    [House Hearing, 111 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

       THE 2010 CENSUS: AN ASSESSMENT OF THE CENSUS BUREAU'S PREPAREDNESS

    =======================================================================

                                    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

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 25, 2010

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 111-90

                                   __________

    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
    62-943                    WASHINGTON : 2011
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 L. MICA, Florida
    DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio             MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
    JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts       JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
    WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri              MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
    DIANE E. WATSON, California          LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
    STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts      PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina
    JIM COOPER, Tennessee                BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
    GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia         JIM JORDAN, Ohio
    MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois               JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
    MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio                   JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
    ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of   JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah
        Columbia                         AARON SCHOCK, Illinois
    PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island     BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri
    DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois             ANH ``JOSEPH'' CAO, Louisiana
    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
    JUDY CHU, California

                          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
    CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York         PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina
    ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of   LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
        Columbia                         JOHN L. MICA, Florida
    DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois             JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah
    STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio
    HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
    JUDY CHU, California
                         Darryl Piggee, Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on March 25, 2010...................................     1
    Statement of:
        Jackson, Arnold, Associate Director, U.S. Census Bureau;
          Robert Goldenkoff, Director, Strategic Issues, Government
          Accountability Office; and Judy Gordon, Associate Deputy
          Inspector General, Department of Commerce..................     4
            Goldenkoff, Robert.......................................    18
            Gordon, Judy.............................................    52
            Jackson, Arnold..........................................     4
    Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
        Clay, Hon. Wm. Lacy, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Missouri, prepared statement of...................     3
        Goldenkoff, Robert, Director, Strategic Issues, Government
          Accountability Office, prepared statement of...............    20
        Gordon, Judy, Associate Deputy Inspector General, Department
          of Commerce, prepared statement of.........................    54
        Jackson, Arnold, Associate Director, U.S. Census Bureau,
          prepared statement of......................................     7

       THE 2010 CENSUS: AN ASSESSMENT OF THE CENSUS BUREAU'S PREPAREDNESS

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, MARCH 25, 2010

                      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 2:10 p.m., in
    room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Wm. Lacy Clay
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Clay, Driehaus, Cuellar, Chu, and
    McHenry.
        Staff present: Darryl Piggee, staff director/counsel; Jean
    Gosa, clerk; Yvette Cravins, counsel; Anthony Clark,
    professional staff member; Charisma Williams, staff assistant;
    John Cuaderes, minority deputy staff director; and Adam Fromm,
    minority chief clerk and Member liaison.
        Mr. Clay. The Information Policy, Census, and National
    Archives Subcommittee will now come to order.
        Good afternoon and welcome to today's hearing, entitled
    ``The 2010 Census: An Assessment of the Census Bureau's
    Preparedness.'' Today's hearing, as the title indicates, will
    examine the improvements the Census Bureau has made in its
    operations and systems leading up to the 2010 enumeration. We
    will further examine those specific IT systems and budget
    uncertainties which cause GAO to categorize the Bureau's
    efforts as high risk. Today's dialog should lead to more
    certainty and knowledge of the mitigation strategies for 2010
    census challenges.
        We all have one goal in mind, a true, accurate reflection
    of our country. I appreciate Dr. Groves' leadership and
    efforts.
        We have with us today distinguished colleagues who will be
    joining us who have been asked to participate in this hearing.
        Without objection, the chairman 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
    material for the record.
        The purpose of today's hearing is to complete the census
    cycle. We began this journey many hearings ago. This
    subcommittee has visited the compilation of the Master Address
    File, known as LUCA, and its intricacies. We examined the
    external challenges of counting our country and the
    consequences of undercounts. We studied Group Quarter
    Validation and Complete Count Committees. We addressed
    fingerprinting and the hiring of Census workers. We have
    further assessed the advertising campaign to reach our hardest-
    to-count populations. So today's efforts must now focus on the
    Bureau itself, with an assessment of its preparedness to
    complete the 2010 task.
        First on our panel, we will hear from Mr. Arnold Jackson,
    Associate Director of the Census Bureau.
        Welcome.
        Next, we will hear from Mr. Robert Goldenkoff, Director of
    Strategic Issues at the Government Accountability Office.
        Thank you for being here.
        And our final panelist is Ms. Judy Gordon, Associate Deputy
    Inspector at the Department of Commerce.
        This panel is well suited to answer all questions and
    provide updates on the Bureau's preparedness. We look forward
    to their insight into this effort, and I thank all of the
    witnesses for appearing today and look forward to their
    testimony.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. Wm. Lacy Clay follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.001

        Mr. Clay. At this time, I will now yield to any Member who
    has an opening statement.
        Ms. Chu, would you have an opening? No, you're fine.
        How about Mr. Cuellar? Would you have a--no.
        All right. Then we will take testimony now.
        Mr. Jackson, we will start with you, and--we will hear
    first from you, Mr. Jackson, and second from Mr. Goldenkoff and
    finally from Ms. Gordon.
        It is the policy of this committee to swear in all
    witnesses before they testify.
        [Witnesses sworn.]

