<DOC>
[108th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:91645.wais]
THE AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY: THE CHALLENGES OF ELIMINATING THE LONG
FORM FROM THE 2010 CENSUS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY, INFORMATION
POLICY, INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS AND
THE CENSUS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 13, 2003
__________
Serial No. 108-97
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
http://www.house.gov/reform
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2004
91-645 PDF
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut TOM LANTOS, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
DOUG OSE, California DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
RON LEWIS, Kentucky DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
CHRIS CANNON, Utah DIANE E. WATSON, California
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER,
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia Maryland
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania Columbia
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio JIM COOPER, Tennessee
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas CHRIS BELL, Texas
WILLIAM J. JANKLOW, South Dakota ------
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
(Independent)
Peter Sirh, Staff Director
Melissa Wojciak, Deputy Staff Director
Rob Borden, Parliamentarian
Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk
Philip M. Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental
Relations and the Census
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida, Chairman
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
DOUG OSE, California DIANE E. WATSON, California
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
Ex Officio
TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Bob Dix, Staff Director
Scott Klein, Professional Staff Member
Ursula Wojciechowski, Clerk
David McMillen, Minority Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on May 13, 2003..................................... 1
Statement of:
Cooper, Kathleen, Under Secretary for Economic Affairs, U.S.
Department of Commerce; and C. Louis Kincannon, Director,
U.S. Census Bureau......................................... 9
Reardon, Thomas, executive director, Fulton County
Partnership, McConnellsburg, PA; Dr. Joseph Salvo,
director, population division, New York City Department of
City Planning; Joan Naymark, director, research and
planning, Target Corp., testifying on behalf of the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce; Ken Hodges, director of demography,
Claritas; and Richard Ogburn, principal planner, South
Florida Regional Planning Council.......................... 31
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Clay, Hon. Wm. Lacy, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Missouri, prepared statement of................... 8
Cooper, Kathleen, Under Secretary for Economic Affairs, U.S.
Department of Commerce, prepared statement of.............. 12
Hodges, Ken, director of demography, Claritas, prepared
statement of............................................... 69
Kincannon, C. Louis, Director, U.S. Census Bureau, prepared
statement of............................................... 18
Naymark, Joan, director, research and planning, Target Corp.,
testifying on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
prepared statement of...................................... 54
Ogburn, Richard, principal planner, South Florida Regional
Planning Council, prepared statement of.................... 74
Putnam, Hon. Adam H., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida, prepared statement of.................... 4
Reardon, Thomas, executive director, Fulton County
Partnership, McConnellsburg, PA, prepared statement of..... 34
Salvo, Dr. Joseph, director, population division, New York
City Department of City Planning, prepared statement of.... 42
THE AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY: THE CHALLENGES OF ELIMINATING THE LONG
FORM FROM THE 2010 CENSUS
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 13, 2003
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy,
Intergovernmental Relations and the Census,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Adam Putnam
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Putnam and Clay.
Staff present: Bob Dix, staff director; John Hambel, senior
counsel; Scott Klein, Chip Walker, Lori Martin, and Casey
Welch, professional staff members; Ursula Wojciechowski, clerk;
Susanne Lightman, fellow; Bill Vigen, intern; David McMillen,
minority professional staff member; and Jean Gosa, minority
assistant clerk.
Mr. Putnam. A quorum being present, this hearing of the
Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy,
Intergovernmental Relations and the Census will come to order.
Good morning and welcome to today's hearing entitled, ``The
American Community Survey: The Challenges of Eliminating the
Long Form From the 2010 Census.''
The census is one of the oldest civic ceremonies of our
Nation. The enumeration of our resident population is set forth
in Article I, Section 2, in our Constitution. The first census
was conducted in 1790 under the direction of Thomas Jefferson.
That census was conducted by U.S. marshals on horseback and
counted 3.9 million inhabitants.
The modern-day census is the largest peacetime mobilization
of manpower America undertakes. In 2010, rather than riding
horseback, enumerators will carry with them mobile computing
devices. Although the basic fundamental notion of enumerating
our population has not changed, the way in which the Census
Bureau conducts this enumeration certainly has.
The census has adapted over time to the continually
changing needs of our Nation for timely, quality data. In 1940,
we saw the introduction of the long form. The long form has
provided volumes of data for users from Federal, State and
local governments to businesses and universities. The Congress
and specifically this subcommittee is being asked to consider
whether or not it's time for another significant evolution in
the way we conduct the census, the elimination of the long form
and the introduction of the American Community Survey.
The Census Bureau has been developing the ACS since the
1990's, and in recent years has worked closely with Congress
and with many outside interest groups and data users in its
development. By most accounts, the data users' community is
supportive of the American Community Survey and its full
implementation by the Congress.
The Census Bureau began developing the ACS in the mid-
1990's and has been collecting data in a development program
since 1996. The goals of the ACS, as stated by the Census
Bureau, are: Provide Federal, State and local governments an
information base for the administration and evaluation of
government programs; eliminate the long form from the 2010
census, thereby facilitating improvements of the accuracy by
allowing the decennial census to focus on counting the
population by simply using the short form; and provide data
users with timely demographic housing, social and economic
statistics updated every year that can be compared across State
communities and population groups.
I would also add a goal that is critical if ACS is going to
receive the necessary funding from Congress for full
implementation. The Census Bureau must demonstrate to both the
authorizers and appropriators that fully funding the ACS will
eliminate duplicative survey at the Census Bureau, and in this
arena alone the taxpayer will recognize savings.
I simply would find it unbelievable that no surveys could
be eliminated with the advent of the ACS. Eliminating redundant
surveys would send a clear message to Congress that the Census
Bureau is truly dedicated to making the American Community
Survey top of the class and not just another survey.
To be sure there are still some serious issues to mitigate
beyond the mere cost, one of those issues is privacy. As an
elected official, I understand that in order for governments to
make informed decisions when spending hard-earned tax dollars,
governments need timely and reliable data on which to base
those decisions. At the same time, I understand how important
people's privacy is to them. In many aspects of my work
chairing this subcommittee, integrating technology, information
and security needs with the right to privacy of Americans has
been at the forefront.
Generally speaking, government has a tremendous challenge
ahead of it: How to obtain the information that is needed to
make informed decisions while at the same time respecting the
privacy rights of the public. The Census Bureau needs to be at
the forefront of overcoming these challenges. The Bureau, to
its credit, has the most protective privacy law on the books.
