<DOC>
[106th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:61820.wais]
OVERSIGHT OF THE 2000 CENSUS: A MIDTERM EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL UPDATE
OF CENSUS ADDRESSES PROGRAM
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CENSUS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 29, 1999
__________
Serial No. 106-71
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
61-820 CC WASHINGTON : 2000
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland TOM LANTOS, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
STEPHEN HORN, California PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana DC
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
Carolina ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
BOB BARR, Georgia DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
DAN MILLER, Florida JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas JIM TURNER, Texas
LEE TERRY, Nebraska THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
GREG WALDEN, Oregon JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
DOUG OSE, California ------
PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho (Independent)
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
Kevin Binger, Staff Director
Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director
David A. Kass, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian
Carla J. Martin, Chief Clerk
Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on the Census
DAN MILLER, Florida, Chairman
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
------ ------
Ex Officio
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Thomas B. Hofeller, Staff Director
Esther Skelley, Professional Staff Member
Amy Althoff, Clerk
David McMillen, Minority Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on September 29, 1999............................... 1
Statement of:
Heinz, Jessica, Los Angeles City Attorney's Office; and
Michel Lettre, assistant director, Maryland Office of
Planning................................................... 109
Maguire, Jack, planning/GIS manager for the county of
Lexington, SC; George Pettit, assistant town manager of
Gilbert, AZ; and Don Rychnowski, executive director of the
Southern Tier West RP&D Board.............................. 61
Mihm, J. Christopher, Associate Director, Federal Management
and Workforce Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office....... 35
Prewitt, Kenneth, Director, Bureau of the Census, accompanied
by John Thompson, Associate Director for Decennial Census,
Bureau of the Census; and Preston Jay Waite, Assistant to
the Associate Director for Decennial Census, Bureau of the
Census..................................................... 9
Letters, statements, et cetera, submitted for the record by:
Davis, Hon. Danny K., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Illinois, prepared statement of................... 8
Heinz, Jessica, Los Angeles City Attorney's Office, prepared
statement of............................................... 112
Lettre, Michel, assistant director, Maryland Office of
Planning, prepared statement of............................ 125
Maguire, Jack, planning/GIS manager for the county of
Lexington, SC, prepared statement of....................... 64
Maloney, Hon. Carolyn B., a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York:
Information concerning new construction program.......... 91
Letter dated February 9, 1999............................ 27
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Mihm, J. Christopher, Associate Director, Federal Management
and Workforce Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office,
prepared statement of...................................... 38
Miller, Hon. Dan, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Florida:
Followup questions and responses......................... 97
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Pettit, George, assistant town manager of Gilbert, AZ,
prepared statement of...................................... 74
Prewitt, Kenneth, Director, Bureau of the Census, prepared
statement of............................................... 15
Rychnowski, Don, executive director of the Southern Tier West
RP&D Board, prepared statement of.......................... 84
OVERSIGHT OF THE 2000 CENSUS: A MIDTERM EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL UPDATE
OF CENSUS ADDRESSES PROGRAM
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1999
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on the Census,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
room 2247, Rayburn Building, Hon. Dan Miller (chairman of the
subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Maloney, Ryan, and Davis.
Staff present: Thomas W. Brierton, deputy staff director;
Jenifer M. Safavian, chief counsel; Timothy J. Maney, chief
investigator; David Flaherty, senior data analyst; Erin
Yeatman, press secretary; Esther Skelley, professional staff
member; Jo Powers, assistant press secretary; Amy Althoff,
clerk; Michelle Ash, minority counsel; David McMillen and Mark
Stephenson, minority professional staff members; and Ellen
Rayner, minority chief clerk.
Mr. Miller. Since we have a quorum present with the two of
us, we will proceed. We will start with an opening statement
that I will present, and then Mrs. Maloney will have one, and
then we will proceed to our first panel.
As we begin this hearing today, please allow me to
reiterate the very important goal that we all share, that we
all want the most accurate census possible next year. As a
result, we are here today to receive an interim update on the
local update of census addresses [LUCA] for the 2000 census. We
have heard glowing reports from the Census Bureau on the LUCA
process and some mixed results and reports from out in the
field. So, we're here today to see just how the process has
been working. Please allow me to reiterate that this is an
interim report. The LUCA report is ongoing, and this is in no
way intended to be a final report of the process.
The GAO findings that I will be referring to is a review of
the city-style address portion of LUCA, or LUCA 1998. It is my
understanding that the city-style addresses cover approximately
80 percent of the Nation's homes. The LUCA program was designed
to improve the accuracy of the decennial census by partnering
the Census Bureau with local and tribal governments to review
and correct the master address file. The master address file is
an address list that identifies all housing units nationwide.
It is really the building block for the census, and it is
imperative that the address file be as complete and accurate as
possible.
In fact, in a 1995 report, the National Academy of Sciences
asserts, ``Approximately one-half of the census undercount is
attributable to missing housing units.'' The LUCA program was
made possible by the Census Addresses List Improvement Act of
1994, which for the first time ever authorized representatives
from both local and tribal governments to review and correct
census address files prior to census day. The Census Bureau has
asked local governments to review address lists to help
pinpoint individual and clusters of missing housing units,
misallocations, or incorrectly displayed political boundaries.
Who better to point out corrections than local officials who
live and work in that area? I must say, that while I think LUCA
is a great program and a vital part of the decennial census, I
would be remiss if I said I believed LUCA alone replaces the
need for post census local review. I believe that a review or
quality check of the address list is essential before and after
census day.
We have heard previously that LUCA has garnered a very high
participation rate. However, the GAO's finding on LUCA
quantified the participation rate at 40 percent. I am somewhat
perplexed with this discrepancy. I'm still concerned that if we
rely solely on LUCA, the vast majorities of cities and towns
not participating in LUCA will have no quality control at the
local level.
According to GAO's findings, the Census Bureau has received
over 7.7 million suggested changes to the address file as a
result of the LUCA 1998 process. Over 5 million of these
suggestions were additions to the address file. These
preliminary numbers are extraordinary to me.
While checking the housing counts before the census through
LUCA is worthwhile--I believe it pales in comparison to the
quality check done after census day. And the more we can
involve local government in the census, the better.
With that being said, I look forward to an open and
informative discussion today. It is my understanding that the
Census Bureau is presently in the late stages of the LUCA
program. We are honored to have Dr. Prewitt with us again here
this week to report on how the LUCA program is working thus
far. The GAO has conducted a survey on the ongoing process and
we will hear their preliminary findings.
In addition, we have several participants in the LUCA
program who have traveled here from around the country to
provide us with some firsthand insight into the process, and I
look forward to hearing witnesses today. Mrs. Maloney.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Dan Miller follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.002
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased that
you have scheduled this hearing on the local update of census
addresses program [LUCA]. The program is new for the 2000
census and designed to correct some of the problems of the
past. Even though the program is not yet completed and final
results are not available, congressional oversight of LUCA is
entirely appropriate.
I also want to thank you for accommodating the wishes of
the minority with regard to witnesses. I would like to mention
and applaud the hard work of Representatives Thomas Sawyer and
Thomas Petri, former members of the Census Subcommittee. After
the 1990 census, they realized that one of its major
deficiencies was the way in which local governments had the
opportunity to review addresses in their jurisdictions. They
worked together in a bipartisan manner to improve the process,
and the result was Public Law 104-130, the Census Address List
Improvement Act of 1994.
I believe this program represents a tremendous improvement
over the local review as it was conducted in 1990. LUCA is a
partnership between the Census Bureau and local and tribal
governments across the Nation. It marks the first time that
these governments can review and update the address list of the
census before the census is actually conducted. The hope is to
produce a master address file which is substantially more
complete than in the past by drawing on the expertise of local
governments.
The local review program, which occurred after the 1990
census, was judged a failure by the Congress and outside
experts. It only added 80,000 households, and half of those
were in two cities, Detroit and Cleveland. Less than 25 percent
of eligible governmental units participated. By contrast, the
Census Bureau reports that to date, the new LUCA program has
added well over 2 million addresses. In areas with city-style
addresses, participation has more than doubled what it was in
1990; 52 percent of all eligible governments, representing 85
percent of the covered households, have participated.
Mr. Chairman, I think this is a promising start. I am sure
there are problems; there are bound to be in a program as large
and as complex as LUCA. Those problems will need to be examined
and addressed. I hope we can do that in the bipartisan manner
in which the program was developed. Thank you very much. I look
forward to the witnesses.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.003
Mr. Miller. Mr. Davis, do you have an opening statement?
Mr. Davis. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. As a
matter of fact, I do. First of all, let me commend you for the
number of these hearings that are being held and for the
efforts that you are making to make sure that we provide the
kind of oversight and have the kind of information that is
necessary to understand what is going on with the Census Bureau
and the taking of the census. So, I want to thank you for
convening this hearing.
And as census day rapidly approaches, I think, too, that it
is important we continue to evaluate our plan to ensure we have
the most accurate census in the history of our country. This
partnership between the Census Bureau and local governments is
one that is commendable. Tribal governments, especially,
nationwide should lead to a vast improvement in accuracy and
completeness of the address list for the 2000 census.
This pre-census local review provides a real opportunity
for local governments to get involved earlier in the process
and to help improve the outcome of the 2000 census. In 1990,
local and tribal government officials were allowed only 15 days
to review the number of addresses in each census block. LUCA
will provide 3 months for participants to review the address
list and related maps.
I'm also pleased that of the 16,030 eligible local and
tribal governments, that 8,400 participated in the LUCA program
for city-style addresses. This represented 52 percent of the
eligible governmental units. Those governments included 85
percent of the eligible housing units. There are also reports
that of the over 30,000 governments in non-city-style areas,
that 10,779 governments participated.
I look forward to hearing the testimony of Dr. Prewitt with
respect to some of the challenges and successes that we have
encountered to date. In addition, I look forward to the
testimony of other witnesses who will share with us today. So,
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to this hearing.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Danny K. Davis follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.004
Mr. Miller. Thank you. If I could ask the first panel to
stand and raise your right hands if you would, please?
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Miller. Thank you. And let the record acknowledge that
the three witnesses have responded in the affirmative. And with
that, Dr. Prewitt, it's a pleasure to have you here again, as I
said, this week.
STATEMENT OF KENNETH PREWITT, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF THE CENSUS,
ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN THOMPSON, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR DECENNIAL
CENSUS, BUREAU OF THE CENSUS; AND PRESTON JAY WAITE, ASSISTANT
TO THE ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR DECENNIAL CENSUS, BUREAU OF THE
CENSUS
Dr. Prewitt. Chairman Miller, it is a particular pleasure
to be here today. The last time we met, we obviously started
the testimony by reiterating our concern about the continuing
resolution. You produced for us, and we are really deeply
appreciative of that. Had we gone into the next 2 or 3 weeks
without the mark that has now been presented to the President,
it would have been very difficult for the census, as you know.
So, we are extremely pleased by the work that you did.
Mr. Miller. I might note that, you know, if there is
another CR needed, this is really for 4 weeks rather than 3
weeks. Is that correct?
Dr. Prewitt. Yes.
Mr. Miller. But we have done as good a job as we could and,
of course, everybody is working together on this, so I am glad.
I appreciate those comments.
Dr. Prewitt. And, it is a pleasure to talk to you today
about the LUCA program. I am accompanied by John Thompson, the
Associate Director for Decennial Census, and also Jay Waite,
the Assistant Director for the Decennial Census. I will provide
the oral testimony, and if there are technical questions, we
may turn to them.
Mr. Chairman, in your opening comments you commented that
if we relied solely on LUCA, you would be concerned, and I
appreciate that concern. The first, most important point to
make is that LUCA is part of a multi-part process of
interlocking, often overlapping programs designed to create our
address file. An address file can be improved then from one of
three sources, and to put LUCA in context, I want to just
briefly reiterate that principle.
When efforts to compile the address list for census 2000
began in the early part of this decade, and they won't be
completed until next year, fiscal year 1999 saw the completion
of key steps in building the address list. In August, we
completed preparation for the address label tape that now
contains about 119 million addresses. The work of our local and
tribal partners in LUCA contributed heavily to this
accomplishment, but we also used the U.S. Postal Service and
our own review and address listing operations. So, this is a
three-tiered strategy, not a single-tiered strategy.
It has been a massive complex job, it has involved
developing and running nearly 1,300 individual computer
programs, involving more than 530 million lines of code. The
programs were designed to crate 440,000 large-format multicolor
map sheets, nearly 10 million pages of address listings for
review by local and tribal governments, more than 6.1 million
smaller black and white map sheets, and 13 million pages of
address lists for use by our field staff. So, it is large and
complicated.
I want to very quickly describe the major procedures in the
two different regions--mailout/mailback and then in update/
leave. To remind us all, what we call mailout/mailback focuses
primarily on the 96 million housing units that have city-style
addresses, where they get their mail from the post office.
Examples of a city-style address would be 101 Main Street or
310 Oak Street, Apartment A. These are mostly, but not
exclusively, in major urban centers. In these areas we compile
the address list and the Postal Service delivers the
questionnaires.
Since early in the decade, the Bureau has been working to
find a way to improve the address list and to correct the
deficiencies in the 1990 development process. Early is the key
word. At this point in the last census, we had minimal input
from the U.S. Postal Service and minimal to nonexistent input
from the local and tribal governments in compiling our address
list. For 2000, then, we have a completely different order of
engagement already with these two other major partners.
Working with the U.S. Postal Service has identified new
streets that have been built since the 1990 census. We have
added these streets and associated address information to our
geographic data base, and we have updated the address list with
new housing unit addresses built since the 1990 census.
This process added approximately 7 million addresses to the
base list that we had carried over from 1990. Then, of course,
in addition to cooperation with the Postal Service, we have
worked with our LUCA partners, and I will discuss that in more
detail below. Members of the committee have already
acknowledged, or noted, approximately half of the eligible
governments, or about 8,400 have participated. Our current
estimate is these jurisdictions represent 91 percent of all
addresses in the mailout/mailback areas.
In addition then to the Postal work and the LUCA work, we
have conducted our own block canvassing operation. To ensure
uniform quality and a complete census address list, regardless
of LUCA participation, the Census Bureau field verified the
entire mailout/mailback portion of the address list. This
operation took place the first half of 1999 and identified
additions, address corrections, and deletions to the address
file.
In my written testimony there is one attachment, a one very
straightforward table, which I will refer to briefly at this
moment. It illustrates the effect of LUCA and block canvassing
on the address list for the mailout/mailback areas. You'll see
at the top that the original master address file had addresses
that number slightly over 90 million. That is after we had done
the work with the Postal Service. If you go down to the bottom,
you will see it is now 96 million, which means that the
combination of LUCA, block canvassing, and address listing by
the Bureau has added 6 million addresses. You also will see
that under the additions, which initially numbered 11 million,
that a large number of them came from both LUCA and block
canvass. That is about 3 million. Block canvass alone found
5\1/2\ million, and the LUCA process, as it has already been
noted, found about 2 million independently, slightly more than
2 million.
However, an address list correction process also includes
deletes. And as you look at the numbers there, you see that we
found it necessary to delete as many as 5 million addresses.
The vast majority of those were deleted through our block
canvass operation, and then there is some conversion issues as
well. But that gives you an overview--and I want to stress--an
overview of the fact that we have had more than one operation
going on in order to assure the best city-style address list
that we can construct.
Let me then quickly refer to the update/leave areas and how
we have conducted those operations. That area includes about 24
million housing units. They have many different kinds of
addresses, mostly in small towns, rural areas, where address
systems have less geographic structure. An address might be
Rural Route 1, it might be a Postal Box number. In this area,
as we have stressed before, census enumerators will deliver
questionnaires to every housing unit on the list, and they will
at the same time check for any missing addresses.
