have previously 

recommended that the Bureau take action to improve its implementation 

and management of IT in areas such as governance and internal 

Page 15 
60 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 25 here 30245.025

coordination. 23 We also have ongoing work reviewing each of these 

areas. 

Schedule management 

Our ongoing work has indicated that the Bureau faces significant 

challenges in managing the schedule for developing and testing systems 

for the 2018 End-to-End Test that began in August 2017. In this regard, 

the Bureau still has significant development and testing work that remains 

to be completed. As of August 2017, of the 43 systems in the test, the 

Bureau reported that 4 systems had completed development and 

integration testing, while the remaining 39 systems had not completed 

these activities. 

Of these 39 systems, the Bureau reported that it had deployed a portion 

of the functionality for 21 systems to support address canvassing for the 

2018 End-to-End Test; however, it had not yet deployed any functionality 

for the remaining 18 systems for the test. Figure 5 summarizes the 

development and testing status for the 43 systems planned for the 2018 

End-to-End Test, and appendix I includes additional information on the 

status of development and testing for these systems. 

Page 16 GA0·18-141T 
61 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 26 here 30245.026

Figure 5: Development and Testing Status for the 43 Systems in the 2018 End-toEnd Test, as of August 2017 

Development and 

testing completed 

Source: GAO anaJyslaofBureaudata. [ GA0...18-i41T 

--91%-- Development and 

testing in process 

A portion of the 

functionality has 

been deployed In the 2018 End-toEnd Test 

Moreover, due to challenges experienced during systems development, 

the Bureau has delayed key IT milestone dates (e.g., dates to begin 

integration testing) by several months for the systems supporting six of 

the nine operations in the 2018 End-to-End Test.>• Figure 6 depicts the 

delays to the deployment dates for the operations in the 2018 End-to-End 

Test, as of August 2017. 

24As described earlier, system functionality is to be delivered in nine operations. Each 

operation includes multiple systems, and each system may be in multiple operations, with 

an increased scope of functionality after each operation. 

Page 17 GA0~18·141T 
62 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 27 here 30245.027

Figure 6: Delays in Key Information Technology Milestone Dates for System Operations in the 2018 End-to-End Test, as of 

August 2017 

Setf..flesponse 

I August 28, 2017: Start of address canvassing 

March 19, 2018: Start of seff~response 

I I April 3, 2018: Start of non-response follow-up 

711012017 1 1 

I I 

I I 

I I 2/1212018 1 

n 1 

2/1212018 I 

Address Canvoslng Recruftlng 

Address canvassing Training 

ln..flefd Address Canvassing 

Field Enumeration Recruiting 

Fktkl Enumeration Training 

FieldEnumtration 

TabulationfDissemlnation 110312019 

2017 2018 2019 

Fiscal year 

0 Original teet readiness review date D Deployment-

\l Current te$1 readlne$$ review date ~ Detay in test read!tle$$ review date 

- Current testing timeframes 

SOuree:GAOanaly&isofCemu&Bumaudata. [ GA0.18-141T 

Note: The Bureau's original plans for these operations were to include one test readiness review 

milestone and one deployment date for an systems in the operation. However, more recently the Bureau has been splitting the test readiness review and deployment milestones into multiple 

milestone dates. For the purposes of this graphic, we included the first test readiness review date and 

the final deployment date for each operation, to denote when all testing is expected to begin and end 

for that operation. 

However, our ongoing work also indicates that the Bureau is at risk of not 

meeting the updated milestone dates. For example, in June 2017 the 

Bureau reported that at least two of the systems expected to be used in 

the self-response operation (the 1 nternet self-response system and the 

call center system) are at risk of not meeting the delayed milestone dates. 

In addition, in September 2017 the Bureau reported that at least two of 

the systems expected to be used in the field enumeration operation (the 

enumeration system and the operational control system) are at risk of not 

meeting their delayed dates. 

Page 18 GA0-18-141T 
63 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 28 here 30245.028

Combined, these delays reduce the time available to conduct the security 

reviews and approvals for the systems being used in the 2018 End-toEnd Test We previously testified in May 2017 that the Bureau faced 

similar challenges leading up to the 2017 Census Test, including 

experiencing delays in system development that led to compressed time 

frames for security reviews and approvals. 25 Specifically, we noted that 

the Bureau did not have time to thoroughly assess the low-impact 

components of one system and complete penetration testing" for another 

system prior to the test, but accepted the security risks and uncertainty 

due to compressed time frames. We concluded that, for the 2018 End-toEnd Test, it will be important that these security assessments are 

completed in a timely manner and that risks are at an acceptable level 

before the systems are deployed. 

The Bureau noted that, if it continues to be behind schedule, field 

operations for the 2018 End-to-End Test will not be performed as 

planned. Bureau officials are evaluating options to decrease the impact of 

these delays on integration testing and security review activities by, for 

example, utilizing additional staff. We have ongoing work reviewing the 

Bureau's development and testing delays and the impacts of these delays 

on systems readiness for the 2018 End-to-End Test 

IT cost growth 

The Bureau faces challenges in reporting and controlling IT cost growth. 

In April 2017, the Bureau briefed us on its efforts to estimate the costs for 

the 2020 Census, during which it presented IT costs of about $2.4 billion 

from fiscal years 2018 through 2021. Based on this information and other 

corroborating IT contract information provided by the Bureau, we testified 

in May 2017 that the Bureau had identified at least $2 billion in IT costs. 27 

However, in June 2017, Bureau officials in the 2020 Census Directorate 

told us that the data they provided in April 2017 did not reflect all IT costs 

2020 Census: Sustained Attention to Innovations, IT Systems, and Cost 

GA0-17-584T (Washington, D.C.: May 3, 2017). 

26NIST defines penetration testing as security testing in which evaluators mimic real-world 

attacks in an attempt to identify ways to circumvent the security features of an application, 

system, or network. Penetration testing often involves issuing real attacks on rea! systems 

and data, using the same tools and techniques used by actual attackers. 

27GA0-17-584T. 

Page 19 GA0-18-141T 
64 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 29 here 30245.029

for the 2020 program. The officials provided us with an analysis of the 

Bureau's October 2015 cost estimate that identified $3.4 billion in total IT 

costs from fiscal years 2012 through 2023. These costs included, among 

other things, those associated with system engineering, test and 

evaluation, and infrastructure, as well as a portion of the costs for the 

CEDCaP program. 28 

Yet, our ongoing work determined that the Bureau's $3.4 billion cost 

estimate does not reflect its current plans for acquiring IT to be used 

during the 2020 Census and that the related costs are likely to increase: 

In August 2016, the Bureau awarded a technical integration contract 

for about $886 million, a cost that was not reflected in the $3.4 billion 

expected IT costs. 29 More recently, in May 2017, we testified that the 

scope of work for this contract had increased since the contract was 

awarded; thus, the corresponding contract costs were likely to rise 

above $886 million, as well. 

In March 2017, the Bureau reported that the contract associated with 

the call center and IT system to support the collection of census data 

over the phone was projected to overrun its initial estimated cost by at 

least $40 million. 

In May 2017, the Bureau reported that the CEDCaP program's cost 

estimate was increasing by about $400 million-from its original 

estimate of $548 million in 2013 to a revised estimate of $965 million 

in May 2017. 

In June 2017, the Bureau awarded a contract for mobile devices and 

associated services for about $283 million, an amount that is about 

$137 million higher than the cost for these devices and services 

identified in its October 2015 estimate."' 

28The 2020 program pays for a portion of the costs for the CEDCaP program. According 

to the October 2015 estimate, the portion of CEDCaP costs associated with the 2020 

Census was estimated at $328 million of the $548 million total program estimate. 

291n September 2017, Bureau officials told us that a portion of this integration work was 

included in the October 2015 cost estimate, but the Bureau assumed the work would be 

done in-house, rather than with contractors. However, the Bureau did not provide 

documentation to support this assertion. 

3

Drhis increase is due, in part, to the Bureau's decision to procure mobile devices for its 

enumerators, rather than have enumerators use their own persona! devices for nonresponse follow-up activities. 

Page 20 GA0-18-141T 
65 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 30 here 30245.030

As a result of these factors, the Bureau's $3.4 billion estimate of IT costs 

is likely to be at least $1.4 billion higher, thus increasing the total costs to 

at least $4.8 billion. Figure 7 identifies the Bureau estimate of total IT 

costs associated with the 2020 program as of October 2015, as well as 

anticipated cost increases as of August 2017. 

Figure 7: Tntallnformation Technology Costs Estimated by the Census Bureau 

(Bureau) and Expected Cost Increases, as of August 2017 

Bureau estimate (as of October 2015) 

Expected increase (as of August 2017) 

Sou«:e:GAOanalyslsofCenst.ISSI.IIMU~ I GA0.18-t41T 

TOTAL<>Iat 

least $4.8 billion 

IT cost information that is accurately reported and clearly communicated 

is necessary so that Congress and the public have confidence that 

taxpayer funds are being spent in an appropriate manner. However, 

changes in the Bureau's reporting of these total costs, combined with cost 

growth since the October 2015 estimate, raise questions as to whether 

the Bureau has a complete understanding of the IT costs associated with 

the 2020 program. In this regard, we have previously reported on issues 

with the Bureau's cost estimating practices (which are discussed in more 

detail later in this statement)'' To address these issues, in October 2017, 

officials stated that the Bureau is developing a new cost estimate for the 

entire 2020 Census program, which they expect to release by the end of 

this fall. 

Contract management 

Our ongoing work also determined that the Bureau faces challenges in 

managing its significant contractor support. The Bureau is relying on 

contractor support in many key areas of the 2020 Census. For example, it 

is relying on contractors to develop a number of key systems and 

Page 21 GA0·18-141T 
66 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 31 here 30245.031

components of the IT infrastructure. These activities include (1) 

developing the IT platform that is to be used to collect data from a 

majority of respondents-those using the Internet, telephone, and nonresponse follow-up activities; (2) procuring the mobile devices and cellular 

service to be used for non-response follow-up; 32 and (3) developing the 

infrastructure in the field offices. According to Bureau officials, contractors 

are also providing support in areas such as fraud detection, cloud 

computing services, and disaster recovery. 

In addrtion to the development of key technology, the Bureau is relying on 

contractor support for integrating all of the key systems and infrastructure. 

The Bureau awarded a contract to integrate the 2020 Census systems 

and infrastructure in August 2016. The contractor's work was to include 

evaluating the systems and infrastructure and acquiring the infrastructure 

(e.g., cloud or data center) to meet the Bureau's scalability and 

performance needs. It was also to include integrating all of the systems, 

supporting technical testing activities, and developing plans for ensuring 

the continuity of operations. Since the contract was awarded, the Bureau 

has modified the scope to also include assisting with operational testing 

activities, conducting performance testing for two Internet self-response 

systems, and technical support for the implementation of the paper data 

capture system. 

However, our ongoing work has indicated that the Bureau is facing 

staffing challenges that could impact its ability to manage and oversee the 

technical integration contractor. Specifically, the Bureau is managing the 

integration contractor through a government program management office, 

but this office is still filling vacancies. As of October 2017, the Bureau 

reported that 35 of the office's 58 federal employee positions were 

vacant As a resuH, this program management office may not be able to 

provide adequate oversight of contractor cost, schedule, and 

performance. 

The delays during the 2017 Test and preparations for the 2018 End-toEnd Test raises concerns regarding the Bureau's abiltly to effectively 

perform contractor management. As we reported in November 2016, a 

greater reliance on contractors for these key components of the 2020 

non~response follow-up, if a household does not respond to the census by a certain 

date, the Bureau will send out employees to visit the home. The Bureau's plan is for these 

enumerators to use a census application, on a mobile device provided by the Bureau, to 

capture the information given to them by the in-person interviews. 

Page 22 GA0-18-141T 
67 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 32 here 30245.032

Census requires the Bureau to focus on sound management and 

oversight of the key contracts, projects, and systems. 33 As part of our 

ongoing work, we plan to monitor the Bureau's progress in managing its 

contractor support. 

Governance and internal coordination 

Effective IT governance can drive change, provide oversight, and ensure 

accountability for results. Further, effective IT governance was envisioned 

in the provisions referred to as the Federal Information Technology 

Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA), 34 which strengthened and reinforced 

the role of the departmental CIO. 

To ensure executive-level oversight of the key systems and technology, 

the Bureau's CIO (or a representative) is a member of the governance 

boards that oversee all of the operations and technology for the 2020 

Census. However, in August 2016 we reported on challenges the Bureau 

has had with IT governance and internal coordination, including 

weaknesses in its ability to monitor and control IT project costs, 

schedules, and performance." We made eight recommendations to the 

Department of Commerce to direct the Bureau to, among other things, 

better ensure that risks are adequately identified and schedules are 

aligned. The department agreed with our recommendations. However, as 

of October 2017, the Bureau had only fully implemented one 

recommendation and had taken initial steps toward implementing others. 

Further, given the schedule delays and cost increases previously 

mentioned, and the vast amount of development, testing, and security 

assessments left to be completed, we remain concerned about executivelevel oversight of systems and security. Moving forward, it will be 

important that the CIO and other agency executives continue to use a 

collaborative governance approach to effectively manage risks and 

ensure that the IT solutions meet the needs of the agency within cost and 

schedule. As part of our ongoing work, we plan to monitor the steps the 

33GAO, Information Technology: Uncertainty Remains about the Bureau's Readiness for a 

Key Decennial Census Test, GA0-17-221T (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 16, 2016). 

34Carl Levin and Howard P. 'Buck' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2015, Pub. L No 113-291, div. A, title VIII, subtitle D, 128 Stat 3292, 3438-50 (Dec. 

19, 2014). 

35GA0-16-623. 

Page 23 GA0-18-141T 
68 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 33 here 30245.033

Significant information 

Security Steps to 

Complete for the 2018 

End-to-End Test 

Bureau is taking to effectively oversee and manage the development and 

acquisition of its IT systems. 

In November 2016, we described the significant challenges that the 

Bureau faced in securing systems and data for the 2020 Census, and we 

noted that tight time frames could exacerbate these challenges. 36 Two 

such challenges were (1) ensuring that individuals gain only limited and 

appropriate access to the 2020 Census data, including personally 

identifiable information (PI I) (e.g., name, address, and date of birth), and 

(2) making certain that security assessments were completed in a timely 

manner and that risks were at an acceptable leveL 37 Protecling Pll, for 

example, is especially important because a majority of the 43 systems to 

be used in the 2018 End-to-End Test contain Pll, as reflected in figure 8. 

Figure 8: Personally Identifiable Information (PII) In Systems for the 2018 End-toEnd Test, as of June 2017 

r--------- System contains Pll 

37GA0-17-221T. 

Page 24 

33 systems, about 77% 

System does not contain Pll 

10 systems, about 23% 

GA0-18-141T 
69 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 34 here 30245.034

To address these and other challenges, federal law and guidance specify 

requirements for protecting federal information and information systems, 

such as those to be used in the 2020 Census. Specifically, the Federal 

Information SecurHy Management Act of 2002 and the Federal 

Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 (FISMA) require executive 

branch agencies to develop, document, and implement an agency-wide 

program to provide security for the information and information systems 

that support operations and assets of the agency. 38 

Accordingly, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

developed risk management framework guidance for agencies to follow in 

developing information security programs. 39 Additionally, the Office of 

Management and Budget's (OMB) revised Circular A-130 on managing 

federal information resources required agencies to implement the NIST 

risk management framework to integrate information security and risk 

management activities into the system development life cycle. 40 

In accordance with FISMA, NIST guidance, and OMB guidance, the 

Office of the CIO established a risk management framework. This 

framework requires that system developers ensure that each of the 

systems undergoes a full security assessment, and that system 

developers remediate critical deficiencies. In addition, according to the 

Bureau's framework, system developers must ensure that each 

component of a system has its own system security plan, which 

documents how the Bureau plans to implement security controls. As a 

result, system developers for a single system might develop multiple 

system security plans (in some cases as many as 34 plans), which all 

have to be approved as part of the system's complete security 

documentation. We have ongoing work that is reviewing the extent to 

which the Bureau's framework meets the specific requirements of the 

NIST guidance. 

38The Federallnformation Security Modernization Act of 2014, Pub. L. No. 113~283, 128 

Stat. 3073 (Dec. 18, 2014) largely superseded the Federal information Security 

Management Act of 2002, enacted as Title Ill. E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 

107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2946 (Dec. 17. 2002). 

39NfST, Guide for Applying the Risk Management Framework to Federal Information 

Systems: A Security Life Cycle Approach, SP 800-37, Revision 1 (Gaithersburg, Md.: 

February 2010) 

400MB, Revision ofOMB Circular A-130, Managing Federal Information as a Strategic 

Resource (Washington, D.C.: July 28, 2016). 

Page 25 GA0-18-141T 
70 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 35 here 30245.035

According to the Bureau's framework, each of the 43 systems in the 2018 

End-to-End Test will need to have complete security documentation (such 

as system security plans) and an approved authorization to operate41 

prior to their use in the 2018 End-to-End Test. However, our ongoing 

work indicates that, while the Bureau is completing these steps for the 43 

systems to be used in the 2018 End-to-End Test, significant work 

remains. Specifically: 

None of the 43 systems are fully authorized to operate through the 

completion of the 2018 End-to-End Test. Bureau officials from the 

CIO's Office of Information Security stated that these systems will 

need to be reauthorized because, among other things, they have 

additional development work planned that may require the systems to 

be reauthorized; are being moved to a different infrastructure 

environment (e.g., from a data center to a cloud-based environment); 

or have a current authorization that expires before the completion of 

the 2018 End-to-End Test. The amount of work remaining is 

concerning because the test has already begun and the delays 

experienced in system development and testing mentioned earlier 

reduce the time available for performing the security assessments 

needed to fully authorize these systems before the completion of the 

2018 End-to-End test. 

Thirty-seven systems have a current authorization to operate, but the 

Bureau will need to reauthorize these systems before the completion 

of the 2018 End-to-End Test. This is due to the reasons mentioned 

previously, such as additional development work planned and 

changes to the infrastructure environments. 

Two systems have not yet obtained an authorization to operate. 

For the remaining four systems, the Bureau has not yet provided us 

with documentation about the current authorization status. 

Figure 9 depicts the authorization to operate status for the systems being 

used in the 2018 End-to-End Test, as reported by the Bureau. 

41According to the Bureau's framework, systems are to obtain security authorization 

approval from the authorizing official in order to operate. Specifically, the authorizing 

official evaluates the security authorization package and provides system authorization if 

the overall risk level is acceptable. fn addition, according to the Bureau's information 

technology security program policy, the issuance of an authorization to operate for a 

system required support of both the technical authorizing official (i.e., the CIO) and the 

business authorizing official responsible for funding and managing the system (i.e., the 

Associate Director for Decennial Census Programs). 

Page 26 GA0-18-141T 
71 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 36 here 30245.036

Figure 9: Authorization to Operate Status of 43 Systems lor the 2018 End·to-End 

Test, as of September 2017 

Number of systems 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

Authorization 

obtained through 

the completion 

of the 2018 teat 

Authorization 

obtained but 

reauthoriutlon 

needed before the completion of 

the 2018 teat 

Sour~:e·GAOanalysiaofCtmsU$8ureaudata. I GA0.18-141T 

No authorization 

obtained 

No authoriutlon 

documentation 

provided 

Because many of the systems that will be a part of the 2018 End-to-End 

Test are not yet fully developed, the Bureau has not finalized all of the 

security controls to be implemented; assessed those controls; developed 

plans to remediate control weaknesses; and determined whether there is 

time to fully remediate any deficiencies before the systems are needed for 

the test. In addition, as discussed earlier, the Bureau is facing system 

development challenges that are delaying the completion of milestones 

and compressing the time available for security testing activities. 

As we previously reported, while the large-scale technological changes 

(such as Internet self-response) increase the likelihood of efficiency and 

effectiveness gains, they also introduce many information security 

challenges. The 2018 End-to-End Test also involves collecting PII on 

hundreds of thousands of households across the country, which further 

increases the need to properly secure these systems. Thus, it will be 

important that the Bureau provides adequate time to perform these 

security assessments, completes them in a timely manner, and ensures 

Page 27 
72 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 37 here 30245.037

The Bureau Needs to 

Improve the 

Reliability of Its 2020 

Cost Estimate 

2020 Census Cost 

Estimate Does Not Reflect 

Best Practices 

that risks are at an acceptable level before the systems are deployed. We 

plan to continue monitoring the Bureau's progress in securing its IT 

systems and data as part of our ongoing work. 

In June 2016, we reported that the Bureau's October 2015 update of its 

life-cycle cost estimate for the 2020 Census did not conform to the four 

characteristics that constitute best practices, and, as a result, the 

estimate was unreliable. 42 Cost estimates that appropriately account for 

risks facing an agency can help an agency manage large, complex 

activities like the 2020 Census, as well as help Congress make funding 

decisions and provide oversight. Cost estimates are also necessary to 

inform decisions to fund one program over another, to develop annual 

budget requests, to determine what resources are needed, and to 

develop baselines for measuring performance. 