     STATEMENTS OF ARNOLD JACKSON, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, U.S. CENSUS
        BUREAU; ROBERT GOLDENKOFF, DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC ISSUES,
     GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; AND JUDY GORDON, ASSOCIATE
            DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

                      STATEMENT OF ARNOLD JACKSON

        Mr. Jackson. Thank you, Chairman Clay, Ranking Member
    McHenry, members of the subcommittee, for this opportunity to
    provide an operational update, including the status of the
    Paper-Based Operations Control System of the 2010 decennial
    census.
        Mr. Chairman, as you know, we are underway, the census is
    ongoing and proceeding, and we are on a path to a successful
    2010 census. The efforts of the previous years are paying off,
    including the support of this subcommittee and committee, and
    our work with stakeholders are now paying dividends.
        A complete and accurate census is a complex endeavor.
    However, the finely tuned strategies we have to count every
    person in this country are paying off. All of these efforts,
    from census operations to promotion, are grounded in thorough
    research, extensive coordination and preparation, and local
    knowledge.
        The 2010 census enumeration actually began in Noorvik, AK,
    on January 25th. In this small village, which piques the
    interest and imagination of the country each decade, the
    resulting news generated interest from over 80 million people,
    a great introduction for the 2010 census.
        We have also conducted an operation known as Group Quarters
    Advance Visit, which facilitates the process of counting
    residents in group quarters. Census workers visited more than
    270,000 group quarters locations to plan for the group quarters
    enumeration.
        We have started an enumeration of--an enumeration activity,
    known as Update/Leave, where we actually go to addresses where
    the address may not represent the actual location of the
    housing unit.
        We are doing Update/Enumerate, which began on March 22nd
    and ends May 29th. Update/Enumerate is primarily used in areas
    with seasonal housing; therefore, a high number of vacants,
    American Indian areas, and the colonias in South Texas.
        The vast majority of housing units, however, more than 120
    million, received their questionnaires in the mail last week.
    Mailout/Mailback for the 2010 census includes an advance
    letter, the questionnaire and a reminder postcard; and for the
    first time, we will send a replacement questionnaire to about
    25 million households in census tracts where we anticipate a
    low response rate. This will be done on April 3rd.
        The staged efforts are intended to encourage participation.
    We have a program that is available on our Web site, known as
    Take 10 Challenge. It is a challenge that we have initiated to
    encourage some friendly competition between communities to
    compare their response participation rates to each other. As
    you know, participation is the foundation of an accurate and
    complete census, but that is not all.
        We also have Telephone Questionnaire Assistance and an
    Integrated Communications program. The goal of the Telephone
    Questionnaire Assistance is to quickly provide assistance
    whether it is answering a question, sending a Language
    Assistance Guide or sending a replacement questionnaire to call
    us. Further, we have 30,000 Questionnaire Assistance Centers
    that are now open where respondents can get help filling out a
    Census form.
        But of course, as you know and as we have testified and as
    our director has testified recently, the cornerstone of the
    2010 census promotional effort is the Communications program,
    which includes both advertising and partnerships. The campaign
    has proven successful, and we are experiencing high levels of
    interest and indications of intent to participate in the
    census.
        As you know, by increasing the response rate, we can
    dramatically affect the costs and effectiveness of our
    nonresponse operations. In a matter of a few weeks, we will be
    prepared to send as many as 700,000 temporary workers to the
    field to enumerate between 47 million and 55 million housing
    units.
        While it is important to note that we are much better
    prepared than we were in any previous census, we are not
    without concerns. We continue to manage daily the risk of
    instability and the limited functionality of our Paper-Based
    Operations Control System and of our Decennial Applicant,
    Personnel and Payroll System.
        The Census Bureau undertook the development of the Paper-
    Based Operations Control System as a high-risk alternative in
    2008. The compressed PBOCS development schedule has resulted in
    abbreviated testing cycles which occur much closer to
    operations than we would have preferred. That, in turn, has led
    to a higher number of defects than we would have expected.
    However, we are prioritizing them as we move toward operations.
    Workarounds, such as staggering start times, sharing printing
    resources and other such alternatives, are allowing us choices
    and tradeoffs to ensure successful field operations despite
    less than perfect IT systems.
        I am managing these risks daily, and our outlook is
    improving. We have recently boasted both the Paper-Based
    Operations Control System and the DAPPS system infrastructure
    and technical support.
        The Census Bureau remains cautiously optimistic, and I am
    personally encouraged by recent progress and by the dedication
    of staff and contractors. In the last couple of weeks, not only
    have I overseen the installation of new hardware and witnessed
    a decreasing number of defects, but we have been able to slowly
    increase user capacity--all indications that, day by day, this
    system is becoming mature. PBOCS is functioning and currently
    supporting our field operations.
        Over the next several months, hundreds of important tasks
    will be completed, and your continued support is crucial to a
    successful census. Again, I thank the subcommittee for this
    opportunity, and I am more than happy to answer your questions.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Clay. Thank you so much, Mr. Jackson.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Jackson follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.002