In the update/leave area, the Census Bureau created the
initial 2000 address list through a systematic field operation
called address listing. Temporary Census Bureau staff visited
every housing unit in their assignment areas to obtain, where
possible, the occupant's name, mailing address, and telephone
number. If a housing unit did not have a clearly posted
address, the address lister recorded a location description. In
all cases, the address lister also recorded the relevant census
geographic codes to document the location of each housing unit
and noted the housing unit's location on the Census Bureau map.
The Census Bureau then keyed the addresses and related
information to add it to the address list. This process listed
approximately 24 million addresses.
Then as we had done in the city-style areas, we turned to
our local partners through the LUCA program and invited nearly
30,000 local and tribal governments, entirely or partially
covered by the address listing operation, to review the
relevant portions of the census 2000 address list. And, it has
been noted about 10,000 or 36 percent of those units have
participated in the program. This represents about two-thirds
of all addresses in the update/leave areas.
Approximately 5,000 of the governments then returned
corrected block counts and identification from about 114,000
blocks. We have now rechecked our address list for those
blocks, added the corrected information where appropriate
through the master address file and, of course, we are now in
the process of sending our results back to our LUCA partners.
To complete the LUCA process, we provide to each of the
participants that have sent in corrections our response to
their suggestions. This is called final determination. They can
use the results to decide whether they wish to appeal any
address to the Central Address List Review Appeals Office that
has been established by the Office of Management and Budget.
Participants will have 30 days to review the list and file an
appeal. By law, the appeals are all to be decided before the
decennial census date in order to allow sufficient time to
prepare and deliver questionnaires.
In late 1999, the Census Bureau will also provide an
opportunity for participating governments to review the list of
special place addresses. As has been mentioned before to this
committee, local and tribal governments with city-style
addresses will also have an opportunity beginning in January to
identify newly constructed housing units that we will need to
visit to determine if they should be enumerated.
We also will continue to update the address file with work
from the U.S. Postal Service. We call these the refreshes from
the USPS information. The last will be included in January
2000, and the additional addresses from these refreshes will be
delivered questionnaires.
The process as described covered more than 99 percent of
the housing units in the United States and Puerto Rico. In very
remote areas, and areas with significant seasonal resident
population, the Census Bureau will employ a list method of
enumeration. That is a very quick overview.
Mr. Chairman, I now will address the three specific issues
listed in your letter of invitation. Your first question:
illustrate the participation rates of eligible local
governments in the LUCA program and explain the Census Bureau's
definition of participation.
We define as participating, those governments that received
address materials for review and have not, to our knowledge,
officially dropped out of the program. In order to receive
materials for review, localities had to express an interest in
participating and submit a signed pledge to maintain the
confidentiality of the materials.
A government jurisdiction could include both mailout/
mailback and update/leave procedures, and thus could be invited
to participate in both phases of the LUCA program. Based on
this definitional construct, the overall participation rate was
approximately 44 percent, and this did include 85 percent of
the country's addresses. The participation rate differed for
mailout/mailback areas. It was about 50 percent, and as I said
before, it included 91 percent of those addresses. The rate for
update/leave areas was about 36 percent and included about 67
percent of the addresses.
The second question, Mr. Chairman, was discuss the
percentage of households in the United States that are covered
by the LUCA program and explain some of the hazards to local
governments for not participating. As I have already suggested,
over 99 percent of the U.S. housing units are in areas covered
by the LUCA program.
With respect to the question of hazards, participating
governments used their knowledge about local situations to help
the Census Bureau improve the quality of the address list for
their areas. Governments that did not participate in LUCA
missed this opportunity to help ensure a complete and accurate
address file, but as I have explained, LUCA is just one of
several ways that we compile addresses.
We realize that many local and tribal governments may not
have the staff, resources, or expertise needed to participate
in the LUCA program. And thus, we have taken steps where
necessary to compensate for this. I have already mentioned the
block canvassing. We added this to ensure uniform quality and a
complete census 2000 address list regardless of LUCA
participation. The Census Bureau determined in the summer of
1997 that we needed to add a 100 percent field verification
activity in areas with mostly city-style addresses. We believed
this operation was needed to ensure address list completeness
and quality.
In the update/leave/mailback areas, census enumerators will
conduct a 100 percent field canvass of addresses at the time
they deliver questionnaires. And, we have significantly
strengthened quality control procedure in this area. These
efforts will help compensate for those areas that did not
participate in the LUCA program. To be emphatic on this point,
census 2000 includes a direct Census Bureau on-the-ground
effort covering the entire United States, walking every city
and town block and driving every rural road.
Your third question, Mr. Chairman: please address the
concerns of local governments regarding delays in returning the
corrected address lists to the local governments for LUCA 1998.
These are serious legitimate concerns. The Census Bureau
experienced problems and delays with its initial plan. We then
put in place a plan to correct these earlier problems and set
for ourselves a more realistic schedule.
We appreciate that changes to an announced program make it
difficult for our partners who, themselves, must plan ahead in
their use of staff and resources. Their frustration is
understandable. Below I will explain how the new plan does try
to compensate by reducing the operational burdens.
Nevertheless, I want to emphasize that we believe these to be
legitimate and serious concerns and that there were delays
between what we had promised we would deliver and what we did
deliver. The Census Bureau paid a price in a public relations
setback with our partners. But we believe the design changes
have improved the quality of the address list, which is the
goal that we all share.
That is, in exploring the issue of delay, I would like to
draw a distinction between delay and the ultimate product, and
the quality of the ultimate product. The Census Bureau has made
every effort to inform local and tribal officials as soon as
possible when program changes became necessary and to minimize
the affect of those changes whenever possible. It is my belief
that a significant majority of the local and tribal partners in
the LUCA program have found the Census Bureau to be responsive
to their concerns.
Indeed, since I wrote these words, Mr. Chairman, I have had
an opportunity to read the testimony the GAO will be presenting
to you momentarily, and we note with some pleasure that on the
key issue of the responsiveness, the quality, and the
timeliness of the Census Bureau's response on LUCA, somewhere
in the neighborhood of 10 to 15 percent of the jurisdictions
expressed concerns, which is to say in the neighborhood of 85
percent to 90 percent are reporting a very great or moderate
degree of appreciation of the timeliness and the quality and
responsiveness of the Census Bureau. We take some pleasure in
the report of the GAO on that score.
Indeed, I am pleased to report--I will not use glowing
language, but despite the problems we have encountered, our
local and tribal partners have been able to participate, those
that wish to, in what we now think is a successful program. It
is not a program without problems, but it is, in general, a
quite successful program, I think, as the GAO report confirms.
We encountered problems, but because we started early, we had
time to make refinements and to correct the problems. Through
our extensive outreach efforts, nearly twice as many local and
tribal governments are participating in LUCA as participated in
the 1990 program. And as we all now have said, these cover
about 85 percent of all addresses.
I earlier noted that we tried to reduce burden on our
partners compared to the original design. To illustrate this,
consider the issue of returning address corrections to the
local and tribal officials. Under our original plan, the LUCA
program would have had seven steps. Based on what we learned in
dress rehearsal, the Census Bureau simplified and streamlined
its plan. This change involved combining two steps, detailed
feedback, with the step of final determination.
Basically, this change means that we are simplifying the
program for participants. We will provide them the information
after we have verified, not just the disputed, all addresses
provided by the participants that do not match the results of
the block canvassing operation. It saves time in the schedule,
because we do not need to produce, deliver, and ship detailed
feedback materials separately from the final determination
material. This means that we are able to start verifying
addresses sooner because we will no longer have to wait for the
reaction of the local and tribal governments.
I should note--and this is an important point--we will mail
questionnaires even to addresses that did not match to the
block canvassing operation, but we will not conduct nonresponse
followup to those addresses. We will conduct nonresponse
followup only if the address has been verified. But all
addresses will get the questionnaire.
You have also heard about delays in our LUCA program for
update/leave. As a result of these delays, we are forced to
compress the review time that local and tribal governments had,
but it is important to stress that even as we compressed the
review time, we changed the procedure substantially. That is,
in the update/leave areas, the local participants were
initially expected to review on an address by address basis.
But now in the new program, they only have to review at the
level of housing unit counts at the block level, a
fundamentally different set of responsibilities.
So Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I would like to emphasize
that despite the problems that we have encountered--and they
have been serious, and we apologize for them--we think that the
LUCA program has contributed to the overall quality of the
address list. But second, that it is only one thing leading to
the quality of that address list. It is also our own on-the-
ground work that matters, and it is also our work with the post
office. I think that we do go into census 2000 with an address
list that is a vastly improved product from the one that we
used in 1990. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Prewitt follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.013
Mr. Miller. Thank you. Did Mr. Waite or Mr. Thompson have
any statement? We are going to try to stick with the 5-minute
rule, because we do have four panels today, and we want to make
sure we have plenty of time. I know that a lesson we learned in
1990 was the critical role of the address list and the
inadequacies of that list. And in the 1994 legislation that
Mrs. Maloney was referring to by Mr. Sawyer and Mr. Petri, the
Bureau is working to move it along. Briefly, summarize the
total improvements we have made in addressing this issue of
1990. I mean, this whole LUCA program is part of it, but how
much better are we off today than we were 10 years ago in 1989?
I mean, very briefly.
Dr. Prewitt. I think the best way to answer that is to
simply say that in 1989, we, essentially, were working simply
from a Postal address file. We never walked the streets. I am
going to make sure we get it right. I wasn't there in 1989. Mr.
Thompson was.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. In 1989, we had an address list for the urban
areas that we purchased from a commercial vendor, and we had
gone over the ground once, and we sent it to the post office on
two occasions. We had not had at that time a thorough review by
local governments of the list. In fact, we didn't have the
legislation that we now have that would have allowed for an
effective review. So basically, we sent a commercial list to
the post office for several updates, and we had gone over the
ground once with the list.
Now, compare that to 2000, we have actually received and
worked with the post office's address file all decade. We have
been matching it to the 1990 address list. We have been
improving our address list throughout the decade. We have been
able to share our address list with local governments for them
to review, and I think they have done that quite effectively,
and we have also gone over the ground. So, I think we are
considerably ahead of where we were in 1989.
Mr. Miller. Do you have a number of the additional costs? I
mean, I know we have put a lot more resources in it. We did
some supplemental before your time, Dr. Prewitt, but
supplementals to be able to do this master address list. Do you
have an idea of the total cost of the master address list? And
especially, even comparing it with 1990, because I think a lot
of people are critical of the high cost of the census compared
to 1990. And one of the costs is addressing. One of the major
problems of 1990 is the address list.
Dr. Prewitt. I could provide that information to the
committee. It is not readily available to me right now.
Mr. Miller. Well, I'd be interested in the additional cost.
We know the significance. I think the supplemental one was $100
million alone to do the list. Let me get clarification on this.
I mean, one of the disappointments, I think, is the low
participation by local governments. I wish there was more. You
know, we hear back in our districts and around the country of
local community leaders, how it is important and how they need
to participate. And then, I guess we are getting a 40 percent
participation rate, low 40's. So, that has to be disappointing.
Is that disappointing to you, this participation rate?
Especially for 2010, what we could do to even improve that?
Dr. Prewitt. Well, the most important thing we can do for
2010, of course, is to launch the American community survey,
and you have already expressed your own support of that, I
believe, because that is a constant updating of the address
list in the entire country, which means we will never have to
do this kind of just-in-time address file work again. Let us
say, we hope we don't have to reproduce the 2000 experience in
2010 if we have the American community survey in the field.
However, to your point, it is very hard to judge. You know,
I am sure some cities got this and took a look at it and said,
``Look, we have got a pretty clean little city here. There is
no reason to think there is going to be any problem.''
Therefore, they just set it aside. Some probably got it and
said, ``I don't understand this, we don't have the resources,''
and so forth, and set it aside. We have no way of knowing that.
I think the fact that it is 85 percent of the addresses in
the country is more important almost than its 40 percent. Our
number is slightly higher because we define participation
differently from the GAO. But whatever it is, whether it is 50
or 40 percent, that it is 85 percent of the addresses suggest
to us that the jurisdictions who had concern about their counts
have participated and cooperated. We have talked about
cooperation of the American public with the census before,
which is just basic response rate.
So, it is disappointing, but I think not fatal. If we did
not have the other two procedures; that is, the block
canvassing and the update/leave procedures, then we would be
more concerned. But because we are also walking this ground
ourselves, we think we can compensate for the absence.
Mr. Miller. Let me come up with a couple numbers. Even
though my time is up, I am going to stretch a little bit. The
GAO had one table that was 16,600 jurisdictions--9,700 to 9,800
agreed to participate, but only 5,800 sent back annotated
material. And, that is where the 40 percent, I am assuming,
comes from; but you are saying that 5,800 represents 85 percent
of the addresses. So, it is mainly the large cities. The small
towns are the ones that are failing to participate, I guess.
Dr. Prewitt. Yes, by definition. Unfortunately, a smaller
number of jurisdictions participated than the total number of
addresses.
Mr. Miller. Right.
Dr. Prewitt. Mr. Chairman, the people who got the
materials, and they did not send anything back to us, they may
have looked at them and said fine. It is not an indication that
there is a problem with the address list; it is quite the
opposite. It might be an indication of satisfaction.
Mr. Miller. You accepted 2.76 million changes. Is that
approximately the right number? I am having to look at the GAO
tables.
Dr. Prewitt. In this table, you will see that the LUCA
process added in the city-style areas 2.3 million addresses.
Those are still going through our own review. They haven't been
fully accepted yet. We don't imagine all of those will survive
to the final address file.
Mr. Miller. Oh, OK. Well, then there is still too many that
are still under appeal and are going to be----
Dr. Prewitt. Well, they are under review by us and then we
send them back, our own judgment. Then, they can go into appeal
if there is a difference of viewpoint.
Mr. Miller. There is a significant amount of recommended
changes from local governments. Some are valid and some aren't.
One question you have is how many of these communities are
missing. Could it be another 5 million changes and such? Well,
Mrs. Maloney.
Mrs. Maloney. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record,
I want to correct a statement in your opening remarks so that
we have accurate information for this very important issue. The
1995 National Academy of Science's report, Moderning the U.S.
Census, did say that about half of the people missed in the
census lived in housing units that were missed entirely.
However, as you know, we both received a letter last year
from the chairman of that panel, Dr. Charles Schultz,
correcting that statement because full evaluations were not
completed when the report was drafted. In fact, about two-
thirds of the people missed in 1990 lived in housing units that
were counted. Only one-third lived in housing units that were
missed entirely. This was a vast improvement over 1980 in terms
of completeness of the address list. I don't have the letter
with me now, but I would like to submit it following the
hearing for inclusion with the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.014
Mr. Miller. Without objection.
Mrs. Maloney. Dr. Prewitt, the chairman in his opening
statement reiterated his support for post census local review.
I just want to say that I continue to oppose this bill on this
issue, along with many State and local officials, the U.S.
Conference of Mayors, and many editorial boards across the
country. Dr. Prewitt, 6 months ago, the Bureau was opposed to
this bill. I assume you still are, but I would like to give you
the opportunity to state your position.
Dr. Prewitt. Well, I think for the reasons that the Census
Bureau felt initially, that the post census local review would
not be a major addition to our overall integrated census plan,
we have the same position today that we had then when it was
being discussed as legislation.
Mrs. Maloney. Dr. Prewitt, in your testimony you mentioned
that detailed feedback operation was combined with the final
determination process. I know that some local governments
viewed this as a lost opportunity to review the address list.
Would you elaborate on why this isn't the case and why the
final procedures are an improvement?
Dr. Prewitt. Certainly. Could Mr. Waite address that,
please?
