[House Report 106-88]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]






106th Congress                                                   Report
  1st Session           HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES                 106-88

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



 
               2000 CENSUS MAIL OUTREACH IMPROVEMENT ACT

                                _______
                                

 April 13, 1999.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______


  Mr. Burton, from the Committee on Government Reform, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 928]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Government Reform, to whom was referred 
the bill (H.R. 928) to require that the 2000 decennial census 
include either a general or targeted followup mailing of census 
questionnaires, whichever, in the judgment of the Secretary of 
Commerce, will be more effective in securing the return of 
census information from the greatest number of households 
possible, having considered the same, report favorably thereon 
without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
   I. Summary of Legislation.....................................     2
  II. Background and the Need for Legislation....................     2
 III. Legislative Hearings and Committee Actions.................     3
  IV. Committee Hearings and Written Testimony...................     3
   V. Explanation of the Bill....................................     3
  VI. Compliance with Rule XIII..................................     4
 VII. Budget Analysis and Projections............................     4
VIII. Cost Estimate of the Congressional Budget Office...........     4
  IX. Specific Constitutional Authority for This Legislation.....     5
   X. Committee Recommendation...................................     5
  XI. Congressional Accountability Act; Public Law 104-1.........     6
 XII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act; Public Law 104-4, Section
        423......................................................     6
XIII. Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) Section
        5(b).....................................................     6

                       i. summary of legislation

    H.R. 928, the 2000 Census Mail Outreach Improvement Act of 
1999, requires the 2000 decennial census to include a second 
mailing of census questionnaires, either targeted (to those 
households who have not yet responded by mail) or general (to 
each household included in the original mailing). This bill 
also gives the Secretary of Commerce the authority to choose 
which method (targeted or general mailing) will achieve the 
highest number of responses possible, and will be most feasible 
for the Census Bureau to carry out.

                ii. background and need for legislation

    Beginning in the early 1990s, the Bureau began planning for 
the 2000 Census and included the concept of a second mailing 
strategy. According to the original Bureau plan, the procedure 
for the mail survey during the first phase called for the use 
of a targeted second mailing, where all households who had not 
yet responded to the original census questionnaire would 
receive an additional form to complete and return by mail. The 
Census Bureau believed that using a ``full mail implementation 
strategy'' would increase mail response rates up to 6 percent.
    Additionally, the Bureau's intent to use the second mailing 
procedure was endorsed by recommendations from the National 
Academy of Sciences (NAS), after Congress asked them to study 
and provide ways to improve the accuracy and cost-effectiveness 
of the census. They too supported the use of a second mailing 
strategy, citing the Bureau's own research which demonstrated 
that a replacement questionnaire (in a targeted mailing 
setting) would considerably increase response rates. The mail 
survey procedures were very cost-effective because the increase 
in response rates would provide savings in follow-up costs. 
Conducting a second mailing could save up to $150 million by 
reducing field data collection costs. These savings also 
outweighed the additional expenditures onmail contacts, both 
direct and indirect costs such as postage and de-duplication of census 
forms from households who return two questionnaires.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ National Research Council, Commission on Behavioral and Social 
Sciences and Education, letter to Dr. Martha Farnsworth Riche, November 
10, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    After consultation with contracting vendors, the Bureau 
concluded that a second targeted mailing could not be conducted 
due to technological and time constraints. Rather, a second 
blanket mailing (a replacement questionnaire to all households, 
regardless of whether or not they have returned the original 
questionnaire) would be more feasible. The NAS agreed again 
that the benefit of increased mail response outweighs the cost 
of printing sufficient replacement forms and mailing one to 
each household.
    In the 1998 Dress Rehearsals for the 2000 decennial census, 
the second blanket mailing strategy was tested at two 
locations, and met all of the standards for increasing response 
rates. According to the Census 2000 Dress Rehearsal Report 
Card, in Columbia, SC, the response rate increased 8.6 percent 
for the short form, and 6.2 percent for the long form. 
Likewise, at the Sacramento, CA site, the response rate 
increased 7.9 percent for the short form, and 5.2 percent for 
the long form. In May of 1998, the Bureau decided to eliminate 
the second mailing due to difficulties in handling the de-
duplication of questionnaires.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Bureau of the Census, Census 2000 Decision Memorandum No. 54, 
May 11, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In July of 1998, the General Accounting Office (GAO) 
testified before the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs 
concerning the results of the second mailing from testing in 
the 1998 Dress Rehearsals. The GAO testified that, `` * * * the 
Bureau does not currently plan to use in 2000 a key ingredient 
of the response rate achieved during the dress rehearsal--a 
second mailing. According to a Bureau official, concerns about 
public confusion have contributed to the Bureau's decision not 
to use a second questionnaire mailing in 2000. The preliminary 
results of the dress rehearsal suggest that the Bureau may need 
to reconsider its decision. At both the South Carolina and 
Sacramento sites, the Bureau obtained approximately a 7 
percentage point ``bump'' in response rates by sending a second 
questionnaire to all households located in mailout/mailback 
areas. According to a senior Bureau official, this 7 percentage 
point increase represents real additions to the court and does 
not include duplicate submissions from households that already 
had responded.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, 
``Decennial Census: Preliminary Observations on the Results to Date of 
the Dress Rehearsal and the Census Bureau's Readiness for 2000,'' July 
30, 1998 (GAO/T-GGD-98-178).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Congress is concerned with obtaining the most accurate 
census possible. H.R. 928, The 2000 Census Mail Outreach 
Improvement Act, reestablishes the second mailing to achieve 
this goal. To best facilitate this endeavor, H.R. 928 grants 
authority to the Secretary of Commerce to choose which method, 
either targeted or blanket mailing, shall be used in the 2000 
Census.