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.003

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.005

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.006

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.012

        Mr. Clay. Mr. Goldenkoff, you may proceed.

                     STATEMENT OF ROBERT GOLDENKOFF

        Mr. Goldenkoff. Chairman Clay, Ranking Member McHenry,
    members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
    be here today to provide an update on the Census Bureau's
    readiness for the 2010 enumeration. With 1 week remaining until
    census day, the Nation has entered one of the most crucial time
    periods in the decade-long census life cycle.
        Earlier this month, the Bureau mailed out questionnaires to
    around 120 million households. In the coming weeks, the Bureau
    will launch additional operations aimed at enumerating certain
    hard-to-count populations as well as the estimated 50 million
    households that fail to mail back their Census forms. The
    success of these operations will have a major impact on the
    accuracy of the census as well as its ultimate cost, now
    estimated at around $14.7 billion.
        As requested, I will update the subcommittee on the state
    of the census, paying particular attention to, first, the
    reliability of key IT systems and, second, the extent to which
    critical enumeration activities are on track.
        Overall, the Bureau's readiness for a successful head-count
    is mixed. It is deeply troubling that, at this late date, two
    critical IT systems have not yet demonstrated their ability to
    function reliably under full operational loads. The performance
    problems plaguing these two systems represent the most
    significant threat to the cost and the quality of the
    enumeration.
        Specifically, the Decennial Applicant Personnel and Payroll
    System [DAPPS], the automated system the Bureau is using to
    process applicants and handle the payroll of the Bureau's
    massive temporary labor force--needed to be fully functional
    under a heavy load, by mid-March. However, the system had
    limited capacity and was sluggish. These shortcomings occurred
    despite the fact that 100,000 temporary employees were on
    board, far below the roughly 600,000 employees that will be
    working when nonresponse followup is in full swing in a few
    weeks.
        As of March 22nd, Bureau officials stated that they had
    taken steps to improve DAPPS' performance, including upgrading
    the system's software and installing additional hardware. More
    will be known about the success of these fixes in the coming
    days.
        The Bureau also needs to resolve ongoing problems with the
    workflow management system it will use to administer its field
    operations. Although the first release of this system was
    deployed for early field activities in January and certain
    components of the second release were deployed in February,
    both releases have known defects, including limited
    functionality, slow performance, and problems generating
    certain progress and performance reports. The Bureau also
    restricted the number of users in each local Census office due
    to capacity limitations.
        What's more, the component of the second release that will
    be used to manage nonresponse followup, the largest Census
    field operation, is still being tested and is scheduled to be
    released in mid-April. This is about 3 weeks later than planned
    and barely ahead of when nonresponse followup is scheduled to
    begin in early May. As a result, little time will be left to
    resolve any problems identified during testing.
        Other functions are faring better. Key enumeration
    activities are generally on track, and some activities aimed at
    improving the participation of hard-to-count groups are more
    robust compared to similar efforts during the 2000 census.
        For example, the Bureau has launched an aggressive outreach
    and promotion effort. Key differences from 2000 include
    increased staffing for the Bureau's partnership program,
    targeted paid advertising based on market and attitudinal
    research, and a contingency fund to address unexpected events.
        Moreover, to improve the participation of transient
    seasonal farm workers and others at risk of being missed by the
    census, the Bureau launched its Be Counted program earlier this
    month. This effort makes forms available in around 40,000
    locations across the country, such as libraries and community
    centers.
        Moving forward, it will be important for the Bureau to
    quickly identify the problems affecting key IT systems and test
    solutions. Further, given the complexity of the census and the
    likelihood that other glitches might arise, it will be
    important for the Bureau to stay on schedule, monitor
    operations and have plans and personnel in place to quickly
    address operational issues.
        These operational considerations aside, I want to stress
    that the Census Bureau cannot secure a complete count on its
    own. The public must also fulfill its civic duty to return
    their questionnaires in a timely manner. According to the
    Bureau, each percentage point increase in the mail response
    rate saves taxpayers around $85 million and yields more
    accurate data.
        The bottom line is that the success of the 2010 census is
    now, to a large degree, in the hands of the Nation's residents.
        Chairman Clay, Ranking Member McHenry, this concludes my
    remarks, and I will be happy to answer any questions that you
    or other members of the subcommittee might have.
        Mr. Clay. Thank you so much, Mr. Goldenkoff.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Goldenkoff follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.031

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.038

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.039

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.040

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.041

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.042

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.043

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.044

        Mr. Clay. Ms. Gordon, you're up for 5 minutes.