Mr. Waite. Yes. The original plan involved taking the
addresses submitted by the community and matching them to what
we had done with our block canvass. Any mismatches, we were
going to be sending back to the community and saying, these we
didn't find. If you would like us to check again, we will.
Otherwise, we won't. That was the original plan. So the
communities would have had a chance to look at the full 2
million addresses that you see--2.3 million addresses on this
list. They would have had to make a decision then whether to
ask us to go back to verify them. And if they did, we would
have gone back and verified them.
The changed plan, basically, we just skipped that step and
said we will go back and verify all 2.3 million whether the
communities wanted us to go back, whether they were concerned
about those addresses or not. So, instead of just doing those
addressess that were questioned by the community, we are going
back and doing the verification for the entire set of addresses
that were initially submitted by the community but did not
match to our work on our block canvass. We are matching
everyone we would have done plus some additional ones that they
may not have called us to go back on again. Every address is
being verified. That is being done right now.
Then after that, we give the communities the list and we
tell them OK. Of the 2.3 million that we verified, we found
these, we did not find these. They still have an opportunity at
that point if they think that we didn't find all of the
addresses to appeal those addresses that we didn't find.
Mrs. Maloney. What lessons did the Bureau learn about LUCA
from the census dress rehearsal, and to what extent were they
incorporated for 2000?
Dr. Prewitt. To go back to Mr. Miller's earlier comment,
the most important thing we learned is we desperately needed a
seriously reengineered address file strategy. When we were in
South Carolina--also in Sacramento, but primarily in South
Carolina--we were operating on the basis of a preengineered--
pre-reengineered address file, and it had serious deficiencies.
Now, we didn't learn that from the dress rehearsal; it only
confirmed something we already suspected. But by far, the most
important thing was that we could not have gone into 2000 with
the address file that we had if we built it up from 1990 in the
conventional process. We learned a lot of other things as well
as a more specific sort, like some of the new kinds of
development that are occurring in the non-city-style areas.
Mrs. Maloney. My time is up. Just very briefly, the GAO
study indicates that the LUCA program has had considerable
success, but there remains room for improvement. What do you
think should be done to improve the LUCA program?
Dr. Prewitt. Well, with respect to the LUCA program for
census 2000, there are certain things we will learn from this
one if we do reproduce it for 2010, but I won't go into those
lessons at this stage. I think the most important thing that we
have to do in the remainder of the LUCA process for 2000 is we
have to deliver what we say we are going to deliver when we say
we are going to deliver it in a way that the local partners
have an opportunity to then plan ahead and do their work.
We think we are now on schedule doing that. I didn't bring
in all of our complicated procedure schedules, but with respect
to the LUCA stuff, the reconciliation is going to be on
schedule, and we have a new construction step, and it is very
important that we maintain schedule on that. We are fairly
confident, barring unforeseen operational complications, that
we will be able to sustain our current pledges.
Mrs. Maloney. My time is up.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. If I could,
you know, I was just sitting here thinking how great it is to
live in a democracy where there are always options. And, I note
that only about half of the local governments participated in
the LUCA. What kind of information are we given as to why the
other half pretty much chose not to participate?
Dr. Prewitt. Mr. Davis, I am sorry. We don't know. I would
like to know the answer to that question, and perhaps as GAO
continues to do its study of the LUCA process, it could inquire
into that. After the fact, we will try to find that out. In the
process of actually doing it, we simply send the materials out.
We send out the criteria----
[Tape 1, side 2.]
Dr. Prewitt [continuing]. Do you think it goes back to what
was suggested in the earlier comments by the chairman and Mrs.
Maloney, that because it represents such a small number of the
addresses, it is by definition smaller units. So, part of it is
their own absence of local resources. We were surprised. For
example, we sent materials to areas that turned out not to have
a computer so that we had to reformat it in such a way that
they could process these materials in a completely
nonelectronic environment. So, we are talking about a very
mixed array of resources in our 39,000 jurisdictions.
Mr. Davis. Haven't we also pretty much determined that it
would be in their best interest to participate? If they don't
have resources, in all likelihood, this might help them acquire
some resources that they don't have or make them eligible for
resources.
Dr. Prewitt. I think if we had known before this program
started what we know now, that the U.S. Congress, when it
passed the 1994 legislation, might well have considered what we
will do for those communities that don't have either personnel
resources, geographic resources, or technical resources. Is
there any way in which we can make sure that they have those
resources. We simply did not build that into the design for----
Mr. Davis. One of the things that always interest me when I
am driving is that I sometimes pass through towns that say,
welcome to Davisville, population 52.
Dr. Prewitt. Right.
Mr. Davis. And you know, I will look around, and it seems
as though there are more than 52 people there. Did we get
responses from those kind of towns?
Dr. Prewitt. See, I think that is exactly the point, Mr.
Davis. They would have gotten this packet of material or this
invitation letter and this promise of packet material and so
forth. And they said, what does that have to do with us here
with our 52 people in our 19 housing units? So, some of the
nonresponse clearly is attributable to the very smallness of
some of our jurisdictions.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have no
other questions.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Ford, questions?
Mr. Ford. I don't really have any. It is always good to see
the Director, and I sort of appreciate your willingness to come
before this committee any and every time we invite you, sir.
And I hope that at some point we let the guy go back and do his
job. But at this time I would rather yield to Mrs. Maloney. I
know she might have had some other questions.
Mrs. Maloney. I will yield to Mr. Ryan.
Mr. Ford. And if not, I would yield to my friend, Paul
Ryan, from Wisconsin if he is ready.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Ryan, do you have a question?
Mr. Ryan. Yes. Let me just ask you a quick question. What
about the rural areas? My concern is that the participation
rate with LUCA is a little lower with the rural areas than it
has been with the cities, 36 percent, I think, versus half.
What is it that we can do between now and the due date to beef
up the rural areas? Are you doing something to try and get more
local governments in the rural areas to participate?
Dr. Prewitt. Mr. Ryan, the big safety net with respect to
the rural areas is really in the process in which we are going
to conduct enumeration, which is kind of update/leave, which is
to say, we put somebody in a car, on a motorcycle, or in a
rowboat, or whatever it takes, depending upon the conditions,
to do every block. The entire country has been divided up into
blocks, and these will now be assigned to someone. In the rural
areas, someone will go to every one of those blocks, and they
already have a map with all of the units listed on it, but they
have got to redo that map, and they have got to add anything
that they can find that an earlier process missed, whether it
was a LUCA process or our own process.
Because we are our own post office in the rural areas, we
are not going to mail the things, we are going to deliver them
ourselves. That process is equivalent to, as I say, a complete
on-the-ground verification of every housing unit. Now, in
addition, and I haven't put this on the record before, we allow
our local offices and our regional offices a lot of flexibility
with respect to once they are into the process how they want to
consult with local leaders and say, ``Look, should we cross the
creek and go down around the woods? Are there some new mobile
units that didn't use to be there?'' So, there will be a lot of
that informal back and forth with local jurisdictions during
the process.
Mr. Ryan. What about the governments that didn't
participate, the 50 percent that didn't? Isn't it safe to
assume that if they did participate, we could get a couple more
million addresses onto the list? Is there any effort to try and
get that participation up, to try and go after those who didn't
send anything back?
Dr. Prewitt. At this stage, there would be no way we could
reinvite governments to participate and get their material in
time to process it. That is why it is much more useful for them
and for us to be on the ground and working informally with them
than to try to put them now into some formal process where the
deadline has passed.
Mr. Ryan. The process you just described about finding
people behind the woods and down the valley and improving the
maps, you are talking about doing that during the enumeration,
correct?
Dr. Prewitt. Correct.
Mr. Ryan. But obviously, it is a lot easier if they have
good and more accurate maps prior to enumeration so they know
that there is a valley there, that there are woods there, that
they are going to the right place. What if that is not
happening? What if they don't have a good map and maybe they
don't learn about it?
Don't you think that post census local review is the best
catchall, stopgap measure to make sure that: (A) When they are
enumerating, they don't have an accurate map, which in rural
areas it looks like it is a higher likelihood of not having
accurate maps; (B) If they still miss something when they are
actually enumerating, why don't we get that local county
executive/county board member to say, ``Hey, look, you missed
that valley, you missed those woods,'' and give them a 60-day
window to come back and correct it? What is wrong with that?
Dr. Prewitt. Mr. Ryan, just before we get to that, the
process I did not mention yet, or didn't stress, is that in the
update/leave areas, in the rural areas, we have got people
walking the roads and going across the creeks and so forth. We
have a very extensive quality control process. That is, we are
going to do a high sample of every one of those blocks--doing
quality control of every enumerator. So, that a block could be
walked twice; first by the enumerator, and then by a quality
control person who is then going to say to us at the end of the
day--``Aha, that person didn't do a very good job.'' Here is
three units, or two units, that they missed.
Mr. Ryan. And this quality control is going to be a local
government official or a----
Dr. Prewitt. No. He has got to be a Census Bureau person
who has to be sworn by us--all the confidentiality. In fact, I
happened to bring our manual for our update/leave areas, which
is a quite interesting set of instructions, maps, and how you
do all of this, and so forth. But it makes a major point that
your work is going to be checked every day. So, it is an extra
incentive, if you will, for complete coverage. Before we get to
that, that is before the post census local review question.
Mr. Ryan. One more thing--I see that I have run out of time
here. The last time we were here, I asked you if you could send
us the flight schedule of your media buys for your promotional
materials. We haven't received that yet. Could we please have
the flight schedule?
Dr. Prewitt. Yes. The reason you haven't--we actually
haven't----
Mr. Ryan. You may not have it ready yet. I----
Dr. Prewitt. No. We have a meeting this Friday with the
Secretary of Commerce. We have to go over it with them first
before we can release it, it turns out. But we are very close
to being able to do that. We haven't forgotten that you did
make that request.
Mr. Ryan. OK.
Mr. Ford. Can I just ask one followup question, Mr.
Chairman? I know my dear friend was asking questions regarding
how we are going to make sure we can reach all the rural areas,
and even some of the urban areas, and how we ensure we follow
with the governments that have not responded. I know the
question might have been asked before I got here for my
colleagues.
Would you, based on what you know about 10 years ago, tell
me where they were in terms of being prepared to get an
accurate count. Are we better off based on objective data to
the extent that you can be objective and not be biased. Are we
better off today in terms of being prepared to get an accurate
count than we were 10 years ago with LUCA? I know we had post
census then, and if I am not mistaken, it was a bipartisan
effort, Sawyer and Ridge, I guess the Governor now of
Pennsylvania, pulled together to try to fix some of the
problems they might have had, but would you say we are better
off now in terms of being positioned to get an accurate count
than we were 10 years ago?
Dr. Prewitt. Congressman Ford, we really do believe we are
by a wide, wide margin. At this time in the 1990 census, we had
had no interaction to speak of with the local governments about
the address file. And, we had not very thick interaction with
the U.S. Postal Service. So, we have added two major
components, if you will; that is, the LUCA program and our work
with the Postal Service, to improve this address file. And I
think the chart, which we did go over just before you were able
to come, suggesting that we have gone from a base list just
with the post office work of 90 million to now with our block
canvassing and our LUCA program to 96 million, suggests that if
there are that many addresses to have been added in the last
year's work, that means that had we not done the work that we
did, we would have gone into the census 6 million addresses
short.
Now, is that 6 million, is it really 6\1/2\, is it really
5\1/2\? We won't know until we are out in the field. But, it is
not the difference in six and zero. We added 6 million
addresses, or there will be somewhere in that number added by
these processes.
Mr. Ryan. If my colleague will yield----
Mr. Ford. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ryan [continuing]. Just to add a statement, not really
a question. I think LUCA is a bipartisan thing, but so was post
census local review in 1990. That was bipartisan, as well. I
believe that we should use every tool we have to try and
improve enumeration. It is wonderful that we have added 6
million addresses. That is great. We can add 6 million more. I
mean, we already know that LUCA was by best estimates 50
percent successful, meaning 50 percent returned to us, or
something around that number. So, we know there are addresses
we don't have out there. That is why I think on a bipartisan
basis, post census local review in addition to LUCA is just
giving us more tools to make it a more perfect enumeration. So
with that, I yield back.
Mr. Ford. It was bipartisan, too, not to explode these
doggone spending caps that are about to explode, but I hear you
and I agree with you wholeheartedly. I just know that post
census local review was talked about pretty badly by a lot of
the local folks, and I just want to applaud the LUCA efforts
and, hopefully, we can work through whatever differences we
have here, Mr. Director, in regard to the politics. But you
keep doing the job you are doing, because it sounds like the
results are coming back the way we want them to come back.
Dr. Prewitt. Thank you.
Mr. Ford. I must say, if there was post census local
review--we did in 1990 add 84,000, not 6 million. There are not
6 million addresses out there we haven't found yet. There may
be some, but there is not anything like 6 million addresses
that we haven't found.
Mr. Ryan. And weren't half of those addresses in Detroit
and Cleveland?
Dr. Prewitt. Yes, that is true. Nowhere near Wisconsin or
Tennessee, I might add. We want everyone to be counted.
Mr. Miller. I have one additional question since the issue
of post census local review came up during the question and
answer. And it gets back to the question of trust. That is the
reason I think we need to get as much local input and support
as we can, you know. As you know, the GAO report refers to
mixed results so far. That raises some questions of confidence
in the whole census. And the whole idea of post census local
review is to give local communities the idea that they are
going to have a chance to catch mistakes at the last minute.
And that is the reason a lot of small towns, the National
Association of Towns and Townships, League of Cities, and
organizations supported the idea of post census local review.
The question I have is what happens after you complete the
census, and you send out the numbers in March 2001, and a local
community says, you missed this apartment building, you missed
this new development? It happened in 1990. You missed these 300
people? It is too late, the facts are over with? I mean, what
happens at that stage when the numbers are out? It could have
been a computer error. I mean, it is not nothing intentional.
It is just that mistakes are going to be made. What recourse is
there at that time, or is it just too late for that community?
Dr. Prewitt. Mr. Chairman, the Census Bureau, during the
discussion of the post census local review, reflected hard on
that question, and recognized exactly the merit of what you are
saying, that when the counts are finished and the city looks at
it, it can say something went wrong. And it wasn't an address
here or a housing unit there--it went wrong at a magnitude that
we shouldn't have to live with. And the Census Bureau has
designed something it calls post census count resolution, which
would allow 39,000 jurisdictions the opportunity after the
counts are finished to say that something went wrong in our
community.
We have designed that program. We believe in it. We believe
it is exactly the kind of insurance policy that you are talking
about. Should there be a magnitude of, you know, an apartment
building simply got missed, or what have you, that post census
count resolution would be worked out with State demographers,
which know a lot about their State.
All I can say is that we did design that. We discussed it
informally with staff members on both sides of the aisle. We
continue to believe in it. It is not currently part of our
design, because we received no responsiveness from Congress
yet, but we would be delighted to come back and----
Mr. Miller. My understanding of that is that it did not
involve the local official.
Dr. Prewitt. Oh, it does.
Mr. Miller. It was the State demographer that was in
charge.
Dr. Prewitt. But the State demographers are working with
the jurisdictions in each of their States.
Mr. Miller. But, it is after the fact though. It should be
done later in the year, but in March 2001, they find a missing
500 people--I mean, in a State that is very concerned about it,
Wisconsin--you know, big States like New York, 500 people will
not make a difference but----
Dr. Prewitt. It is not----
Mr. Miller. It is too late to do anything in March--I mean,
once you know what the mistake is.
Dr. Prewitt. No. The post census count resolution process
includes a procedure by which we would then go back and correct
the numbers for the intercessional estimate program for the
next decade. So, it is not too late. It was a very serious
recommendation.
Mr. Miller. Mrs. Maloney.