All personal census information, including the American
Community Survey, is not shared with anyone for 72 years.
That said, I don't know if that will continue to be
sufficient in convincing people to participate in this survey.
I don't suggest that the law needs to be strengthened
necessarily, but rather the Census Bureau should seriously
explore new and innovative ways to solicit voluntary
cooperation from the residents of the Nation.
I know that the Census Bureau, the Congress, the public and
private data users and partnership groups have done a lot of
work on the ACS. I'm also aware that we are rapidly approaching
a point where the Census Bureau needs to know if there will be
a long form in the 2010 census or if the ACS will be the new
survey tool. It is fundamental to a successful 2010 census that
we let the Census Bureau know as soon as possible how the
Congress expects the census to be conducted. I'm hopeful that
we can continue to work together to resolve these issues, and
that Congress can make a final determination on full funding
for the ACS in the very near future.
As with most of our hearings, today's hearing can be viewed
live via Web cast by going to reform.house.gov and clicking on
the link under ``Live Committee Broadcast.''
I appreciate the gentleman from Missouri, the ranking
member of this subcommittee, for his attendance here and his
support of the committee's work, and I recognize him for his
opening statements.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Adam H. Putnam follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this
hearing.
As you may know, I hosted a meeting in St. Louis 2 years
ago, so that the Census Bureau could explain the survey to a
wide cross-section of business and community leaders in our
State. We had over 100 people who attended that session, and
all were very interested in the possibilities promised by the
American Community Survey, both Acting Director Barron and
Director Kincannon were instrumental in making the arrangements
for the forum, and I'd like to thank the witnesses on this
panel and the next for taking their time to appear before us
today.
I hope this hearing will improve our understanding of this
complex survey.
The last hearing we had on this issue was just about 2
years ago. At that time, the committee was concerned about the
cost of the survey, the length of the questionnaire and the
fact that answering the survey was mandatory. Witnesses raised
questions about the quality of the information produced by the
survey, the complexity of those data for small places, and
fears that either dwindling appropriations or cost overruns
would result in a survey that was less useful than promised.
Unfortunately, many of those questions remain on the table
today. The good news is that we have 2 more years' worth of
experience and data with which to answer those questions.
This survey is a bold undertaking. Over the 10-year census
cycle, this survey will cost between $1.5 and $2 billion. It is
important that Congress recognize the full cost of the survey.
Funding it for a year or two won't do anyone much good. If we
are to go forward, we must do so recognizing and committing to
the full cost of the survey.
I look forward to today's testimony, and I hope that many
of these questions will be put to rest today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I ask that my full statement
be included in the record.
Mr. Putnam. Without objection, it will be inserted at
appropriate place in the record.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Wm. Lacy Clay follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Mr. Putnam. We'll now begin with the first panel. Each of
you has submitted written testimony which will be included in
the record of this hearing. I've asked that you summarize your
oral testimony in 5 minutes so to leave ample time for
questions and dialog.
You have a light on your table. All of you are familiar
with the lighting system. The green light means, begin your
remarks; yellow light means, it's time to start wrapping up;
and red light means, your time has expired.
As is the custom with this committee and its subcommittees,
we'll swear in the witnesses. We'll ask the first panel and
those who will be providing you any corollary support or
whispering in your ear, whatever, would be asked to be sworn
in, as well.
So please stand, raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Putnam. Note for the record the witnesses responded in
the affirmative.
Operating under the lady's-first rule, we will begin with
the Honorable Kathleen Cooper.
As the Commerce Department's Under Secretary for Economic
Affairs, Ms. Cooper serves as the principal economic adviser
for Secretary Don Evans and is CEO of a 7,000-employee
organization that gathers, calculates and disseminates much of
the U.S. demographic social and economic data. Business
leaders, policymakers, indeed, all Americans, base decisions on
the information in Dr. Cooper's purview, including reports on
the Nation's GDP, retail sales, personal income, housing
starts, inventory levels and international trade.
She is the Administrator of the Economics and Statistics
Administration and oversees two statistical agencies, the
Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Census Bureau, and the
Internet information resource, STAT-USA.
Her priorities included advising Secretary Evans on
economic trends and policy and communicating the President's
economic agenda, retaining and improving the high quality of
the Nation's indicators and reengineering the decennial census
by planning for an accurate short-form-only census in 2010.
Prior to joining the Bush administration, Dr. Cooper was
the chief economist and manager of the economics and energy
division at Exxon Mobil Corp., where she advised corporate
leadership on the global business environment and energy
markets and developed the appropriate assumptions for planning
purposes.
Dr. Cooper holds a bachelor's degree in mathematics and
master's degree in economics from the University of Texas at
Arlington and a doctorate in economics from the University of
Colorado.
Welcome to the subcommittee. You're recognized.
STATEMENTS OF KATHLEEN COOPER, UNDER SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC
AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; AND C. LOUIS KINCANNON,
DIRECTOR, U.S. CENSUS BUREAU
Ms. Cooper. Thank you very much, Chairman Putnam, Mr. Clay.
As you noted, my name is Kathleen Cooper, and I have the
privilege of serving as the Under Secretary for Economic
Affairs at the Department of Commerce, and I'm here today to
explain why the administration and the Department of Commerce
believe so strongly in the American Community Survey.
But I'm here today to explain why the administration and
the Department of Commerce believes so strongly in the American
Community Survey. Quite simply, the old system, leaving us with
10-year-old data, is simply not good enough for the world's
largest and strongest economy.
Secretary Evans has made it clear that he values the most
timely and accurate economic and demographic data. The
President's budget for ACS will revolutionize both how we take
an every-10-year census and how Americans use these data
products.
The Census Bureau is a premier statistical agency in the
world. It took an excellent census in 2000 which produced long
form data on which policymakers, businesses and families are
today basing important decisions, but as late as 1 year ago,
you and I and our fellow citizens had only data from 1990.
Already data gathered in April 2000 grows stale; we can do
better.
The professionals at the Census Bureau have a better way.
The American Community Survey is a developed and tested
program; since 1996, the Census Bureau has tested the ability
of the ACS to deliver annually the high-quality data that we
need for even the smallest community. And that is indeed the
difference: data every year for cities and towns of every size.
