[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
CENSUS DATA AND ITS USE IN FEDERAL FORMULA FUNDING
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INFORMATION POLICY,
CENSUS, AND NATIONAL ARCHIVES
of the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 9, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-23
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
http://www.oversight.house.gov
CENSUS DATA AND ITS USE IN FEDERAL FORMULA FUNDING
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INFORMATION POLICY,
CENSUS, AND NATIONAL ARCHIVES
of the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 9, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-23
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
http://www.oversight.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
53-869 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York, Chairman
PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania DARRELL E. ISSA, California
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York DAN BURTON, Indiana
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio JOHN L. MICA, Florida
JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
DIANE E. WATSON, California MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
JIM COOPER, Tennessee PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina
GERRY E. CONNOLLY, Virginia BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois JIM JORDAN, Ohio
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
Columbia JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island AARON SCHOCK, Illinois
DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois ------ ------
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire
CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
PETER WELCH, Vermont
BILL FOSTER, Illinois
JACKIE SPEIER, California
STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio
------ ------
Ron Stroman, Staff Director
Michael McCarthy, Deputy Staff Director
Carla Hultberg, Chief Clerk
Larry Brady, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National Archives
WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri, Chairman
PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JOHN L. MICA, Florida
Columbia JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah
DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio
DIANE E. WATSON, California
Darryl Piggee, Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 9, 2009..................................... 1
Statement of:
Finkbeiner, Carleton, mayor, city of Toledo, OH; Robert
Bowser, mayor, city of East Orange, NJ; Arturo Vargas,
executive director, National Association of Latino Elected
and Appointed Officials; and Jamie Alderslade, director of
external relations, the Social Compact, Inc................ 159
Alderslade, Jamie........................................ 199
Bowser, Robert........................................... 175
Finkbeiner, Carleton..................................... 159
Vargas, Arturo........................................... 180
Mesenbourg, Thomas, Acting Director, U.S. Census Bureau;
Robert Goldenkoff, Director, Strategic Issues, U.S.
Government Accountability Office; Todd Richardson,
Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary, Policy Development,
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; Donald
Moulds, Acting Assistant Secretary, Planning and Education,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; and Stuart
Kerachsky, Acting Director, National Center for Education
Statistics, U.S. Department of Education................... 84
Goldenkoff, Robert....................................... 90
Kerachsky, Stuart........................................ 138
Mesenbourg, Thomas....................................... 84
Moulds, Donald........................................... 115
Richardson, Todd......................................... 107
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Alderslade, Jamie, director of external relations, the Social
Compact, Inc., prepared statement of....................... 201
Bowser, Robert, mayor, city of East Orange, NJ, prepared
statement of............................................... 177
Clay, Hon. Wm. Lacy, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Missouri, prepared statement of................... 3
Finkbeiner, Carleton, mayor, city of Toledo, OH, prepared
statement of............................................... 163
Goldenkoff, Robert, Director, Strategic Issues, U.S.
Government Accountability Office, prepared statement of.... 92
Kerachsky, Stuart, Acting Director, National Center for
Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education,
prepared statement of...................................... 140
Maloney, Hon. Carolyn B., a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York, prepared statement of............... 214
McHenry, Hon. Patrick T., a Representative in Congress from
the State of North Carolina:
Bipartisan report........................................ 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 77
Mesenbourg, Thomas, Acting Director, U.S. Census Bureau,
prepared statement of...................................... 86
Moulds, Donald, Acting Assistant Secretary, Planning and
Education, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
prepared statement of...................................... 117
Richardson, Todd, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary,
Policy Development, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, prepared statement of......................... 109
Vargas, Arturo, executive director, National Association of
Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, prepared statement
of......................................................... 183
Watson, Hon. Diane E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, prepared statement of................. 80
CENSUS DATA AND ITS USE IN FEDERAL FORMULA FUNDING
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 9, 2009
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and
National Archives,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:10 p.m., in
room 2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Wm. Lacy Clay
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Clay, Maloney, Watson, McHenry,
and Westmoreland.
Also present: Representative Kaptur.
Staff present: Darryl Piggee, staff director/counsel; Frank
Davis, professional staff member; Jean Gosa, clerk; Charisma
Williams, staff assistant; Leneal Scott, information systems
manager; Dan Blankenburg, minority director of outreach and
senior advisor; Adam Fromm, minority chief clerk and Member
liaison; and Chapin Fay, minority counsel.
Mr. Clay. The Information Policy, Census, and National
Archives Subcommittee will now come to order. Good afternoon
and welcome to today's hearing entitled: ``Census Data and Its
Use in Federal Formula Funding.''
Today's hearing will examine the impact of using census
data on local recipients in Federal funding allocation
decisions. On our first panel, we will hear from Federal
department witnesses who will testify about how select Federal
Government agencies use census data in their funding formulas.
Our second panel is comprised of local government officials and
private agencies who will tell us about their knowledge and
experience with census data and their recommendations to
improve the use of census data in Federal formula funding.
Without objection, the Chair and ranking minority member
will have 5 minutes to make opening statements followed by
opening statements not to exceed 3 minutes by any other Member
who seeks recognition.
Without objection, Members and witnesses may have 5
legislative days to submit a written statement or extraneous
materials for the record.
I will begin with my opening statement.
The purpose of today's hearing is to examine how census
data are used in Federal funding program calculations and
whether these Federal funding formulas fairly distribute
Federal moneys to States, cities, and local governments. We
will consider many important issues today including what
criteria are used in these Federal funding formulas, whether
Congress and agencies factor in the under-count of certain
communities in these calculations, and what steps Congress and
the administration can take to improve census data and the
present formulas.
Census data are used by over 180 Federal programs in
determining funding levels to cities, counties, and States.
These Federal allocations to local governments and States
topped over $375 billion in 2007 alone. Federal programs that
use census data in their funding formulas include Title I
education appropriations, Medicaid, and Community Development
Block Grants.
This subcommittee is concerned about HUD's Community
Development Block Grant program in particular, especially with
regard to recent developments in Toledo, OH. In 2008, the Mayor
of Toledo challenged census estimates and successfully added
over 20,000 city residents to Toledo's population. However,
with this increase in population, Toledo lost over $290,000
dollars in Community Development Block Grant funding. It is
counter-intuitive for HUD to provide Toledo with less Federal
funding because the Census Bureau increased the city's under-
counted population number.
Other Federal funding formulas such as Medicaid
redistribute hundreds of millions of dollars among States when
census under-count data are corrected. Federal funding formulas
like Medicaid and Community Development Block Grants are
sensitive to the under-count, which causes Federal funds to be
mis-allocated to cities and States, hurting traditionally
under-counted populations such as low income children and
immigrant communities.
Census data are used for a large majority of all Federal
funding formulas. There needs to be clarity and transparency as
to how census data are used and if these Federal funding
formulas truly serve their targeted communities. Today's
hearing will address these issues and reveal existing problems,
solutions, and what further research needs to be done with
census data and its use in Federal funding formulas.
Let me thank all of our witnesses for appearing today. I
look forward to their testimony.
I now yield to the distinguished ranking minority member,
Mr. McHenry of North Carolina, for 5 minutes.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Wm. Lacy Clay follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. McHenry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding
today's hearing. I want to begin by thanking again Mr.
Mesenbourg and Mr. Goldenkoff for reappearing before the
committee. It is good to have you back. For the other
witnesses, thank you so much for agreeing to testify and being
here today.
As the chairman has already stated, the data collected by
the Census Bureau is vitally important to the calculation of
funding levels and appropriations in Federal programs at the
congressional level and by Federal agencies themselves. Data
are also used by State and local governments to allocate
resources and services, and by the private sector to determine
where to invest and develop industry.
The subject of today's hearing underscores the importance
of filling out the decennial census form when it arrives on
April 1, 2010. It is vitally important to the American people
that everyone in this country respond to that form. It is not a
partisan issue. It is simply a matter of having an accurate
picture of who is in this country on census day 2010. This is
very important. It is a very core Constitutional principle that
we have an accurate count of who is here in this country.
With having a short form only census, it makes it even
easier for the American people to participate. So Members of
Congress should advocate for participation. Everyone within
Government should advocate for participation. We are grateful
for community groups who are involved to ensure that people
participate as well.
I would also like to thank the chairman for having this
hearing today. We last met in March. I know that we have racked
up address canvassing, as Mr. Mesenbourg has related to the
Congress. From the accounts we have gotten, it has gone very
well. We are very grateful for that. That address canvassing,
as Mr. Mesenbourg has previously said, is a cornerstone to the
2010 census.
I hope that we can have Mr. Mesenbourg or the new Director,
whenever the Senate determines that they will actually act,
then we can actually get the new Director in. But approximately
140,000 census workers took to America's streets this spring to
verify addresses and assemble the Bureau's list of where
decennial forms will be sent and where, if needed, enumerators
will visit in 2010.
On separate occasions, Chairman Clay and I have stated that
we both have unanswered questions about this vast canvassing
effort. The outcome of the decennial census depends largely on
this step in the operation and so there is an obvious need to
review and assess its successes and failures. Certainly, the
GAO and the Census Bureau, we would love to have you back. Mr.
Chairman, I would certainly think we would both learn a lot
from that hearing. It is my hope that we can bring you back
again soon to evaluate this step of the process.
That said, today's hearing is an important opportunity for
the committee to ensure that the census data and Federal
funding formulas are fair, accurate, and effective.
Chairman Clay, I thank you for bringing this issue to the
forefront about the inequities of Community Development Block
Grant programs. I do share your concerns.
As for how census numbers affect the CDBG, I would like to
point out that the funding formula involves many factors. In
the 109th Congress, this subcommittee published a bipartisan
report dealing with that funding formula. I ask unanimous
consent to submit this for the record.
Mr. Clay. Without objection, the document is submitted into
the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. McHenry. It is still regarded as a strong road map of
how to improve the CDBG program by addressing the need as well
as ensuring that we have the proper numbers.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for having this
hearing today. I appreciate your leadership and thank you for
your friendship.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Patrick T. McHenry
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Clay. Thank you so much, Mr. McHenry. Be assured that
as soon as the new Director is confirmed by the Senate, they
will momentarily be before this committee. So thank you.
I would like to recognize the gentlewoman from California
for 3 minutes.
Ms. Watson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much for
holding today's important hearing examining the role census
data plays in the formulas used for distributing Federal funds.
I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses about the
mythologies behind these formulas and the steps being taken to
promote the census, improve participation, and decrease the
differential under-count to ensure that Federal funds are
appropriated to the areas in America where they are needed
most.
Since the establishment of the decennial census in 1790,
every census has experienced an under-count. According to the
Government Accountability Office, the 2000 census missed an
estimated 2 percent of the U.S. population, a disproportionate
number of which were minorities, low income households, and
children. My district in particular has traditionally been
under-counted due to a lack of mutual understanding and
engagement with local constituencies.
This under-count is troubling because without accurate
population data, it is impossible to ensure that we have a
complete view of our Nation's demographics, that Americans have
proper representation in State and Federal Governments, and
that Federal grants are targeted to where they are needed most.
According to the Census Bureau, for the fiscal year 2007,
over $400 billion was allocated through Federal grants and
direct assistance programs based on formulas reliant on data
from the 2000 census. The amount of critical Federal funding at
stake reinforces the importance of an accurate and
comprehensive 2010 census count for local, State, and tribal
governments.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank today's panelists for
their cooperation with our proceedings and for your leadership
in ensuring that the 2010 census provides the most complete
enumeration of our population in American history.
Thank you and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Diane E. Watson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Clay. Thank you so much. I also want to recognize a
guest here who will serve on the panel here, my good friend
Marcy Kaptur from Ohio. Thank you for coming today. If you have
any opening statement, you can be recognized for 3 minutes.
Ms. Kaptur. I wanted to thank you very much for the
opportunity to sit in.
Our community of Toledo, OH in the Ninth District well
knows the importance of the census and the distribution of the
tax dollars that our citizens send here to Washington and then
by formula are sent back home.
On the second panel I will have the pleasure of introducing
our Mayor and his team, who have traveled very far, Mayor
Carleton Finkbeiner. I would like to recognize him now. He is a
12-year Mayor of our city and the first strong Mayor in
Toledo's history. We are very proud of him. No one has fought
harder for accurate census counts than he has, having been
someone who helped to do the census when he was a youngster and
having seen what actually happened when people went out into
the field. So we look forward to his testimony this afternoon.
I thank you very much for the time.
