U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

82–932 PDF 2013

ENSURING AN ACCURATE AND AFFORDABLE 2020 

CENSUS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE, 

US POSTAL SERVICE AND THE CENSUS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 

Serial No. 113–58 

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

( 

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

http://www.house.gov/reform 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

DOC HASTINGS, Washington 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

KERRY L. BENTIVOLIO, Michigan 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

MATTHEW A. CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania 

MARK POCAN, Wisconsin 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

TONY CARDENAS, California 

STEVEN A. HORSFORD, Nevada 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

LAWRENCE J. BRADY, Staff Director 

JOHN D. CUADERES, Deputy Staff Director 

STEPHEN CASTOR, General Counsel 

LINDA A. GOOD, Chief Clerk 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE, U.S. POSTAL SERVICE AND THE CENSUS

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas, Chairman 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts, 

Ranking Minority Member 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on September 11, 2013 ..................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

Mr. John Thompson, Director, U.S. Census Bureau 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 5 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 8 

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

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 14 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 17 

Ms. Carol Cha, Director, Information Technology, U.S. Government Accountability Office 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 15 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 17 

APPENDIX 

The Honorable Stephen Lynch, a Member of Congress from the State of 

Massachusetts, Opening Statements .................................................................. 56 

(1) 

ENSURING AN ACCURATE AND AFFORDABLE 

2020 CENSUS 

Wednesday, September 11, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE, U.S. POSTAL

SERVICE, AND THE CENSUS, COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:31 a.m., in Room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Blake Farenthold 

[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Farenthold, Walberg, Collins, Lynch, 

Norton, and Clay. 

Also Present: Representative Maloney. 

Staff Present: Molly Boyl, Parliamentarian; Lawrence J. Brady, 

Staff Director; Caitlin Carroll, Deputy Press Secretary; John 

Cuaderes, Deputy Staff Director; Adam P. Fromm, Director of 

Member Services and Committee Operations; Linda Good, Chief 

Clerk; Michael R. Kiko, Staff Assistant; Jeffrey Post, Senior Professional Staff Member; Laura Rush, Deputy Chief Clerk; Scott 

Schmidt, Digital Director of Digital Strategy; Peter Warren, Legislative Policy Director; Jaron Bourke, Minority Director of Administration; Courtney Cochran, Minority Press Secretary; Kevin Corbin, 

Minority Professional Staff Member; Yvette Cravins, Minority 

Counsel; Devon Hill, Minority Research Assistant; Jennifer Hoffman, Minority Press Secretary; and Mark Stephenson, Minority Director of Legislation. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. The subcommittee will come to order. As is 

normal, we will begin the hearing by reading the Oversight Committee mission statement. We exist to secure two fundamental 

principles: First, that Americans have a right to know the money 

Washington takes from them is well spent; and second, Americans 

deserve an efficient, effective government that works for them. Our 

duty on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee is to 

protect these rights. Our solemn responsibility is to hold the government accountable to taxpayers, because the taxpayers have the 

right to know what they get from their government. 

We will work tirelessly in partnership with citizens watchdogs to 

deliver the facts to the American people and bring genuine reform 

to the Federal bureaucracy. This is the mission of the Oversight 

and Government Reform Committee. 

At this time, I’ll recognize myself for an opening statement. The 

costs of the decennial census has gone up 680 percent per household since 1960, and the 2010 Census was almost twice as expenVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:31 Oct 17, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\82932.TXT APRIL
2 

sive per household as the 2000 Census. The 2010 Census reached 

$14.7 billion in cost. If the recent trends hold true, the 2020 Census could cost the American taxpayers $25 billion or more. This is 

simply unacceptable. 

As government watchdogs, it’s our job to make sure the American taxpayers’ money is being used appropriately and efficiently. 

The purpose of today’s hearing is to find ways the Bureau can 

achieve significant cost savings without impacting the quality and 

integrity of the count. The most obvious of these is adding an Internet response option to the Census, which is now being offered on 

a nationwide basis for the American Community Survey. Without 

getting into the pros and cons of the community survey, it does 

show that technology can be better used to gather Census data. 

We should also look at the digitalization of follow-up efforts for 

those who do not self-respond to the Census. In fact, new technology has created an opportunity to completely redesign the 

model. Through the Bring Your Own Device model, the Census Bureau has the opportunity to have its temporary field staff simply 

download a secure application to a smart phone that will not only 

allows them to record response information, but also has live updates with which house they should visit next and possibly GPS 

data, directions, adjusting for traffic and many other things. Collecting Census data, there should be an app for that. 

Another issue with respect to cost savings is expanding the use 

of administrative records. What are the cost savings of this and 

what are the privacy issues associated with inter-governmental 

data sharing? Administrative records do help improve data accuracy and reduce the need for multiple nonresponse follow-ups. 

A redesign mapping project focusing on continuously tracking 

changes and partnering with the public and private geospatial entities and perhaps even the Postal Service could meet—I’m sorry— 

could eliminate the need for a nationwide canvass in upcoming 

years. 

We also face challenges from public distrust of the government 

in light of recent scandals currently being investigated by the full 

committee. The IRS targeting of groups based on political ideology; 

the NSA’s rampant data collection and leaks; the administration 

spokeswoman, Susan Rice, misleading the public after the 

Benghazi attack all have had effects making the American public 

more distrustful of the government and also less likely, I believe, 

and based on the information that’s coming into my office, less likely to participate and cooperate with the government. 

Take Lois Lerner. She’s probably costing the taxpayers money 

because people are fearful how their personal information revealed 

to the Census service might be used against them, so they’re not 

filling out their survey, meaning the government has to send out 

people to follow up with them. How will all of these affect the response rate and accuracy in 2020? Add to that the detailed and, in 

my opinion, intrusive questions asked on the American Community 

Survey, and we’re facing additional challenge that potentially add 

costs. 

Finally, we must address in a cost-effective manner the question 

of accuracy, especially dealing with non-traditional households: the 

homeless, those living in the shadows and non-English speakers. 

3 

We cannot craft solutions to problems like homelessness and undocumented residents if we do not have accurate data. 

New cost saving ideas are attainable, while regaining the public 

trust might be more difficult. A National Academy of Sciences 

panel has stated that a realistic goal is for the 2020 Census to cost 

less than the 2010 Census on a per-household basis. I think that’s 

doable and I support this goal, and I challenge the Census Bureau 

and the entire government to make this happen. The Census coming in under budget would send a strong signal to the American 

people about the stewardship of their tax dollars, and perhaps be 

a way we can regain some of the trust between the government 

and the governed. 

With this in mind, I hope this hearing starts a dialogue between 

the committee and the Census Bureau so that we can make the 

2020 Census a cost-effective success. 

And with that, I’d like to welcome our witnesses and thank you 

for appearing before us. We will now recognize the distinguished 

ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Lynch, 

for his opening statement. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At the outset, I’d also like 

to congratulate Director Thompson on being confirmed as the 24th 

director of the United States Census Bureau. We look forward to 

working with you and your staff as we continue to examine Census 

operations. 

I’d like to also thank Mr. Goldenkoff and Ms. Cha of the Government Accountability Office for helping this committee with its work 

today. Thank you. 

This is a critical moment for the United States Census Bureau. 

While the next decennial Census may be 7 years away, the agency 

is already in the midst of researching, testing and implementing a 

variety of technological and procedural reforms designed to better 

ensure a 2020 Census that maximizes cost containment without 

compromising data quality. 

I would note that these important initiatives come on the heals 

of a 2010 Census that according to GAO, and as the chairman has 

pointed out, was the most expensive U.S. Census in history at a 

cost of approximately $13 billion. Now, that was a 56 percent increase and an $8 billion cost increase from the 2000 Census, so the 

rate of increase is alarming. 

Chief among the lessons learned from the 2010 Census that GAO 

has consistently identified as key areas for reform is the need for 

the Bureau to reexamine its approach to how it takes the Census. 

