[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
APPORTIONMENT IN THE BALANCE: A LOOK INTO THE PROGRESS OF THE 2010
DECENNIAL CENSUS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERALISM
AND THE CENSUS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 1, 2006
__________
Serial No. 109-131
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
27-016 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
DAN BURTON, Indiana TOM LANTOS, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DIANE E. WATSON, California
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
DARRELL E. ISSA, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JON C. PORTER, Nevada C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina Columbia
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania ------
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio (Independent)
------ ------
Melissa Wojciak, Staff Director
David Marin, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director
Rob Borden, Parliamentarian
Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk
Phil Barnett, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel
Subcommittee on Federalism and the Census
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio, Chairman
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
------ ------
Ex Officio
TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
John Cuaderes, Staff Director
Ursula Wojciechowski, Professional Staff Member
Juliana French, Clerk
Mark Stephenson, Minority Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 1, 2006.................................... 1
Statement of:
Kincannon, Charles Louis, Director, U.S. Census Bureau;
Brenda S. Farrell, Acting Director, Strategic Issues, U.S.
Government Accountability Office; and David A. Powner,
Director, Information Technology Management Issues, U.S.
Government Accountability Office........................... 8
Farrell, Brenda S........................................ 14
Kincannon, Charles Louis................................. 8
Powner, David A.......................................... 37
Rector, Ralph, Ph.D., senior research fellow and project
manager, Center for Data Analysis, the Heritage Foundation;
Andrew Reamer, Ph.D., deputy director, Urban Markets
Initiative, the Brookings Institution; and Margo Anderson,
professor, history and urban studies, University of
Wisconsin-Milwaukee........................................ 126
Anderson, Margo.......................................... 155
Reamer, Andrew, Ph.D..................................... 135
Rector, Ralph, Ph.D...................................... 126
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Anderson, Margo, professor, history and urban studies,
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, prepared statement of... 157
Clay, Hon. Wm. Lacy, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Missouri, prepared statement of................... 6
Farrell, Brenda S., Acting Director, Strategic Issues, U.S.
Government Accountability Office, prepared statement of.... 16
Kincannon, Charles Louis, Director, U.S. Census Bureau,
prepared statement of...................................... 10
Maloney, Hon. Carolyn B., a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York, prepared statement of............... 115
Powner, David A., Director, Information Technology Management
Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office, prepared
statement of............................................... 39
Reamer, Andrew, Ph.D., deputy director, Urban Markets
Initiative, the Brookings Institution, prepared statement
of......................................................... 137
Rector, Ralph, Ph.D., senior research fellow and project
manager, Center for Data Analysis, the Heritage Foundation,
prepared statement of...................................... 128
Turner, Hon. Michael R., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Ohio, prepared statement of................... 3
APPORTIONMENT IN THE BALANCE: A LOOK INTO THE PROGRESS OF THE 2010
DECENNIAL CENSUS
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1, 2006
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Federalism and the Census,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael R.
Turner (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Turner, Foxx, Clay and Maloney.
Staff present: John Cuaderes, staff director; Ursula
Wojciechowski, professional staff member; Juliana French;
clerk; Adam Bordes and Mark Stephenson, minority professional
staff members; and Jean Gosa, minority assistant clerk.
Mr. Turner. A quorum being present, this hearing of the
Subcommittee on federalism and the Census will come to order.
Welcome to the subcommittee's oversight hearing entitled,
``Apportionment in the Balance: A Look into the Progress of the
2010 Decennial Census.'' Today we will consider the status of
the Census Bureau's preparations for the 2010 decennial census.
This hearing is a followup to our April 19, 2005, hearing
last year entitled, ``Halfway to the 2010 Census: The Countdown
and Components to a Successful Decennial Census.'' Since then
the Census Bureau has achieved and is nearing completion of
several key milestones. The Bureau has successfully carried out
the American Community Survey for 1 full year. Additionally,
the MAF/TIGER Enhancement Program is nearing what we all hope
will be a successful completion.
As the Bureau continues its preparation for a short form
only census, it is undertaking two major contracts: the Field
Data Collection Automation program and the Decennial Response
Integration System. These two technology contracts have a
combined value of over $1 billion. These major contracts signal
the first real ``hi-tech'' census, and the subcommittee will
examine how the successful implementation of these contracts is
critical to the 2010 decennial census.
Furthermore, the subcommittee will explore several other
issues such as the Local Update of Census Addresses [LUCA],
program and the intergovernmental partnerships required to
facilitate the program. There are a number of important issues
that can impact the successful implementation of the census,
including personnel and infrastructure matters, hiring and
training temporary workers, and establishing temporary field
offices.
Testing for the 2010 decennial census is already underway.
The Bureau is testing policy and technology concepts in Travis
County, TX, and the Cheyenne River Reservation in South Dakota.
Canvassing in Texas was to be completed in 6 weeks, and the
subcommittee understands that this goal was not met. In today's
hearing, we will examine this issue, as well as the issue of
using handheld technology in the testing environment. It is our
understanding that the handhelds failed to perform adequately
and the activity was concluded without finishing the address
file that is needed for the next test phase.
These issues must be resolved before the 2008 dress
rehearsal. I am eager to hear what the Census Bureau is doing
to address the problems of their tests and other issues related
to the 2010 decennial census.
On our first panel, we welcome remarks from the Honorable
Charles Louis Kincannon, director of the Census Bureau. Then we
will hear from Ms. Brenda Farrell, Acting Director of Strategic
Issues, and Mr. David Powner, Director of Information
Technology Management Issues, both from the Government
Accountability Office, regarding their assessment of the
Bureau's planning for the decennial census.
On our second panel, we will hear from Dr. Ralph Rector
from the Heritage Foundation, Dr. Andrew Reamer from the
Brookings Institution, and last, we will hear from Dr. Margo
Anderson, professor of history and urban studies at the
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Michael R. Turner follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.002
Mr. Turner. With that, my colleagues on the subcommittee
and I welcome you and look forward to your testimony, and I now
yield to the gentleman from Missouri, the distinguished Member
Mr. Clay, for any opening remarks that he may have.
Mr. Clay. Good morning, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
calling today's hearing to review the Census Bureau's efforts
for carrying out the 2010 decennial census. I welcome our
witnesses, especially Director Kincannon of the Census Bureau.
I would like to begin by expressing my unwavering support
for the American Community Survey and its goals of delivering
more timely and effective data to the Bureau. As the ranking
member of this subcommittee, I am pleased to have been a part
of the efforts to bring the ACS into reality. The Census Bureau
is now collecting data in every county in the United States,
and this effort will make the 2010 census less complex and more
efficient.
Information from the decennial census provides an important
benchmark for the formulas governing many of our domestic
programs, thus helping us serve the needs of our citizens. The
Bureau continues to face pressing challenges, however, as
preparations for the 2010 decennial census begin in earnest.
First, it remains unclear if their acquisitions for new IT
infrastructure will be tested and ready for the 2008 rehearsal
of 2010 census. It will be difficult to ensure an accurate
census if we cannot rely on the new technologies being
implemented to aid in agency efforts.
Furthermore, it remains unclear to me if past problems
concerning the undercounting of minority populations or the
accuracy of the Master Address File have been remedied. With
only 4 years left until field work begins, plans and mitigation
strategies must be established to ensure the most accurate and
reliable census possible.
Once again, I look forward to learning more today about the
plans for the 2010 census and how we in Congress can be of
assistance to the Bureau.