In June 2016, we reported that, although the Bureau had taken steps to 

improve its capacity to carry out an effective cost estimate, such as 

establishing an independent cost estimation office, its October 2015 

version of the estimate for the 2020 Census only partially met the 

characteristics of two best practices (comprehensive and accurate) and 

minimally met the other two (well-documented and credible). 43 All four 

characteristics need to be substantially met in order for an estimate to be 

deemed high-quality: 

Comprehensive. To be comprehensive an estimate should have 

enough detail to ensure that cost elements are neither omitted nor 

double-counted, and all cost-influencing assumptions are detailed in 

42GA0-16-626. 

43GAO, Cost Estimating and Assessment Gu;de: Best Practices for Developing and 

Managing Capital Program Costs (Supersedes GA0..07-1134SP), GAO..Q9-3SP 

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2, 2009). 

Page 28 GA0-18-141T 
73 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 38 here 30245.038

the estimate's documentation, among other things, according to best 

practices. In June 2016, we reported that, while Bureau officials were 

able to provide us with several documents that included projections 

and assumptions that were used in the cost estimate, we found the 

estimate to be partially comprehensive because it was unclear if all 

life-cycle costs were included in the estimate or if the cost estimate 

completely defined the program. 

Accurate. Accurate estimates are unbiased and contain few 

mathematical mistakes. We reported in June 2016 that the estimate 

partially met best practices for this characteristic, in part because we 

could not independently verify the calculations the Bureau used within 

its cost model, which the Bureau did not have documented or 

explained outside its cost modeL 

Well-documented. Cost estimates are considered valid if they are 

well-documented to the point they can be easily repeated or updated 

and can be traced to original sources through auditing, according to 

best practices. In June 2016, we reported that, while the Bureau 

provided some documentation of supporting data, it did not describe 

how the source data were incorporated. 

Credible. Credible cost estimates must clearly identify limitations due 

to uncertainty or bias surrounding the data or assumptions, according 

to best practices. In June 2016, we reported that the estimate 

minimally met best practices for this characteristic in part because the 

Bureau carried out its risk and uncertainty analysis only for about $4.6 

billion (37 percent) of the $12.5 billion total estimated life-cycle cost, 

excluding, for example, consideration of uncertainty over what the 

decennial census's estimated part will be of the total cost of CEDCaP. 

In June 2016, we recommended that the Bureau take action to ensure its 

2020 Census cost estimate meets all four characteristic of a reliable cost 

estimate. The Bureau agreed with our recommendation. We also reported 

in June 2016 that risks were not properly accounted for in the cost 

estimate and recommended that the Bureau properly account for risk to 

ensure there are appropriate levels for budgeted contingencies, and 

those recommendations have not yet been implemented. 

In October 2017, Bureau officials told us they were making progress 

towards implementing our recommendations and would provide us with 

that documentation when the cost estimate and supporting 

documentation are finalized. Moreover, Bureau officials also told us that 

an updated cost estimate would be available by the end of this fall. 

However, until the Bureau updates its estimate and we have the 

opportunity to review its reliability, questions will surround the quality of 

Page 29 
74 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 39 here 30245.039

The Cost of the 2020 

Census Will Likely Be 

Higher Than Originally 

Planned 

2020 Census Cost 

Estimate May Not Fully 

Inform Annual Budget 

Requests 

the 2020 Census cost estimate and the basis for any 2020 Census 

annual budgetary figures. 

While the Bureau has not updated its October 2015 cost estimate, several 

events since then indicate that the cost of the current design will be 

higher. For example: 

As previously mentioned, in August 2016 an $886 million IT 

integration contract was awarded. According to Bureau officials, there 

was no reference to this contract in the documentation for the planned 

contract costs supporting the October 2015 life-cycle cost estimate. 

In March 2017, the Bureau suspended part of how it is verifying 

address in-office procedures using on-screen imagery-one of its four 

key design innovations intended to control the cost of the 2020 

Census. According to Bureau officials, the suspension of the one part 

of in-office canvassing will increase the workload of the more 

expensive in-field (door-to-door address identification) by at least five 

percentage points, from 25 percent to 30 percent of housing unitsincreasing the cost over what had been assumed as part of the earlier 

cost estimate. Based on cost assumptions underlying its October 

2015 life-cycle cost estimate, we found, as part of our prior work, that 

the potential addition of five percentage points to the field workload 

alone could reduce the Bureau's cost savings by $26.6 million44 

As earlier discussed, in May 2017, Bureau officials reported that the 

cost of the CEDCaP program has now increased by over $400 million, 

from about $548 million to $965 million. 

Cost estimates are also used by the Bureau as a tool to inform the annual 

budget process. However, since the Bureau did not fully follow best 

practices for developing and maintaining the life-cycle cost estimate, as 

previously described, annual budget requests based on that cost estimate 

may not be fully informed. 

A high-quality cost estimate is the foundation of a good budget. A major 

purpose of a cost estimate is to support the budget process by providing 

an estimate of the funding required to efficiently execute a program. 

Because most programs do not remain static but evolve over time, 

Page 30 GA0-18-141T 
75 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 40 here 30245.040

developing a cost estimate should not be a onetime event but rather a 

recurrent process. Effective program and cost control requires ongoing 

revisions to the cost estimate and budget. 

Using a reliable life-cycle cost estimate to formulate the budget could help 

the Bureau ensure that all costs are fully accounted for so that resources 

are adequate to support the program. Credible cost estimates could also 

help the Bureau effectively defend budgets to the Department of 

Commerce, OMB, and Congress. Concerns about the soundness of the 

life cycle cost estimate and the quality of annual budgets related to the 

2020 Census are particularly important because the bulk of funds will be 

obligated in fiscal years 2019 through 2020. In our June 2016 report on 

the Bureau's life-cycle cost estimate we made several recommendations 

with which the Bureau agreed. 45 We will continue to monitor the Bureau's 

efforts to address these recommendations. 

In conclusion, the Bureau has made progress in revamping its approach 

to the census and testing the new design. However, it faces considerable 

challenges and uncertainties in (1) implementing the cost-saving 

innovations; (2) managing the development and security of key IT 

systems; and (3) developing a quality cost estimate for the 2020 Census. 

For these reasons, the 2020 Census is a GAO high risk area. 

Continued management attention is vital for ensuring risks are managed, 

the Bureau's preparations stay on-track, and the Bureau is held 

accountable for implementing the enumeration as planned. We will 

continue to assess the Bureau's efforts to conduct a cost-effective 

enumeration and look forward to keeping Congress informed of the 

Bureau's progress. 

Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Cummings, and Members of the 

Committee, this completes our prepared statement. We would be pleased 

to respond to any questions that you may have. 

Page 31 GA0-18·141T 
76 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 41 here 30245.041

GAO Contacts and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

If you have any questions about this statement, please contact David A. 

Powner at (202) 512-9286 or by e-mail at pownerd@gao.gov or Robert 

Goldenkoff at (202) 512-2757 or by e-mail at goldenkoffr@gao.gov. 

Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public 

Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement. Other key 

contributors to this testimony include Lisa Pearson (Assistant Director); 

Jon Ticehurst (Assistant Director); Kate Sharkey (Analyst in Charge); 

Mark Abraham, Dewi Djunaidy; Hoyt Lacy; Andrea Starosciak; Umesh 

Thakkar; Timothy Wexler; and Katherine Wulff. Staff who made key 

contributions to the reports cited in this statement are identified in the 

source products. 

Page 32 GA0-18-141T 
77 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 42 here 30245.042

Appendix 1: Status as of August 2017 of 

Development and Integration Testing for 

Systems in the 2018 End-to-End Test 

As part of its 2018 End-to-End Test, the Census Bureau (Bureau) plans to 

deploy 43 systems incrementally to support nine operations from 

December 2016 through the end of the test in April2019. The nine 

operations are: (1) in-office address canvassing, (2) recruiting for address 

canvassing, (3) training for address canvassing, (4) in-field address 

canvassing operation, (5) recruiting for field enumeration, (6) training for 

field enumeration, (7) self-response (i.e., Internet, phone, or paper) 

operation, (8) field enumeration operation, and (9) tabulation and 

dissemination. According to the Bureau, a single system may be 

deployed multiple times throughout the test (w~h additional or new 

functionality) if that system is needed for more than one of these 

operations. 

Table 1 describes the status as of August 2017 of development and 

integration testing for each system in the 2018 End-to-End Test. 

Specifically, as of August 2017, the Bureau had completed both 

development work and integration testing for 4 systems, and was in the 

process of completing development and testing for 39 systems. 

Table 1: Development and Integration Status for the 43 Systems in the 2018 End-to-End Test, as of August 2017 

System name and description 

1. 2020 Website 

For the 2018 End-to-End Test, the scope encompasses 

the Test's Internet presence needs. 

2. One Fonn Designer Plus 

Creates paper forms including decennial questionnaires, 

letters, envelopes, notices of visit, language guides and 

other Decennial field and public materials. 

Operation(s) 

n/a 

n/a 

3. Block Assessmen~ Research and Classification {1) 

Application 

Interactive review tool that is designed to assist an analyst 

in assessing a set of geographic work units. 

4. MOJO Recruiting Dashboard (2) 

Provides a dashboard to show recruiting metrics. 

5. Decennial Applicant, Personnel and Payroll (2): (3): (4): (5) 

Systems 

Supports personnel and payroll administration for 

temporary, intermittent Census Bureau employees 

participating in the 2018 End-to-End test. 

Page 33 

Status of 

development 

and integration 

testing 

Complete 

Complete 

Complete 

Complete 

In processc 

Actual! 

Actual/ expected expected final 

first deployment deployment 

datea date"' 

n/a n/a 

n/a nla 

December 2016 n/a 

December 2016 n/a 

December 2016 September 

2017 

GA0·18·141T 
78 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 43 here 30245.043

Appendix 1: Status as of August 2017 of 

Development and Integration Testing for 

Systems in the 2018 End-to-End Test 

Status of 

development 

and integration 

System name and description Operation(s) testing 

6. Census Hiring and Employment Check System (2); (3); (4); (6); (7) In process' 

Administrative system that automates the clearance 

processing of all personnel at Census Bureau 

Headquarters, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, The 

Regional Offices, the National Processing Center, and two Computer Assisted Telephone Interview sites. 

7. Census Human Resources lnfonnation System (2); (3); (4); (5); In processc 

Web--based personal information tool providing personnel (6); (7); (8); (9) 

and payroll information on desktops. 

8. Commerce Business System (2); (3); (4); (5), In processc 

Collects and reports labor hours and costs for the (6); (7); (8); (9) 

activities that the National Processing Center performs. 

9. Decennial Sf!rvice Center (2); (3); (4); (5); In processc 

A suite of systems to handle all IT service requests (6); (8); (9) 

initiated by field staff. 

10. Desktop services (2); (3); (4); (5); In processc 

Suite of systems that includes chat. (6); (7); (8); (9) 

11. Sunflower (2); (3); (4); (5); In processc 

!T asset management system, (6); (8); (9) 

12. Master Address File/Topologically Integrated (1); (2); (4); (5): In processc 

Geographic Encoding and Referencing Database (7); (9) 

A database that contains, manages, and controls a 

repository of spatia! and non-spatia! data used to provide 

extracts to define census operations, provide maps, and 

support Web applications. 

13. Unified Tracking System (1) ;(2); (4); (5); In processc 

A data warehouse that combines data from a variety of (7); (8) 

Census systems, bringing the data to one place where the 

users can run or create reports to analyze survey and 

resource performance. 

14. Learning Management System (3); (6) In processc 

Provides online training for field representatives. 

15. Census Document System (3); (4); (5); (8); (9) In processc 

Web~based system for requesting forms design services, 

publications and graphics services, and printing services. 

16. Enterprise Censuses and Surveys Enabling 

(ECASE) -Field Operational Control System 

(3); (4); (6); (8) In processc 

Manages field assignments with routing optimizer, reviews 

and approves field worker's time and expense, and tracks 

field worker's performance. 

Page 34 

Actual/ 

Actual/ expected expected final 

first deployment 

date a 

deployment 

date a 

December 2016 February 2018 

December 2016 January 2019 

December2016 January 2019 

December 2016 January 2019 

December 2016 January 2019 

December 2016 January 2019 

December 2016 January 2019 

December 2016 March 2018 

July 2017 February 2018 

July 2017 January 2019 

July 2017 March 2018 

GA0-18-141T 
79 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 44 here 30245.044

System name and description 

17. ECASE -Operational Control System 

Appendix 1: Status as of August 2017 of 

Development and Integration Testing for 

Systems in the 2018 End~to-End Test 

Manages the data collection universe for all enumeration 

operations, maintains operational workloads, and provides 

alerts to management. 

18. Identity and AcCO_u_n.,t""Mc-a-na_g_e_m_e_n~t s=y-s.,te_m ___ --ccc-~=-=c----c-----cc---c-:-::=:----:----=-::-

Used to ensure that the right individuals have access to 

the right resources at the right times for the right reasons_ 

19. Listing and Mapping 

A single instrument that enables field users to capture and 

provide accurate listing and mapping updates to the 

Master Address File/Topologically Integrated Geographic 

Encoding and Referencing Database. 

20. Mobile Case Mc-a-na_g_:e::_m_e_ntc---------=-=-=:-::::---:---,---,-,-=-::----,-,-· 

Provides mobile device·level SU!vey case management 

and dashboards, and manages data transmissions and 

other applications on the mobile device. 

21. Service Oriented Architecture 

Enterprise software architecture model used for designing 

and implementing communication between mutually 

interacting software applications in a service-oriented 

architecture. 

22. Integrated Logistics Management System 

A system to manage logistics and resource planning. 

23. National Processing Center Printing 

Provides printing services for low·volume forms and 

merges static form and variable data, such as printing a 

standard form with unique addresses. 

24. MOJO Optimizer and Modeling 

A service to optimize the field workers' routes. 

25. Sampling, Matching, Reviewing, and Coding 

System 

Supports quality control for field operations. 

26. Recruiting and Assessment 

Provides capabilities for applicant recruiting and the 

applicant pre-selection assessment process. 

27. Census Image Retrieval 

Application 

Provides secure access to census data and digital images 

of the questionnaires from which the data were captured. 

28. Control and Response Data System 

Provides a sample design and umverse determination for 

the Decennia! Census. 

Page 35 GA0-18-141T 
80 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 45 here 30245.045

Appendix 1: Status as of August 2017 of 

Development and Integration Testing for 

Systems In the 2018 End-to-End Test 

Status of 

development 

and integration 

System name and description Operation(s) testing 

29. ECASE -Internet Self-Response (7) In process 

Supports self-response data collection by the Internet for 

respondents and by call center agents on behalf of 

respondents. 

30. Fraud Detection System (7) In process 

Identify fraudulent responses either in real-time or post 

data collection. 

31. Geospatial Services (7) In process 

Provides vintage imagery service, internal current Imagery 

servlce, public current imagery se!Ylce, mapping services. 

32. Integrated Computer Assisted Data Entry (7) In process 

Captures paper responses from questionnaires. 

33. Intelligent Postal Tracking System (7) In process 

A mail tracking system developed by the Census Bureau 

and the U.S. Postal Se!Yice system to trace individual mail 

pieces during transit 

34. Matching and Geocoding Software (7) In process 

Allows for clerical matching and geocoding during Non-10 

Processing. 

35. Real Time Non~IO Processing (7) !n process 

Matches addresses in real·time, geocodes addresses in 

reaHime, and geo·locates housing units using web map 

services. 

36. Census Questionnaire Assistance (7); (8) In process 

Provides call center capability for self-response and 

assists respondents with responding to and completing 

census questionnaires. 

37. ECASE - enumeration (6); (8) In process 

Captures survey responses collected by doorMto-door 

enumeration, records contact attempts, and collects 

employee availability and time and expenses. 

38. Production EnVironment for Administrative (7); (8) In process 

Records Staging, Integration, and Storage 

Manages Administrative Records and provide services 

associated with those records. 

39. Decennial Response Processing System (7); (8); (9) In process 

Performs data processing on the raw response data and 

stores the final processed response data for long term 

Provides an external interface for the upload of group 

quarters electronic response data. 

Page 36 

Actual/ 

Actual/ expected expected final 

first deployment 

date a 

deployment 

date a 

February 2018 nla 

February 2018 nla 

February 2018 nla 

February 2018 nla 

February 2018 nla 

February 2018 nla 

February 2018 nla 

February 2018 March 2018 

February 2018 March 2018 

February 2018 March 2018 

February 2018 January 2019 

GA0-18-141T 
81 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 46 here 30245.046

Appendix 1: Status as of August 2017 of 

Development and Integration Testing for 

Systems In the 2018 End~to-End Test 

System name and description 

41. Concurrent Analysis and Estimation System 

Stores data and uses it to execute statistical models in 

support of survey flow processing, analysis, and control. 

42. Center for Enterprise Dissemination Services and 

Consumer Innovation 

and access to tabulated Census data. 

Receives post~processed response data and produces 

tabulated statistical data. 

Key for operations: 

(1) =in-office address canvassing 

(2) = recruiting for address canvassing 

(3) =training for address canvassing 

(4} = in~field address canvassing operation 

(5) =recruiting for field enumeration 

(6) = training for field enumeration 

(7) = self~response (Le., Jntemet, phone, or paper) operation 

{8) =field enumeration operation 

{9) = tabulation and dissemination 

development 

and integration 

Operation(s) testing 

(8) In process 

(9) In process 

Actual/ expected 

first deployment date a 

March 2018 

January 2019 

n/a = not appllcab!e. These systems only have one deployment date since they are only being deployed in one operation. 

Source· GAO analysis of Cer.sus Bureau-reporttld data 1 GA0.18·141T 

expected final 

deployment 

date a 

nla 

nla 

"These systems are deployed live in a series of operations based on functionality. Thus, systems may 

have many multiple go-Hve dates depending on when they are needed for different operations of the 

2018 End-to-End Test. The dates listed for August 2017 or eartier should be considered actual dates. 

{101967} 

0

According to Bureau officials, these legacy systems are not allocated to an operation because ihe 

systems are being used as-is with no new development 

cAlthough these systems are in development, a version of the system has already been deployed. 

Page 37 GA0·18·141T 
82 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 47 here 30245.047

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other materia!, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this materia! separately. 
83 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 48 here 30245.048

GAO's Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone 

Connect with GAO 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative 

arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the 

federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public 

funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make infonmed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through GAO's website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to http://www.gao.gov 

and select "E-mail Updates." 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO's actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering 

information is posted on GAO's website, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional infonmation. 

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Linkedln, Twitter, and You Tube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov and read The Watchblog. 

Contact: 

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, 

Washington, DC 20548 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548 

('j Please Print on Recycled Paper. 
84 

STATEMENT OF DAVID A. POWNER 

Mr. POWNER. Chairman Gowdy, thank you for inviting us to testify on the Bureau’s plans to deliver and secure key technologies 

for the 2020 census. These technologies, if appropriately deployed, 

can improve our nation’s response rates and secure citizens’ data. 

This technology has not been effectively plans or managed, and 

much work remains to deliver it. 

Three areas require congressional attention associated with the 

technologies. They are schedule, security, and cost growth. I will 

expand on each of these starting with schedule. 

The Bureau needs to deliver 43 systems for the 2020 decennial. 

Some are new systems and infrastructure, while others are changes 

to existing systems. Clearly, the internet response capability, mobile devices, and the centralized operations component are critical 

systems. These systems need to be ready for the end-to-end test 

that started in August to ensure that they are integrated appropriately. 

The Bureau has missed many milestones and currently only four 

of the 43 have completed development and testing. Of the remaining 39, 21 have delivered some functionality while nothing has 

been delivered for the remaining 18 for this test. Many of these 

systems have key delivery dates in early 2018 so that they can be 

included in the end-to-end test. These systems include the internet 

response, the mobile device enumeration application, and the fraud 

detection system. The mobile device application has been running 

behind schedule for some time, and we have serious concerns about 

the timely delivery of the fraud detection system. 

I’m not sure I agree with the Secretary’s comment this morning 

that the systems are on schedule. The appendix in our written 

statement lays out each of these 43 systems’ delivery dates, and 

we’ll be tracking each of these closely for this committee. We are 

especially concerned that schedule pressure and late deliveries will 

result in compressed and inadequate testing. 

Turning to security, the Bureau needs to continue its diligence 

in this area since it has been the target of recent cyber attacks. 

The Bureau needs to minimize the threat of phishing, secure about 

400,000 mobile devices, ensure security of cloud services, and properly configure all systems. To ensure that all systems are as secure 

as possible, the Bureau needs to assess security controls, fix known 

deficiencies, and have the proper signoff by both the chief information officer and the head of the decennial office to ensure that each 

system is authorized to operate. This process is critical since 33 of 

the 43 systems contain personally identifiable information. 

