[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
2+2 SHOULD NEVER EQUAL 3: GETTING INTERCENSAL POPULATION ESTIMATES
RIGHT THE FIRST TIME
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERALISM
AND THE CENSUS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 6, 2006
__________
Serial No. 109-244
__________
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
36-680 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
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)
------ ------
David Marin, Staff Director
Lawrence Halloran, Deputy Staff Director
Benjamin Chance, 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
BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
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 September 6, 2006................................ 1
Statement of:
Kincannon, Charles Louis, Director, U.S. Census Bureau....... 8
Swanson, David A., professor of sociology, director of the
Center for Population Studies, Chair of the Department of
Sociology and Anthropology, University of Mississippi; Joy
E. Phillips, Ph.D, associate director, State Data Center,
District of Columbia Office of Planning; Ken Hodges, chief
demographer, Claritas Inc.; and Warren A. Brown, senior
research associate, director, program on applied
demographics, research director, New York Census Research
Data Center, Cornell Institute for Social and Economic
Research, Cornell University............................... 32
Brown, Warren A.......................................... 62
Hodges, Ken.............................................. 56
Phillips, Joy E.......................................... 40
Swanson, David A......................................... 32
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Brown, Warren A., senior research associate, director,
program on applied demographics, research director, New
York Census Research Data Center, Cornell Institute for
Social and Economic Research, Cornell University, prepared
statement of............................................... 64
Clay, Hon. Wm. Lacy, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Missouri, prepared statement of................... 81
Hodges, Ken, chief demographer, Claritas Inc., prepared
statement of............................................... 58
Kincannon, Charles Louis, Director, U.S. Census Bureau,
prepared statement of...................................... 10
Phillips, Joy E., Ph.D, associate director, State Data
Center, District of Columbia Office of Planning; Ken
Hodges, chief demographer, Claritas Inc., prepared
statement of............................................... 43
Swanson, David A., professor of sociology, director of the
Center for Population Studies, Chair of the Department of
Sociology and Anthropology, University of Mississippi,
prepared statement of...................................... 35
Turner, Hon. Michael R., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Ohio, prepared statement of................... 3
2+2 SHOULD NEVER EQUAL 3: GETTING INTERCENSAL POPULATION ESTIMATES
RIGHT THE FIRST TIME
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2006
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Federalism and the Census,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in
room 2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael R.
Turner (chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Turner, Norton, Maloney, and Dent.
Staff present: John Cuaderes, staff director; Ursula
Wojciechowski, professional staff member; Juliana French,
clerk; Jon Heroux, counsel; Peter Neville, fellow; Kimberly
Trinca, minority counsel; Mark Stephenson and Adam Bordes,
minority professional staff members; and Cecelia Morton,
minority office manager.
Mr. Turner. Good afternoon. A quorum being present, this
hearing of the Subcommittee on Federalism and the Census will
come to order.
Welcome to the subcommittee's hearing entitled ``2+2 Should
Never Equal 3: Getting Intercensal Population Estimates Right
the First Time.'' This is the fifth in a series of hearings on
Census Bureau programs. Today's hearing will examine the
Bureau's intercensal population estimates program.
Intercensal population estimates are vital to the accurate
allocation of hundreds of billions of Federal dollars.
Unfortunately, intercensal estimates are often inaccurate. As a
result, the allocation of these Federal dollars is also often
inaccurate.
Washington, DC, for example, has disputed the Bureau's
estimates every year since 2002, and has noted in a July 22,
2006 Washington Post article that the Bureau recently
acknowledged that they had missed about 6 percent of D.C.'s
population.
Cities, counties and States can challenge the Bureau's
estimates and have done so 91 times since the 2000 census.
However, I am concerned that numerous other local governments
may not have the resources or expertise necessary to challenge
the estimates or are unaware of the opportunity to challenge.
As a result, these governmental units live with what may be
inaccurate estimates and inaccurate Federal funding
allocations.
During this hearing, we will examine whether the Bureau's
methodology results in reasonably accurate estimates and
equitable allocation of Federal grants; the importance of
accuracy; opportunities for improving the estimates; whether
the Bureau's challenge process is transparent, fair and takes
into account a community's ability to challenge; and whether
the Bureau strives to continuously improve the estimates.
Before we move on, I would like to recognize Representative
Eleanor Holmes Norton of the District of Columbia, who
certainly has an interest in this issue. And I yield to her for
any comments she may have.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Michael R. Turner follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have only brief
comments, beginning with thank you for both inviting the
District of Columbia to testify here and for inviting me,
although a member of the full committee, not of this
subcommittee, to sit with you in this very important hearing.
It is always timely, but particularly timely now, because while
citizens may not know it, the census of course has to begin
preparing full throttle now for the regular census.
Mr. Chairman, your initiative here today may not produce
what most of us would like, an immediate increase in the per
capita that we receive, because now that you know there are
more people, OK, where's the moola. But it is very important
that the census not have to essentially wait until 10 years to
try to figure it all out, and what is supposed to happen is
greater accuracy because they are doing it all along and we
want to find out why that has not occurred in so many
instances.
Mr. Chairman, if I may say so, we may not get money or any
benefit from an intercensal new estimate. But it can do huge
harm. Everybody looks at these census figures to see whether,
for example, businesses should move here, whether schools are
growing or losing population. These figures from the granddaddy
of all figures, the Census Bureau, all of us rely upon the
Census Bureau and honor the Census Bureau for its work. But to
the extent that these intercensal estimates are inaccurate,
they can do huge harm to local jurisdictions, which is why you
see local jurisdictions rising up in arms, not because they
expect any change, immediate change in Federal disbursements,
but because they know everybody who has anybody to do with
their city in any fashion will look first here.
Now, when people rise up in arms about whether they are
losing or gaining population, everybody says, yeah, yeah, yeah,
you're never going to agree that you're losing. But we find out
that the Census, in its honesty, and that is what you have to
congratulate the Census most for, that it is non-partisan, it
acts on the figures. The problem we have is perhaps with its
methodology. We knew in the District of Columbia that we were
one of the hottest cities in the United States. We knew that
people were moving into the District, and we had to try to
figure out why the Census said we were continuing to lose
population at a huge rate.
Who gets hurt, finally, Mr. Chairman? Think about who gets
money. Most people in the middle class do not get Federal
grants, ultimately. Who depends upon this per capita, and we
are basically talking about per capita grants, who depends upon
it are the people who get food stamps, people who need Section
8 housing, so the accuracy, particularly since much of the
money goes directly to needy recipients, could not be more
important.
I thank you and congratulate you on starting us off with a
serious look at this issue.
Mr. Turner. Thank you.
I want to recognize Carolyn Maloney of New York, who just
got here. If you'd like, I can read the witnesses that are
going to be testifying as you get settled, and then return to
you for opening comments.
Mrs. Maloney. That would be great. Thank you.
Mr. Turner. On our first panel, we have the Honorable
Charles Louis Kincannon, Director of the U.S. Census Bureau. On
our second panel we have four witnesses. They are: Dr. David
Swanson, director of the State Center of Mississippi and
professor at the University of Mississippi; Dr. Joy Phillips,
associate director of the Washington, DC Data Center; Mr. Ken
Hodges, assistant vice president and chief demographer for
Claritas Inc.; and Dr. Warren Brown, research director of the
Cornell Institute for social and economic research at Cornell
University. We look forward to each of the witnesses and their
expert testimony today.
And with that, then, I would like to recognize Carolyn
Maloney of New York for her opening statement.
Mrs. Maloney. I really want to thank the chairman and the
ranking member, Ms. Norton, for holding this. First of all, Mr.
Chairman, let me say that I am delighted to see so many New
Yorkers represented at the hearing today. Warren Brown from
Cornell and Ken Hodges from Claritas are but two of the
excellent demographers we have in the city of New York. And I
am proud that both the State of New York and the city of New
York have been at the forefront of the fight for an accurate
census.
Absent today is Joe Salvo from the city planning department
of New York city. While Dr. Salvo is not in the room today, we
cannot discuss census accuracy without recognizing the
leadership he and the entire team at the Department of City
Planing have demonstrated on this issue. Both Mayor Michael
Bloomberg and Giuliani before him have recognized the
importance of an accurate count. And the planning department
has worked very hard to help ensure it.
The 2000 census would have missed over a quarter of a
million people in New York City if the city had not forced the
Census Bureau to correct its address list for the city. Since
then, the planning department has repeatedly challenged the
Census Bureau's estimates for New York City, and won every
single challenge. The citizens of New York City are deeply
indebted to the hard-working experts at the New York City
planning department.
Unfortunately, the issue of the accuracy of census counts
and estimates is not new. Following the 1990 census, the Census
Bureau made a political decision not to adjust the intercensal
population estimates for the net under-count observed in the
1990 census. The 2000 census results proved the folly of that
decision.
The GAO reported that the 1999 estimates underestimated the
total population of the United States by 6.8 million people.
Half of that error would have been eliminated had the Census
Bureau corrected these estimates for the observed net under-
counted.
The 2000 census which is used as the base for the
intercensal estimates since then is equally flawed. We are
repeatedly told that the net error in the 2000 census is almost
zero. While that statistic may be true, it hides the huge
errors in that census. While the Census Bureau has refused to
produce estimates of the gross errors in the 2000 census, that
is the number of people missed in the census and the number of
people counted twice, we know from its own research that the
gross error is at least 12 million.
The Census Bureau gets to zero error by letting the people
counted twice substitute for those missed. That may work for
statistics, but it does not work for representation. The people
counted twice are not like the people missed. They are not the
same color, they do not have the same income, and they do not
live in the same places. Those errors are built into the
estimates for 2001 through 2005.
As I mentioned earlier, New York's 2000 census count is
considerably higher than it would have been if the Census
Bureau had been left on its own. Instead, the city of New York
took advantage of a program mandated by Congress to review and
correct the Census Master Address File for the 2000 census. The
city identified for the Census Bureau thousands of addresses
that were not on the census address list. Addresses not on the
address list don't get counted. Making sure those addresses
were on the list gave New York City a more accurate count.
The story does not end there, as we will hear from the
witnesses today. The Census Bureau estimates are worse in
cities like New York, where IRS records do not adequately
reflect changes in the city's population. As a result, New York
City has repeatedly been forced to challenge the Census Bureau
estimates to get a fair count.