Mr. Clay. You are very welcome. We look forward to your
service on this committee today. Without further ado, I want to
start by introducing our first panel.
We will first hear from Mr. Thomas Mesenbourg who is
currently serving as the Acting Director of the U.S. Census
Bureau. He has more than 36 years of Census Bureau experience
and now oversees the day to day operations of the Federal
Government's perennial, preeminent statistical agency.
Next we will hear from Mr. Robert Goldenkoff, a Director on
the U.S. Government Accountability Office's Strategic Issues
team. He has over 20 years of program evaluation experience
with GAO and is currently responsible for reviewing the 2010
census and Government-wide human capital reforms.
Our third witness is Mr. Todd Richardson, the Associate
Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Office of Policy Development
for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. At
HUD, he leads a team of staff responsible for analyzing current
data and drawing on the results of past research to assist the
Secretary with making informed policy decisions.
Our next witness is Mr. Donald Moulds, the newly appointed
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Planning and
Evaluation in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
In this capacity, he provides leadership, direction, and
management of policy research, analysis, evaluation, and
coordination of Department-wide science and data policy
activities and issues.
Our last witness on the first panel, Mr. Stuart Kerachsky,
is the Acting Commissioner of the National Center for Education
Statistics in the U.S. Department of Education. His career has
been devoted to applying the best scientific methods to
bringing information and evidence to bear on improving social
programs.
Let me thank all of you for appearing today before the
subcommittee. It is the policy of the committee to swear in all
witnesses before they testify. I would like to ask each witness
to please stand and raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Clay. Thank you. You may be seated. Let the record
reflect that the witnesses answered in the affirmative.
Each of you will have 5 minutes to make an opening
statement. Your complete written testimony will be included in
the hearing record. The yellow light in front of you will
indicate that it is time to sum up. The red light will indicate
that your time has expired. When you hear this, that means shut
it off. [Laughter.]
Mr. Mesenbourg, you may proceed with your opening
statement.
STATEMENTS OF THOMAS MESENBOURG, ACTING DIRECTOR, U.S. CENSUS
BUREAU; ROBERT GOLDENKOFF, DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC ISSUES, U.S.
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; TODD RICHARDSON, ASSOCIATE
DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, POLICY DEVELOPMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT; DONALD MOULDS, ACTING
ASSISTANT SECRETARY, PLANNING AND EDUCATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; AND STUART KERACHSKY, ACTING
DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
STATEMENT OF THOMAS MESENBOURG
Mr. Mesenbourg. Chairman Clay, Ranking Member McHenry, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
discuss the role that data produced by the Census Bureau plays
in Federal funds distribution. I appreciate the subcommittee's
attention to this important issue and I am pleased to be
testifying alongside four of the agencies that use our data.
This helps make an important distinction. The Census Bureau
is not involved in developing, administering, or evaluating the
funding formula or the programs that use our data. However, the
Census Bureau through the decennial census, the American
Community Survey, and our Population Estimates Program is the
producer of many of the data sources used by agencies in their
funding formula. Our job is to produce the most accurate and
complete data possible.
Today I will focus my testimony on how the Census Bureau
produces the three major data sources used for funding
formulas. The decennial census program includes both the 2010
census and the detailed demographic, social, economic, and
housing characteristics information produced by the American
Community Survey. The American Community Survey collects data
monthly for population and housing characteristics that
previously were collected in the decennial census long form. Of
course, we publish that data annually.
The Population Estimates Program produces population
estimates for the Nation, States, counties, cities, and towns
on an annual basis. These population estimates update the most
recent decennial counts each year with new information using
births, deaths, and net migration information. The population
estimates are used in many formulas to allocate funding. They
are also used in the production of the final American Community
Survey estimates released to the public. Thus the quality of
the official population estimates and the American Community
Survey are inextricably linked to the accuracy of the decennial
census.
Federal agencies that administer grants and other Federal
funds allocation programs typically use a mix of the decennial
census, population estimates, and information from the American
Community Survey. I make this point to stress the importance of
the upcoming 2010 census. Our Governments Division recently
analyzed 140 Federal grant and direct assistance programs for
fiscal year 2007 and concluded that over $400 billion are
distributed annually using one or more of these Census Bureau
data sources. There is no better way to emphasize the
importance of the 2010 census for local, State, and tribal
governments than by acknowledging this.
In the years between the decennial censuses, the Population
Estimates Program of the Census Bureau produces the official
population estimates for the United States. They are considered
estimates because they are population figures that do not arise
directly from a complete count. They are determined by using
available data, for example, from available administrative
record data on births and deaths as well as information from
the IRS to track net migration flows. The estimates rely
heavily on data from the latest available decennial census as
those census data serve as the basis on which the population
estimates are constructed.
Again, though, the most important contributing factor to a
State's estimated population at any given point in time is the
count of that State's population in the most recent decennial
census. To ensure the population estimates are as accurate as
possible, it is important and critical to have an accurate
census count upon which the estimates can be built. To that
end, we encourage everyone to participate in the 2010 census.
In closing, I want to stress that the Census Bureau's goal
is to produce complete and accurate data that meet the needs of
our customers. For Federal funds allocation, the single most
important contribution the Census Bureau can make is to count
everyone, count them once, and count them where they usually
reside. This is the daunting challenge but we are committed to
making the 2010 census the most successful ever.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mesenbourg follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Mesenbourg. Mr. Goldenkoff, you
are recognized.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT GOLDENKOFF
Mr. Goldenkoff. Chairman Clay, Ranking Member McHenry, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
be here today to discuss the role that population data plays in
the allocation of Federal funds to States and localities.
In my written statement, we reported that in past years the
Federal Government has annually distributed over $300 billion
in Federal assistance through grant programs using formulas
driven in whole or in part by census population counts.
According to a new Census Bureau study, this figure is now over
$400 billion for fiscal year 2007. What is more, the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act will obligate an additional $161
billion to Federal grant programs for fiscal year 2009,
including some programs that depend to some extent on census
population data to determine the amount of Federal assistance.
As agreed with the subcommittee, my testimony describes how
census data are used in the allocation of Federal formula grant
funds and how the structure of the formulas and other factors
can affect those allocations. In particular, I want to stress
two key points. First, although population counts play an
important role in the distribution of Federal funds, other
factors such as the design of the grant formulas can mitigate
the effect that any population changes have on funding levels.
Second, because population estimates are important for
Federal funding allocations and the decennial census is the
foundation for these estimates, an accurate enumeration in
2010, including the reduction in the historic under-count of
minority and other populations as well as a complete count of
communities affected by Hurricane Katrina and other natural
disasters, is absolutely essential.
Federal grants use various sources of population data in
their funding formulas. The largest of these is the decennial
census, which the Census Bureau conducts every 10 years.
The Bureau also estimates the population for the years
between censuses, known as post-censal estimates. For example,
the allocation formula for Social Services Block Grants, which
help States fund day care, health, substance abuse, and
numerous other programs, uses the most recent post-censal
population estimates to distribute funds.
Another source of population data is the Bureau's American
Community Survey, which provides detailed annual data on
socioeconomic characteristics for the Nation's communities. It
is used to allocate Federal funds for such programs as the
Section 8 Housing Voucher Program, which is aimed at increasing
affordable housing choices for very low income households.
A third source is the Current Population Survey, which is
conducted by the Census Bureau for the Bureau of Labor
Statistics. CPS data are used to allocate funds for programs
under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, which provides work
force development services to employers and workers.
Among funding formulas that rely on population data, the
degree of reliance varies. On the one hand, the Social Services
Block Grant formula allocates funding based on States'
population relative to the total U.S. population. On the other
hand, some formulas such as Medicaid use population plus one or
more other variables to determine funding levels.
As the completeness and accuracy of population data can
modestly affect grant funding streams and other applications of
census data, the Bureau has used a variety of programs to
address possible errors in population counts and estimates.
Importantly, however, while accurate population data play
an important role in allocating Federal assistance, various
grant-specific factors can also affect the distribution of
Federal funds and can mitigate the impact of population
changes. For example, some grant programs including Medicaid
employ floors in order to mitigate the outcome that would
result if a particular grant allocation were determined by the
funding formula alone. Further, in order to prevent funding
losses from a formula change, programs can include hold
harmless provisions guaranteeing a level of funding that is
based on a prior year's funding.
In conclusion, while population data play an important role
in allocating Federal assistance through formula grant
programs, the design of a grant can also affect funding
allocations and in some cases can mitigate or entirely mute the
impact of a change in population. Further, shifts in
population, inaccuracies in census counts, and methodological
problems with population estimates can also impact the
distribution of Federal grant money.
Nevertheless, given the importance of census data as a
baseline for post-censal estimates used for grant programs as
well as for congressional apportionment and redistricting,
counting the Nation's population once, only once, and in the
right location in 2010 will be absolutely critical.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks and I will be glad
to answer any questions that you or other subcommittee members
may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Goldenkoff follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Clay. Thank you so much for your testimony, Mr.
Goldenkoff. Mr. Richardson, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF TODD RICHARDSON
Mr. Richardson. Thank you. Chairman Clay, Ranking Member
McHenry, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for
inviting me to testify today.
HUD annually allocates directly or through guided
competitions more than $10 billion to cities, counties, States,
Indian tribes, and other grantees using several different
formulas based on census data. The Community Development Block
Grant program, proposed for fiscal year 2010 to allocate nearly
$4.2 billion, allocates the largest share of the dollars.
CDBG is a relatively complicated dual formula with one
formula allocating toward communities that have growth and
higher poverty and other formula allocating to communities that
generally have old housing and population loss. These formulas
rely on five variables from the Census Bureau. From census 2000
data, we have persons in poverty, overcrowded households, and
housing units built prior to 1940. These variables are fixed
until we integrate American Community Survey data in fiscal
year 2011. From annual Population Estimates data, including
updated data as a result of challenges, we have the number of
persons and a variable called growth lag.
I am going to talk a little bit about growth lag because it
affects the question that you raised about Toledo. The growth
lag variable is used to fund communities that have had
historically declining populations. If a community that has
historically declining populations does a population challenge
that shows its population is actually larger than we had
thought it was, the net result on the CDBG formula, unlike most
formulas, is to result in a funding change that would reduce
funding under the CDBG program. So that is a little unusual in
terms of how formulas operate. But that has been in place since
1977 when the formula was put in place.
Mr. Clay. I am going to ask you to explain it in more
detail when we get to the questioning period. But go ahead.
Mr. Richardson. Absolutely. Other programs that allocate
funding using the basic CDBG formula are the Emergency Shelter
Grant Program and the guiding initial pro-rata need allocation
for the Continuum of Care homeless program competition.
Separate formulas relying on census data largely sample
data from the census 2000. They include the HOME, Native
American Housing Block Grant, Indian CDBG, Section 202, and
Section 811 programs. The Housing Trust Fund, created in HERA
and proposed by the President to receive $1 billion for fiscal
year 2010 would also be allocated to States using special
tabulation data on housing needs.
In 2010, as you know, the Census Bureau plans to publish
the first 5-year data products based on American Community
Survey data collected in 2005 through 2009. Beginning in fiscal
year 2011, HUD plans to use ACS 5-year average data in place of
the census 2000 sample data that are used to allocate most of
the funding for the programs I just described.
Our understanding is that the 5-year ACS data will be
weighted to the average of the population controls over the 5-
year period. This is a very good thing since it leads to an
integration of updated population and updated counts for all of
the variables for each formula on an annual basis. That said,
the initial move to the ACS data in fiscal year 2011 is very
likely to cause some significant changes in allocation amounts
for program grantees.
Quality of data is only half of the equation in allocation
formulas. Quality of the formula is equally important. Because
housing and community development needs are not static, it is
important to regularly assess whether these formulas need
updating so they remain well targeted to the intended needs and
treat all grantees fairly.
In 2005, HUD published a report that identified some
problems with how the CDBG formula targets funds. The 2005
report demonstrates some stark examples of how the CDBG formula
is currently not as fair as it could be. It over-funds some
less needy places, it under-funds some very needy places, and
it allocates very different grant amounts to places with
similar needs. The current formula on average will target more
funds to the most needy communities but does so much less so
than it did when it was developed in the 1970's.
There are several problems with the current formula
including the use of housing built before 1940 as a proxy for
population loss, aging infrastructure, and dilapidated housing.
While this may have worked in the 1970's, since the 1970's the
more distressed communities have torn down that old housing
while the less distressed communities have retained it. This
leads to a shift in dollars from distressed communities to less
distressed communities.