The Bureau has such a process, but we have concerns about 

whether there will be ample time to complete all the security work 

given the late delivery dates of the system and whether shortcuts 

will be taken due to pressure to authorize prematurely. Right now, 

all 43 systems need to be authorized—reauthorized or authorized. 

This is a point that I think it is fair to say Congressman Hurd 

hammered home quite well. 

Finally, we have concerns about cost growth associated with 

these technologies and have had these concerns for some time. The 

CEDCaP program, as mentioned by Secretary Ross in his testimony, has overrun about $400 million and is now costing about $1 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
85 

billion. Baseline IT costs seem to be changing constantly. The latest from the Bureau is that IT costs were about $3.4 billion, but 

this total did not include about $1.4 billion, bringing the total cost 

closer to $5 billion, not $3.5 billion. 

As mentioned by Secretary Ross, the new lifecycle estimate in- cludes this additional $1.5 billion that was previously unaccounted 

for. We will be tracking these costs closely because, given the remaining work and past mismanagement, we remain concerned 

about cost growth in this area even with built-in contingencies. 

In conclusion, schedule security and cost growth are major concerns that we will continue to monitor for the Congress. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing and your oversight of the 2020 decennial. 

Chairman GOWDY. Ms. Rice? 

STATEMENT OF CAROL N. RICE 

Ms. RICE. Good afternoon, Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member 

Cummings, and members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify about the Bureau’s 2020 census lifecycle cost estimate. 

We all support the Bureau’s ultimate goal: to produce a highquality census while minimizing cost. But over the last several 

years, we’ve produced a number of reports that have found weaknesses in how the Bureau allocates costs, collects cost data, and estimates costs for the 2020 census. My testimony today provides additional details about these limitations. 

First, we found that the Bureau’s 2020 census lifecycle cost estimate cannot be validated. Second, much of our work throughout 

this decade reveals cost overruns, unaccounted for costs, and decreased cost avoidance. 

To the first point, the Bureau’s cost estimate is not auditable. It 

takes into account more than 100 inputs, but when we tried to 

verify their accuracy during the 2014 census test, there was no 

supporting documentation. Additionally, we evaluated the interactive review portion of the in-office address canvassing operation 

and found that the estimate was derived from undocumented 

verbal conversations. This lack of documentation prevented us from 

auditing the estimated cost avoidance the Bureau reported to 

stakeholders. 

Similarly, we identified three instances where the Bureau’s census tests failed to capture cost data that could validate and update 

the cost estimate. Both the 2014 census test and the 2015 address 

validation test intended to collect cost data in the field, but it 

didn’t. 

Finally, during the 2015 census test, we found that the Bureau 

could not differentiate between the cost performing enumeration 

versus administrative activities. Therefore, it could not determine 

whether the new enumeration methods were more effective and 

more efficient than was achieved by just reducing administrative 

burdens. 

We also reported weaknesses with how the Bureau accounts for 

cost. In auditing its process for implementing the fiscal year 2014 

budget cuts, we found that the Bureau recorded employee costs 

based on predetermined budget allocations instead of the actual 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
86 

hours worked. In addition, we found multiple instances where contractor costs were not charged to the correct activities. All of these 

accounting and estimation weaknesses prevent the Bureau from 

making informed decisions. 

Second, we are concerned about cost overruns, unaccounted for 

costs, and decreased cost avoidance. For example, the Bureau initially projected spending $656 million for the CEDCaP program 

and now it’s estimated at $965 million. And I think based on what 

the Secretary just said, it will be even higher. 

One audit of the—our audit of the Bureau’s address canvassing 

test also found substantial overruns. The Bureau estimated that 

spending for in-office address canvassing would be $44 million between fiscal year 2016 through 2019, but our review found it would 

cost nearly three times that amount at $125 million. 

Finally, our evaluation of the 2016 census test identified unaccounted-for cost with the redesigned NRFU operations. We found 

that the operational control system allowed enumerators to make 

more NRFU contact attempts than the cost estimate accounted for, 

so the expectation was they would go up to six times, and we found 

them going many, many more times. We are also concerned about 

the increased unresolved rates, as observed in the test, the potential need to expend additional resources that are not currently accounted for in the Bureau’s cost estimate. 

In conclusion, we applaud the Census Bureau for undertaking 

several major initiatives to modernize its decennial operations. We 

recognize that not all the innovations will perform as expected, and 

that some of the 2020 cost savings may not materialize. However, 

for stakeholders to have confidence in the cost estimate, the Bureau must strengthen its cost accounting processes by documenting 

inputs and capturing and tracking all project costs correctly. 

I’m encouraged by the recent efforts to improve the lifecycle cost 

estimate. The Bureau has started linking documentation to the 

variables in its estimate, and as we’ve just heard, the Secretary’s 

task force worked closely with the Bureau to improve that estimate. We are looking forward to reviewing that final product. 

So thank you very much for inviting me, and I’m pleased to answer any questions. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Rice follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
87 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 49 here 30245.049

Testimony of 

Carol N. Rice 

Assistant Inspector General 

for Economic and Statistical Program Assessment 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Office of Inspector General 

before a hearing of the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Hearing on the 2020 Census 

October I 2, 20 17 
88 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 50 here 30245.050

Chairman Gowdy and Members of the Committee: 

I appreciate the opportunity to represent the Department of Commerce Office of Inspector 

General and testify about the Census Bureau's 2020 Census life-cycle cost estimate. Over the 

last 3 years, we have conducted seven separate audits and evaluations that included findings 

related to how the Bureau collects cost data and estimates costs for the 2020 Census. This 

work, as well as our oversight of the 20 I 0 Census, has enabled us to inform stakeholders on 

unexpected operational changes that rapidly inflate cost estimates. 

Early this decade, the Bureau committed to conducting the 2020 Census at a lower cost per 

household (adjusted for inflation)-while continuing to maintain high quality-than the last 

decennial, to end decades of rising average costs. Over the past three decennial censuses, the 

per-household cost had climbed from $45 in 1990 and $80 in 2000 to $92 in 2010 (in 2020 

constant dollars).' To stop these escalating costs, the Bureau estimated that-through major 

cost-avoidance innovations in its operational design-it could avoid $5.2 billion in 2020 Census 

costs (compared with repeating the 2010 design in 2020). 

However, as this decade progressed, the Bureau has scaled back its cost avoidance projections. 

Our audit work has identified that the 2020 Census life-cycle cost estimate is not auditable, and 

the Bureau failed to capture information during research and testing that could help update or 

assess the accuracy of the estimate. In addition, unaccounted-for costs and cost overruns have 

affected address canvassing, information technology development, and other areas-leading the 

Bureau recently to reduce its cost avoidance estimate and the Secretary of Commerce to 

create a multidisciplinary task force to evaluate and produce an independent cost estimate. 

My testimony today addresses in further detail some of the risks associated with the Census 

Bureau's cost estimation: 

I. The Bureau has produced a 2020 Census life-cycle cost estimate that cannot be 

validated. 

2. Our recent work identifies the risk of decreased cost avoidance, as well as cost 

overruns and unaccounted-for costs. 

I. The Bureau has produced a 2020 Census life-cycle cost estimate that 

cannot be validated 

The 2020 Census life-cycle cost estimate is not auditable 

In our 20 IS report on the 2014 Census Test, we found that the 2020 Census life-cycle cost 

estimate was not auditable. 2 More than I 00 variables (such as the cost of leased offices and the 

self-response rate) drive the overall cost estimate. We attempted to verify the accuracy of the 

1 Census Bureau, September 20 16. 2020 Census Operational Plan: A New Design for the 21st Century (Version 2.0), p. 

7. 

2 Department of Commerce Office of Inspector General, September 30. 20 IS. 2020 Census: The 2014 Census Test 

Misses an Opportunity to Validate Cost Estimates and Establish Benchmarks for Progress, OIG-15-044-A. Washington, 

DC:DOCOIG. 
89 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 51 here 30245.051

input factors by tracing them to their source and underlying documentation; however, the 

Bureau's Decennial Census Management Division (DCMD)-which is responsible for calculating 

the cost estimate--neither obtained nor required supporting documentation when recording 

and updating input factors. As a result, DCMD staff neither verified the reliability of the lifecycle cost variables (including those calculated from 20 I 0 Census data) nor reviewed any of the 

supporting documentation provided by subject matter experts who defined some of the 

variables. Furthermore, the Bureau could not specifically identify the subject matter experts. 

According to Bureau management, the development of assumptions was largely a group effort. 

Thus, the subject matter expert inputs were actually based on various informal discussions 

between DCMD staff and members of the Decennial, Field, Research and Methodology, and 

Information Technology Directorates. However, the rationale for reaching input decisions was 

not documented. 

In response to our initial findings, DCMD management stated that-following initial efforts to 

establish which life-cycle variables to include in the cost estimation-"a series of briefing [sic] 

was held to review this work in detail with the external experts and Census Bureau leadership, 

including the Director, who has extensive experience in managing both decennial-census and 

private sector survey collection efforts." Although we do not dispute the level of knowledge 

provided by these experts, the Bureau was unable to produce documentation supporting its 

decisions. The lack of traceable data sources for each cost element precluded an audit of the 

validity and accuracy of the estimated cost avoidance that the Bureau reported to its 

stakeholders. 

Census tests failed to capture cost data 

Census tests are a way to put theory to practice: to determine which new methods are the 

soundest and most cost-effective. We identified three instances where the Bureau's tests failed 

to capture cost data that could be used to validate and update the 2020 Census life-cycle cost 

estimate. 

I. The 20 14 Census Test was designed to compare cost, productivity rates, and data 

quality across two key decennial census cost drivers: non response followup (NRFU) and 

self-response. NRFU, for example, tested different contact strategies, including personal 

visits and telephone calls-while self-response reviewed the effectiveness of the Internet 

and paper questionnaires for enumerating households. Although the 2014 Test plan 

indicated that cost comparison was a component of the test, the test itself did not 

provide cost data that could be used to validate the estimated cost avoidance or 

compare the costs associated with the different design strategies. 3 The Bureau gave 

various explanations for why the 20 14 Test was unable to assess the effects of the 

design strategies on cost; regardless of the reasoning, the 20 14 Test failed to inform 

2020 Census costs and update the cost estimate. 

2. During the 20 I 0 Census, the Bureau conducted a costly I 00 percent in-field address 

canvassing operation, which required temporary field staff to identify every place where 

people could live or stay. The Bureau estimated that $900 million of the $5.2 billion in 

'Ibid. 

2 
90 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 52 here 30245.052

cost avoidance could be met during the 2020 Census by changing its approach to 

address canvassing. To determine the most efficient method for targeted address 

canvassing, in which field staff would travel only to blocks that likely changed since 20 I 0, 

the Bureau conducted an Address Validation Field Test and a Partial Block Canvassing 

Test. Those tests proposed to answer two questions: "Is the collection of data using the 

Partial Block Canvassing methodology more cost effective than a full block canvass?" and 

"How can we best balance cost and quality associated with a targeted address 

canvassing1"4 The Bureau planned on using final results to compare the costs associated 

with statistical modeling against the use of aerial imagery for selecting blocks for 

targeted address canvassing. However, no cost data for either approach were collected. 

According to field office management, they were not provided field cost collection 

requirements by the research teams in a timely manner, so this information was not 

incorporated into testing. As a result, the Bureau could not determine which 

component, statistical modeling or imagery, would yield a reduction in costs without 

affecting quality. 

3. During the 2015 Census Test, we found that the Bureau could not differentiate between 

the costs associated with enumeration activities (such as NRFU contact attempts) and 

administrative activities (including documenting, collecting, and submitting paper 

timesheets ). 5 The 20 15 Test compared enumerators who used new methods developed 

during research and testing with enumerators who used methods similar to 20 I 0 

Census enumerators (e.g., paper payroll and face-to-face meetings with supervisors). 

The 2010 Census approach imposed considerable administrative burden on 

enumerators and supervisors that the Bureau intends to eliminate during the 2020 

Census through greater automation. When analyzing 2015 Test results, the Bureau did 

not differentiate administrative costs from enumeration costs. Therefore, it could not 

determine whether streamlined administrative functions (such as automated payroll) and 

new enumeration methods (such as limited contacts and automated routing) increased 

efficiency or whether greater efficiency was achieved by simply reducing administrative 

burden. 

Accounting weaknesses cast doubt on actual costs 

Our recent audit work also identified problems with the way the Bureau tracks its costs. In 

order to identify the cost avoidance associated with design changes, make decisions about 

where to cut funding, or calculate the return on investment of its research initiatives, the 

Bureau needs to know how much its projects actually cost. 

In 2014, we evaluated the Bureau's process for implementing mandatory sequestration-related 

budget reductions and assessed the effects of those reductions on the Bureau's ability to reduce 

the per-household cost of the 2020 Census. 6 We found significant deficiencies in the Decennial 

4 DOC OIG, February 23, 2016. The U.S. Census Bureau's Efforts to Ensure an Accurate Address Ust Raise Concerns over 

Design and Lack of Cost-Benefit Analysis, OIG-16-0 18-A. Washington, DC: DOC OIG. 

5 DOC OIG, june 7, 2016. 2020 Census: The Bureau Has Not Reported Test Results and Executed an Inadequately 

Designed 2015 Test, OIG-16-032-A. Washington, DC: DOC OIG. 

6 DOC OIG, May 21, 20 14. The Census Bureau Lacks Accurate and Informative Cost Data to Guide 2020 Census 

Research Through a Constrained Budget Environment, OIG-14-021-A. Washington, DC: DOC OIG. 
91 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 53 here 30245.053

Program's method for recording salary costs. The Department's Accounting Principies and 

Standards Handbook requires that actual costs be recorded in the accounting system. However, 

we found that employee salary costs, in hours, were charged to projects based on 

predetermined budget allocations-not on actual hours worked. In addition, those recorded 

salary costs did not necessarily account for what the employee actually worked on; 

consequently, some projects could have been charged to incorrect activities and appropriation 

accounts. As a result, we could not determine specific project costs-or the cost of the entire 

Decennial Program's research effort-because projects costs were recorded in the accounting 

system simply to match previously set budget allocations. 

Similarly, we found that the Bureau's Geography Division did not identify contractor costs of 

specific projects that update the Master Address File/Topologically Integrated Geographic 

Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) database. 7 lnstead, the Geography Division charged all 

contractor costs to a single project, regardless of contractor activity; thus, when deciding 

whether to defund a project, the Bureau cannot consider all costs associated with that project. 

For example, due to sequestration in 20 14, the Geography Division eliminated a project that 

updated the MAF/TIGER to save costs. However, it did so without knowing the contractor 

costs associated with that project or its total impact on the budget. 

We also found that the Bureau was unable to correctly report the cost of the 2015 Census 

Test because it did not accurately charge contract costs to their corresponding activities. 8 We 

requested a list of all contracts associated with and charged to the 20 15 Test. The Bureau 

provided us a list of 17 contracts with obligations totaling $66 million. In order to verify the 

completeness of the list, we extracted 20 IS Test contract costs from the Bureau's accounting 

system using project and task codes provided by the Bureau. We found that the Bureau only 

recorded obligations totaling $S.2 million rather than $66 million. Further, we found that $3.8 

million of the $5.2 million in contract awards that were obligated against 20 IS Test activities 

were for projects and tasks that were not associated with the test. 

Inadequate accounting of employees' actual work and level of effort required to accomplish 

project goals limits the Bureau's ability to assess the return on investment of its research 

efforts. More importantly, it prevents Census Bureau management from making informed 

decisions in a constrained budget environment. 

7 The Bureau maintains the MAFfTIGER database as a record of the addresses of all living quarters and their 

associated geographic locations. See DOC OIG, May 23, 2016. The U.S. Census Bureau Geography Division Lacks 

Complete Information for Project Costs and Has Not Fully Monitored GSS-1 Goals, OIG-16-029-A. Washington, DC: 

DOCOIG. 

'DOC OIG, june 7, 2016. 2020 Census: The Bureau Has Not Reported Test Results and Executed an Inadequately 

Designed 2015 Test, OIG-!6-032-A. Washington, DC: DOC OIG. 

4 
92 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 54 here 30245.054

2. Our recent work identifies the risk of decreased cost avoidance, as 

well as cost overruns and unaccounted-for costs 

The Bureau is at risk of decreased cost avoidance, as well as cost overruns 

Early in 2016, the Bureau estimated that the Census Enterprise Data Collection and Processing 

(CEDCaP) program-a "bureau-wide effort that ... creates an integrated and standardized 

enterprise suite of systems" that will help the Bureau successfully automate the 2020 Censuswould cost $656 million. In May 2016, the Bureau decided to use a "hybrid approach" and 

integrate a commercial off-the-shelf platform with select custom systems. In June 2017, the 

Bureau reported the program experienced increases, estimating that the CEDCaP program will 

cost $965 million. If this enterprise-wide data collection solution falls short, the 2020 Census is 

at risk for accumulating even further escalating costs. 

For example: leading up to the 20 I 0 Census, the Bureau planned to reduce the costs of field 

operations by using custom mobile handheld computing devices-equipped with global 

positioning system capabilities-to automate workload assignments, data collection, and 

information processing functions. However, the project experienced constant setbacks, 

including technical problems, escalating costs, and missed deadlines. In April 2008, the Bureau 

abandoned the devices for NRFU enumeration and resorted to paper-based operation instead. 

Leading up to 2020, CEDCaP poses a similar risk: if the program does not work as expected 

and the Bureau has to revert to paper-based enumeration, costs could drastically increase. 

Additionally, in our audit of the Bureau's 2016 Address Canvassing Test, we identified 

substantial operational cost overruns. As previously mentioned, given the cost of I 00 percent 

in-field address canvassing in 20 I 0, the Bureau elected to conduct I 00 percent in-office address 

canvassing during the 2020 Census. In the latter, employees use satellite imagery and third-party 

address lists to determine which blocks are likely to require address updates, then send field 

staff to review those blocks. In the 2015 version of the 2020 Census life-cycle cost estimate's 

model, the Bureau estimated that this in-office address canvassing would cost $44 million. 

However, our review of in-office address canvassing found that it will cost at least $125 million 

(almost triple the estimate) from FY 2016 to FY 2019. 9 After our review, the Bureau-citing 

funding uncertainties-informed us that a portion of in-office address canvassing would be 

suspended until 2021. Subsequently, the Bureau increased the expected in-field address 

canvassing workload from 25 percent to 30 percent of all housing units. Depending on the 

results of the coverage evaluations of the 20 16 and 20 18 Test address canvassing operations, 

the workload could rise further. Currently, the precise cost impact of this is unknown. 

However, the Bureau originally expected reengineered address canvassing to account for $900 

million of its 2020 Census cost avoidance; a 20 percent increase in the in-field address 

canvassing workload will likely reduce the magnitude of cost avoidance the Bureau will achieve 

by reengineering the address canvassing operation. 

'DOC OIG, May II, 2017. 2020 Census: The Address Canvassing Test Revealed Cost and Schedule Risks and May Not 

Inform Future Planning as Intended, OIG-17-024-A. Washington, DC: DOC OIG. 

5 
93 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 55 here 30245.055

Finally, our evaluation of the interactive review portion of the in-office address canvassing 

operation found that the estimate for that operation was derived from undocumented, verbal 

conversations. 10 

Unaccounted-for costs have been identified 

In our evaluation of the 2016 Census Test, we identified risks associated with unaccounted-for 

costs with respect to redesigned NRFU operations. The 2020 Census life-cycle cost estimate 

assumes that (I) all NRFU housing units receive a maximum of six contact attempts and (2) all 

households are enumerated by the sixth attempt. However, during the 2016 Census Test, we 

found that this was not the case and, if not corrected, the Bureau could underestimate NRFU 

costs.'' Specifically, we found that the operational control system did not limit enumerators to 

six attempts per housing unit; rather, it limited them to six days of attempts. As a result, I 0 

percent of housing units during the 2016 Test received more than six attempts; 29,000 

additional contact attempts across just 144,000 cases indicates that the current 2020 Census 

life-cycle cost estimate fails to account for millions of potential attempts. 

During recent tests, a high percentage of NRFU cases have gone "unresolved," because an 

enumerator was unable to collect data for (or enumerate) that housing unit during the NRFU 

operation (see figure I ). 12 Given that the Bureau did not implement strategies to increase the 

response rate (e.g., nationwide publicity, the Census Partnership Program, and paid advertising) 

during its 2020 Census tests, this may not be a concern. However, if the innovative NRFU 

procedures result in an increased unresolved rate-as observed in the tests-the Bureau will 

have to expend additional resources not currently accounted for in the cost estimate to fulfill 

the Constitutional requirement to count the population. 