Mrs. Maloney. Well, we have been called for a vote. I will
be very brief. I just would like to thank the panelists for
their testimony. It appears that LUCA has gotten off to a very
promising start. This was a program that was created in a
bipartisan way and I hope in a bipartisan way we can continue
to support the Census Bureau and the LUCA program as they go
forward in their work to get an accurate count. Thank you very
much, and we will see you in a little bit.
Mr. Miller. We have two votes, and so we are going to have
to stay over there for 15 minutes. We will take a recess for
approximately 20 minutes. And, as soon as I come back, we will
begin. And thank you all for being here. You all don't need to
remain for the rest of it.
Dr. Prewitt. Thank you very much.
[Recess.]
Mr. Miller. Mrs. Maloney is on her way back from the vote,
but it is all right for us to proceed. So Mr. Mihm, first of
all, if you would stand and raise your right hand?
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. Miller. Thank you. Please be seated. And welcome. I
appreciate you being here with us today. With that, I would
like to ask for your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF J. CHRISTOPHER MIHM, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, FEDERAL
MANAGEMENT AND WORKFORCE ISSUES, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
Mr. Mihm. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure
and an honor to appear before you today. In the interest of
brevity, I will just take a few moments to hit the highlights
of what is in my prepared statement.
As you know, my statement focuses on two initial measures
of how well LUCA is working. First, the Bureau's operational
experiences with the first phase of LUCA, known as LUCA 1998;
and second, local government's views of the adequacy of local
resources to review the census address list and maps, and the
quality of the Bureau's materials and assistance. As you
mentioned in your opening statement, Mr. Chairman, LUCA 1998
was targeted at jurisdictions with city-style addresses,
containing about 80 percent of the Nation's housing units, or
about 96 million households.
On my first point, the Bureau's experiences with
implementing LUCA: The Bureau invited about 16,700
jurisdictions with city-style addresses to participate in LUCA
1998. However, most did not provide the Bureau with any input,
as shown in table 1 of my written statement. According to
Bureau data, about 40 percent of the eligible governments
signed a confidentiality agreement with the Bureau, received
materials for review, and then ultimately provided material
back to the Census Bureau.
And that is really the key difference between our number
and the Census Bureau's number. The Census Bureau is reporting
the number of local governments that signed the confidentiality
agreement and ultimately were sent material from the Bureau. We
are reporting a subset of that; that is, the local governments
that ultimately returned some input back to the Census Bureau.
These 40 percent of the local governments suggested almost
7\3/4\ million changes to the census address list, as shown in
my written statement. Of these suggested changes, about 5.4
million were additions to the census address list, and the
Bureau has found about 2\3/4\ million of these suggested
additions to have been valid. So those are already locked into
the census. However, the Bureau has not, at this point,
accepted about 2.2 million suggested additions. These are going
to be rechecked during the field verification reconciliation
operation that is ongoing.
On the second topic I will discuss this morning, dealing
with our survey of LUCA participants on their experiences, we
looked at five things. First, the availability of local
resources to review census materials. Second, the adequacy of
LUCA timeframes from the perspective of local governments.
Third, user friendliness of census address list and maps.
Fourth, the adequacy of Bureau training and other support. And
fifth, and finally, the overall completeness and accuracy of
census address list and maps.
My written statement provides details on our survey
methodology and the results. Let me just touch on some of the
major findings. First, LUCA appears to have stretched the
resources of many local governments. About 44 percent of the
local governments said that the human resources in their
jurisdictions to do LUCA were not at all sufficient or were
only sufficient to a small extent.
In contrast, only about 23 percent of local governments
reported that their human resources were sufficient to a great
or very great extent. Clearly, local governments were having
problems with the extent to which they had people to do LUCA.
In regards to having the technology needed to review
addresses, just over one-third of the local governments said
that to a great or very great extent their technological
resources were sufficient, while one-quarter reported that
their resources were sufficient to a small or no extent at all.
Second, about 38 percent of the local governments reported
that the 3-months the Bureau gave them to review addresses was
adequate to a very great or great extent, while about one-
quarter said it was adequate to a small or no extent at all.
Third, many local governments had positive views of the
user-friendliness of census address lists and maps. We should
note that this is an important development, because it appears
to be quite a change from the experience during the dress
rehearsal. Roughly half of the local government said that the
Bureau's address lists were easy to work with to a great or
very great extent, and about half reported the same for census
maps.
Fourth, in regards to training and other Bureau support,
about 28 percent of local governments were to a great or very
great extent satisfied with LUCA training, while about 13
percent were satisfied to a small extent or none at all. The
Bureau also made available a variety of resources that local
governments could turn to for help in completing their reviews.
It appears that the reference manuals were used more than any
other source of information, and about 45 percent of the
localities found the manuals to be of great use.
Overall--and this is the finding that Director Prewitt
referred to--overall, about half of the localities were
satisfied to a great or very great extent with the Bureau's
assistance. Half of the local governments reported similar
levels of satisfaction with the timeliness of the Bureau's
response to questions.
Fifth, local governments gave the quality of the Bureau's
address list and maps mixed reviews. For example, about 43
percent of the governments said that they had few problems with
the accuracy and the completeness of the address list, while
about 18 percent reported encountering problems to a great or
very great extent.
In regards to the completeness and the accuracy of the
Bureau maps, about half of the local governments said that they
had problems to a small extent or not at all, compared to 16
percent that said they had problems to a very great extent.
Now, I realize that this has been a lot of information;
there is a lot of data as a result of our survey. But in
summary, Mr. Chairman, LUCA 1998 has had mixed results. On the
one hand, many local governments said they were satisfied with
specific aspects of the materials and the assistance that the
Bureau provided to them. On the other hand, other components,
such as training, received much less favorable reviews.
Moreover, LUCA may have stretched the resources of local
governments and the workload was greater than what most local
governments had expected.
Most important, as you mentioned in your opening statement,
the real impact that LUCA had on the overall completeness and
accuracy of the census address list is not known at this point
and will not be known until evaluations are completed after the
census--of the accuracy of the census address list. This
concludes my statement. I would be pleased to respond to any
questions that you may have, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mihm follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.032
Mr. Miller. Thank you. I appreciate the work that you and
the GAO has been doing on different areas of the Bureau,
because the GAO provides an independent evaluation on LUCA. And
as everyone well knows, there is a certain amount of partisan
interest in this issue. But we need to have the objectivity
that the GAO provides, and we appreciate the work that you have
done and other reports by the GAO.
Let me try and get a better understanding. Now, in your
summary of the 16,675 eligible jurisdictions, we ended up with
40 percent that returned materials.
Mr. Mihm. Yes, sir.
Mr. Miller. The 40 percent is those that actually returned.
A couple questions. Dr. Prewitt talked about 85 percent of
addresses. Does that 40 percent that responded represent 85
percent of the addresses or do we know?
Mr. Mihm. The jurisdictions covered are about 85 percent of
the addresses. What is not known is the extent to which the
local governments reviewed those addresses. In other words, we
know that some local governments only did a partial review.
Some local governments just returned unannotated material to
the census Bureau. Some of those probably looked at it and
concluded everything was fine. Some of those may have gone
ahead and looked at it and concluded we don't have time to
examine this in detail.
The other thing that is important to keep in mind is that
we are still dealing with a large number of jurisdictions that
are not reporting information, and some of them have been quite
large.
In fact, about over 2,000 of the jurisdictions that had
populations greater than 10,000 in 1990 were not participants
in either phase, because they chose not to participate in
either phase of LUCA this time around. So, we are dealing still
with some very large localities that did not participate in
LUCA.
Mr. Miller. Did you get any feel--and we didn't have time
to ask some of the questions of the first panel, about why
communities did not participate? I could maybe understand a
community of, you know, 50 people, and it doesn't have a
computer. But, do you have any sense of why the 60 percent did
not participate?
Mr. Mihm. Yes, we do. We have done studies going back over
a decade or more looking at local government participation in
census activities. We did a survey of local governments of
nonparticipants in pre-census local review from the 1990 census
and found that a major reason that they didn't participate was
just a lack of resources and the lack of time on their part.
During the dress rehearsal, we spoke pretty extensively
with nonparticipants in the South Carolina area and, again,
found that a major reason for a lack of participation was that
local governments just simply did not have the resources,
either the technological or the people, to be able to devote to
reviewing addresses.
Mr. Miller. You implicated that they recognized the
importance of the census. I mean, a lot of communities look at
it as an issue of money, both flowing from the State and
Federal Government. You would think there would be a motivation
to participate. Is it that these communities don't rate high
enough on the scale of factors, or choices, or----
Mr. Mihm. Obviously, local communities have to set their
own priorities in terms of what they think is important and
where they devote their resources, but one of the things that
we have seen, and as we are looking toward the 2010 census,
there needs to be more of an effort, thinking very early in the
decade, of how do we work to build capacities within local
governments to be able to review address lists and to have
substantive input.
In some cases, the local governments were clearly able to
do that as suggested the 7\3/4\ million suggested changes. In
other cases, they clearly do not have the capacities, and it is
something that needs to be started earlier in the decade rather
than waiting toward the end.
Mr. Miller. The 5.38 million suggested additions, this
comes on from 40 percent of the jurisdictions?
Mr. Mihm. Yes, sir.
Mr. Miller. That is a sample, obviously, not a random
sample, of the 40 percent. We don't know how large a number of
missed addresses would be out there, do we?
Mr. Mihm. That is right. We don't know, of those that did
not participate, even though as I mentioned a moment ago, that
prior evidence suggests that a lot of the nonparticipation was
because of a lack of resources, we still don't know how many
didn't participate because they had confidence in the Census
Bureau. We don't know how many got the census material, viewed
it as OK, and did not send it back. We don't know how many
really did partial reviews as opposed to complete reviews.
That is why a lot of the questions about the success of
LUCA--certainly, operationally, in terms of the support that
the Bureau provided, local governments are generally pleased
with LUCA. But the real impact is what difference does it make
with the address list is something that has to wait until after
the census when evaluations are completed.
Mr. Miller. The 1.8 million admissions that were not
submitted in time, that is a rather significant amount of
submissions from the local community. But the 3-months, they
said, was adequate time, but they still didn't meet the 3-month
deadline. They miss the deadline and, yet most people felt they
had enough time. I am confused by that one.
Mr. Mihm. There are a couple things going on there. One is
that local governments didn't have enough time, and to the
Bureau's credit, we believe they didn't cut anyone off. They
weren't overly dogmatic in saying, ``Well, you have had your 3
months. We don't care if you have changes.''
In addition, as Dr. Prewitt and his colleagues mentioned,
there were some delays in the Bureau's efforts to get these
address lists out to local governments, which meant some of the
input from the local governments came in after block
canvassing, after the Bureau was already in the field doing its
initial 100 percent verification of the address list. And so,
those addresses had to be picked up later.
The important thing is that for these entire 1.8 million
addresses, the Bureau has committed to doing another field
verification to make sure that the housing units are there. And
as Director Prewitt mentioned, the Bureau also is sending out
questionnaires to these addresses. The addresses are in the
data base so they will be getting questionnaires in the mail
for census day.
Mr. Miller. Your survey of the 150 jurisdictions did not
count the 60 percent nonresponding, right; 40 percent of the
jurisdictions responded----
Mr. Mihm. Yes, sir.
Mr. Miller. So, the sample is based on that 40 percent?
Mr. Mihm. Basically, yes. It is based on those that were
participating in LUCA as of January 1999. That is, they had
signed confidentiality agreements and had been receiving
materials, and had not indicated that they were going to drop
out. We have not surveyed nonrespondents or nonparticipants.
Mr. Miller. As far as knowing how many households or the
percent of population that local communities had a chance to
verify, we don't know that?
Mr. Mihm. No, sir.
Mr. Miller. OK. You know, the Bureau has done their 100
percent check.
Mr. Mihm. Right.
Mr. MIller. But as far as the opportunity to verify, the
big cities have pretty much participated?
Mr. Mihm. As Director Prewitt mentioned, nonrespondents had
a tendency to be the smaller jurisdictions. But the Bureau data
that we have seen also suggests that there are a number of
large cities that did not participate.
For example, over 2,300 jurisdictions that in 1990 had
populations of more than 10,000 people did not participate in
either phase of LUCA; that is, the 1998 or the 1999 version.
Seven of those had populations of over a million. And so you
are dealing with some large jurisdictions that for whatever
reason did not participate.
Mr. Miller. Do we have any feeling as far as where the
majority of these are?
Mr. Mihm. Yes, sir.
Mr. Miller. Where was the biggest problem in 1990? Is it
the larger communities, the cities, or the smaller cities?
Mr. Mihm. I know that data is available, I just don't
recall it offhand, Mr. Chairman. And so with your permission, I
would like to be able to research that and submit that for the
record rather than give you something I would have to correct.
Mr. Miller. OK. Thank you. Mrs. Maloney.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In your July 1998
testimony, you stated that the Census Bureau's revised approach
to developing the 2000 address list was ``not without risk''.
At that time you noted that the revised approach was not used
during the dress rehearsal. Given the results of your survey
and the preparation for this testimony, are you willing to say
that the risks posed by the changes introduced in 1997 have
been substantially outweighed by the improvements to the
address list produced by block canvassing?
Mr. Mihm. I can't go that far, ma'am, in that we still
don't know the accuracy of the address list, and that is
something nobody will know until after the census when
evaluations have been done.
Certainly, I can say that based on the discussions that we
had with local governments during the dress rehearsal, and then
the survey responses we got from participants in LUCA 1998, I
think the Bureau should take some credit that a number of the
concerns of local governments during dress rehearsal were
raising about Bureau assistance and quality or useability of
maps and address lists seem to have been substantially resolved
by the time they did LUCA 1998. So, to that extent, the Bureau
should take some pride.
Mrs. Maloney. So, in essence, you are saying that you don't
have sufficient information in your report to conclude that
block canvassing has substantially contributed to the accuracy
of the address list?
Mr. Mihm. One of the problems is that none of us do, and
that includes the Census Bureau. I mean, the evaluations that
have to be done after the census will tell us the accuracy of
the address list. Those have to wait until evaluations are done
by the Census Bureau after the census.
Mrs. Maloney. I must say, when I look at the charts
provided in your testimony, my overall impression is that the
local governments were generally satisfied with LUCA 1998. Is
that your impression?
Mr. Mihm. I think the key charts, figure 6, which is on
page 11, clearly shows that high percentages of local
governments were reporting to a great or very great extent that
they were satisfied with the extent of the assistance, the
timeliness of the assistance, and the responses provided by the
Census Bureau.
On the other hand, and this isn't surprising, this is why
the Census Bureau did LUCA, a number of local governments also
are reporting that they had questions and concerns about the
accuracy of the address list and the maps. And again, that is
exactly why the Bureau did LUCA. And so I would agree with
Director Prewitt that the data in figure 6 is something that
the Bureau should take some pride in.
Mrs. Maloney. Well, based on your experience, and I know
you have conducted many of these types of surveys, would
numbers like the ones you report indicate that the program is
basically on track?
Mr. Mihm. Well, we looked at two operational types of
issues: number of changes that were suggested and then kind of
participant or measures. In terms of these being proxy
measures, or how the process worked, then I think things are
very favorable.
I know I keep answering your original question in different
ways, but in terms of the ultimate quality of LUCA and the
contribution that LUCA makes to the improved address list,
unfortunately, all of us have to wait on that until after the
census, because then we will know what each operation
contributed in terms of the improvement and the quality of the
address list.
Mrs. Maloney. Some critics of the Census Bureau's address
list have suggested that the people walking the streets
checking addresses may not be doing a very good job. In your
experience working with those individuals, how would you rate
the quality of effort put in census takers in developing and
checking the address list?