In particular, 2010 witnessed the Bureau employing the same mailout, mail-back and door visit Census form process that it has been 

using since 1970, despite a population that has become increasingly 

demographically diverse and significantly concerned about personal 

privacy. If I were a cynic, I would—I would suggest that we might 

shift the responsibility of the Census over to the NSA since they 

seem to be taking—keeping track of everybody anyway. 

But according to the GAO, this basic design of the decennial Census is no longer capable of a cost-effective enumeration, and without changes, future enumerations could be fiscally unsustainable. 

To its credit, the Census Bureau is already making changes to 

reform its approach to Census taking, and I’m greatly encouraged 

4 

by its responsiveness to the recommendations issued by GAO. Specifically the Census Bureau is currently examining whether it could 

achieve meaningful cost savings by utilizing State and local agency 

administrative records, including driver’s license and school documentation to identify persons associated with a particular household address. 

In addition, the Census Bureau is researching the viability of 

electronic data collection and technology receptive promotional 

methods, including the use of email, text messaging and social networking sites. Moreover, the agency is testing the feasibility of 

using its monthly housing and population ‘‘American Community 

Survey’’ data as a basis for conducting smaller and more frequent 

Census-related tests throughout the decade in place of broader, 

more expensive and one-time-only tests that have defined previous 

decennial Census-taking cycles. 

I would also interject that I know Mr. Chaffetz and I had discussed in the previous Congress the opportunity to utilize the 

United States Postal Service, because postal workers go to each 

and every home in America 6 days a week, and that does replicate 

in a way the door-to-door survey that the Census conducts, albeit 

we would be using existing employees who go door to door on a regular basis and might have a better feel for the number of residents 

in a particular household. 

As reported by GAO in January of this year, the various reform 

initiatives underway at the Census Bureau and particularly the 

agency’s expanding use of technology must be accompanied by a 

corresponding effort to implement effective information security 

policies and protocols. I share the chairman’s concern regarding the 

current lack of comprehensive security programs at the Census Bureau that includes identified security risks, up-to-date security 

management program policies, meaningful information, security 

training for Census employees, and effective incidence response 

guidance. However, I am confident that the Bureau will continue 

to work with GAO to take the necessary steps to enhance its agency-wide security program and implement proper safeguards against 

the unauthorized use or disclosure of sensitive personal information. 

Additionally, I’d like to note that the Census Bureau, like every 

other Federal agency, is already feeling the impact of the sequestration and is currently operating with a budget that is 13 percent 

less than the administration’s request for 2013. Coupled with 

chronic underfunding over the past several years, the agency is facing a variety of difficult decisions that pose a challenge to its mission, from reduction in field tests and increased reliance on existing 

data, to delays in planning for the 2020 decennial Census and the 

suspension of the country’s economic Census. Importantly, these 

and other Census activities are mission critical and result in data 

that is used to determining funding allocations for community services, infrastructure and neighborhood improvements as well as 

public health and educational program and forecasting economic 

and employment conditions. 

These efforts are essential to our national economy and policymaking, and I’d urge my colleagues to keep the importance of the 

5 

Census Bureau’s mission in mind as we continue to examine Census operations. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this important hearing 

and I look forward to the discussion these and other issues will 

come up today with today’s witnesses. I yield back the balance of 

my time. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you, Mr. Lynch. Our other members 

will have 7 days to submit opening statements for the record. We 

will now introduce and recognize our panel. 

The Honorable John Thompson is the director of the United 

States Census Bureau. I add my congratulations as well on your 

confirmation. Mr. Robert Goldenkoff is the director of Strategic 

Issues Group at the U.S. Government Accountability Office. And 

our technical expert here is Carol Cha. She’s the director of IT 

Group at the United States Government Accountability Office. Welcome. 

Pursuant to the committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn in 

before they testify. Will you all please stand up and raise your 

right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony 

you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing 

but the truth? 

Let the record reflect that all the witnesses answered in the affirmative. You all may be seated. 

In order to allow time for discussion, we’d particularly like to ask 

our questions up here and feel like we get the information we’re 

most interested in, we would ask that you would limit yourself to 

around 5 minutes with your statement. We have in the record and 

hopefully everybody up here has reviewed the written material that 

was provided to us. And so if you would limit yourself to 5 minutes. 

We’ve got the little traffic light system in front of you. The green 

light means you’re good to go, the yellow light means you’re running out of time, so hurry up, and the red light means stop. There 

will be no tickets issued, but I will start looking sternly at you 

when the red light comes on. So we will get underway. 

We will now start with Mr. Thompson. Mr. Thompson. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF JOHN THOMPSON 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Chairman Farenthold, Ranking 

Member Lynch, and members of the subcommittee. I am pleased to 

have the opportunity to appear today before the subcommittee to 

discuss 2020 Census operations. I’ll make a brief statement. I will 

ask that my full statement be added for the record. Let me also say 

that I am delighted to return to the Census Bureau as director, 

and I’m looking forward to working with the committee. 

A democracy needs credible, objective and timely information, 

and the decennial Census is one of the important sources of this 

information. The 2020 Census will continue this tradition, but as 

with each Census, we must consider new opportunities with respect 

to information technology. 

I believe current plan activities will support a Census that is significantly less costly and will deliver faster results than the 2010 

Census. I can pledge the best efforts of the dedicated public servVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:31 Oct 17, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\82932.TXT APRIL
6 

ants of the agency, but we must also ask the Congress for its support to ensure the Census Bureau can face these challenges. 

Among the most promising options we are researching to accomplish our goals are, first, re-engineering the field data collection operations; second, making better use of information previously collected by Federal and State agencies; third, using the Internet as 

the primary self-response option; and fourth, drawing on geographic tools and data sets to eliminate the need to physically canvass large portions of the United States. 

One of the major opportunities to reduce costs lies with applying 

operations research methods to work management and route planning. We are exploring techniques to take advantage of automation 

to conduct our field work more efficiently, including routing our 

interviewers, accounting for optimum times to visit, tracking travel 

distances and traffic, and other factors to minimize extensive travel 

and wasted visits. 

We are also exploring adaptive design techniques that will help 

us supply statistical methodology to do our work smarter. The objective of this effort is to re-engineer our field management processes, thereby reducing both the hours that our interviewers will 

spend on collecting the data from households that do not take advantage of the self-response option and reducing the infrastructure 

required to support these efforts. 

In addition to our efforts to re-engineer the field data collection, 

we are looking at other alternatives to reduce the non-response follow-up workload. One of the promising innovations is the use of 

data people have already given to the government to enumerate 

households that do not return Census questionnaires. These data 

range from information about vacant units collected by the U.S. 

Postal Service, to information that is collected by various Federal 

and State agencies to administer and support the programs. 

We also have important opportunities to reduce the non-response 

follow-up workload by improving self-response. The traditional way 

of responding through the mail, then following up through an interview is inefficient. The Internet in contrast is becoming an increasing important tool for self-response. 

For the 2020 Census, the Census Bureau is actively testing strategies to encourage and motivate the use of the Internet as the primary response option. The geographic support services initiative at 

the Census Bureau is directed at obtaining the highest quality address and geospatial data. 

We are looking to expand partnerships with tribal, State and 

local governments as well as with the private sector. These partnerships will be critical in allowing the Census Bureau to develop 

a more focused address canvassing program that will allow the 

Census Bureau to avoid re-canvassing large areas of the country 

for which there are no changes or which—or for which information 

can be obtained from an alternative source. 

Finally, I would like to note that all these options are buttressed 

by the Census Bureau’s efforts to more effectively integrate IT 

services and systems. Instead of building different IT systems that 

serve single programs or even single Census operations, we are 

building systems to share across the enterprise. 

7 

We have also virtualized our servers, building a private cloud environment which we’re using to deliver a virtual desktop infrastructure, or VDI, that allows us to decouple a user’s device from 

any sensitive data. This capability allows us to dramatically increase our telework program. Now employees can use their devices 

and we do not need to furnish equipment. We believe this capacity 

puts us in the strong footing to consider Bring Your Own Device, 

or BYOD, as a real possibility for the 2020 Census. 