There are 31 test sites where the ACS is up and running.
You will hear from leaders of some of those communities in the
next panel, and I'm confident they will give you real-life
examples that show the quality of the ACS data.
Dramatic changes do not wait. People are born, they grow
up, wed, move, start families, open businesses, retire and die.
There are plant openings, hurricanes, floods, base closings,
new shopping malls, new interstate highways and other events
taking place on a daily basis, changing the life of a
community.
And, in fact, as I sit before you today, New York City,
especially lower Manhattan, has changed in profound ways that
have yet to be measured. You will hear shortly from Dr. Joe
Salvo, a noted New York City planner. The census 2000 data that
he must use now are essentially matters of history.
Long-form data are a wonderful snapshot. The ACS will be a
moving video image. The American Community Survey questionnaire
is essentially the same as the long form from census 2000,
because the data must meet the same statutory and regulatory
obligations. The Bureau has worked many years with other
Federal agencies to ensure that the answers to those questions
will provide the data to meet these requirements.
We are often ridiculed for asking questions that some
believe to be intrusive--for instance, does this house,
apartment or mobile home have complete plumbing facilities? The
Department of Health and Human Services, Indian Health Service
and Housing and Urban Development use these answers to
determine public health policy and the condition of housing in
remote areas and in low-income neighborhoods.
Some may not understand why we ask questions such as: At
what location did this person work last week? How did this
person usually get to work last week? What time did this person
usually leave home to go to work last week?
But answers to these questions provide the basis for
commuting data required by the Highway Safety Act and the
Transportation Equity Act of the 21st century. Answers provide
the information to describe the geographic patterns of commuter
travel and the volume of travel between communities.
Evaluations of traffic congestion, air quality, public
transportation needs are developed from answers to these
questions.
Folks are sometimes reluctant to provide income data, but
answers feed low-income children by way of a National School
Lunch Program, and answers heat low-income homes in the winter
through the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program.
All questions were evaluated by a content working group
organized by the Office of Management and Budget. In addition,
the Department of Commerce took the unprecedented step to seek
affirmation of these needs from the legal offices of each
department or agency; and this notebook--with your permission,
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to enter the results that are included
in this notebook into the record, indicating diverse uses for
American Community Survey data.
Each of these questions meets data needs that are required
by statute, regulation or court decision.
Mr. Putnam. Is there an objection?
Mr. Clay. No.
Mr. Putnam. Your information will be included at the
appropriate point in the record.
Ms. Cooper. Thank you, Congressman.
These answers do not belong to the government. They belong
to all Americans. Just the other day I read of a man who, at
age 57, suddenly found himself an out-of-work executive in a
market full of out-of-work executives. Since a new job that
duplicated his income and title seemed out of reach, he and his
wife decided to start a business instead. They investigated
options and staked $20,000 into their new enterprise. Then
according to Forbes magazine, they plowed through census data,
looking for markets with demographic characteristics of those
interested in their product.
As this example illustrates, access to yearly data can help
businesses grow, help governments adapt and help Congress
legislate. The administration believes ACS is the way to go.
The Census Bureau has done great work, and Secretary Evans and
I hope very much that Congress will support ACS.
And, with that, I thank you and would be happy to answer
questions at the appropriate time.
Mr. Putnam. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Cooper follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Mr. Putnam. At this time, we'll recognize Mr. Lewis
Kincannon, Director of the U.S. Census Bureau.
Mr. Kincannon began his career as an a statistician at the
Census Bureau in 1963, after graduating from UT-Austin--a
couple of Texas grads here. Mr. Kincannon held positions of
leadership at the Census Bureau and also with the Office of
Management and Budget. He served as Deputy Director of the
Census Bureau during the 1980's and as the Acting Director
during the crucial final phase of preparation for the 1990
census.
Throughout his career with the Federal Government, Mr.
Kincannon sought to strengthen the relationships between
statistical agencies as well as data users in order to produce
timely, relevant data that informs public policy and
decisionmaking.
In October 1992, Mr. Kincannon was appointed as the first
chief statistician in the Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development [OECD], in Paris to coordinate the
organization's statistical programs as well as advise the
Secretary General on statistical policy. During that time, he
encouraged the cooperation and understanding among statistical
agencies, underscoring the larger relationships between
Nations.
He returned to the United States in June 2000 after leaving
his post. President Bush nominated Mr. Kincannon for Director
of the Census Bureau last year, and the Senate unanimously
confirmed him on March 13, 2002.
Perhaps you could advise some of the judicial nominees on
how to accomplish that.
The Census Bureau collects the data used by policy and
decisionmakers that affect the lives of every person living in
America. Mr. Kincannon is leading the agency's efforts to
reengineer the decennial census, as well as update the
collection of economic and demographic data in order to reflect
America's diverse and changing society.
With that, you're recognized for your opening remarks.
Welcome.
Mr. Kincannon. Good morning. Thank you, sir. Thank you, and
on behalf of the Census Bureau, I'd like to thank the whole
committee for inviting me to testify this morning. This is an
important opportunity to bring you up to date on the progress
that the Census Bureau has made with the American Community
Survey.
Is this now showing up on sound? Good. I'll try to keep it
close.
It is also important to highlight the fundamental and
intrinsic role of the American Community Survey in a successful
decennial census in 2010. After all, these components of a
redesigned 2010 census have one goal: to provide the data that
will serve America's needs in the 21st century.
Mr. Chairman, this is a rapidly changing nation, as you
well know, and it has urgent needs for timely data. In Florida,
for example, during the 1990's, the population expanded
substantially, changing the composition of many communities. In
Brandon, for example, the number of persons who do not speak
English at home more than doubled from approximately 5,000 to
more than 11,000.
Closer to Washington, Loudoun County, VA was among the
fastest growing counties in the Nation. The population grew by
96 percent between 1990 and 2000, and that meant far more than
simply just congestion on Route 7. The school system, as an
example, in an attempt to keep pace with the needs of a growing
student population, had already taken its own census before the
long form results for 2000 were published.
The good news is that the Census Bureau is moving to
improve dramatically the way we deliver crucial and important
data on the characteristics of our population. With the
American Community Survey, we will eliminate the long form by
collecting these data every year. While this will change the
way that we get our information, we will continue to provide
the same long-form-type data that are used throughout
government and in the private sector. The real difference is
that once fully implemented, the American Community Survey will
offer data updated every year for every neighborhood throughout
the country.