            iii. legislative hearings and committee actions

    H.R. 928 was introduced on March 2, 1999 by the Honorable 
Dan Miller (R-FL). The bill was referred to the Committee on 
Government Reform on March 2, 1999, and it was referred to the 
Subcommittee on the Census March 10, 1999. The Subcommittee 
held a mark-up on March 11, 1999. No amendments were offered, 
and the measure was ordered favorably reported to the full 
Committee by a vote of 6-4.

              iv. committee hearings and written testimony

    The Committee did not hold any specific legislative or 
oversight hearings on H.R. 928. However, during an oversight 
hearing entitled ``Oversight of the 2000 Census: Examining the 
America Counts Today (ACT) Initiatives To Enhance Traditional 
Enumeration Methods,'' held on March 2, 1999, the issue 
addressed by this legislation was mentioned.

  v. explanation of the bill as reported: section-by-section analysis

    Section 1. Short Title. This Act may be cited as the ``2000 
Census Mail Outreach Improvement Act.''
    Section 2. This section requires the Secretary of Commerce 
to ensure that a second mailing will occur after the original 
mailing of census questionnaires in the taking of the 2000 
decennial census. The replacement questionnaire will be sent 
either to all households included in the original mailing, or 
to each household who does not respond to the original mailing. 
Whichever method is more effective in securing the return of a 
completed questionnaire from the greatest number of households 
will be left to the judgement of the Secretary. In making this 
decision, the Secretary of Commerce shall take into 
consideration factors such as the need for timely and accurate 
information, cost, and ease of administration.

                     vi. compliance with rule xiii

    Pursuant to rule XIII, clause 3(c)(1) of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, under the authority of rule X, clause 
2(b)(1) and clause 3(e), the results and findings from 
committee oversight activities are incorporated in the bill and 
this report.

                  vii. budget analysis and projections

    The budget analysis and projections required by section 
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are contained in 
the estimate of the Congressional Budget Office.

         viii. cost estimate of the congressional budget office

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                    Washington, DC, March 22, 1999.
Hon. Dan Burton,
Chairman, Committee on Government Reform,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 928, the 2000 
Census Mail Outreach Improvement Act.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark Hadley.
            Sincerely,
                                          Barry B. Anderson
                                              (For Dan L. Crippen).
    Enclosure.