10 DOC OIG, September 13, 2017. 2020 Census: Evaluation of Interactive Review Address Canvassing Operation 

Revealed Issues with Quality Assurance Controls, OIG-17 -030-1. Washington, DC: DOC OIG. 

11 DOC OIG, March 16, 20 17. 2020 Census: 2016 Census Test Indicates the Current Life-Cycle Cost Estimate is 

Incomplete and Underestimates Nonresponse Followup Costs, OIG-17-020-1. Washington, DC: DOC OIG. 

12 During the 20 I 0 Census, the Bureau ceased NRFU operations on less than one percent of U.S. housing units. 

6 
94 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 56 here 30245.056

figure I. 201 0 Census NRFU .-.u .... ,.,,.,., 

Compared to the 20 14, 2015, 

30% 

2010 Census 2014 and 2015 

Census Tests 

27.48% 

2014. 2015,and 

Control Panels 2016 Experimental 

Panels 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 

' During the 2014 and 2015 Census Tests, the Bureau made use of control 

which conducted NRFU much the same as it was conducted during the 

Census in order to measure the effect on NRFU of new innovative 

techniqu<!S·--used by it is considering im>>len>enting 

2020 Census. Test did not use a 

*** 

the Bureau has taken the call for a decennial census that up with 

modern innovations. Following the Census, the Bureau was roundly criticized for not 

taking advantage of the Internet as a response option, for building one-time use systems, and 

for failing to automate NRFU data collection. Leading up to 2020, we acknowledge that the 

Bureau is undertaking a number of major initiatives to modernize its decennial operations. 

Further, we must accept that not all 2020 Census design innovations will perform as hopedresulting in unrealized cost avoidance. 

However, for stakeholders to have any confidence in the reengineered decennial census design 

cost estimate and cost avoidance figures, the Bureau must strengthen its accounting processby documenting life-cycle-cost inputs, capturing and tracking costs, and ensuring that all 

costs are included. I am that efforts to improve the cost estimate are 

currently underway. The has started linking documentation to the variables in its 

estimate. And, this summer, the Secretary established a task force consisting of staff from the 

Secretary's office, Office of and Budget, and outside consultants to identify cost 

overruns and review current and budget projections. The task force is working closely 

with the Bureau to the cost estimate, and we are forward to 

reviewing the final 

Lastly, the Bureau is in a critical phase of decennial census planning. With the 2018 End-to-End 

Test in progress and early 2020 Census operations approaching, time is running out to put a 

7 
95 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 57 here 30245.057

new Director in place to lead and guide the next decennial census to a successful outcome. We 

believe that permanently filling the top two Census Bureau positions should be a high priority 

for the Administration and Congress. 

I am pleased to take your questions. 

8 
96 

Chairman GOWDY. Thank you, Ms. Rice. 

Ms. Gupta? 

STATEMENT OF VANITA GUPTA 

Ms. GUPTA. Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Cummings, and 

members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to be here 

today. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights is a 

coalition of more than 200 national organizations that—and has 

been deeply engaged in the last several cycles of the decennial census. 

The Leadership Conference shares this committee’s concerns and 

interest in a modern, secure, and cost-effective 2020 census. Technology can facilitate easy and less costly participation in the census. However, to uphold its constitutional duty and ensure an accurate and fully inclusive count, Congress must allocate sufficient resources to count historically undercounted communities, as well as 

easier-to-count communities. It must also provide funding for comprehensive risk management and preparations for real-time backup 

methods and operations, and we’re pleased to submit for the record 

two reports from the Leadership Conference in addressing both opportunities and the risks posed by the use of technology and of administrative records in the 2020 census. 

Per the Constitution, the primary and overarching goal of the 

census is a fair and accurate enumeration of all people living in the 

United States on census day. And the goal of a census that is 

equally successful in all communities is really nonnegotiable. These 

aren’t, as the chairman said, Republican goals or Democratic goals. 

They are shared American goals, and achieving them is going to be 

very key to our representative system of government. 

But insufficient, uncertain, and frequently late annual funding 

has delayed and derailed important census testing and preparations, as you’ve heard already. Most at risk are operations that are 

specifically designed to enumerate historically hard-to-count communities. The Census Bureau needs a steady ramp-up and funding 

to support a critical dress rehearsal, deployment of the IT architecture and field structure, and development of a massive communications campaign that is going to encourage people to participate and 

therefore at the backend help keep census costs in check. 

We support the proposal in Congresswoman Maloney’s new bill. 

I won’t go through the details of that because you have that already before you. But the census has political consequences, of 

course. In fact, the Constitution says as much by basing congressional apportionment and equal representation on the population 

count. But the conduct of the census must be strictly nonpartisan 

and must strive to achieve an equally accurate account in all communities. 

Unfortunately, even with careful planning, we may be looking at 

an environment that could yield significant undercounts in poor 

communities, rural areas, communities that are recovering from 

natural disasters, communities of color, as well as undercounts of 

young children, immigrants, and others who have a palpable mistrust of government, who have deep concerns about cybersecurity 

and the security of their information, as well as in rural communities where the digital divide is particularly pronounced. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
97 

There are hard-to-count communities in every State and hard-tocount populations in communities of all sizes from large urban 

areas to smaller cities to rural and remote communities, including 

American Indian tribal lands and reservations. And just two points 

to note for both members here, nearly 10 percent of census tracts 

in South Carolina are hard to count per Census Bureau research, 

and 27 percent of Baltimore’s population live in hard-to-count census tracts. 

Regrettably, we fear that the strict budget constraints Congress 

has imposed on the 2020 census add to these formidable barriers. 

The Census Bureau is going to attempt to minimize undercounting 

but is going to be hampered by a smaller footprint in the field. And 

as you know, when your constituents are not counted in the census, 

they remain invisible for the next 10 years. There aren’t any doovers, and there’s no question that the Census Bureau must get it 

right for the first time because all of us, Members of Congress, 

county officials, and mayors, school principals, veterans, advocates, 

businesses large and small, and indeed all of us in the United 

States have to live with the results of it for the next 10 years. 

So the Leadership Conference and our member organizations 

look forward to working with all of you to ensure a cost-effective, 

secure, and above all an accurate and inclusive census in every single one of our nation’s communities. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Gupta follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
98 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 59 here 30245.059

NW 

IX 

STATEMENT OF 

VANITA GUPTA, PRESIDENT & CEO 

THE LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS 

"HEARING ON THE 2020 CENSUS" 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

October 12, 2017 

Chainnan Gowdy, Ranking Member Cummings, and Members of the Committee: l am 

Vanita Gupta, president & CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testil'y about planning and preparations for the 2020 

Census. 

The Leadership Conference is a coalition charged by its diverse membership of more than 

210 national organizations to promote and protect the civil and human rights of all persons in 

the United States. Founded in 1950 by A. Philip Randolph, Arnold Aronson, and Roy 

Wilkins, The Leadership Conference works in support of policies that further the goal of 

equality under law through legislative advocacy and public education. 

The Leadership Conference provides a powerful unified voice for the many constituencies of 

the coalition: persons of color, women, children, individuals with disabilities, LGBTQ 

individuals, older Americans, labor unions, major religious groups, civil libertarians, and 

human rights organizations. Given the breadth of our coalition, The Leadership Conference 

is ideally positioned to address many of the most pressing issues affecting the successful 

implementation of Census Bureau programs, surveys, and initiatives. The Leadership 

Conference's coordinating role among so many diverse organizations allows for the sharing 

of different perspectives, as well as the development of broader strategies that occur within 

the purview of any individual organization. All of our work draws on the expertise of the 

cross-section of national organizations, and examines the impact of civil rights policy on a 

broad range of constituencies. 

Our coalition views an accurate and fair census, and the collection of useful, objective data 

about our nation's people, housing, economy, and communities generally, to be among the 

most important civil rights issues of our day. We and the Leadership Conference Census 

Task Force co-chairs, NALEO Educational Fund and Asian Americans Advancing JusticeAAJC, have a long record of first-hand experience working in support of previous censuses. 

For the 20 I 0 Census, we undertook the most comprehensive and extensive effort by a 

stakeholder organization to promote participation in historically hard-to-count communities 

and to mobilize local advocates in support of the census by highlighting the community 
99 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 60 here 30245.060

October 12, 2017 

Page 2 of7 

benefits, civil rights implications, and constitutional imperative of an accurate count. We are now 

building upon our previous work to help ensure that no one is left out ofthe 2020 Census. 

Under the Constitution, Congress bears responsibility for overseeing the census and, by extension, for 

ensuring a fair and accurate count that supports the 141h Amendment's guarantee of equal representation. 

That is why this oversight hearing is so important, and we commend the committee for focusing muchneeded and welcome attention on preparations for our nation's largest, most complex peacetime activity. 

The Leadership Conference shares this committee's interest in a modem and cost-effective census. Those 

are worthwhile goals and important considerations in the design of the 2020 Census. Technology 

undoubtedly can facilitate easy and quick participation in the census for many Americans, and 

administrative data maintained by other government agencies can help streamline and improve some 

census operations. But the primary and overarching goal of the census is a fair and accurate enumeration 

of all people living in the United States on Census Day. The goal of a census that is equally successful in 

all communities is non-negotiable. 

The Imoortance oftbe Census 

Article !, Section 2 of the United States Constitution places the census at the core of our democratic 

system of governance by calling for a count of the nation's population every ten years. The census 

provides information that is the cornerstone ofknowledge about all people in the United States. It is the 

basis for virtually all demographic and socio-economic information used by businesses, policy makers, 

research institutions, and nonprofit organizations. 

The decennial census has several important uses. First, decennial census data on state populations 

determine the number of seats in Congress each state receives and how those districts are drawn, through 

the reapportionment and redistricting processes. Second, the census provides the figures that determine 

the number of electors each state receives for presidential elections. Third, census numbers determine the 

allocation of hundreds of billions of federal program dollars for important community services, such as 

schools, programs for veterans and seniors, modem transportation systems, and rural economic 

development. Fourth, census data are used to monitor compliance with civil rights laws and to determine 

where disparities exist and remediation is required. Finally, the private sector uses census data to make 

important decisions about their businesses, including investment strategies, hiring plans, and location of 

facilities. 

All of these functions depend on a fair and accurate census. For all of these reasons, getting the census 

right is important to everyone. 

Census Accuracy and the Problem of the Undercount 

However, certain population groups-referred to as "hard-to-count"-are at a higher risk of not being 

fully counted in the decennial census. The differential undercount is a disproportionate undercounting of 

these population groups, most notably people of color, young children, and renters (a proxy for low-
100 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 61 here 30245.061

October 12, 2017 

Page 3 of7 

income households), compared to non-Hispanic Whites, seniors, and homeowners. These groups have 

been historically underrepresented in the decennial census for decades; and for some populations--for 

example, young children under age five-the undercount has been getting progressively worse. Now, 

however, additional populations -such as rural residents and older Americans-may experience new or 

increased vulnerability due to major changes in methodology, such as relying on the Internet as the 

primary way for households to respond to the 2020 Census. Others may be reluctant to respond due to 

concerns about data confidentiality. Being hard-to-count can deprive people and their communities of 

equal political representation and their fair share of vital public and private resources. 

Census tracts are considered hard-to-count, according to Census Bureau research, if they have certain 

population and housing characteristics associated with both low self-response and higher likelihood of 

being missed entirely in the census. There are hard-to-count communities in every state, and hard-tocount population groups in communities of all sizes, from large urban areas such as Denver, New York, 

and Omaha, to smaller cities such as Virginia Beach and Little Rock. These examples may be of 

particular interest to members of the Committee: 

• Nearly l 0 percent of census tracts in South Carolina are hard-to-count. 

• 27 percent of Baltimore's population lives in hard-to-count census tracts. 

• Nearly 15 percent of Tennessee census tracts are hard-to-count. 

• One quarter of San Antonio's residents live in hard-to-count census tracts. 

• Ten percent of North Carolinians live in such areas. 

• One in three Oklahomans (34.5 percent) live in neighborhoods or communities that are 

considered more difficult to count and, therefore, are at greater risk of disproportionate 

undercounting. 

• Roughly one in five Illinois census tracts are considered hard-to-count. 

• One in ten Michigan census tracts face similar circumstances, with a staggering 65 percent of 

Detroit residents living in neighborhoods that are harder to count accurately. 

Hard-to-count communities are not confined to urban areas. It may he less well known, but rural and 

remote communities, including American Indian tribal lands and reservations, are also vulnerable to 

disproportionate undercounting in the decennial census, with lower income households especially at risk. 

Eighty-seven percent (87 percent) of the hardest-to-count counties in the 20!0 Census were rural 

counties.' 

According to the Census Bureau's own scientific measurements, the 2010 Census undercount in areas 

counted using a modified method known as Update/Enumerate, was nearly eight percent (7.87 percent). 

Update/Enumerate operations are deployed in areas without city-style addressing or that do not receive 

mail through city-style addressing, such as those where people receive their mail through a Post Office 

Box; in communities affected by significant natural disasters, such as areas still recovering from 

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in the 20 I 0 Census; are especially inaccessible; or have high seasonal 

1 Dr. William P. O'Hare, President, O'Hare Data and Demographic Services, LLC, tabulation for upcoming issue 

brief for the Carsey Institute, University of New Hampshire. 
101 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 62 here 30245.062

October 12, 2017 

Page 4 of7 

vacancy rates. 

The Census Bureau is planning new methods as part of the Update/Enumerate operation for the 2020 

Census, yet it was .forced to cancel all pre-census testing of Update/Enumerate methods due to lack of 

sufficient funding. The first such tests were scheduled for earlier this year, on two American Indian 

reservations and adjacent tribal lands on the North and South Dakota border and in Washington State, as 

well as in Puerto Rico. But the uncertainty of adequate full year funding for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 led the 

Bureau to cancel a112017 census site tests. Similarly, the Census Bureau has canceled two of three dress 

rehearsal sites in 2018 (the 2018 End-to-End Census Test) due to uncertainty about timely and sufficient 

funding. The two eliminated sites- Pierce County, Washington, and the Bluefield-Beckley-Oak Hill 

area of West Virginia- included the only opportunities to test, in a real-time census-like environment, 

special counting methods for rural areas. 

With no testing opportunities on the horizon, the Census Bureau changed its counting plans for most rural 

areas originally slated for Update/Enumerate operations. Instead, the bureau will use an Update/Leave 

method, which it will test in a very limited way in 2018, but not in a rural area. The operational and cost 

implications of this recent design modification are, as yet, unknown. While the bureau has used 

Update/Leave methods in previous censuses, they have not addressed past problems of duplication, and 

potential new challenges of an Internet-focused enumeration, for the 2020 Census. 

Failure to provide adequate resources before the once-a-decade population count will force the Census 

Bureau to shortchange 2020 Census operations designed to improve accuracy in historically undercounted 

communities. This would lead to a resnlt that deprives population groups of equal political representation 

and access to their fair share of public and private resources. Equally important, failure to test all methods 

adequately- due to budget shortfalls- puts the 2020 Census at risk of cost overruns during peak census 

operations. 

A Fair and Accurate Census is At Risk 

The schedule for final census testing, preparations, and implementation over the next three years is 

unrelenting. At this point in the decennial cycle, the Census Bureau requires a sufficient funding ramp-up 

to keep 2020 Census planning and preparations on track. Funding for the decennial census is cyclical and 

traditionally increases significantly in the years ending in "6" through "0." 

Unfortunately, the delay in passing FY 2017 appropriations bills, coupled with underfunding in the final 

"omnibus" measure, forced the Census Bureau to eliminate, streamline, or delay vital planning activities, 

putting a fair and accurate 2020 Census in jeopardy. Furthermore, the Trump administration's original FY 

2018 budget request for the Census Bureau was inadequate and unrealistic. 

These current and anticipated budget constraints are taking a toll on rigorous 2020 Census preparations. 

In addition to the cancellation of two of three planned sites for the 2018 End-to-End Test mentioned 

earlier (a dry run of all census operations that integrates all operations and IT systems for the first time), 

the Census Bureau eliminated the advertising campaign and Partnership Program for the 2018 dress 
102 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 63 here 30245.063

October 12, 2017 

Page 5 of7 

rehearsal. Development ofthe full advertising campaign and Partnership Program, which helps keep costs 

down by boosting self-response and increase accuracy by targeting messages to historically hard-to-count 

communities, is well behind schedule. The original FY 20!8 budget request did not include any funding 

for partnership specialists, who help state and local officials and trusted community leaders support 

census operations through focused outreach and promotion for their constituencies. In addition, 

uncertainties about funding have forced the bureau to "pause" planning for the Census Coverage 

Measurement program, which produces undercount and overcount estimates and tells us how accurate the 

census is. The Census Bureau will not test this operation in the 2018 dress rehearsal as originally planned. 

Simply put, the Census Bureau needs a steady ramp-up in funding to support a critical dress rehearsal, 

deployment of the IT architecture and field infrastructure, and development of a massive communications 

campaign that will encourage people to participate and, therefore, help keep census costs in check. We 

support the proposal in Rep. Carolyn Maloney's new bill, to allocate roughly $1.9 billion for the Census 

Bureau in FY 2018. The additional funding will help the bureau meet growing costs for the data 

collection and processing system; restore advertising and partnership activities to the 2018 End-to-End 

Census Test in Providence County, RI; assess and implement modified census plans for communities in 

Texas, Florida, and other states hit hard by Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, as well as for Puerto Rico and 

the U.S. Virgin Islands; put development of the Integrated Partnership and Communications program 

back on track; and possibly plan a smaller, focused test of census operations in rural communities in 

advance of the 2020 Census. 

Internet Response and Technology 

As this committee knows, the Census Bureau will conduct the first "high-tech" census in 2020. The 

Internet response option could help keep census costs in check by increasing initial response rates, or at 

least holding them steady compared to 2010, thereby saving resources that can be used to find and 

enumerate the hardest to count. Congress must remember, however, that Internet response is not a silver 

bullet. The fact is, not everyone has the same connectivity, security, and comfort with the Internet. The 

Commerce Department's own analyses show that communities of color, rural residents, adults with low 

educational attainment, low income individuals, people with disabilities, and older Americans lag behind 

younger, affluent, highly educated, urban, and White adults in both device and Internet penetration. 

An Internet response option, while offering the promise of cost savings, could lead to poor or uneven 

participation, technological infrastructure failings, or both, thereby increasing the differential undercount. 

A lower-than-projected Internet response rate could strain the Bureau's already limited resources by 

increasing response by paper questionnaire or telephone or, more worrisome, the number of households 

that require door-to-door follow-up. 

Technology also brings cybersecurity threats, real or perceived. The security of the 2020 Census IT 

systems and personal census data is paramount, and the Census Bureau and its federal and private sector 

partners must do everything possible to ensure that security. This means there must be a comprehensive 

back-up plan to address any potential breaches and their consequences for the census process in real time. 

At the same time, the Census Bureau must have an effective communications plan to assure everyone in 

the United States that their personal information is secure - in other words, to build confidence in a high-
103 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 64 here 30245.064

October 12, 2017 

Page 6 of7 

tech census at a time when many people are wary. Lack of confidence in data security could depress 

Internet response rates (more so if a large business or another government agency suffers a cyber-attack 

near the time of the census), thus increasing costs and enumeration challenges considerably. 

It is still possible that a streamlined state-of-the-art program could produce a fair and accurate census, 

while simultaneously meeting Congress' challenging budget restrictions. However, to uphold its 

constitutional duty and ensure an accurate and fully inclusive count, Congress must allocate the resources 

for comprehensive risk management and preparations for real-time back-up methods and operations. 

To address these and other concerns related to a high-tech census, we are pleased to offer for the record a 

new report from The Leadership Conference Education Fund and the Georgetown Center on Poverty and 

Inequality, entitled Counting Everyone in the Digital Age. The report addresses how proposed Internet 

and automation technologies will affect 2020 Census enumeration for groups at risk of being 

undercounted, and includes actionable recommendations for Congress, the administration, and 

community leaders. 

Utilizing Administrative Records 

The Census Bureau is evaluating the use of administrative records to obtain missing information about 

unresponsive households in lieu of in-person, door-to-door follow-up visits by Census enumerators. 

However, the implications of such a methodology for data quality and consistency and census accuracy 

are not clear. There are a number of questions that the Census Bureau must address and resolve before 

stakeholders have confidence that a broad use of these data will not compromise census accuracy or 

undermine the goals of eliminating the differential undercount and collecting more accurate race and 

ethnicity data for all communities. The Bureau will be hindered in resolving outstanding concerns about 

its potential use of administrative records if it conducts an End-to-End Census Test that is far less 

comprehensive than originally planned. We offer for the record a new report, Administrative Records in 

the 2020 U.S. Census: Civil Rights Considerations and Opportunities, which is the culmination of a 

project of the Urban Institute, The Leadership Conference, and the Georgetown Center on Poverty and 

Inequality, to examine, from the perspective of civil rights stakeholders, the benefits and risks of utilizing 

administrative data for the U.S. population in general and for specific vulnerable subpopulations such as 

communities of color, the impoverished, immigrants, homeless, those participating in government 

assistance programs, and others, in the upcoming census. 