The President's budget for 2004 includes funding to
implement the American Community Survey at full sample size
next year in the final quarter of the fiscal year. The American
Community Survey will provide data for areas and groups of
65,000 persons or more in 2006. This means that there will be
detailed characteristics data for areas such as New York City,
including each of the five boroughs, for Los Angeles, for
Sacramento, St. Louis, as well as Warren County, OH, and
Brockton, MA, in 2006 and every year thereafter.
In 2008 we will start providing data for every county, town
and community between the sizes of 20,000 and 65,000. This
means there will be summary data for Gila County, AZ; Port
Huron, MI; Bethel Park, PA; and Redmond, WA; and they will be
updated every year thereafter.
The data for neighborhoods, census tracts or block groups,
and smaller towns will come 2 years before long form data could
possibly be provided by a conventional census in 2010. This
means there will be data for Ballast Point and Forest Hills in
Tampa, as well as for neighboring small towns such as Pine
Crest, FL.
The development of the American Community Survey, along
with modernization of the Census Bureau's geography systems,
has enabled the Census Bureau to plan a short-form-only census,
and we are now well along the path to ensure their success.
Moreover, the dramatic advantages of having both the
American Community Survey and a fundamentally redesigned short-
form census in 2010 will cost the American taxpayers less than
a traditional long-form decennial census. Our current estimates
indicate that the three components of a reengineered 2010
census will cost approximately $11.2 billion. However, if we
change course right now and revert to a traditional long-form
census, the overall cost will be at least $12 billion and
perhaps much more.
Our success will rely on your support of the President's
2004 budget and on our ability to continue early planning and
testing for the 2010 census. The American Community Survey is a
high-return investment in America's future. It will mean yearly
data from growing and changing communities throughout America.
Mr. Chairman, even as we speak this morning, there are
thousands of local, elected officials and planners struggling
to balance diverse community needs. They are trying to
establish priorities and invest in the future in an era of
constrained budgets. For many, the American Community Survey
will illuminate the difference between the past and the
present, and this understanding is the key to being able to
move confidently into the future.
I ask that my complete statement be included in the record,
and I thank you and would be happy to answer questions when the
time comes. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Putnam. Thank you, Director Kincannon, and your written
testimony will be in the record in the appropriate place.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kincannon follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Mr. Putnam. And we will begin the questions with the
gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Clay.
Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Kincannon, the Census Bureau produces the numbers that
are used to draw congressional districts. Now, those numbers
exclude children, but include noncitizens who cannot vote. This
creates an inequity that is made even worse by an undercounted
census, particularly in African-American districts. We wind up
with districts that have an official census count that is quite
different from reality.
What can the Census Bureau do about this?
Mr. Kincannon. Well, I believe in the particulars for the
redistricting data files that we follow the prescription of the
law and include people as directed there as we do for the
Voting Rights Act. And I do believe that it is intended that
all people, whether citizens or not, be represented by the
Member of that district.
Mr. Clay. Well, but now, what about--so we're counting all
adults in the numbers, but not children, and with that
compounded by the undercount, do you see the disparity here in
the funneling of the numbers, so to say?
Mr. Kincannon. Yes, Mr. Clay. My understanding, my
recollection--let me look for a glance of agreement--is that we
include children in the public law data that provide the basis
for redistricting. That is correct. So we include children in
the data file required by law for redistricting the Congress,
and we include noncitizens.
Mr. Clay. Now, I'm not quite sure if that is accurate, and
I will--I'll follow-up with a letter to you so that we can
clarify, and hopefully you can clarify for me, if children are
included in the hard count for reapportionment purposes. That
is what I need to know.
Are they included in the voting rights data?
Mr. Kincannon. No, sir, they are not, because the law
specifies what should be--which parts of the population should
be included; and only people of voting age, whether they are
citizens or not, noncitizens, are included, as prescribed by
the law, in the tabulations to support the Voting Rights Act
implementation.
Mr. Clay. OK. That sounds like a quirk in the law, doesn't
it?
Mr. Kincannon. Well, that would be best for you to judge,
sir.
Mr. Clay. But let's count you anyway, although services are
rendered to a lot of children, too, you know, so that sounds
like a quirk in the law.
Let me go to the next question, Mr. Kincannon. It is my
understanding that you announced to the National Academy of
Sciences that for the 2010 census, the Census Bureau would not
make any effort to correct the population for either
reapportionment or redistricting. I have a letter I am sending
today asking for more information on that decision. However,
I'd like you to briefly address it here.
Even the most optimistic counting of errors in the 2000
census still shows a significant undercount for African
Americans, almost 2 percent, and a differential between African
Americans and Caucasians that is almost as large as 1990, a
reduction of only about 24 percent.
How can you say you're going to do nothing to be in a
position to fix the census when these kinds of inequities
remain and are likely to get worse? What do we do to correct
that?
Mr. Kincannon. Well, Mr. Clay, I think we do see a number
of steps that we can take and are proposing to take to improve
the completeness of the count in 2010. The American Community
Survey, which will permit us to conduct a short-form-only
census, is one step in that direction.
The mail return rates are 13 percentage points higher for
the short form than for the long form. That step alone and the
simplification of the followup logistics will very clearly lead
to improved coverage overall and, I believe, to improved
differential coverage rates, that is, narrower differentials
between population groups.
The ACS will also permit us to target language minorities
and other kinds of problems in rapidly developing or changing
areas to address the kind of census taking we will need in 2010
with recent and complete information.
What I said in many forums and almost to everyone that will
listen is that we are not asking funding that would support
adjustment of the census, because we do not at present have a
methodology that will provide results to meet the
Constitutional and statutory needs of the census. I'm
disappointed at that, but it's a fact that's the finding of the
Census Bureau.
We do plan to conduct an extensive evaluation of coverage
in 2010. It's important that we have knowledge about the
coverage. I won't be able to prove that we have made steps
forward in 2010 without that.