This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman, and I yield
back.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Wm. Lacy Clay follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.004
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Clay. I appreciate your interest
and your professionalism on the committee and your work with
the issues of the census.
We will now start with the witnesses. Each witness has
kindly prepared written testimony, which will be included in
the record of this hearing. Witnesses will notice there is a
timer with a light on at the witness table. The green light
indicates that you should begin your prepared remarks, and the
red light indicates that time has expired.
It is the policy of this committee that all witnesses be
sworn in before they testify. If you would please rise and
raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Turner. Please let the record show that all the
witnesses have responded in the affirmative, and we will begin
with Mr. Kincannon.
STATEMENTS OF CHARLES LOUIS KINCANNON, DIRECTOR, U.S. CENSUS
BUREAU; BRENDA S. FARRELL, ACTING DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC ISSUES,
U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; AND DAVID A. POWNER,
DIRECTOR, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT ISSUES, U.S.
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
STATEMENT OF CHARLES LOUIS KINCANNON
Mr. Kincannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, and
on behalf of the Census Bureau, I want to thank you and the
ranking minority member and the whole committee for inviting me
to testify. Today we are 4 years and 1 month from census day.
The success of the decennial census is the Census Bureau's
largest and most important priority. It represents 60 percent
of the President's 2007 budget request for the Census Bureau.
The budget for the decennial census program covers the American
Community Survey [ACS]; the MAF/TIGER enhancement; and the 2010
census activities themselves. Because of strong congressional
support, the American Community Survey is on track and moving
toward its goals.
We will release the first annual estimates from the full
ACS this August for approximately 8,000 communities with
populations of 65,000 or more and, for the first time, data for
every congressional district in the country. In 2008, we will
release data for communities of 20,000 or more, and in 2010,
data for every census tract--2 years before equivalent data
would be available from a traditional census long form.
The ACS is crucial to the overall success of the decennial
census because it replaces the long form and allows us to focus
our attention on a complete count of the American population.
Another critical component of the success of the 2010
census is the address list and map. The Census Bureau is
conducting an extensive nationwide operation to modernize and
consolidate MAF/TIGER. We are using GPS to align the streets of
the TIGER maps and working with communities to ensure that we
do not miss a new neighborhood. To date, we have realigned the
streets and roads for about 1,700 of the Nation's counties,
with about 1,600 more to go in order to reach completion by
April 2008. We will complete this task on time.
We are also working to improve our most significant
partnership opportunity--the Local Update of Census Addresses
program [LUCA]. In 2007, we will invite the Nation's 39,000
municipalities to help update the address list for their
communities for use in the 2010 census. Knowing that
communities differ, we will offer different options for
governments to participate, ranging from a full review of the
address file to a simple review of housing unit counts.
We are working to strengthen the infrastructure of the 2010
census through technology. As the chairman said, this will be
the first truly high-tech census. Our efforts have centered on
two major systems: the 2010 Decennial Census Response
Integration System [DRIS], as we call it, and the Field Data
Collection Automation system [FDCA]. These large information
technology contracts together total over $1 billion. The
purpose of the DRIS contract, which was awarded last year to
Lockheed Martin Corp., is to ensure accurate and protected
collection and storage of Americans' data whether by paper form
or handheld computer. The FDCA contract, which will be awarded
in the next month or so, provides automation resources to
support field data collection operations.
As we move forward, it is essential to remain on schedule.
This year, we will conduct a final test census in Travis
County, TX, and the Cheyenne River Reservation in South Dakota.
These tests are important to our ability to conduct a
successful dress rehearsal and ultimately a successful census.
We will conduct the 2008 dress rehearsal in two locations: San
Joaquin County, CA, and in nine counties surrounding
Fayetteville, NC. In fact, some aspects of the dress rehearsal
are already underway, including LUCA.
The dress rehearsal will use the technology we plan to use
in the decennial census, and this is quite important. No last-
minute experiments. We will include a targeted second mailing
of questionnaires to encourage households to respond and reduce
costly non-response followup. We will also send a targeting
mailing of Spanish-English bilingual questionnaires in selected
neighborhoods.
It is important to note that many of the 2010 census
operations and procedures, and especially decisions, those
involving technology, need to be in place before the dress
rehearsal. The President's budget recognizes that we cannot
postpone improvements or tests without introducing risk to the
census.
All of this underscores the importance of congressional
support for all aspects of the 2010 decennial census program
from the ACS to the dress rehearsal. Thousands of individual
operations and procedures must be successfully implemented
before census day in order to ensure the success of the census.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity to provide
an update to the Congress, and I look forward to answering your
questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kincannon follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.008
Mr. Turner. Thank you.
Ms. Farrell.
STATEMENT OF BRENDA FARRELL
Ms. Farrell. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Clay, thank you for the
opportunity to be here today to discuss the Census Bureau's
preparations for the 2010 census. Full and comprehensive
planning is crucial to the success of any large, long-term
project, especially with the costs, complexity, and high stakes
of the decennial census. The 2010 census projected life-cycle
costs span 13 years and total over $11 billion, and its
recruitment goals are similar to the 2000 census--2\1/2\
million applicants could be recruited to carry out census
operations.
Given the escalating costs of the census in an era of
serious national fiscal challenges, oversight will be
particularly important. As shown in the figures on the screen
and on page 6 of the testimony, the projected average cost is
$72 per housing unit for 2010, and it is nearly 5\1/2\ times
greater than the $13 it cost to count each household in 1970 in
constant fiscal year 2000 dollars.
My remarks today are based on findings from our prior
report and preliminary results from ongoing work that we plan
to issue in the near future. First, I will describe the overall
progress that the Bureau is making toward preparing the 2010
census. Second, I will note some issues that pose a risk to a
successful census. Most importantly, the Bureau is further
along in planning the 2010 census compared to a similar point
in time during the 2000 census cycle.
Early in this decade, the Bureau developed a promising
design to achieve its principal goals for the 2010 census. The
fundamental design of the census has the potential to control
costs and improve coverage and accuracy. Also noteworthy is the
Bureau's greater willingness to outsource key census-taking
operations that would be difficult for it to carry out on its
own. It will be important for the Bureau to focus on its
acquisition activities to help ensure the 2010 contractors
fulfill the Bureau's expectations.
While the Bureau should be commended for the progress that
it has made, it will be important for the Bureau to resolve
issues that pose a risk to a successful census. For example,
the Bureau plans to use handheld mobile computing devices to
help develop the census address list and collect data from
millions of households that do not respond to the initial
census questionnaires. These handheld devices are an important
step forward because they are designed to replace many of the
paper questionnaires and maps that were used in past censuses
and are a key element of the Field Data Collection Automation
program, one of the acquisition contracts that my colleague Mr.
Powner will discuss.
The Bureau has never before used these devices in a
decennial. In tests held to date, census workers found the
devices easy to use for such things as using the electronic
maps to find their assignment areas. On the other hand, the
reliability of the devices proved troublesome as the devices
experienced transmission problems and memory overload. The
Bureau has taken steps to address these issues, and next month
the devices will be evaluated again, and we will be onsite to
assess the extent to which the Bureau has addressed these
reliability issues.
Further, I would like to note that Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita highlight the importance of contingency planning and
examining whether the Bureau's existing operations are adequate
for capturing the demographic and physical changes that have
occurred along the Gulf Coast. We have had a preliminary
discussion with the Bureau on this topic and will continue to
assess the Bureau's contingency planning as part of our
oversight of the 2010 census.