Other variables like poverty are good measures but they
create some anomalies such as college towns getting large
grants because of the large number of students that are counted
in poverty and the growth lag variable which generally targets
places that are losing populations. There are some well off
communities that have been static in population since 1960 that
get significant grants as well.
The other problem is that this is a dual formula. A dual
formula creates some anomalies in itself, funding similarly
needy communities at very different amounts.
As you are well aware, changing the CDBG formula to correct
its targeting problem is politically challenging. If funding is
held static or declining, a change in the formula that results
in increases in funding for some communities also results in
decreases for others. Fiscal year 2010, however, offers a rare
opportunity to change the CDBG formula without causing a
funding decrease for any community relative to the fiscal year
2009 allocations. This is because for fiscal year 2010
President Obama has proposed to fully fund CDBG at $543 million
more than the amount funded in 2009. This gives us an
opportunity to implement a hold harmless provision.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Richardson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Clay. Thank you. Mr. Moulds.
STATEMENT OF DONALD MOULDS
Mr. Moulds. Good afternoon, Chairman Clay, Ranking Member
McHenry, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank
you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss
the topic of how data from the U.S. Census Bureau are used by
the Department of Health and Human Services in the allocation
of Federal program funds through formula grants.
HHS is the U.S. Government's principal agency for
protecting the health of all Americans and providing essential
human services, especially for those who are least able to help
themselves. We administer more than 300 programs covering a
wide spectrum of activities and representing almost a quarter
of all Federal outlays.
HHS administers more grant dollars than all other Federal
agencies combined and awards approximately 60 percent of the
Federal Government's grant dollars. In fiscal year 2008, HHS
awarded nearly $265 billion in grants representing 38 percent
of total Departmental spending. The Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services awarded the largest amount of grant dollars
and the National Institutes of Health awarded the largest
number of grants.
For most of the formula grants administered by HHS, the
grant allocation formula and data elements are specified in
statute. Attached to my written statement is a table listing
the HHS-sponsored grants that specified the used of data from
the Census Bureau in allocating grant funds.
I would like to highlight a few examples of how HHS uses
specific census data elements in grant programs. They are
representative of a variety of grant programs administered by
HHS as well as the types of census data that are used in
calculating grant award amounts in carrying out statutory
intent.
The first is the Child Care and Development Fund, which is
the primary Federal program specifically devoted to providing
families access to child care and improving the quality of
child care. Grants are awarded to States through three
component funding streams, two of which rely on the use of
Census Bureau data in their funding formulas. One allocates
block grant funding to States using a formula that includes the
State's share of the Nation's children under five. The other
awards funding to eligible States based on their share of the
Nation's children under age 13. Data for both children's ratios
are obtained from the Census Bureau.
The Congregate Nutrition Services and Home-Delivered
Nutrition Services programs provide meals and related
nutritional services to older individuals to help them remain
independent and in their communities. Grants for Congregate
Nutrition Services and Home-Delivered Nutrition Services are
allocated to States and territories by a formula based on their
share of the population aged 60 and over using data issued by
the Census Bureau.
The mission of the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant is
to improve the health of mothers, children, and their families
by improving access to health care, eliminating health
disparities, and improving the quality of health care. Funding
for one component of this program is allocated to States in
proportion to their population of low income children relative
to the Nation's. The formula uses census data.
The majority of HHS's grant allocations, however, are not
driven by Census Bureau data. For example, over three quarters
of mandatory grant funds awarded by HHS are received by States
through the Medicaid program. Census data are used by the
Bureau of Economic Analysis but not by HHS to produce State and
national per capita income data, which then are used in
calculating the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage [FMAP].
State spending on covered Medicaid services is matched by the
Federal Government at the FMAP rate.
The authorizing statues that specify funding allocation
formulas for HHS grant programs typically specify the use of
either the decennial population figures or the most recent
population estimates from the current Population Survey
published by the Census Bureau. The statutory formulas do not
direct the Department to use the census data that have been
adjusted for population under-count and HHS does not make any
adjustments of its own.
In summary, HHS uses a variety of data from the Census
Bureau in calculating funding levels for Federal grant
programs. Of the 300 programs administered and managed by the
Department of Health and Human Services, 50 are grant programs.
Of them, census data are used to calculate funding levels in
35. Census data are used by HHS in all cases where authorizing
legislation dictates its use and the manner in which it is to
be used. HHS does not exercise any discretion to adjust funding
formulas.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be happy
to answer any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Moulds follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Moulds, for your testimony. Mr.
Kerachsky, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF STUART KERACHSKY
Mr. Kerachsky. Chairman Clay, Ranking Member McHenry, and
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the topic of
the use of Census Bureau data in the allocation of Federal
formula funding of the Department of Education's programs.
Since the mid-1960's, the National Center for Education
Statistics has computed or provided data to other entities
within the Department to compute Federal funding allocations of
various Department formula grant programs. We prepare the
allocation tabulations in a statistically accurate and
apolitical manner.
Most allocations for the Department's elementary and
secondary education programs are based on the latest data for
some relevant subset of the population. In 2009, of more than
$50 billion that the Department of Education is spending on
elementary and secondary education, approximately 80 percent is
being allocated based on census calculations of population
subgroups. Let me provide examples.
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 Title I
grants to local education agencies is the single largest
Federal elementary and secondary education program. For fiscal
year 2009, Congress provided $24.5 billion for this program.
From its inception, Title I's formula has been based primarily
on the number of children ages 5 through 17 and families with
incomes below the poverty level.
In the spring of each year, NCES renews its interagency
agreement with the Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates
Branch of the Census Bureau to develop and to deliver to the
Department school district-level Title I poverty and population
estimates. These estimates cover most of the Nation's public
school districts.
Before publication, census provides the estimates to State
agencies and gives States an opportunity to review the
estimates and challenge them. This so-called challenge period
allows States to present information regarding boundary changes
that may need to be updated in the Census Bureau's geographic
data base.
Second, since the mid-1970's, NCES has provided assistance
for calculation of career and technical education allocations
under the Perkins Act. The population groups used in the
formula have remained consistent throughout the years, ages 15
to 19, 20 to 24, and 25 to 65, from the census's annual State
population estimates. States' allocations are based on their
shares of the count for each of the three age groups multiplied
by a factor based on per capita income, which we currently
obtain from the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic
Analysis.
Next, the eligible groups for Adult Education State Grants
have traditionally consisted of those who are aged 16 and over,
do not have a high school diploma or equivalent, and are not
currently enrolled in school. Until 2006, these data were
available only from the decennial census. The Census Bureau
will now collect these data using the American Community
Survey, the ACS.
Finally, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is
the law authorizing funding for services to individuals with
disabilities throughout the Nation. Under Part B, Section 619,
services must be provided to children with disabilities between
the ages of three through five. Under Part B, Section 611,
services must be provided to children with disabilities between
6 and 21. Each of these formulas requires annual population and
poverty data of 3-through 21-year olds. These come from the
Census Bureau's annual Population Estimates and the ACS
respectively.
By statute, the Department accepts the Census Bureau's data
and does not question the incidents of over- or under-counts.
We understand that to the extent feasible, the Census Bureau
adjusts post-censal annual population estimates, small area
estimates, and ACS data for known shortcomings in the prior
decennial census. It is also our understanding that the annual
estimates used in our formula grant allocations are informed by
recent demographic changes that might affect the distribution
of funds.
In summary, these examples cited illustrate how the
Department of Education uses the array of Census Bureau
tabulations to distribute our formula grant funds. We have a
history of more than 30 years cooperating with the Census
Bureau to provide the data needed for the U.S. Department of
Education grants.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I would be
pleased to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kerachsky follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Clay. Thank you very much, Mr. Kerachsky. Thank you
all. I thank all of the witnesses for your testimony today.
We will begin the question and answer period now. Each
Member will have 5 minutes to ask questions of the panel. I
will begin.
This first question is a panel-wide question. I guess it
would have to be the last three to answer and Mr. Goldenkoff
may have to answer, too. Do your formulas account for the
under-count that always occurs in certain communities? Should
they account for that? If they should or shouldn't, tell me
why. Mr. Richardson, we can begin with you.
Mr. Richardson. The sample data that is used in most of our
formulas are the published sample data. So most of our
variables for our formulas are based on the census sample data.
To the extent those are adjusted, and generally they aren't,
our formulas are driven by those. One exception is in the CDBG
formula with the population variable and the growth lag
variable, which are indeed changed each year to reflect the
published population estimates. If those are challenged
estimates, we include those.
Mr. Clay. Mr. Moulds.
Mr. Moulds. We are statutorily required to use the most
recent census data in the vast majority of cases. There are no
instances where we adjust. It is our view that statute requires
us to do that.
Mr. Kerachsky. We are similarly statutorily required to use
the census data. But in addition, we wouldn't have a firm basis
to adjust the data on our own, would we have the statutory
authority to do so. We are only able to use what is presented
to us by the Census Bureau as the best available data.
Mr. Clay. Thank you. On that point, and we will start with
you, do the yearly census estimates adequately adjust formula
funding to make up for the discrepancies that result from the
under-count?
Mr. Kerachsky. I really can't answer that. Where we are
allowed to use those data, and we do in some instances, our
statisticians just simply don't have the basis to make that
interpretation.
Mr. Clay. But when census sends you data, don't you adjust
for that?
Mr. Kerachsky. Yes. We have formulas that allow us to use
the post-censal data and we do use them in those instances.
Yes.
Mr. Clay. All right. How about you, Mr. Moulds?
Mr. Moulds. Again, we don't use any adjusted data. We just
use census data. We similarly wouldn't be in a position to
comment on the accuracy of that data because we are not in the
business of counting people. That would be a question that is
probably better suited for others.
Mr. Clay. But when data are adjusted and when data are
corrected, don't you have an interest in getting it correct,
too?
Mr. Moulds. Clearly we have an interest in having
population figures that are as accurate as possible. But again,
we are not statutorily allowed to make those adjustments
ourselves.
Mr. Clay. Common sense would say do the right thing by
adjusting the data, correct?
Mr. Moulds. It is our view that the law tells us that we
are required to use the actual census data. So if there were to
be changes in how that data would be collected, those would
have to be statutory changes that would be done by Congress.
Mr. Clay. Or adjusted data that come in on an annual basis.
Mr. Moulds. The annual adjusted data that come through that
is produced by the census, we do use. I am sorry for the
confusion.
Mr. Clay. Mr. Richardson.
Mr. Richardson. Well, as I noted, we do use the data that
are adjusted for population and growth lag in the CDBG formula.
With the American Community Survey, which we will be rolling
that into our formula starting in fiscal year 2011. To the
extent that census updates those numbers to reflect the current
population estimates and any challenges that are brought
against those population estimates, we would include those in
our formulas going forward as we use the American Community
Survey.
Mr. Clay. OK. Then how do we make up for the funding
discrepancies once you get new data? Do you adjust your
formulas for the new data and new population like in the case
of Toledo?
Mr. Richardson. Actually, the CDBG formula is an unusual
formula in that it is one of the few formulas where if you have
a declining population you actually get more money for having
fewer people. It is an unusual formula in that way.
That was the case with Toledo, which successfully
challenged its population estimates. By successfully
challenging its population estimates, we rolled in that
challenge. Because Toledo was receiving money because of how
many people it had relative to 1960, when that number
increased, it led to a smaller CDBG grant.
The CDBG funds are intended to serve communities in
decline. Communities that have lost a lot of population get
substantially more than communities that have gained
population.
Mr. Clay. That CDBG formula can be changed here in Congress
or by the Agency?
Mr. Richardson. It is in statute and it has to be changed
by Congress. President Obama's fiscal year 2010 budget proposal
is proposing that formula actually be updated and be changed.
We are looking forward to working with the Congress on that.
Mr. Clay. Mr. Goldenkoff, did you have anything?
Mr. Goldenkoff. I think, to the extent that these formulas
compensate for the under-count, it all depends on the approach
used to correct the data. As Mr. Mesenbourg said, the census
data are updated throughout the decade but those updates are
largely the result of administrative records. The extent to
which those administrative records capture those people who
tend to be historically under-counted, the better quality data.
But that is an open question on how good those administrative
records are.
I think it is important to keep in mind that no census has
ever been actually adjusted using statistical means to
compensate for the differential under-count or any under-count.
So as we have been saying, the accuracy of all these post-
censal estimates really starts with the quality of the
decennial census. To the extent that there has always been an
under-count and that under-count has never been adjusted, that
affects the data going forward.