Mr. Clay. Why in 2003 have you said, so far out, that you
would not make any effort to correct the population for either
reapportionment or redistricting? I mean, look, I respect your
expertise in this area, but tell me why the timing--timing-
wise----
Mr. Kincannon. Mr. Clay, we've just completed a very
thorough review of the effort of the 2000 census to measure
coverage and to take steps to correct for errors in coverage,
and that process has led us to the conclusion that we do not
have a methodology that will support the kinds of applications
that there are in the census. And I will mention three: First
of all, reapportionment, use of sample-base data for
reapportionment is prohibited under the law. So we will not
propose any effort there.
For redistricting, we are convinced--it's not me. I listen
to experts who went through the process by which they made the
decision that they were unable to produce useful figures that
would withstand criticism and examination in time for the
redistricting proposals which were re--redistricting file which
must be provided by April 1st in the year following the census.
And it's a good thing we didn't, because at that time, the
indication was an undercount of 3 million. When we finished
work on this examination in December 2002, the indication was
an overcount of a million and a half. That's a significant
difference.
It still means that there are differentials, and that would
be of concern, but it shows we were correct in deciding--the
experts; I wasn't working at the Census Bureau at that time,
but the experts on the staff were correct in their decision
that we did not have usable figures in the mandated period
required by the law.
The last thing we examined was the potential for correcting
for--of intercennial estimates which provide estimates at the
place level throughout the country every year between censuses.
And the examination--again of experts, not of me, because
that's--I don't--I appreciate your note of respect for my
expertise, but it doesn't extend that far. But the people who
are experts and who have worked on this almost continually for
the last decade drew the conclusion that we did not have a
process that would produce usable, defensible figures even at
the place level.
We have worked in this direction for 25 years, and the
process does--the procedure that we have worked with does not
provide us with useful answers.
Mr. Clay. There is no process?
Mr. Kincannon. I didn't say that. There may be, but we
don't have one in hand.
Mr. Clay. Ms. Cooper, did you want to add something?
Ms. Cooper. Yes. I simply wanted to add, as he describes,
he has more expertise in this than I, but I have been here for
2 years watching the professionals at the Census Bureau trying
to work through this issue; and I simply want to express even
more to you, Mr. Clay, that is a very important reason why this
administration and Secretary Evans, in particular, and I myself
feel so strongly about full funding for the ACS. Because we
really do want to measure the characteristics of the population
as we move through this decade, and have all the ability in the
world to do the most accurate count that is possible in 2010.
We really believe that this is indeed the most probable way of
doing a better job, of reducing that undercount again, as we
move to 2010.
Mr. Clay. I hate to put you on the spot, Ms. Cooper, but if
you were fully funded, would you assure us that the methodology
would be developed to come up with more accurate counts to do
this thing fairly and--in a reapportionment and redistricting?
Can I get a guarantee from either one of you?
Ms. Cooper. I think guarantees are never easy to fulfill. I
will guarantee you that we will do everything in our power,
with full funding of the ACS, to do the best job possible at a
full count, absolutely full count in 2010. Clearly, that is
very difficult.
Mr. Clay. Promise?
Ms. Cooper. But what we have done is get better each
decade, and we want to continue that trend.
Mr. Clay. Thank you.
Ms. Cooper. We promise that.
Mr. Putnam. We appreciate the gentleman's questions, and
recognizing that we have a limited audience here, we're going
to be generous with the time to have all your questions fully
answered.
I want to followup with Mr. Clay's questions about the
accuracy of the census. Could either of you give us some sense
of the historical trend of accuracy? Are we getting better? How
much better? Are we getting worse? How much worse? Any
developments?
And since the purpose of this hearing is to talk about the
American Community Survey, where does it get us in the next
step toward a more accurate count?
Mr. Kincannon. Mr. Chairman, I'm responding from memory, so
I'll be rather general, but looking--again, we began
systematically evaluating coverage of the census in 1940, and
since that time, in general, there has been a trend toward
better coverage, with the exception of the 1990 census where
overall coverage and differential coverage between Blacks and
nonBlacks widened. But we narrowed that and improved over the
1980 census in 2000.
So we have made gradual progress. I think this is due to,
among other things, to the strong support in Congress for
adequate funding to pay for workers in the field, for paid
advertising and for the partnership program with local
community leaders who can accomplish a relationship of trust to
get over that barrier of concern about privacy. They can
communicate better with the public than someone from Washington
can.
Mr. Putnam. What portion of your budget is spent on the
long form versus the short form?
Mr. Kincannon. I can't really answer that question for
2000. We didn't get the records that way. I have some
comparisons about conducting the census, either with a
traditional long form or with the ACS in the redesigned census,
if that is useful.
If we conduct the redesigned census with the ACS collecting
the long-form data and a short form only in 2010, we estimate
that total cost over the life cycle would be about $11.2
billion.
If we now change and go to a traditional long-form census,
the cost would be closer to $12 billion and perhaps more than
that. And of course the benefits we get are less because we
would not have reason to expect better coverage, improved
coverage, in the census in 2010 because we'd still have the
complexity of long-form work at the same time, and we would not
have 10 observations measuring the rapid change in localities
in our country.
Mr. Putnam. Ms. Cooper, you used as an example the events
of September 11th and how they have transformed Manhattan
Island; and it occurred to me that the events of the last 2
weeks in parts of Missouri and other communities in the
Midwest, where the entire community is destroyed, the data will
not be updated to reflect that tectonic shift in middle America
until 2011 or so, whenever the final numbers come out. What's
the process for dealing with these community leaders who are
struggling to clean up and deal with the aftermath and rebuild
or make the types of long-term decisions they are being asked
to make? How do they do that with this outdated data?
Ms. Cooper. Well, Chairman Putnam, that is a very good
question and one that we struggle with, and I know the
community leaders struggle with on a day-in-and-day-out basis,
because there's simply not the ongoing set of information for
them to use to make decisions about their future.
And so, again, I think that is one of the driving forces
behind why we are pushing the ACS as much as we are.
Now, Director Kincannon may well have some better examples
of how we deal with that, but I certainly do think that it's a
very real issue and one that we have to be concerned about,
going forward. This world is just changing too quickly, and
tough events occur; and we need to be able to figure out how to
deal with them.
Mr. Putnam. Presumably FEMA enumerates the number of small
business loans, the number of buildings that are rendered
unsafe, the number of people who are homeless or in need of
assistance. Is there some collaborative effort to coordinate
their data and update your data?