                     STATEMENT OF JUDITH J. GORDON

        Ms. Gordon. Thank you.
        Chairman Clay, Ranking Member McHenry, and members of the
    subcommittee, we are pleased to be here today to share our
    perspectives on the Census Bureau's readiness for this year's
    decennial count. As my colleagues on the panel have noted, the
    census is already in high gear, with more than 100 million
    residents receiving Census forms last week. However, key
    information technology systems continue to experience
    performance and functionality shortfalls, and these systems can
    affect the ultimate schedule, cost, and success of the census.
        My statement today will cover three areas: first, the
    systems issues and their risk to nonresponse followup [NRFU];
    second, the importance of monitoring NRFU costs; and third,
    some initial observations from our field work.
        Critical to the success of NRFU is the Paper-Based
    Operations Control System [PBOCS]. This system is essential to
    handling assignments to enumerators, tracking questionnaires
    and reporting on the status of operations. PBOCS development
    has been compressed to meet the schedule. The inevitable impact
    of this ``just in time'' approach is that certain errors are
    not being found until the system is in actual operation, and
    not all capabilities are implemented.
        PBOCS has suffered from slow performance and continues to
    experience complete system outages. An outage earlier this week
    lasted an entire day. A similar outage during the large NRFU
    operation would be particularly serious.
        The Decennial Applicant, Personnel and Payroll System
    [DAPPS], has experienced similar performance limitations and
    operational impacts. DAPPS is critical to recruiting, managing,
    and paying the enormous temporary Census work force.
        To allow for installation and testing of improvements,
    local Census office systems have been shut down at night and on
    weekends. This prevents Census from adding more shifts to catch
    up on work that has fallen behind schedule. Census engineers
    and operational managers are aggressively attacking the system
    issues. Nevertheless, Census will have to rely on workarounds
    to compensate for system limitations. Workarounds must be fully
    tested and clearly explained to minimize further disruptions.
        Turning to cost and cost containment, it will be especially
    important for Census to monitor and control NRFU costs. Address
    canvassing went 25 percent over its budget, largely due to
    overspending on wages and mileage reimbursements to temporary
    address listers. NRFU is much bigger, so any cost overruns will
    be much more expensive.
        The ability to produce valid budget estimates is essential
    to cost containment. Wide budget variances among local Census
    offices in address canvassing, from less than 1 percent to over
    800 percent, indicate significant weaknesses in the Bureau's
    budget estimation capability and uncertainty in the decennial
    cost.
        Finally, I will briefly mention two major challenges found
    in our initial observations in the field during the Update/
    Leave operation.
        First, our staff saw firsthand how the slow performance and
    lack of systems reliability are affecting efficiency in local
    Census offices. We observed work getting interrupted, data
    having to be entered into the system more than once, and
    completion of tasks being delayed.
        Second, we identified a few areas in which it appears that
    maps were not updated from address canvassing. If widespread,
    this would be a significant problem. We are working with the
    Bureau to determine both the extent and reasons for these map
    errors.
        In summary, Mr. Chairman, although much of the Bureau's
    plan is on track, IT problems place the efficiency and accuracy
    of nonresponse followup at risk, and final decennial costs
    remain uncertain. While our testimony today discusses serious
    IT system challenges, we are mindful of the extraordinary
    efforts being made by a very dedicated Census staff to achieve
    a successful outcome.
        This concludes my statement, and I would be happy to answer
    any questions that you or any other members of the subcommittee
    may have at this time.
        Mr. Clay. Thank you, Ms. Gordon.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Gordon follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.045