In conclusion, while the ramp-up to 2010 is making
progress, past experience has shown that Congress has every
reason to remain vigilant. As we have done throughout the past
several decades, we look forward to supporting the subcommittee
in its decisionmaking and oversight efforts.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I will be happy
to take questions from you or Mr. Clay at your convenience.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Farrell follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.029
Mr. Turner. Thank you.
Mr. Powner.
STATEMENT OF DAVID POWNER
Mr. Powner. Chairman Turner, Ranking Member Clay, we
appreciate the opportunity to testify on key acquisitions
supporting the 2010 decennial census. The use of automation
will be critical to the success of the upcoming census. Nearly
a quarter of the 2010 respondents are expected to use the
Internet. Key technologies will be used to standardize
responses, and field-based enumerators plan to use nearly half
a billion mobile computing devices.
However, acquiring technologies can present enormous
challenges and risks if not managed effectively. These
technology acquisition risks have been highlighted in numerous
oversight hearings by Chairman Davis at the full committee, and
your early attention to and leadership over the decennial
acquisitions, Mr. Chairman, will hopefully ensure greater
Bureau and contractor accountability.
This morning, as requested, I will summarize the importance
and status of two key acquisitions that are critical to the
2010 decennial and key management activities that the Census
Bureau is establishing that are crucial to delivering this
technology on time, at cost, and with the promised
functionality.
The Census Bureau has initiated efforts to acquire the
Response Integration System and the Field Data Collection
Automation program. The integration system is intended to
receive and standardize census data from the various response
modes, including census forms, telephone agents, and the
Internet. It is also intended to standardize data collected
from mobile computing devices, which are key to capturing non-
response followup.
The mobile devices are part of the data collection program,
which is also expected to provide office automation for
regional and local census offices, as well as the
telecommunications infrastructure. The integration contract was
awarded to Lockheed Martin and its seven subcontractors in
October, and the Field Data Collection contract was to be
awarded at the end of this month. However, the Director's
testimony this morning indicates the contract will occur in
late spring. Both projects' life-cycle costs are expected to
total over $1 billion. Both acquisitions involve ambitious
schedules to deliver the needed functionality to support the
planned 2008 dress rehearsal and are absolutely essential to
achieving the goals of the decennial, including increased
coverage, accuracy, and timeliness of the data.
Key management activities and processes are needed to
effectively manage these acquisitions. Last June, we reported
to you, Mr. Chairman, that the Census Bureau's institutional
information technology management capacity still had room for
improvement. Given these weaknesses and the importance of the
integration system and the Field Data Collection program, you
asked for a detailed review of these acquisitions to assist in
your oversight of the decennial. While both projects have
initiated steps to establish key project management activities,
neither has the full set of capabilities needed to effectively
manage these acquisitions. Incomplete management activities
include those for requirements management, risk management, and
contract monitoring. These increase the risk that these
projects will encounter problems in meeting cost and schedule
expectations.
Given the immovable deadline for performing the 2010
decennial census, if unexpected problems occur, the Bureau will
be faced with two options to address these problems: one,
throwing more money at them; or, two, accepting systems with
reduced functionality.
To address these program management shortfalls, my written
statement includes a number of specific recommendations that
focus on further defining exactly what is expected from these
acquisitions, establishing robust risk mitigation programs that
include early escalation and quick resolution of risks, and
establishing clear metrics to oversee contractor performance.
The decennial management team appears to be dedicated to
bolstering its management capabilities and have told us that
they plan to complete these important activities as soon as
possible. I would like to stress that these endorsed management
activities ultimately are about placing the Government in
charge of defining what it wants, being on top of risks, and
having metrics to measure contractor performance. Relying on
contractors for technical solutions is fine. Relying on them
for requirements and performance metrics is not.
Mr. Chairman, the Response Integration and the Field Data
Collection program are crucial to the success of the decennial.
Although we commend efforts to date to establish these key
contracts, additional management attention is needed to
effectively oversee these acquisitions. Establishing the
recommended management activities are critical to ensuring that
the Bureau is in the driver's seat as these acquisitions
process forward.
This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
your leadership and oversight of the decennial census.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Powner follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.104
Mr. Turner. Thank you. I want to recognize that we have
been joined by Carolyn Maloney from New York. Thank you for
being here today.
Mrs. Maloney. Nice to see you. I would ask permission to
place my opening comments in the record?
Mr. Turner. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.106
Mr. Turner. Recognizing that we have an 11 o'clock address
by the Prime Minister of the Republic of Italy, we are going to
try to conclude our questions to panel one within that time
period, which you have been very precise within the timeframe
of your oral remarks, and I appreciate that, giving us what
should be ample time to ask questions.
I would like to start with Director Kincannon. Does the
Bureau have any plans to adjust the 2010 census count? This
includes working with any outside nongovernment entities to
plan for adjustment.
Mr. Kincannon. No, Mr. Chairman, we do not have plans to
address the census results. We spent more than 3 years working
on what we thought was a well-designed system to provide
improvements to the quality of the count. But at the end of
that more than 3-year period of our best experts working on it,
our conclusion was that it was not possible with the technology
and means at our disposal to adjust the census for the main
products of the census which required block-level statistics
and place statistics. We simply cannot do that. So we are not
planning on doing that, sir.
We do plan to measure coverage for purposes of continuing
to assess and improve the techniques we use in the census,
however.
Mr. Turner. Director Kincannon, I believe that in your
written testimony you did not talk about the power of the
Internet and its assistance it can provide in the 2010 census.
Many response-driven organizations have gone the way of the
Internet as a way of collecting their data. Certainly other
panel members have referenced the Internet.
Will you share with us how the census will be harnessing
the Internet to allow people to respond to their census
questionnaire?
Mr. Kincannon. Well, I am aware that the Congress has much
optimism about the Internet as a way of reducing the cost of
many Government activities, and sometimes that has worked. Our
experience with household surveys and with census tests has
been that it is not something that increases response or
improves the quality of the data that we get.
We tested this in the 2003 national census test. There was
no difference in the response rate in the panel that had no
option to respond by the Internet from the one that had the
option to respond by the Internet. About 10 percent of the
responses in the Internet test panel came from the Internet,
but it did not increase response at all.
Furthermore, the concerns about the complexity of dealing
with the Internet make me very cautious in how much we would
depend on that. The well-documented effort that phishing and
spamming on the IRS Web site are a caution to me. I nearly fell
victim to that myself, and I can see how a person who tries to
respond to the census might well be duped into providing
information that would lead to identity theft on the Internet.
And if it does not increase our efficiency or effectiveness,
increase our response rates, or measurably reduce our costs,
then the cost of protecting against that is probably not
warranted.
We continue to explore and we contemplate having an option
for Internet response, but I do not see it as a main component
of what we will do.
Mr. Turner. Ms. Farrell or Mr. Powner, would you like to
respond to that, on the prospects of the Internet use?
Mr. Powner. If I could, I think it is great that we
acknowledge the security considerations with using the Internet
for this next census, although some of the Bureau's internal
documentation claim that up to a quarter of the respondents
could, in fact, use the Internet to respond to this upcoming
census.
I think what is key is if you look in particular at one of
the key acquisitions, which is the response system, which the
contract was already let in October. You have a contractor that
is working toward integrating Internet, phone, and paper forms,
and it is very important that, although I see where the
Director is coming from in terms of it may be lower than that
quarter of the respondents, it is very important that we be
prepared from a systems perspective to respond to a higher
number of Internet responses and that the systems have the
capability and the contractors are well prepared to integrate
those Internet responses.