Mr. Clay. Thank you for that response. Mr. McHenry, you are
recognized.
Mr. McHenry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
your testimony.
Mr. Mesenbourg, although the focus of this hearing is
obviously with the American Community Survey and the data put
out in the funding formulas in that regard, we haven't had you
back since address canvassing was finished. Our staffs have
been briefed from your folks at the Bureau. We thank you for
that. I know you had a pretty strong assessment of how well it
went. I know the GAO has a less rosy assessment. But could you
touch on your view of how successful the address canvassing
was?
Mr. Mesenbourg. Certainly. We view it as a very successful
undertaking. As you recall, a year ago there was much angst
about our ability to make the handheld computers work. We did a
lot of testing in December and prior to the address canvassing.
We actually started in eight of the local census offices a
week early. We also, rather than doing it in two waves as
originally planned with waves of about 5 weeks each, we split
that into five different waves and we started it in most of the
local census offices at the same time. The result of that is we
were pretty well 99 percent done with this nearly a month ahead
of schedule.
The areas that we had to wrap up had to do with areas that
had flooding like the Red River. We had mud slides in Puerto
Rico. We had a tornado in Kentucky. In fact, our finish date is
July 17th. We have three assignment areas that we are
completing right now. They are in Jackson, Mississippi, which
faced flooding. We will complete those. In fact, we are
helicoptering canvassers into that area because, once they can
get into that area, they can actually walk the streets. They
will finish that operation this week.
So I see it as a very successful operation. We are doing
lessons learned as a result of that.
We had great success recruiting. The goal was to recruit
about 700,000 folks to fill 140,000 jobs. We had 1.2 million
applicants for those 140,000 jobs. So we probably had the most
highly skilled work force that we have had on a decennial
census and that was huge for us.
Mr. McHenry. Are you on budget?
Mr. Mesenbourg. Right now we have run about 15 percent over
budget. A good amount of that--we are doing a detailed
analysis, as you would expect, right now--was because we went
into the address operation with an assumption that we would
have 10 percent of the addresses be deletes, that we would go
to there and we would actually remove them from the list. We
don't have the final number on that but it is more like almost
double, a little less than double of that.
What that means is we are going to error in the direction
of keeping an address on the address list rather than removing
it. So if we have an address that we leave as delete, we are
going to send an additional person out to verify that. That
requires more mileage, more effort, and more enumerator time.
We expect that most of that will be associated with the
underestimation of the deletes.
Mr. McHenry. We have had a lot of discussion about the
handheld computers. Do you believe they worked?
Mr. Mesenbourg. Yes. I believe they worked effectively. We
had some glitches during the first startup operation. Most of
those were associated with getting enumerators in touch with
the help desk. But originally we were assuming something like a
30 percent volume for help desk. It turned out to be much less
than that. We had about a week of shakiness there but the
handhelds performed well.
Mr. McHenry. Mr. Goldenkoff, what is GAO's initial survey
of how well address canvassing went?
Mr. Goldenkoff. I think it is too early at this point to
make any blanket statements about the overall success of
address canvassing. I think you need to parse it out to
different components.
As you know, there was a lot of concern over the handheld
devices. As Mr. Mesenbourg said, there were some initial
glitches but the Census Bureau did an excellent job in
overcoming those with workarounds. We were out in the field in
about 30 different locations. I myself was out in Meridian,
Mississippi and also New Orleans so I saw some of this myself.
The handhelds really were very effective in helping the address
canvassers figure out where they were and to not go over
boundaries or into other areas. So that was a positive story.
They also finished largely ahead of schedule, which was
good news. One of the things that we are looking at there,
though, was whether quality was sacrificed at the cost of
speed. So we are looking into that.
In terms of some other things, though, that perhaps could
have gone better, Mr. Mesenbourg said they are over budget.
Fingerprinting, as you know, that was an issue and is something
that we have been looking at pretty closely. About 23 percent
of the fingerprint cards were unreadable. My understanding is
that those individuals whose cards could not be read or scanned
by the FBI--so they had an initial applicant name check but
they did not have their fingerprints reviewed by the FBI--were
still allowed to work. So there is a security issue in that, of
course. There is also cost, too, because basically the money
that was spent on those fingerprints and having them reviewed
by the FBI just went to waste.
There were some transmission issues with the cell phone
service in rural areas. It was not a major issue but it did
affect some of the efficiency of the address canvassers.
Recruiting went well. They had a very good quality work
force, very conscientious. I think all of the GAO folks that
were in the field were very impressed with how hard and how
conscientiously the temporary workers did there jobs.
So at this point, as I said, it is just too early to make
any comprehensive or overarching statements. But we will be
looking at each of those different components as we move
forward.
Mr. McHenry. Thank you.
Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. McHenry. Ms. Kaptur, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
I really appreciate being able to participate today. Thank you
for your leadership.
Mr. Mesenbourg, I wanted to ask you if the Census Bureau is
aware of such communities as Toledo, OH that have suffered
under-counting of their populations in previous years. We have
seen what has happened in the New Orleans region.
One of my concerns is the rising and extraordinary level of
housing foreclosures. In these foreclosure regions like Toledo
and obviously the New Orleans area and others, what is the
Census Bureau doing to offer additional financial support or
assistance training personnel that could help these types of
communities that have been so damaged by the economy or natural
circumstances to achieve a proper count of their populations?
It isn't clear that these individuals who are being foreclosed
on are leaving their communities?
Mr. Mesenbourg. I would be glad to talk about that. Perhaps
I should just take a second to talk about the Population
Estimates Program and the challenge program.
As we described before, at the national, State, and county
level, basically we are starting with the census 2000 count.
Then we are adding in births and subtracting deaths for that
location, and then doing an adjustment for migration, both
international and domestic. So for someone that immigrated into
the United States from Europe or wherever, we use the American
Community Survey to do that. We also look at migration within
States and within counties, across counties, and we use the IRS
data typically to do that. That is what we call the ADREC data
and we believe that methodology is performing very well.
At the sub-county level, for example for Toledo, what we
would use is the housing unit method. So we would start with
the estimate of the number of housing units in Toledo in 2000.
Then we take what the occupancy rate was in 2000 and what the
persons per household was in 2000, and we also have an
adjustment for group quarters. Right now, the Population
Estimates Program for this sub-county level data is using the
census 2000 average persons per household and the census 2000
occupancy rate.
I can give you an example for Flint, MI of what the impact
is of this methodology. Our 2008 population estimate for Flint,
MI is 112,900 individuals. In the challenge method, people come
in and tell us they have additional housing units. When they do
that, we use the census 2000 average per persons per household
and we use the occupancy rate. So, for example in Flint, the
occupancy rate in census 2000 was 81.9 percent. From our most
recent American Community Survey, which is the 3-year estimate
spanning 2005 through 2007, the occupancy rate is 78.5 percent.
By using the existing challenge method, which uses census 2000,
we would have estimated a population growth in Flint of 9.3
percent. If we actually updated that persons per household and
the occupancy rate using the most current data, Flint would
have had a reduction of 6.4 percent.
So what I want to clarify is the challenge process. We
invite any locality to challenge. Typically, of the 39,000
jurisdictions that we publish data for, about 100 ask for a
challenge proposal package and about 64 actually challenge.
When they challenge, if they can come in and demonstrate to us
that they have additional housing units, then we will go back
and use the census 2000 persons per household and the census
2000 occupancy rate.
Given, as you are talking about Congresswoman, the decline
in occupancy rate, the challenge biases the population
estimates up. So if we flash forward a year or two, we probably
do not want to be using the 2010 average persons per household
or the 2010 occupancy rate. So this is one of the things that
we have on our research agenda, to look at the housing unit
estimate component, which is sub-county, and to also take
another look at the challenge process itself.
Now, what are we doing to improve the count? We are going
to spend over $300 million on paid advertising with a huge
increase in the advertising that goes into the local areas.
Probably the biggest single thing we are going to do is we are
going to have nearly 2,900 partnership specialists working in
our local offices. We will have nearly 500 local census offices
scattered across the United States.
In census 2000 we had about 600 people reaching out to
local organizations. This time it is more like 2,900. So they
are the folks, they are the trusted voices that we want to be
in Toledo to convince the Mayor to convince others to form a
Complete Count Committee. We will work with you to improve that
count. In brief, that is what we are doing.
Ms. Kaptur. Mr. Chairman, I am sure my time has expired but
in a community like Toledo, over 12 percent of our housing
stock is now foreclosed and the rate is rising. I was in a
neighborhood in Cleveland, OH, now declared the poorest city in
America over the weekend, we were in Slavic Village, a
neighborhood where they claim 75 percent of the homes have been
foreclosed. I just wonder, when you go door to door and when
you send out material, how you really find the people that used
to live in those homes.
Mr. Mesenbourg. So what we have done through the address
canvassing is identify all of the addresses. If it exists, it
is on the address list. We did not attempt to make a
determination whether it was occupied or vacant because
obviously that could change by April 2010. We think we have
done a good job in terms of identifying the addresses.
What we are doing is taking a look at our procedures for
the non-response followup. You are 100 percent correct. If that
is a vacant housing unit and we mail out a census form, we are
not going to get a census form mailed back. So starting May 1,
2010, we are going to send an enumerator out to knock on that
door. In some cases it is obvious that is a vacant housing
unit. In other cases, it is not so obvious. In some cases,
maybe someone else is living there or multiple families are
living there.
We know that is going to be a challenge. That has to be
part of our communication message to get trusted voices. If
someone is doubling up in a housing unit, they need to actually
report that accurately. If they don't, we will miss people.
Mr. Clay. Just on that point, Ms. Kaptur, I would hope that
the Bureau's research would bring to light that there may need
to be different methodologies in this era of housing
foreclosures and post-Katrina.
I was down in New Orleans for the address canvassing.
Believe you me, the enumerators do not have an easy time. They
have to go up to buildings that may look vacant but there are
electric wires going into the buildings so perhaps there is
someone living there. They have to keep coming back day after
day to figure it out. So their task is not easy either.
Hopefully the research will bring us a new methodology.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know that we will
have between 10 million and 20 million people in this country
whose homes will be foreclosed by next year. That is a shocking
figure.
Mr. Clay. But the people are somewhere, though.
Let me go to our colleague from Georgia, Mr. Westmoreland.
You are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Westmoreland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mesenbourg, I want just to clarify that. You can't do
the 2010 census based on where people are living in 2009,
correct?
Mr. Mesenbourg. That is correct.
Mr. Westmoreland. You have to wait until you send the forms
out in 2010?
Mr. Mesenbourg. That is correct. The address canvassing has
been to build as complete a list of housing unit addresses as
we can. Then that is the vehicle to help us deliver report
forms.
Mr. Westmoreland. That is being done with the handheld
computers, correct?
Mr. Mesenbourg. That was done with the handheld computers.
Mr. Westmoreland. In prior testimony that you have given in
front of this committee, you stated that a lot of the data that
you get does come from local city and county governments. Is
that correct as far as housing starts, permits, births, and
deaths?
Mr. Mesenbourg. Well, the construction information will
come from the local government permit office. Information on
births and deaths come from the vital record agencies, not from
the local government.
Mr. Westmoreland. But you do get some information from
local governments?
Mr. Mesenbourg. Certainly, in terms of the updates to our
construction program and new construction activity. So any
construction that has occurred since we finished address
canvassing near the end of June and before we do the census, we
will be getting building permits flowed to us from local
governments. We will have an opportunity to send an enumerator
out to actually collect information from those new units. That
will happen in late July and August 2010.
Mr. Westmoreland. Mr. Mesenbourg, you say that you have
been at the Census Bureau for 36 years. Is that correct?
Mr. Mesenbourg. That is correct. Maybe it is almost 37.
Mr. Westmoreland. So this is not your first rodeo when it
comes to the census. Would you say that the process of doing
the census has gotten better over the years?
Mr. Mesenbourg. I think it has become more challenging if
we look at just the diversity in terms of additional languages
and the recent economic problems that the Nation has faced. I
think it is clear that this is going to be one of our most
challenging censuses.
We feel we have the procedures in place to conduct a
successful census but we believe our partnership program
especially is key to deliver that message, to mobilize the
communities. I think we have all been very impressed by the
energy of the different constituencies and how committed they
all are to making this a successful census. I think having
nearly 2,900 partnership specialists in the field is going to
be key for us to connect with local areas. Of course, we will
hire locally also. That is a key strategy.