H.R. 928--2000 Census Mail Outreach Improvement Act

    In conducting the decennial census in 2000, the Bureau of 
the Census will mail questionnaires to nearly 95 million 
households. H.R. 928 would require the bureau to mail a 
replacement questionnaire either to each household that does 
not respond to the original mailing or to all households. The 
bill would give the Secretary of Commerce the authority to 
choose whichever option he believes would result in the greater 
response rate.
    Based on information from the Bureau of the Census and 
subject to appropriation of the necessary amount, CBO estimates 
that implementing H.R. 928 would cost either $110 million--if 
replacement questionnaires are mailed just to nonrespondents--
and $275 million--if replacement questionnaires are mailed to 
all households. Based on the response rate for the 1990 census 
and information from the bureau, CBO estimates that around 40 
percent of all households will not respond to the original 
questionnaire. The bureau expects to spend about $160 million 
on postage for the original questionnaires and estimates that 
printing a second questionnaire for all households would cost 
$75 million. Based on the experience of the dress rehearsal of 
the 2000 census, CBO estimates that the bureau would spend $40 
million to process questionnaires from a second mailing to all 
households. CBO cannot predict which of the two options the 
Secretary of Commerce would choose for replacement 
questionnaires. Sending a second mailing to all households 
could increase the overall response rate more than a targeted 
mailing because the bureau could reach nonrespondents more 
quickly. However, it is unclear whether the difference in the 
overall response rate would be significant.
    In addition to the costs cited above, H.R. 928 could affect 
spending by the Bureau of the Census in two other ways, but CBO 
cannot estimate their effects. First, the bureau would likely 
incur additional costs to process more duplicate questionnaires 
if a complete second mailing is done. During the dress 
rehearsal, the bureau found that more than one-third of all 
second questionnaries that were returned were duplicates of 
original questionnaires. Second, because H.R. 928 could 
increase the rate of response by mail, it could reduce the 
costs for having temporary employees telephoning or visiting 
households that did not respond to the questionnaire.
    H.R. 928 would not affect direct spending or receipts; 
therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply. H.R. 928 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose no 
costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
    The CBO staff contact is Mark Hadley. This estimate was 
approved by Paul N. Van de Water, Assistant Director for Budget 
Analysis.

       IX. SPECIFIC CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY FOR THIS LEGISLATION

    Clauses 1 and 18 of Article 1, Sec. 8, and Article 1, Sec. 
2 of the Constitution grant Congress the power to enact this 
law.

                      X. Committee Recommendation

    On March 17, 1999, a quorum being present, the Committee on 
Government Reform ordered the bill favorably reported.
    Date: March 17, 1999.
    Summary: Final Passage of H.R. 928.
    Offered by: Hon. Dan Miller.
    Approved by Record Vote, 23 Ayes to 20 Nays.
    Vote by Members: Mr. Burton--Aye; Mr. Gilman--Aye; Mrs. 
Morella--Aye; Mr. Shays--Aye; Ms. Ros-Lehtinen--Aye; Mr. 
McHugh--Aye; Mr. Horn--Aye; Mr. Mica--Aye; Mr. Davis of 
Virginia--Aye; Mr. McIntosh--Aye; Mr. Souder--Aye; Mr. 
Scarborough--Aye; Mr. LaTourette--Aye; Mr. Sanford--Aye; Mr. 
Barr--Aye; Mr. Miller--Aye; Mr. Hutchinson--Not Voting; Mr. 
Terry--Aye; Mrs. Biggert--Aye; Mr. Walden--Aye; Mr. Ose--Aye; 
Mr. Ryan--Aye; Mr. Doolittle--Aye; Mrs. Chenoweth--Aye; Mr. 
Waxman--Nay; Mr. Wise--Nay; Mr. Owens--Nay; Mr. Towns--Nay; Mr. 
Kanjorski--Nay; Mrs. Mink--Nay; Mr. Sanders--Nay; Mrs. 
Maloney--Nay; Ms. Norton--Nay; Mr. Fattah; Mr. Cummings--Nay; 
Mr. Kucinich--Nay; Mr. Blagojevich--Nay; Mr. Davis of 
Illinois--Nay; Mr. Tierney--Nay; Mr. Turner--Nay; Mr. Allen--
Nay; Mr. Ford--Nay; Ms. Schakowsky--Nay.