In the 2010 Census, we used a custom-built mobile device and 

custom-built software to run on that device. Now we have a team 

working not only on the technological considerations and security 

requirements, but also the personnel policies that would have to accompany a BYOD approach for 2020 based on utilization of off-theshelf technology and software. 

Finally, the budget requested for FY 2014 includes an increase 

of $150.7 million for the 2020 Census. The Census Bureau will 

need this to conduct the necessary research and testing efforts to 

prepare for 2020 at this point. The work in fiscal 2014 is critical 

to meet our schedule to produce analyzed data in time for key decision-making. The next 2 years represent an extremely critical period in the 2020 planning development cycle. We cannot delay the 

work to begin developing our major systems in fiscal year 2016, 

therefore, our preparations for this effort over the next 2 fiscal 

years are of the highest priority. 

To meet these challenges will require the best efforts of the Census Bureau, and we are looking forward to working with the Congress so they can provide the support to meet these challenges successfully. 

Thank you very much, and I would be happy to respond to questions. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you, Mr. Thompson. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:] 

8 


Insert offset folio 1 here 82932.001
9 


Insert offset folio 2 here 82932.002
10 


Insert offset folio 3 here 82932.003
11 


Insert offset folio 4 here 82932.004
12 


Insert offset folio 5 here 82932.005
13 


Insert offset folio 6 here 82932.006
14 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Before we go on to Mr. Goldenkoff, I see the 

gentlelady from New York, Ms. Maloney, has joined us. She is not 

officially a member of this subcommittee, so at this point, I’d like 

to ask unanimous consent that she be authorized to participate in 

this hearing. Without objection, so ordered. 

We do have two other speakers at the table. It’s my understanding that on behalf of the GAO, Mr. Goldenkoff will speak and 

Ms. Cha is here because they realized some of us up here are tech 

geeks and might want to get a little more into the weeds than 

might otherwise happen. So at this point we’ll—we’ll recognize 

Goldenkoff from the GAO. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT GOLDENKOFF 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Thank you. Chairman Farenthold, Ranking 

Member Lynch, and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the 

opportunity to be here today to discuss the progress the Census 

Bureau is making in controlling the cost of the 2020 enumeration. 

As you well know, the fundamental challenge facing the Census 

Bureau is how to cost-effectively count a population that is growing 

steadily larger, more diverse, increasingly difficult to find, and less 

willing to participate in the decennial. 

The cost of counting each housing unit is no longer fiscally sus- tainable. In 2010 dollars, the Bureau spent around $16 to enumerate each housing unit in 1970, compared to $98 in 2010. Much 

like running up a down escalator, with each decade, the Bureau 

has had to invest substantially more resources simply to match the 

results of previous enumerations. 

In our past work, we noted that to control costs while maintaining accuracy, actions were needed in at least three areas: first, the 

Bureau needs to transform itself into a high performing organization; second, the Bureau needs to re-engineer key Census-taking 

operations; and, third, the Bureau needs to strengthen its IT management and security practices. 

Joining me this morning, as was already mentioned, is Carol 

Cha, director of GAO’s IT acquisition management team. And our 

remarks will focus on the status of the cost containment initiatives 

within each of those three areas. Specifically, we’ll highlight the 

progress the Bureau has made to date and what still needs to be 

done going forward. 

I would also like to take this opportunity to welcome John 

Thompson back to the Census Bureau as its newest chief executive 

and wish him every success going forward. John’s experience, both 

inside and outside the Bureau combined with the new 5-year fixed 

term of office for the Census director should help provide the expertise and continuity of leadership that will be important for keeping 

decennial preparations on track in the years ahead. 

Overall, we found that the Bureau’s plans for controlling enumeration costs show promise if effectively implemented. At the 

same time, the Bureau’s plans contain a number of open questions 

that will need to be addressed for a successful head count in 2020. 

For example, in the area of organizational transformation, the Bureau has restructured its entire decennial directorate in order to 

improve collaboration and communication across its divisions, improve operational efficiencies, and instill a more innovative culture. 

15 

The Bureau is also developing agency-wide standards, guidance 

and tools in such areas as risk management and IT investment to 

reduce duplicative efforts across the Bureau. 

These and other actions the Bureau has taken are all important 

steps forward, however, several initiatives require additional attention. For example, in response to our recommendations, the Bureau 

has created a cost estimation team reporting to the director and recently hired an individual to lead that group. Going forward, it will 

be important for the Bureau to finalize its cost estimating policies, 

procedures and guidance, as we have already recommended, in 

order to develop reliable cost estimates for 2020. 

With respect to re-engineering key Census-taking activities, the 

Bureau is researching a number of operational changes that may 

yield significant savings. As John already mentioned, key among 

these are using the Internet as a self-response option and replacing 

certain enumerated collected data with administrative records. 

To be sure, the new Census-taking methods the Bureau is considering have the potential to reduce costs. As one example, the Bureau estimates that administrative records could save up to $2 billion by reducing the need for certain labor intensive door-to-door 

visits by Census workers. However, the Bureau has never used 

these methods at the scale needed for the decennial, if at all, which 

entails a degree of operational risk; thus, as the countdown to 2020 

continues, it will be important for the Bureau to effectively design, 

test and implement these new approaches on schedule with an eye 

toward ensuring they will generate the needed cost savings, function in concert with other Census operations, and work at the scale 

needed for the national head count. 

I will now turn to my colleague, Carol, who will discuss the Bureau’s progress in strengthening IT management and security practices. 

STATEMENT OF CAROL CHA 

Ms. CHA. Chairman Farenthold, Ranking Member Lynch, members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting us to testify today. 

The Bureau currently has a number of research and testing activities that are underway, and plans to use those results to select 

the IT investments to support the 2020. The technology options 

being explored collectively represent a dramatic leap from 2010 

and, thus, a greater amount of risk for the Bureau. And at this 

time, the Bureau has not yet achieved the level of institutional maturity needed to reliably bring these solutions to bear. 

Accordingly, we have recently initiated work to evaluate the status and plans for the various IT options, which include, as Robert 

had mentioned, the use of the Internet, a possible use of a Bring 

Your Own Device model, or BYOD, to enable enumerators to use 

their own smart phones or other mobile devices to perform field 

data collection and other activities, as well as the implementation 

of enterprise-wide IT services such as delivering Bureau-wide storage servers and communication services via the cloud to—in an effort to improve scalability and reduce complexity. 

And while these options offer the potential for greater efficiency 

and effectiveness, that potential is dependent in large part on the 

Bureau’s having well-established IT management and security conVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:31 Oct 17, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\82932.TXT APRIL
16 

trols. IT controls that, if effectively implemented, significantly enhance the ability to deliver these solutions within cost, schedule 

and performance targets, as well as to ensure the protection of the 

information that they contain. 

Our work on the 2010 Census highlighted the mismanagement, 

major cost, schedule and performance issues associated with the acquisition of several critical IT investments. Many of these problems 

were caused by weaknesses in IT governance, requirements management and IT workforce planning. For example, in the case of 

the FITCA handheld computers, functional requirements increased 

by thousands due in part to a lack of a robust requirements process. 

Additionally, our work earlier this year on the Bureau’s IT security posture showed that while the Bureau had taken steps to safeguard the information and systems that support its mission, it had 

not effectively implemented appropriate access controls to protect 

those systems from intrusion. Accordingly, we have made numerous recommendations aimed at strengthening and improving the 

Bureau’s IT management and security capacity. 

To the Bureau’s credit, it has made measurable progress to address the areas of IT governance and security; however, more work 

remains. 

It will be critical for the Bureau to stay aggressive in its push 

to fully implement our remaining open recommendations. By doing 

so, the Bureau will be better positioned to deliver its planned IT 

solutions in a predictable and consistent manner and to ensure the 

adequate protection of these systems. 