Mr. Westmoreland. Just to go back over a little bit of your
Population Estimates Program, it is my understanding that you
start off with the decennial number or the census.
Mr. Mesenbourg. The census count, right.
Mr. Westmoreland. Then you add births and subtract deaths,
is that true?
Mr. Mesenbourg. That is true.
Mr. Westmoreland. Then I guess for the internal migration,
let us say somebody moves from Patrick's district to a good
congressional district in Georgia--[laughter.]
What kind of data would you use to track that?
Mr. Mesenbourg. For the population that is under 65, we use
the IRS tax data to do that year to year movement. That has
about 80 percent coverage of the population. For the population
65 or older, we use the Medicare information. We use that
address information on that.
Mr. Westmoreland. OK, so that is kind of your formula for
coming up with that. Now, how about the American Community
Survey? Can you kind of explain how you use that?
Mr. Mesenbourg. Well, the American Community Survey is the
replacement for the old long form. In 1990, 2000, and previous
censuses, one in six households got a long form. And it was
long. It was over 50 pages. That was the source of all the
social, economic, and household information. We have replaced
that once in a decade long form survey with the American
Community Survey.
The American Community Survey samples about 250,000
households a month and then publishes data annually. In
September, probably September 22nd, we will produce the 2008
estimates for all jurisdictions with a population of 65,000 or
more. Then in December, we will produce the 3-year estimate,
which will be 2006, 2007, and 2008, for all jurisdictions with
a population over 20,000. Next December will be the first time
we produce the 5-year estimate and that will go down to the
very smallest geographic areas.
So it is really the primary source of the social, economic
data like poverty statistics, income, information on
disabilities, and so on.
Mr. Westmoreland. I have one final question, if I could,
Mr. Chairman. I know that the population estimates that you
have had, at least from the numbers that I have seen, that over
the past three decades you have been really I guess plus or
minus about 2.5 percent of the decennial number. Is that
correct?
Mr. Mesenbourg. That is correct. In 1990 and 2000, it was
about 2.5 or 2.4 percent under the census number.
Mr. Westmoreland. In 1 year it was over?
Mr. Mesenbourg. I think both years it was under but I can
double check that.
Mr. Westmoreland. Both years were under a little bit? OK.
But 2.5 percent based on the information you are getting is
pretty darn close. I want to commend you and the people at the
Census Bureau for the job you have done.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Clay. We will do a second round of questioning with
this panel. I will start with Mr. Mesenbourg.
Tell me how does the Census Bureau notify other Federal
departments of changes in population?
Mr. Mesenbourg. Well, we produce the population estimates
on a regular schedule. Let me just use the 2008 population
estimate. So in December 2008, we provided the national and the
State population estimate for 2008. In March 2009, we produced
the county-level population estimates. Then, as of July 1st, we
produced the sub-county level. So we just put those statistics
out in the last couple of weeks.
Mr. Clay. You share that with Federal agencies?
Mr. Mesenbourg. It is on the Web site and I think all of
the agencies that are using population estimates data in their
formulas are very familiar with the release schedule.
Mr. Clay. OK. Mr. Mesenbourg, along those same lines, is
there a plan afoot to put a moratorium on the census challenge
program?
Mr. Mesenbourg. Well, the sub-county data, using our
schedule, would come out in July 2010, basically a year from
now. So we will put a moratorium on the 2009 challenges because
by the time we would evaluate and produce those data,
information from the 2010 census will be produced at the State
level no later than December 31, 2010.
Mr. Clay. So we are talking 6 months? How long will the
moratorium last?
Mr. Mesenbourg. Let me be clear. There will be no challenge
process on the 2009 estimate because by the time we would act
on it, we will have better 2010 census data. Now, when we come
to calendar year 2010, then we have the estimates from the
decennial census so we do not produce public estimates of the
population estimates for 2010. The census counts stand as the
count.
Mr. Clay. Thank you so much for that response.
Let me go to Mr. Richardson. Mr. Richardson, I and many
others have concerns about the design of formulas that correct
the under-count and result in an increased number in the
population count yet and yield fewer moneys to the
municipalities because of the increase. This is the result of
applying a mechanism called a growth lag. The growth lag is to
assist areas with stagnant population growth. Low income areas
normally have population growth and wealthier areas tend to
have fewer children and more stagnant growth.
Can you show me where the benefit of having the growth lag
applied to these under-counts counteracts the loss of funds in
these poorer areas that seemingly would need the funding more?
Mr. Richardson. I think that is an excellent point. The
growth lag variable in the CDBG formula was developed in the
1970's to try to address the needs of a lot of communities at
that time that were facing significant population loss due to a
number of factors. The formula was put into statute and has not
been changed.
HUD has done a number of studies looking at the different
variables, including growth lag, and how well they target the
need. Growth lag does have the problems you note. Communities
that are relatively well-off communities that have had
populations that stayed the same or gone down even because of
smaller household sizes, they get substantial grants under the
Community Development Block Grant Program, as do other
communities that are seriously distressed. Saint Louis,
Detroit, and Toledo get substantial amounts of funding because
they have lost population since 1960.
In the studies we have done, there are recommendations on
how that could be fixed to make the formula so that it doesn't
create these anomalies and so it ensures that the money is
directed to the communities that most need it. As I noted
earlier, President Obama in his 2010 budget proposal has
indicated a desire to work with the Congress to try to make the
changes to make this formula target better.
Mr. Clay. Yes. Let us begin by you sharing those studies
with the subcommittee.
Mr. Richardson. Absolutely. We will provide you a copy of
that study. In fact, I have one with me. I can leave that with
your staff.
Mr. Clay. Thank you so much.
I will recognize my colleague from North Carolina, Mr.
McHenry.
Mr. McHenry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mesenbourg, there
has been some discussion about Hurricane Katrina. It was
devastating and still is a devastating event for the Gulf
Coast. Some parts of the Gulf Coast region still haven't
recovered. The chairman discussed the difficulties of the
address canvassing there.
But to look at how devastating that was, it was obviously a
horrible event for the people of the Gulf Coast, but to look at
the data that the Census Bureau produced, I have given you two
tables, Table 1 and Table 2, that come from your Bureau. One is
about East Baton Rouge Parish and the other is about Orleans
Parish. New Orleans and Baton Rouge, in essence. These are your
population estimates for those two counties. You can see the
massive loss of population in Orleans parish and the uptick in
East Baton Rouge. It is obvious to deduce that some moved to
East Baton Rouge. In Table 2, you actually determine where
people migrated from, too.
Could you talk about a study by three people that work for
you, Roger Johnson, Justin Bland, and Charles Coleman, who
tracked the dislocation of people as they left the path of
Katrina and the aftermath?
Mr. Mesenbourg. Certainly. Of course, Katrina posed real
challenges to the population estimates. I talked about how at
the county level we start with census 2000, add births,
subtract deaths, and then use the tax records and the Medicare
records to try to estimate migration. One of the first things
that happened post-Katrina is that the IRS provided I think it
was a 6-month extension in terms of filing taxes. It was clear
that we had to come up with a different way of tracking that
migration.
What we did is we availed ourselves of the Postal Service
National Change of Address record. We identified all the
housing units and the individuals pre-Katrina. Then, using this
postal change of address, we found out where they moved to.
They not only moved, of course, within Louisiana. They moved to
Houston. They moved to Atlanta.
The study you referred to, Congressman McHenry, basically
shows large maps of exactly where all of those people that we
identified pre-Katrina, where they ended up.
I guess I would see that as a demonstration that when faced
with real challenges, the staff can come up with a way to
produce the data. We knew we needed to do something there.
Mr. McHenry. Are there additional administrative data that
you used aside from the Postal Service or was that the crux of
it here?
Mr. Mesenbourg. It was primarily this National Change of
Address record. Once we found out where the people had actually
moved, then we could also leverage the other administrative
record data. But the real challenge was to find out where they
had migrated to from New Orleans.
Mr. McHenry. OK. That is the Table 2. I am sorry we don't
have it for the screens. Unfortunately, the screens are not
working today.
How confident are you in these estimates?
Mr. Mesenbourg. Quite confident. I think they have been
vetted by folks. Given the extraordinary challenges that the
New Orleans area faced, I think this is about as good a job as
an agency can do in terms of tracking those individuals.
Mr. McHenry. OK. Has the Mayor of New Orleans quibbled with
the data?
Mr. Mesenbourg. I believe the Mayor has challenged the
population estimate. That is not unusual. As I say, we
typically have about 65 primarily larger cities that challenge
the estimate.
Mr. McHenry. So it is a pretty regular occasion?
Mr. Mesenbourg. It is a very open procedure to challenge.
If jurisdictions have the data to support an increase in their
number of housing units, then typically they are going to win
the challenge process.
Mr. McHenry. Oh, I see. So you do incorporate that on a
regular basis?
Mr. Mesenbourg. Yes.
Mr. McHenry. OK. Additionally, is it more difficult to
track race and ethnicity following Katrina? Is that an
additional challenge because of using different administrative
data? Or is it hard to say?
Mr. Mesenbourg. I don't want to give you the wrong answer.
We provide the race data at a certain level. We do produce the
race information at the county level. I am confident in it at
that level. We do not produce the race data at the sub-county
level. It is the total population that we are producing there.
So for Fulton County, we would be confident in that number.
Mr. McHenry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. McHenry.
This panel will be dismissed and we will set up for the
second panel. Thank you all for your testimony today.
[Recess.]
Mr. Clay. The meeting will come back to order. We will now
hear from our second panel.
Our first witness will be Mr. Carleton Finkbeiner, who is
the mayor of Toledo, OH. As Mayor of Toledo, he has helped
bring new living opportunities to the downtown area. The Mayor
is also active in the U.S. Conference of Mayors and was a
national chairman of Rebuild America. Thank you for being here,
Mr. Mayor.
Next we will hear from Mr. Robert Bowser, who is the mayor
of the city of East Orange, NJ. It is good to see you again.
Welcome back. Mayor Bowser is the founder of the New Jersey
Conference of Black Mayors and was selected as president in
2003. He is also a member of the U.S. Conference of Mayors and
is vice chair of the 2010 Census Taskforce.
Our third witness, Mr. Arturo Vargas, is the executive
director of the National Association of Latino Elected and
Appointed Officials, a national membership organization of
Latino policymakers and their supporters. He is a nationally
recognized expert in Latino demographic trends, electoral
participation, voting rights, the census, and redistricting. He
currently serves on the 2010 Census Advisory Committee. Welcome
back to the committee, Mr. Vargas.
Our final witness is Mr. Jamie Alderslade. He is the
director of external relations at Social Compact, a non-profit
agency dedicated to fostering private investment in inner city
communities. He works on projects that utilize asset-based
information as a platform for consensus between local
governments, investors, and communities to promote sustainable
investment in the under-served urban neighborhoods. Welcome,
Mr. Alderslade.
Welcome to all of you. Thank you for appearing today before
the subcommittee. It is the policy of this committee to swear
in all witnesses before they testify. I would like to ask you
to stand and raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Clay. Thank you. You may be seated. Let the record
reflect that the witnesses answered in the affirmative.
Each of you will have 5 minutes to make an opening
statement. Your complete written testimony will be included in
the hearing record.
Mayor Finkbeiner, you may proceed with your opening
statement.
STATEMENTS OF CARLETON FINKBEINER, MAYOR, CITY OF TOLEDO, OH;
ROBERT BOWSER, MAYOR, CITY OF EAST ORANGE, NJ; ARTURO VARGAS,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LATINO ELECTED AND
APPOINTED OFFICIALS; AND JAMIE ALDERSLADE, DIRECTOR OF EXTERNAL
RELATIONS, THE SOCIAL COMPACT, INC.
STATEMENT OF CARLETON FINKBEINER
Mr. Finkbeiner. Thank you, Chairman Clay. I appreciate this
opportunity a great deal.
I have been mayor of Toledo for 12 years. My experiences in
attempting to get an accurate count of Toledo during that 12
year period of time have been rather frustrating. That we why
we hired Social Compact on the recommendation of the Mayor of
Cincinnati, Mark Mallory, where Social Compact had helped them
significantly.
I think I can speak today with perhaps as much knowledge as
any Mayor coming before you, not because I am a Mayor but
because I was a census leader in 1970 in Toledo, OH. I want to
tell you what I learned from that experience.