Mr. Mihm. The short answer is very high. We have been
onsite, or went onsite, to a number of places with address
listers in Paterson, NJ, and in Long Island, and elsewhere and
we were across the board impressed with the quality of the
address listers. An additional point to make is that it
underscored for us how incredibly difficult it is to get an
accurate address list. And we were continually impressed when
census takers would know that they needed to go up right next
to the door to check to see if there are two doorbells there.
That tells them that there are two housing units. That wouldn't
be evident if they were just walking the streets.
So, a complete and accurate address list is an inherently
difficult activity, and that was clearly underscored to us with
our visits with census takers.
Mrs. Maloney. The Bureau has reported that 52 percent of
the eligible local governments participated in the LUCA
program. You have testified to a somewhat smaller number, about
40 percent of eligible jurisdictions, provided input to the
Bureau. Can you explain this discrepancy?
Mr. Mihm. Yes. It is just a difference in focus. The Bureau
focuses on participation. We focus on input. Participation is
local governments that signed a confidentiality agreement and
then subsequently got material from the Census Bureau. We
define input as local governments that signed a confidentiality
agreement, got material from the Census Bureau, and then sent
something back to the Census Bureau, either annotated
corrections or even un-annotated corrections. And so input is a
subset of participation.
What we are all struggling with is how do we get--and this
is what we touched on in the conversation with the chairman--
how do we get a genuine feel for what the real level of
participation was? Or rather how do we know how substantive the
reviews were with the address list. Our focus on input just
takes a bit of a finer cut than the Census Bureau's focus on
participation does.
Mrs. Maloney. Well, my time is up, so thank you very much.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Mihm, thank you very much. I know you are
going to be on top of this issue for the next couple of years,
living and breathing the census, and we appreciate the ability
to have the independent advice that we get from your agency.
So, thank you very much for being here today.
Mr. Mihm. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Miller. We will proceed with the next panel. We have
three gentlemen with us today. If you will remain standing, the
procedure under the Government Reform Committee is all
witnesses get sworn in for hearings. So, if you would raise
your right hands and repeat?
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Miller. Let the record show that all answered in the
affirmative. We welcome all three of you. You have all traveled
some considerable distance to be here today. We appreciate it.
It is very important to hear from people on the front lines.
The two panels before you, they are the ones conducting the
census. But you all are the ones that are, as I say, at the
front line participating in this. And so I think it is
important to hear from both the next two panels.
So with that, we would like to have your opening
statements. And let's see, Mr. Maguire, if you would like to go
first.
STATEMENTS OF JACK MAGUIRE, PLANNING/GIS MANAGER FOR THE COUNTY
OF LEXINGTON, SC; GEORGE PETTIT, ASSISTANT TOWN MANAGER OF
GILBERT, AZ; AND DON RYCHNOWSKI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE
SOUTHERN TIER WEST RP&D BOARD
Mr. Maguire. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am the planning/GIS
director for Lexington County, SC. Prior to moving there in
January, assuming that job, I worked for the State of South
Carolina and was extremely active in the census dress
rehearsal, working on five counties during that time.
I would like to ask that my written testimony be entered
into the record in its entirety, and I would like to summarize
and make a few comments. Regarding LUCA, there are significant
improvements over the dress rehearsal, and I commend the Bureau
for the very important changes that they made. At the same
time, the rhetoric about LUCA and their persuasiveness of the
adequacy of the address list vastly outpaces the performance.
The first thing that I want to say is that I don't think
the Census Bureau has assigned an address in this Nation yet.
Local governments do. If you build a house, if you install a
mobile home, we assign the address. I personally do not think
that the Census Bureau should be in the business of telling
local governments what addresses it will accept in our
jurisdiction. I think it is out of bounds when it does that.
Second, regarding the field experience, it may be that in
cities the Bureau does an excellent job determining how many
housing units are in a block. In rural areas, I know from
asking the people who have done the work, that it is incredibly
spotty. They are concerned about their safety and they will not
go off the road to see if this is a driveway or that is a
driveway, and if there are 2 mobile homes down there or if
there are there 22.
In our LUCA 1999 experience, one of the most significant
areas of missing addresses was in a place called Timberlake on
Lake Murray. These are not areas to be concerned about safety.
The smallest house that they missed in Timberlake has over
2,000 square feet and sells for over $300,000, which in South
Carolina is a lot of money to pay for a house. The largest
house they missed exceeds 10,000 square feet, and I have no
idea how much money that house would cost. This was after they
completed their field work. They still missed 157 houses in
that neighborhood. We verified it.
Third, the Bureau made one major mistake that crippled
local governments in working through LUCA. In the dress
rehearsal, the address ranges were placed on the TIGER maps.
That meant the person in the local municipality who had no GIS
experience, no computerization in mapping experience, could
analyze the maps and see if Aunt Sally lives here and Uncle
George lives there. The Bureau chose to remove those address
ranges and people have been confused in local governments
unless they have a GIS system similar to ours. If we are to be
partners in LUCA, we need that data.
As to suggestions to improve LUCA, I think the first one is
the Bureau needs to learn somehow, someway, that local
governments assign road names, local governments assign
addresses. The Bureau doesn't do that. If we tell them this is
the name of a road and these are the addresses on it, they need
to accept our authority. The post office accepts our authority.
E-911 uses our data. Why can't the Bureau fall in line with
everyone else in the Nation?
Next, one of the major problems in the dress rehearsal that
the Bureau had difficulty with was ZIP codes. They were using
commercially contrived ZIP code maps. These maps gave improper
addressing to forms that went out. This meant whole ZIP codes
were missed. We offered at that time to give the Bureau proper
ZIP code maps that were accurate and tested by the post office.
Since then they have moved to a ZIP code tabulation area which
is a very unspecific map of ZIP codes. In other words, this is
``sort of' where it is.
In Lexington County, we have offered to give them a very
precise map of exactly where the ZIP codes are, because we work
out the ZIP code boundaries with the post office. We assign the
addresses; they do the ZIP codes. We work with them every day.
The Bureau has refused to accept our maps. The Bureau said, if
you send them, we will let you send them, but we will not use
them. We don't want that level of specificity. As a person
involved in planning, I simply can urge someone somewhere to
tell the Bureau to please use the most specific data available.
We need this information for planning in the United States in
the years to come.
The third thing, please share the address list through the
entire process. We want to see the address list that is used in
the actual census. We have worked hard to do this. Many of us
who are doing the list are doing a great deal of work after
hours and on weekends. It is worth doing that kind of job. But
if I am going to work that hard and that many hours, I want to
see the results. I don't think that is too much to ask. We
asked for it after the dress rehearsal, and we were told we
could not have it.
If you want local participation rates to go up, please
update the annexation maps. The Census Bureau apparently
believes that some maps should be updated for annexations and
some should just get pushed aside. During the dress rehearsal I
was asked if the town of Irmo had annexed anything in the last
7 years. Irmo had been annexing every year. They resubmitted
correct annexation maps. Now, the town of Irmo has gotten their
latest maps, and they still have not been updated since 1990.
It is no wonder the dress rehearsal shows the town of Irmo
losing population in the dress rehearsal. If you don't update
the boundaries, the population is going down, and that will
hurt the cities for 10 years of funding.
The other suggestion I would have is please update TIGER.
TIGER has got to be strategically changed in the decade to
come.
[Tape 2, side 1.]
Mr. Maquire. Local government maps are used 24 hours a day,
7 days a week. Our maps have to be good. Please include us when
changes are made.
I sound frustrated because I am. At the same time, we would
not have gotten here without the help of some of the people at
the Bureau, the Charlotte Regional office, in particular. We
would not have had the opportunities without the State of South
Carolina Office of Research that allowed us to do five
different counties in the dress rehearsal.
I am particularly appreciative to be in the one county that
has given the Census Bureau the worst experience. It isn't that
I am glad that they are having a bad experience with Lexington
County. I am just glad that if the experience was going to be
that bad that I could be there to help fix it, because we are
determined to count everybody at least once. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Maguire follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.039
Mr. Miller. Mr. Maguire, thank you very much. Let me ask
you before we go to Mr. Pettit. For the record, state where you
are from and just give a 1-minute description of what your
position is. You are from Lexington County, I know.
Mr. Maguire. In Lexington County, I am the planning/GIS
manager. We have a planning and development division. My team
does all addressing, all maps, all subdivisions, and a lot of
special projects.
Mr. Miller. What is the population?
Mr. Maguire. 200,000 and growing rapidly. We are one of the
fastest growing counties in the Nation.
Mr. Miller. You were in the dress rehearsal?
Mr. Maguire. Yes.
Mr. Miller. Thank you very much. Mr. Pettit, again, if you
would just describe a little bit about what your position is
and the area that you are most familiar with so that we have an
idea.
Mr. Pettit. Certainly.
Mr. Miller. Thank you.
Mr. Pettit. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name
is George Pettit. I have been the assistant town manger for the
town of Gilbert, AZ since July 1985. When I arrived in Gilbert,
AZ, we just completed a special census under contract with the
Census Bureau that established our population as 12,102 souls.
As I sit here today and we try to prepare for census 2000, we
anticipate that number will be 105,000.
Our concern is that the base data used by the Census Bureau
was 29,872 people only 9 years ago. We have updated that
information through a special contract with the Census Bureau
to get to the 59,338 that were certified in 1995. Our dilemma
is that the special census information was not even used to
update the base information used by the Census Bureau. Again,
we slid back to 1990 and our population of 29,872.
In addition to my position with the town of Gilbert, I also
have the privilege of serving as chairman of the MAG, Maricopa
Association of Governments, regional population technical
advisory committee. This is a working group of the association
of governments which represents 24 local governments, the
county, two Indian tribes, and the State Department of
Transportation in a planning effort on regional issues. MAG
POPTAC was designated as the contact point for census 2000. We
have invited, and we continue to include, local office
personnel in all of our monthly meetings and try to keep
updated on census 2000 as best as we can.
I think, as I tried to allude to earlier, Maricopa County
and all of the communities within Maricopa County are really
sensitive to the issue of conducting an accurate census count.
There is a reason we contract every 5 years with the Census
Bureau to try to figure out what is happening with our
population. The rate of change is phenomenal. I can appreciate
the change that you are going through. We have been
experiencing it for 15 years and it gets a little old. When I
started this job, I was a handsome young man.
It was with a sense of relief and a great deal of
anticipation that we actually heard early presentations to the
City Manager's Association in 1997 that LUCA 1997--or LUCA 1998
was coming forward, and it represented an opportunity for a
partnership, an information partnership, between the local
governments that assign addresses, create all of this
information, understand our community and the Census Bureau.
The unique thing over the 1990 census was that it gave us an
opportunity to participate in the process before. We viewed it
as a major improvement over the previous efforts of post census
review in trying to track down all the citizens.
Further, from Gilbert's perspective in LUCA, as we
understood the maps, we thought we had an increased benefit
because we were totally within the mailback/mailout area. So,
we felt that if we could dedicate resources to identify the
addresses, to get the geography correct, we had a pretty good
chance of getting a complete count.
You can imagine our surprise, I think, when after we had
hired people in September 1997, and we were waiting for the
information to show up, it started to show up piecemeal in the
fall of 1998. But we found out that, basically, 25 percent of
the housing units that we thought should be present in the
community in 1997 were missing from the LUCA 1998 file; 10,000
units is a fairly significant number of people for Gilbert,
that is about a 30,000 population.
Several streets were omitted from the TIGER file, addresses
were missing and, in fact, the addresses that were missing were
not only those that were new construction. They were addresses
that should have been in the 1990 base file for apartment
complexes and single family dwellings built and finished in
1998 and 1989. It was our understanding it was supposed to be
on the file; they were not.
We reviewed and reported the LUCA 1998 geographic data
discrepancies to the Denver regional office, kept our staff on
board and anticipated a response as we were promised. In the
summer of 1999, we still hadn't received that information back.
We did receive notice in May 1999 that the detailed feedback
option that we had so been looking forward to and hoping to use
as a test to find out how our information was being received by
the Census Bureau, that the process was being consolidated into
a later process that will hopefully come to fruition in the
summer of 1999.
Our latest information from a meeting 2 weeks ago of the
MAG POPTAC is that we might be getting this information in
November or December. We still do not have a full understanding
of what information the Census Bureau is using as they hire
people and send them out into the field to do field checks. We
have not had an opportunity to look at that. Their own
personnel don't even know what they are really looking for, and
they are just starting the hiring process now.
It is a frustrating point for us as well, because we have
also been verbally advised that we are going to receive a
letter about new construction. New construction is obviously
important since we are finishing 275 single family homes a
month in Gilbert. Not only are the new construction programs
only designed to deal with the period of January through March
2000, there still is an unanswered question of what is going to
happen with all those housing units that have been finished in
the last calendar year, because the information we submitted
was based upon December 1998 addresses.
The GAO report that I had an opportunity to look at earlier
today indicates that there is an obligation to complete this
task for LUCA by January 14, 2000. If you do the math and back
off a 30-day appeal process, do something about Thanksgiving,
about Christmas, consider what local governments may or may not
have to deal with when it comes to the millennium issues, Y2K,
it is going to be a challenging time for us, and we have not
yet really had the Census Bureau take advantage of the
resources that we have invested in in terms of additional time
and personnel.
The need for a good count is extremely important to us.
Thirty-six percent of our general fund revenue comes from the
per capita counts; that is, police, fire, parks and recreation.
That is $1,000 a head to the town of Gilbert. Every person
counts in Gilbert to the tune of $1,000 a head in just the
State share of revenue alone, let alone the issues of equal
representation, distribution of Federal revenues and
demographic statistics that business and parks use.
Just this past week, I received a phone call from someone
asking what kind of business opportunities there were in
Gilbert, AZ with this population of 30,000. He was disappointed
to find out that we were 105,000.
The town is committed, Maricopa County is committed, all
the communities in the region are committed to a full count and
to try to work this information partnership that was presented
back in 1997.
Unfortunately, our investment has yet to be realized and we
have yet to realize much feedback from the Census Bureau about
our efforts in working with them. It was shared 2 months ago,
that as they went out and did a field check in the update/leave
area, that they had rented four-wheel drive vehicles and went
out and drove up riverbottom to find a residence that was
reported in 1990 that doesn't exist anymore. The county knew
this information from aerial photography. The answer could have
been easily provided if we worked this information partnership
as it was presented early back in 1997.
Again, a call to local officials can resolve a lot of these
discrepancies. We had hoped that this information partnership
would minimize the training problems that the Census Bureau was
going to experience as they worked in a high growth area like
the Phoenix Metropolitan area. To date, those offers have not
been accepted, and we are 184 days from completing that task.
I recognize that it is somewhat controversial, but without
outstanding significant improvement, and meeting the promised
deadlines, and working with us as true information partners,
there needs to be an immediate assurance and an adequate
opportunity for us to be able to review post-census information
and those counts prior to certification in December. Thank you
for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pettit follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.046
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Pettit. And now, we would have
Mr. Rychnowski. Thank you very much for coming.
Mr. Rychnowski. Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to testify today on our
experiences of the LUCA process. My name is Donald Rychnowski.
I am the executive director of the Southern Tier West Regional
Planning and Development Board. Primarily rural in nature,
Southern Tier West serves three large counties in southwestern
New York, over 130 local and municipal governments, and three
Native American Indian reservations.
Throughout the years we have developed a very respectable
rapport with the local governments in the Seneca Nation of
Indians in our region. I am here today to testify on our
specific experiences with the census and specifically, through
the LUCA process.
During the LUCA process, Southern Tier West was made aware
of many problems that arose with the program. Because of our
rapport with our local governments, we offered assistance in
the process. We hosted training sessions and visited
communities to provide our expertise and experience to them.
This was all done in an effort to develop a perfect address
list for our region. We are confident that our efforts greatly
improved the response rate by municipalities in our region.
However, the Census Bureau often stymied these efforts, and the
region fell way short of its goal of a perfect address list.