Mr. Turner. There have been some concerns about the
handhelds and if they should fail in 2008 or 2010. Mr. Powner,
are you comfortable, or Ms. Farrell, with the Bureau's
contingency planning with respect to the handhelds if they
should not perform?
Ms. Farrell. The handheld computing devices are a key part
of the design for the 2010 census, and to date, for the 2006
and 2008 dress rehearsal, we are not aware of any backup plans
in the event that there are widespread problems with these
devices. If they fail, it will cause serious operational
challenges for the Bureau to back these up with paper
questionnaires or whatever else will be necessary for the
verification for address canvassing.
Mr. Powner. Mr. Chairman, if I can expand on Ms. Farrell's
response, if you look at the FDCA contract, which is to be
awarded some time this spring--and handheld is a part of that
contract--it is very important to address the problems that
have been identified to date that the Census Bureau specifies
performance requirements. We have had serious performance
issues with the handhelds to date, so understanding what the
availability of those handhelds should be, what the response
time is, what our peak loads are, that clearly needs to be
specified in these contracts so that we could hold contractors
accountable for those specific requirements. That ties to one
of our management activities where you look at the requirements
management area.
Mr. Turner. Director Kincannon, would you like to respond?
Mr. Kincannon. Yes, I would be happy to. The handhelds that
we have tested in the field to date have been ones developed at
the Census Bureau, and they have confirmed our opinion of a
couple of years ago that we were not able to develop a device
that would meet all the requirements for the dress rehearsal or
the census ultimately. We simply do not have those
technological capabilities.
We advanced in the process of procuring those services, and
I am happy to say that all of those companies who have sought
to submit a bid have submitted devices, prototype devices, that
exceed what we were able to do and that appear that they can
fully meet the functional requirements, including security,
ease of use, and communications, both wireless and landline. So
we are confident that they will be able to meet the
requirements that we have set out.
Mr. Turner. So if I could rephrase the question, my
understanding of your answer, are you saying that you trust
them enough that you don't believe that there is a contingency
plan that is necessary or your contingency planning has not
been completed as you are looking to trying to nail down the
greatest efficiency of these units?
Mr. Kincannon. Well, it is the latter, Mr. Chairman. We do
have contingency planning, and we are concerned about that. But
we are now at this stage of things much less concerned than we
were a year ago about widespread failures. We will know that
more when the contract is awarded, I believe as GAO indicated,
they will be closely involved in understanding the capabilities
offered and in monitoring the testing of those capabilities.
Mr. Turner. Mr. Clay.
Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Director Kincannon, can you tell me what will be done to
test the Local Update of Census Addresses in the 2006 census
test? Also, can you update us with an outline of Bureau plans
on what it will do to help local governments prepare for the
address correction program through the Local Update of Census
Addresses program?
Mr. Kincannon. Yes, Congressman. We did use the LUCA
process in preparation for the 2006 test, and we evaluated any
problems that we identified in that. We did not consider it a
test per se because we have had a well-working LUCA process. We
have already begun rolling out the steps for conducting LUCA
for the dress rehearsal, and we will continue to fine-tune
that. But it has proved a very useful process in 2000 and in
the test censuses for ensuring that we do not miss
neighborhoods and that we have the best local information
incorporated in what we plan to do.
Mr. Clay. Can you tell me about how you reach out to local
governments and assist them or work with them?
Mr. Kincannon. On LUCA?
Mr. Clay. Yes.
Mr. Kincannon. Yes, sir. Well, we offer an array of
options. There are different degrees and sophistication of
local governments according to their scale and other factors,
and we offer a variety of options that they can choose within
the LUCA depending on what they think is their best way of
checking those addresses. We give them information in advance
of LUCA about what materials will be provided and how they
might use them, and, you know, so we work with them in that
way.
Mr. Clay. There have been many individuals forced to leave
the Gulf Coast after the hurricanes last fall. What efforts are
underway to account for those who have left areas affected and
include them in the 2010 census? Will there be a measure to
determine if these individuals have left permanently or only on
a temporary basis? Have you all addressed that at Census and
figured how you are going to count these individuals?
Mr. Kincannon. Yes, Mr. Clay, we had procedures that have
been used in the past for persons displaced in hurricanes in
the census year. Hurricane Floyd hit North Carolina pretty hard
in 1999. A lot of people were displaced. For census 2000 we had
procedures that we made sure we contacted both former
residences or sites that may have been temporarily or
permanently abandoned and people living in various shelters. We
counted them where they said they intended to be. That was
identified their usual place of residence.
We are farther away, and let us hope that with the best
human efforts and God's aid that the people displaced have
settled in a permanent way either in their former homes or in
new homes by 2010. But we do have procedures; they are arduous,
and they cost extra money. But we have procedures that work
with persons who are displaced.
Mr. Clay. I am concerned about provisions in the
President's budget that would lead to the elimination of the
Survey of Income and Program Participation [SIPP], as you call
it. SIPP is the only large-scale survey explicitly designed to
analyze the impact of a wide variety of Government programs on
the well-being of some of America's poorest families. What
justification can you offer us for the elimination of the SIPP
program?
Mr. Kincannon. Well, first let me give the context. We
operate, as always, in a setting of constrained resources. The
Congress does not give us all the money that we ask for.
Sometimes the policies that we follow in the executive branch
mean that we are accorded lower priorities than some other
things. That is not surprising. We know that.
In the formulation of the budget for 2007, we did not have
room within our allowance for all the things that we had done
and wanted to do. Then we followed what is our practice and
what is mandated by Congress over the last several years, which
is to look at all our programs, do the things that are of
highest priority, deal differently with things that are of
lowest priority or troubled by quality and so on.
When we assessed this within the Census Bureau, we realized
that the SIPP program is rather mature; more than 20 years it
has been in place. It has been useful. It has some chronic
problems that we either have not been able to solve or have not
been resourced sufficiently to solve, and that has troubled us.
So what we are looking for is in a world that has changed
over 20 years, with new methods, much more successful means of
using administrative records from programs intended to assist
those in poverty or with other kinds of difficulties, and with
the successful appearance of the American Community Survey
providing yet another source of data on the condition of
families, that we want to put together a new program, a re-
engineered program that will continue to meet the needs of
Federal agencies for longitudinal studies of income dynamics.
This includes the HHS Assistant Secretary for Planning and
Evaluation, the Food and Nutrition Service in Agriculture, the
Administration on Children and Families, the Social Security
Administration, and other agencies that have as their
responsibility meeting the needs of people who may be
disadvantaged or at risk.
So we want to re-engineer what we are doing, take
recognition and build on the new sources of data that we have,
and find a way to continue to meet those needs within the
resource constraints we have.
Mr. Clay. Just out of curiosity, what were some of the
difficulties in gathering the data?
Mr. Kincannon. The SIPP is a very complex survey deigned to
produce both cross-sectional and longitudinal data, and the
need for longitudinal data means that you have to continue
interviewing the same household over a period of a couple of
years, actually.
Mr. Clay. Four years.
Mr. Kincannon. You are better informed than I am. Your
briefing notes are better than mine.
Mr. Clay. I am a speed reader. [Laughter.]
Mr. Kincannon. Well, I am being too long-winded if I am
giving you a chance to read all that.
It is very difficult, we have found, and increasingly
difficult to keep up the response of families, follow them when
they move, and so on over that 4-year period of time, so that
there is severe attrition. And we need to find some way
differently to address that.