Many of my counters were elderly females. We began the
census count in affluent, upper middle and middle class
neighborhoods. My elderly enumerators felt very comfortable as
they walked up and knocked on the doors of rather spacious,
extremely well-kept, and trendy suburban-type households. My
enumerators enjoyed themselves immensely.
As the weeks progressed and my enumerators completed their
tasks in these middle class neighborhoods, they methodically
worked their way toward central city Toledo. As they did, their
enthusiasm began to taper off. Their gusto for enumerating poor
neighborhoods of significant diversity became really and
readily apparent.
With multiple story apartment buildings as part of their
daily agenda, I began to lose my crew. Ultimately, of the three
dozen members of my staff that began, one remained to tackle
central city Toledo neighborhoods. Even though others were
brought onboard, they did not have the same degree of training
and enthusiasm my initial crews did. I began to worry about a
serious under-counting of the poor, the disadvantaged, and men
and women of color.
In the 40 years that have gone by since, there are more
poor people than ever living in the hearts of our cities,
including Toledo. Some are homeless men and women. Some are
regular visitors at the shelters that provide food on a daily
basis. Others have been released from mental hospitals and seek
counseling and medicines. These men and women cling to the
heart of the city where assistance is available and they are
able to fit in as opposed to looking extremely out of the
normal in those suburban and middle class enclaves I mentioned
earlier.
Fast forward to my 12 years as Mayor. I asked my
Neighborhoods Department staff to help me estimate how many
Jane and John Does were being left uncounted. It is the John
and Jane Does who need the help of the Federal Government as
well as State and local governments, 501(c)(3)'s, and non-
profit agencies.
If people are not counted because U.S. census workers are
tentative at best as they count the central city, marching door
to door, apartment to apartment, homeless shelter to homeless
shelter, how can we ensure we are identifying all of our
citizens?
One thing I know for sure is that there are more men and
women living in mobile housing unit conditions in bleaker
environments and in growing numbers today than back in 1970
when I had my experience. These men and women desperately need
the help of our Federal Government and our Federal agencies.
Our responsibility is to find out how to get each and every one
of these men and women counted by the U.S. census.
During the past few years, there have been numerous reports
saying that the city of Toledo, as well as Lucas County, is
losing population. In preparation for our 2010 census, the
staff of the Toledo Planning Commission at my direction and
with the help of Social Compact identified over 1,400 addresses
previously not recorded on the U.S. Census Bureau's current
address list. This confirmed my suspicion that there was a
population under-count of housing units from 2000 to 2007 in
the city of Toledo.
In fact, the adjusted estimate meant that Toledo's
population in 2007 was actually higher than in 2000, far from
declining as had been consistently reported over several years.
To the credit of the Department of Commerce and the U.S. Census
Bureau, they acknowledged that Toledo had a population of
316,851, some 21,822 more people than the U.S. Census Bureau's
original 2000 population estimate. The date of that
acknowledgment was January 9, 2009. I attach a copy of the
letter.
To my surprise, on June 2, 2009, I was sent a letter from
HUD's Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning
and Development. It stated that as a result of Toledo's
successful challenge, the city will actually be receiving
$293,585 less in Community Development Block Grant funding in
fiscal year 2009. A copy of that letter is also attached.
CDBG entitlement community grants are a vital source of
funding from HUD directly to Toledo. The ability to use the
grants flexibly allows my administration the freedom to respond
to the very specific housing and development needs of Toledo's
low and moderate income communities. At a time when great
efforts are being made to stimulate the economy, CDBG funding
serves a vitally important role in that endeavor.
Having successfully participated in the census challenge
program, we expected to receive a larger allocation in CDBG
funding, particularly because there are more poor men and women
now moving toward the centers of our cities, including Toledo,
than ever before. If there are more people in the city of
Toledo, as confirmed by Federal Government, with increasing
poverty and unemployment, and ours tops at about 12 percent,
why would the city of Toledo's CDBG allocation be reduced? I
can only conclude that the CDBG allocation formula needs to be
addressed to rectify the situation facing the city of Toledo.
In closing, the city of Toledo, regardless of current
formula allocations, will continue to strive for accurate data
for investment and planning purposes. We will continue to work
cooperatively with our community and the U.S. Census Bureau to
make sure every Toledoan is counted.
Each human being is given a name at birth. Until death,
they are to remain a concern of a caring society. Without a
name or an identity, they may as well be condemned to death.
None of us want that. Therefore, let us make sure every person
is counted.
I have one concluding comment. A death occurred in our
community 48 hours ago. The man that died was 68 years of age.
He had been a homeless man in Boston for about 15 to 20 years.
He was born and raised in Toledo. He got some aid and
assistance when he was in Boston and his family urged him to
come back to the family home in Toledo. Fifteen years ago he
returned. The last 15 years, that man has made such an impact
on life in the neighborhood in which he lived. He still looked
very skinny, very bearded, and very disheveled and he rode a
bike everywhere. But that man was going to Board of Education
meetings. He was going to Social Services meetings and Criminal
Justice meetings. That man made such a difference.
It was about 10 days ago that he unfortunately was knocked
off his bike by a youngster and hit his head on the pavement.
He was in a coma for 10 days. Our community came to a stop for
10 days while Bob was in a coma in a hospital. He died 48 hours
ago.
That man was once homeless. Because he was identified as a
real person as a result of the Boston metropolitan area Social
Services people, he came back and made a very, very significant
contribution to Toledo the last 15 years of his life. He will
be deeply missed. That is why every man or woman needs to be
counted.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Finkbeiner follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Clay. Thank you so much, Mr. Mayor, for your testimony.
Mayor Bowser, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT BOWSER
Mr. Bowser. Good afternoon, Chairman Clay, Ranking Member
McHenry, and members of the subcommittee. I am always glad to
be in Washington to see where my money is going.
On behalf of the city of East Orange, NJ, I urge all of our
people to be counted in the 2010 census. Everyone's
participation is vital to ensure our voices are heard in
Congress. A complete count also almost guarantees our community
would get its fair share of Federal dollars, which would mean
money for schools, hospitals, roads, and social services. This
count includes the homeless, the legal, and the undocumented.
We are all entitled to the same services provided within our
city. It is easy, important, and safe to participate. All of
this information is confidential.
To ensure an accurate count in the city of East Orange, we
plan to engage our community with a team of people,
coordinators and leaders of various ethnic backgrounds, who
look like and speak the same language as the people we are
counting.
A complete and accurate count means a sustainable, better
way of life for all people. Historically in the city of East
Orange, we believe that the last two census counts were
seriously flawed, resulting in an under-count in excess of 12
percent.
As a city, we rely on accurate population figures for all
county, State, and Federal applications for grants and
supplemental aid for many if not all programs. In this present
economy, municipal government has to fight for and look for
fiscal help wherever it is available. The census figures are
the one common factor in all applications and the compelling
argument for jurisdictions in need. We at the local level must
meet our obligation to provide services and the opportunity for
services for all our constituents.
At this hearing, we were asked to comment on the impact of
the under-count on funding formulas and how this would affect
local communities. First, let me say that it is important to
distinguish between concerns about funding formulas and the
concerns about allocations under the formulas. The question of
whether funding formulas are designed properly and whether they
take into account the conditions Congress desires to address is
separate from the question of the accuracy of the data used to
allocate funds under the formulas.
Without going into the details about CDBG funding, there
are two formulas, A and B. Both of them rely on census data.
When they are calculated, the formula, either A or B, that
gives more justification for funds, that is the one that is
used. Under these formulas, jurisdictions always receive more
funds than the total amount available through appropriations.
To bring the allocation within the appropriated amount HUD
uses, they use a pro-rated reduction that may be different
annually.
If East Orange's population is not correctly calculated in
the most recent census, the argument could be made that neither
formula A nor B can be calculated accurately to allocate to
this jurisdiction because 50 percent of formula A and 20
percent of formula B rely on the accurate population count.
Even if one formula is used instead of the other, an inaccurate
census count could greatly impact East Orange's CDBG
allocation, ensuring this jurisdiction receives less than the
community needs.
Also, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development's formula calculations rely on several factors that
are directly impacted when the U.S. Census Bureau under-counts,
especially because in East Orange we also have a high number of
house rentals and apartment units.
Let me just give you a little information about the city of
East Orange. We are only 3.9 square miles but 83 percent of our
buildable land is residential. We were cut in half by the
Garden State Parkway and then we were quartered by Interstate
280. We are 15 miles from New York and we border six other
towns or cities right along the city of Newark.
The U.S. Conference of Mayors Metro Economies Committee
reported that of cities within the category of 50,000 to
100,000 people, East Orange has the highest percentage of
people of color in all of the United States of America. It is
close to 95 percent.
One other factor that we found out is that home ownership
in the city of East Orange was less than 35 percent 8 years
ago. Because of the census and the fact that it was inaccurate,
we went out and checked about 40 of the census tracks. We had
no means to challenge that count. But because of that fact that
percentage of home ownership was so low, we went into a first
time home buyers program. What we did was to educate the
population. We made sure we helped people get their credit
better and we gave them counseling. Now, in 2009, we are at 47
percent home ownership and we have avoided a lot of the
foreclosures in our city because of the fact that we were
challenging some of the census numbers in our own right.
Also in our city, compounding our problem is that of homes
that are one and two families, 40 percent of them are owned by
senior citizens. Of that number, 43 percent of them are on
fixed income, retired, and have no mortgage. Every time we look
to increase taxes, this is the group that is most vulnerable.
When you look at and talk about under-counting, the
historic fact is the factors that affect an under-count are
people of color, low income populations, immigrants with
limited English proficiency, young people, and unemployed
people. The city of East Orange is in a lot of trouble because
that fits our demographics right away.
What we need to do to make sure is that we count everybody.
If you take a few things that you can use as parameters,
because our population right now is said to be, with all of the
adjustments and I have no idea how they make them, 69,824
people, but if you look at our water consumption, it should be
somewhere around 77,000 people. If you look at our school
population, which includes public schools, charter schools,
private schools, and day care, it should be somewhere between
73,000 and 75,000. If you look at solid waste disposal, it
should be somewhere around 72,000 people.
Something went awry at the first count. In this count
coming up, if it is wrong in the first year, it is wrong for
the next 9 years. That is a problem.
[The prepared statement for Mr. Bowser follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Vargas, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ARTURO VARGAS
Mr. Vargas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
McHenry, for the opportunity to appear before you on behalf of
the NALEO Educational Fund.
You know, a successful census requires an accurate count of
the estimated 47 million Latinos in the Nation. We are the
second largest population group and the fastest growing
population. An under-count of the Latino population means a
failed census. It will skew the distribution of Federal
resources to States and localities.
Many of the Federal programs allocated using census data
are critical to the education and health of Latino families,
such as the Department's of Education Title I grants and
Department's of Health and Human Services' Head Start and SCHIP
programs. These programs are just three of the Federal
initiatives that have proven successful in helping children
living in poverty to succeed in school and lead healthy lives.
Without accurate 2010 census data, we would not be able to
accurately assess the number of children in need nor allocate
sufficient resources for them.
An under-count of the Latino population will also have a
significant impact on the fair distribution of Federal funding
to States and cities with large Latino populations. Nearly half
of the Nation's Federal funding allocated using census data is
distributed to nine States where nearly 80 percent of the
Nation's Latinos reside. These amounts range from $3.5 billion
for New Mexico to nearly $42 billion for California. In
addition, $43 billion in Federal funding allocations that rely
on census data, about 11 percent of the Nation's total, are
distributed to the five metropolitan areas where one out of
four Latinos live.
Latino elected officials at the State and local levels know
the harm caused by the under-count. In my written testimony, we
present four examples of elected officials around the country
who are dealing with the problems caused by the under-count.
These officials recommend changes to the Bureau's census
challenge program to ensure that yearly population estimates
are more accurate. The Latino elected officials we have
surveyed recommend that the Bureau help jurisdictions to better
understand the data and evidence required for a successful
challenge and the criteria that the Bureau use to accept
challenges.
To help avoid an under-count and the harm that it brings,
we offer the following recommendations for the 2010 census:
First, Congress must provide the Census Bureau with sufficient
funding to conduct the census. The House has approved census
funding that is $206 million below the President's request.
This seems to be the result of a misunderstanding between House
appropriators and the Department of Commerce over certain
carryover funds. The Senate Appropriations Committee has
approved census funding at a level closer to the President's
request. We urge the Senate to adopt the committee
recommendation and urge appropriators to restore the $206
million in conference that appears to have been inadvertently
cut by the House.