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.046

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.047

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.048

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.049

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.050

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.051

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.052

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.053

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.054

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.055

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.056

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.057

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.058

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.059

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 62943.060

        Mr. Clay. I want to thank all of the witnesses for their
    testimony.
        Now the committee will proceed to the question-and-answer
    period, and we will begin with Mr. McHenry, who will be allowed
    to give an opening statement as well as questions.
        Mr. McHenry. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it's--you
    know, right in keeping with your testimony, I certainly
    appreciate, Mr. Chairman, your having this hearing today
    because it is obvious that we still have a lot of questions and
    issues to resolve even though census day is just less than a
    week away.
        And it is great concerns that I hear from every one of you,
    significantly different from the Bureau compared to the last
    testimony we had from Dr. Groves. But I do appreciate you all
    coming. I know it's very busy right now, both for the IG and
    for the GAO as well as for the Census Bureau.
        But it does seem to me like we're jumping the gun a little
    bit on this hearing. I think we're going to need to have
    another hearing and see how the mail is coming in, because
    we're just days into mail coming back in and determining our
    response rate. So I do think, with the chairman's leadership,
    we should be able to do that when Congress comes back.
        Most households didn't even receive their 2010
    questionnaire until about a week and a half ago. A lot of my
    constituents are writing and calling about this as well, which
    is a good sign that people are aware of the census, but I
    certainly appreciate the chairman's leadership with what's
    going on and making sure that we have frequent hearings on this
    matter.
        As Dr. Groves has stated, he would like to have an ongoing
    dialog with us as well.
        Mr. Clay. And, Mr. McHenry, we do intend on holding
    hearings to look at the mailback response rate and at other
    functions of the Bureau in their effort.
        Mr. McHenry. Well, thank you, and I'll get to my
    questioning now; but you know, we've got some issues here.
        Mr. Jackson, you're slightly less positive in the tone that
    you have about the Bureau's preparedness.
        Is the Bureau prepared for the 2010 census?
        Mr. Jackson. Congressman, yes, sir, we are.
        I am attempting to be candid, not in any way not
    optimistic. I am convinced we will have a successful census. As
    you know, 2 years ago, when we undertook what we call the REAP
    line, we stated that choosing this path of doing paper-based
    operations in lieu of continued automation would be somewhat
    high risk. In general, that's what we're experiencing now. We
    think we're prepared.
        Mr. McHenry. Time is short.
        So is the Bureau still on track to meet its budget outlook
    and view for nonresponse followup?
        Mr. Jackson. Yes, sir. We've done a complete budget review
    of nonresponse followup. We have looked at over 20 line items,
    and we feel that we are more than prepared to do a successful
    nonresponse followup at a range of response estimates on time
    and within the budget we have.
        Mr. McHenry. Mr. Goldenkoff, is that the view of the
    Government Accountability Office?
        Mr. Goldenkoff. From the data that we've seen, certainly
    the future is uncertain. The Bureau may be able to handle the
    workload as of today, but things are going to ramp up pretty
    quickly. And as an example, you heard us mention the situation
    with the operational control system. Right now, it's at a
    capacity where it's handling seven simultaneous users per
    office at a time. It needs to ramp up eventually to 16, and the
    Bureau is definitely not there yet; but nationwide, right now,
    it needs to go from 3,000 simultaneous users up to 3,000 during
    nonresponse followup. From what we've seen, the Bureau still
    has a lot of work to do.
        Mr. McHenry. OK. Ms. Gordon, how many folks on the IG staff
    are working on the census?
        Ms. Gordon. Well, our plan is to have about 100 members of
    our staff working on the census at the peak, and we're ramping
    up to that in the early operations.
        Mr. McHenry. How many currently are?
        Ms. Gordon. How many currently? I think we have about 20 or
    so working on it currently.
        Mr. McHenry. OK. Mr. Jackson, in terms of the Vacant/Delete
    Check, there has been--would you tell us why there is a change
    of $137 million, an increase in the cost estimate for this
    Vacant/Delete Check?
        Mr. Jackson. Yes, sir. Two major components.
        One, the number of vacant units, as you might suspect, is
    higher because of foreclosures and because of the economy than
    we expected when we did our initial planning, which, as you
    know, runs about 2 years ahead of when we do the operation.
        Also, we have added to Vacant/Delete, and we think this is
    a positive step. A number of--a workload that consists of
    housing units that we have identified through the LUCA process
    that should be included in the census, we have added them to
    Vacant/Delete so that we can get those included as soon as
    possible and mail those households forms.
        Mr. McHenry. What keeps you up at night?
        Mr. Jackson. What keeps me up at night----
        Mr. McHenry. Professionally, not personally.
        Mr. Jackson. I do--I am managing the two critical systems,