In summary, on behalf of Robert and myself, the Bureau is making progress along a number of fronts to secure a more cost-effective enumeration, with efforts aimed at transforming the organization, improving the cost-effectiveness of Census-taking methods, as 

well as strengthening its IT practices; however, a high degree of 

risk and uncertainty exists, and it will be critical for the Bureau 

to further define its roadmap for 2020 and to set clear executivelevel decision points to improve its ability to manage those risks as 

well as achieve desired outcomes. 

In addition, your continued oversight will also remain vital to 

help ensure that the Bureau’s on path to a more efficient Census. 

Thank you, and we look forward to addressing your questions. 

[Prepared statements of Mr. Goldenkoff and Ms. Cha follow:] 

17 


Insert offset folio 7 here 82932.007
18 


Insert offset folio 8 here 82932.008
19 


Insert offset folio 9 here 82932.009
20 


Insert offset folio 10 here 82932.010
21 


Insert offset folio 11 here 82932.011
22 


Insert offset folio 12 here 82932.012
23 


Insert offset folio 13 here 82932.013
24 


Insert offset folio 14 here 82932.014
25 


Insert offset folio 15 here 82932.015
26 


Insert offset folio 16 here 82932.016
27 


Insert offset folio 17 here 82932.017
28 


Insert offset folio 18 here 82932.018
29 


Insert offset folio 19 here 82932.019
30 


Insert offset folio 20 here 82932.020
31 


Insert offset folio 21 here 82932.021
32 


Insert offset folio 22 here 82932.022
33 


Insert offset folio 23 here 82932.023
34 


Insert offset folio 24 here 82932.024
35 


Insert offset folio 25 here 82932.025
36 


Insert offset folio 26 here 82932.026
37 


Insert offset folio 27 here 82932.027
38 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much, and I’ll take the first 

stab at it, recognizing myself for 5 minutes of questioning. Mr. Thompson, the number we hear is $16 per household. I assume the typical suburban or urban household is not your problem 

in that dollar amount. I got my Census form in 2010, filled it out 

and mailed it back. I couldn’t have cost $16. 

Where are your high dollar problems and what—do you have any 

specific thoughts on how you address those? 

Mr. THOMPSON. I do, Congressman. A lot of the cost in the Census is built up in the infrastructure required to collect the information from respondents that, not like you, don’t respond and are 

very difficult to get to respond. So to the degree that we can reduce 

that infrastructure by using some of the operations research methods, by using administrative records, as you suggested before, 

that’s where we’re going to really reduce the cost, and then we can 

apply some additional methods to make the way that the interviewers work more efficient and effective. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Now, is the $16 a current number, or wasn’t 

2010 substantially higher than that? Do you know? 

Mr. THOMPSON. My good colleague here, who estimated the cost, 

said it was much higher. 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. It was $100. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Yeah. 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. About $98 per housing unit. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. So it’s close to $100 in—on the last Census, 

when historically it’s been more like 16. 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Yes. That’s the average overall, but it’s been 

going up every single decade. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Okay. Is your microphone on? 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Sorry. It was $100 on average per housing unit in 2010, and I think that was up from around $70 per housing 

unit in—in 2000. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Okay. All right. Let’s talk—you’re talking a little bit about technology. I’m happy to wee you brought a laptop, 

Mr. Thompson. Maybe you’re atypical of a government that doesn’t 

seem to be able to compute its way out of a paper bag. 

You’re talking about a cloud-based system. Are you developing 

your own cloud-based system or are you outsourcing to a private 

company that has an existing cloud infrastructure? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Right now we are building our own cloud system, 

but we are in consultation with private sector experts to build that. 

We have to—right now we have to build our own, because we believe that is the best way to maintain the security of the Census 

information. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. In that case, so that brings up my next question, actually, with respect to security. As you talk about using 

other records that the government has to ease your job, that creates a level of information sharing between—between agencies and 

the obvious technical and privacy associate—issues associated with 

that. In light of the information that is leaking out from Mr. 

Snowden at the NSA, how—are we opening a can of worms there 

with respect to privacy that we need to be worried about, and do 

you feel you can access that data from other agencies without specific congressional authorization? 

39 

Mr. THOMPSON. That’s—those are certainly good points. So let 

me start by saying that we are actively researching the use of administrative records to improve the Census. We’ll take in information from other agencies. We give no information back out of the 

Census Bureau. Once we have the information, we protect it internally and nothing—nothing leaves the Bureau. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Now, that’s what the NSA thought, too. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, let me also say that you mentioned security issues. And security is—I think is one of the most important 

issues in assuring the public that their information is confidential, 

and that’s one of the reasons I was really glad to see when I came 

on that the GAO was looking at the Bureau’s IT security. IT security is an ongoing challenge. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. I’m kind of short on time. So do you feel—do 

feel like you’re going to need congressional authorization to do 

some of this stuff, yes or no? 

Mr. THOMPSON. I think we’ll need the help of the Congress in 

some instances. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. All right. And let me go to Ms. Cha for a second on a technical issue. We hear a lot of discussion about needing 

to gear up now, but in terms of Internet time, if we’re looking at 

a do-it-yourself, do—how much of this work can we do now, how 

much do we have to wait until we’re a little closer because we don’t 

know what devices are going to be in vogue or what—you know, 

what new technology will be developing in that time frame? 

Ms. CHA. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question. Well, as I 

mentioned earlier, the Bureau is undertaking a number of exploratory measures to look at what technology is available. I think 

what’s important to be mindful of is that the Bureau focus on institutionalizing those IT management and security controls at this 

time in order to be in a position to effectively deliver those solutions, whether—my understanding from Director Thompson is that 

the current plan is to start the development planning work for systems—— 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. And do you agree with—I’m sorry. Do you 

agree with Director Thompson that an in-house system is necessary and as cost-effective as, say, outsourcing to Amazon or 

RackSpace or some company like that for the cloud services that 

already has a big infrastructure in place? 

Ms. CHA. Well, Mr. Chairman, we haven’t done the work associated with that, so it’s hard for me to say. Once we get that information and get a clearer sense of this—of the roadmap that they 

intend to—to craft, we’ll be in a better position to comment. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Yeah. I just worry about large capital expenditures in a high tech area that changes for a Census that is done 

once every 10 years. 

I’ve already gone a little bit over my time, so in fairness, I will 

recognize Mr. Lynch for 6 minutes and 17 seconds. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t think I’ll need 

that, but I do want to ask, the impact of sequestration, I realize 

that you do work over the 10-year Census period to get us to a 

point that we deliver the Census at the end of that period as accurately as possible. And I know in March of 2013, we got a letter 

from Secretary of Commerce Rebecca Blank, who warned that—she 

40 

was Acting Secretary, actually, but she warned that sequestration 

could, and I want to quote from her letter, she said, ‘‘it could force 

the agency to delay the economic Census,’’ which is the once-every5-year survey that forms the basis for a wide range of economic indicators, from GDP to unemployment rates. 

Sequestration also could force the Bureau to conduct fewer field 

tests and increase their reliance on existing data, and delay evaluation programs and operational design decisions until 2015. Census 

advocates also say that the budget cuts will lead to a less-informed 

government and create a more expensive 2020 enumeration and 

endanger data that business, researchers and State and local governments utilize. 

So let me ask you, Director Thompson, do you agree with the advocates that the across-the-board cuts to the Census can yield some 

damaging and negative results that can affect not only the government policymaking, but also economic decision-making in the private sector? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Congressman, I do agree with that. The Bureau, 

because of the limitations in 2013, had to move several tests back 

to 2014. These include testing adaptive design methodologies, 

which are statistical ways to make the non-response follow-up more 

efficient, as well as ways to minimize the number of visits that you 

would make to households, and to test administrative records and 

reducing the workloads. That’s been moved back to 2014. Also some 

of the products on the economic Census have actually been delayed. 

So 2014 is a critical year, and without adequate funding, we’d be 

forced to make decisions between what to do, what not to do. These 

would involve the tests I just mentioned; it could also involve tests 

that would allow us to reduce—to reach our goal of doing a targeted canvassing. So funding for the Census Bureau in this time 

is very critical. 