Second, the U.S. Senate must expeditiously confirm the
nomination of the Director of the Census Bureau. The delay on
Dr. Groves's confirmation is impairing the ability of the
Bureau to proceed on track.
Third, the Census Bureau must implement a communications
and outreach plan that takes into account the current economic
and social realities. The security measures implemented after
September 11, including provisions of the Patriot Act, have
raised concerns about confidentiality. Hurricane Katrina and
other natural disasters have displaced thousands of residents.
We are in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression
with thousands having lost their homes through foreclosures.
Millions are living disengaged from our country's civic life.
The paid advertising campaign needs to reach these Americans.
As a member of the Joint Advisory Advertising Review Panel,
I joined with my fellow members in raising concerns about the
proposed advertising campaign that was initially developed. We
are heartened to see that the communications contractors have
taken into consideration the views of the JAARP and have
retooled the messaging of the campaign. Last week, we were
presented with a plan that was much more cohesive, better
promoted the confidentiality and safety of the census, and
reflected the economic times.
This retooled campaign will need further testing and
refinement but time is of the essence. We encourage Congress to
continue its vigilance over this crucial component of the 2010
communications plan.
In addition, the lack of an English language paid media
strategy directed at Latinos is problematic. The Census Bureau
will fail to reach a large segment of the hard to count
population if it relies exclusively on Spanish language media
to reach all Latinos.
Special strategies will also be required to count
immigrants because our Nation's ongoing immigration policy
debate has exacerbated their fear of contact with Government
agencies and have increased hate crimes. The Bureau must use
strategies that overcome this distrust and all public agencies
must work to promote public confidence in the census.
The Census Bureau must ensure that its 2010 work force
reflects the diversity of the Nation's population from its
highest managerial positions to its field enumerators. Latinos
are the most under-represented segment of the Bureau's
permanent work force, comprising less than 6 percent. As the
Bureau continues to deploy its massive work force, it must hire
a diverse group of top managers to lead its regional
operations.
To effectively reach the hard to count population, the
Bureau must also hire enumerators who are familiar with local
communities and their residents. In many neighborhoods, these
workers must be bilingual. We have heard reports from some
areas that sufficient bilingual enumerators are not available
to hire, particularly in areas with emerging populations.
Congress should closely monitor the implementation of the
census in schools program. This was one of the success stories
of census 2000. We are concerned that we are not going to have
the same aggressive implementation of census in schools in 2010
that we had in 2000.
Finally, Congress must reject any proposals that would
prevent the full enumeration of every U.S. resident in the
census. These proposals are contrary to the fundamental
precepts of our Constitution that call for a full count of
every person residing in the Nation. We strongly condemn the
efforts of a small group of extremists and even a Member of
this legislative body calling for a census boycott. Encouraging
anyone to not participate in the census is simply wrong.
The NALEO Educational Fund remains committed to being a
partner with the Congress and the administration in ensuring
the success of the 2010 count. We look forward to working with
you on this and I look forward to any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Vargas follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Vargas, for your testimony. Thank
you for the work you do.
Mr. Alderslade, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JAMIE ALDERSLADE
Mr. Alderslade. Good afternoon, Chairman Clay. Good
afternoon, Ranking Member McHenry. Good afternoon,
Congresswoman Kaptur. Many thanks for this opportunity to
discuss the important matter of how census data is used in
Federal formulae.
On a personal note, I came to this country 4 years ago to
Social Compact and now I am testifying on Capitol Hill. It is
incredible. [Laughter.]
Today, I want to make three brief points. Accurate
demographic data is critically important as a component of
driving sustainable economic development in our cities,
especially in our under-served neighborhoods. Close
collaborative partnership between local governments and the
Census Bureau is the Nation's most important driver for
generating that data. Third, every conceivable effort should be
made to ensure that the evolution and strengthening of this
vital partnership between the Census Bureau and the cities
continues.
If there is one lesson that we have learned over the course
of 10 years of conducting our pioneering drill-down research in
350 under-served neighborhoods across this country, where we
found under-served neighborhoods to be far larger, far safer,
and with far greater buying power than previously thought, is
that information matters. There is no more important source of
information in this country than that produced by the Census
Bureau.
As you have heard from my fellow esteemed panelists, census
data defines everything from how much Federal and State funding
a city may receive to its prospects for attracting investments.
When demographic data is accurate, investment decisions are
more informed, policy more refined, and funding allocations
fairer.
To ensure accurate census information, it is imperative
that there are strong partnerships between local governments
and the Census Bureau. We therefore fully support the Census
Bureau's development of the census challenge program, a major
step in the evolution and strengthening of alliances between
local governments and the Bureau.
Since 2001, 251 challenges by local governments have been
recognized by the Census Bureau, resulting in population
adjustments of 1.8 million people to the contesting
jurisdictions. So far, Social Compact has worked with six
cities, including the great city of Toledo, OH, across the
country to provide the Census Bureau with better local data,
resulting in an aggregate adjustment of almost 200,000
additional residents.
The very existence of the census challenge program, a
program designed by the Census Bureau, and the city of Toledo's
participation in that program is the clearest signal possible
that both the Bureau and local governments are committed to
building stronger alliances. When that alliance is weakened or
compromised, no one benefits. The Census Bureau gets incomplete
and irregular data from cities; cities and States don't get
their appropriate share of funding from Federal Government
sources; investors don't get the accurate market information
that they need; and perhaps most importantly, communities get
under-counted.
As you heard from my fellow panelists, suspicion or a lack
of understanding over how census data is used in Federal
formulae greatly compromise this crucial partnership. Indeed,
the example of the reduction in CDBG funding to Toledo as the
result of its participation in the census challenge program
actually discourages cities and local governments from working
with the Census Bureau. This must be addressed immediately.
For local governments to continue to submit accurate local
data to the Census Bureau, the formulas that include population
factors and are used by Federal agencies need to be transparent
and trusted by cities. Specifically, I have four
recommendations:
An immediate review is required of the formulas that HUD
uses to determine allocations of the CDBG entitlement grants.
As it stands, the current formulas used by HUD discourage
cities from submitting accurate local data to the Census
Bureau.
Greater research is urgently required on the impacts of
census figures on all funding for local governments that is
determined by formulae. The city of Toledo knows to the dollar
amount the reduction in CDBG funding as a result of
participating in the challenge program but has little idea of
the dollar impacts on other funding it receives. Cities need to
know this.
Once this research has been completed, tools should be
developed for local governments so that they may plan for
changes in population and corresponding changes in funding. For
instance, could a funding calculator be developed that enabled
local governments to plug in their population to calculate
their predicted funding from Federal and State programs?
Finally, there may be more that cities and the Census
Bureau could do to support the development of sound and
transparent funding formulae. One suggestion is a review of the
current data collected by local governments by the Census
Bureau to determine annual population estimates. Are there
additional local data sources that can be collected that will
not only improve accuracy but perhaps inform future funding
formulae developments?
In conclusion, the census is the best and most important
demographic data base we have in the United States. But it can
be greater still by ensuring close collaboration with local
governments, especially with populations with high minority and
other under-counted communities. Social Compact will continue
to work diligently to foster mutually beneficial partnerships
between local governments and the Census Bureau. By urgently
addressing these issues outlined today, in partnership with
Federal agencies, the Census Bureau and local governments will
have taken a major step toward achieving our common goals.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Alderslade follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Clay. Thank you. Thank you so much for your testimony.
I thank the entire panel for their testimony.
I will defer to my colleague, Ms. Kaptur, to begin
questioning. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Kaptur. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you so much for
that. Mayor Finkbeiner of Toledo has to be leaving. His plane
is on the runway. I appreciate your graciousness and that of
Ranking Member McHenry. I very much appreciate it.
Mayor, thank you for your excellent testimony, which will
be made a part of the permanent record, and for your experience
in the area of census. I am going to ask my questions real
quickly so you can get them and any other matter you think we
should know regarding the census on the record.
No one has worked harder than you have to gain a full count
and funding to support the count inside the city of Toledo and
Lucas County, which are now suffering from double digit
unemployment. Can you tell us how easy it was for you to share
your discovered under-count with the Census Bureau? Did you
face any challenges? If so, how did you overcome them? What
recommendations do you have for this panel as we face the next
census?
Mr. Finkbeiner. That is a great question, Congresswoman
Kaptur. As you know, I was elected in 1993 and took office in
1994. I think for the better part of that 8 years, it bothered
me that I did not feel that the consistent reporting of
Toledo's population dropping, dropping, and dropping could be
validated.
Our efforts to reach the regional office in Detroit and the
local office in Toledo were met with respect and were met with
dignity but we basically, in my judgment, got a cold shoulder.
It was like, ``we know what we are doing. We are the
professionals and you are just like every other Mayor in
America: You think you have more people than we do.''
But having had that experience that I referred to in 1970
where I lost 35 out of 36 of my crew, and that was the trained
crew; the people that were brought in behind them were nowhere
near as well trained as that initial crew, I have had great
concerns.
When I learned that Cincinnati had gained over 20,000
people in population, I called Mark Mallory, the Mayor. Mark
told me that he had done that only because he had felt the same
frustration and inability to reach the census people as I had.
He said there is a firm, Social Compact. They are very, very
modest in what they charge you and they helped me find 25,000
Cincinnatians. Then the suburban communities plugged into it
and they actually found another 10,000 people in suburbia that
were under-counted. So I think their total gain was 35,000.
That would be, I believe, Hamilton County.
We got in touch with Social Compact and they helped us know
the formula. Boy, it was very quick. It was only a matter of
probably 60 to 90 days before we felt we were in a great
position to claim there were approximately 22,000 or 23,000.
When it all came down, this is very interesting Congresswoman,
we were only off by 11. Really, the number we submitted was
corrected by 11 persons by the U.S. Census Bureau.
But then we get into this. That was 2007 count. Now, just
recently, they released the 2008 count and they subtracted
2,500 people from us and didn't give us credit for the 22,600
people we had gained. So it is rather confusing.
Then there was the letter saying we are going to have money
subtracted. The most important thing about this is, and I did
listen to the explanations, Congresswoman, that were given,
that it doesn't make sense. If you think there is a recession
going on in 48 States, come visit Michigan and Ohio. There is a
depression in Michigan and Ohio with 25 percent unemployment in
Detroit, MI and 12.5 percent in Toledo. At the very same time,
we are saying there are more people in Toledo. We know a fair
share of them are the socially disadvantaged and the
economically disadvantaged because all of the services are in
the heart of our city and our unemployment is 12.5 percent. Yet
we have money pulled back from us. That just doesn't make any
sense.
So to answer your question very directly, I am grateful for
the recognition of the fact that there are 22,600 more
Toledoans than thought but I don't think I should have had to
actually go and hire an agency to get that point across to the
Census Bureau.
Ms. Kaptur. I think the testimony of our Mayor is very,
very revealing, Mr. Chairman. I know that what you said will be
taken into consideration. I don't know if we have
representatives of the Census Bureau still in the audience. I
hope we do and that they are listening as well.
Mr. Clay. They are here.
Ms. Kaptur. I thank the chairman for that. I thank you,
Mayor Finkbeiner, for your great leadership over so many years.
It is the toughest job in America to be a Mayor.
Mr. Finkbeiner. If you will allow me to make one more
statement that I think it is important, Chairman Clay,
Congresswoman Kaptur, and Congressmen? God bless them, but do
you note today that the leadership that spoke to you was all
white? The largest group of uncounted men and women in America
is not, I don't believe, the white population. I believe it is
the African American, Hispanic, Latino, and Asian populations.
People still fear people who are different than themselves.
We are getting over it. Slowly but surely, we are getting over
it. But we are not there yet. In the very hearts of the cities
is a significant proportion of your African American, Latino,
Hispanic, and Asian populations. We can't have them under-
counted.
The best way we can get them counted is to have people that
are familiar with them doing the counting who not afraid to be
in those tall tenement buildings or in the poorer
neighborhoods. That is something that the U.S. Census Bureau
needs to make a commitment to, in my judgment.
I do have to catch that plane. [Laughter.]
The Census Bureau will not be dismayed by that. [Laughter.]
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much, Congress
Members. This is a hugely important issue to this Nation.
Mr. Clay. Thank you, too, Mr. Mayor, for your service to
Toledo and the country. We understand. You are excused.
Mr. McHenry, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. McHenry. Thank you, Chairman Clay. Thank you all for
your testimony. I really appreciate you being here. I know it
has been a long day with the votes and everything else. Thank
you.
Mr. Alderslade, can you provide just a sort of quick
synopsis of what your organization does?