Other 2020 Census Challenges 

Counting every person residing in the United States is a difficult endeavor. But even with careful 

planning, several other factors-many out of the Census Bureau's control-pose significant risks to a fair 

and accurate census. 

First, proposals to add untested and unnecessary questions- including about immigration status- to the 

census form at the 11th hour could derail eight years worth of research and testing and result in an 

expensive, yet ultimately failed, census. 
104 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 65 here 30245.065

October 12, 2017 

Page 7 of7 

Second, the reluctance of many individuals to provide personal information voluntarily to the government 

poses an additional barrier to a full count. The Census Bureau will face this challenge in many parts of tbe 

country and in many types of communities. 

Finally, there remains a leadership vacuum at the Bureau following the unexpected resignation of the 

Census Director in June, as well as otber high-level vacancies at tbe Commerce Department and the 

Census Bureau. 

Regrettably, we fear that tbe strict budget constraints Congress has imposed on the 2020 Census add to 

tbese formidable barriers. The Census Bureau will try to minimize undercounting, but will be hampered 

by a smaller footprint in tbe field. Budget shortfalls have caused the cancellation of tbe advertising 

campaign and Partnership Program for tbe End-to-End Census Test and delays in researching and 

developing a full communications campaign and Partnership Program. These activities keep costs down 

by boosting self-response and increase accuracy by targeting messages to motivate response in 

historically hard-to-count communities. A robust Partnership Program is especially critical in light of the 

reaJignment of the Bureau's field office structure following the 2010 Census, including plans to employ, 

at most, half the staffing used for the 20 10 Census. 

Conclusion 

Members of Congress are fully aware that tbe census has political consequences-in fact, the Constitution 

says as much, by basing congressional apportionment and equal representation on the population count. 

But tbe conduct of the census must be strictly nonpartisan and must strive to achieve an equaJiy accurate 

count in all communities. 

The Leadership Conference and its member organizations look forward to working with all members of 

this committee to ensure a cost-effective, secure, and above all, accurate and inclusive census in every 

one of the nation's communities. When people- your constituents -are not counted in the census, tbey 

remain invisible for the next ten years. And overcounts- that is, counting people twice or including 

them by mistake -do not benefit anyone either, because policymakers have a skewed picture of where to 

direct hard-earned, limited taxpayer dollars. There are no do-overs with the census. The Census Bureau 

must get it right tbe first time, and all of us -members of Congress, county officials and mayors, school 

principals, veterans advocates, businesses large and small, and, indeed, every person in the United States 

-must live with the results for the next ten years. 
105 

Chairman GOWDY. I want to thank all four of you for your opening statements. I also want to thank you for doing it in less than 

five minutes, which is something that Members of Congress cannot 

do, so I hope you consider running some time. 

Mr. Cummings, my friend from Maryland. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Certain population groups have historically been 

undercounted in the decennial census, specifically minorities such 

as African Americans, Hispanics, and American Indians on reservations are counted at rates much lower than others. Ms. Gupta, 

what are some of the reasons these groups are undercounted? 

Ms. GUPTA. Well, I think that one significant reason—and it’s 

particularly of concern right now—is the mistrust of the Federal 

Government and whether communities will be—whether their information when filling out the census will be safe and not used for 

enforcement purposes or— and the like is particularly I would say 

right now among—in immigrant communities, but there’s also a 

real concern around the digital divide and what that might do 

with—and I would say it’s even more acute in rural communities, 

as well as, you know, real concerns around cybersecurity and 

whether their information is going to be breached and the like. 

But a lot of hard-to-count—a lot of these harder-to-count communities, with communities of color, there is a lot of mobility in these 

communities. They need to be—have trusted partners in the field 

from the census, whether it’s through organizations like the ones 

that make up the Leadership Conference or through trusted partnerships with the Census Bureau to have trusted messengers that 

are explaining the purpose of the census, why it’s important to be 

counted, and that’s why the partnership program and the communications aspects of the census need to be adequately funded because without that, there’s no chance of getting an accurate count, 

and that will ultimately fail the entire census and the country. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. One thing that Secretary Ross said to the chairman and I the other day is that the cost of labor he thinks has to 

go up because you have got to get a certain kind of person, the type 

that you just talked about, and to get—and I was just trying—as 

you were talking, I was trying to figure out how do you penetrate 

that? I mean, how do you get past that problem because if people 

are not trusting of government, if they are worried about immigration issues maybe not for themselves but for family members, and 

then there are some people that just—they don’t even know what 

the census is. All they know is that the government is knocking on 

their door. And any time the government is knocking on their door, 

they assume that it is something bad. I know because I lived in a 

neighborhood like that. So how do you get past that? 

Ms. GUPTA. Well, I really think it’s critical that the census 

have—the Bureau have the infrastructure around the communications machinery and the partnership program. And we were encouraged—I was encouraged today when I heard the Secretary talk 

about a projected communications budget of $500 million, but I 

think it’s really important to ensure that there is enough money to 

actually promote census participation in our many diverse communities and to address some of the unprecedented challenges that 

the 2020 census is going to be facing around, as I said, the mistrust 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
106 

of government, cybersecurity fears, fear of Federal Government 

agencies. 

And I think it’s deeply important that the Commerce Department 

and the Census Bureau consult closely with stakeholders who know 

these communities well, who are in these communities, who can be 

trusted messengers and know best how to convey the information 

and the value of what it means to be counted. And that’s the only 

way I think that we’re going to be able to ensure that there’s a fair 

and accurate count. And of course there’s already deep concerns 

about the canceled testing and the like that could have other implications for the accuracy of the census in the next—in 2020. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Talking about the canceled testing, I understand 

that one test the Bureau canceled in 2017 due to insufficient funds 

was to be conducted on tribal land, including on the Standing Rock 

Reservation. Is that what you are referring to? Considering that 

Native Americans were the most undercounted group of the 2010 

census, this is a very significant. 

Ms. Gupta, what are the implications of canceling this and other 

critical tests, particularly for rural areas and American Indian reservations? 

Ms. GUPTA. Well, you know, it’s the—there’s a statistic that we 

have that 87 percent of the hardest-to-count counties in the 2010 

census were rural counties, and given that this is the first hightech census, I think there’s a lot of questions that you have heard 

a lot of concerns both about cybersecurity, about whether there’s 

going—the technology is going to work. While obviously we all 

want a modernized census, you have to be able to test it, and testing it in rural communities as well as in hard-to-count communities 

is going to be really important to be able to actually get it done in 

2020. And the fact that they canceled because of insufficient funding three out of four of the census test runs, end-to-end test runs 

is really of great concern, and it will hamper—this lack of preparation, you know, could very well hamper the accuracy and fairness 

of the census count in 2020. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. With the chair’s indulgence, I just have one question, one last question. The alleged cost savings of such cancellations are, as they say, penny wise but pound foolish. Mr. 

Goldenkoff? 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Yes. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. GAO has reported that higher response rates 

save money. Can you try to explain that to us? 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Sure. The most cost-effective way to count people is when they fill out the questionnaire that’s either mailed to 

them or when they self-respond via the internet. Every time—and 

if they don’t self-respond through either of those methods, then the 

Census Bureau has to send out enumerators to knock on their 

doors and—as many as six times. And so you can see how costs add 

up very quickly. It’s both in terms of the time that the enumerators 

are paid for, the wages that they earn, as well as for the mileage 

that they’re reimbursed. So the most cost-effective way of conducting the census is to get up to increase that initial count. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Powner, I was sitting here trying to figure out whether anything could be more inherently predictable than the decennial cenVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:59 Jun 26, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\30245.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
107 

sus. I really am struggling to think of something that you see that 

far in advance that is coming. So not to ask this in too sophisticated of a way, but how the hell did we get here if we know it is 

coming every 10 years? How do you get on a critical watchlist? 

Mr. POWNER. Well, the thing that’s a bit frustrating is the same 

thing happen in 2010, and we actually were involved in that in 

2010. So that’s when we canceled the handheld project. This committee held multiple hearings on the overruns there and the eventual cancellation. The interesting comment that Secretary Ross 

talked about, 80 percent of the monies going from—beyond 2018, 

from an IT perspective, that should not be the case. We should 

start early, plan more appropriately, get the right contracts in 

place, and deliver. 

What happens with the decennial historically and it’s going to 

happen again, can we get this done late and secure it late? Yes. 

But you know what it’s going to be? It’s going to be at higher cost. 

You pay a premium for doing everything late. I would have major 

concerns about the 15.6 and still hitting that even with the 10 percent when you look at the IT management of this. 

The thing that’s good is having the Commerce Department’s governance and oversight I think will greatly help, but we still haven’t 

changed the basic management of how we’re doing things at the 

Census Bureau, so we would still have concerns about additional 

cost overruns going forward. But it is—it’s not acceptable that we 

repeat the same sins of the past that we do every 10 years with 

the decennial. 

Chairman GOWDY. It is really hard to explain to the same people 

that you are trying to convince to voluntarily comply, which leads 

to my next question. What are the impediments? Mr. Goldenkoff, 

what are the impediments to what I call voluntary compliance, although I am sure that is not the right technical term? 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Sure. There are a number of barriers. One 

that was already mentioned was just declining civic engagement. 

People are increasingly disconnected from the government, you 

know, so that requires trust, building trust between the Census 

Bureau and the public. There’s also a cultural divide. You know, 

when—and it was already mentioned, too, when the government 

comes knocking on your door, you know, the census is sometimes 

seen as not something that’s done for you or on your behalf. It’s 

sometimes seen as something that’s done to you. It’s not always 

seen in a positive light. 

Then there’s structural barriers, people living in makeshift housing, nonconventional housing, people doubling up, people living in 

basements and converted attics, so they’re just physically hard to 

find. There are language barriers out there, so just reaching those 

folks is difficult as well. 

And this is why all this upfront work is so important and why 

the Census Bureau is at the point that it is right now. It’s very difficult to make up for either funding that was not provided or time 

that’s already elapsed. You can get behind the curve very quickly. 

Chairman GOWDY. Well, accepting the fact that we can’t do all 

of the preplanning for 2020 that needed to be done in 2012, 2013, 

so the best we can do is the 2030 census there. With specific reference to the 2020 that is coming up, if I heard the testimony right, 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
108 

there is an opening in the census director’s office? So I’m going to 

start with Ms. Gupta. If you were the census director and you got 

to do one thing and you have got to do it today, upon the chance 

that Mr. Ross or his folks may be listening, what is the single most 

important thing you would do today for the 2020 census? 

Ms. GUPTA. It’s hard to say a single thing. I think two—a couple 

things need to happen all at once. The IT infrastructure needs to 

be tested clearly for all of the reasons that have been previously 

stated. And I think that the partnership and communications campaigns need to be out there starting in the next couple of months. 

They’ve got to ramp up this whole infrastructure in order to really 

educate folks about why it’s important to be counted and to overcome some of the real concerns around mistrusting government and 

cybersecurity. 

And so—and, you know, I want to add that when the Secretary 

was testifying, he said that he anticipated 800 partnership specialists, which is well below the 2010 number of 3,800, and so those 

plans are still inadequate, and I just think that right now there is 

a lot of concern that the hardest-to-count communities are not 

going to be adequately counted, and that will result in a failed census even with the $1.6 billion if allocated. And so we have to— 

there has to be an immediate investment in that infrastructure and 

kind of real planning around it, just as there is with the IT. 

Chairman GOWDY. Ms. Rice, what is the single most or two if you 

want—what needs to be done today, given the fact that we can’t 

change the lack of preplanning? 

Ms. RICE. I really think the IT infrastructure has to be in place. 

We don’t want to be in a position where we were in 2010 where— 

and they had to revert to a paper-based operation at the last 

minute. And they didn’t have the—they had some infrastructure 

there, and they had to build on it, and it was a problem. There 

were backlogs, and they—you know, the office sizes weren’t compatible for a paper operation. I mean, there were—it was just a 

trickle down, all the problems. They got it done, but it wasn’t pretty. So getting that IT infrastructure in place, it’s —— 

Chairman GOWDY. Mr. Powner, you can’t use the word infrastructure. What would you do? 

Mr. POWNER. So with the IT, and that’s my world, Mr. Chairman, I would say those 43 systems need to be delivered and secured. And, you know, we have this data in our testimony that 

looks all neat and every—it’s very difficult to get a handle on 

where all the systems are from a delivery point of view, integration 

and security. That needs to be managed weekly. Someone needs to 

dog that weekly in terms of what we got done, what remains next 

week, and are we going to hit those dates. There’s key dates in 

early 2018 that are going to be key to getting this stuff delivered 

to be included in the end-to-end test, so you have to dog the 43 systems from a security perspective, Chairman. 

Representative Hurd’s comments about the ATO process, it’s fine 

to bring in people, but you know what, you need to actually do the 

assessments and you need to fix the vulnerabilities and you need 

to sign off on the ATOs. That needs to be managed weekly to ensure that that gets done and we don’t have a major breach. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
109 

Chairman GOWDY. Mr. Goldenkoff, last question, the diminution 

of public trust, it didn’t happen overnight. It is not going to be remedied overnight. What is something that perhaps Members of Congress haven’t thought about or what is something you would do to 

try to restore some modicum of public trust so we can raise the voluntary compliance rate in 2020? 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Sure. It’s—I don’t—you know, off the top of my 

head I don’t think there’s anything new, and I would certainly be 

leery of trying anything that has not been used before at this point 

just because it will be one more risk for the Bureau to have to 

manage. What I think needs to be done is focus on the tried-andtrue methods, things that are known to work, and I would point 

to the partnership specialists and the whole communication and 

outreach campaign. 

The partnership specialists are so critical for engaging the different people that they represent, their different stakeholder 

groups, and they’re the ones who create the trust. They are the 

trusted voices. If, you know, Secretary Ross or any of us goes up 

on TV or, you know, makes—encourages people to respond to the 

census, it’s not going to have the same level of response as people 

who know the community, your local minister, your school principal. 

It was mentioned before that the Census Bureau hopes to hire 

as many as 800 partnership specialists. That sounds like a large 

number, but if you just look at the workload, if you think if there 

are over 3,000 counties in this country, that’s a huge workload for 

them. It’s a three-dimensional issue. They have to cover both physical geography, the different channels of communication, plus the 

deep dive into all the different communities. And so I think a focus 

then on the partnership campaign and making sure that that’s adequately funded and gets the resources they need will be critical for 

increasing the count in hard-to-count communities. 

Chairman GOWDY. Mr. Palmer. 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Rice, can you provide your initial thoughts and observations 

of the 2018 end-to-end testing? 

Ms. RICE. Sure. So we did visit all three locations and found— 

just to remind everybody about 2010, they actually did use a device 

in 2010. The field data collection automation worked for address 

canvassing. They abandoned it for NRFU or nonresponse follow-up. 

So using a device in the field for address canvassing they did last 

decennial, so it actually went, all things considered, okay. I didn’t 

see any major —— 

Mr. PALMER. Was there any aspect of the testing stand out to 

you as raising any potential issue for future address canvassing? 

Ms. RICE. We did think that in the rural areas that there’s something called an optimizer that sends the lister to a location, that 

it wasn’t as efficient as maybe it could have been. We’re trying to 

look into that as—to find out why. But there were people—some 

folks traveling a couple of hours to get to locations, which seems 

fairly inefficient. 

Mr. PALMER. Well, your office raised some issues. You actually 

published a report questioning the Bureau’s in-office address canvassing cost estimates, as well as warning that an increase in the 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
110 

infield canvassing could increase cost. Will the percentage of addresses sent for infield work during the testing be a factor in your 

review as you consider that issue? 

Ms. RICE. Yes. So the in-office address canvassing basically determines whether something—a block looks like it grew or changed. 

So if indeed the test—the results don’t show that that process 

worked very well, there will be more infield address canvassing, 

and that will raise costs. The Bureau is in the process of putting 

out a study to show the effectiveness of in-office address canvassing. We, too, plan on trying to look at that to see how well it 

worked because that is a concern. If in-office address canvassing 

isn’t predicting the infield workload, that can be a problem, and it 

can —— 

Mr. PALMER. Is that part of the increase in the cost estimate? Is 

that already taken into account or is that going to be in addition 

to what they are saying we are needing now? 

Ms. RICE. Yes, my understanding is because the in-office address 

canvassing consisted of two pieces, the interactive review, which 

was satellite imagery, and then the second part was an active block 

resolution where they take the results from the imagery and try to 

find the households. They canceled the active block review, and 

those housing units will now go into infield address canvassing. So 

that will create an increase. 

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Goldenkoff, in panel one with Secretary Ross 

it got a little intense in some of the questions that were asked, and 

part of the issue is that the Census Bureau has I think pretty evident a poor track record in addressing flaws and problems that 

have been identified by the OIG office and GAO. Would you like 

to enlighten us a little bit on this relationship between your office 

and the Census Bureau and their willingness to follow up on the 

things that you have suggested —— 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Sure. 

Mr. PALMER.—which your office has suggested? 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. In that respect, you know, we’re encouraged by 

willingness to work with us and other stakeholder groups. Just 

some examples of the way that we engaged the Census Bureau, on 

a monthly basis we meet with the acting director and deputy director and before that with the director of the Census Bureau. We 

share information about ongoing problems. We do have regular discussions about the progress that they’re making on implementing 

our recommendations. They’re much more transparent than they 

used to be. I’ve been involved with census issues since 1997, and 

there really has been a sea change in terms of the culture at the 

Census Bureau and their willingness to work with outside groups, 

us. And going into the 2000 census, it was very standoffish, tried 

to keep GAO at bay and other organizations. Now, they embrace 

our recommendations, and that goes all the way up to the Department of Commerce level as well. We’ve had some meetings with 

Commerce Secretary, and they been very effective and very willing 

to work with us. 

Mr. PALMER. And you said currently I think—I’m not sure exactly the way you used it, but one of the questions that I raised 

to Secretary Ross is the fact that the GAO had a high-risk list. You 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
111 

issued 30 recommendations over three years but only six of them 

were fully implemented by January. 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Right. 

Mr. PALMER. And obviously under Secretary Ross he inherited 

that problem. I think what we on the committee would like to determine is how much willingness is there to work with the GAO 

or Mr. Powner with the OIG’s office to resolve these issues and do 

it in a timely manner? Is that what you are finding now, that there 

is this willingness, a —— 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Oh, absolutely. They really embrace our recommendations now, and that was not the case a decade or more 

ago. 

Mr. PALMER. Well, I think both your offices had expressed some 

concerns that the Bureau is failing to adequately test systems and 

products, and that was one of the issues raised by my colleague 

from Georgia. I appreciated Secretary Ross’ answer that you can’t 

test a system until the system is in place, but one of the things, 

again, that we emphasized to the Secretary is that we want him 

to test the systems and we want the test results to be used in the 

decision-making process. Are you finding them to be working in an 

agreeable manner on that? 

Mr. POWNER. So, first of all, they had delivered the systems, so 

once we get all the systems delivered, there is a plan to test it in 

an integrated fashion. I will give the Bureau credit that they did 

higher an integration contractor to help with that. We think that’s 

a good thing. The issue ends up being can they get all that delivered, integrated, and secured in the time that remains? It’s highly 

likely not everything will be in 2018 end-to-end test, and—so what 

does that mean? That means they’re going to have to test it post 

end-to-end test. And again, it’s not that it can’t be done, but there 

is—you know, you’re compressing testing schedules. There’s higher 

risk. There’s more cost and that type of thing. But that something 

that we will monitor closely to ensure all those integration tests 

are done appropriately. 

Mr. PALMER. When was that contract awarded to that contractor? 

Mr. POWNER. Pardon me? 

Mr. PALMER. When did they award this contract to the contractor? 

Mr. POWNER. That would have been in the summer of ’16. 

Mr. PALMER. Is there a particular reason why they can’t get the 

work done so that it could be tested pre-census? 

Mr. POWNER. Well, they’re trying to get it done so—pre-census. 

I mean, they’re working hard to get that done. That integration 

contractor is relying on other contracts—contractors to deliver their 

systems. And again, you know, we missed milestones. We had some 

late starts, and they kind of inherited a bad problem, so they’re 

kind of coming in to mop up. 

Mr. PALMER. Well, I appreciate your willingness to come before 

the committee today and answer our questions. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman GOWDY. The gentleman from Alabama yields back. 

On behalf of all the members of the committee, I want to thank 

you for your time today, for your expertise, and your commitment 

to an accurate census in 2020. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
112 

The hearing record will remain open for two weeks for any member to submit a written opening statement or questions for the 

record. 