Mr. LYNCH. All right. I understand it will accommodate some of 

these sequestration effects. The Bureau discussed reducing contract 

work and discussed not filling vacancies that are being created 

through attrition. Can you further describe the Bureau’s plan to 

address those type of cuts and reductions going forward? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, I could, but I think it would take a long 

time as—at the hearing. As we went over the various scenarios, it 

could—— 

Mr. LYNCH. Well, let’s talk about the trends. 

Mr. THOMPSON. But—but in a general sense, as I said before, the 

big issue would be without the adequate funding, we would be in 

a position where we would be deciding what research and development to do for 2020 and what research and development not to do. 

And 2016 is the year—is a key year for us to begin developing the 

systems for the 2020 Census, and we would be developing those 

systems without as much information as we would use, we would 

not be building in the cost-saving methods that we would. So that 

we’re putting the program more and more at risk by pushing 

things further into the decade. 

Mr. LYNCH. Let me ask you, I know from my own experience that 

especially with phone lines, you know, fewer and fewer people have 

phone lines, and I know that you—the traditional way has been to, 

you know, call in, follow up and—but now place is less important, 

41 

but no one—you know, we have one because we just don’t get rid 

of it, but a lot of people don’t have phone lines anymore and so 

place, address is less important to the American consumer. 

Are you having—are you having trouble with that or have you 

developed a—a way of dealing with that that doesn’t reduce your 

accuracy in terms of tracking people? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Yeah. This is—this is another topic we could talk 

about for a long time, because I used to deal with this with my previous company that I worked at. We did the biggest telephone survey for the Federal Government. 

Mr. LYNCH. Were you with the CIA? 

Mr. THOMPSON. No. This was the scientific survey. I’m sorry. 

Mr. LYNCH. Oh, okay. 

Mr. THOMPSON. And—but these—these are—these are—these are 

really, really important issues, because cell phones, as you say, are 

not address-based, so you have to do more probing interviews to determine where a residence is. And there are ways you can do this. 

They’re more expensive. You also can’t use auto dialing techniques 

to call cell phones, because they’re protected under various acts, so 

that makes it more expensive, too, but—but there—there—there’s 

methodology to deal with it; it’s just more expensive and more 

time-consuming, and the response for dialing cell phones is lower 

than for land lines. 

Mr. LYNCH. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. With the remaining time, if I 

could ask representatives from GAO, do you see what the implications could be for the Census by way of the sequestration cuts? 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Yeah. It’s—it’s the sequestration cuts themselves, the—as well as uncertainty in funding that comes from a 

continuing resolution and, you know, a lot of this is congressional 

policy, so I don’t want to weigh in there, but the fact is is that the 

Census Bureau has essentially scrapped its approach, its old approach for taking the Census, these tried and true methods, and 

it’s trying something new for 2020. 

And so past experience has shown that upfront research and 

testing, these early investments in research and testing are critical 

to stave off cost increases down the road. So to the extent that 

budget cuts and uncertainty in funding forces the Bureau to put off 

a lot of the decisions and testing into the future, it just puts the 

entire operation at risk. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much. At this time we’ll recognize the vice chair, Mr. Walberg, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to the 

panel for being here. 

Certainly around Census time, probably one of the greatest glut 

of emails, phone calls, letters, contacts we receive is about, why, 

you know, why does the Census do this to us? And specifically 

about questions. 

But let me go back to a train of questioning the chairman began to some degree, and that’s on the historic cost, $16 per household. 

And you’ve indicated that that has been growing consistently over 

the time, and this past being $100 per household. 

What’s the driving force behind, Mr. Thompson, the cost, as you 

see it? And then Mr. Goldenkoff, I want to ask you the same. 

42 

What’s the driving cost behind that consistent increase in the cost 

per household? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Let me take this from a couple perspectives. In 

some censuses, the 2000 Census, which I was intimately involved 

in, a big component of the increase in costs was a lack of agreement on the design until late in the game. And if you couple that— 

late in the decade. And if you couple that with the growing pressures on the Census Bureau to count everyone as accurately as 

possible, or to count them—the population very accurately, that’s 

driving the cost up. 

For the 2010 Census, looking at that, there are forces on the 

Census Bureau to provide an accurate count, the population is becoming much more diverse, and the big problem is, at least in my 

view, was that the Bureau was using methods to do this, to try to 

produce this count, that were essentially generated in 1970, and 

it’s—and as—as Mr. Goldenkoff said, as previous Director Grove 

says, those methods are unsustainable for taking censuses in the 

future. 

So it’s a combination of the population becoming much more complex, much more diverse, pressures on the Census Bureau to 

produce extremely accurate data, and using methods that are no 

longer up to the task. 

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Goldenkoff, your response. 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Those were all accurate statements and things 

that GAO has said in years past. Basically as the population has 

become more diverse, the Census Bureau has to conduct more operations to ensure everyone is counted accurately. You have people 

living in basements and converted attics and in sheds in backyards, 

people living in cars. If everybody filled out their Census form 

when they received it, we could probably—the Census Bureau 

could do a very cost-effective Census, but of course they don’t, and 

it’s the field operations, it’s the constant follow-up operation, a lot 

of redundant operations that are needed that if you don’t catch 

someone in one operation, you’ll get them in a second operation or 

a third or a fourth. 

So everything that John has said is true, but I’ll add one more 

aspect to this. It’s all well and good to have these redundant operations, but what I think the Bureau needs to do a better job of is 

determining the return on investment of each one of those Censustaking operations. For example, to develop an accurate address list, 

something in the neighborhood of around a dozen separate operations were used. Some of those add accuracy, some of those actually may create more noise. 

Mr. WALBERG. Could the—just jumping in there. With the lists 

and maps as well, would the private sector be able to accomplish 

an assist for us at a far more accurate and reduced cost simply because we know there are lists out there? I mean—— 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Well, yes and no. I mean, first of all, probably 

the most accurate lists in terms of where mailboxes are located 

comes from the Postal Service, and the Bureau is already using 

that. 

Where the challenge comes in is the people who live in unconventional housing units, and that’s where some amount of address— 

where the address canvassing comes in where the Bureau goes 

43 

door to door looking for clues that people might be living in a basement or in an attic or in the shed in the backyard or possibly in 

the car. There are homeless people out there. People are very mobile. So it’s really not clear if the private sector has a better address list. 

Mr. WALBERG. Are we asking too much, our questioning process. 

Are we obtaining a greater amount of information than really is required? Is that part of the cost? 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Well—go ahead. 

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Thompson. 

Mr. THOMPSON. I—well, I believe that the information we collect 

on the decennial Census is extremely critical, and I could go over 

the uses of it. It’s used for basically enforcing civil rights. It’s used 

for redistricting purposes. 

I will also say that we provide that information, the topics in the 

7 year to the Congress, and then we provide the actual questions 

in the 8 year to make sure that we are in agreement with the Congress before we take the Census on the—on the content of it. 

Mr. WALBERG. Well, I guess that—that’s—that’s, again, a great 

concern of my constituents and many people, that we are committing acts of intrusion beyond what seems to be necessary to people. 

And, of course, when we’re talking about costs, I think it’s a question that ought to be addressed as well. Are we collecting absolutely necessary information, are we going overboard in certain 

cases, and are we providing information that actually gives help? 

So I see my time has expired. I yield back. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much. We’ll now go to Ms. 

Maloney for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you very much. And congratulations Mr. 

Thompson, on your new role as Director of the Census Bureau. I 

was very pleased to have sent a letter supporting your nomination 

during Senate confirmations, and I was very pleased that Congress 

last year passed legislation that included a provision that I had authored under separate legislation for a long time that makes the 

director of the Census a presidential term appointment of 5 years, 

subject to the confirmation of the Senate, and this is very important, so that the director is tied to the needs of the Census and not 

to an election calendar. 

And I agree with your testimony today that credible, objective 

and timely data on population growth is fundamental to a democracy, incredibly important for fair representation and fair distribution of hundreds of billions of dollars in Federal aid. 