However, the fair count for New York City comes at the
expense of other cities in the State. While the Census Bureau
has repeatedly been forced into cooperating with State and
local governments, it has done so reluctantly. GAO reviewed the
cooperative effort to correct the census address list prior to
the 2000 census and found that effort was weak at best. Plans
for a local updating of census addresses for 2010 remains
sketchy at best.
Congress was told that the American Community Survey would
allow the Census Bureau to produce more accurate population
estimates. We repeatedly asked for the details of just how that
would be done. But no details were forthcoming.
Congress has invested nearly half a billion dollars in the
American Community Survey. I hope the Director's testimony
today will tell us how that investment has improved the
population estimates. And Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that you
are holding this hearing today. The Census Bureau should be
held accountable. However, this problem is not new. When the
results of the 2000 census were announced in December 2000, one
of the startling facts was that the population estimates were
seriously flawed. They were flawed 6 years ago, and they were
equally flawed today.
Thank you.
Mr. Turner. I want to thank both Mrs. Maloney and Ms.
Norton for their participation today, Ms. Norton for her
representation of our Nation's capitol and Carolyn Maloney for
her representation of New York City. Both cities that we will
see in our testimony that have challenged the estimates, both
of which have been under-counted. And the impacts on those
communities are something we are trying to address.
With that, I want to proceed with turning to Mr. Kincannon.
As everyone is aware, each witness has kindly prepared written
testimony which will be included in the record of this hearing.
Witnesses will notice that there is a timer light on the
witness table. The green light indicates that you should begin
your prepared remarks, and the red light indicates that your
time has expired. The yellow light will indicate when you have
1 minute left in which to conclude your remarks.
It is the policy of this committee that all witnesses be
sworn in before they testify. So Director Kincannon, will you
please rise and raise your right hand.
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. Turner. Please note that the witness has responded in
the affirmative. And Director Kincannon, we will turn to you
for your statement.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES LOUIS KINCANNON, DIRECTOR, U.S. CENSUS
BUREAU
Mr. Kincannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, and
on behalf of the U.S. Census Bureau, I want to thank you,
Chairman Turner, and the members of the subcommittee for the
opportunity to discuss our intercensal estimates program.
Population estimates provide important information for
decisionmakers at the national, State and local levels, and are
essential to many Federal programs and initiatives. They are
used to determine program eligibility and to ensure equitable
funding for a large number of Federal programs, including
Federal transit grants, the Crime Victim Assistance Program,
Community Development Block Grant program, medical assistance
programs and many others.
The estimates are also used by the Census Bureau to provide
population controls for the American Community Survey, which
was fully implemented only last year with the support of this
committee and the Congress. The American Community Survey
replaces the long form of the census with annual relevant
information for local communities. It provides vital
information that describes how the population is actually
changing, not just population decline or growth. It also
provides vital information on the occupancy rate, persons per
household, international migration and domestic migration, all
of which will help improve the estimates program. But this is
the first year in which we have had nationwide data covering
all of the country that we will be able to use that.
The estimates are produced in cooperation with
representatives from each of the States. Each year, we produce
more than 39,000 sub-national estimates of total population,
including estimates for every State, county and incorporated
place or city. We also report measures of the population by
age, sex, race and Hispanic origin for the Nation, States and
counties.
The population estimates released annually by the Census
Bureau are the product of a longstanding, valued partnership
with the States. This 40-year old cooperative is alive and
thriving today in every State as well as the District of
Columbia, and Puerto Rico is a participating member. We work
together each year to produce a set of consistently, timely
estimates for every State, county and incorporated place.
Local areas also have an opportunity to revise their
estimates through a challenge process using one of several
established approaches that may require additional data and
take into account local information. We provide guidance and
assistance to help any local community through that process.
Normally, a community contacts us by phone, e-mail or letter to
express their concern and request a challenge package. The
local government is invited to provide source material, such as
building permits, utility hookups and other data to supports
its request for an alternative estimate. If the data support an
alternative estimate, we will send an acceptance letter to the
local government, notify relevant agencies and post the new
estimate on the Census Bureau's Web site. This new estimate
becomes the official estimate and we notify the relevant
agencies of Government of this change.
Of the 39,400 official population estimates released for
2004, there were only 38 challenges, most of which were
accepted. The challenges have been described in the media as
Census Bureau mistakes that it has been forced to correct. It's
not really that simple. The population estimates are the result
of a cooperative effort. We rely on information from other
Federal agencies, as well as the States, to produce one set of
official estimates intended to serve all customers. If
documentation is provided that supports an alternative
estimate, the original is revised, not because we didn't get it
right the first time, but because working with the States and
tracking into account their additional documentation, we can
arrive at a more accurate estimate.
As we look to the future, we are re-examining our
assumptions, methodologies and source data and discussing these
efforts with our partners, especially the States that rely on
the estimates for funding allocations. Alaska, California and
North Dakota are particularly interested in working with the
Census Bureau and have contributed to our research efforts.
During the past 6 months, we have sponsored two research
conferences on population estimates, with participants from
Federal agencies, State partners and academia. In these
conferences we examined how we could better improve the
estimates for international migration, current assumptions and
methodologies and better meet user needs. Many users believe we
should examine new approaches and perhaps embrace alternative
or multiple methods. It is important as we proceed to consult
with our State partners and data users.
As Members of Congress, you are also an important partner,
because your decisions affect what we do and affect every
community in America. As we study alternatives, I hope we will
have a chance, Mr. Chairman, to brief you in the future.
Thank you very much, and I would be happy to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kincannon follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Director Kincannon.
In looking at your testimony, there is one part of it that
kind of strikes me. In looking at the testimony that is to
follow you and in looking at several of the news articles that
describe estimates that have been made in estimates as a result
of protests from cities, it's clear that some of the issues
that cities face, or communities that face that challenge of
this data, is that once a challenge has been made, once
additional information is provided, it doesn't appear that the
Census Bureau adequately reflects that change that has
occurred, or the change in methodology that would then reflect
more accurate estimates in the future.
And your statement here, knowing that's part of the issue,
that it's not just that you didn't get it right the first time,
but that it's not right the first time and then people have to
repeatedly go back to readdress the issue, your statement here
strikes me, because you said ``many of the challenges we
ultimately accepted were described in the media as Census
Bureau mistakes.'' And it's not that simple, you say.
Well, if the data that you have is wrong and the estimates
that you had were ultimately proven to be not accurate, then it
would seem that they were mistaken, and if they were mistaken,
that would appear to be a mistake. And once that is identified,
it would seem that there would be a process by which the Census
Bureau would then modify its procedures and processes, so that
communities would not have to continually be in a process of
coming to the Census Bureau and providing other data to reflect
changes in the estimation process.
Could you please describe, once a community objects,
provides you that additional data and it is accepted by you,
what is done by the Census Bureau to make certain that is
adequately reflected in the future?
Mr. Kincannon. Well, what we can do, and do, if we accept a
challenge, based on the evidence submitted by a city, that
becomes the new basis for this set of estimates that we have
next year. So we don't throw away what they've given us. But
new changes, additional housing units, additional developments
of some kind, new changes in group quarters, are not any more
known to us in the year plus one than they were in the base
year.
So we really need the assistance of State and local
officials in making sure that the changes that don't show up in
the large scale record data, administrative record data, for
States and for counties, can be taken into account.
Mr. Turner. I have a letter that we've received from the
North Dakota census committee member, Katherine Strumbeck. And
she states in here, ``North Dakota has experienced declining
annual estimates in 12 of the past 15 years. The first 10 years
of declines were later invalidated by Census 2000, which showed
we actually experienced significant population gains.'' Despite
proven flaws in the methodology, the 2001 estimates conflicted
with the Census 2000 growth by dropping the North Dakota
population below the 1990 estimate as if the growth in Census
2000 had not occurred. So there are many individuals and
groups, organizations, communities, that believe that current
data is not necessarily reflected in those estimates.
Mr. Kincannon. Well, I explained face to face with Governor
Hoeven and with Ms. Strumbeck that the 2001 estimates were not
changed to accept the results of the 2000 Census, because the
process really takes longer to feed in. They were corrected for
the next years and were backward changed for 2001, I believe.
Just a matter that between December of 1 year and we don't
have, perhaps we should, but we did not have at that time a
method of carrying it down to the local level. So that lags by
a year in getting incorporated.
Mr. Turner. OK, I am sorry, I am confused. Because I had
thought that you had just said previously that the Census
Bureau does, when they get information that conflicts with
their annual estimates, modify their estimate process to make
sure that you don't have inaccurate estimates.
Mr. Kincannon. The new census results are incorporated in
this estimate process as soon as they can be, which is not 6
months, but I am sorry, for the year following that. The 2002
and the whole set of records is corrected.
I understood you to be speaking of evidence that a city had
given to us or a town about new housing units or additional
group quarters or other things that we do not measure directly
ourselves, and that we do incorporate in the base for the next
year's estimate.
Mr. Turner. But the decennial census, you do not?
Mr. Kincannon. We do, but it takes more than 6 months to
get it incorporated in there.
Mr. Turner. I see, it's an issue of time.
Mr. Kincannon. At least it did in 2000. I will not be here
in 2010, 2011, to make sure that they are incorporated then,
but you and Ms. Norton and Mrs. Maloney probably will be here
and can be vigilant and remind the then-director to make sure
that preparation is made to take account of that.
Mr. Turner. When we were putting this hearing together,
there was a sense that our staff received from local
communities that the process, the ability to object, to
challenge, and the time periods for filing a challenge and the
technical expertise in able to be order to do that may be
something that is not widely understood by local government
communities. Can you please explain the census outreach and its
ability to work with communities as they find that the numbers
don't reflect what is accurate?
Mr. Kincannon. Well, I believe I am correct in saying that
when we transmit estimates for an area to the official
representative of that jurisdiction, first at the State level,
that we include first of all, they have reviewed and consulted
with us about that estimate at the State level, but we still
include in the materials that we send to them, and they are
also available on our Web site, not too difficult to find, I
think, how you can register a challenge or a proposal for new
evidence to be considered.