Mr. Clay. And you think you will come up with a more
efficient manner or condense the way you take the survey?
Mr. Kincannon. Well, we think that we can come up with a
better model of using tools now available to us, both from
survey results in the ACS and CPS and our gained experience in
modeling and improved access and capability with regard to
administrative records, and providing something that will help
these agencies meet their responsibilities.
Mr. Clay. I thank you for your response. I appreciate it.
Mr. Kincannon. Thank you.
Mr. Turner. Ms. Foxx.
Ms. Foxx. I would like to followup on the question about
what do you do about people who have been displaced by
something like Katrina. One thing I am concerned about is it
seems to me that if people have been away from the home for 5
years, what does that do to distort the numbers? But I would
like to know something about the cost of that. You said it is
much more expensive. And who is making the decision on the
cost/benefit analysis of that program versus another program
where we might be able to gather better data? I am very
interested in that.
Mr. Kincannon. Well, I can talk a little bit more along
those lines and would be very happy to followup with a special
briefing with more details, both about what we did in Hurricane
Floyd and about what we have done subsequently with Katrina
victims.
We have, for example, in our current surveys, we continued
in the areas affected by Katrina and Rita and Wilma to keep up
good response rates, so we know how to find people when they
have moved and we have ways that are very successful in doing
that.
In the American Community Survey, we have added some
instructions--we did not change the questionnaire--to make sure
that people who were evacuated and staying in other people's
homes do get identified and surveyed so that we can then tell
from the questions already on the survey something about their
condition and in some limited circumstances about where they
were before.
We plan to use those data to produce information on the
characteristics of affected areas for the 8 months of 2005
before Katrina struck and for the 4 months after. This should
be of some use both to Federal and local officials in assessing
the condition.
We worked with the Bureau of Labor Statistics to identify
in a similar way in the Current Population Survey people who
had been evacuated, and the Labor Department was then able to
assess differential rates of unemployment for people who were
settled differently.
The CPS is limited in sample size, and so it does not give
for that small a universe of people information below the
national level. The American Community Survey will be able to
give more information at smaller levels.
Both of them are limited in that the Current Population
Survey does not address people who live in group quarters. They
are not handled in the labor force survey traditionally. The
American Community Survey began covering group quarters only
when funding was provided for fiscal year 2006, so it will not
be able to tell us much about people who were in shelters and
such like, but if they are living in trailers, FEMA trailers
and so on, yes, we will get information about them.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you.
Mr. Turner. Mrs. Maloney.
Mrs. Maloney. I want to thank the chairman and ranking
member for calling this, and I would like to direct my
questions to Mr. Kincannon. But I would first like to ask Ms.
Brenda Farrell--and it is a followup of correspondence I have
had with the GAO--to get back to me in writing. Does the GAO
have the technical expertise to evaluate the Census Bureau's
techniques for measuring the accuracy of the 2010 census? If
not, when do you expect to have that expertise? This is a
followup of letters that I have sent to GAO requesting this
analysis. They say they are not capable of doing it. If you
could get back to me on what exactly--what hurdles they need to
go through so that they can have the technical expertise to
evaluate the accuracy of the 2010 census. I would get it to you
in writing, but I really want to get to Mr. Kincannon because
we have been called to a meeting right now, a very important
one. We have a foreign head of state who will be addressing a
joint session of Congress.
I would like a yes or no answer. Without SIPP, we will not
be able to adequately study many policy issues such as the
long-term effects of welfare reform or the effects of recent
budget cuts and program changes. Is the Census Bureau concerned
about helping Congress on both sides of the aisle evaluate
public policy? Yes or no.
Mr. Kincannon. Yes.
Mrs. Maloney. OK. Then going back to the question that was
raised by Ranking Member Clay about the decision to really stop
the SIPP program because of budget constraints, there is no
guarantee that in the future the budget constraints will not be
worse. And many Members of Congress and really the scientific
community--the research community is very concerned about the
elimination of the SIPP program and recognizes that the Census
will not be able to replace such a unique and important survey
with one costing less. The SIPP took over 7 years to develop,
as did the American Community Survey, as you pointed out, and
Congress as well as private foundations, research institutes,
have invested millions in understanding and processing the
data.
My question is: Is there any other place that researchers
can get comparable information on program participation and
income on a sub-annual basis? And I again would like this
answer in writing because the research community is telling me
and the scientific community is telling me that there is not
comparable information. And I feel that this is very important.
We need to know what is happening in the country. We need to
know what is happening with our populations in certain areas,
and the SIPP provided valuable information.
I know you mentioned American Community Survey and a lot of
other surveys when you responded to Mr. Clay, but the research
community is telling my office and me personally that this will
not give the same information. And so I would like it in
writing, the answer to this question, because I think this is
so serious that we should really look at it in depth.
I would like to note that Ranking Member Clay and I, along
with Members on both sides of the aisle, have sent a letter to
the President--we are sending one to have this money reinstated
to the budget, because we believe this research is very
important.
Would you like to elaborate? Is there one that gives you
the exact comparable information on program participation and
income on a sub-annual basis?
Mr. Kincannon. The dimension that is missing in existing
other surveys than SIPP--that is, the CPS and the ACS--is the
longitudinal dimension. We have to find a way to craft that
element using data from those surveys, but probably with
follow-on surveys or independent surveys, and using
administrative records from the programs affected.
We cannot describe now in detail exactly how that will be
done. We will work on that with the Federal agencies that have
quite important needs, with the Congress, which has important
needs and we understand that. We are the servant of the
Congress in this regard. My ``yes'' was not an idle yes. And we
will work with the research community.
Whether we can replicate every topical nuance of the SIPP
is another question, but we can find a way to substitute for
the longitudinal element with a new longitudinal element, and
that is quite important to do.
I would also like to say----
Mrs. Maloney. Before we abolish it, I would like to see in
place what it is you are going to put out there, because the
longitudinal is very, very important to understand where we
are, where we are going, where we have been in the past. And I
just put that out there for the scientific community.
I would like to followup that the Census Bureau has
released at least two memos discussing why they are
discontinuing the SIPP. In both cases, the memo states that the
reason for eliminating the SIPP have to do with the lateness of
the data and the problems with attrition and nonresponse.
This memo does not acknowledge that the SIPP's nonresponse
rate is the same as the Current Population Survey, yet there is
no talk about getting rid of that, which is also conducted by
the Census Bureau for the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and that
compared to the two other national longitudinal surveys,
attrition is lower than the panel study of income dynamics and
about the same as the National Longitudinal Study of Youth.
Furthermore, data for 2004 was released prior to data from
the March Current Population Survey, so it appears Census has
worked hard to get the data out quickly. If these reasons for
eliminating the SIPP are invalid, is the reason SIPP is being
cut purely due to budget constraints rather than research needs
or substantive issues with the data?
Mr. Kincannon. No, it is not solely for budget constraints.
It does stem from longstanding concerns about the robustness of
SIPP.
The Census Bureau field staff is extremely capable. They
get a higher response rate than almost anybody else working to
collect data, and I am proud of that. But, still, the attrition
in SIPP is a serious problem. Attrition is a characteristic
problem of longitudinal surveys, but it has, in our view,
become more serious here. Our choice in a constrained resource
environment was to cut everything in a kind of an unmanagerial,
mindless sense, reducing everything equally, or to apply
priorities, as the Congress instructed us to do.