And your testimony today on the escalating cost, now up to 

roughly $100 a survey, I’m really pleased to hear that you’re looking at new initiatives to cut those costs, including using the Internet as a self-response option and replacing the door-to-door collection with administrative records under certain circumstances. 

But relying on the Internet, it potentially could save a great deal 

of money, but not everyone has access to an Internet or—and people don’t know how to use it, particularly the elderly and certain 

populations. So is there a risk of an undercount in specific populations as we rely or move to relying on an Internet response? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, Congresswoman, you’re hitting a very important point in terms of how we have to take the Census in the 

44 

United States; that is, there’s no one method that will be the right 

method for each segment of our diverse population. The Internet is 

a—is a vehicle that can be used to enumerate a large part of our 

population, in my opinion, and it will save—it will result in a lot 

of resource savings. That doesn’t mean we’re going to do away with 

the mail for everyone, or we’re going to not have to go visit them 

and talk to them with interviewers that speak in language or various other methods, but we have to realize that if we can make savings in one area, we can use those savings to target methods to 

make sure that every part of our diverse population is counted. 

Mrs. MALONEY. And what’s the update on these operations? Are 

you—do you have a lesson plan or a plan of how you’re going to 

use the Internet that’s been produced and are you putting that into 

effect, or where does it stand? 

Mr. THOMPSON. So right now we are in the process of doing research on a small scale that’s aimed at how we can motivate our 

response to the Internet. We’re looking at some various other options, which would include a pre-registration so people might sign 

up in advance to do the Census, but we’re—we’re in the beginning 

stages of doing that work, and that’s what we really need to—we 

need to focus on that if we’re going to be able—and get the funding 

to do it. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Okay. Can you elaborate on your testimony on the $2 billion projected savings if you use administrative records in 

2020 to reduce the door to door? And exactly how would that work? 

And certainly saving money is necessary, but—but are there risks 

to increasing your reliance on administrative records, and what can 

you do about these records, and what particular types of records 

would the Bureau seek? Who would have access to these records, 

and what type of information would the Bureau seek to verify on 

relying on administrative records? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, I think the 2 billion figure was mentioned 

by Robert, and I need to get straight with him on exactly where 

it came from, but—but I would—I would stipulate that there are 

significant savings to be realized by using administrative records. 

And the Census Bureau has used—we have used administrative 

records before on a small scale, as was noted, we’ve used Postal 

Service records, we’ve used military records to count the military 

overseas. And the Secretary of Commerce has really broad discretion in acquiring administrate records working with other agencies. 

The big thing is—one of the big things is deciding on some issues 

as to would you use administrative records in lieu of at least trying 

one contact on non-response follow-up? That’s something that we 

need to talk about, need to really understand and get widespread 

buy-in on as to whether that—that would be acceptable. That 

would probably offer the greatest savings. There are other options 

for using administrative records. 

I will—I will say that when the Census Bureau gets records from 

anywhere, the Postal Service, any source of administrative records, 

we keep those records confidential. We do not give information 

back out of the Census Bureau. In fact, within the Census Bureau, 

only those individuals that need to actually access the records have 

access to them, and we—to the extent we can, we take identifying 

information off of the records. 

45 

We have used records in our research so far from a variety of 

sources, from HUD, from Social Security, the Indian Health Service, the CMS. We—we are looking to really work with the Congress 

to get endorsement that this is the right methodology, that there 

is support for this methodology throughout the decade. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much. We’ll now go to the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Collins. 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This—being new to— 

from this position, looking at this the first time as I’ve started 

digging into this with my committee in the committee side, but also 

my staff, this is an interesting area that often gets overlooked with 

all the headlines and everything else in the world. And as I—as I 

made a statement during all this, I said a lot of times the big stuff 

will take care of the big stuff, but it’s the things like this that really matter to people, because it’s amazing how many questions we 

get on this and how many issues, and especially from a cost perspective. 

I want to ask some questions that sort of—are not random, but 

sort of rapid fire, and then some just from my own case. Mr. 

Goldenkoff, you had said that people are less willing to participate. 

I’m going to come back to that statement here in just a moment, 

but I have a question that I just haven’t found. What is the percent 

of non-response follow-up? What is—what is the percent of those 

who—Ms. Cha, anybody who wants to answer this real quickly. 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. In 2010, it was—the response rate was in the 

low 60 percent, I believe. 

Mr. COLLINS. So 60 percent did it the normal, proper way. They 

get the envelope in the mail, they respond, they turn it back in 

and—— 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Exactly. It was like 60-plus. Something like 

63. 

Mr. THOMPSON. You have a nice chart in your—in your prepared 

statement. 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Yeah, I do. 

Mr. COLLINS. And I may—I may just be missing the number. Out 

of curiosity, I’ve asked. 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. 63. 

Mr. COLLINS. Just curious. And—because the question was just 

raised on the Internet. What is the highest percentage of demographics that actually turned it in the proper way? 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. I—— 

Mr. COLLINS. Age demographics. 

Mr. THOMPSON. So the characteristics of those that don’t return 

the questionnaires—— 

Mr. COLLINS. No. I want to know the ones that do. 

Mr. THOMPSON. That don’t return the questionnaire, tend to be 

more minority, more—— 

Mr. COLLINS. No, no. I want to know those who do. 

Mr. THOMPSON. They tend to be more non-minority, more owner 

than—— 

Mr. COLLINS. Elderly? Senior adult, 45 and over? 55 and over? 

65 and over? Because I have—I have a purpose of the question. I’m 

not trying to lead you—— 

Mr. THOMPSON. No, no, no, no. 

46 

Mr. COLLINS. —a rabbit hole here. 

Mr. THOMPSON. I believe—I believe in the research that I—that 

I’ve done that the elderly do respond at a higher rate than—than— 

than the young. That—— 

Mr. COLLINS. Because one of the concerns is if we use the Internet, the elderly will be, you know, disenfranchised, then we’ll— 

then we’re turning it on the proper way and they’re going—they 

tend to be more responsive to this. And—and that’s why—I’m not 

trying be tricky. I was just trying to—you know, as we look at the 

honest answers here and looking at it as we go forward. 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. The Internet is just an additional method, it’s 

not that the other methods are being tossed. It’s just one more 

method that people can use. 

Mr. COLLINS. But many times—— 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. It’s another option. 

Mr. COLLINS. But many times when this conversation comes up, 

we throw—this comes up in a lot of other areas that we’re undercounting, we’re doing these kind of things based on—and so I just 

wanted to get that out there. 

I want to follow up also—I wish I had far more time than this, 

but we’ll get into, I’m sure, more—— 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. The second round. 

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, we’ll get this. I want to go back to 

the one that we get a lot, and it’s balancing privacy and effectiveness. And especially in the ACS, this is where we get a lot of questions. And I follow up on the—Congressman Walberg’s questions as 

well. Are we asking, you know, too much? And I think—well, I’m 

interested in what you said, that you’re going to bring the questions to Congress. Do we see these? Does that come in the form of 

legislation or is that just merely informational? 

Mr. THOMPSON. We submit the questions to the Congress. It’s— 

if the Congress wants to take action, they would have to enact legislation. 

Mr. COLLINS. Okay. So you’re just bringing this for informational 

purposes, and if there—if there was need to be changed, then— 

okay. Thank you for that. 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Mr. Collins, on the ACS, those questions at 

least initially, you know, it evolved from the Census long form. 

They were—they were tied to legislation. 

Mr. COLLINS. Oh, I get it. But mostly we’re not using the long 

form anymore, we’re using the short form, we’re taking it more, 

you know, frequently. And these are questions that come in, and 

then, of course, you get into the, as you said earlier, less willing 

to participate, and especially in this environment that we’re currently in, which will probably get not a lot better as far as people 

trusting the government and trusting the information to be held. 

These are the kind of questions we get in our office all the time. 