    that my colleagues have mentioned, daily. And we're making
    progress----
        Mr. McHenry. What two systems are those?
        Mr. Jackson. The DAPPS, the payroll system. We've
    recently--this past weekend, we upgraded that system, and it is
    running much faster, so DAPPS is kind of receding from my worry
    list.
        The paper-based control system I manage with my colleagues
    from field division and my CIO, Brian McGrath, who is here
    today. So we are constantly looking at what we're doing,
    selecting where we need workarounds so that by April 4th, we
    will know what system we're taking to the field, and we can
    test it the final 2 weeks before we go to nonresponse.
        Mr. McHenry. So that's what keeps you up at night?
        Mr. Jackson. That's what keeps me up, yes.
        Mr. McHenry. Mr. Goldenkoff, I know you follow the census
    extensively, and in the Government Accountability Office,
    obviously that is your job to have these items keep you up at
    night.
        Mr. Goldenkoff. Exactly.
        Mr. McHenry. What are those items that keep you up at
    night?
        Mr. Goldenkoff. The operation control system. That is sort
    of the brains of the census. They can't conduct the field
    operations without it, and right now, as we see it, there are
    four issues with it.
        One, people. They are being--the people who are working on
    the system, they're working extremely hard, nights and
    weekends, but they're under strain. There are just not enough
    of them to go around, and the ability to train new people is
    very limited. And it's quite likely that new problems will crop
    up; and will they be able to handle these new problems and fix
    the existing ones as demands on the system begin to increase?
        There are also hardware and software issues, and all this
    is running up against a very tight schedule. Nonresponse
    followup begins at a very fixed date. Other operations begin at
    very fixed dates, and if the system isn't ready, if it's not
    able to support these operations, you're going to start seeing
    schedule slippages and cost increases.
        Mr. McHenry. How many folks at the GAO are working on the
    census?
        Mr. Goldenkoff. Right now, it's about 20.
        Mr. McHenry. How many will be working on it in another
    month or two?
        Mr. Goldenkoff. We'll start to ramp up, too, for field
    operations.
        For example, for nonresponse followup, we have most of our
    field offices involved, and so we will be on the ground,
    observing nonresponse followup. Next week, for service-based
    enumeration, we will have, also, most of our field offices
    involved in observing service-based enumeration. So we are
    quite prepared, and also, most notably, it is a very
    experienced staff, too. Virtually all of our middle and senior
    managers have experience from the 2000 census.
        Mr. McHenry. OK. All right.
        Well, Chairman Clay, I know there is an effort to get other
    folks asking questions, but I certainly appreciate your being
    very candid about this, and I hope that--you know, Mr. Jackson,
    most of us are--my communities are very interested in making
    sure the technology is available so that we can monitor the
    response rate, the mail response rate. I appreciate the widget
    that we're going to be able to put on our Web site, but we want
    to be able to do that sooner rather than later so we can follow
    this.
        Thank you so much.
        Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. McHenry--and point well taken.
        Ms. Chu of California, you're recognized.
        Ms. Chu. Yes.
        I know this hearing is about the overall preparedness of
    the census, but I want to talk about glitches that are
    happening right now, Mr. Jackson.
        In my area, there are residents that are complaining
    because they are living in one city, but they're receiving
    Census forms that are addressed to another adjoining community.
    For example, residents in my area who live in Hacienda Heights
    are getting Census forms that have La Puente listed as the
    city; and apparently, the director, Robert Groves, put
    something on his blog Tuesday morning in which he said: The
    actual location of your address has been verified for accuracy,
    and that it was a move by the Bureau to save money, and it
    streamlines how the forms are sorted and delivered to you by
    the U.S. Postal Office.
        But you can imagine----
        Mr. Jackson. Sure.
        Ms. Chu [continuing]. The kind of feeling that people have
    seeing the address listed incorrectly. And I also heard that
    what they're saying is that, you know, as far as the bar code,
    it's correct. So I want to know: Was this discrepancy really
    intentional?
        Mr. Jackson. Let me kind of explain how this came about.
        We--in working with the Postal Service, this is the largest
    public mailing that has ever occurred, 120 million addresses.
    The Postal Service, in some zip codes, uses a single city when
    they have mass mailings. Now, while we knew of this, we did not
    know exactly what city name the Postal Service would select in
    each zip code, and we probably underestimated the public
    reaction because, as you say--and I would agree with you--it
    certainly is alarming to some residents. There are other zip
    codes, like the zip code I live in, where it is not unusual for
    me to get mail labeled Colesville, even though I live in Silver
    Spring. However, I realize that's not the case for everyone,
    and we underestimated that.
        So we have tried to emphasize that the proper counting and
    tabulation in a jurisdiction does not depend on the city name,
    and I think that message is now beginning to get through to
    some public officials because we're beginning to see those
    statements.
        The proper allocation of a housing unit to its jurisdiction
    really occurs when we do the physical location determination;
    and about a year ago, we did an exercise called Address
    Canvassing, and we used GPS coordinates to make sure the
    physical housing unit was in the right block in your