That is why after 2 or 3 years of asking Congress for funds
to cover 20 percent of the economic activity in this country
between economic censuses we finally stopped asking for that.
We have not stopped asking for money for longitudinal data on
income dynamics. We expect to ask for a program of a
substantial level to continue doing that, and we just have to
accommodate the realities of weaknesses in SIPP and what we
will have in resources.
Certainly, in terms of priorities, we rank the censuses
above others. The population and housing census and all the
components, including the ACS, the economic censuses--these are
fundamental. The economic censuses are the only time, twice a
decade, when we measure almost all the economic activity in the
country. The other years, we are making policy, the ES
calculating GDP and so forth, missing 20 percent of the
economic activity in the country, and it is the part in the
service sector where jobs are being created much more than in
other sectors of the economy.
We have to make our best set of priorities within the
constraints placed on us by the Congress, among others.
Mrs. Maloney. But you stated that attrition and----
Mr. Turner. Mrs. Maloney, I hate to interrupt, but the
House and Senate will convene shortly in a joint meeting to
receive the Prime Minister of the Republic of Italy. Because
House rules do not allow committees to meet during a joint
meeting of Congress and out of respect for the Prime Minister,
the subcommittee will be recessing, subject to the call of the
Chair. If you are unable----
Mrs. Maloney. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Turner. I was just going to say, if you were unable----
Mrs. Maloney. Point of personal privilege? May I make a
request?
Mr. Turner. I was just going to suggest----
Mrs. Maloney. OK.
Mr. Turner. I would just say if you are not able to--and we
are going to let this panel go, if it is OK with you. Perhaps
if you could take the next 2 minutes and ask your questions for
the record to which they could respond.
Mrs. Maloney. OK. Thank you very much, and I will get them
in writing.
Again, last year, we asked for specific information on the
plans for measuring the accuracy of the 2010 census. After a
long delay, I got a document that did not provide very much
information. Please provide the committee, respectfully, with
specific milestones and deadlines for decisions on how you will
measure the accuracy, when the operational procedures for that
measurement will take place, and when you will report to
Congress on the accuracy of the 2010 census.
Also, the Census Bureau is including a question on ancestry
on the 2010 census. Consequently, the Census Bureau will be in
a position to provide agencies like the Department of Homeland
Security with counts on the number of Greek Americans, Indian
Americans, Arab Americans, Irish Americans on a block-by-block
basis. What is the Census Bureau's policy on providing this
kind of block-level information to law enforcement agencies?
Again, I thank you for your very difficult job. We rely on
the statistics that you give us. I am particularly disturbed by
the pattern of the gap between the haves and the have-nots in
our country. It is growing in a way that I believe people on
both sides of the aisle are tremendously concerned. It is not
good for the wealthiest people in our country. It is not good
for the poorest people. And that SIPP program was the document
that really gave the information of what was exactly happening
with this gap, and I think that is important for policymakers
because we certainly want our country to prosper, all of our
citizens to prosper, and I think it is important to track it.
So I just want to underscore that I really do not want to
see it eliminated unless you have in place something that
really takes account for that data. And if you are going to
eliminate it, I feel that there would be members on both sides
of the aisle that would do a budget amendment that would
restore specifically what was needed for that data, and if you
could get us the specific costs, we could work on it.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mrs. Maloney.
The subcommittee will now recess subject to the call of the
Chair. The subcommittee will reconvene immediately after the
joint meeting of Congress, and we will adjourn this panel and
commence with panel two when we return.
Thank you.
[Recess.]
Ms. Foxx [presiding]. Thank you all for coming back after
the brief recess we had.
It is the policy of this committee that all witnesses be
sworn in before they testify, so I ask that the second panel of
witnesses please rise and raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Ms. Foxx. Thank you. Let the record show that all witnesses
responded in the affirmative.
Dr. Rector, we will begin with you.
STATEMENTS OF RALPH RECTOR, PH.D., SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOW AND
PROJECT MANAGER, CENTER FOR DATA ANALYSIS, THE HERITAGE
FOUNDATION; ANDREW REAMER, PH.D., DEPUTY DIRECTOR, URBAN
MARKETS INITIATIVE, THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION; AND MARGO
ANDERSON, PH.D., PROFESSOR, HISTORY AND URBAN STUDIES,
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MILWAUKEE
STATEMENT OF RALPH RECTOR
Mr. Rector. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,
thank you for inviting me to testify today. I am a senior
research fellow and project manager in the Heritage
Foundation's Center for Data Analysis. I participate in
professional organizations that deal with Federal statistical
issues. However, the testimony presented today reflects my own
views, not necessarily those of the Heritage Foundation or any
other organization.
Research within Heritage's Data Center focuses primarily on
policy debates at the national level. As a result, I will limit
my remarks to examples showing why census data are useful to
researchers analyzing Federal policies. However, I want to
begin by discussing the overall importance of producing an
accurate and complete decennial census and for continuing the
American Community Survey.
The constitutional Framers intended the decennial census to
play a key role in ensuring the representative nature of the
Federal Government. The Census Bureau relies on the MAF and
TIGER programs to produce an accurate and complete census. As
explained more fully in my written testimony, the need to
coordinate MAF and TIGER programs raise serious issues.
However, implementing the ACS can help in updating and
verifying the systems that are used to collect decennial census
data.
These benefits will only be realized if the ACS is
adequately funded, and they will also only be realized if the
Census Bureau works closely with governmental entities and
other groups at the State and local level, and this is the
reason why I think the program LUCA is so important.
In the remaining portion of my testimony, I summarize
several reasons why census data are so useful to
nongovernmental analysts who are studying national issues, and
I illustrate these examples with research conducted at the
Heritage Foundation. Nevertheless, I believe that these
examples are typical of ways that many researchers, from a
variety of political perspectives, use census data.
To begin, census data help localize national issues to
regions that are meaningful for decisionmakers and ordinary
citizens. Traditionally, census long form data have been the
primary--if not the only--source of information for demographic
and socioeconomic information for regions that interest
policymakers and the public such as congressional districts and
Zip codes.
Social Security critics, for example, highlighted the
program's general low rate of return. CDA economists used
congressional district data produced by the census in
combination with data from other sources to estimate Social
Security's rate of return for retirees in each State and in
each congressional district.
Census data are also important in evaluating the
effectiveness of Federal grants. CBO has indicated that
researchers should control for the independent effects when
analyzing the outcome of Federal initiatives. For this reason,
CDA analysts often use census data in their statistical
evaluations of Federal programs.
Census data have also been used to analyze proposals that
would change Federal policies. For example, to examine the
potential for a Social Security reform plan intended to produce
wealth for low and moderate-wage earners, CDA analysts wanted
to create a representative demographic profile, a set of those,
from a data base that was large enough to permit a very
detailed set of classifications. Fortunately, the first
national-level American Community Survey, micro-file, was
available, and using this micro-file, CDA analysts developed
up-to-date profiles that would otherwise not have been
available.
Finally, the ongoing ACS will benefit smaller but more
detailed special-purpose surveys administered by the Census
Bureau, such as the current Population Survey, the Consumer
Expenditure Survey, American Housing Survey, and the Survey of
Income and Program Participation [SIPP]. Analysts and research
organizations and universities routinely use these other census
surveys to study issues such as welfare, education, and taxes.
These smaller household surveys are adjusted to be
consistent with data from the Census Bureau's population
estimates program. And the ACS provides a valuable source of
information for updating these population estimates.