I believe the same thing is true when we publish the other
estimates that we make clear that there is a process available
if there is local information that we don't have that could
improve our estimates. It may be that we need to review those
lists and undertake a direct mailing to targeted
representatives in each county and in each incorporated place.
We do make contacts with representatives of local government at
other times, and if we are not reaching everyone so that they
understand this process, I will undertake to do so.
Mr. Turner. One of the themes that seems constant is the
conflict between the component method and the housing unit
method for determination of the estimates. Can you please
describe that for us and its application?
Mr. Kincannon. Well, the component method of administrative
records is based, as its name applies, on administrative
records to the extent possible. It starts with the preceding
estimate or census, if that was the last global estimate for
the local area. It adds births and deaths from vital statistics
that come largely, but not exclusively, from States and are
augmented by information from Federal agencies, and are also
estimated, because there are time lags that are in the vital
statistics process, the way they're carried out in this
country, based on local administration of the program.
As an aside, one lag is introducing new racial categories
that are standard in the census and have been standard, some of
them for 20 years, getting those introduced into particularly
birth records at the local level is difficult. That's not the
Census Bureau that does that. And it's a difficult problem to
deal with it, but it is a concern.
In addition, we make an estimate of internal migration
between the States, using tax records. That is not perfect, but
it's a very strong representation and was used in past years
for very significant allocations of resources when there was a
revenue sharing program.
We also make an estimate of net international migration.
The administrative records on migration, as you know, are
imperfect in a number of ways. This is the most difficult
component of our estimate. I am happy to say that with the
American Community Survey, directly asking people where they
lived 1 year ago, we will have a new and independent, truly
independent measure, of where people lived the year before,
whether in another State or in another country. That should be
a basis for improving our estimates of international migration.
Mr. Turner. One more followup question, then I am going to
turn to Ms. Norton. So knowing though that D.C. and New York,
two dynamic urban areas, have both had estimates that have not
accurately reflected their populations, what do you believe
needs to be done to improve either the methodology or the
process that you're undertaking?
Mr. Kincannon. We have held a couple of conferences talking
about the methodology used. And it seems clear that there's
more openness now amongst users and our partners in making the
estimates to considering whether different methods can be used
for different areas. It has been a hallmark of our practice
that we need to be consistent and use the same methodology
applying to D.C. as to Utah. I could argue that case. But if we
can make better estimates overall, modifying the estimates, the
methods based on locally available records, we are willing to
do that. We would proceed prudently on that basis, but we are
open to doing that.
Mr. Turner. Is that your recommendation, that you believe
that should occur?
Mr. Kincannon. I believe we should examine it thoroughly in
cooperation with our partners and with users of the data and of
course with the Congress.
Mr. Turner. Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just fascinating.
I must say that what you just said about D.C. and Utah, I
am glad you used that example, we have a bill on the floor, Mr.
Chairman, I wish you would look at, that would give both Utah
and D.C. a vote. And each would gain by what they learned, by
what their constituents learn and what people who want to do
business there learn. So you handed me that plug, sir, no, I'm
sorry, our witness handed me that plug.
But therein lies one of the great flaws. I discovered it
only, sir, when I asked another agency known for the same
professionalism that has surrounded you since you were created
by our Constitution. I asked that GAO look at the structural
imbalance problem in the District of Columbia. And what they
initially came back with was the comparison between the
District of Columbia, yes, and the functional equivalent of
Utah. And you've got the most skewed results.
So we said, could there be a problem in that there is a
uniqueness to a city-state that means that the statistical
model has to reflect that. That is hard to do. But you know
what? The GAO went back and with a great deal of statistical,
use of the statistical science and with fresh eyes about the
huge differences between every State and a state-city, they
came back with an entirely different result. I just put that on
the table, and would invite you to speak with the demographers
and others who worked on this very challenging issue and the
landmark report they did on the structural imbalance in the
District of Columbia. Because I think it points, indeed, I have
huge problems with the statistics that say that D.C., for
example, which never had any factors of the highest this or
that disease rate, well, is that really right? Sometimes you
think, well, you compare city to city, but it still doesn't
come out right, because it's really not a city.
Anyway, this is fascinating to a non-statistician who still
can think analytically and wonder what is going on here. So I
am really fascinated by the work you are doing.
Let me just ask you an obvious question. Given what you
said to the chairman about even the time lag it takes to
correct, you said, well, you can't do it in 6 months, you spoke
of a year. Why did it take the District of Columbia 4 years to
get an acknowledgement from the Census Bureau that its
estimates, which showed us losing large amounts of population,
were inaccurate? Why couldn't that have happened earlier? This
was not a ``lag by a year,'' as you said earlier in your
testimony. This was a lag by at least 4 years. And it did harm
to the District of Columbia.
Mr. Kincannon. First of all, I would like to say I know
what you mean that it does harm beyond the distribution of
Federal funds. Attracting business, attracting tourists,
attracting all kinds of interest and investment in a locality
depends on reliable statistics about the population. And to
show a shrinking population can send a message that is not
consistent with the vitality of the city.
Shortly, well, I am not sure exactly, but some time in my
first year after taking office in March 2002, I read a story in
the Washington Post where Mayor Williams was critical of the
Census Bureau's latest population estimates. And they were
words that many a mayor has spoken, some with greater
justification than others. So I was interested in this, since I
had the new responsibility, and I lived in a city where I and
my bosses read that same paper. I asked the estimates folks,
had D.C. appealed this or had they supported the claim, what
evidence had been submitted. I was told that D.C. had not been
participating in the process.
I may have misunderstood that, but my understanding was
that D.C. was not participating in the meetings of the Federal-
State cooperative program and had not formally challenged.
Ms. Norton. So although they challenged for 4 years, they
really weren't participating in the process? So it is their
fault that they didn't get these census updates until 4 years
later?
Mr. Kincannon. Madam, I don't know whose fault it was.
Ms. Norton. Well, I need to know that, because if it is
something that--look, we are not really here to lay blame, but
in understanding how the responsibility is allocated. We need
to look to the States and localities to do what they are
supposed to do, and of course, we look to the Federal
Government.
So your testimony seems to be that the District, for 4
years, was not participating, not that it didn't provide the
information you needed but were absent, and the mayor was
complaining but not having his people participate in the
process you required in order to get an update?
Mr. Kincannon. I asked that our staff work directly with
the staff of the Government of the District of Columbia to
engage them in the process and to see if there was evidence
that would enable us to correct our estimates if justified. And
that proved to be beneficial. And we came up with a
significant----
Ms. Norton. And 4 years later, I am just trying to find out
what accounted for 4 years.
Mr. Kincannon. I don't know what accounted for 4 years. I
don't know how long it took to get the evidence and how long it
took to evaluate it. I will provide you with that information
if I can.
Ms. Norton. I would appreciate it. Because obviously I want
to make sure that the District by the next census in fact has
accurately submitted its own data. So if I don't know, from
your point of view, what happened, then it is going to be hard
for me, the Federal official, to say to them, you better make
sure you do X, Y and Z. Because they are going to be here
later, and I will ask them. But they will give me their
version. I need your version of why it took 4 years and your
testimony here as of now is that it is their fault.
Now, just let me ask you this. If you don't challenge,
since they did challenge for 4 years, is there any way to
assure corrections will be made at all? Here are the big cities
who, after all, will find the wherewithal. So suppose you are a
small or mid-level city. And you say, we know that is wrong,
but when we look at our budget, geez, to get the experts that
can go up against a Census Bureau, boy, those are expensive,
even if we get them from our State university. So they say,
well, we just hope they get it right the next time.
How are we to sense the purpose of the intercensal
estimates is to assure that by the time you get to the annual
census, it will virtually all be right? What happens to the
great majority of jurisdictions who do not have the
wherewithal, whatever that might be, to challenge what they
think are incorrect census figures?
Mr. Kincannon. Well, first of all, I would not wish to
characterize the District of Columbia as being at fault in
this. The practice of participation, to the best of my
knowledge, had fallen into dis-use. And we revived that use,
there were new staff members, as I understand it, in the
District of Columbia. And when they engaged in that process, we
learned a great deal from it, and were able to make improved
population estimates.
I am pleased at that. I don't know if I may be misinformed
or I certainly don't know how the situation came to pass that
there was not active participation. But there was no reason for
their not to be active participation, since we are all living
in the same metropolitan area, and we can reach out
particularly to the D.C. Government and ensure that you are
cooperating with us.
Ms. Norton. We wouldn't even have to pay transportation to
get our folks here. So I am really concerned about those of you
who live a few miles away.
Let me move on.
Mr. Kincannon. I did want to say, you asked about smaller
cities, but 60 percent of our challenges came from cities with
population, under 50,000 population.
Ms. Norton. Say that again?
Mr. Kincannon. Sixty percent of our challenges came from
cities with a population of 50,000 or less. So cities about a
size are able to organize their records about housing starts
and about utility connections and new construction and school
records or tax records, and make a case to us. They know a lot
about their local data that we don't know and can't know. So
smaller cities are managing to do that.
Ms. Norton. Well, it should be a collaborative process. But
it sounds like the functional equivalent of get yourself a
lawyer, file a challenge and if he is good enough, he may
prevail.
I was looking at page 9 of your testimony. In any vastly
important enterprise like the Census, you are going to find the
Congress looking for who is ultimately accountable, and you are
going to find Chairman Turner going home and saying to his
constituents in the Dayton area what they are going to have to
do. But ultimately, we have to find some objective source to
indicate who is responsible. The Census is known for its
objectivity, at least when it comes to accounting.
But I noted on page 9 that you indicated, and I certainly
accept this, that you have to rely on information from other
Federal agencies. Fine. So of course, if you do census, I am
sure if I came to you with some data, you wouldn't say, thank
you, Eleanor, let me see if I can incorporate this. I am sure
you use the Census expertise to get it, so OK, they provided
it, I want you to run down who those agencies are and tell me
what you do about them. And then you say, if the documentation
is provided that supports an alternative estimate, the original
revised, not because we didn't do it right here, is what the
chairman referred to the first time, but because, and here is
the operative language, working with the States and taking into
account their additional documentation, we can arrive at a more
accurate estimate.