We provided training facilities to the Census Bureau on two
separate occasions for a total of four classes, absorbing all
of the costs necessary in terms of the training. Southern Tier
West advertised these training sessions to the municipalities
and these classes were nearly a disaster for several reasons.
First, on both occasions, the representative sent by the
Bureau to teach the class had never taught a LUCA class before.
When questioning them personally, they complained that they had
little training, and in both cases were hired for a completely
different job.
Second, even though the Bureau was given a count of the
attendees by us, the instructors always had too few of the
materials to supply the class with. The materials were designed
to be a reference to use throughout the process. Less than half
of our participating communities ever received these materials
despite promises by the Bureau to forward these additional
materials at a later date.
Finally, the training structure often left the
municipalities out in the cold. Without the training session,
it was difficult, at best, to participate in the local process.
After several municipalities complained that they were not
given a fair chance to participate, the Bureau informed
Southern Tier West that a training video was now available, but
the availability of this video was too late in the LUCA
process.
This leads to the next shortcoming of the LUCA process;
simply put, timing. The LUCA waves coincided with the worst
time of the year for local officials in our region; that is,
budget preparation and tax collection season. When
municipalities informed us of the need for an extension, we
contacted the Bureau. The Bureau stated that no extensions
would be made. A municipality could submit their address list
late, and those may or may not be accepted. This alone greatly
reduced the LUCA participation in our region.
A community in our region approached the Bureau with what
they said was a perfect address list from their E-911 system.
The Bureau refused the list and said they would have to go
through the same process. Other municipalities also had
accurate mailing lists. These municipalities were less willing
to participate in the process.
A final example of the shortcoming involved the town of
Olean in our region. The Olean address list was split in two
phases of LUCA. This meant that Olean had to participate in
LUCA twice; however, there was an election year between the two
phases, which further complicated the scenario. The new
administration came in and decided to participate in the LUCA
process.
To this point, the town did not know that they had been
split into two phases. Our office received a call from the town
supervisor. The LUCA deadline was growing very near and they
were having problems. The staff traveled to Olean to find the
address list with two addresses on it. The Bureau was
immediately contacted, and at that point it was discovered that
the town had been split in two phases. The first phase
contained several thousand addresses, where the second
contained just two.
The town officials asked to complete all the addresses in
the second phase. The Bureau refused. The town offered to work
directly with the Bureau representative to improve the list.
Again, the Bureau refused. The town then offered to accompany
an enumerator through the town when they did their
verification. The Bureau rudely informed them that the town had
their chance and it had passed.
As we reflect on the experiences of the LUCA process for
the 2000 census, it is imperative to plan for the 2010 census.
In a way, it deals with the issues we face today. The LUCA
process was designed to be the single most important aspect of
the 2000 census. The problem with placing this much importance
on LUCA is that it relies on municipal participation.
The accuracy of the census comes down to a part-time
municipal official in rural areas that knows little about the
census process and have really had no time to learn about it.
The inflexibility of the Census Bureau needs to be rethought.
The weight placed on local governments and no compensation for
their efforts needs to be rethought. The lack of input from
regional councils, from local governments, and rural America,
in general, needs to be rethought.
The Census Bureau has been stern in its message there will
be no post census review process after this count. We have
demonstrated that problems exist with the LUCA process.
Failures in the Census Bureau and on the part of the municipal
governments have resulted in a less than desirable product.
Some States, including New York, recognized the issues that
LUCA and the lack of a post census review create and provide
State funds to the regional councils to carry out various
programs. These efforts are aimed at rectifying the problems
caused through the LUCA process. These efforts will help, but
they will not solve all the problems that may lead to an
inaccurate count.
The most obvious way the Bureau could have increased the
participation in LUCA would be to listen to the concerns of
other local governments and the regional councils. We are aware
of the importance of an accurate census. The lack of assistance
to anyone for pre-census activities like LUCA and the
elimination of the post census review process causes great
concern for many.
I am sure you can see how these problems may adversely
affect our region and result in political, economic, and social
hardships if we are undercounted. On behalf of Southern Tier
West Region, I thank you for allowing me this opportunity to
express our thoughts.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rychnowski follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.049
Mr. Miller. Thank you very much. All of your statements
will be put in the record. I appreciate receiving them in a
timely manner, that we had a chance to review them ourselves.
Thank you.
Let me first start with a question for Mr. Maguire. You
made a statement that was confusing to me. The Bureau can't
give an address. It seems obvious to me. The local community
does that. But explain to me why you make that statement.
Mr. Maguire. The reason I make that statement is they say
that they will give the final determination on addresses. They
don't even know the addresses. They are using 1990 addresses as
the basis for this census.
We don't use 1990 addresses, Mr. Chairman. We use current
addresses. We still have much of what was there in 1990, but we
have changed a lot of that. We have had road name changes, we
have readdressed roads. The Bureau seems to think that they are
the authority on our county's addresses and every other
county's addresses and municipal addresses, and they are not.
Mr. Miller. Do either of you have a comment about that or
not?
Mr. Pettit. I just concur. We provide the information to
the post office. We are legally responsible for the addressing.
We know when a housing unit is completed or what type of
construction occurs on the lot, and I think that is what
excited us the most about this opportunity as it was initially
presented. It entailed coming to the source to get the
information rather than us having to justify it and prove it
after the fact. Unfortunately, that mind-set has not improved.
Mr. Miller. Were any of you involved in the 1990 census--
directly involved, besides filling out the form?
Mr. Pettit. Do you mean professionally?
Mr. Miller. Professionally, yes, in your professional
position. I think we would agree there is much more effort by
the Bureau to be involved at this early stage, and I think you
have had the frustrations, but you are all appreciative of the
effort, and we all recognize the massive undertaking this is.
One thing this hearing found is that only 40 percent of
jurisdictions/communities are participating or at least
responded. Even though a large percentage of the population
participated, a lot of small towns, and villages, and such,
apparently did not. Why do you think so? I know it is just
anecdotal, but you deal with your peers and professionals in
other communities. Why are communities not participating? Do
you have some insight to that, Mr. Maguire?
Mr. Maguire. I would be glad to comment from my experience
working for the State of South Carolina. I called over 100
municipalities and counties asking them to participate in LUCA
last year when they were to sign up. It was amazing the number
that had the document, but didn't know that was what it was,
because the letter was that poorly presented.
It always starts off, ``Dear Local Official.'' Now, I am
sure those of you in Congress get letters that are very polite,
always use your name, and you always read them. But if you
happen to get any mailing that comes out, Dear Official, I
don't know that you read it personally. Those of us in local
government surely don't read things that come out, Dear Local
Official. It also was an extremely bland letter. That is the
first problem.
Second, it is unbelievable the number of people that
received it but didn't understand it--absolutely did not
understand it. They had been to a meeting, perhaps they read
the documents that were put out by the Bureau that said we are
working with the post office, we have got good maps, we will
take care of the census. If you want to join in, you can and
add a few addresses. But a huge number of people believed the
Bureau when the Bureau said, we are in good shape.
I had heated discussions with some people. I preferred what
Linda Magers in Georgia did. She works for the legislature. She
would simply call the appropriate Senate or staff House member
in Georgia and say, do you know that your local county is not
going to participate? It is amazing when you call elected
Representatives how quickly you get response in the local
counties.
Not every State had that sort of effort. In South Carolina,
we did have that kind of effort, as well. Some people did not
participate even when they signed up, because they got BAS
maps, the boundary and annexation maps, and thought that was
the LUCA map, because they came the same month. It was
extraordinarily confusing.
I have been living this stuff for 4 years. I even got
confused in one town that I was called to look at and see which
maps they were doing. I was halfway through explaining how they
were going to do LUCA when I said, wait a minute, these are BAS
maps, not LUCA maps. They came right after they got the letter
about LUCA.
Even the people in the regional offices have been confused
about which program was being mailed out at which time.
Mr. Miller. Do either of you gentlemen have any suggestion
of why we are not getting the response?
Mr. Rychnowski. Well, for one thing, actually, the Census
Bureau, at least in our region--and in fact, I can talk for
many of the regions, the rural areas of New York State--there
is very little, if no, rapport with virtually any Federal
agency in those rural areas. I mean, they just don't know, and
there are times when we have to force communities to accept
Federal grants, because they just don't trust the Federal
Government--big government, for that matter.
That is our job. We are supposed to work very closely with
them. That is the reason we have a local government program.
The second thing is that the communications were sent,
virtually, to the wrong person. They were sent to the highest
official. The highest official, generally, isn't the worker in
the process.
In many towns, the worker person is a clerk. Most of the
time they didn't receive--they didn't see, the worker, the
person who would actually do the work didn't receive those
materials because the supervisor, the mayor, or whomever, threw
them out. So, just as you said, you throw it out because it is
not personalized.
Mr. Miller. Go ahead.
Mr. Maguire. One followup--in South Carolina we offered to
give the Bureau a list of every highest elected official, and
they did not want it. They said that is not the way they were
doing it. During the reengineering conference with the Bureau 2
years ago when we tried to get them to change LUCA in some
positive ways, we asked them to put every planning director in
America, every local planning director, on the list. When they
send anything to the local official, always send a copy of it
to the local planning official, and they didn't think that was
a good idea.
Mr. Miller. One final question for the three of you. How
confident are you that the end result of the address lists they
are going to work with for your areas are going to be the best
possible? What is your level of confidence for your local area?
Mr. Pettit. At least from Gilbert's perspective and
Maricopa County's perspective, I think we can say it is going
to be much improved over prior experience. I would not suggest
that by any stretch of the imagination that we are satisfied or
have a high level of confidence that it is going to be perfect.
It is virtually impossible to be perfect given the rate of
growth in the community. But the discrepancies that we have
seen and reported that we haven't even had feedback on to know
if our corrections were accepted yet, is leading to a great
deal of discomfort and uneasiness with what is ultimately going
to become available and used in the spring of 2000.
Mr. Rychnowski. We have, I think, a very low confidence
level. The issue of 500 people which was talked about, which
may not mean a lot on a State level, it means an awful lot to a
community. It means a lot in terms of being designated as an
MSA. And therefore, all those programs that go along with being
designated as the MSA. So as I said, in terms of the Seneca
Nation that is also in our region, I know that enumerators have
been asked to leave the reservation, because the Nation wanted
to have their own enumerators. Well, the Census Bureau was not
able to put anyone on right at this time, so there are problems
across the board.
These problems are going to continue. There are problems,
obviously, in the 80 census--in the 90 census and those
problems are going to continue if there is no real change.
Mr. Maguire. The one thing that the accuracy of the list
will depend on is the statement by Director Prewitt that they
will mail questionnaires to addresses that do not match their
block canvassing operation, but they will not do followup on
those addresses. I know for a fact that our addresses will be
99.9 percent, 100 percent, complete. I mean, we will not miss
five addresses in Lexington County in what we send in. We have
that good an information system.
I also know they will reject many, and we will go through
appeal if there is time to do it. But if they only mail
questionnaires and don't do followup, LUCA will have failed in
many places. In Lexington County, we will have communities that
will be financially depleted in many ways for years to come. I
say this knowing that Lexington County is far ahead of the game
of most counties. Thank you.
Mr. Miller. Thank you. Mrs. Maloney.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank
all of the panelists. I know you traveled a long distance to be
here, and you are out in the trenches getting the job done, and
we really appreciate your being here.
Particularly, I would like to welcome Mr. Don Rychnowski
from the great State of New York, which is also my home State,
and offer my words of helping you in any way. I will even
travel up there to have a regional meeting with the people
involved and see if I can do my own planning/training session
with you.
Mr. Rychnowski. Great.
Mrs. Maloney. If you have any problems in any way, shape,
or form, you can call me in my office. I have a stake--a
personal stake--in New York State, and I certainly want to give
all the help I can to get an accurate count.
Mr. Maguire, my aunt for whom I am named lives in the great
State of South Carolina, so I welcome you here today. I just
wanted to followup on your statement that the Census Bureau was
just using 1990 addresses. That is where they start. They start
with the 1990 addresses. As Mr. Pettit said, they then go to
the Postal delivery sequence file, which was an improvement,
and they go through that. Then they follow it up with block
canvassing.
So, they are following it up with a lot of things, and they
have to keep the list because it has to be accurate and they
have to confirm it. I remember one of your earlier statements.
You said they should just trust us and we will give them the
list. But it reminds me of a story one of the census officials
was telling me. They were working on a count and a local
government was saying we want 20,000 people from our town. They
counted, and they could only find 9,500. The local people were
saying, well, go back out there and find 500 more. We need 500
more. We wanted a 20,000 address list here.
So, I think that you have to have a balance of getting the
address list to the Census Bureau. That is why we do LUCA
early, so that you can get that list, look at it, and say
whether it is accurate or not and they can double confirm it.
The point is that they have to have that confirmed list. I just
wanted to add that.
Mr. Pettit, we had a field hearing in the great State of
Arizona, which was wonderful. I love your State. We went to an
Indian reservation--great. And part of the testimony was on how
greatly your State has grown in comparison to others. Did you
testify at that hearing? You may have been there.
Mr. Pettit. No, I didn't.
Mrs. Maloney. They had a lot of charts showing how much the
population had grown. It is phenomenal, absolutely phenomenal.
One of the things that they talk about is that the Census
Bureau has a new program for new construction. So, what about
that which is added after March? That, I think, is a very
legitimate point.
It is my understanding they have a new construction program
where they go right up to census day on new construction. And I
would like a copy of that program to be in the official record,
so that we have it right next to your testimony to show that
they are going back on that official count.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.050
Mr. Miller. No objection.
Mrs. Maloney. I really want to go back to New York, because
I want to help New York in any way, let me tell you. I was just
looking at this press advisory, and it talks about local
efforts. I mean, everything has got to be a team spirit, you
know. We need the local governments to participate and to help
us. It talks about the State budget, and it talks about
California, which has allocated $24.5 million just to run
census promotional materials.
On the other hand, New York State has only $347,000 for
census-related expenses. I am going to raise this at the
bipartisan meeting of my delegation that possibly New York
State should have more of an effort in promoting and working
with local governments as California is. We are slated to lose
population, to lose representation. As we all know, that is
tied to the dollars that our local governments, our cities, and
our counties need. So, getting an accurate count is so
important really for getting the dollars where they are
supposed to be and getting the population counted.
You said part of the problem is--I am quoting from your
testimony--you said the accuracy of the census comes down to a
part-time municipal official that knows little about the census
process and has no time to learn about it. I think that is a
very important statement. Earlier the Director said they didn't
build into their budget moneys to really go out into the
localities and, you know, give staff assistance to localities.
As I mentioned, some of the States are doing this, such as
California. $24.5 million for census-related promotion and
assistance is a serious commitment. Do you think that is
something we should be looking at on the Federal level?
Mr. Rychnowski. Actually, yes. I also am a member of the
National Association Development Organization, which had
proposed to the Census Bureau utilizing these development
organizations, regional councils, councils of government, et
cetera, across the Nation as part of the process, the census
process. Because we are closer to those municipalities, we can
walk into the Seneca, into the Reservation, easily without
having any problems. We can work with church groups because we
are there. We are part of those church groups.
My understanding of the comment was that there were no
funds available for this kind of activity. I would say that
having seen the array of toys that were produced by the Census
Bureau--stress balls and cup holders, and a variety of other
things--that there probably were some funds available.
And about your point about New York State, yes, I do agree
that New York State is late getting into the process of
providing assistance through some financial way. But what is
not reflected in the figure that you quoted that there were
other funds that have been allocated to the New York State
Association of Regional Councils.
Mrs. Maloney. Did that cover the Census Bureau--did the
Census Bureau fund the Association of Regional Councils?
Mr. Rychnowski. No.