If there is no further business, thank you again for your testimony today, and we are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:02 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(113) 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
114 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 66 here 30245.066

Hearing on the 2020 Census 

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

10:00 AM, Thursday, October 12, 2017 

2154RHOB 

Rep. Gerald E. Connolly (D-VA) 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing on the Census Bureau's preparations 

for the 2020 Census. I would also like to thank Secretary Ross and our second panel of 

witnesses for testifying before the Committee today. 

The decennial census is one of the most important operations undertaken by the federal 

government. It is one of the few functions mandated in the Constitution. The data collected 

during each decennial census is used to apportion seats of the House of Representatives, redraw 

congressional districts, and allocate billions of dollars each year in federal financial assistance. 

State and local governments as well as the private sector use census data for planning purposes 

and to better serve their customers. That is why a complete count is so crucial. Undercounting or 

double counting certain populations will have consequences lasting ten years or more. 

The 2020 Census has faced funding challenges unlike any previous decennial census. 

Historically, census funding increases dramatically in the last three years of the decade as the 

Census Bureau ramps up preparations for taking the census. Funding increased in the last three 

years of the decade by 399 percent leading up to the 1990 Census, 1,199 percent leading up to 

the 2000 Census, and 666 percent leading up to the 2010 Census. Using these historical trends, 

the Census Bureau should have received $2.3 billion for FY 2018. However, this Administration 

requested just under $1.5 billion for the Census Bureau in FY 2018, with only $800 million 

going to 2020 Census activities. 

This is only the latest in a series of actions that have been taken since 2012 to starve the 

Census Bureau and hinder preparations for the 2020 Census. After the 2010 Census, there was 

widespread agreement that to avoid huge cost overruns in the last year of the census, Congress 

must adequately invest in decennial operations early in the cycle. This was especially important 

given the Bureau's decision to have the internet be the primary response option for the 2020 

Census. Unfortunately, Congress funded the Census Bureau an average of 11.54 percent below 

what the Bureau requested from FY 2012 through FY 2017. Most recently, the Census Bureau 

was forced to operate at FY 2016 funding levels for the first half ofFY 2017 and ultimately 

received $163.6 million below its annual funding request for the remainder of the fiscal year. 

This affected the Bureau's ability to plan and conduct tests, develop critical IT systems, and 

invest in other cost-saving efforts. 

It is troubling that the Census Bureau has scaled back several decennial related tests 

including the 2018 End-to-End test, especially since the 2020 Census has been redesigned to 

include re-engineered and automated field operations, the use of administrative records in certain 

1 
115 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 67 here 30245.067

instances, and an internet self-response option. Without thorough testing of these new methods, 

the Census Bureau will not be able to discover and resolve potential problems. Given the number 

of new technologies, operations, and methods that are being used in the 2020 Census there 

should be more - not less - testing. 

With less than three years before Census Day, the Bureau must ramp up preparations for 

the 2020 Census and make increasingly critical decisions without a Senate-confirmed Director. 

Due to the presidential transition in 2009, the position was left vacant for seven months leading 

up to the 201 0 Census. Recognizing the importance of having continuous Senate-confirmed 

leadership in place in the months and years leading up to a census, Congress passed legislation 

that would align the appointment of the Census Director with the decennial cycle rather than 

with presidential administrations. This 2012 law provided for a Census Director to be appointed 

to a five-year term in years ending in "2" and "7" to prevent a similar vacancy from occurring 

leading up to the 2020 Census. However, with Director Thompson's resignation in June and 

without a nominee from this Administration, we are looking at another lengthy vacancy at a time 

when the Bureau needs permanent leadership to spearhead efforts to address the growing 

challenges of the census preparations. 

I am most concerned about whether Census Bureau's IT systems will be ready and secure 

on Census Day, April I, 2020. As reported in written testimony by the Government 

Accountability Office (GAO), two of the systems expected to be used in the self-response 

operation (the Internet self-response system and the call center system) are at risk of not meeting 

already delayed milestone dates. Without these systems, the Census Bureau will have to conduct 

the 2020 Census by pen and paper, the same method in which it conducted the first census in 

1790. Despite this and other challenges in IT development and integration, the Bureau insists that 

all 4 3 IT systems will be ready for decennial operations. This is similar to what Congress heard 

from the Bureau regarding the Field Data Collection Automation (FDCA) program leading up to 

the 2010 Census. Yet two years before the 2010 Census and after spending $595 million to 

develop handheld computers to conduct the census, the Bureau pulled the plug on FDCA and 

decided to revert to a paper-based census. I fear we are going down the same road again, or 

worse, that the Census Bureau's internet response option will launch with problems comparable 

to the launch ofhealthcare.gov. Time is running out, and it is imperative that the Census Bureau 

gets this done correctly. 

I look forward to hearing from Secretary Ross about the Administration's plans to get 

2020 Census operations on track, including whether the Administration will request 

supplemental funding so that the Bureau will have adequate resources to help it address IT 

development and integration as well as other operations that are behind schedule. I also look 

forward to hearing from our witnesses on other issues the Bureau will have to address in the run 

up to the 2020 Census and the risks of continuing to underfund the Census Bureau. 

2 
116 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 68 here 30245.068

The Leadership Conference reports titled, "Counting Everyone in the Digital Age," and 

"Administrative Records in the 2020 U.S. Census: Civil Rights Considerations and 

Opportunities," referenced in Ms. Gupta's written statement can be found at 

http://www.civilrightsdocs.info/pdf/reports/Counting-Everyone-in-the-Digital-Age.pdf and at 

https:/ /www. urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/90446/census _ ar _report. pdf. 
117 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 69 here 30245.069

CONGRESSIONAL 

MONY 

STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD BY 

J. DAVID COX SR., NATIONAl PRESIDENT 

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFl-CIO {AFGE) 

BEFORE 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

ON 

CENSUS 2020 

October 12, 2017 
118 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 70 here 30245.070

Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Cummings and Members of the Committee. My 

name is J. David Cox, Sr. and ! am the National President of the American Federation 

of Government Employees, AFL-CIO On behalf of the more than 700,000 

federal and District of Columbia workers represented by our union, 

approximately 3,500 at the Bureau of the Census, I thank you for the opportunity to 

submit a statement for the record the 2020 Census. 

The Constitutionally required Census is a cornerstone of our democracy. The Census 

has been conducted every ten years since 1790. The 2020 Census is less than three 

years away and must be funded to be successful. This is not a 

issue. It is essential that the enumeration be as accurate as possible. Even after 

rmnnl"'t""' the first Census, both of State Thomas Jefferson and President 

expressed skepticism as to the accuracy of the results, n"'l'"'"'"" 

there has been an undercount 1 

Because the FY 2017 bills were not passed on time and because 

were underfunded, the Census Bureau had to cut back on important activities 

that may potentially diminish the success of the 2020 Census. 

As the Committee is aware, a critical 2018 dress rehearsal called the End-to-End 

Census Test has been limited due to a lack of funding. The Census Bureau cancelled 

two major portions of the 2017 Census Test: on-site tests in Puerto Rico and on two 

Native American reservations in North and South Dakota and Washington State. These 

were opportunities to test new enumeration in rural areas. Now there will 

only be one test in Rhode Island with its that does not n"''"""''~"'rilv 

reflect many other parts ofthe country. 

The Census Bureau is the leading source of data about the nation's people, 

workforce and economy. Depriving the Census Bureau of sufficient funding jeopardizes 

the success of the Census and will have drastic repercussions for the American people. 

the results of the decennial Census are used to apportion the seats of 

the U.S. House of Representatives. However, over the decades and after more than 

two centuries of Census history, the results of the Census are now used for so much 

more. The Census is used to the boundaries of the legislative districts of each 

2 
119 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 71 here 30245.071

state; allocate billions of dollars in federal financial assistance; and provide a snapshot 

of how people are presently living in the country. 2 In addition, Census data informs 

decisions on where money should be spent on schools, hospitals, and infrastructure. 

The private sector uses Census data to make major economic decisions: Where to 

build housing, factories and workplaces? Where will new markets emerge and other 

markets develop? 

Census Bureau employees, including those represented by AFGE, are dedicated public 

servants whose tireless work strengthens American businesses, infrastructure projects, 

hospitals, nonprofits, and, of course, State and local governments throughout the 

country. 

While this Committee conducts oversight and focuses on the lessons learned from 

planning for the 2020 Census, it should not lose sight of the criticality of the mission of 

the Bureau. We hope that the Committee's review and oversight results in a stronger 

and more comprehensive plan for conducting the 2020 Census, rather than focusing on 

blame for any shortcomings that are highlighted. 

We understand that one area of focus for this Committee has been on budgeting for the 

2020 Census. While AFGE does not express an opinion on the comprehensiveness, 

quality or assumptions used to develop the 2020 Census budget estimates, we are 

concerned that in the present climate this exercise not degenerate into a "blame game." 

There is simply too much at stake. While Census spending cannot be unlimited, neither 

can it be shortchanged. Pressure to unrealistically conduct a project as large as the 

2020 Census on "the cheap" will only increase the probability of serious issues with the 

results. 

Lastly, AFGE notes that there is no permanent Senate-confirmed Bureau Director. This 

has a negative impact on the ability of the Census Bureau to successfully complete its 

work. It is important that the Bureau have competent and experienced leadership, 

including a Presidentially-appointed, Senate-confirmed Director. Although this particular 

matter may be beyond the control of the Committee, AFGE wishes to stress the 

importance of filling this critical position and ensuring that high-level Executive Branch 

attention be focused on the 2020 Census. 

2 See GA0-17-317, February 2017 

3 
120 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 72 here 30245.072

We share the concerns of this Committee that Census 2020 be well-managed, efficient 

and effective, and we will work with you as we maintain high quality government 

services provided by the Bureau's dedicated public servants. 

Thank you for considering our comments. 

4 
121 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 73 here 30245.073

October 26, 20 17 

The Honorable Trey Gowdy 

Chairman 

Oversight and Government Reform Committee 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Elijah Cummings 

Ranking Member 

Oversight and Government Reform Committee 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Members of the House Oyersight and Goverrunent Reform Committee: 

We, the undersigned members of the Interreligious Working Group on Domestic Human Needs, in response 

to the House Oversight Committee Hearing held on October 12, 2017, urge Congress to increase funding to 

$1.935 billion for the U.S. Census Bureau for FY 2018, in accordance with the 2020 American Census 

Investment Act (HR 40 13). Our various faith traditions compel us to care for those most in need, and 

providing adequate funding for an effective 2020 Census is a crucial prerequisite for federal policies and 

programs to respond to the needs of everyone in the country, especially marginalized communities. 

As faith leaders, we know that the census is an essential tool to understand ourselves as a people. In the 

Christian tradition, for example, the story of Jesus begins with his parents' journey to be counted. In the 

Hebrew Scriptures Moses also counted the Israelites. Today, many of our churches and congregations use 

the census to allocate future resources and define parish lines, or to understand where new churches are 

most needed. As a nation, an accurate census plays an important role in ensuring all people can live with 

dignity by increasing access to vital safety net support services. 

Current funding levels for the Census Bureau are woefully inadequate to perform a fair, accurate and 

modem 2020 Decennial Census. The $1.507 billion approved by the House for FY 2018, is $14 million 

below the recommendation by the Senate Appropriations Committee and does not reflect even the 

conservatively adjusted FY 2018 funding needs estimated by the Commerce Department'. Funding 

shortfalls in FY 2017 have already impaired preparations and testing in the ramp-up to the 2020 Decennial 

which have, in tum, contributed to higher funding needs in FY 2018. Uncertainty about congressional 

appropriations in FY 2018 has already caused the Census Bureau to halt plans for important tests and is 

increasingly putting the success ofthe 2020 Census at risk. 

An underfunded, inaccurate 2020 Census will skew the projections of needed resources and programs away 

from the communities that need them most. Historically, we have seen a disproportionate undercounting of 

people of color, young children, and renters, an indicator for low-income households. These groups have 

been underrepresented in previous decennial censuses for decades; and for some populations-for example, 

young children-the undercount has been getting progressively worse. We know that, in 20 l 0 for example, 

2.2 million children under the age of five were not included in the census results.'; Now, additional 

populations- such as rural residents and older Americans-may experience new or increased vulnerability 

to being undercounted due to major changes in meth()dology, such as relying on the Internet as the primary 

way for households to respond to the 2020 Census'". Being hard-to-count can deprive people and their 

communities of equal political representation and their fair share of vital public and private resources. 

If the Census Bureau does not receive increased funding to properly prepare and carry-out the 2020 

Decennial count, we fear that the most vulnerable in our communities will be undercounted and under-
122 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 74 here 30245.074

supported. While we come from different faith traditions, we support an effective and equitable 2020 

Census because: 

We share a belief in human dignity for all; 

We know federal assistance plays an important role in ensuring all people can live with dignity by 

increasing access to affordable housing, health, and nutrition; 

• The 2020 Census will determine the allocation of $450 billion in federal assistance to state and local 

governments for the implementation of crucial programs; these programs are crucial to our ability to 

minister to those most in need; 

• State and local rebuilding and recovery efforts for areas impacted by recent natural disasters will need 

to utilize Census data to help these devastated communities heal; 

Census data is used to monitor and enforce important federal programs that enable people to live into 

their full potential, such as the Job Training Partnership Act, the Older Americans Act, and the Civil 

Rights Act. 

Undercounting communities reduces their political representation and decreases their share of federal 

funding and support, further marginalizing them; and 

A poorly-funded Census will negatively affect all, but particularly those most in need who will go 

uncounted if the Census Bureau cannot adequately prepare. 

As an interreligious community of organizations, we urge you to support an equitable Census as a moral 

obligation. Our faith traditions teach that all humans possess inherent dignity-that everybody counts. 

Therefore, we believe that nobody should go uncounted in our democracy. It is unacceptable that 

inadequate funding would render the Census Bureau unable to meet the requirement of conducting a 

decennial census that counts everyone. We urge you to fulfill your Constitutional and moral obligation for 

a fair and accurate 2020 Census by appropriating $1.935 billion to fund the Census Bureau for FY 2018. 

Sincerely, 

Bread for the World 

Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good 

Disciples Center for Public Witness 

Ecumenical Poverty Initiative 

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America 

Franciscan Action Network 

Friends Committee on National Legislation 

Jewish Council for Public Affairs 

MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger 

Methodist Federation for Social Action 

National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd 

National Council of Churches 

National Council of Jewish Women 

NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice 

Pax Christi USA 

Congregation of Our Lady of Charity of the Good Shepherd, US Provinces 

The United Methodist Church- General Board of Church and Society 

Union For Reform Judaism 

United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries 

2 
123 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 75 here 30245.075

cc: Senator Richard Shelby, Chair, Commerce Justice and Science and Related Agencies 

Subcommittee 

Senator Jeanne Shaheen, Ranking Member, Commerce Justice and Science and Related Agencies 

Subcommittee 

Representative John Culberson, Chair, Commerce Justice and Science and Related Agencies 

Subcommittee 

Representative Jose Serrano, Ranking Member, Commerce Justice and Science and Related 

Agencies Subcommittee 

' Wilbur Ross, Secretary of Commerce; Committee on Oversight and Government Reform; U.S. House of 

Representatives; 12 October 2017. < https://oversight.house.gov/wp-contentiuploads/20 1711 0/Written-SWLR-HOGRTestimony-FINAL.pdf> 

"U.S.Census Bureau (2016). U.S. Census Bureau (2016b) Investigating the 2010 Undercount of Young 

Children-A New Look at 2010 Census Omissions by Age, July 26, 2016. 

"'Yanita Gupta, President and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights 

https://civilrights.org/statement-vanita-gupta-house-committee-oversight-government-reform-hearing-2020-census/ 

3 
124 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 76 here 30245.076

House Oversight and Government Reform Hearing 

QFRs to Secretary Wilbur Ross 

Hearing Date: October 12, 2017 

Majority Members 

1) The Bureau is planning to use multiple methods to get individuals to respond to the 

Census without having to conduct nonresponse follow-up operations. What is the 

resultant savings for the Bureau for each one percent increase in self-response rates? 

a. What is the potential savings that result from a one percent increase in selfresponse by the internet? 

b. What is the potential savings for a one percent increase in call in self-response 

rates? 

c. What is the potential savings that result for a one percent increase in mail-in selfresponse rates? 

d. What can the Bureau do to increase that number and capture those savings? 

The Census Bureau estimates that the cost of the 2020 Census is reduced by $55 million for 

every percentage point increase in the self-response rate. The Census Bureau has not broken this 

out by mode. It currently projects a 60.5 percent self-response rate, with 45 percent responding 

via the internet, 4.3 percent by phone, and 11.2 percent returning a paper questionnaire. 

The Census Bureau is committed to maximizing self-response rates across all demographic and 

socio-economic groups in the 2020 Census, particularly for traditionally hard-to-count 

populations. Their top priority is to have a complete and accurate count of everyone. At the 

same time, the innovative adaptive design approach they have planned and tested has the 

potential to achieve costs savings through increased self-response rates and reduced field work. 

• The mail contact strategy will include up to six mailings to each housing unit. This 

contact strategy has been designed based on our findings from the 2020 research and 

testing program and best practices in survey methodology. About 80 percent of U.S. 

households will receive a mailing that encourages them to respond online. The Census 

Bureau calls this the Internet First strategy. 

• Approximately 20 percent of the country will receive the Internet Choice strategy, in 

which we will include a paper questionnaire in the first mailing. These households are 

located in areas that we have identified as less likely to use the internet or with 

historically low response rates. 

• All households that do not respond after the third mailing will receive a paper 

questionnaire in the fourth mailing. 

• In addition to responding by mail or the internet, all households have the option to 

respond by telephone through our Census Questionnaire Assistance centers. The centers 
125 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 77 here 30245.077

will also be available to assist people with any questions about the decennial census. 

Telephone assistance will be available in multiple languages. 

2 

• Further, the online self-response option will be in 12 languages, and will allow responses 

with or without a unique Census ID, to make it easy to respond anytime and anyplace. 

• Finally, the 2020 Census will have a robust integrated partnerships and communications 

program that will include extensive outreach and promotion to generate awareness about 

the Census and motivate people to respond. This will include broad partnership support 

at local levels through trusted voices in each community. 

2) The most recent Australian Census experienced a prolonged shutdown of its internet 

based self-response platform. What contingency plans has the Bureau put in place in 

the event the internet self-response platform becomes unavailable for a prolonged 

period of time? 

The Census Bureau has been in close contact with IT and program managers in Australia, 

Canada, and other countries that have moved to Internet Self-Response for their censuses and 

surveys. It has gained valuable information about the issues they faced, which included public 

concerns about privacy and phishing, and the problems they had to overcome, including denial of 

service attacks. Census also learned a great deal from the solutions they developed, particularly 

in Australia. The Census Bureau's IT experts are working closely with other federal government 

experts and private sector experts to ensure that the Internet Self-Response system is as resilient 

as possible to prolonged outages. Census is testing the self-response platform in numerous ways, 

including during the peak operations of the 2018 End-to-End test in Providence County, Rhode 

Island. It is performing load tests based on demand models on the self-response platform. It also 

is implementing enough redundancy to ensure continuity of operations (for example, every 

cluster of hardware in the system is duplicated and placed in different locations, and A WS 

maintains two data centers). The Census Bureau also has contingency plans in place should a 

prolonged outage occur including expanding NRFU or directing more responses to Census 

Questionnaire Assistance. If the Internet Self-Response platform becomes unavailable for a 

prolonged period, Census can add up to six surge call centers to allow for additional telephone 

response, and the paper data capture centers also can add shifts to process more paper 

questionnaires. Additionally, the Census Bureau can increase the staff conducting interviews 

during the nonresponse follow-up operation, and the operation itself can be extended to absorb a 

greater workload. 

3) Please explain the Bureau's plans for the use of cloud based services for the 2018 endto-end testing? 

The Census Bureau is hosting selected systems supporting the 2018 End-to-End Census on A WS 

FedRAMP-certified commercial cloud services. These include the Operational Control Systems 

and the Internet Self Response System. Additionally, the Census Bureau's recruitment and 

Assessment System is a cloud-based service, and it is currently operational for the 2018 End-toEnd Census Test. 
126 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 78 here 30245.078

3 

a. What is the status of delivery of cloud based IT services for the 2018 end-to-end testing? 

The Census Bureau has developed and utilized cloud-based IT services for the In-Field Address 

Canvassing and Recruiting production operations ofthe 2018 End-to-End Census Test. 

2018 End-to-End Census Test Systems currently hosted in the FedRAMP-certified A WS 

GovCloud include: 

• Enterprise Census and Survey Enabling Operational Control System (ECaSE OCS) 

• ECaSE Field OCS 

• Service-Oriented Architecture 

• Geospatial Services. 

b. Are there any systems that may remain untested following the completion ofthe 2018 

end-to-end testing? If so, what additional testing is the Bureau planning for the systems 

not tested during the end-to-end testing? 