Mr. Alderslade. Absolutely. We are a national non-profit
organization, based literally 10 blocks away from here, of
business leaders committed to promoting investment in low and
moderate income, usually minority, communities. Through our
pioneering market analytic tool, something called the drill-
down, we conduct market analyses in these typically under-
counted and under-served communities to essentially make the
business case for the first time.
Usually these communities are defined by what is bad about
them. We know to a science what is bad about these communities
but we have no narrative for what is good and what their market
opportunities are. Without market opportunities, you don't get
private sector investments. So we make the business case.
We have done this in 350 under-served neighborhoods across
20 cities, including Washington, DC. We found 1.5 million more
people, $35 million more buying power, and that these
communities are far safer than previously thought.
Mr. McHenry. On your Web site, you mention that your
organization uncovers census errors. One interviewer stated
that Social Compact's researchers are like inner city
bloodhounds. They sniff out people who are overlooked by the
census. How do you do that? I don't want you to give away any
secrets for your organization, but how is that done?
Mr. Alderslade. I don't know whether to be pleased about
that description or not. I don't know. There are two things we
do:
The drill-down, which is using public and private sector
data, is about purely making the business case and helping
Mayor Finkbeiner, Mayor Mallory, and all sorts of Mayors make
much more investment information oriented policy decisions in a
bid to attract investments.
In terms of these cities that we have helped and are
currently helping now with census challenges, that methodology
is defined by the Census Bureau. It has been around since 2001.
Challenge is the wrong word. It sounds combative but it is the
name of the program, unfortunately. The census challenge
program allows local governments to participate every year,
just as New York City does and just as Toledo did last year,
using defined methodology that was created by the Census
Bureau. It allows local governments to contribute construction
data over the course of the last 10 years.
What we found is that there have been some issues with it.
In a sense, the existence of this program is fantastic. When
cities are successful in their challenge, there is no better
signal that the Census Bureau and local governments can work
together to produce accurate results.
Mr. McHenry. Do you use enumerators or do you use existing
data?
Mr. Alderslade. We use existing data. So when we did
Toledo's, we used existing construction data that they had
lying around their departments, collected as a result of just
being a city government.
Mr. McHenry. Is this an error? Is it a willful omission or
is it an error on the Census Bureau's part?
Mr. Alderslade. No, it just needs some improvements. The
acting census director is exactly right. There are 39,000
jurisdictions that can challenge but we have only had 251 in
the last 10 years.
It is not that cities are happy with their estimates. It is
that essentially every month the Census Bureau sends a
construction form, the C-404 form, to 39,000 jurisdictions
across the country. They are meant to fill this out and send it
back in. If you don't know what the value of that form is, if
you don't know what the implications are for your funding, your
investment prospects, or the perception of your city, it either
gets send to the wrong person, the Mayor doesn't think it is
important, or it just gets lost in the hundreds of thousands of
things that cities have to do.
So in a sense, what we are trying to do is correct that
relationship, to say to Mayors that this information, if you
work in partnership on an ongoing basis and provide the data
locally that the census needs, will counter the need for census
challenges going forward. The census challenge is a great
program because it is a partnership branch given out by the
Census Bureau to say that we will work with you.
Mr. McHenry. Would you contend that the decennial
enumeration is more accurate than the estimates?
Mr. Alderslade. That is a tricky question. Our experience
through the drill-down work that we do, our experience of
counting the populations in central city, minority low and
moderate income populations would suggest that no, it isn't.
For those communities, it is still a challenge. We found in
just 350 under-served communities 1.5 million more people.
Mr. McHenry. But that is based off of the estimates,
correct?
Mr. Alderslade. No, this is based off transactional data
and----
Mr. McHenry. You found extra people than the Census Bureau
estimated were there in 2007, correct?
Mr. Alderslade. Exactly. That is what we found.
Mr. McHenry. That was based off of the population estimate
of the census, not the actual enumeration?
Mr. Alderslade. That is based off of the drill-down
methodology which uses administrative data and private sector
data to buildup a real time population number. So just from our
experience on the under-count in those communities, for the
enormous missed markets that we identify in low income
communities, the evidence would suggest that in low and
moderate minority communities, the decennial count and
estimates are under-counts.
Mr. McHenry. Mr. Vargas, I appreciate your leadership
within the Latino or Hispanic community to say participate. The
Constitution is very clear about participation in the census
and it is who is here on census day. I appreciate you being
vocal about this.
Within your testimony, what you said during your testimony
is that you have concerns about a lack of an English speaking
media campaign toward the Hispanic community. Are there other
recommendations specifically like that you have for the Bureau?
Mr. Vargas. There are, sir. Thank you for that question. As
a member of the Joint Advisory Advertising Review Panel, I had
an opportunity to see the initial campaign that had been
developed by the communications vendors. I don't know if you
got word, but we issued a vote of no confidence in the
contractor's ability to carry out that campaign because the
messages were not messages for 2010. They were messages for
1990. They were a feel good campaign to come, join, and
participate.
People right now, it is hard to feel good when you are
losing your homes and you are losing your jobs. We are thinking
that the Bureau really needs to bring some sense of reality
about how important the census is to help this country move
forward. That was the kind of messaging we think that can
resonate certainly within the Latino population.
With respect to language use, obviously to reach the
immigrant population, it is absolutely critical to use Spanish
language media. But many of the hard to count populations have
been here three or four generations. Many of them may be living
in poverty and feel marginalized from society. They don't watch
Spanish language media, necessarily. They are watching English
language media.
The Bureau, their effort is to say well, we will cover them
with the Diverse America Campaign. Our recommendation is that
you have to talk to them specifically and overcome the cynicism
that it doesn't matter to be counted. These are the kind of
folks who also believe that ``my vote doesn't count,'' ``no one
cares what I have to say,'' and ``I am on the outs.'' That is
the population that doesn't participate. That is the population
that we need to invest money in and reach them.
Mr. McHenry. You said that there is some difficulty to get
enumerators within emerging communities? For instance, in my
district there is a significant emerging Hispanic population.
Mr. Vargas. That is right, sir.
Mr. McHenry. Going to the Bureau, they have been fantastic
and very open about wanting input. We have a significant Hmong
population, for instance, in my district as well. Very few
areas of this country actually have a Hmong population. So
those types of regional issues, has the Bureau been open and
collaborative with you and been a partner in trying to find
those enumerators?
Mr. Vargas. They have, but I think they are hamstrung with
some policy concerns. Working for the Bureau is a Federal job
and you need to be a U.S. citizen. I have no problems or
concerns that the Bureau will not find enough U.S. citizens who
speak Spanish in Los Angeles, San Antonio, Chicago, or New
York. I am more concerned about the communities like the ones
you represent where it is an emerging population, more
immigrant than established communities, and so you have less of
a U.S. citizen population that is bilingual that the Bureau
could tap into to hire.
In addition, foreign nationals from Mexico who are work
authorized cannot be hired by the Federal Government today. So
in those communities where you have growing Mexican immigrant
populations, that is a double hamstrung that the Bureau has.
Those are some policy concerns that we think the Congress
should look into.
Mr. McHenry. Thank you. Mayor Bowser, just in conclusion
before I hand it back over to Chairman Clay before he gives me
the hook, you mentioned some discrepancies between your number
for sewer users versus water users and these different numbers
that you have. What are your recommendations for the Bureau to
get a better count of your residents?
Mr. Bowser. I think, unlike putting it all on the Census
Bureau, I think it incumbent upon Mayors and leaders in the
communities to make sure we get the proper representation. In
my city, we historically have talked at least for the last 15
years about having an over 20 percent Haitian population. We
haven't counted them yet.
So what we are doing is making sure that we have
representatives in the enumerators. It should be insisted upon
by the Census Bureau that we cover all of these. We have a
large South African population, a Caribbean population. Our
Latino population is growing. It is somewhere, and this is an
estimate, around 3 to 6 percent. But we are making sure that we
have people that can go to those places and speak to them,
speak their same language, and dress like some of the other
folks. So we do that.
But we can't put that all on the Census Bureau. This is our
one opportunity to make this thing work. What the Census Bureau
needs to do is insist to their regional coordinators that they
get the proper people that can go out there and count folks.
Don't put it all on them.
All you have to do is make sure they have the money to do
it. So if you are talking about cutting some money from the
Census Bureau, don't do it. Please.
Mr. McHenry. Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Clay. Mr. McHenry, you asked almost all of my
questions, too.
Let me start with Mayor Bowser. In your testimony, you
mentioned HUD's HOME program and how the under-counting of
rental units by the U.S. Census Bureau has negatively impacted
funding for your city of East Orange. Please elaborate on your
specific frustrations with the Census Bureau and HUD. How do
you believe either Federal department can improve their
programs?
Mr. Bowser. As I said early on, we have a large population
that is pretty much of fixed income. We have a waiting list to
rehabilitate homes based on access to HOME dollars. Somebody
might be out there for 3 years waiting to just bring the houses
up to basic code. That is all the money is really for. But in
addition, some of the HOME money can be used for affordable
housing and in startups and things like that.
The problem that we have is that if you look at the numbers
based on the census, we think that we are shortchanged. So we
don't have the dollars to really help our total population that
is asking for and looking for some of that help. It has been a
problem. I just hope that this time going around we are able to
fix those numbers.
Mr. Clay. To get it right. But have you as the Mayor or as
the city of East Orange, have you challenged the census
estimates through the challenge program?
Mr. Bowser. We didn't do it this past time for 2000 like we
did in 1990 because it was such a large number that we felt was
wrong. Basically, there are areas in your city that do not
change. They are very stable families and homes. So what you
need to do is put your effort into the areas that have the most
problems that are very difficult to get into.
Mr. Clay. I hope you make acquaintance with Mr. Alderslade
today when we end this.
Mr. Bowser. I got his card, sir.
Mr. Clay. Let me move on to Mr. Vargas. Given that there is
a historical under-count, do the yearly census estimates,
appeals, and adjustments adequately rectify the discrepancies
in funding to local Latino communities that result from that
under-count initially?
Mr. Vargas. No, I don't believe so, sir. I think the point
has been made earlier that if the baseline data are inaccurate
to begin with from the decennial census, then all subsequent
data throughout the next 9 years continue to be inaccurate.
I would like to point out, however, that we are going to be
following very closely the use of the American Community Survey
data. When Congress reauthorized the Voting Rights Act of 1965,
for example, it indicated that the ACS data could be used every
5 years to update the jurisdictions that would be required to
be covered under Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act, which
requires language assistance in voting to our citizens who are
limited English proficient. So we will be following that very
closely to see if in fact the ACS has a sufficient sample size
every year to accurately determine whether or not we are
targeting implementation of our voting rights laws accurately.
Mr. Clay. So for your community, it is like a moving
target. We have estimates that there are 47 million Latinos
within our population but it is hard to get a gauge of it. You
are coming in at 28 million, 29 million?
Mr. Vargas. Well, the last census put us at some 30
million. But I think one of the most interesting statistics the
Census Bureau has recently indicated is that this country grows
by a person every 15 seconds. Every 30 seconds, that person is
a Latino or Latina.
Mr. Clay. I have read that somewhere. Thank you for your
response.
Mr. Alderslade, if GAO is able to determine a new and
accurate per year value of dollars lost for each under-counted
person in local communities, what would this number mean for
your work with Social Compact and your interest to secure
private investments in inner city neighborhoods?
Mr. Alderslade. That is a great question. There are two
sides to this. On that assumption, you would assume that the
cities, counties, and State governments would get more Federal
funding dollars to spend on CDBG economic development programs
and the programs that support Mayors in creating jobs and
attracting investments.
On the other side of things, a report done by the Brookings
Institute estimated that 80 percent of all retail investment
decisions use data derived from the census. Now,
conservatively, even within the economic downturn that we are
in, there are estimates that there will be $250 billion of
commercial investment over the course of the next 4 years.
So if you have accurate counts, just as we found in New
Orleans 50,000 more people, and had 48,000 more added to
Detroit's population, those are new markets for investors.
Those are new markets for retailers, new markets for banks.
That changes the way Mayors make decisions about economic
developments.
Mr. Clay. Thank you so much for your response. Let me thank
this panel for their responses.
I thank my colleagues as well as the staff for their
indulgence on this hearing. As you heard, the bells are ringing
so that will conclude this hearing. I am sure there will be
subsequent hearings. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 5:42 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[The prepared statement of Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney and
additional information submitted for the hearing record
follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]