So from that I get, who got it wrong were the Federal
agencies who didn't always provide you with the best
information. That's No. 1. And No. 2, States who had not
submitted the additional documentation, but now that they have,
we can arrive at a more accurate estimate. Who is coordinating
this process so that up front, without challenges, the
legendary Census Bureau can assure that in fact the data
provided by the States is accurate, is responsibility to lay
nowhere ultimately in this system? Or if it is everybody's job
then it is nobody's job and nobody needs to feel responsible.
Is there anybody over this process? Is that the Census
Bureau or does Congress need to make clear, clearer than the
Constitution, clearer than the additional statutes, that
accuracy lies someplace and should we then spell out who it is?
Mr. Kincannon. If the Congress wishes to make the Census
Bureau and not local governments accountable for detailed
knowledge about local construction, utility connections, school
enrollment and the other, tax return filings and things like
that, then I think this Congress would have to support some
kind of a census county agent program with staffing in each
locality to look at that.
Ms. Norton. So you don't, even with all your vaunted
expertise, you do not regard yourself as the ultimate arbiter
of the accuracy of the information you receive and how it is
used?
Mr. Kincannon. No, ma'am. We do regard ourselves as the
arbiter of information we receive. But if we don't receive it,
we stand with the estimates we are able to make from----
Ms. Norton. We are going around in circles. You do receive
it, you don't accept it, you go 4 years when it comes to the
District of Columbia before any changes is made.
Mr. Kincannon. Well, let's see what the records show.
Ms. Norton. If you are going to tell me, don't think I am
not going to ask the District of Columbia, you mean 4 years you
just refused to submit data, even though you were screaming
that you weren't receiving--it just doesn't make any sense. As
long as there is a Federal agency charged by the Congress of
the United States with doing an accurate census that can affect
everything about your economy, you are going to find the
Congress laying blame with the agency it funds. Now, that
agency better find a way, since it is getting our funding, not
the States, not the localities, to make sure that its peer
agencies give it the right information and that it gets the
right information elsewhere. But you cannot rely on Congress to
say it is a shared responsibility, because there is nothing we
can do about it. Every Member of Congress is affected by what
we are discussing here today.
Let me go on to another question.
Mr. Turner. I do have some additional questions, I will get
back to you for a second round if this is an appropriate time.
Ms. Norton. I have had my 10 minutes, OK.
Mr. Turner. I will ask a couple of questions, then we will
go back to Ms. Norton. I don't want to limit the substance of
her questions. But she is on a topic that I also wanted to jump
in on. And first off, let me say that in the interest of time,
I have questions about the Master Address File and the TIGER
enhancements and the ACS and how it might be able to be used
and/or is impacted negatively by this process. And also
questions concerning the funding that the Bureau has received
to improve its estimates of migration and immigration that I
will submit for written responses.
Following on Ms. Norton's theme of the task that you have
in front of you, I have two things that I want to highlight and
then I will turn it to you. One of which is, out of all the
examples we got, this one is the one that was the most striking
to me. We got a letter from Sugar City, Idaho. Pretty small
town. And this is the letter that we received. It says, ``I
have been asked to write this letter concerning the city's need
to challenge the Census Bureau's 2004 intercensal population
estimate. In the year 2000, the population of Sugar City was
1,242. In 2004, the population estimate was 765. After
challenging the population, it was at 1,448. If we had left the
estimate in 2004, the city would have only received 53 percent
of its various State funds,'' so basically 47 percent of the
overall population of this town was missed. And clearly, this
is a town that is not going to have the resources that D.C.
has.
I wondered if the Census Bureau either does have or should
have a trip wire, if you will, in instances where the decennial
census has a number that shows a significant increase or the
intercensal estimates have been decreasing that trip wire would
cause an expedited review of the next estimate. And in this
instance where the estimate would appear that 47 percent of the
population of this small town was no longer there that the
Census Bureau would take an affirmative step, not just the step
of waiting for challenges, but an affirmative step of saying,
wait a minute, this isn't 5 or 10 percent of a place that has
large numbers, but this is a large percentage of a population
that suddenly has gone missing. And then perhaps we should work
in partnership with those communities. That's the first one.
The second one is, to acknowledge that it is my
understanding, and you can correct me if I am wrong, that you
do over 39,000 estimates with a staff of about 76 and that the
Bureau has new management in charge of population estimates.
What I would like to do is if you could tell us about the new
management team that is in place, what Bureau changes might be
occurring in the population estimates area, and have you
considered reorganizing the population division or the
estimates branches, and if you could comment on the enormity of
the task that you have with the resources that you have.
Mr. Kincannon. Well, the first question, should we have a
trip wire for very small cities with large changes, like Sugar
City, I will take a look at that and see. I am not familiar
with the Sugar City case. It does appear that Sugar City
mustered the resources to challenge it and we accepted that
challenge.
I guess we have a lot of more or less self-enforcing
features in our form of Government, and that depends on both
the willingness of people to obey certain structures and their
vigilance in terms of their self-interest. And even very small
towns are even quite vigilant and effective in asserting their
self-interest.
Mr. Turner. Right, but their success, of course, can't be
considered as proof that therefore the system works. Because
there are a number of communities who either, by the fact that
we don't have their data, it doesn't mean that they have the
expertise and merely desired not to proceed. It is an example
of a community that clearly had small resources and had a
significant miss in the estimate.
So I wouldn't say that the fact that they did go through
the process shows blanketly across the country that every
community therefore has the ability to do it. But it clearly
shows that some communities have a significant miss. And my
question is, shouldn't that cause something in the Census
Bureau light bulb department to go off and say, perhaps this is
something where we should be in greater partnership with the
community?
Mr. Kincannon. As I said, we will take a look at the trip
wire notion and see if it is applicable in a way that we could
achieve it within our current resources. Congress has not been
un-generous with its resources on this program, but at the same
time, to assertively acquire or demand certain information from
each and every city and town, all 39,400 units, is a very big
workload and is a burden on those bodies as respondents.
Maybe you are suggesting we could survey those with a
certain percentage decline or a certain percentage increase.
Although we have never had a challenge about an estimate being
higher than expected, we would have to be vigilant on the other
side, I suppose, of that, if we had a trip wire.
But we can take a look at that. I don't believe, myself,
that we should mount a new data collection program from State
and local governments in that regard. But if the Congress
thinks we should, then we will take a look at it.
Mr. Turner. Since you are aware, as I indicated, that there
is a new team in place for the population estimates on the
management side, is there a reorganization that is anticipated,
or do you not see changes occurring in that division?
Mr. Kincannon. I think what I believe will occur and hope
will occur is a thorough reexamination of the methods used in
collaboration with academic experts, with our partners in the
Federal-State program and with users to see if there is a
better way of changing the methodology to produce better
estimates. And that I hope to have occurring in the new future.
So we are going to take a good look at it.
I don't anticipate ex ante a reorganization of staff or
that sort of thing. We will see what methods may need to be
changed, and then if organizational changes make sense, that
would go forward.
Mr. Turner. Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
indulgence. I have only two more questions.
One has to do with a change that is so clear and obvious,
resulting in such huge miscalculations and over-payment of some
jurisdictions and under-payment of others that--challenge is
not what this is about. This is about changes in our country
regarding incarceration, where because so much of incarceration
is now out-sourced and therefore private prisons are used, or
State prisons are used from one part of the country to the
other, some of the most astounding, perhaps the most astounding
figures I have seen have come from a paper. I teach a seminar
at Georgetown where I'm still a tenured professor.
And a student did a paper on the way in which the census
counts inmates. It was astounding. It was much worse than
anything we have discussed here today. What it means is that
there are rural counties in the United States that are barely
populated which offer no services, which have the imported
prison population counted in their numbers. And so though it
will be easy, especially for the census to figure out a way of
finding where these inmates come from, instead it uses a kind
of blanket, easy for the census to do. But taking real funds
from where they are needed to say, county X, you now have X
more people than you thought you had, because we count those
people as residing there. Of course, they don't get any
services. But somehow their population is increased.
Is that true, and would you explain that, how the census
deals with inmates and with the changes in incarceration in our
country?
Mr. Kincannon. We deal with prison and jail inmates as we
deal with residents generally in the community. That is, we
count them as we have for every census in the place where they
usually reside most of the time.
Ms. Norton. And they reside while they are in prison all of
the time where they are incarcerated.
Mr. Kincannon. Yes.
Ms. Norton. You see, this is my problem with the census. If
I have any problem with the census, it is my skepticism about
whether the census moves with the times and has updated its
processes to reflect what is happening in our country. Now,
would you not say, sir, that it defies the intent of Congress
that there would be small counties that could register a 300 or
400 percent increase in population to then have funds
distributed that could not possibly go to the prison population
as they do not? And to have other places under-counted?
I would almost rather have a neutral way of doing it than
to have funds to go where there are no people or very few
people. And what the student's paper revealed was astonishing
to me, because it was not what the District and New York have
been complaining about, which is, let's sit down and figure
this out. It was like in your face, anybody knows that this
small county, which is essentially going out of business, and
that is why they have a prison in the first place, it doesn't
have any population. And the census says, that is all right,
that is the way we have been doing it since 1700 and I will be
darned if we are going to change.
Don't we depend upon you to figure out how to keep
taxpayers' money for food stamps, for Section 8 housing, from
not going where there are people but where there are prisoners
who can't possibly under law take advantage of those Federal
funds? Can't you do something about that?
Mr. Kincannon. I hope that the Congress does not depend
upon the Census Bureau to ensure that there is not mis-
allocation of program money. The Congress establishes the
rules----
Ms. Norton. It is not program money. This is done on a per
capita basis.
Mr. Kincannon. Well, Congress still establishes those
rules. And if it doesn't want the census numbers to include
certain portions of them, it can so do.
Ms. Norton. Sir, this was thoroughly researched. This
student got a very good mark. This was a matter of your
regulations. The Congress leaves to you these matters. You are
the expert agency. I am going to ask you if you would at least
promise me this. Because this kind of gross, palpable
overpayment of money that could be used for food stamps and for
other necessities to jurisdictions where there is not
population cannot possibly have been the intent of Congress.
You are not arguing that is the intent of Congress, are you?