    XI. Congressional Accountability Act; Public Law 104-1; Section 
                               102(b)(3)

    H.R. 928 requires the Secretary of Commerce to include 
either a general or targeted followup mailing of census 
questionnaires in taking the 2000 Decennial Census. The Act 
does not apply to the House of Representatives or to the 
Senate, thus H.R. 928 does not apply to Congress.

    XII. Unfunded mandates Reform Act; Public Law 104-4, Section 423

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not impose 
any Federal mandates within the meaning of section 423 of the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (PL 1044).

   XIII. Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) Section 5(b)

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not establish 
or authorize establishment of an advisory committee within the 
definition of 5 U.S.C. App., Section 5(b).

                             MINORITY VIEWS

    H.R. 928, which requires either a blanket or targeted 
second mailing of the census questionnaire, should not be 
supported. To get a fair and accurate census, we must allow the 
professionals at the Census Bureau to make the many critical 
decisions involved in taking a census, based on their expertise 
and experience. Those Census Bureau professionals have told us 
that conducting a second mailing is a bad idea.
    Current law requires that the census start on April 1, 
2000, that state population totals be reported to the President 
and Congress by December 31, 2000, and that final population 
counts be reported to the states by April 1, 2001. During that 
time, census takers must assign 275 million people to 120 
million addresses on a fixed, single date, April 1, 2000--a 
task of mind boggling scope and complexity.
    H.R. 928 compromises the ability of the Census Bureau to 
meet these deadlines and would have the effect of blocking the 
use of modern statistical methods in determining the final 
totals from the 2000 Census. The statutory deadline established 
by 13 U.S.C. for the release of those totals is April 1, 2001. 
Any second mailing would add a minimum of six weeks before 
nonresponse follow-up could begin, making it impossible for the 
Census Bureau to use modern statistical methods and meet the 
April 1, 2001, deadline. The Census Bureau would be forced to 
release less accurate numbers on April 1, 2001, which were not 
corrected for overcounts and undercounts.
    The Census Bureau tested a blanket second mailing in a 
dress rehearsal and it didn't work. About 40% of the ``second'' 
forms returned during the dress rehearsal were duplicates. If 
that rate were repeated at the national level in 2000, there 
would be over 11 million duplicates. As Census Bureau Director 
Dr. Kenneth Prewitt explained, ``For Census 2000, a work load 
of this magnitude would significantly delay data processing 
operations and potentially introduce significant errors into 
the data. In addition, our dress rehearsal experience indicated 
that the public was confused by the second mailing.'' 
1 In addition, a National Academy of Sciences panel 
advises that a blanket second mailing could reduce the accuracy 
of the census.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Kenneth Prewitt, Director of the Census Bureau, Memorandum for 
the Secretary, 3 (March 16, 1999).
    \2\ National Research Council, Committee on National Statistics 
Panel on Alternative Census Methodologies, Measuring a Changing Nation, 
Modern Methods for the 2000 Census, 22 (February 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There is also fault with a targeted second mailing. Dr. 
Prewitt stated, ``printing vendors informed us they would 
require at least a month to send a second mailing targeted only 
to nonresponding housing units. A targeted second mailing 
would, thus, have significantly delayed the start of the 
nonresponse follow-up operation. Our experience and research 
indicate that the longer the delay between Census Day and the 
start of nonresponse follow-up, the more inaccuracies are 
introduced to the census data.'' 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Memorandum for the Secretary, supra note 1, 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The value of a second mailing is substantially outweighed 
by the risks that it introduces in other census operations and 
the delays it would cause in achieving the most accurate census 
totals.

                                   Henry A. Waxman.
                                   Tom Lantos.
                                   R.E. Wise, Jr.
                                   Major R. Owens.
                                   Edolphus Towns.
                                   Paul E. Kanjorski.
                                   Patsy T. Mink.
                                   Bernard Sanders.
                                   Carolyn B. Maloney.
                                   Eleanor H. Norton.
                                   Chaka Fattah.
                                   Elijah E. Cummings.
                                   Dennis J. Kucinich.
                                   Rod R. Blagojevich.
                                   Danny K. Davis.
                                   John F. Tierney.
                                   Jim Turner.
                                   Tom Allen.
                                   Harold E. Ford, Jr.
                                   Jan Schakowsky.

                                