In conclusion, census data are the backbone of a
constitutionally mandated apportionment process, and census
data are also vital to information that analysts and
policymakers at all levels uses.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rector follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.113
Ms. Foxx. Thank you.
Dr. Reamer.
STATEMENT OF ANDREW REAMER
Mr. Reamer. Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee,
good morning. I am Andrew Reamer, deputy director of the Urban
Markets Initiative at the Brookings Institution, and I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee to
discuss the elements necessary to the design and implementation
of a successful 2010 census.
UMI's mission is to stimulate greater public and private
investment in urban communities through improving the
availability of data for small areas, and in this regard, the
single most important data set is the decennial census. The
vitality of America's businesses and economy relies
significantly on a successful census.
As the title of this hearing suggests, the decennial census
has an even more essential public purpose: enabling
apportionment and redistricting. The decennial census is the
platform on which we build our democracy. Seats in Congress, in
State legislatures, and in city councils are allocated on the
basis of the census, and the census is the fundamental
mechanism for re-creating our democracy every decade.
In my opinion, achieving a true and precise 2010 census
depends upon four elements.
First, we need a complete and accurate Master Address File.
Simply put, we cannot count people if we do not know where they
live.
Second, we require minimal coverage error, reducing
omissions and double-counting.
Third, we need a fully, consistently funded American
Community Survey. Taking the long form out of the decennial
census will do much to improve coverage.
And, fourth, we need to automate field data collection
through the use of handheld computers.
I will review each of these elements in some detail.
Regarding the Master Address File, the completeness and
accuracy of the MAF was affected by three issues in 2000:
difficulty in capturing fast-growing areas; many group quarters
had geocoding and categorization errors; and numerous housing
units in small, multi-unit urban buildings were missed.
The good news is that the Census Bureau has in place the
elements to address these issues, and there are five important
elements to recognize.
The first is the Community Address Updating System [CAUS],
which uses American Community Survey field staff on an ongoing
basis to update addresses. Our understanding is that CAUS has
been successful.
Second, the Bureau has provided a thoughtful, detailed plan
to address issues regarding the accuracy of group quarters
enumeration, categorization, and geocoding.
Third, Congress passed a law in the 1990's to enable the
creation of LUCA, the Local Update of Census Addresses Program,
and LUCA provides a framework within which local governments
can give addresses to the Census Bureau and still improve
accuracy of the MAF; however, experience indicates that local
government participation in 2000 was not nearly what it might
have been. There are several barriers to local participation,
including a lack of staff resources, capacity, and training.
The smaller the community, the greater the barriers. And it is
clear that LUCA can be a much more effective program for 2010,
and achieving this potential is going to require some active,
cooperative relationship between the Census Bureau and local
governments, and getting LUCA underway by late 2007 is really a
tight window here for getting LUCA up and going--late enough to
capture addresses and soon enough to incorporate them into the
census.
The fourth element for the MAF is the Update/Enumerate
program to capture units in small buildings in urban areas,
small multi-unit buildings.
And, last, the Census Bureau should look at working with
State governments as a resource for updating the MAF to use
detailed administrative records the State governments have
available to update address lists.
In combination, these five elements can bring about a more
accurate MAF, and I would suggest that this committee, for its
own edification, ask the Bureau to report on its approach for
preparing the MAF for 2010. With this full understanding, my
hope is that Congress can provide the resources to make that
happen.
With regard to coverage improvement, in 2000 there were
more duplicates and omissions than was optimal, and the Bureau
has embarked on a series of efforts to correct these problems,
and we at Brookings support these, including testing
alternative short forms and approaches for flagging households
that have coverage problems.
The American Community Survey, the value of that is that it
removes the long form from the decennial census and in doing so
allows the Census Bureau to focus entirely on doing an accurate
population count. So full funding of the ACS in and of itself
will help a more accurate decennial census.
Last is the realm of technologies. It is time to apply 21st
century methods of data collection to the decennial census, and
the use of handheld computers should lower the cost of data
collection quite significantly.
So, in conclusion, an accurate census is vital to our
democracy, and I think these four elements will help make that
happen. And I will be happy to answer any questions that you
might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Reamer follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.131
Ms. Foxx. Thank you.
Dr. Anderson.
STATEMENT OF MARGO ANDERSON
Ms. Anderson. Thank you for inviting me to testify. I agree
with many of the comments that my colleagues have made, and so
I will elaborate on some new ones.
It is quite clear from the busy agenda that the Census
Bureau never really stops taking a census; rather, its work is
cyclical, and as they move from one plan to the next, they look
back and forward.
Relatedly, the world in which a census is taken also
changes. Most notably the population grows, but often we are
also quite surprised because not only does the population grow,
it shifts in differential ways that means that the
apportionment and redistricting mechanisms and allocation
mechanisms lead to policy changes as a result of it.
In this context, the Census Bureau faces something of a
catch-22. Until the count is complete, the true dimensions of
change are not clear. And yet the catch-22 the Bureau faces is
that it must anticipate that change as it builds the plan, and
that is the situation that we are in now.
I think we need to keep that dilemma in mind as we do
discuss the plans for 2010 and, in particular, keep the goal in
mind of an accurate, efficient, and useful census. And as a
result, I agree very much with the comments that my colleagues
have made about the need to make sure that LUCA stays on track,
that the Master Address File has development technology, and so
forth.
I want to make a few more comments about what I call risks
and surprises that I see on the horizon and I think others do
as well.
The two big risks that are quite new and outside the realm
of the Bureau: one is, of course, the budgetary environment,
which we have heard much about today; and the second is that we
may in 2010 be taking a census while the country is at war for
the first time. In other words, the United States has never
taken a census when the homeland was under threat, and we have
little experience as a Nation anticipating if the war might
affect the 2010 count.
We need, as my colleagues have indicated here, to maintain
funding in the development of ACS, and the risks to the 2010
count if in some sense anything goes wrong with the ACS off
stage, if you will, are substantial, which is another reason to
keep the funding moving.
The long-term issue here is for the goal--even though we
are talking very much about operational issues at this point in
the planning process, is still accuracy and a fair count. And
the historical record suggests that the Bureau does well when
it has its planning processes under control and when
stakeholders, be they Members of Congress, State and local
government, advocates for particular demographic groups, feel
that the process is a good one and under control. If they do
not, those stakeholders have alternative mechanisms to affect
the count, including filing lawsuits, changing through
legislation the plan, or challenges to participation. So the
building of trust in the operational plan is very, very
important, and it needs to be integrated into what we are
seeing right now.
Some surprises that we already saw in 2000: The duplicate
enumeration issue is a very new one for the census, and I would
suggest that even now at the operational stages that we be
looking at that one in particular and say, OK, how are we going
to solve the problems of duplicates as we move toward 2010?
Group quarters is another one, which you have already heard
about.
Are we going to change the short term, in particular, the
measurement of race and ethnicity, because the long form is no
longer there. There is discussion of moving the ancestry
question to the short form. What impact will that have?
Will there be pressure to add information about citizenship
status or alien status of the population to the short form
census?
In general, we need to sort of keep our eyes on the prize
and continue to focus on evaluation of accuracy and fairness.
That is always an open question. We can always do better. And I
expect that we will be talking about that a great deal in the
next 4 years.
Thank you, and I will take questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Anderson follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.141
Ms. Foxx. Thank you very much.