Mr. Kincannon. I am arguing that the Congress established
the rules for funding and how they incorporate----
Ms. Norton. No, sir, we----
Mr. Kincannon [continuing]. Statistics of one order or
another----
Ms. Norton. No, sir, this was researched, there was nothing
in the record to show that Congress had established this. These
were regulations of the Census Bureau. That is why I am putting
the question to you.
Mr. Turner. Ms. Norton, perhaps since we are going to leave
the record open and give the Director opportunity to answer
written questions, perhaps this is one that would be a great
topic to provide additional data, and in a written question
allow him to answer.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I don't want
to go on with this, because I mean, the figures are clear. If
he wants to indicate that there are some changes in law that we
should try to get, I would do that. But I would ask you to look
into the regulations themselves, and if you would not mind
getting back to me your basis for continuing these huge
overpayments, resulting of course in underpayments elsewhere. I
am aware that sometimes it is more difficult to find, or you
can argue that, where the prisoner really was from.
But you can designate, just like you designate that
prisoner is from some place 1,000 miles away, you designate
that. Because it happens to be there and because your
regulations say, not the statute, say in the place where you
spend most of your time, the Congress hasn't said that, so I'm
asking you as a regulatory matter to look into that, get back
to me with your sense of why you continue to do that, whether
you think legislation is necessary.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I do want to say that on the
District of Columbia, and I am going to ask them to provide me
with what they submitted, they are going to have testimony here
that talks about an under-count of 572,000 for 2000, a reported
population count of 572,000 some in 2000. Then showing
decreases in 2005, they are going to talk about this beginning
in 1990. What they are discussing is the actual count in 2000
shows a population of 572,059 with a difference of 53,000
people. When you consider we are talking about a city with not
600,000 people in it, you can see the very serious concern we
have.
I do promise you this, that I am going to do whatever it
takes to get the District to do what it must do if you will
promise that you will make sure that you do what you need to
do. When the District tells me for example that one of the
things you weren't doing was counting charter schools, all you
have to do is read the Washington Post to know that we have the
largest number of charter schools per capita in the country and
that they are 15 percent. I mean, your folks reading the
newspapers could have gotten that one. But they reported a drop
in public school population because they ignored what was
happening in charter schools.
That is what I mean by professionalism. We expect the
Census Bureau to be able to find those kinds of facts out,
before it issues estimates. Yes, sir.
Mr. Turner. And that can be a great segue into our moving
into the second panel, if that is OK with you.
Mr. Kincannon, do you have anything you would like to give
us as a concluding remark, knowing of course that you are going
to be receiving additional questions in writing from us, and we
do greatly appreciate your time.
Mr. Kincannon. I will only say, in reference to Ms. Norton,
that we did do a report about counting prisoners at the request
of the Appropriations Subcommittee. And I will include that in
my response. Thank you.
Mr. Turner. Thank you very much.
We will then turn to the second panel, if they would please
come forward. Thank you, Director Kincannon.
We would like to welcome our second panel, which includes
Dr. David Swanson, director of the State Data Center of
Mississippi; Dr. Joy E. Phillips, associate director of
Washington, DC Data Center; Mr. Ken Hodges, assistant vice
president and chief demographer, Claritas Inc.; and Dr. Warren
A. Brown, research director, Cornell Institute for social and
economic research, Cornell University.
We do have a policy that all the witnesses be sworn in.
Before I proceed with the oath, I want to confirm that on your
table there is the witness timing light that will give you the
green light for you to proceed. Yellow means that you will have
1 minute to conclude your remarks and red is to ask that you
kindly conclude your remarks as we move forward then to the
next witness or to the question portion of the hearing.
Since it is our policy that we do swear in our witnesses, I
would ask that you please rise and raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Turner. Please let the record show that all witnesses
have responded in the affirmative. Mr. Swanson, we will begin
with you.
STATEMENTS OF DAVID A. SWANSON, PROFESSOR OF SOCIOLOGY,
DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER FOR POPULATION STUDIES, CHAIR OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF
MISSISSIPPI; JOY E. PHILLIPS, PH.D, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, STATE
DATA CENTER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OFFICE OF PLANNING; KEN
HODGES, CHIEF DEMOGRAPHER, CLARITAS INC.; AND WARREN A. BROWN,
SENIOR RESEARCH ASSOCIATE, DIRECTOR, PROGRAM ON APPLIED
DEMOGRAPHICS, RESEARCH DIRECTOR, NEW YORK CENSUS RESEARCH DATA
CENTER, CORNELL INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH,
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
STATEMENT OF DAVID A. SWANSON
Mr. Swanson. Mr. Chairman Turner and honorable Members of
Congress, my name is David A. Swanson. My Ph.D is in sociology
with a concentration in population studies. I do research in
the field of applied demography and teach at the University of
Mississippi where I am a professor of sociology and also serve
as the chair of the sociology and anthropology departments and
director for the Center for Population Studies.
I have been involved in applied demography more than 30
years. My time as an applied demographer includes nearly 4
years with the Population Enrollment and Economic Studies
Division with the Washington State Office of Financial
Management, where I learned the basics of the craft of applied
demography by doing city and county local censuses, developing
city, county, municipal and special area estimates and
generating population forecasts.
Drawing on my experience, I am pleased to provide my
observations on the Census Bureau's estimation program. My
testimony covers three areas: first, the major challenge faced
by the Census Bureau in providing timely, accurate and cost-
effective estimates; second, a suggestion for dealing with this
challenge; and third, the issues presented by my suggestion
that need to be resolved.
First, the major challenge. Fueled by the proliferation of
Federal programs distributing benefits using decennial census
data, and the knowledge that Federal courts were now willing to
consider apportionment cases, several lawsuits were filed
against the Census Bureau following the 1970 census, a practice
that itself has proliferated over the past 30 years and now
threatens to move into other areas of the Census Bureau's work,
such as the annual estimates program.
The reason for much of this conflict is clear. Hundreds of
billions of Federal dollars are allocated each decade to States
and local governments using census counts and intercensal
estimates, and these funds are allocated in a zero sum fashion.
The situation will lead to even more litigation and other forms
of conflicts as the States, cities and counties struggle to get
their populations counted in the decennial census and estimated
during the intercensal periods.
This atmosphere of conflict is, I believe, the major
challenge facing the Census Bureau's decennial census and
intercensal estimates programs. Within the Census Bureau, it
not only serves to foster a ``defensive'' working environment,
but also takes important resources away from production and
research activities. As the defensive climate within the Bureau
hardens, States and local governments feel even more
frustration in their attempts to work cooperatively with the
Bureau, and often turn to more confrontational forms of
communication. This is particularly attractive for local
governments in States lacking strong demographic centers.
Second, my suggestion. Breaking with the past, the Census
Bureau decided to retain and update its Master Address File,
the MAF, for the 2000 census. The MAF is a critical resource
for the American Community Survey and its retention facilitates
the planning and conduct of an accurate and cost-effective 2010
census.
Importantly, the continuously updated MAF also represents
an untapped resource for intercensal estimates and leads
directly to the potential to have timely, accurate and cost-
effective estimates done using a method that is not only simple
to apply and explain, but one that offers the potential for a
meaningful role for States and local governments to play in the
development of this estimates. What is this method? It is the
well-known housing unit method. To be successful, however, this
approach needs a nationwide system of State demographic centers
that participate in a meaningful partnership with the Census
Bureau.
Third, issues that need to be resolved. Turning now to the
obstacles associated with my proposal for population estimates
based on the MAF and a set of strong State demographic centers,
I will begin with the issue of confidentiality. I believe this
problem is not insurmountable in regard to my proposal. The
National Research Council has issued recommendations to
reconcile access and confidentiality. The Census Bureau itself
has appointed a chief privacy officer and worked to put
effective procedures in place regarding this reconciliation.
Another important obstacle is the financial cost of
developing a national system of State demographic centers, such
that each State center functions according to accepted
standards. States need to shoulder a share of these costs.
After all, it is to their benefit to have high quality State
demographic centers. As such, I propose that a funding
mechanism involving Federal-State matching funds be considered.
What about accuracy? Can the proposed MAF-based population
estimation system provide accurate data? In a recent report,
the GAO identified MAF/TIGER problems that needed to be solved
in order to have a good census in 2010. The first problem is to
resolve the address issues such as duplication, omission,
deletion, incorrect locations in the MAF, and second,
implementing GPS-based geocoding of housing units. These same
two problems represent sources of error in the proposed MAF-
based system for population estimates. Consequently, if the
Census Bureau solves these problems, in regard to the 2010
census, it will do much in regard to the accuracy of the
proposed MAF-based population estimation system.
Given the experience gained by the Census Bureau in regard
to MAF/TIGER and widespread knowledge and use of the housing
unit method, and the capabilities of the best State demographic
centers, Alaska, California, Florida, Texas and Washington, for
example, I believe that the timeliness and accuracy of MAF-
based population estimates based on a comprehensive system of
State demographic centers, functioning at the level of the best
State demographic centers, would be sufficient for purposes of
resource allocation, research, decisionmaking and planning for
the national, State and local levels. I believe it would also
prove to be cost-effective and equitable.
I note that the conflict-free system used in Finland to
produce annual population data has the type of State and
national participation and cooperation that I propose. I
believe that this arrangement goes a long ways toward keeping
the Finnish system of producing annual population data both
equitable and conflict-free, even though, as in the case in the
United States, these data are used to distribute funds and
other resources to regional and local governments in a zero sum
fashion.
With the exception of confidentiality, all the challenges
facing the development of a national MAF-based population
estimation system are in the form of cost, technical problems
or a combination of both. The major technical tasks in building
and maintaining a MAF-based population estimation system come
down to two areas: address data collection and updates. The
feasible way to effect a solution to these problems is to
enhance the Federal-State cooperative programs already a part
of the Census Bureau activities such that local entities are
compensated for helping to maintain the system. There are data
collection activities in the United States that already follow
this model, vital registration systems, for one.
In conclusion, what I am proposing is that the Master
Address File be more fully exploited by using the housing
method as a universal means of population estimation for all
areas of geography, and that State demographic centers be
developed to uniform level of capability, so that States and
local governments play a integral part in this system. I
suggest that this proposal be supported by State-Federal
matching funds. This would lead not only to timely, accurate
and cost-effective intercensal estimates, but also to less
conflict, greater equity and there would be a uniformly higher
level of demographic human capital in the country. It also
would be of great use in developing information about the
extent of large scale natural disasters, such as Hurricane
Katrina.