Mr. Kincannon. Well, if I might, FEMA would have what we
might call enumerated data, instances of transactions, loans,
destroyed businesses and so forth, but the denominator for all
their calculations are data from the Census Bureau. We work
very closely with FEMA to provide data that help in finding for
evacuations, for dealing with disasters and so on.
Just last month I was in Hawaii, meeting with native
Hawaiian groups, because we have a new set of data in the
census. The Commerce Department's tsunami warning center in
Hawaii was conducting its first-ever statewide drill of tsunami
warning, and I was privileged to observe the action. Thank
goodness, it was only a drill, so it was a lot of telephone
calls going back and forth, but the basis for the evacuation
plans, census data, plus information about transportation.
Now, that data is very fresh now in Hawaii, because it
comes from the 2000 census. But as we go on, it will not be as
fresh, and the ACS, like the long form, will provide daytime
and nighttime populations for neighborhoods, and it will be
updated annually. So disaster planning, whether for tsunamis or
tornados or other events, will be better.
Mr. Putnam. You let me and Mr. Clay know if the Hawaiians
need any more tsunami drill observers.
Mr. Kincannon. I only go because Senator Akaka wants me to.
Mr. Putnam. Last week, in advisory committee meetings that
were hosted by the Bureau, a number of different groups
expressed some concern that recent laws, particularly the
Patriot Act, are threatening the confidentiality provisions of
Title 13. Could both of you speak to those concerns about the
department and the Bureau's commitment to Title 13's privacy
protections?
Mr. Kincannon. Well, I think the simple answer is, the
Patriot Act has no effect at all on Title 13, and I can tell
you that as long as I'm the Director of the Census Bureau any
change in law that would affect that will not be quietly
engineered.
Ms. Cooper. And I can tell you that the Department of
Commerce stands firmly behind the Census Bureau in that.
Mr. Putnam. Very good.
As you're aware, this whole issue of privacy and
confidentiality continue to be overriding concerns to many
Americans. It's becoming more difficult for government, and the
private sector, for that matter, to collect information from
which information and decisions are derived.
Share your thoughts on how the Census Bureau has become
more creative in the past in toning down people's concerns or
helping them to feel more comfortable with this and how future
censuses or future community surveys will continue that trend
of dealing with the privacy and confidentiality concerns.
Mr. Kincannon. Well, I guess the first step that we try to
take is to explain very clearly that the law prohibits any kind
of sharing of this information for purposes other than
statistical or, in fact, are in general outside the Census
Bureau. That's a very clear provision of law, and the people
who are punished if the violation occurs are Census Bureau
employees. They can be fined very severely, a quarter of a
million dollars, and they can go to jail for up to 5 years, I
believe it is.
I'm under oath, so I'll qualify by saying I think that's my
recollection of the penalty. That's a severe penalty. It's not
just a legal prohibition without some force behind it. It's
really very substantial.
Furthermore, we explain--and this is what the census field
representative can explain very clearly on the doorstep or on
the telephone when that contact with the concerned individual
occurs--that we understand our business depends on our keeping
the privacy of individuals who report to us protected.
Ms. Cooper. And I might just add that is again a good
reason why the ACS will help us to do that, because with the
ACS, we will have--we will have people who are full-time
staffers, who understand what is going on, who have been part
of the Census Bureau, who understand and are able to help, more
than is the case when we go once a decade and have to hire a
lot of people and train them--and train them very well, but
nevertheless it's very difficult to train people in a very
short period of time.
So having this done on an ongoing basis with permanent
staff is--does do a much better job of alleviating some of
those concerns of yours and other Congressmen's constituents.
Mr. Putnam. With the exception of the ongoing testing and
response rates to the ACS of the voluntary survey, your
operational testing has been rather extensive and successful in
giving you the basis for your cost estimates for the ACS, but
recent evidence, such as the response rate to the current
population survey, has been declining steadily, from almost 96
percent in 1992 to your forecast of about 91 percent in 2005.
This information on response rates raises two questions
about the costs of the ACS.
First, because the likelihood of a declining response rate
to the male survey portion of the ACS will increase the more
costly, personal interview followup, isn't it likely that
you'll need more than the $150 million a year to collect
reliable data?
Mr. Kincannon. Well, Mr. Chairman, the difficulty in
getting responses from households, whether a personal visit or
by mail survey, is of concern to us. It is a phenomenon
associated with changes in our whole society, with people--more
people working and not at home during the day, with busier
lives, with gated communities, concerns about privacy and so
on; and very importantly, increased competition from private
surveys or marketing activities that sometimes irritate people
more than government surveys. It makes it harder sometimes for
us to get that.
So far, the response rates for the ACS, looking at the
800,000-household sample, are remaining above 95 percent. If
the society continues to change in ways that it has in the
past, we may need more money than we expect now, but we expect
that to be kept under control and to use every device and every
technique at our hands to try to keep that response rate up.
Mr. Putnam. Your intent is that it remain voluntary?
Mr. Kincannon. Sir? I didn't hear.
Mr. Putnam. If you eliminate the long form and replace it
with the ACS, would that be voluntary or mandatory to respond?
Mr. Kincannon. The ACS is a part of census, and under the
census law, it is mandatory; and we have been conducting it on
a mandatory basis. Recently, we have been conducting a very
important test comparing mandatory and voluntary conditions of
collection, and we will be reporting to the Congress on the
results of that test in August.
At that time, the Congress will make a decision about which
way it thinks it's better to go with the survey.
Mr. Putnam. Very well.
Mr. Clay, do you have another round of questions?
Mr. Clay. Yeah.
Mr. Putnam. You're recognized.
Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Kincannon, in the plans for the American Community
Survey, the Census Bureau indicates that the ACS will be used
to update the master address file.
Can you explain to us just how that will work?
Mr. Kincannon. Well, in the course of conducting the
American Community Survey, the field representatives will have
observations about changes in areas that they're visiting.
Also, we will be systematically making updates for areas of
rapid change, new areas of development, as in the suburbs of
some cities or other areas where there's rapid change.
So there will be an effort both through the post office and
with census staff to try to make sure that the master address
file is up to date.
Mr. Clay. Just before the 2000 census, the Census Bureau
came to Congress and requested an additional $100 million to
update the master address file for the 2000 census. That money
was used to send thousands of workers walking up and down the
streets of our city checking and listing addresses. This was
necessary because all of the work on the address list leading
up to the 1998 dress rehearsal didn't produce a list that was
accurate enough.