Dr. Anderson, the first question is for you. What is your
opinion of the Bureau's efforts for the decennial census thus
far? And you mentioned the issue of trust in your testimony. Do
you think the Bureau is building trust for its operational
plans with more testing prior to this decennial as compared to
the last?
Ms. Anderson. I think that they are--you know, as we are
sitting here today, they are involved in--I mean, this hearing
itself is involved in that process. I would like to see, again,
a bit more, mostly because I am very sensitive to the fact that
even, as I say, issues off stage, as you heard in the first
session about SIPP, have a way of oozing back, if you will,
into discussions of the decennial. So I would like to see a
more systematic approach to those issues and how it would move
forward.
I think the planning process for the 1990's at this point
is not as good a guide for what we are doing in this decade
simply because the planning process of the 1990's was fraught
by changes in direction as the political makeup of Congress and
the Presidency shifted over that decade. The planning started
with a Republican President and a Democratic Congress, moved to
a Democratic President and a Republican Congress, a Republican
President and a Democratic Congress and so forth.
Right now we have what looks like a stable planning
environment of moving forward. If that continues, it adds
grounding to the plan.
Personally, I would like to see a little more discussion of
the evaluation and adjustment issues, but that is, again,
certainly a political decision that can be made by the
administration and Congress together.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you.
This question is for all of you, but I will start with Dr.
Reamer and I will work backward that way. If the Bureau plans
to start LUCA in June 2007, does that give local governments
adequate time to confirm, correct, and add addresses before the
decennial?
Mr. Reamer. I am not an expert in the process of the step-
by-step process. My understanding from other people who are is
that it certainly would be sufficient. But I think a lot has to
happen between now and June 2007. What happened last time, my
understanding is the National Academy hosted a panel on LUCA
that the local governments were not adequately prepared for the
LUCA process. A lot of them are small and resource-poor. So I
think a lot of planning has to happen between now and mid/late
2007 so that the local governments are aware of what their
responsibilities are, what their opportunities are, and how
they might work with governments at a higher level, a town
working with a county, a county working with a regional
planning council, so that the LUCA process--the burdens can be
shared locally and participation could rise as a result. So I
would like to see a lot of planning between now and 2007.
Ms. Foxx. Dr. Rector.
Mr. Rector. Well, like Dr. Reamer, I do not have immediate
experience with the LUCA program, but I have heard concerns
raised. I think that the 2007 date, what I can tell, is
sufficient, but I would want to emphasize that it is important
for the Census Bureau to do an effective job of communicating.
Some of the stories that I have heard indicate that it has
not always been clear what information the Census Bureau is
actually requesting and how, in fact, the local communities are
supposed to supply it to the Census Bureau. And so I think the
communication is as important as timing.
Now, with regard to timing, I do think that the 2007 data
is important for these local communities, particularly those
that need additional resources to actually take advantage of
the LUCA program. They have to build that into their budget.
And so it is not just a planning of them assigning resources,
but actually making sure that there are sufficient funds
available to cover the expenses required. And so I think that
as much lead time as possible is helpful, but from what I can
tell, the 2007 date is sufficient.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you.
Dr. Anderson, do you want to add?
Ms. Anderson. A similar kind of response, which is that the
communication of the program and one thing that can be done
right now is find out how aware State and local governments are
that this is coming.
It is understandable that they were ill prepared before
2000 because the law was only passed in, I think, 1994. So
there should be a reservoir of experience that really needs to
be built on, but it is, again, that kind of integration. This
is a very hard task to do this national-to-local kind of
communication and support. So anything you can do now to help
it along, you know, will be wonderful as we move toward 2000.
The places in the country that did take best advantage of
LUCA were ones that knew it early and were sensitive to it.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you.
One more question. Do you all agree that the short form
census will provide a more accurate census than a combined
short form and long form decennial census? I will start with
you, Dr. Rector.
Mr. Rector. I think it certainly can, and given the plans
that the Census Bureau has put in place, I think that it
probably will, and the main reason for that is that they will
be able to devote their resources on the short form. And so I
think that, certainly given the programs that they have in
place, should produce an accurate, complete census.
Mr. Reamer. I agree and will add a couple things, I think.
The ACS contributes in a number of ways to a more accurate
decennial census. One is, as Dr. Rector says, that by taking
the long form activity out of the short form process, you can
have staff at the census focus on counting people and not
worrying about other things.
But, second, I think importantly is that the ACS itself has
enabled the Census Bureau to put in the field a professional
permanent staff so that for 2010 it can rely less on temporary
workers. It will still have to rely on temporary workers, but
it will have a professional staff in the field which will allow
it to have a more accurate census.
And then the third aspect is back to the MAF. One component
of the American Community Survey is this CAUS program I
mentioned, the Community Address Update program. So ACS staff
throughout the decade are updating the MAF through this
program, and that also will lead to a more accurate decennial
census.
So it is for those three reasons, I think, that we will
have a more accurate census.
Ms. Anderson. I think if the address listing and
development work proceeds well, yes, you are going to do
better. Again, as my historian says, there used to be only six
questions on the census, and in some ways that is what we are
going back to. I would also urge the Bureau to talk about that
and to talk about what it is doing, because for most of the
American population, of course, this is going to be a big
surprise. I mean, they do not know about the ACS and, frankly,
are not very interested.
So, again, I also think that there is a programmatic and
communications issue here that needs to be addressed.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you. I am sorry. I do have one more
question, and it is for Dr. Reamer. The Community Address
Updating System is part of the ACS and, as you said, aims on an
ongoing basis to use ACS staff to update address information.
As of this date, 1,475 county TIGER maps have been updated
to improve the Master Address File, and the contractor plans to
deliver the remaining 1,758 county maps by 2008. Would you
consider these two updating programs promising? And if you do,
would you still recommend that Congress fund the Census 2000
Experimental Update/Enumerate program for this upcoming
decennial?
Mr. Reamer. Yes, I do think the two efforts you mentioned
will be very helpful, and I think the Update/Enumerate program
is separate from those two and is, therefore, important in its
own right. It was found in the 2000 census that, particularly
in urban areas, small multi-unit buildings where there are not
city-style addresses, where there is a single mail drop-off, it
was difficult to enumerate because Census was not quite sure
how many units were actually in the building. And what Update/
Enumerate does is actually targets neighborhoods in which those
types of buildings are prominent and then sends people in the
field to actually go to the building and go inside and count
the doors.
So I think that there is a need over and above CAUS and the
TIGER updating for Update/Enumerate, and the 2000 experience
seemed to be quite positive in that there were--in the target
areas they added 14 percent--the number of addresses went up by
14 percent because of people in the field. They also deleted 6
percent of addresses, but the result was there were more units
to count. So I would support funding for that?
Ms. Foxx. Thank you. Do any of you have any brief closing
remarks that you would like to make?
[No response.]
Ms. Foxx. Well, before we adjourn, I want to thank our
distinguished panels of witnesses for their participation
today. I appreciate your willingness to share your knowledge,
experiences, and thoughts with us. I would also like to thank
my colleagues for their participation today. Clearly, there is
a lot involved in planning the 2010 census, and I am pleased to
see that the Bureau is making every effort to ensure that the
decennial census is the most successful yet.
However, we are not out of the woods yet. Clearly,
obstacles remain, but I am confident that by working together
we can ensure that the 2010 census is the best ever.
Again, I want to thank our witnesses for their time today.
In the event that there may be additional questions we did not
have time for today, the record shall remain open for 2 weeks
for submitting questions and answers.
Thank you all. We stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional information submitted for the hearing record
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7016.152