    jurisdiction. So that's what Director Groves means when he says
    that it will not affect where you're counted.
        I would not minimize, however, the concern that the public
    has--and we've tried through our own media arms, through our
    partners and through our regional offices--to ensure residents
    that they will be counted in the right place. We did not
    anticipate this level of angst, and for that, I apologize.
    However, it does not have to do with where people will be
    counted.
        Ms. Chu. So this wasn't a move to save money?
        Mr. Jackson. It is a--it's an efficiency move on the part
    of the U.S. Postal Service, not necessarily the Census Bureau
    trying to save money. The Postal Service does this for reasons
    of efficiency and delivery accuracy.
        Ms. Chu. So how could we avert this from happening next
    time? Now it's too late, but----
        Mr. Jackson. Yes. It will not be that complicated now that
    we know the potential to cause, you know, public furor. I think
    we will have to have an agreement of some kind with the Postal
    Service to use only a single city name for a given area, and we
    have a list of names. It's just that we gave the post office a
    choice, and we probably need to work through a more mutually
    agreeable arrangement in 2020.
        Ms. Chu. OK. Thank you.
        Mr. Clay. Thank you, Ms. Chu.
        The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Cuellar, is recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Cuellar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Jackson and the other witnesses, thank you very much
    for being here with us.
        Mr. Jackson, first of all, I want to thank the Census for
    the heated map data. We've been keeping up with that from the
    very first day. We appreciate that.
        And I've been looking--as you know, I represent the
    southern part of Texas, a lot of the border areas, and I've
    been keeping up with, for example, the national average as of
    today. On March 25th, the national average was 20 percent on
    the participation rate. The State of Texas was 12. My home
    county, which is--and I've been talking to Dr. Groves, and I
    thank him for being down there--is 2 percent. Then I have Stark
    County, which is another border county, at 4 percent. Zapata,
    another county, at 7. Hidalgo, another one, at 6 percent. So
    you can see there is a little sink trend we've been seeing for
    a while.
        And as you know, in the past, I've been bringing up
    questions about how you're all spending that money. The
    advertising on the spending, as you'll recall--I don't know if
    you were here. The last time Dr. Groves was here, I was
    bringing up the point that, when you all came up with your
    budget on March 26, 2009 compared to the budget from February
    4, 2010, there was a decrease in budget from local ad buys for
    the hard-to-count communities, but at the same time, there was
    an increase in the budget for production and labor and so
    forth. So, you know, I'm one of those that I want to see the
    efficiencies in how you spend the best dollars for this.
        Are there any updates on the numbers for the budgets or do
    we still have the same lower amounts of local ads? And I'm not
    doing a comparison to 2010, because I know there was an
    increase, but I'm looking at the--when you had a budget in 2009
    and, of course, the latest budget. I just had a concern that
    you put more money for production and labor and less money for
    the hard-to-count, especially since I've been--and I told Dr.
    Groves I was going to followup, and I placed a phone call
    today, and I'm supposed to be talking to him tomorrow about the
    hard-to-count and that we're going to followup on this because
    we've been looking at this with a lot of interest.
        And, again, the heated map data--I think it's one of the
    best things the Census has done, and I want to congratulate you
    on that.
        Mr. Jackson. Yes, sir.
        Congressman, let me say that on the spending, the spending
    for local ethnic audiences is actually higher than it was in
    proportion to the spending for what we call ``diverse
    America.'' Now, you mentioned a different categorization in
    terms of production from paid media by--from actually buying
    airtime, so I'm not sure what you----
        Mr. Cuellar. Well, the reference was if we could save a
    little bit more money in production and labor, because I think
    one of the things--what happened, Mr. Chairman, was that you
    all were paying actors money, and every time you run an ad,
    they get a little fee.
        Mr. Jackson. I see.
        Mr. Cuellar. There would have been a lot of community--
    local trusted leaders--church leaders and other community
    leaders--in my district and other places that would have more
    impact, with all due respect, than some actor from L.A.--sorry,
    anybody from L.A.--or from somewhere else--Hollywood, should I
    say. And I think--in my area, if you were to put one of those
    local trusted leaders in one of those, I think it would have
    had more of an impact, and I think Chairman Clay and I have
    talked about this.
        But I do understand there has been an increase, but I'm
    trying to squeeze more dollars----
        Mr. Jackson. Right.
        Mr. Cuellar [continuing]. From the production and labor
    because, you know, without going into details, there was an
    increase there.
        Mr. Jackson. Right. Let me tell you what we are doing.
        We do have a reserve fund of about $7 million, and next
    week we will be looking at a summary of the data that you just
    mentioned, the daily response rates, which we track daily. We
    look at them daily, and we will be making decisions about where
    to strategically place additional ads and where possibly to
    spend additional money in newspapers. So we are, I think, where
    you want us to be on that.
        Mr. Cuellar. Yes, sir, and I appreciate that.
        I just wondered, just because when we met, Chairman Clay,
    with Dr. Groves and your staff, that was exactly the point
    we're talking about, the $7 million, and then we were going to