Mrs. Maloney. The State did?
Mr. Rychnowski. New York State did, yes. And that is
different. That is a higher figure now.
Mrs. Maloney. Really?
Mr. Rychnowski. Closing at about $800,000.
Mrs. Maloney. Really? OK. I am glad to hear that. I just
wanted to mention the chairman and I are working together. We
are going to have a meeting coming up soon where we are
inviting all of the Members, Democratic and Republican, to come
together. I heard your statement about getting elected
officials involved and having them call the professionals, that
this really has an impact. We are going to be trying to get a
partnership going with all of the Members of Congress. They
should in turn go back and meet with their local offices, and
they should be getting the elected officials involved.
I wanted to mention one program that I think is great. I
happen to have some copies here that I brought to give to you.
It is called Census in the Schools, and this was mailed to
every principal, and 40 percent of the teachers, and all the
teachers in the undercounted areas. It's a curriculum to take
into the schools to make the young kids aware of the census.
My daughter came home with a mathematical problem on census
day the other day. Her teacher is using this material. It also
has material in Spanish and English for the young people to
take home to their parents on ``Did you get your form, are you
filling it out?'' I just think it is an innovative new edition.
I really want to offer to Mr. Rychnowski, if you would
like, I would be delighted to invite the chairman to join me in
going up to your area----
Mr. Rychnowski. Great.
Mrs. Maloney [continuing]. And have a meeting with the
local people, the local elected officials, the local census
takers, and the local people involved, because I know that it
is a hard job, and we want to help you in any way we possibly
can. I used to represent a councilmanic district within the
boundaries of Congressman Rangle's district, and I was very
involved in the 1990 census. He would pull us all together, all
the elected officials and community leaders, and say let's get
out there and get your relatives hired as these census takers,
and what are we doing to get the accurate count. Every month we
would have these meetings, and I thought, wow, we are on top of
the game. And then it came back that Mr. Rangle's area was one,
I think, second to the lowest in accurate count in the Nation.
It was undercounted.
So, no matter what you do, it is hard to get certain places
where people won't answer their doors and this type of thing.
Whatever we do, we just have to do more of it. New York State,
of course, I am partial, I think is such a beautiful, wonderful
State, especially upstate New York, I think is gorgeous. So, we
have got to get an accurate count so that we have our schools
and our hospital centers--I love Arizona and South Carolina,
too. I go to see my relatives there. And Arizona, we had a
great time out there, didn't we? You have got the best climate.
I just have one last question. I hope you will come up
there with me for an upstate meeting in your region.
Mr. Rychnowski. Great.
Mrs. Maloney. We would love to do it. We have heard from
the professionals earlier. I think they are really trying and I
think that the GAO said they have made some progress. I just
would like to hear from all of you, because you are out there
on the front line. You understand, they have to keep that final
list because they have to double-check it, because we have to
have this accuracy.
But do you have any ideas of how we could improve LUCA?
That is my final question. I believe my time is up, and I would
just like to ask all three of you to let us know what it is we
should be doing to help the Census Bureau do a better job, how
they could help you better. We have heard it throughout your
testimony, but if you would like to give any more comments on
it?
Mr. Maguire. At this point we need to know what evidence
will be accepted that proves an address in the appeals process.
We are that close to midnight. We know what our addresses are.
We know they won't find them. We know we have lots of different
proofs. We have aerial photos, we have tax bills, we have
pictures, we have inspectors who have certified for occupancy
on housing. I have asked them what proof they will accept
because we have got all of it. We even have high school
students going out verifying sites.
Mrs. Maloney. Do you know something? I am going to go to
South Carolina and verify some of these sites.
Mr. Maguire. We would like for you to.
Mrs. Maloney. I would like to go see my relatives there. I
tell you the truth. You have some sites that you have told the
Census Bureau, this person or this house exists, and they are
saying they disagree. I will personally go out there. I mean
that. I can't do it when we are voting, but when we are out,
when we are on recess, I will go if you get me, and the
chairman--maybe I can get him to go down there.
My aunt is a good cook. Do you like South Carolina? I will
personally go. When you say you have got an address and you
have told them this address exists, and they come back and tell
you it doesn't exist, I will personally go and walk through the
field, through the back road, up the tenement staircase,
wherever it is, I will personally go and be with you to prove
that the person exists.
Mr. Maguire. I would be glad for you to.
Mrs. Maloney. OK. And I mean that.
Mr. Maguire. Just be sure you allow enough time. It may
take a week to visit all of them.
Mrs. Maloney. I can give you 2 days, not a whole week.
Mr. Maguire. We will start early and run late.
Mrs. Maloney. Two days from me, 2 days from him. OK? Fair
enough.
Mr. Maguire. Thank you.
Mrs. Maloney. I can't promise his time--two from me.
Mr. Pettit. I think from Arizona's perspective, we are
census-sensitive. We know the value of that information. We
participate. We have allocated resources.
It may not show up in the line item in the State budget
because we are committed at the local level. We are talking
about municipalities that have hired people over the past 2
years to work as a partner in this partnership, but there is no
communication back to let us know whether our partners are
accepting the information. Meeting the deadlines is key.
You referred to this new construction program. We still
don't have anything in writing about it yet at our level. We
have been told that it is going to be coming out somewhere
around October 15, but that is also in the same timeframe, plus
or minus 30 days, when we hope to start getting information
back on what our census, LUCA 2000, or LUCA 1998, or whatever
we are going to call it, is going to look like.
If we could develop a more sustainable and automated
process to communicate addresses to the Bureau that they will
accept--the post office accepts our addresses. The Census
Bureau does not. The post office accepts our street maps,
emergency services accepts our street maps. The census does
not.
There needs to be a cleaner line of communication, not only
to improve LUCA, but for the future. Make sure that as we annex
another 1,200 acres, like my council did last night just as I
was leaving to catch the airplane, that is communicated to the
Census Bureau and it is incorporated and is accepted at the
point in time in which the transaction is completed, and not 5
years later if we do a special census, or 10 years later if we
wait for the decennial census. The communication and the
feedback loop is really missing in this particular process.
Mrs. Maloney. I would like to say that when we had our
hearing, I was very impressed with the dedication of the
Members of Congress from your area. They were very informed and
the panels were very informed. And obviously, it is an issue of
great concern to Arizona. I would just suggest that if you have
any problems, I would go directly to your Congress people and
get them to intercede for you. I just know that they are 100
percent behind it just based on the amount of enthusiasm that
they were showing at that meeting.
Mr. Rychnowski. My organization is fairly lucky in terms of
relationships to the other regional councils across in the
Nation in that we had some flexibility, the ability to provide
some assistance to our local governments, in that we already
have local government programs.
Many of the regional councils across this Nation do not
have that flexibility. Basically, most regional councils work
on a contract basis, 100 percent of their time is contracted
for economic development or a particular purpose for a
particular State or Federal entity.
We need to have more local assistance early in the
process--in the LUCA process, talking about 2010. I hate to say
it, but this is the fourth census I have been involved
professionally in. No matter how we may evaluate those other
three, there was a series of meetings going on 4 years before
the census. This time it was not.
As I said, we need to work very closely. We need to have
partners. I mean, it can't be a one-way partnership, which is
kind of what I assess this one as, as sort of all give and no
take, at least from the part of the locals. So, starting early
and more technical assistance is basically what I think we
need.
Mrs. Maloney. I hope the chairman will join me in a public
hearing in upstate New York Regional Council.
Mr. Rychnowski. Good.
Mrs. Maloney. Really. I think that would be a good use of
our time.
Mr. Miller. We have had several pre-field hearings, one in
Phoenix, and it was really with the tribal leaders, and we did
visit an Indian reservation. There are unique problems that you
have in New York as they have in Arizona. We were in Miami to
see the turns of inner-city areas, and we were in Wisconsin to
see some rural areas. So, we have tried to go out, but we also
appreciate you all making the effort to come see us, and we
thank you very much for being with us today. Thank you.
[Followup questions and responses follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.062
Mr. Miller. We will have our next and final panel. If you
all want to just remain standing, as part of the procedures we
have in this particular Government Reform Committee, we do
swear in our witnesses. Raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Miller. Thank you. Please be seated. Thank you for
being here today, and also, thank you for sitting through the
first 3 hours of hearings. I don't know if you all have been to
congressional hearings before. In one way, we are lucky, we
have only had one series of votes. But these hearings are very
valuable to us, even though just two of us are here--because
other ones and a lot of staff are here, too--to get a better
insight and understanding.
And I think the last panel is important because you have
the direct experiences. I think it is very important that we,
in addition to doing field hearings, have people that can come
here and tell us their experiences, and concerns, and problems,
and ideas, and suggestions. This is a very good format.
I thank you both very much for being here. Ms. Heinz--my
eyesight is not that great--would you like to give an opening
statement, please? And your official statement will be part of
the record.
STATEMENTS OF JESSICA HEINZ, LOS ANGELES CITY ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE; AND MICHEL LETTRE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, MARYLAND OFFICE
OF PLANNING
Ms. Heinz. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and
Mrs. Maloney, for allowing me to testify to the committee. I am
Jessica Heinz, an assistant city attorney for the city of Los
Angeles, and I have been involved in census issues for the city
since 1988. I have been the legal advisor for the city's
technical and outreach projects in both the 1990 and 2000
census.
The city of LA has been working together with the Census
Bureau as a participant in the LUCA program as authorized by
the passage of the Census Address Improvement Act, and the law
has allowed the city to share its own address list with the
Bureau and in turn review the address lists prepared by the
Bureau for census 2000.
As you know, the LUCA program is divided into several
phases. In phase 1, in order for the city to get ready for all
that work, we started with our 1990 census address file and
updated it with our Department of Water and Power electric
meter file and several other address lists that were used by
various city departments.
When the Census Bureau gave us their LUCA file, it
contained 1,351,815 addresses for the city. Our records showed
1,483,904 addresses for the city. In November 1998, after
comparing their list with our list, we submitted 196,690
addresses, which we felt were missing and needed to be added to
the Bureau's list.
Both the Census Bureau's file and our file were matched to
the Postal Service address file for accuracy.
[Tape 2, side 2.]
Ms. Heinz. There really needs to be another check done to
be sure there are residences or other establishments that are
on that mailing list.
The next phase of LUCA began this past spring, and the
Census Bureau conducted a full field verification of the city
and Census Bureau addresses. Even after that process, we were
told in the summer that there remained 135,570 city addresses
which the Bureau was unable to verify as residential dwelling
units. After rechecking our file with the Department of Water
and Power Electric Meter file, we decided that those 135,000
plus were still in dispute.
In order to resolve this substantial number of
discrepancies, the city's technical team and the regional
Census Bureau staff met to discuss what method we should use to
resolve the conflicts. The Bureau invited the city to assign
staff as observers to accompany the Bureau in this effort.
On September 9, the regional Census Bureau provided
training to 42 city employees who were all sworn in, and we
were assigned to one of four census field offices in the Los
Angeles area, and we were paired up with a Census Bureau
employee, and we began work to resolve the disputed addresses
on September 13. The bulk of that work was completed last week
and there is a small team that is continuing the work this
week. We will have completed all 135,000 plus addresses.
While we don't yet have the final information as to the
total number of addresses which are to be deleted, redesignated
or retained as a result of the field canvass process, we have
learned a great deal about the nature of the discrepancies
between the city's list and the Bureau's LUCA file.
As part of the city's team, I received the Bureau training
and I participated in the field canvass. I also received
reports from other city staff regarding their observations in
the field. From what we can determine thus far, the
discrepancies fall into three categories.
There are many commercial buildings which are listed as
residential units on the city's electric meter file. By going
out there, we could see what the problem was.
There were several geo-coding errors, some of large
significance, where trailer parks, for example, were put into
the wrong block. That accounted for a substantial amount of the
problem.
In addition, there is new construction that had not yet
been added into the LUCA file.
Our experience in this process with the Bureau thus far has
been very positive. Staff were well trained, and for the most
part, diligent and enthusiastic about the assignments they were
undertaking. We believe that our participation in the project
will help, perhaps even alleviate, the need to pursue
administrative remedies provided under the Commerce
Department's regulations to resolve disputes.
Perhaps most importantly, the Bureau's willingness to allow
us to review their work in the field as active participants has
done much to cement the partnership between the Regional Census
Bureau and the city of LA's census outreach project. We expect
that spirit of partnership will prevail in the next several
months as we progress to the actual enumeration.
Let me add, since you have raised the question of post
census local review, that I don't believe that such a process
will enhance the accuracy of the census if it is undertaken and
implemented at this time. It will delay the delivery of the
final data needed, and I think that in testimony I presented to
you several months ago, I emphasized that we only added a very
small number of addresses and persons as part of the census
local review in 1990.
It happens too late in the process, and by the time you go
back out to find who is living at those addresses, people have
probably moved, at least in a place like Los Angeles, where we
are very transient.
I think that local governments are better served if we can
get information during the nonresponse followup stage regarding
the areas of the city that are slow to return their
questionnaires so that we can target our outreach in that area.
I would like that kind of information on a flow basis as it
comes in from the Bureau, which I think would be able to be a
lot more helpful.
In addition, I think one of the reasons that local
governments may not participate in the LUCA process is because
you basically have to be computerized in order to help. In
addition, if your jurisdiction isn't over 50,000 or more, I
don't think you get as much financial benefit from the Federal
grants since there is some cutoff on population size. So, they
may not be motivated that way.
Anyway, thank you very much for this opportunity to discuss
the LUCA process, and I will be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Heinz follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.071
Mr. Miller. Mr. Lettre.
Mr. Lettre. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Congresswoman
Maloney. My name is Michael Lettre. I am the assistant director
for the Maryland Office of Planning. We have had a long
involvement with the Census Bureau as the major agency that has
been involved with the statistical dissemination of census
data.
My history with the Office of Planning goes back to 1981,
so I was involved with redistricting after the 1980 census,
with promotion, and outreach, and technical assistance
activities for the 1990 census, and I am serving as the
Governor's technical coordinator for the 2000 census.
We have heard a lot of testimony this morning and early
afternoon. There are two words that come to mind--you have my
official testimony, but I may deviate slightly from that--one
is partnership and the other is opportunity. We took those
words very seriously in Maryland when we chose to be very
proactive in terms of our participation in the LUCA program.
We also recognized the LUCA program had to be taken in the
context of the overall census process, that it was not a cure
for every problem. It was an opportunity to make an impact, and
we promised ourselves that we would maximize that impact given
the resources and the time that we had to do that.
One of the things we did from the outset is to accept where
the Census Bureau was and the products that they would provide
to us. Ultimately, we found the products provided through the
LUCA program very useful, very usable.
In particular, we recognized that we were going to have to
look at their address list. We were going to have to compare
that to local address lists. We were going to have to identify
problems with that list. Where we found addresses that needed
to be added, we were going to have to assign them to the census
geography, and we would have to report them back in the format
that the Census Bureau asked if we wanted to increase and
maximize the chance that the Bureau would accept the additions
and corrections that we made.
Now, that is a big assumption that many jurisdictions
really didn't want to make. If you went into the program
unwilling to sort of play by the rules, then you were off to a
bad start, because you were spending your time, in essence,
fighting the system as opposed to using a very useful product
that was provided.
The second thing that we realized is that if you were going
to take advantage of this, and in Maryland where government is
largely county government and most of the addresses are outside
of incorporated boundaries--and I include Baltimore City as a
county because it is officially a county as well as a
municipality--then you were going to have to have three things
if you were going to be able to be successful in this effort.
And these were stressed by us; that is, the State, when we
participated with the Bureau in all of the local training
efforts. We made it very clear to local jurisdictions right up
front, what they were going to do, what the Bureau was going to
do, and what we were going to do.