What assurance do we have that we will not be faced with
the same problem in 2008?
Mr. Kincannon. Well, certainly conducting the American
Community Survey will make us much more aware of areas where we
need to update where there's been more change going on. We will
still, before the census in 2010, want to conduct a local
update of census addresses so that we make sure that we take
advantage of what local government knows about people in their
areas, as well as using techniques with the Postal Service to
make sure that we update that.
Mr. Clay. It's important for this subcommittee to
understand just how this process is going to work and to track
the process so that we know well ahead of time if the project
is getting off track.
Will you provide the subcommittee with a detailed
operational plan for using the ACS to update the address list?
Mr. Kincannon. Yes. Mr. Clay, we'll be very happy to
provide the subcommittee with that information.
Mr. Clay. And now, in addition, will you provide the
subcommittee with specific milestones for that project and the
appropriate performance measures?
Mr. Kincannon. We certainly will.
Mr. Clay. Appreciate that.
When the 2000 census came in at 281 million people, that
was about 6.8 million higher than the Census Bureau's
population estimates. The Census Bureau has said that the ACS
will be better simply because it will be more timely than the
census long form. However, as we saw with these population
estimates, they might have been timely, but they weren't very
accurate.
It is my understanding that these estimates will be used to
control the population counts from the ACS. In other words, the
ACS will come up with a total population that will be
statistically adjusted to agree with those independent
estimates.
What are the chances that in 2010 we will again find that
these estimates and the ACS are way off on what the census
shows the population to be?
Mr. Kincannon. Well, I think we're taking steps to try to
make sure that doesn't occur in 2010. Of course, the main
problem in the estimates during the decade of the 1990's was
that we clearly underestimated the amount of immigration that
was occurring that was informal or undocumented. That was the
main cause of the miss in the estimates compared with the
census.
The ACS does not count--make an estimate of the count of
the people. We will still carry forward the estimates program
which takes the 2000 census results and adjusts it for birth,
death and what we can measure about immigration. The difference
in this decade is that the American Community Survey, if it is
conducted, will provide information like the long form on
persons of foreign birth. And since we will have that at local
areas, we can see where there are changes occurring. And we
expect to use that information to improve our estimates of
immigration at the local area.
Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Kincannon.
Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions.
Mr. Putnam. Thank you, Mr. Clay.
Just a couple of wrap-up questions for the first panel.
Ms. Cooper, is it the Department's position that you have
all the authority you need to proceed with the elimination of
the long form and the implementation of the ACS?
Ms. Cooper. Chairman Putnam, it is. It is definitely our
belief that we do have that authority, because it is part of
decennial census that is authorized by Title 13, and the GAO
supports us in that belief.
Mr. Putnam. Is the movement away from the decennial census
to an annual ACS keeping with Title 13?
Ms. Cooper. It is. But the census--the decennial census is
the count. Through the decade we will be measuring the
characteristics, but they go all together and that is a part of
Title 13.
Mr. Putnam. So you do not believe that additional
congressional action is required to move forward?
Ms. Cooper. We do not believe it is necessary.
Mr. Putnam. Do you believe that it would be helpful to have
additional congressional guidance on that?
Ms. Cooper. I would say that from our point of view,
because we are looking at it from the legal point of view, we
do not think it would be necessarily helpful to us. But
certainly you may be looking at it from a different point of
view.
The Congress has to make that decision on its own, if it
finds it would be helpful to you.
Mr. Putnam. Very good.
Director Kincannon, if Congress fully implements the ACS in
the fourth quarter of 2004, what can we expect to pay of the
ACS, yearly, from that point until 2010?
Mr. Kincannon. Well, Mr. Chairman, you know that I can't
talk about future budget proposals that have not been reviewed
in the administration and agreed to. The only guidance I could
offer would be to go back to the administration's proposal for
2003, which would have collected ACS data for 9 months, covered
by the balance from January through September. The estimate of
cost there was about $124 million.
If you move that from 9 months' to 12 months' coverage,
that would increase that by one-third, or about $165 million a
year; and you can extrapolate out, multiplying by the number of
years. And of course this extrapolation doesn't include any
factor for inflation or more difficult enumeration of
households or that sort of thing, but that would be the best
offer, the best estimate one could make at this time.
Mr. Putnam. Well, that question was based on the fact that
the President's budget request only fully implements ACS in the
fourth quarter of 2004, which some of us had expected to be a
bit earlier and wanted to make sure that the administration's
commitment was still there.
Mr. Kincannon. Well, the administration's commitment
explicitly was to scale it up beginning in the fourth quarter
of 2004; and that implies a commitment to be--it would be quite
wasteful if there were not the administration commitment to
follow through in 2005. And I assume that commitment is implied
strongly, if not even explicitly, in the proposal for 2004.
Ms. Cooper. And I would add to that the commitment is
there. That's why it is included in the fourth quarter of 2004.
Secretary Evans has testified, and he has said and talked
so many times about the importance of implementing the ACS not
only for doing a better job with the 2010 census, but for
having the kind of data structure and infrastructure structure
we need for this economy, for the largest and strongest economy
in the world.
And so we do have a strong commitment; the administration
has a strong commitment. And we certainly hope that it does get
fully funded, and we'd appreciate your support.
Mr. Putnam. Under Secretary Cooper, Director Kincannon, we
appreciate your testimony and the commitment that you have to
improving the accuracy and reliability and innovation of the
census. So, we will excuse the first panel now and take a 2-
minute recess while we set up the table for the second panel.
[Recess.]
Mr. Putnam. We will reconvene the second panel. We will
begin with the swearing in and the oath. Please rise and raise
your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Putnam. Note for the record all the witnesses responded
in the affirmative.
I want to welcome all of you to the subcommittee. We
appreciate the time and energy that you have set aside in
preparation for this, and your insight, as the subcommittee and
the Congress as a whole ramps up and prepares for the necessary
changes to improve the accuracy and reliability of the 2010
census.
We will begin our testimony with Mr. Reardon.
Thomas Reardon is originally from the Philadelphia area. He
attended Shippensburg University, where he graduated with a
bachelor's degree in public relations.
He has had a varied career including positions such as
district executive with Hiawatha Council of Boy Scouts of
America, the lead teacher in an alternative school, supervisor
in a juvenile corrections facility, and is currently the
executive director of the Fulton County Partnership, Inc.,
where he has served for 2 years. His wide range of experience
has helped him succeed in bringing rapid growth to the Fulton
County Partnership.