And, you know, one of the issues that, you know—you know, 

given the public’s increased skepticism here, I think we’ve got to 

do a better job of how we, you know, ask the questions and are we 

properly asking, and then also doing away or de-emphasizing, because I’ve looked into this, there’s been one prosecution for not 

turning in your Census data, yet we have it on there and it is in 

law and I understand that, and the threat is if you don’t turn this 

47 

in, we’re going to prosecute you. I think a little less emphasis on 

that when people call, it would probably help a great deal, because 

the next thing they do is they call my office and say, I’m not sending this stuff in. They don’t need to know this. Are they going to 

prosecute me? 

So maybe more of a follow-up than anything else. The questions 

that come from there, however, as we do this, the ability to save 

money, the ability to look at this, I am very concerned, as the 

chairman is, that we’re developing software, we’re developing the 

platform process now that could really be outdated in 6 to 7—you 

know, 6 years, 7 years as we start again. What’s the thought process that went into that, not just laying groundwork, as you said, 

but I’m concerned that even the answers you get now may be outdated even in 2 or 3 years. So what is being taken into account 

there? 

Ms. CHA. Well, I can’t speak on the Bureau’s behalf, but I can 

tell you that high performing organizations, what they do is they 

typically have an internal team that is tasked with looking at and 

keeping up with the key technological trends, and to anticipate and 

identify those disruptive technologies that may affect their core 

business, and then develop options for—for actually implementing 

them into their business. 

Ms. CHA. So, and that is occurring in both the Federal and the 

private sector space. So that is just one example in the Federal sector. When you look at the Department of Transportation, they do 

have certain major programs, for example, that have a technology 

scan and assessment group that, for example, looks at technology 

options for deploying things such as connected vehicles, for example. So those things are occurring, but I think Director Thompson 

would be in a better position to talk about what they are doing to 

ensure that they stay abreast of the current—— 

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, we’ll come back to that but this is 

the question because before this committee in particular, we hear 

more problems, and I think, Mr. Chairman will agree and the 

ranking member as well, we hear more concerns on IT mismanagement and expenses almost than any other thing that we do. And 

so it is really concerning to me when I say we’re going to build our 

own system. So I will refer back to the chairman and we’ll continue 

on. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much. You know the Lord 

works in mysterious ways. Mr. Collins brought up the American 

community survey. I realize this committee had a hearing on that 

last year, but oddly enough, guess what I got in the mail last 

month? Guess what phone call I got last week, very threatening 

nature, by the way, because I had not yet filled it out because I 

wanted to go through this hearing first. 

I do think at some point we’ll review that, and I expect Mr. Collins and I would love to visit with you specifically about that, and 

if we determine that everything wasn’t covered last year, we may 

jump into that again. It may be time to review what we are asking. 

And when you are asked questions like what your mortgage is, how 

much your electric bill is? I understand some of the purposes of 

these and the committees that would want them, but it’s not raised 

well to the American people, and it’s an issue that I get a lot. That 

48 

is obviously out of scope of this hearing. We were talking about 

costs. But I do think it remains an issue that a lot of our constituents are concerned about. 

So let me go on with a couple of questions. We talked a little bit, 

Mr. Thompson, and actually I’m going to take this to the GAO because this was before your time, the electronic slate program that 

was, we paid to develop custom hardware and software for the enumerators last time around in 2010. It’s my understanding that that 

never really worked beyond them being able to enter their time. 

From practical purposes, they weren’t able to put a lot of data in 

that. Is that consistent with your findings or have you investigated 

the success of that at all? 

Ms. CHA. Well, in looking at the major systems that were acquired for 2010, that does seem to be consistent. So for example 

with the FITCA handheld computers which was customed developed hardware and software, ultimately the Bureau delivered a 

half-baked solution that ran into significant cost overruns and ultimately at the end of the day required that manual workaround in 

order to meet the immutable 2010 deadline, and that ultimately led 

to a $3 billion increase to the ultimate cost. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. And I commend that mistake to you, Mr. 

Thompson and Ms. Cha as a consideration with respect to really 

something cloud-based and less done in house. Computer technology doesn’t have a 10-year life span. Technology changes so 

quickly that you really are potentially buying a computer system 

that will be used for one Census when maybe renting something 

through a cloud service might be worth looking at. 

You talked a little bit about statistical methodology. There is no 

proposal in your statistical methodology that does away with we’re 

going to try to count everyone. We’re not going to make assumptions like when somebody does a phone poll of X number of likely 

voters, they extrapolate the whole country. We really are going to 

try to do what the Constitution requires, is that correct? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Yeah, exactly, Congressman. I was very clear in 

my confirmation hearing about that is that that is not a technique 

that I think is appropriate for taking the decennial Census. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. And then with respect, you also talked about 

changing methodology with respect to how you get hold of nonresponders. What do you see as your number one or number two 

failures in areas and how do you—groups meet, bridge, you know, 

people who live in cars or undocumented residents, where are your 

big failures and what are your top one or two ideas for addressing 

that? 

Mr. THOMPSON. So our research has showed that the people that 

are less likely to be counted or harder to count tend to be minority, 

they tend to be highly mobile, they tend to be maybe more renters 

and in unusual living situations. So the effort has to be—and they 

are and it is more expensive to count those individuals. So my goal 

is to find ways to count a, the big part of the population which is 

relatively easier to count, a lot more cost effectively, thereby freeing up resources that we can then target to counting. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. At some point, I would like to get from you, 

and if you could maybe do that in writing based on time considerations, what you consider to be your top five counting problems and 

49 

your top five proposed solutions, and they may not necessarily jibe. 

It is kind of the 80/20 rule you might be able to, your solutions 

might be for a problem that is a little further down the line, but 

it is an easier solution. But I want to see what your biggies are. 

And can you tell me a little about, you’re spending a lot of time 

and effort on geospatial data, there is a lot of that already out 

there and it doesn’t change that much, obviously you get new 

houses built, but they don’t move, and at what point are we doing 

something that there is no longer a need for but there is such a 

marketplace for with GPS’s in everybody’s cars and the prevalence 

of Google Maps, at what point is this geospatial data collected and 

maintained by the government a worthwhile deal or something 

that the private sector has taken it over, we have ceded it and it 

is done. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, you are talking about something that is 

very dear to my heart in terms of targeted canvassing. That is we 

don’t have to build everything. We can buy it, we can get it off the 

Internet, we can work with private companies. We don’t have to do 

it all ourselves and that is why it’s exciting now to look to foreign 

partnerships with the private sector to get information that will— 

I’m stumbling and I’m sorry—that will allow us to not have to canvass all of the country. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. And finally, I hope Mr. Lynch will explore 

some of the postal, he mentioned in his opening statement, the possibility nobody knows the area better than the postal worker who 

walks it every day. I think there is a huge opportunity for that. 

Understanding that postal workers are paid a lot more than Census workers, so we’ve got to factor that into the costwise equation. 

But I know Mr. Lynch brought it up. If he doesn’t ask the question 

I will. 

And then finally my last question is, you mentioned the need for 

Congressional action with respect to possibly authorizing sharing of 

data, and Mr. Collins brought up the possibility of amending the 

questions both on the short form Census and the American Community Survey. 

The sooner we do that the better I think in your preparing. 

At some point, could you also let us, send a letter to this committee with some of the changes that you think you would like to 

see in legislation? Because we actually probably move slower than 

you do. 

With that, I will recognize Mr. Lynch for a second round of questioning. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will follow up on that 

point. Back in September, 2011, GAO recommended that the Secretary of Commerce and the United States Postal Service consider 

a couple of things: One, expanding their current collaborative efforts to include recruiting mail carriers or retired mail carriers for 

the 2020 Census. And the second thing that they talked about was 

assessing whether strategies can be developed to reduce undeliverable as addressed mail in the Census. 

So, Mr. Goldenkoff, you want to take a crack at this and just see 

where we are, what those—I did read the GAO reports but I want 

to get this on the record. Where are we with those efforts of collaboration? 