For a local jurisdiction to be successful, one, it had to
have access to a good address list. Because they were going to
be reviewing tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands,
of addresses in a very short period of time, that address list
had to be in a form that you could look at, and it couldn't
simply be a paper listing. It wasn't practical that that was
the case.
So, you were going to have to have computer resources. That
data base would have to be able to be spatially related to
maps, because you were going to have to assign it the census
geography. You were going to have to have the computers, the
software, and you were going to have to have people that knew
what they were doing and were dedicated to doing it.
Without those things, then for many jurisdictions the
perfect product from the Census Bureau simply would go
unattended, because there would be no way to use that. That is
particularly true anytime you are dealing with thousands, if
not tens or hundreds of thousands, of addresses. There simply
is no way to use a paper product over a short period of time to
manage such a list.
The third thing, in addition to the Bureau providing the
product and the local government committing to participating
and being an active partner, was what the State was going to
do. We are fortunate in Maryland that we have been actively
involved in developing a geographic information system, in
which we have automated all of the State's property records
along with property maps for all jurisdictions in Maryland. We
were able and committed to making this electronic data base
available in a format that could be used by local government
either as the primary instrument for their LUCA review or as a
supplemental instrument.
We worked with 18 counties out of 24 that represented over
95 percent of the State's addresses, and we developed a product
that was a desktop mapping product that they could use on their
desktop that was organized with the LUCA data product, with
1990 census housing counts, and with our count of parcels, both
individual addresses and aggregated addresses, that conformed
to census geography.
This enabled jurisdictions to immediately do two things.
One is that they could pinpoint areas of major new development
since the 1990 census. We went in initially with the thought
that our major goal here would be to check areas where there
had been substantial changes or growth since 1990, and that
that would be an area where a jurisdiction could focus in on to
make sure the Bureau, in fact, through their Postal work, was
updating their addresses.
The second thing we found after we actually got the census
file is that there were some areas where there were major
discrepancies even where there had not been substantial
development since the 1990 census. So, we were able also to
provide local jurisdictions with the following indicator; that
is, the difference between the LUCA count of addresses and the
local count of addresses that we had from the property or tax
data base. And also, the difference between the LUCA count of
addresses and the count of addresses, or housing units, from
the 1990 census.
What these indicators, using the mapping system, allowed
local jurisdictions to do is to target in on the most severe
problem. This meant that whatever time a local jurisdiction had
to spend on the LUCA project they could maximize their
utilization of people resources and computer resources to try
to attend to the most severe problem.
In addition, we got the regional office in Philadelphia to
accept a list of 339 census blocks that we identified in these
18 jurisdictions where there were significant discrepancies
between our count of addresses and the Census Bureau's count of
addresses. We got them to commit, even if that jurisdiction
never submitted anything under LUCA, that the Census Bureau as
part of their canvassing operation would pay particular and
more detailed attention with their field people when they went
out and canvassed in those areas.
So, we didn't take the LUCA program simply as we got it. We
played by the rules, we submitted submissions and had local
governments do it where they maximized their utilization of
time and resources. And we also provided the Census Bureau
Philadelphia Regional Office with collateral information of
significant problem areas.
The results of this are, you know, in some cases somewhat
alarming. I mean, we did find real unevenness in the quality of
the product. There were some counties, both counties with rapid
growth and counties without significant growth, where the
product was very, very good. And there were some counties, and
in some portions of counties, where there were real problems;
problems in both missing new development and problems even in
having addresses associated with pre-1990 development.
But we do feel that the approach we took maximized the
chances of getting attention in these areas, both because the
local government submitted addresses and because we made the
Census Bureau aware of these problem areas.
We also encountered another problem that was indicated
here. There are clearly some jurisdictions that have done
wholesale readdressing, both numbers and sometimes street names
as a result of the 911 process. There were instances where the
Census Bureau file reflected addresses that were pre this 1990
911-readdressing. We made the Bureau aware of those, and as a
result, we do feel that the canvassing operations and the other
operations that the Bureau will undertake will increase the
probability of having an impact.
In conclusion, I think everything has to sort of be
evaluated in its time. We could always play the game of what we
could do, you know, should haves--could haves. What we really
did--and I can say this based on the 1990 experience and on the
2000 experience--we took maximum advantage of where we were at
this point in time to have the most positive impact that we
could with the LUCA program, knowing that we would clearly draw
the Bureau's attention to problem areas, make sure they were
attentive to those problem areas, and assure that the LUCA
program in conjunction with the other efforts of canvassing,
and working with the Postal Service, and the new construction
program would maximize the chance of having a state-of-the-
art--that is as good as the state-of-the-art can be today--
address file going into the 2000 census.
And we feel confident that we did have an impact. There
were 130,000 addresses that we recommended. Again, this is
accumulative of 18 counties and 67 municipalities reporting. We
had very a high participation rate, over 95 percent geographic
coverage. Again, the number of local governments participating
was less than that, but in terms of address coverage, very,
very high.
What we really did was use state-of-the-art resources
combined with a partnership effort that involved State, local
and the Federal partnership. I must say, what we did is we
really worked it, and we didn't complain. We just did what we
could do, knowing the limits of both the time and the resources
that were there.
There were instances in which we provided assistance to
local governments and they clearly were not able to take full
advantage of it. This does require strong technical skills. It
requires computer resources to make it work. There is no
getting around that when you are reviewing thousands of
addresses and also geographic location of those addresses.
So, we do feel that it was a workable program, that the
Bureau provided products that could make a difference, and that
we took the steps that we could given always the limits of
time, money, and resources to get as much benefit as we could
out of the program. We feel as though our participation was,
one, rewarding and, in fact, will make a difference. Thank you
very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lettre follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.076
Mr. Miller. Ms. Heinz, since you brought up post census
local review, I am just amazed how people don't want to have a
chance to have any input at the end of the process. I am just
amazed that you say the census is going to be so perfect we
don't need to worry about any mistakes being made because they
are not going to make any mistakes. They are not going to leave
off any apartment buildings. They are not going to leave off
any subdivisions. So, we don't want to have that opportunity to
check that. But that is your opinion and that is OK.
Let me ask----
Ms. Heinz. Could I answer that for just a----
Mr. Miller. Yes. Why would you not want to have a chance to
check a mistake? I don't understand that.
Ms. Heinz. The problem is the timing. It is going----
Mr. Miller. They can find time. They found it in 1990. I
know this has, you know, been politically advised, but go
ahead.
Ms. Heinz. The issue is not so much even the political
timing of it, but the fact that the census is supposed to
happen in April. By the time you go through the local review
process, at least in 1990, we didn't get the data until
September. Even then, if we identified that there were missing
units somewhere, you go back and you send enumerators out in
September to try to find folks and they are not going to be
there. That is the problem.
That is why I said I would really like to have information
during nonresponse followup that we are not getting back forms
from the census tract so that we can go out and try to find out
the problem.
Mr. Miller. I believe there is time to do it and I am just
amazed that you don't want to have that participation. So you
are very satisfied with LUCA, that it has corrected all the
problems so you shouldn't have an undercount in Los Angeles. Is
that what you are saying?
Ms. Heinz. Unfortunately, I think we will still have an
undercount in Los Angeles.
Mr. Miller. Well, at least you have a perfect list to start
with, because you have corrected all the mistakes. Is that
right?
Ms. Heinz. I don't think the list will be entirely perfect,
but it is definitely an improvement over 1990. The fact that we
were able to understand the nature of discrepancies is very
important, and that is a result of the Census Address List
Improvement Act. We were able to go with the Bureau to see how
our list had incongruities with the Bureau's list, and now we
know why. So, that is important.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Lettre, you represent the State. So, do
they have a budget within the State, like California allocates
certain money just for its census. Is there a budget for that?
I am just curious.
Mr. Lettre. Well, we have a State planning agency, which
represents a large State commitment to good planning. That
agency has had a very active--along with other State agencies--
an active computer mapping system. Fundamental to working with
census data is the ability to display addresses geographically
on a map, whether they are the Bureau's or whether they are
your own. We have a very active commitment to that.
It parallels, but is not really funded in any way by the
Census Bureau. What it does do is provide a resource that
really complements what we are trying to do with census
activities. And it is housed in the same agency so that it
helps with coordination----
Mr. Miller. What agency--explain that to me.
Mr. Lettre. It is the Maryland Office of Planning, and it
is an agency that is involved with land use planning.
Mr. Miller. All of the planning agencies in the State?
Mr. Lettre. All the planning agencies really--I mean, there
are local planning agencies in both municipalities and
counties. We have a very active relationship with them and, of
course, that is where the burden of local review typically
fell. So we had, you know, a network that we could work with
and we had the technical resources that we could work with.
Those are advantages. I mean, there are advantages that we have
made and advantages that we chose to use. We did use them
actively.
Mr. Miller. As far as participation in LUCA, we were
talking about that earlier, and 40 percent of communities
around the country participated as far as following through on
it. I sense that Maryland had a little bit higher success rate.
Is that----
Mr. Lettre. Well, like I said, we had 95 percent of address
coverage, at least 95 percent of address coverage. We had 18
counties out of 24, but the 6 that didn't really were counties
that largely were part of the 1999 LUCA. They were largely
rural counties and most of the geography that would have been
covered in the 1998 were a few small towns, and so they were
covered.
Also, we have counties--since we are not wall-to-wall
municipalities, we have some good working relationships where
counties assisted municipalities within their jurisdiction.
Don't forget, we have a strong county government system, and
that is an advantage in a program like this as well.
Mr. Miller. So you work mainly with counties rather than
cities. Is that the way it works in Maryland?
Mr. Lettre. We work with both, but we had a tier system,
where a municipality could come directly to us because we
literally provided them with a CD-ROM mapping product that they
could use on their desktop with a standard computer and very
inexpensive software. But those municipalities could come
directly to us, or in some cases they partnered with their
county government counterparts to do the work. The product we
gave them was full county coverage, so it included information
on both the nonincorporated as well as the incorporated portion
of each one of those jurisdictions.
Mr. Miller. One final question. Why would people not
participate--what is your sense?
Mr. Lettre. Well, first of all, we did have high
participation.
Mr. Miller. But those that did not participate----
Mr. Lettre. What we did is we told jurisdictions right out
front that there really was only one way to effectively
participate, and that is you had to have those three things.
You had to have a good local address list, you had to have a
smart way of accessing it and using it, and you had to have the
time and the people to do that, and you had to be committed
after you were finished to responding to the Bureau in the
format that they outlined, which was reasonable.
I am not saying it was the easiest thing to do, but it was
reasonable, because if you did respond in the format that they
asked for, you maximized your chance of them either finding
that housing unit and ultimately accepting it. So, what I am
saying is we played by the rules. The rules involved both hard
work and doing what you could do in the immediacy of the
moment, not what you can do 3 years, 5 years, 10 years from
now. It was doing what we could do now to make it as good and
to have as much of an impact as we could.
Mr. Miller. Thank you. Mrs. Maloney.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would like to
welcome these analysts. They both came here from distances and
we appreciate your expertise and your testimony today.
I would like to go back to a statement that Ms. Heinz said.
She said you could have the address and maybe they didn't fill
a form out, and then you could go back and maybe they wouldn't
be there. I know that in 1990, the National Academy of Sciences
and the Census Bureau said that 70 percent of the undercount
was in households that received the mailing.
So in other words, you could have a mailing, or rather an
address list, that is 100 percent accurate. But if the people
don't fill it out, and don't send it back, then they are going
to be missed. I just want to make a question to you for your
locality. I would like to ask you how much of the undercount
was in households that received the form in Los Angeles, say,
in 1990, and just didn't send it back?
Ms. Heinz. What I understand is about 50 percent of the
under-count in LA was within household misses. So, the
household received the form but they didn't list everybody or
there were nonstandard units within the household and they
didn't include the people who were living in those areas of the
household.
Mrs. Maloney. So, to go back to a statement that Mr. Lettre
made that you have to see LUCA in the whole framework of a
total program that is out there, trying to get a local count--I
know that the Census Bureau and the National Academy of
Sciences said that 80 percent, I believe, in African-American
homes received this form and did not send it back. Isn't the
use of modern scientific methods the only way that you can get
an accurate count?
Ms. Heinz. Well, as you know, I was a participant in the
1990 census and in the litigation regarding the use of the post
enumeration survey to correct for the undercounts. I reviewed
the materials that the Census Bureau has produced over the last
decade, and I firmly believe that the statistical method is the
only way to correct the undercount; particularly, in areas like
Los Angeles, where we have large numbers of persons who are
immigrants, who do not speak English, who do not live in
standard dwelling units. About the only way that we believe
that you can count them is through the use of the ACE process
and the statistical adjustment.
Mrs. Maloney. Setting aside problems with delays in getting
LUCA review materials to participants, would you agree that
having the opportunity to review the census address list, or
address counts, and submit discrepancies to the Census Bureau
will result in improvement and a more complete list for census
2000? I would like to ask both panelists that question.
Ms. Heinz. Absolutely. Cities need to take advantage of
this opportunity. Compared to 1990, where all we got was a unit
count of addresses per block, which we then had to count up our
addresses and guess what was missing, we now can see the actual
addresses. In particular, we have an understanding of how our
system of collecting and having addresses when compared with
the Bureau's methodology could lead to these discrepancies.
I really hope that in the future, in 2010, if we have to go
through this again, our own address list would be that much
more accurate, because we know now what kinds of things we can
do to correct it.
Mrs. Maloney. Mr. Lettre.
Mr. Lettre. I do think it was a very good opportunity and I
think it was the appropriate opportunity for this point in
time. I mean, I think that it made significant advances over
what happened 10 years ago. Ten years from now, perhaps when we
do it there will be an opportunity to make it even better. Part
of that will be not only what the Bureau does but it will be
also what local governments do; and this is that they will
presumably have better, smarter computer systems, better
geographic mapping systems.
All of those things will allow this to occur in a smarter
and better way at sometime in the future. I think there were
opportunities to do it as smartly as you could this time
around, and I think those jurisdictions that got the most
benefit from this planned that and, in fact, took the maximum
advantage they could at this point in time. I believe that it
has made a difference and it has been a contribution to the
overall effort to build a quality master address list.
Mrs. Maloney. Did both of you participate in the Census
Bureau's training program? If you did, would you comment on the
training program? If you did not, would you state why you did
not participate in the training program?
Ms. Heinz. I participated in the training program. The
early training that was done at the end of 1998 to describe the
LUCA process, and also, in the most recent training that was
done in advance of the field canvass. I thought it was very
clear what the job of the listers was and I was pleased with
it.
Now, the one area where I think we might have used a little
more assistance was having individuals in the field that spoke
a greater variety of languages. That is something we need to
work on.
Mrs. Maloney. Did you participate?
Mr. Lettre. Yes. As a matter of fact, our office really was
the organization that worked with the Census Bureau to
coordinate all of the training, both identifying the sites and
locations. We were there at all the training and we
supplemented the training because we informed the local
governments of the technical assistance tools that we were
going to be making available to help them. That was the
beginning of our formal partnership with them.
Again, nobody went this alone. Federal, State and local
sort of joined at the hip.
Mrs. Maloney. Well, my time is up. Thank you very much for
your testimony.
Mr. Miller. Thank you both for being here. You didn't have
quite as far to drive from Baltimore, but----
Mr. Lettre. I took the train.
Mr. Miller. Train, yes. Thank you for being here.
I ask unanimous consent that all Members' and witnesses'
written open statements be included in the record. Without
objection, so ordered.
In case there are additional questions the Members may have
for our witnesses, I ask unanimous consent for the record to
remain open for 2 weeks for Members to submit questions for the
record, and that witnesses submit written answers as soon as
practical. Without objection, so ordered.
Thank you, again, for being here. The meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional information submitted for the hearing record
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1820.082