Systems supporting the 2020 Census Operations that are outside the scope of the 2018 End-toEnd Census Test will not be tested during the 2018 End-to-End Census Test. There are a total of 

35 operations in the 2020 Census. 24 of these are being deployed and tested for the 2018 Endto-End Census Test. These are the key operations and systems needed to conduct the census. 

Those operations of scope for the test include the Post-Enumeration Survey, Archiving, the 

Census in Island Areas, and several others. The Census Bureau will be testing these remaining 

systems for functionality, scalability, and security separately in a way that is comparably 

rigorous to testing in the 2018 End-to-End Census Test. The Census Bureau will use simulated 

data and workloads based on demand models for that purpose. Also, after the 2018 End-to-End 

Census Test and much in advance of the 2020 production operations, the Census Bureau will 

conduct integration and testing for all of the systems supporting the 2020 Census, including 

those that will not be tested in the 2018 End-to-End test, according to the Census Bureau's 

established release schedule, which is consistent with when the operations begin. This will start 

with recruiting and hiring, which begins in Summer of2018. This integration will ensure that 

the systems will be deployed in time for the operations they support. 

4) Many of the Bureau's IT systems appear to have scheduled delivery dates that are 

either after the scheduled start of testing, or scheduled for delivery shortly before infield testing is to begin. Why did the Bureau agree to scheduled delivery dates that 

leave little room for delay? 

The 2020 Census Integration and Implementation plan (which includes the 2018 End-to-End 

Census Test details) provides time for systems development, testing, and delivery before 2020 

operations begin. 

Forty-four systems are being deployed in the 2018 End-to-End Census Test. Forty out of 44 

systems have deployed in support of operations to date, and the remaining four systems are 
127 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 79 here 30245.079

scheduled to deliver functionality beginning April 2018 to support activities starting July 2018. 

This leaves sufficient time for the Census Bureau to make any necessary modifications to the 

systems prior to deployment. No system will be released without completing the necessary 

integration testing. 

4 

a. In the event the delivery of these systems is delayed, what are the Bureau's plans for the 

2018 end-to-end testing? 

The team responsible for testing systems routinely communicates with and updates senior 

Census Bureau leadership and Undersecretary of Economic Affairs, Karen Dunn Kelley, who is 

also performing the non-exclusive duties of the Deputy Secretary, on all issues related to the 

2018 End-to-End test. Any issues identified during the course of testing are escalated and 

addressed daily and solutions are implemented in a timely manner. 

The Census Bureau is proactively working with the development, test teams and program 

management teams, and monitoring progress on a daily basis. It has ensured that the 

requirements are baselined and stable for the peak operations of the 2018 End-to-End Census 

Test, and that there are sufficient resources for the completion of the work. It also is engaged 

with the contractors, engineers, and architects to ensure the delivery scope and timelines are well 

understood and to establish clear accountability. The Census Bureau has a high level of 

confidence that the systems will be delivered on time for the peak operations of the 2018 End-toEnd Census Test. A majority of the systems for the peak operations of the 2018 End-to-End 

Census Test have already been part of earlier Census tests and worked successfully. 

If there are unforeseen circumstances that lead to any delay, we have alternate strategies that can 

help conduct thread testing at a faster pace with added resources and overtime. We would make 

the necessary arrangements with the contracted technical integrator solution to implement these 

strategies. 

5) The Bureau recently announced that it would be placing the Census Enterprise Data 

Collection and Processing (CEDCaP) program under the Decennial Programs 

Directorate. Please explain what the Bureau hopes this move will achieve. 

a. What is the effect of this move on integration and cybersecurity development? 

The CEDCaP Program's technical, operational management, and integration functions into the 

Decennial Programs Directorate will ensure that the 2020 Census Program has command and 

control of all key 2020 Census systems implementation. This move eliminates duplicative and 

competing work among the Decennial Programs Directorate and the Information Technology 

(IT) Directorate. Merging experienced CEDCaP staff into the 2020 Census functional areas will 

help address staffing and knowledge challenges faced by both the 2020 Census Program and the 

CEDCaP program, technical integration, and operations integration, and it will allow the Census 

Bureau to better integrate risks, schedule, change control, performance metrics, and contract and 

systems status between CEDCaP and non-CEDCaP IT systems. This has the added benefit of 
128 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 80 here 30245.080

5 

increasing visibility into CEDCaP cost, scope, and schedule while fully integrating the work into 

the delivery of the 2020 Census. 

Cybersecurity is essential to a successful 2020 Census, and it is an extension of the Census 

Bureau's strong commitment to protecting all of the data, including personally identifiable 

information, it collects from the public. With respect to cybersecurity, all 2020 systems, 

including CEDCaP systems, follow the enterprise risk management framework for cybersecurity. 

CEDCaP solutions are currently under an Authorization to Operate (ATO). CEDCaP had 

already been working in close partnership with the Chieflnformation Officer (CIO), the Office 

of Information Security (OIS) and the 2020 Program, placing great emphasis on cybersecurity. 

Cybersecurity has always been an important aspect of the 2020 Census, and this is a focus of the 

CIO for the whole of the Census Bureau regardless of what part of the organization is developing 

a specific system. The security engineers working on CEDCaP and the 2020 Program are 

overseen by the OIS under the CIO. They work closely with cybersecurity experts from across 

the Department of Commerce, and in the Department of Homeland Security as well as other 

agencies within the federal intelligence community. The Census Bureau is also reaching out to 

private sector experts to benefit from their expertise as well. 

OIS, under the direction of the CIO, manages the ATO process for CEDCaP systems, as with all 

2020 Census systems, and the A TO process itself has not changed. Because CEDCaP is now 

under the 2020 Program, the business authorizing official and system owner for the CEDCaP 

systems changes to the 2020 program. The CIO is the technical authorizing official for all 

Census technology, and with the day to day management of CEDCaP moving from IT to 

Decennial, the CIO is able to focus more energy on cybersecurity. 

6) The Bureau's mobile device contract was subject to a bid protest on August 10,2017, 

which was sustained on October 5, 2017. Please explain what steps the Bureau is taking 

to ensure that the mobile device contract bid protest does not prevent or otherwise 

negatively affect the Bureau's ability to test and secure the 2020 Census nonresponse 

follow-up operations. 

GAO's October 5, 2017, decision sustaining the protest of the Decennial Device as a Service 

(dDaas) contract award included recommendations for corrective action. Census takes GAO's 

recommendations seriously and immediately began examining all potential paths forward to 

enable Census to proceed with this important program without endangering the critical path for 

the 2020 Decennial Census. As part of that process, the Census Bureau began developing an 

action plan to implement GAO's recommended corrective action. Census also convened a 

meeting with the awardee and the protestor to describe the steps Census was taking and to 

facilitate a dialogue between the two. On November 7, the awardee notified Census that it and 

the protestor had executed a subcontracting agreement. On November 8, Census provided notice 

to GAO that, in light of the subcontracting agreement, Census intended to lift the stop work order 

on the contract that had been in place since August. On November 9, Census authorized the 

contractor to resume performance of the dDaaS contract. 
129 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 81 here 30245.081

6 

Representative Paul Mitchell 

7) I am concerned about how the Bureau will use statistical imputation to account for nonresponses. Can you detail how the Census Bureau will use this method to arrive at final 

counts? 

a. Specifically, I would like to know: 

i. How these formulas will be crafted and how the final numbers will be 

calculated? 

ii. How the Bureau intends to verifY the accuracy oftheir adjustments? 

iii. In which instances and to what extent the Bureau will resort to using 

imputation in place of actual enumeration? 

There's a difference between enumeration and statistical imputation. "Enumeration" is the 

actual count of the people living in each household. "Imputation" is a statistical method that the 

Census Bureau uses for filling in missing data for a particular household (as described in 

Question 7 above), based on a partial set of data that they did provide in combination with data 

the Census Bureau has including past census and survey responses and administrative records. 

"Imputation" is a process generally used when households in a census or survey have responded, 

but have not answered all the questions. For these situations, the missing information is filled in 

(imputed) using a combination of data the household did supply, data the Census Bureau already 

has (including past census and survey responses from the household), and data from other 

households with similar characteristics. Administrative records also are used in the imputation 

process. Normally, the Census Bureau has collected complete information from nearly all 

households, and imputation is used on only a small subset. Imputation will only occur after all 

planned collection activities are complete and the needed information has not been collected for 

some addresses, households, or people. 

Most imputation in the Decennial Census is "characteristic imputation." This is used in cases 

where households have responded, but did not answer all questions or provided inconsistent 

answers. The Census Bureau's characteristic imputation approach in 2020 will closely mimic 

what it used for the 20 I 0 Census. This is described in more detail in the "20 I 0 CENSUS 

PLANNING MEMORANDA SERIES #173, 2010 Census Item Nonresponse and Imputation 

Assessment Report." 

https://www .census.gov /20 I Ocensus/pdf/20 I 0 Census INR Imputation Assessment.pdf 

The Census Bureau intends to complete its specifications for the 2020 count imputation in 

Summer 2019, and any necessary documentation supporting any changes from the 2010 

methodology will be released then. 

In 2010, the Census Bureau used a methodology called "count imputation" to enumerate a very 

small number of non-resolved housing units as a last resort. In the 2010 Census, the count 

imputation rate was 0.39 percent of the population. For the 2020 Census, the Census Bureau 
130 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 82 here 30245.082

7 

plans to utilize administrative records in addition to in person visits to enumerate those 

household that do not self-respond. This includes enumerating households with administrative 

records when they have a high level of confidence that records are of high quality, can 

corroborate the information with other high-quality records, and when the information can be 

accurately applied to the addresses and persons in question. This effort to expand the use of high 

quality administrative records goes beyond what the Census Bureau has done in previous 

censuses and should reduce the need for count imputation even further. The count imputation 

formulas the Census Bureau will use for the 2020 Census counts are based on those used for the 

2010 Census. These formulas used in 2010 are explained in the enclosed paper, "DSSD 2010 

DECENNIAL CENSUS MEMORANDUM SERIES #J-06, Census 2010: High Level Overview 

of Count Imputation." 

8) From the perspective of the Census Bureau and the Department of Commerce, how are 

Census tallies used to determine the apportionment of representatives and the 

allocation of federal dollars from federal agencies? 

The Decennial Census provides the population numbers necessary for apportioning the 435 seats 

in the U.S. House of Representatives among the 50 states. The apportionment calculation is 

based upon the total resident population of the 50 states. In the 2010 Census, the apportionment 

population also included U.S. Armed Forces personnel and federal civilian employees stationed 

outside the United States (and their dependents living with them) that could be allocated, based 

on administrative records, back to a home state. Prescribed by Congress in 194 I, the current 

method for apportionment is the "Method of Equal Proportions." A report outlining the process 

implemented in the 2010 Census is available at 

https:/ /www .census.gov/prod/cen20 1 Olbriefs/c20 I Obr-08.pdf. 

The allocation of federal funds using data from the Census Bureau is determined by Congress or 

the federal agencies disbursing the funds. While the Census Bureau produces data from the 

Decennial Census that is used to determine fund allocation, they do not participate in or direct 

any allocation procedures. 

9) As the Census Bureau discusses their use of other administrative and third party 

commercial data to account for non-responses, what measures are being taken to 

ensure that these plans do not result in improperly counted individuals, fraud, or 

abuse? 

As noted in the response to question 7, "enumeration" and "imputation" have different meanings. 

The Census Bureau has long used administrative records to impute data. In the 2020 Decennial, 

the Census Bureau plans to broaden the use of administrative records. 

Throughout the decade, the Census Bureau has been planning and testing the use of 

administrative records for the identification of vacant housing units and the enumeration of 

occupied nonresponding households. Administrative records include data from the IRS, the 
131 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 83 here 30245.083

Social Security Administration (SSA), Medicare and Medicaid, the Indian Health Service, and 

other data sources. Administrative records also include data from prior Decennial Censuses and 

the American Community Survey (ACS). Additionally, the Census Bureau uses state, local and 

private sector data for well-defined purposes, such as establishing census block boundaries and 

supporting address list compilation. 

8 

In the case of households that do not respond after our repeated efforts, the Census Bureau 

expects to be able to enumerate up to six million households in the 2020 Decennial Census 

entirely with federal administrative records. This will be done only when the Census Bureau has 

a high level of confidence that the federal administrative records are of high quality, can 

corroborate the information with other high-quality records, and when the information can be 

accurately applied to the addresses and persons in question. One type of household that could be 

enumerated using administrative records is that of an elderly couple who have lived at the same 

address for many years, who file their taxes regularly, and who have signed up for Medicare. 

Where it does not have high quality and high confidence in the data, such as when the data in the 

federal administrative records is inconsistent or missing, the household will become part of the 

Census Bureau's Nonresponse Follow-up operation (NRFU) for a direct follow up by census 

enumerators. Moreover, to ensure the success ofthe NRFU Operation, the Census 

Bureau intends to support this operation through the Integrated Partnerships and 

Communications Program to reach those who do not self-respond and cannot be enumerated 

through federal administrative records. 

10) How are self-responses being verified, including those made through the mail, 

interviews, and online? Does the Bureau cross-check this data or otherwise verify that 

self-responses are accurate and not resulting in improperly counted individuals, fraud, 

or abuse? 

During the 20 I 0 Census, the Census Bureau launched an operation called "Invalid Return 

Detection," which was focused on duplicate questionnaires received from households primarily 

from the "Be Counted" operation. That operation provided respondents with additional forms 

beyond those that were delivered directly to people who were concerned that they may not have 

been included in the census. For the 2020 Decennial Census, the Census Bureau's fraud 

detection efforts encompass all self-responses. This is due to the enhanced risks associated with 

the internet responses, which will for the first time compose the majority of responses received. 

Consequently, the Census Bureau needs to expand its quality assurance efforts to mitigate this 

enhanced risk. 

The 2020 Census Fraud Detection operation is not limited to internet self-response; rather, in 

addition, it's also tasked with determining whether fraudulent returns have been submitted from 

internet self-response, telephone interviews conducted by Census Questionnaire Assistance staff, 

and paper self-response. In addition to establishing criteria and thresholds to identify potentially 

fraudulent responses, the operation is responsible for determining the appropriate follow-up 

action for investigating and resolving cases of suspected fraud. 
132 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 84 here 30245.084

Fraud detection will identi f)': 

• Individual Fraud: A single person submits a small number of fraudulent responses 

• Targeted Fraud: An individual or group submits a large number of fraudulent responses 

in a particular state or locality in an attempt to fraudulently inflate Census counts in a 

particular area 

• Widespread Fraud: An individual or organization submits a large number of fraudulent 

responses-potentially by automated hacking techniques, and not concentrated in a 

particular locality-in an effort to affect the overall counts 

Fraud detection components will include: 

• Modeling/algorithms- a statistical approach to ferret out potential fraud, including 

individual response scoring, outlier detection, and trend analysis 

9 

• Spatial analysis- examination of the geographic distribution of responses as a component 

determining suspected fraud cases 

• Social media monitoring strategy- analytics to identifY suspicious patterns which will be 

ranked, sorted, and displayed on a dashboard to inform the analytical work 

• Case management- a system to create workloads for analysts and potential follow-up 

• Business intelligence (BI)/visualization strategy - approach for condensing the data points 

from the multiple fraud analysis modes into relevant key performance indicators (KPis) 

• Feedback loop activities continuous improvement in the Fraud Detection System 

Resolution of suspected fraudulent responses will include: 

• Investigation by fraud detection analysts to determine whether suspected cases identified 

through automated detection methods can be deemed acceptable by tbe analyst based on 

established rules, or require field follow-up to determine final disposition. 

For cases referred by fraud detection analysts, field follow-up will occur as a component of 

Nonresponse Follow-up work. In work similar to the quality control efforts for enumerators, the 

respondent will be asked a series of questions to determine the level of consistency between the 

original response data and their current response. If necessary (e.g., significant differences are noted 

in the initial questions, such as household count), a complete interview (i.e., all questions on the 

census questionnaire) can be conducted to ensure accuracy of the response data for a household. 

11) When it comes to enumerating non-citizens or illegal immigrants, how can the Bureau 

verifY the accuracy of these counts? Presumably, someone who is in the country 

illegally is not going to have many government or private records that could verify a 

self-response. 

Since the passage of the Census Act of 1790, the Decennial Census has been based on selfresponse. We use fraud detection regardless of whether we collect responses through the 
133 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 85 here 30245.085

10 

internet, by mail, over the telephone, or in an interview with a Census enumerator, and regardless 

of the citizenship status of a respondent. 

12) In many ways the counting of undocumented immigrants is a constitutional and policy 

question. However, surely the Census Bureau has considered the practical implications 

of doing so. Can you highlight what the Bureau sees as the advantages and 

disadvantages of count non-citizen and illegal immigrants? 

As directed by the Constitution, the Census Bureau counts every person residing in the country. 

As noted above, since the passage of the Census Act of 1790, the Decennial Census has been 

based on self-response. 

Representative Brenda L. Lawrence 

13) Detroit housing stock and administrative data. 

For the 2020 Census, the Census Bureau is planning to use government administrative 

records and third-party commercial data to identity vacant housing units from among the 

universe of addresses that do not self-respond in the first phase of the census. "Vacant" 

units would receive one additional mailer, in an effort to confirm that no one is, in fact, 

living in the dwelling. In Detroit, and in many cities across the country, abandoned or 

seemingly vacant housing units are home to people without another usual place of 

residence. I am concerned that these residents will be overlooked and not counted if census 

takers do not make at least one personal visit to the address, as they have done in all 

previous self-response censuses. What steps will the Census Bureau take to ensure that 

people living in seemingly vacant homes will be counted in the 2020 Census? Are there any 

plans to modify the Nonresponse Follow-up plans in areas that have experienced significant 

economic decline, and therefore may be at risk of an undercount? How have the recent 

deficits in funding, and therefore testing, affected your confidence in your ability to use 

administrative records in the Nonresponse Follow-up phase of the operation? 

The Census Bureau is keenly aware of this problem and is working to ensure that everyone is 

included in the 2020 Census wherever they live on Census Day- or where they are staying on 

Census Day if they have no permanent place to live. 

One way of reaching this population is through an operation called "Service-Based 

Enumeration." In this operation, the Census Bureau works with state, local, and tribal 

governments nationwide to update contact and address information for service-based locations 

(including shelters, soup kitchens, and regularly scheduled mobile food vans) and count people 

at those locations. It will also work with local groups to identify outdoor locations where people 

are known to sleep, such as under bridges and in tent camps. The Census Bureau will look for 

and count people at these locations at the end of March 2020 (on March 27, 30, and 31). 
134 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 86 here 30245.086

I! 

The Census Bureau also works closely with the National Advisory Committee, a panel that 

includes experts on reaching historically hard-to-count populations. They will help the Census 

Bureau refine its procedures, locations and methods for identifying and counting this population 

for the 2020 Census. 

All of these efforts will include identifYing vacant units where people may be living, and the 

Census Bureau will adjust the nonresponse operation to address areas where census partners or 

government officials alert it to. In addition, the Census Bureau's Geography Division works 

with administrative data, including data from the U.S. Postal Service, to identifY vacant units 

where people may be living. The Census Bureau is currently examining the address canvassing 

and nonresponse follow-up operations to determine other steps it can take to address the situation 

you describe. 

The Providence, Rl, test site also provides ample opportunity for the testing necessary to finalize 

the operations that utilize administrative records. The Census Bureau looks forward to 

examining results from that site test. 

14) Regional Census Offices 

a. This will be the first census in modern history for which there will be six Regional 

Census Centers, half the number in prior decades. Detroit was the site of a Regional 

Census Office aud Regional Census Center for many decades until the field reorganization 

earlier this decade. In addition, the Census Bureau plans roughly half the number of local 

census offices (now called Area Census Offices) for the 2020 Census, compared to the 2010 

Census. Further, there will be far fewer census enumerators and less than a third the 

number of Partnership Specialists than in 2010. 

The Census Bureau will open an Area Census Office in Detroit- and four additional offices in 

the State of Michigan -to support data collection and outreach efforts for the 2020 Census. 

Similar to the 20 I 0 Census, these offices will be the primary management centers for most field 

data collection activities on the 2020 Census. The efficiencies gained with automation and the 

reduction in paper-based activities allows the Census Bureau to significantly reduce the brick 

and mortar footprint to support the work of census enumerators. It does not reduce the ability of 

the Census Bureau to conduct a complete and accurate count. The Census Bureau still plans to 

hire staff locally and in sufficient numbers to ensure that everyone is counted. The Regional 

Office serves primarily as an administrative center for the local offices that conduct data 

collection. Operational support and oversight of field data collection and outreach activities in 

Detroit will continue to come from local staff. 

b. I am deeply concerned that this significantly smaller "footprint" in the field will make it 

harder for regional and area office officials to become sufficiently familiar with all of the 

communities within their broad jurisdiction to facilitate thorough operations, including 

pre-census address canvassing, effective partnerships, and accurate Non response Follow-
135 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 87 here 30245.087

12 

up visits. What steps will the Census Bureau take to overcome the challenge of"distance" 

between census field officials and staff, and the broad, diverse geographic areas they must 

oversee for the 2020 Census? How will the Bureau ramp up its state-level presence in 

states like Michigan with reduced offices, and how will that be coordinated with activities 

already operating locally? 

