Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

It is a pleasure to testify before you today on the status of Census 2000 operations. I have testified previously before you, Chairman Miller, when you were on the Labor appropriations subcommittee and I was Deputy Commissioner at the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But this is the first time I've presented testimony to you since coming to the Census Bureau nearly 2 years ago, and it is indeed a pleasure.

I will begin my testimony by discussing the success of Census 2000, as you requested in your letter of invitation. Over the last 2 years, former Director Prewitt on several occasions reported to you on various operational successes of the census. They included the fact that we had completed every planned operation on schedule, achieved higher than expected mail response rates, met our hiring goals, implemented a highly efficient and accurate data processing system, and so on.

These operational successes culminated in the release on December 28, 2000--3 days ahead of the legal deadline--of the state population totals to be used for the purpose of apportioning seats in the House of Representatives. At the same time, the Census Bureau announced that the resident population of the 50 states and the District of Columbia was 281,421,906--a 13.2 percent increase over 1990 and more than 6 million above the most recent precensus estimate.

The apportionment and resident population numbers are the first data to be released from Census 2000 and the only final results that will be released before March 2001, when the Census Bureau will deliver to states, on a flow basis, detailed small area data for use in redistricting.

The release of the apportionment counts fulfilled the requirement under Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution. But the apportionment numbers and all the successes we achieved over the last 2 years are subject to this caveat: While we know we conducted a "good census" operationally, we will not know whether we succeeded in improving the count of the population until we have results from the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation (A.C.E.). The A.C.E. is an independent survey of approximately 314,000 housing units designed to measure how many people were missed in the census and how many were erroneously included.

All A.C.E. data collection operations have now been completed and we have produced the first results from dual system estimation--that is, comparing the A.C.E. to the census. Today, we are removing the caveat and announcing that preliminary estimates from the A.C.E. indicate that the census was not only an operational success but was also successful in improving coverage of the population and in reducing the undercounts for some population groups.

I want to emphasize that the committee of Census Bureau professionals charged with recommending whether to use the results of the A.C.E. to adjust the census is still receiving and reviewing detailed tabulations and reports designed to assess the quality of both the census and the A.C.E. This committee, the Executive Steering Committee for Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation Policy (ESCAP), is analyzing census data and the A.C.E. data to determine whether using the A.C.E. to adjust the census figures would improve the results for use in redistricting. The ESCAP is scheduled to make its recommendation by February 28, with the final decision expected by March 5.

Now, I would like to reflect briefly on some of those elements of the "good census" that contributed to a significant improvement in coverage.

First, the Census Bureau used a multi-faceted marketing program to aggressively encourage householders to complete and mail back their census forms and to include themselves in the census. Based on the experience of declining response rates over the preceding three censuses, the Census Bureau had anticipated that 61 percent of households would return forms by mail in Census 2000. Partnerships with state, local, and tribal governments; community and advocacy groups; the private sector; religious organizations; and educational institutions were key to building support and removing obstacles to participation in the census. We used paid advertising for the first time in Census 2000, placing over $100 million in media buys designed to educate and motivate the public to respond. As part of the Census in Schools program, we provided lesson plans, wall maps, and take-home materials to classroom teachers so they could teach lessons on the census. In addition, we designed the questionnaires so that they would be easier to read and fill out and sent advance letters and reminder cards before and after the questionnaires were mailed out to increase response. We also offered multiple ways to respond to ensure everyone had a chance to include themselves in the census.

These cumulative efforts were successful in marketing the census. Approximately two-thirds of households answered the census by mail, exceeding our expectations on mail response.

Second, we were able to hire and retain enough highly skilled temporary staff, throughout the course of the census, to complete all operations on time. Because of our resourceful recruiting plan, research on pay rates and recruiting, and the attractive wages that we could offer because of the full census funding that the Congress provided, we were able to recruit some 3.4 million job candidates and eventually hire 960,000 people over the course of the census. Over 500,000 worked on the nonresponse followup operation, and through their hard work, we were able to complete the enormous task of personally visiting 42 million housing units slightly ahead of schedule.

Third, because of the timely completion of nonresponse followup, we had the time and resources to conduct eight other operations designed to improve coverage (plus additional re-enumeration efforts in selected areas). We called these operations "Quality Counts." Based on Census Bureau experience and using various quality indicators, we identified about 10 percent of the nation's housing units that we believed should be visited again in these review, verification, and clean-up operations. If we had stopped at the end of nonresponse followup, we would have provided an incomplete estimate of the population. The "Quality Counts" operations helped us improve coverage and the census estimate.

Fourth, for Census 2000, the Census Bureau used digital imaging and optical-character recognition technology for the first time to recognize handwritten answers in addition to blackened circles. This was a vast improvement over previous computer systems and allowed us to process the data faster and introduce quality assurance steps to be sure we had captured the data accurately. During the peak of questionnaire receipts, our data capture centers processed 3.3 million forms a day. Each bit of information on the captured census forms was sent over secured lines to the Census Bureau headquarters, where staff performed quality control checks to ensure we had complete data. Our improved data capture systems, with the ability to capture names, also meant that we could offer multiple options for responding to the census with confidence that we could find and remove duplicate questionnaires.

Census staff at headquarters, in the field offices, and in the processing centers, as well as our partnering contractors, can rightly take pride in these achievements, but many share the credit for a successful Census 2000 and deserve our thanks:

The American public, who helped to exceed expectations on mail response and who opened their doors to census enumerators.

The temporary census workers, who were dedicated, enthusiastic, and resourceful and who braved tough situations with, in a few cases, tragic circumstances to get the job done. For many this was more than a job, it was a mission to help their communities have a good count.

Our partner organizations--140,000 strong--who worked so hard, giving of their time and energy to participate in this great national event. And they include our many colleagues on advisory committees who provided essential review of census plans.

The Congress, for your oversight and for your support and vision in providing sufficient resources to offer attractive pay rates for temporary census workers and to conduct other operations important to the census.

And the Census Monitoring Board, the General Accounting Office, and the Inspector General's office, for substantial oversight that made this the most open census ever.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would bring to your attention a letter of January 17, 2001, from Mr. Chris Mihm, of the General Accounting Office, to then Secretary of Commerce Norman Mineta, announcing that Census 2000 has been removed from the GAO's list of high-risk federal government programs. That Census 2000 was on this list is a reminder of the great challenges the Census Bureau faced and overcame in conducting a successful census. In the letter, Mr. Mihm underscores the need and importance of planning for the 2010 census. Doing so will require completing Census 2000 evaluations that will shed further light on what worked well or didn't work in this census, eliminating the long form from the decennial census by collecting those data in the American Community Survey, improving the accuracy of our geographic database and Master Address File, and reengineering the census process through early planning. I encourage you, Chairman Miller and Members of the Subcommittee, to support 2010 planning, which needs to begin right away. That concludes my testimony. I will now be happy to answer any questions.