    be tracking. I think we're at the time now that Dr. Groves
    asked us to get back to him--and this is why I placed a phone
    call earlier today--to followup on that because, like I said,
    my home county, which I've been talking about, which is in the
    top 50 counties that are hard to count, according to your data,
    has 2 percent. And unless if it changed between the last time
    you updated the number--it's at 2 percent, and we have one at 4
    percent and one at 6 percent--way below the 20 for the national
    average. So I just wanted to----
        Mr. Jackson. Let me mention just a couple of other things,
    Congressman, because I want you to appreciate, if possible, the
    efforts we're undertaking to make sure we do count everyone
    there.
        Mr. Cuellar. And I do. I do.
        Mr. Jackson. We're doing a procedure called Update/
    Enumerate where we actually do the enumeration ourselves rather
    than mail out in parts of your area. We will be not only adding
    something to the strategic ads, but we have some special
    partnership efforts we'll be undertaking around April 10th that
    will put people on the ground to try to encourage respondents
    who have not responded by that point in time, and of course, we
    still have the replacement questionnaire that we will send out
    next week.
        Mr. Clay. Excuse me.
        If I may, Mr. Jackson, would you share with Mr. Cuellar and
    the subcommittee in writing the efforts that you're making in
    hard-to-count communities----
        Mr. Jackson. Certainly. Certainly. I'd be more than happy
    to and to meet with your staff.
        Mr. Clay [continuing]. In particular in south Texas.
        Mr. Jackson. Yes, we will. We'd be more than happy to.
        Mr. Cuellar. And, again, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
    thank you. I know you're all trying the best. I'm just trying
    to do my best to represent my district.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Clay. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Jackson, what is the--you are bringing in senior
    engineers from your major hardware and software vendors to
    review the PBOCS issue. I understand that even this Tuesday
    there were severe performance issues.
        What have your engineers found, and what are your immediate
    plans for remedy?
        Mr. Jackson. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.
        We have brought in engineers, not really to consult but to
    do, and there are parts of our configuration that have to do
    with operating systems, Oracle data bases and certain hardware
    configurations--network configurations--that are very powerful
    but are somewhat new to us. So to augment our technical
    resources, we have brought in consultants from each of those
    vendors to make sure that the way we are using their technology
    is appropriate.
        Mr. Clay. Sure.
        Real quickly, tell the subcommittee about the Bureau's
    contingency plans in the event of a data security breach.
        Mr. Jackson. We have a COOP program, a Continuity of
    Operations Program; and for data breaches, we have an
    established set of procedures that we go through. We have
    actually had to go through that a couple of times where the
    local managers have instructions as to how to secure the
    facility. We have at the Department of Commerce a reporting of
    incidents that goes on every 24 hours, and then we have
    protocols for contacting local officials to make sure that
    anything that requires law enforcement involvement is
    immediately invoked.
        Mr. Clay. Thank you so much for the response.
        Mr. Goldenkoff, can you give me your general opinion as to
    whether there is time to ensure that the Bureau's IT systems,
    particularly DAPPS and PBOCS, can meet their operational
    requirements?
        Mr. Goldenkoff. There is time, but it's running out.
        Mr. Clay. It's running out?
        Mr. Goldenkoff. That's the bottom line.
        I mean, as I said before, there are these fixed dates, and
    there's still a lot of testing that needs to be done. A lot of
    these release--not a lot--but the release that will be
    responsible for nonresponse followup, that has some known
    defects in it. That hasn't been fully tested yet, and as these
    tests are completed, it's possible that new defects will be
    found.
        Mr. Clay. Have they followed your recommendation as to how
    to shore this situation up?
        Mr. Goldenkoff. They have, but they--for example, we
    recommended better executive-level oversight, for example,
    better coordination among the different teams, and they've
    certainly done that, and we've given them credit for it; but in
    the end, there's these immutable deadlines and the workload
    that needs to be done, and from what we're seeing right now,
    it's going to be a challenge to complete all the testing to
    complete that workload in time for these operations to start.
        Mr. Clay. Not shaping up like it should. Thank you.
        Mr. Goldenkoff. It's worrisome.
        Mr. Clay. And, Ms. Gordon, let me just have you finish off
    the answers.
        Your quarterly report states that Census spent 15 percent
    less than it had planned for the 3 months ending in 2009. Is it
    unlikely that the Census will continue similar cost containment
    in the coming months?
        Ms. Gordon. Well, we would hope so, but we wouldn't
    necessarily anticipate that would be the case.
        What we have seen is a lot of variability of actual costs
    incurred as compared to the cost estimate, so--and we have
    recommended that Census really rigorously apply internal
    controls so that wages claimed and travel costs claimed are
    actually what was incurred, and so we--you know, we're
    encouraging Census to pay a great deal of attention to that to
    try to keep the costs on track.
        Mr. Clay. Thank you so much.
        Let me thank the entire panel for their testimony today. We
    appreciate your testimony and your willingness to come before
    the committee, and that concludes this hearing.
        Hearing adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 2:53 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]