The Census Bureau shares this concern, and has started outreach efforts sooner compared to past 

decennials. For the 2020 Census, the Census Bureau began hiring partnership staff in Fiscal 

Year 2016 - a full year earlier than for the 201 0 Census. These staff have already begun 

engaging officials throughout Michigan on early planning activities for the 2020 Census with a 

particular focus on participation in the Local Update of Census Addresses program. The Census 

Bureau plans to hire I ,000 Partnership Specialists, which is 25 percent more than the 

approximately 800 hired during the 20 I 0 Census. 

As far as operational oversight, the Census Bureau will adopt the same approach to managing 

staff as it has done in the past. Census enumerators will work in the neighborhoods where they 

live, providing a critical element of local knowledge that increases cooperation and response. 

The direct supervision of these enumerators is by Field Supervisors who also live in these 

communities and work from home. These supervisors will report to managers located in the five 

offices located throughout Michigan. The five offices- as noted above- will report to the 

Regional Census Center located in Chicago, IL. 

15)Community outreach and MENA 

a. In my district, Michigan's 14th Congressional district, Arab-Americans, or people of 

Middle Eastern and North African descent, are a significant portion ofthe population. For 

decades, community leaders have been working to explore the question of adding a 

"Middle Eastern or North African" (MENA) ethnicity category to the Census. The 2015 

National Content Test (NCT) tested a separate Middle Eastern or North African category 

and found it elicited higher quality data to understand communities. The Census Bureau's 

2018 End-to-End Test is supposed to include a dedicated MENA response category. What 

are the Census Bureau's current plans for including the MENA category in the 2018 Endto-End Test and the 2020 Census? In its deliberations, is the Bureau incorporating written 

and other comments provided by community stakeholders in 2017? Do reduced resources 

for the 2018 test affect this process? 

The Census Bureau has been conducting research into the viability of including a Middle Eastern 

or North African (MENA) ethnicity category in the Census and the American Community 

Survey. This research will continue. However, the Census Bureau adheres to the Office of 

Management and Budget's Standards for Maintaining, Collecting, and Presenting Federal Data 

on Race and Ethnicity, last revised in 1997, providing a minimum standard for maintaining, 

collecting, and presenting data on race and ethnicity for all Federal reporting purposes. In 

keeping with these standards, the planned race and ethnicity questions will follow a two-question 
136 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 88 here 30245.088

format for capturing race and ethnicity for both the 2018 End-to-End Census Test and the 2020 

Census, and will not include a MENA ethnicity category. 

13 

b. Community participation is also essential to an accurate census count. Does the Bureau 

have snfficient resources to coordinate with and reach out to Arab-American community 

groups to the extent is bas in the past, and on a similar timeline relative to the 2020 

Census? 

Yes, they do. The current Lifecycle Cost Estimate includes funding to support 1,000 Partnership 

Specialists, which is an increase of25 percent relative to the approximately 800 Partnership 

Specialists hired during the 2010 Census. Currently, the Census Bureau has just over 40 

Partnership Specialists in place. They will start ramping up to 1,000 beginning in October 2018, 

and they will be fully staffed by June 2019, a full 10 months before Census Day. Many of these 

specialists will focus on outreach to our Arab-American communities. 

c. In order to accurately count the MENA population and include it in government 

processes, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) would also have to add an 

ethnicity category for Arabs and Middle Easterners to its minimum collection standards. 

The Bureau has stated that regardless ofthe Bureau's categories in the 2018 tests and 2020 

Census, "it will ultimately be up to OMB to determine if the MENA category will be a 

minimum reporting category that is distinct from the White category. OMB is currently 

conducting a review of these standards." How are you coordinating with OMB on this 

matter? What data or information have you provided OMB since the 2015 NCT, and what 

data do you intend to provide OMB through 2020, to assist in its review of the standards? 

As stated above, the Census Bureau adheres to the Office of Management and Budget's 

Standards for Maintaining, Collecting, and Presenting Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity, last 

revised in 1997, providing a minimum standard for maintaining, collecting, and presenting data 

on race and ethnicity for all Federal reporting purposes. In keeping with these standards, the 

planned race and ethnicity questions will follow a two-question format for capturing race and 

ethnicity for both the 2018 End-to-End Census Test and the 2020 Census, and will not include a 

MENA ethnicity category. 

16) Online response methods 

a. The shift of the response method to one that emphasizes online response represents a 

convenience for many, but also a cost shift for some, especially those who exist at the 

economic margins. Are there plans to lessen the impact of those cost shifts in area where 

they may prevent someone from responding through the preferred method? 

While the Census Bureau is encouraging people to respond to the 2020 Census via the internet, 

people can also respond by telephone or by sending in a paper questionnaire. The Census 

Bureau recognizes that the internet is not accessible to all residents and has identified 20 percent 

of the population as living in areas with low internet connectivity or for whom it has data 
137 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 89 here 30245.089

14 

indicating that they are unlikely to use the internet. Therefore, the Census Bureau is including a 

paper questionnaire in the first mailing to those households. Furthermore, all nonresponding 

households will receive a paper questionnaire on the fourth mailing. The Census Bureau also 

implements specific operations tailored to rural areas of the country. Beginning a few weeks 

after Census Day, the Census Bureau will conduct the nonresponse follow-up operation to ensure 

that all households are included in the final census counts. 

In addition, the Internet Self Response (ISR) operation works to make the application content 

accessible to a wide range of people with disabilities, including blindness and low vision, 

deafness and hearing loss, learning disabilities, cognitive limitations, limited movement, 

photosensitivity, and combinations of these. To maximize accessibility, the ISR application is 

being developed following Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 with a "AA'' level of 

success. Each page of the application is assessed for conformance to the applicable guidelines. 

The Census Bureau is committed to making all of its electronic and information technology 

accessible to all individuals. They leverage the knowledge and expertise of their Section 508 

Coordination Council, the General Services Administration (GSA) Refresh Toolkit, and 

interagency best practices. All application systems, especially those supporting the 2020 Census, 

will be in compliance with the Section 508 standards. The 2020 Census Program has allocated 

Section 508 requirements to systems and continuously certifies and validates compliance through 

testing. 

On January 18, 2018, revised Section 508 standards went into effect for the Federal Government. 

The 2020 performed an analysis of these revised standards and is integrating them with the prior 

Section 508 guidance. This integration includes an assessment of each application system's level 

of compliance with the revised standards. Revised requirements will be allocated to each 

application system as applicable. 

Representative Carolyn Maloney 

17) Mr. Secretary, please provide documentation to support your testimony on total 

communications spending in 2010 compared to 2020, including a line-by-line or 

operation-by-operation direct comparison. 

As I testified, the lifecycle cost estimate includes $520 million for the communications contract. 

An operation-by-operation comparison with the 2010 communications program is not possible at 

this time. Throughout FY 2018, the Census Bureau will be working with Young and Rubicam 

(Y &R) to build the research foundation for the campaign, and to develop the optimal levels of 

funding for each component of the program. The resulting spend plan will not be finalized until 

later in the year. We will share that information with you once it is ready. 
138 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 90 here 30245.090

18) Please provide details on actual spending allocations that have been made against the 

Y &R contract since it was awarded through this month. 

The following shows the amounts obligated and paid by task order as of March 16, 2018. 

Order 1 - Initial Activities 

Order 2 -Travel 

Order 3- Program Management (FY 2016) 

Order 4-2018 E-2-E Test 

Order 5 -Planning Preliminary Research 

Order 6- Program Management (FY 20 18) 

Order 7 - Research 

Order 8 - Recruitment 

Order 9- Strategic Planning 

Order 10-Modelling and Segmentation 

Total 

Total Obligated 

$333,580 

$376,559 

$3,052,599 

$345,700 

$8,831,987 

$3,799,890 

$7,202,677 

$1,330,290 

$2,237,934 

$1,675,000 

$29,186,216 

Total Paid to Date 

$333,580 

$196,987 

$3,052,599 

$345,700 

$8,831,987 

$1,266,651 

$525,000 

$82,336 

$0,000 

$14,895,526 

$14,895,526 

19) Please provide a list of activities that the Bureau has directed Y &R to initiate to date. 

The list of activities the Census Bureau has directed Y &R to initiate to date are: 

• Kick-OffMeeting -August 2016 

• Census I 0 I -September 2016 

• Attendance at various stakeholder engagements including: 

o Regional Director Introductory Meeting -September 2016 

o State Data Center/Census Information Centers (SDC/CIC) Joint Steering 

Committee Meeting- October 2016 

o Decennial Program Management Review (PMR)- October 2016, July 2017, 

October 2017 

o 2020 Census Integrated Communications Contract Quarterly Executive PMR -

May 2017, August 2017 

o Regional Office Visits "Listening Tour" Sessions- November 2016 -January 

2017 

o National Advisory Committee (NAC) Meeting- November 2016, 2017 

o Data Dissemination Program Meeting -November 2016 

o Tribal Consultations- October- November 2016 

o Census Funder's Initiative -January & March 2017 

o Children's Leadership Council April2017 

15 
139 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 91 here 30245.091

• Research Activities (CBAMS and Propensity Modeling) -Ongoing 

• Meetings/briefings with bureau and department staff- Ongoing 

• Deliverables 

o Communications Plan version 1.0 -June 2017 

o Research Roadmap- May 2017 

o 2020 Census Barrier, Attitudes and Motivators Study- February- April 

(planned) 

20) What, if any, is the approved spending ceiling on the Y &R contract? 

16 

The contract is a requirements type contract. As such it includes an estimated total amount. As I 

testified, the current lifecycle cost estimate for the Decennial includes $520 million for the 

communications contract. 

21) Please provide the Committee with a detailed schedule of all planned outreach, 

partnership, advertising and promotion activities in your new Life Cycle plan, 

including the start and end date of those operations and total budgeted allocation for 

each operation. 

The Census Bureau is in the process of developing the detailed schedules for the outreach, 

promotion, partnership, and advertising activities. 

The research is scheduled for October 2017- November 2019. Media planning and purchasing 

will occur between October 2018- November 2019. The creative development for the 

advertising and promotional materials will take place between September 2018- January 2020. 

Detailed schedules for the other components of the communications program will be provided to 

the Congress as they are developed and refined. 

There are currently just over 40 Partnership Specialists already in place around the country. 

They are focused on the development of Complete Count Committees and key 2020 Census 

Stakeholders. The Census Bureau will ramp up to 1,000 Partnership Specialists beginning in 

October 2018. Detailed schedules for the Partnership Program will be provided as they are 

developed and refined as well. 

22) How is the additional $187 million requested for FY 18 divvied up by category/type of 

activity? 

a. In particular, how many more partnership specialists does the Census Bureau plan to 

hire in FY 18 with the additional money? (The Secretary said there are 40 now on 

board, and the President's FY 18 request didn't include money for any.) 

b. What's the total number of partnership specialists that the Census Bureau plans to hire 

for the 2020 Census? (The Secretary said his "goal" was 800.) 
140 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 92 here 30245.092

17 

The additional $187 million will be allocated to the critical activities necessary to keep the 

Census Bureau on track for a successful 2020 Census. The funding is primarily allocated to the 

major IT contracts, including the Technical Integrator contract and the Census Questionnaire 

Assistance contract as well as program management, systems engineering and operational 

development. We did not identify a need to hire additional Partnership Specialists with this 

funding. There are currently just over 40 Partnership Specialists working around the country and 

the Census Bureau seeks to ramp up to 1,000 Partnership Specialists. 

23) Is there a timetable to get the communications activities for 2020 back on schedule? 

Communications activities for the 2020 Census are on track as described above. 

24) Are there any plans to do a focused test in rural areas to replace the ones that were 

cancelled? 

The 2018 End-to-End Census Test began in August 2017 in Pierce County, Washington; 

Providence County, Rhode Island; and the Bluefield-Beckley-Oak Hill, West Virginia area with 

the implementation of an in-field address canvassing operation. In-field address canvassing 

allowed the Census Bureau to test systems in a disconnected state and hone the critical address 

list development operations in a wide range of geographical situations, including rural areas. 

The Census Bureau will continue to develop and conduct small scale testing of systems to ensure 

they function effectively in rural areas. 

a. Will the communications and partnership effort be restored for the 2018 dress 

rehearsal (end-to-end test)? If so, bow much will be allocated for it? And is to too late 

to restore the two additional sites in the original end-to-end test? 

The Census Bureau has not restored the communications and partnership efforts originally 

planned for the Providence, RI, site. It is too late to restore the two additional test sites originally 

included in the test. 

b. Did you discuss with OMB Director Mulvaney the FY 2019 figure in the lifecycle cost 

estimate, that is, the need for $3.45 billion, which includes a $314-million contingency? 

The Census Bureau worked closely with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the 

development of the revised 2020 Census Lifecycle, and it is currently developing the 2019 

Budget with OMB as well. 

c. Have you discussed the new lifecycle cost estimate with the President? 

No. 

d. Is there any plan to make up for the canceled Spanish language test? 
141 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 93 here 30245.093

18 

No, but testing throughout the decade, including the peak operations of the 2018 End-to-End 

Census Test, will allow the Census Bureau to refine the Spanish language Internet Self-Response 

instrument. 

25) Multiple Federal agencies have asked the Census Bureau to include sexual orientation 

and gender identity in national surveys. But when the Census report was submitted to 

Congress, LGBTQ questions were nowhere to be found. Give that the Commerce 

Department directs the Census Bureau, can you explain why LGBTQ questions were 

not included? 

Federal agencies routinely request additional questions to be considered in the American 

Community Survey (ACS), and Census considers them pursuant to a longstanding process that 

involves the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Census Bureau received requests 

from the Department of Justice (DOJ), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department 

of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the Department of Health and Human Services 

(HHS) to consider a new question in the 2020 ACS that would collect sexual orientation and 

gender identity (SOGI) data. The Census Bureau and the Department evaluated the requests, 

working with the requesting agencies and OMB. 

On March 7, 2017, DOJ withdrew its SOGI data request before the Department completed its 

analysis of the need for the content and the Census Bureau concluded that there was no 

independent basis to alter or amend the current content. 
142 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 94 here 30245.094

UNITED STATES DEPJIJITMEIIIT OF COMMERCE Economica and Statlstlca Administration 

U.S. Census Bureau 

Washington, OC 20233.0001 

November L 2010 

DSSD 2010 DECENNIAL CENSUS MEMORANDUM SERIES #J-06 

MEMORANDUM FOR Arnold A. Jackson 

Associate Director for Decennial Census 

From: David C Whitford (signed) 

Chiet; Decennial Statistical Studies Division 

Subject: Census 2010: High Level Overview of Count Imputation 

In this memorandum, we provide a high level overview of the count imputation to be 

used in the 20 I 0 Census. Count imputation assigns unit status and household to records that 

are missing their status or size information. Angueira documents the research effort that 

led to the technique being used in 20 l 0 count processing. Count imputation is not 

applicahle to group quarters. 

Each address included in census data collection has to be classified as a non-existent unit, a 

vacant unit, or an occupied housing unit by the end of census processing. Records that are 

classified as an occupied housing unit also need a number of residents. This 

information is necessary to have a complete count population and housing units in the 

United States as of Census Day. For various reasons, including the complexity and massive size 

of census operations, the inability to find knowledgeable respondents, and the receipt of 

inconsistent information, there are records that do not have status and size information hy the end 

of census follow-up activities and data These records are referred to as missing data 

records. We group missing data into three count imputation categories: 

Status Imputation- required by records with conflicting or insufficient information on 

whether an address represented a valid. non-duplicated unit. Count imputation may 

impute these records to have a status vacant, or non-existent. If imputed to 

be occupied, a household size from one to is also 

Occupancy Imputation- required by records for which unit is only known to exist as a 

housing unit. Count imputation may impute these records to have a status of occupied or 

vacant. If imputed to be occupied, a household size from one to nine is also imputed. 

Household Size Imputation by records for which the unit is known to be 

occupied but is missing a Count imputation may impute these records 

to have a household size 

For more information on why household size is capped at nine, see Kilmer (2007). 

ln count imputation, first all the records in the enumeration universe are partitioned within a 

designated geographical area into small based on certain characteristics. Next, for each 

small group, we create a probability of unit status and size from the records that have 

u c N u B R A 
143 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 95 here 30245.095

this information. The distribution has 11 categories: non-existent, vacant (zero residents), 

occupied with one resident, occupied with two residents, ... , occupied with eight residents, and 

occupied with nine or more residents. Finally, we use the probability distribution to impute 

status or household size, or both, for the missing data records. The remainder of this document 

gives more details on these steps. For even more details, see Pritts (2010) and Sands, Pritts, 

Seiss, and Keller (20 10). 

I. Assignment to Small Groups 

We determine a structure type, mail return status, and nearest-neighbor household type for all 

records- both missing data records and complete data records (records that do not need 

imputation). These characteristic variables are defined below. We use these variables to divide 

all the records into small groups or "cells," which will preserve the similarities of housing unit 

status and size between records requiring imputation and records with complete data. 

Structure type classifies records into two categories: 

Single-units- records from a structure with only one unit 

2 

Multi-units- records from a structure with two or more units (e.g., an apartment building) 

Mail return status also classifies records into two categories: 

Mail returns- records whose data came from a questionnaire returned through the mail 

Enumerator returns records whose data came from an enumerator interview 

Mail return status accounts for the enumeration method that was chosen for data capture; even 

though some records may have multiple enumeration methods, only one is chosen. 

Structure type and mail return status subdivide the records into four major subuniverses. Then 

within each subuniverse, we further subdivide the records into seven cells based on household 

information from the nearest neighbor with complete data. There are seven nearest-neighbor 

household types: 

Vacant 

Married Couple Family 

Other Family 

Non-family with One Occupant 

Non-family with More than One Occupant 

Occupied with Unknown Household Type 

Delete (i.e., non-existent) 

In a tract, if there are at least 20 complete data records in a cell defined by all three characteristic 

variables, we use the cell to construct the distribution for imputation. If there are fewer than 20, 

we remove characteristic variables one by one while remaining at the tract level until the cell 

contains 20 or more records. When removing the characteristic variables, first nearest -neighbor 

household type is removed, and then mail return status, and finally structure type. If there are 

fewer than 20 records after all the characteristic variables have been removed, we again use the 

three characteristic variables but enlarge the geographical area, first to the Local Census Office 

level, and then to the state level. If there are still fewer than 20 records at the state level, all three 
144 

Æ 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 96 here 30245.096

characteristic variables are removed. The smallest cell with at least 20 complete data records is 

the one used for imputation. 

2. Creation of Probability Distributions 

3 

For each cell identified to be used for imputation, we construct a probability distribution for each 

imputation category. To do this, we use information from complete data records and from the 

missing data records that are applicable to the imputation category. Occupancy imputation cases 

are known to be either occupied or vacant, and household size imputation cases are known to be 

occupied; therefore, we can incorporate the numbers of these count imputation records when 

setting up the probability distributions. Status imputation uses a distribution with all II status 

and size categories. Occupancy imputation uses I 0 categories because it excludes the nonexistent status. Household size imputation uses 9 categories because it excludes both the nonexistent and the vacant statuses. 

3. Assignment of Unit Status and Household Size to Missing Data Records 

To impute a unit status or household size, we use the probability distributions to randomly assign 

a status or size to each missing data record. We do this independently for each case requiring 

imputation; as the missing data records within a cell go through imputation, the probability 

distribution for their imputation category remains the same. 

Any questions should be directed to Patrick J. Cantwell, Assistant Division Chief, Sampling and 

Estimation, Decennial Statistical Studies Division, at (30 1) 763-4982. 

References 

Angueira, T. (2008). "Choice of Count Imputation Methodology for the 2010 Census," 2010 

DECENNIAL CENSUS PROGRAM DECISION MEMORANDUM SERIES No. 22. 

Kilmer, A. (2007). "20 I 0 Census Count Imputation Research - Imputed Population Limit for 

Count Imputation," DSSD 2006 CENSUS TEST MEMORANDUM SERIES J2-09. 

Pritts, M. (20 I 0). "Census 20 I 0- Overview of Count Imputation," DSSD 2010 DECENNIAL 

CENSUS MEMORANDUM SERIES J-08, Forthcoming 

Sands, R., M. Pritts, M. Seiss, and A. Keller (20 I 0). "Census 20 l 0 Count Imputation: Computer 

Software Requirements," DSSD 2010 DECENNIAL CENSUS MEMORANDUM 

SERIES J-02. 

cc: 

F. A. Vitrano 

R. A. Pennington 

P. J. Cantwell 

I. Chen 

M. Pritts 

DMD 

DSSD