50 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Well they are ongoing it is my understanding 

as was already mentioned, the partnerships that the Bureau wants 

to form for the geospatial data, the GSSI which will allow for a 

rolling updating of the address list throughout the decade, instead 

of doing it in the 2 years before the Census basically taking one 

large bite all at once, do it in smaller increments, and that will be 

very helpful for targeted address canvassing. There are other opportunities for collaboration with the Postal Service that the Bureau will need to explore, particularly as it gets several year down 

the road. 

For example, of the roughly 600,000 enumerators that were hired 

to do nonresponse follow-up, only 2,400 were postal workers. And 

if the Bureau had perhaps done a more targeted approach to actually, a targeted recruitment of postal workers they could have gotten a lot more. And as you said, these are people who know the 

neighborhoods, they know how to deliver stuff. This is what they 

do for a living. They know the complexities of the different neighborhoods. They already have the background checks done. So that’s 

an option there as well. 

Use of postal facilities that the Postal Service doesn’t need, the 

Postal Service has a lot of extra space. Perhaps the Census Bureau 

can use some of those for their local Census office. There might be 

some opportunities there as well. 

Mr. LYNCH. Right. I know that in the GAO report that I read, it had a dollar figure of $41 an hour for an urban postal worker— 

excuse me, an urban mail carrier, a letter carrier, and I think it 

was $34 for a rural letter carrier. But the retirees, obviously, would 

be a lesser cost. They’ve already got their pension, they’ve already 

got retiree health benefits. I’m just curious if, you know, in looking—the Postal Service has already put out several early retirement programs, incentives to get postal workers to retire. 

Many of those workers have expressed a desire to continue working part-time or in some capacity. This might offer us an opportunity if we worked through the postal workers with their unions 

to actually recruit some of those postal workers, letter carriers that 

they might want to supplement their income but they wouldn’t 

have the full range of benefits that you know an active letter carrier currently requires. 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. And that’s where the trade-offs seem to be 

taken into account, the cost benefit. You mentioned the hourly 

wage rates for the mail carriers of $34 and $41 depending if they 

were rural or urban. That compares with $15 per hour on average 

for a Census enumerator. So you see there’s a huge cost difference. 

And to the extent that some enumeration takes place in the evenings, on weekends, postal workers I guess would be making additional money for overtime, for example, working on Sundays. 

So you can see how the cost increase can be significant if they 

are doing it as part of their postal job as opposed to being employed 

directly as a temporary employee by the Census Bureau. 

Mr. LYNCH. I just question the efficiency of someone walking into 

a neighborhood they have never been in before and they’re supposed to find people as opposed to the efficiency of a letter carrier 

that has been down that street, knocked on that door, been in that 

house a thousand times. 

51 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. You’re absolutely right and that’s why if they 

were hired as supplemental income, just sort of on their own, not 

through their postal employment, but just as anybody else, but it 

was targeted recruitment, there could be both not only cost savings 

there, but also it could be done more efficiently. 

Mr. LYNCH. What about reducing the number of undeliverable as 

addressed mailings? Mr. Thompson or Ms. Cha, as well, if you any 

thoughts on how we go about that, or Mr. Goldenkoff. 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. What we were getting at there is some forms 

just because of the nature of the address, the Postal Service can’t 

find the particular address, and so the, using Postal Service 

records, for example, those can be eliminated before they get sent 

out. 

The other thing I want to say too is that to the extent that there 

is this partnership going on, it doesn’t necessarily have to be a oneway flow of benefits. The Postal Service can make use of Census 

information to improve their operational efficiencies as well, and 

there has been some cases of that in 2010. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you. I see my time has expired. I yield back. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you and we are bumping up against the 

time we need to get to the 9/11 ceremony remembrance. I know Mr. 

Collins had about 1 minute more he wanted to take and Ms. Norton you walked in. 

Are you guys able to wait until we are done with the 9/11 remembrance on the Capitol steps and we’ll reconvene then? We can’t 

miss the 9/11 event. I believe the House Members were supposed 

to report there at 10:45 so. We’ll, if you guys are willing to hustle 

over there, we’ll go ahead. 

And Mr. Collins, if you can keep it to a minute and with your 

closing we’ll go and give Ms. Norton and Mr. Clay a chance. 

Mr. COLLINS. I’m going to give a lesson, this is something, as I 

said a few minutes ago, it was very interesting and my office we 

are going to be very involved, I want to echo the chairman’s sentiment. Think now about what you need from Congress. Think now 

about what you want to bring before us to change. Get it to us now 

so we can have the input and we are not in a last minute. That 

is the main thing that I want to emphasize and my office and my 

staff will be willing to work with you. Please do so. Thank you and 

I yield back. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you. We’ll recognize Ms. Norton now, 

the gentlelady from the District of Columbia. 

Ms. NORTON. I simply want to ask about the value or lack thereof of the community survey. Has it increased the accuracy of the 

Census, this monthly survey? You use it as a base for the Census. 

Does it increase the costs if you didn’t have it or if it is voluntary, would it be valuable any longer? Would it cost any less? 

Mr. THOMPSON. So, thank you for the question, Congresswoman 

Norton. 

The American Community Survey replaced the decennial Census 

long form to provide that valuable information. 

Because the American Community Survey is taken on a rolling 

basis, the information it provides is more current and therefore 

more accurate than the decennial Census long form. The American 

Community Survey is therefore a very valuable resource for planVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:31 Oct 17, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\82932.TXT APRIL
52 

ning programs, administering programs. And it is used by a variety 

of stakeholders, city planners, the private sector. 

Ms. NORTON. Does it increase the cost significantly, I mean, if it 

were voluntary? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Oh—yeah, if the American Community Survey 

was made voluntary I think Dr. Groves—it would increase the cost. 

My recollection is that Dr. Groves in his testimony last July indicated that the costs might go up by as much as $60 million a year. 

Ms. NORTON. Has it decreased the undercount? Has it had an effect on the undercount? 

Mr. THOMPSON. The American Community Survey Census is providing more current information. The information can be used for 

better planning and thus reduce the undercount to some degree. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. And we’ll go to Mr. Clay now. 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I will be as brief 

as possible. 

Mr. Thompson, on March 15th of this year, I, along with several 

Members of Congress, transmitted a letter to the Census Bureau 

urging the Bureau to define a national solution to ensure that incarcerated individuals are counted at their last legal residence. The 

U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in June of 2012 upholding 

a Maryland law that tabulates prisoners as residents of their home 

addresses for the purpose of redistricting. However, since the current Census Bureau policy designates a prison cell as a residence 

it prevents populations of more than 1,500 Federal and State prisons that are largely male, urban and African American or Latino 

from being counted as residents of their home community. 

These incarcerated individuals normally have no ties to the prison location, cannot vote, and most often, return to their home communities upon release. Our letter urged the Bureau to count these 

individuals at their last legal home address to prevent districts 

housing prisoners from being overrepresented. 

Can you share your thoughts on counting the prison population? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Congressman, at least I, at the Census Bureau, 

take the rules that we use to count individuals very seriously. After 

each Census and before each Census, the Census Bureau works 

with the variety of stakeholders to try to ensure that the rules they 

use to count people are the most appropriate for that Census. And 

for the 2020 Census, we have not made our decision yet. And my 

opinion on this will be based on consultations with stakeholders to 

try to adopt rules that will be most appropriate to count people. So 

I’m looking forward to talking with you and other stakeholders on 

how to count not just the prison population but other components 

for population. 

Mr. CLAY. And be aware that several States have implemented 

laws like the one upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court for Maryland 

that allows for you to count prisoners from their home districts. Because when you think about it, it skews the redistricting process 

when you count prisoners in prisons who are not there permanently. 

I know in my home State of Missouri, they are able to create 

State representative districts because of prison populations in rural 

areas, and it skews the entire process. So I want you to be aware, 

53 

and I look forward to working with you and sharing our views 

about this issue. 

So Mr. Chairman and Mr. Thompson thank you and I yield back. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much. I apologize. We are 

going to have to rush out here. We really do want to participate 

in the 9/11 ceremony. I would like to thank the panel and the witnesses, and we are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:50 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(55) 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

56 


Insert offset folio 28 here 82932.028
57 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 29 here 82932.029