Thank you, I would be happy to answer any questions from
members of the subcommittee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Swanson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Turner. Thank you. For the rest of the individuals, I
would ask that you do try to keep it within the 5-minutes
allocated. We do have your written testimony, which we have had
the opportunity to review. And the reason I am asking is so
that we can get to the opportunity for asking questions, which
of course we expect that you would have the opportunity to
embellish your answers perhaps with some of the text that you
are unable to present in your testimony. But we do have it in
writing and it will be part of the complete record.
Dr. Phillips.
STATEMENT OF JOY E. PHILLIPS
Ms. Phillips. Good afternoon, Chairman Turner,
Representative Norton, members of the subcommittee and all in
attendance. My name is Joy Phillips. I am the Associate
Director of the State Data Center with the District of
Columbia's Office of Planning.
Thank you for the opportunity to be part of this hearing. I
am here to testify about the District of Columbia's experience
with the U.S. Census Bureau and its use pertaining to the
intercensal population estimates.
My remarks will address the following areas: the challenge
process, challenge problems, impact of underestimation and
recommendations for improved estimates.
The challenge process. The intercensal population estimates
and its related products released by the Census Bureau each
year are undoubtedly invaluable pieces of data for various
levels of government, businesses and of course the public. For
the District of Columbia, the release by the Census Bureau of
each intercensal population estimate since 2001 brought much
concern. Mayor Williams was concerned; so too were other
District officials, managers and members of the general public.
In summary, the thinking was that the census got it all wrong.
Published reports show that over the past 5 years,
Washington, D.C. has emerged as the strongest and most
resilient economy in the country, with over $13 billion worth
of projects completed since 2001, and $7 billion more under
construction. In essence, the District is in a state of
economic renaissance with commercial and residential
construction appearing in almost every neighborhood.
Against this backdrop, after the Census reported a
population count of 572,000 in 2000, it continued to report
population decreases of approximately 4,000 persons each year,
down to 550,000 in 2005. The pattern was similar to the 1990's.
The District government was not about to sit silently by for
another 10 years and experience, among other things, an erosion
of Federal funding due to incorrect population numbers. With
approval from the Mayor, the District of Columbia Office of
Planning decided to challenge the census 2005 population
estimates by using the housing unit method. Building permits
and demolition data from 1999 through 2005 were collected and
analyzed thoroughly. Our calculations resulted in a population
estimate of 577,900 persons for 2005, some 27,000 persons more
than the Census estimated.
To supplement this information, we also submitted
information on residential utility connections, school
enrollment, individual tax filers, all pointing to either
stability or increasing of the population, and not a decrease
to the magnitude suggested by the Bureau. By now, everyone
knows that we were successful in our bid to revise these
estimates.
However, our successful challenge was not without problems.
Among our many problems in preparing for the challenge were
lack of information sharing and labor intensiveness. On lack of
information sharing, the gist of it was that the Census Bureau
did not agree to share their list of group quarter entities
with us at the State Data Center. We were quite surprised,
given our signed agreements as partners to, among other things,
collect and disseminate population related data.
The Bureau invoked the agreements of Title 13, forbidding
them to share the list of group quarter statistics they used in
the 2000 census count. Thus, the additional 7,000 persons in
group quarters in 2005 over 2000 were not included in the
Census Bureau revision of the estimates.
The labor intensiveness problem involved the amount of
resources used up in legwork, new agreements, manipulating
systems not built for retrieval of the data needed, and
convincing external agency managers of the critical nature of
our data needs and so on.
The impact of underestimation. The impact of
underestimating the population in any given area goes beyond
the importance of fair representation of residents in Federal
and State legislatures. There is also a fiscal impact that is
quite challenging to quantify. To date, we have not identified
any national data that exists on the fiscal impact of
population underestimation on States, cities or local
governments. However, drawing from an analysis of information
obtained from a survey of 34 cities, and data gathered from
various grants awarded to the District of Columbia from 2000
through 2006, some conclusions could be derived on the fiscal
impact of population underestimates. Using either scenario, and
being extremely conservative, the District of Columbia seems to
have lost at least $5 million of direct funding over the
period. And this does not take into consideration possible
funding loss through competitive grants which may turn out to
be quite substantial.
The impact of under-estimation in the District is of
particular concern since it affects resources available to our
children. According to the Census Bureau, the District lost
almost 19,000 children between 2000 and 2005, and
underestimating of children means that a significant number of
kids that need assistance are not even included in the data
used to distribute public funds. City governments must
therefore maintain educational and social service programs to
serve these children in the absence of financial support from
Federal agencies.
How can the Census Bureau improve on the reporting of our
population estimates? Our recommendations are for more direct
communication between the Census Bureau and the entities that
collect and maintain key data items used in the tabulation of
population estimates. Second, an approach using a compilation
of population component method and the housing unit method.
In closing, we urge the Congress to support a more accurate
population estimate by committing the necessary support and
funding now and in the future to the Census Bureau. The
benefits of accurate population counts and estimates are clear.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Phillips follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Ms. Phillips.
Mr. Hodges.
STATEMENT OF KEN HODGES
Mr. Hodges. Thank you. I am a demographer with a company
that provides demographic information to businesses. For 24
years, I have produced population estimates and been a user of
the Census Bureau's estimates.
Businesses are big users of demographic data, and they
require estimates for very small geographic areas, such as
census block groups. Census Bureau does not estimate population
for block groups, so we do that in the private sector.
Error can be high for block group estimates. It is about 15
percent on average. But it often drops to less than 5 percent
with aggregation to larger areas, such as a trade area around a
store or a service area for a telecommunications provider. The
reduction of error based on aggregation depends on the accuracy
of estimates for larger areas, such as counties and cities. At
these levels, most private suppliers defer to the Census
Bureau's estimates, which are produced with resources not
available to us.
So businesses have a sizable stake in the accuracy of the
Census Bureau's population estimates. The consequences of error
are difficult to quantify, but with things like commercial
development and media measurement involved, large numbers of
dollars and even jobs can be at stake.
Revisions to some estimates are a reminder that they do
involve error. Some recent revisions have been large enough to
raise questions about the Census Bureau's estimates program.
The Census Bureau is aware of these concerns and recently held
a conference where external experts recommended flexibility in
the use of new data and methods and collaboration with local
experts. The Census Bureau is receptive to these
recommendations and motivated to improve its program.
Currently, error is addressed through the challenge
process, in which a revised estimate can be issued for
government units that provide sufficient evidence of
documentation for revision. But while revisions can suggest how
large estimation error can be, one cannot judge the entire
estimates program based on a few high profile revisions.
Most users have a rather narrow perspective on the Census
Bureau's estimates. For example, local governments focus on a
single estimate, and if they dispute that one number, the
estimates program is a problem in their view, and very
understandably so. The challenge process responds to these
concerns of local governments, but can give the impression of
an estimates program that is in serious trouble.
In my work, we use the Census Bureau's estimates for all
cities, counties and towns and we use them every year. From
this broader perspective, the estimates have actually served us
very well. For example, they are the starting point for our own
county estimates, where back in 1990, we had an average error
of about 4.1 percent. By 2000, that error was down to about 3.4
percent. I would love to take all the credit for that
improvement in accuracy, but most of it goes to the improvement
in the Census Bureau estimates that we are using as input.
The continued existence of problem estimates, though,
points to the need for further improvements. We do need to go
beyond just the improvements achieved through revisions based
on challenges. Governments do not challenge to get a lower
population estimate. All 89 revisions identified now in the
Census Bureau's Web site are increases over the original
estimate. So the revisions that we have just now only correct
for one type of error and certainly not all of those.
And because the Census Bureau estimates all areas
nationwide, they face a zero sum constraint and cannot simply
add population based on local data and input. The Census
Bureau's estimates have to sum to a realistic national total
for U.S. population and therefore have to correct for estimates
that are too low and for estimates that are too high.
To conclude, some promising resources and new methods are
being proposed. The Census Bureau is determined to move forward
with its program. But users need to maintain realistic
expectations. Even with improved accuracy, the Census Bureau's
population estimates will still be estimates and subject to
error. The frequency of challenges and the magnitude of
revisions may be reduced, but some areas will still dispute
their population estimates, and there will be continued
pressure for revisions. This is the imperfect nature of
population estimates, and from that broader perspective, those
imperfect estimates will be of continued value to many business
applications.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify, and I
look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hodges follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Turner. Thank you so much.
Dr. Brown.
STATEMENT OF WARREN A. BROWN
Mr. Brown. Chairman Turner, Ms. Norton, thank you for the
opportunity to be part of this hearing on the Census Bureau's
population estimates. I direct Cornell's program on applied
demographics. I am a research director for the New York Census
Research Data Center, which is a consortium of research
institutions in the New York Metropolitan Area and upstate New
York. And I represent New York State in the Federal-State
cooperative for population estimates. I am a past chair of that
group's steering committee.
I appreciate the opportunity to share my observations
regarding the Census Bureau's population estimates activities,
and I'm drawing upon a number of years of experience working
with the folks at the Census Bureau and advocating on behalf of
communities and counties in New York State as well as aware of
what is going on in other States around the country.
My written testimony and a copy of a paper I co-authored
with Joe Salvo of the New York City Department of City Planning
for a Census Bureau conference on population estimates has been
referred to numerous times so far today have been entered into
the record, or I have submitted them for the record.
There are two things from my written testimony that I would
really like to focus on. The first is error, then correcting
those errors. Population estimates are not perfect. And as a
decade goes along, typically the errors mount up, and we get
further and further away. I think it is unrealistic to expect
an estimates process to nail the subsequent decennial census
right on the head.
That said, the Census Bureau has produced a research file
that allowed their current major methodology to work without
the benefit of challenges, without the benefit of review from
the States. It was an opportunity to see how good is the
administrative records component method. It produced estimates
for April 1, 2000. The estimates for the Nation were low, they
were 6.8 million low. That number or that percentage was a 2.4
percent error. If that error had been equally distributed
across all of the local areas, the cities, the counties, the
municipalities, then we might have had error in the census, but
at least they would have been equitable and they would have
been evenly distributed. They were not.
The greatest underestimate was the District of Columbia at
minus 9.3 percent, Nevada at minus 6.8, Arizona at minus 5.4,
and Rhode Island at minus 5.1. Clearly that methodology does
not do a very good job with areas as diverse as the District of
Columbia, Nevada, Arizona and Rhode Island.
The challenge process, it has been observed that there are
a number of challenges that have taken place, and yet of the
almost 40,000 areas of local government, the fact that there
were 38 challenges, successful challenges in 2004, it is an
infinitesimal proportion of all area. Obviously there are
errors out there.
When a challenge is successful, what are the benefits? What
happens? The graph that I have submitted here shows the
changing nature of State population. This is a State as large
as New York State. I have expanded the vertical axes to
accentuate the differences, if you will. But you can see that
the estimates that were produced in 2005 incorporated the
challenges that were made in 2004. They incorporated them for
2004. So if you focus on 2004, you will see that the number is
substantially larger in the 2005 estimates than it was in the
2004 estimates. It reflects that adjustment.
The 2005 estimate was based on the same methodology and
shows a downturn in the population. As we have talked about the
perception of growth, change or decline, it is very important,
and what this tends to show is that we have a declining
population in New York State. We think the challenge that we
are currently engaged in will correct that.
In summary, getting estimates right the first time or at
least with maximum accuracy, precision and equity, calls for
fuller partnership between Federal, State and local
governments. Thank you for inviting me to participate in this
oversight hearing.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Turner. Thank you. First for questions we will turn to
Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me very quickly
ask a set of questions to the District of Columbia.
You say in your testimony, and here I am quoting from page
2, ``The District of Columbia was not about to sit silently by
for another 10 years and experience, among other things, an
erosion of Federal funding.'' And then you say, after release
of the 2005 population estimates in December 2005, the District
``was ready to act.''
Now, you heard me be very tough on Mr. Kincannon.
Ms. Phillips. Yes, I did. [Laughter.]
Ms. Norton. And you heard me promise I was going to be
fair, and be equally tough on the District of Columbia. Perhaps
you left out something. But I asked him about 4 years and your
testimony seems to indicate a challenge to a place in 2005.
Would you care to comment on the disparity there, if any?
Ms. Phillips. Yes, I can. I can only speak for when I took
the job as----
Ms. Norton. Well, that won't do. He couldn't get away with
that, and I have to tell you, all of us have to take, we can't
say, the member who was here last messed up.
Ms. Phillips. Right.
Ms. Norton. So don't blame me. This happened on the watch
of the Mayor of the District of Columbia.
Ms. Phillips. Yes.
Ms. Norton. He has been a good mayor. And I am asking you,
let me be specific, when was the first challenge filed to the
2000 census?
Ms. Phillips. From my research, the first challenge was
filed in 2005. When I took the job in February 2005, we began
looking at the information to file the challenge. When the 2005
population estimates came out in December, then we got the
official piece together and the challenge was actually filed, I
believe, in March 2006.
Ms. Norton. OK, you know what, was it done with any
guidance from the Census Bureau?
Ms. Phillips. It was done with guidance, and that is why I
am going back to, I can speak to when I came. When I came on
board, I realized there was a problem. I contacted the Census
Bureau, and they did engage in discussions with us as to what
it entails in filing a challenge.
As you have seen in my stated testimony, we did have that
discussion at the regional office, the Washington Council of
Governments. And we were still not pleased with the results of
that discussion, and that is why we went ahead and did the
challenge.
Ms. Norton. I need you to go back and speak with the Mayor.
When was the Mayor elected?
Ms. Phillips. Well, the Mayor has----
Ms. Norton. He's completing an 8-year term. When was he
elected?
Ms. Phillips. In 1999.
Ms. Norton. This is a mayor that has a very good reputation
in the Congress and he has a very good reputation with me.
Mr. Turner. I can add to that, he has an excellent
reputation.
Ms. Norton. We have seen palpable improvements in the
government. We are really not in the blame game, we are in the
making sure that we get everybody doing his or her part. And
then seeing, because you heard who I am going to hold
responsible. I don't fund you to do this.
Ms. Phillips. Right.
Ms. Norton. We fund Mr. Kincannon.
Ms. Phillips. That's why I made sure when I came on board--
--
Ms. Norton. So I need you to go back--I only have so much
time--I need you to go back and I need you to come into my
office with people who were there at the time, so that I can
understand, since the Mayor has been complaining about this
virtually since he took office, why no challenge was made. And
the reason I want you to do that really goes to my next
question, which goes to our various experts.
Suppose the challenge isn't made and the corrections made.
However, perhaps the corrections are made without the
challenge. I wasn't able to find that to be the case. But if
you have an accumulation of time without corrections, does that
mean, what does that mean concerning accuracy or inaccuracy of
the next decennial census? Do any of the experts care to focus
on this?
The reason, the predicate for that question is that
Congress is spending money to have it done on a virtually,
well, not an annual basis, but to have it done often. And I
thought the premise was, the more often, the closer to the data
and the change in the data, the closer you get to accuracy, so
by the time you get to the 10-year period, you say, well, let's
look back, when all the witnesses are gone and you get what Ms.
Phillips just said, well, I wasn't there then, Congresswoman,
you can then speak with the people who have the responsibility.
So I am asking you what the net effect is, in your
judgment, on accuracy, if corrections are not appropriate made
on a timely basis by whatever, on whatever basis, challenged or
not?
Ms. Phillips. From the information we have, we can see that
it affects numerous programs.
Ms. Norton. No, please, I'm asking this--they are going to
call time on me. I am asking this, I am not directing this to
you, Ms. Phillips, and I understand what the difficulty is. You
are going to get, you all are going to come in and see me. I
don't want a letter. You don't have to come far. And I am here
to try to work with--we are having a new mayor, Mr. Chairman.
So I want to work with whoever that new mayor is.
But I want to know from the experts now, the people who are
outside experts, objective experts, what is the cumulative
effect if the updates don't occur on an active fashion? Yes,
sir, Mr. Brown?
Mr. Brown. Let me point to two areas. The address list that
has already been described as New York City was very successful
in getting a more accurate count by vigorously developing its
own address list to compare against the Census Bureau's address
list, part of the housing unit method and what David Swanson
has been referring to as an ongoing registry of housing units
and those addresses to be used in the estimates process is
probably the single most important thing you can do to ensure
an accurate census count.
So if you will, the estimates are like a dress rehearsal
for the decennial census.
Ms. Norton. As often as you can do them?
Mr. Brown. Get your act together, get your resources
together and maintain a complete and accurate listing.
Ms. Norton. So in your judgment, you will have a more
accurate census at the end of the period if you did that?
Mr. Brown. Absolutely. And the second, which is almost like
closing the barn door after the cows have left, is during the
review process, did we get good coverage, because the States
participated with the Census Bureau in reviewing the Census
2000, is to compare the estimates to the count. If the
estimates are low and the count was low, it is not going to be
surprising. But if the estimates are high and the count was
low, then it is going to cause concern that maybe we missed
something here. So getting that estimate correct is incredibly
important.
Ms. Norton. Yes, sir, Mr. Hodges?
Mr. Hodges. Put another way, with some of David Swanson's
recommendations for the housing unit method and the use of an
Master Address File, if one goes that route with the estimates,
you are then building estimates with sources that are more
similar to those that contribute to the census count itself.
Whereas right now, with the component method, as well as it
works in some areas, it is a very different process than that
for the census.
So whether the ultimate census counts themselves are more
accurate or not, you would have results that are more similar.
Ms. Norton. Interesting.
Mr. Swanson. If I could add one other point.
Ms. Norton. Yes, sir, Mr. Swanson.
Mr. Swanson. This goes back to my experience in Washington
State, which started its estimates program in 1942. The benefit
of having a housing unit method and having a registry for
housing that I suggested is that I have seen in action, when
you use housing unit method estimates for cities, and there
were 265 in Washington State when I worked there, is that when
you had a dispute with the local government, you had a method
of self correction. The elements that go into making the
housing unit method work are exactly the elements you need when
you do a census count. And the cities would provide the housing
unit numbers to the State, the State demographic center, as we
started to develop the estimates for the cities.
So the disputes usually, they would boil down to two
issues, what was the vacancy rate and how many persons per
household were there in each of them. And we could solve those
easily with the census and/or if it was a larger town where
census was costly and prohibitive from that regard, for
example, Seattle, we never did a census in Seattle, but we
certainly did a lot of sample surveys to update the information
that we used in the housing unit method.
So what you get is a system that is self-corrective. In
that regard, I am in full agreement with what Warren said and
what Ken said. It is one of the reasons I recommended looking
into the math, is that if you are using something like that,
you have a head start for having a pretty clear idea of what
the census is going to come about with.
Ms. Norton. And that is a concern of the Congress, the
accuracy concern is, it is not a member, particularly in the
House, which is done by reapportionment.
Mr. Chairman, I just have two questions. One, I really am
interested in, Mr. Brown, in page whatever it is in your
testimony. As I say to my students, number my pages, after all,
I don't count, your grade is not based on the number of pages
but on the content here.
You name the jurisdictions that had the greatest
underestimates, the District of Columbia led. And I kept
looking for what these jurisdictions might have in common,
District of Columbia, Nevada, Arizona and Rhode Island, in that
order. Do they have anything themselves in common, or how would
you, what would be your professional judgment for the reason?
Mr. Brown. Nevada and Arizona, rapidly growing, the two
fastest growing States in the country. So the growth is just
outpacing our ability to estimate the population.
Ms. Norton. Oh, well, that is what we pay the statisticians
for. But I hear you. I hear you, this is what, when I asked Mr.
Kincannon, I said, are you keeping up with a society that
changes overnight, and yes, we are going to expect the
statisticians to be smart enough to figure that out. But I hear
you. That is not a criticism of you. But go ahead.
Mr. Brown. The District of Columbia I think is sort of
encapsulates everything that is a weakness in the
administrative records component method. College students,
immigrants from abroad.
Ms. Norton. Transients who come here to work.
Mr. Brown. Transient population that is present perhaps in
Providence, Rhode Island, and since Rhode Island is a small
State, Providence dominates it. And we know that it is present
in New York City. So I think you have large urban center
problems, you have rapidly growing State problems. Not a common
thread between the four States, but two threads that I would
lump them into.
Ms. Norton. Thank you. That is very helpful. This is what
I'm going to press the Census Bureau to understand. And I
understand all that you all have been saying about conformity,
apples to apples. But then the science and the skill is in
making that happen while acknowledging differences. I think
that is hard, and I say so from the work the GAO did on the
District and the structural imbalance. So I don't see this as
anything but very difficult, but a wonderful challenge, it
seems to me, for somebody in your profession.
Could I ask, experts, hey, look, is it almost always an
underestimate? Do they ever go the other way? I know one time
they do is when they give people who don't have a ny population
but have a lot of prisoners a lot of money for Title I, people
who are not going to school and can't. But I am saying, in the
general course of things, is the basic rule that if they are
going to err, they are going to err on the side of what they
consider caution, which is low, rather than high? Is that how
it happens?
Mr. Hodges. Very briefly, there are a great many over-
estimations among those of us who do population estimates.
Warren Brown mentioned the roughly 6 million----
Ms. Norton. I am trying to find the frequency. Is the
frequency with, because I am sure everybody can find somebody.
Is the frequency with too low rather than too high and how
often would you rate how often, knowing full well that you
can't give me a statistically accurate number. Is it rare for
there to be more population assigned than----
Mr. Hodges. Let me suggest, without having notes with me,
that probably varies from year to year. In the 2000 census, the
estimates were lower than the count. In the 1990 census, if I
recall correctly, the count came in lower than the estimates.
So that while with 2000, there more likely would have been
under-estimates, in 1990, quite the opposite may have been
true.
Ms. Norton. It certainly wasn't true for the District of
Columbia.
Final question, Mr. Chairman, then I am through. I wonder
whether particularly the experts have anything to say about
what Ms. Phillips said. She did indicate that there were
difficulties with data sharing. And I don't know whether
changes in statute might be necessary or whether this data
sharing, for example, on group quarters was a matter of
privacy, was it statutory, does it need to be changed? I was
not sure the meaning of that data sharing and why, when the
Census wants to get a collegial process going, there would be
that problem.
Mr. Swanson. I can't speak exactly to the Census Bureau,
but I know in some cases where I've dealt with population
estimates, some group quarters populations are extremely
sensitive. For example, shelters for abused women. So you can
understand why they don't want to share information.
Ms. Norton. Just a number?
Mr. Swanson. Well, I can just say for some types, there are
issues of sensitivity.
Ms. Norton. But wait a minute. They are sharing it with
people in their own jurisdiction.
Mr. Swanson. I have had people tell me in other States the
same thing, not the Census Bureau, but in my job as a State
demographer in other places where people were hesitant to give
that information to me.
Ms. Norton. Yes, that is a demographer. I am saying, is
there any valid reason, perhaps statutory, that you know of why
the Census would be cautious about sharing information such as
group quarters?
Mr. Swanson. Yes. What we do as State demographers in the
cooperative is we develop a list of every group quarters
facility in our State. We don't track them all, but we track
the major ones. We identify where they are located and we give
them the number of people that are there.
The information flows to the Census Bureau. Once it becomes
part----
Ms. Norton. So you know it, you can go in those places
yourself, then.
Mr. Swanson. Absolutely.
Ms. Norton. So you know what is in there. So what is the
problem with data sharing, then, about group quarters? You give
them the information to say, in this homeless shelter there
are, in this abused, whatever, there are? That is where they
get it from in the first place.
Mr. Swanson. The Census Bureau is quite proud of the fact
that it is a one way relationship, that because of Title 13,
once data comes into their records and becomes part of their
information, they cannot share it back.
Ms. Norton. With the jurisdiction that provided the data?
Mr. Swanson. That is correct.
Ms. Norton. Ms. Phillips, is that what they told you?
Ms. Phillips. Yes, the Title 13, I wanted that list of
group quarters so that I can compare 2000 with 2005. And they
could not share that list with me. So when I submitted my list,
what they were saying is my list was different from the list
that they had in 2000, so they could not use the updated
numbers.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, I really would ask that matter be
looked at very--I did not have this question to ask the Census
Bureau. That is why I asked about privacy and the rest of it.
But I am astonished that this kind of information, which the
District of Columbia can walk into any facility, all of them
have to be licensed, all of them have to comply with the law. I
don't see the privacy issue. I don't see any--the only thing I
could see is there could be something statutory. I will look at
that.
But other than that, this is the kind of thing, if all I
know is what you all are telling me, it is what yields
disrespect for Government. If you say, you provide the data and
then we challenge the ultimate data and say, we want to
specifically see how you are counting X data, which we earlier
provided you, and we say, oh, no, no, we can't let you see
that, even though we got it from you, that is nonsense. And
considering the testimony we have received about the importance
of group quarters, and the housing component of the census, it
does seem to be a central question of data sharing for the
Census Bureau that says above all, it wants a collegial
relationship.
And I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Ms. Norton.
For the record, I want to note that my district, which is
anchored predominantly by Dayton, OH, according to the last
estimates, lost 4.4 percent, reducing the community to 158,000.
My district also reaches down toward Cincinnati, and according
to the Cincinnati Post, they began with this headline that the
city leads in population loss. It says that in the last 5
years, it has the highest rate of any major American city as a
result of recent estimates of losses in population.
So we have identified the issue of Federal funds. We have
identified the issue of businesses that locate in the area. But
there is also the overarching issue of perceptions of a
community and the impacts that it can have in long term
strategic planning, based on estimates that may or may not be
accurate.
And I am going to conclude, I also want to recognize that
Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania has joined us, who has been very
active on this committee and in the issue of the census.
One of the issues that Director Kincannon seemed
comfortable with was the ability of communities to object, both
their knowledge and awareness of the process, their access to
data and expertise that could result in a successful challenge.
I would like if each of you would, in conclusion, as a
conclusionary question, but I am going to give you one
opportunity also to add anything to the record that you want,
tell us if you believe that communities have the accurate
information of the process and the expertise generally to go
through the processes that New York City and D.C. have been
successful in.
And I want to highlight just one other thing that Director
Kincannon had said, that I think was perhaps not accurate, and
that is, he concluded that by the fact that there were
communities that were going through the process that therefore
it must be available and accessible. We don't necessarily have
data about, unless you can contribute that in this hearing, of
communities that have not gone through the process that have
wanted to.
But if you would please comment on that.
Mr. Brown. I would be happy to start. I think the State
representatives in the Federal-State co-op need to do a better
job educating their counties and their communities. I think the
Census Bureau charges us with that responsibility. We want to
develop a relationship with our counties and our communities
that, I talk more communities out of challenging that I do into
challenging, even though New York is one of the most active
challenge States, that I am sure that my friends at the Census
Bureau think I go around drumming up challenges, that we get
communities that are upset. We walk through the data with them
and say, you don't have any grounds.
So anyway, I would say that if a community is not, in New
York State, is not aware, then it is my failing as much if not
more so, than the Census Bureau's.
Mr. Turner. Mr. Hodges.
Mr. Hodges. I would hope that communities are aware of the
opportunity to challenge and do have equal access to that
opportunity. But I would be surprised if the ability to
challenge and the inclination were equal across the board for
39,000 government units. That would be surprising.
Mr. Turner. Ms. Phillips.
Ms. Phillips. I would agree with what the past two speakers
have said. The information is published on the Census Bureau's
Web site, in terms of the challenge process. So anyone can
access it. But I think the problem lies with the resources that
are available within each one of those jurisdictions. It does
take a lot of work to get the challenge through.
Mr. Swanson. The key to answering that problem, I think,
lies with the State demographic centers. And there is a lot of
weak State demographic centers. In some States, they don't
exist. I think what Warren said about New York puts that in a
totally different situation, where they are working actively
with the local governments. That wouldn't happen in
Mississippi. We don't have that kind of activity.
Texas is a much better situation, because it has the
capabilities to do that. They are active partners in the
Federal-State cooperative program for population estimates, and
they have experienced people there. But Alabama and Mississippi
do not. And I think that reflects down to the fact that the
cities are not in a very good position to challenge because
they lack that kind of a local contact.
Mr. Turner. For each of you, before we conclude this
hearing, you have heard both the questions that we have had,
the testimony of Director Kincannon and the testimony of each
of you, I want to give you an opportunity, if there is anything
you want to add to the record before we close. Dr. Swanson, I
will begin with you, if there is anything that you would like
to add to the record as a concluding remark.
Mr. Swanson. The MAF, the MAF, the MAF. I think it is one
of the keys to having a good estimation system, and I think it
will tend to resolve lots of problems, including the one I am
most concerned about, and that is the escalation of conflict
between the Census Bureau and all these other stakeholders.
Mr. Turner. Ms. Phillips.
Ms. Phillips. What I wanted to add is in terms of my first
recommendation, and that is for more direct communication. I
refer to it as that trigger that should indicate when there is
some dramatic increase or decrease in the numbers, that the
Census needs to reach out to the local community to sort of
understand what is going on at the grass roots level. I think
that is quite important. You referred to it as a trip wire. And
I think if that something is put in place to ensure that when
these triggers occur, that there is a followup with the local
community, then we can arrive at better estimates in the
future. Thank you.
Mr. Turner. Mr. Hodges.
Mr. Hodges. Nothing to add. Thank you very much.
Mr. Turner. Mr. Brown.
Mr. Brown. In the 1980's, the Census Bureau and individual
States jointly selected methods most appropriate for that
State. There was not a one size fits all approach. In the
1990's, there was pressure to streamline the process, to do it
more quickly. I would like to see us return to a more full and
open partnership with the States to find methods and input data
that work best for the people of that State and do it State by
State.
Mr. Turner. I would like to thank each of you for
participating today, both in the preparation that you have put
forth in your written comments and also your participation
here. I appreciate your willingness to share your expertise and
your thoughts on population estimates.
I would also like to thank all of my colleagues for their
participation. In the event that there might be additional
questions that we did not have time for today, the record shall
remain open for 2 weeks for submitted questions and answers.
I want to thank you all, and with that we will be
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:02 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[The prepared statement of Hon. Wm. Lacy Clay and
additional information submitted for the hearing record
follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]