We look forward to your testimony, and you are recognized
for 5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF THOMAS REARDON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FULTON COUNTY
PARTNERSHIP, McCONNELLSBURG, PA; DR. JOSEPH SALVO, DIRECTOR,
POPULATION DIVISION, NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING;
JOAN NAYMARK, DIRECTOR, RESEARCH AND PLANNING, TARGET CORP.,
TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE; KEN
HODGES, DIRECTOR OF DEMOGRAPHY, CLARITAS; AND RICHARD OGBURN,
PRINCIPAL PLANNER, SOUTH FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
Mr. Reardon. Thank you, Mr. Putnam. Good morning.
I've been asked to speak to you today about how we use the
American Community Survey data in Fulton County. If I could
direct your attention to the screens on the side, a small Power
Point presentation for you. And I would like to welcome you to
Fulton County.
What I'm going to do today is, I'm going to tell you a
story, not just any story, but a human story about the people
in Fulton County. And in order to do that, I think I need to
give you a little bit of background about Fulton County.
So here is--I don't think you can see this on this map, but
at the very bottom, in the center--unfortunately, it's cutoff--
is Fulton County. It is cutoff. Go ahead to the next slide,
please.
Fulton County is a small, 100 percent rural county. And
perhaps the population of the county gives you a clue of that.
According to the 2000 census data, it's 14,261 people. So it is
very small, and it is a class 8, in Pennsylvania, county.
That's on a scale of 1 to 8, 1 being something like
Philadelphia, 8 being Fulton County and a few others.
We are geographically isolated, and I think that's a key
there, as we have mountains to the west, the north, and the
east, and we are bordered by Maryland on the south.
If you go to the next slide, I will break that out even
more in terms of our population. According to the ACS data, you
can see the median age is about 36\1/2\ years. You can review
that yourself. Let me go to the next slide.
As I said, we are geographically isolated. And I think
that's a key, that we don't get a lot of contact with the other
areas in Pennsylvania because of these mountains. They are not
snowcapped mountains, by any means, but they're enough that if
you are a low-income person and you may not have a vehicle, you
can't get out of the county very well.
Next, we are also an agrarian community; it has typically
always been farms, family farms. But unfortunately, with the
failure of so many family farms, we are moving toward a more
manufacturing and industrialized community.
So now that you know a little bit about Fulton County, just
a little background there, let me go ahead and tell you what we
are doing with the ACS data now as we go into the next slide.
We have a flu vaccination clinic that we use. And this is
one of my favorite examples. We used the American Community
Survey to determine the number of vaccines to purchase. We knew
from previous flu vaccination clinics that about 31 percent of
our seniors would participate. We added a few more for other
high-risk people. And using ACS data, we determined that we
needed to purchase 650 vaccinations. Had we used the 1990
census data, which was only 6 years old at the time, we would
have been off by 5 percent already.
So we also had to use the data to divide the doses among
the senior centers. In a small community, it's very important
that we not slight anyone. If we don't send enough to the south
end of the town, they will be upset at us. And surprisingly--
you'd be amazed how much time was spent in a committee trying
to determine, how are we going to figure out how much of this
vaccination goes to each of these senior centers.
The ACS data, we used it, we used the percentages that it
gave us; we were within five doses at each senior center. It
was amazing.
Next slide. We have a dental clinic. We have used the
American Community Survey data to justify the need, based on
the low-income population. We used that data to receive a grant
for $200,000 for that dental clinic, to expand that clinic; and
as a result, we have served more than 450 low-income patients
in our dental clinic.
Go to the next slide. We have an employment transportation
assistance program. Now, in Fulton County we have one major
employer, and that's JLG. They produce industrial lifts like
the one you see in the top right corner of this slide. You
probably recognize them; they are orange and yellow, you have
probably seen them before. They are the only employer in the
county, for all intents and purposes.
When the economy is doing great and people are building,
there's a huge need for these lifts. But when the economy is
not doing great and people are not building, there is no need.
And so, within a year, Fulton County at one point went from
having the highest rate of employment in the State to the
lowest rate of employment in the State. The census data didn't
show us that. You know, living in Fulton County we know that
this is the case, but we can't express that to funders or
people who are willing to fund that.
Using the 1990 census data, we applied for a grant for this
Welfare to Work transportation program, got $6,000. Using the
ACS data from 1996, we were able to justify $60,000. So there
was a tenfold increase in what we were able to justify.
Next slide, please. And how do we plan to use the data in
the future? Quite simply, up-to-date statistical information
equals more accurate use of our money and our efforts. We are a
small county, we're a small organization with limited
resources. We need to focus our attentions, we need to be very
cost efficient and cost effective--obviously, better planning
for more accurate identification of trends.
If we can see something happening in a small part of our
community, we can reach out there and prevent that from
becoming a major problem. And by preventing those problems, we
are saving tax dollars by--you know, an ounce of prevention is
worth a pound of cure.
So, thank you very much.
Mr. Putnam. Thank you very much. Who is the Congressman
from Fulton County?
Mr. Reardon. Bill Shuster.
Mr. Putnam. Very good.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Reardon follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Mr. Putnam. Our next witness is Dr. Joseph J. Salvo, the
director of the Population Division, Department of City
Planning, city of New York. He has worked there for 20 years.
The Population Division is one of the largest public sector
users of census data in the Nation, and has a long history of
involvement with all aspects of the decennial census. The
Population Division coordinated New York City's address list
review effort for the 2000 census, and provided technical
support for local and Federal outreach operations.
Dr. Salvo's recent work includes research on the
residential settlement of immigrants, 2000 census methods, and
the American Community Survey. He serves on the National
Academy of Sciences, the National Research Council panel on
Future Census Methods, and is a former President of the
Association of Public Data Users.
He was an editor and author of the Encyclopedia of the U.S.
Census, and is the author of many articles on the demography of
immigrants in New York.
Dr. Salvo received M.A. and Ph.D. Degrees in sociology from
Fordham. In 1995, he was a recipient of the Sloan Public
Service Award from the fund for the city of New York.
You have a lot of the same problems Mr. Reardon has, don't
you? Welcome. You are recognized.
Mr. Salvo. Thank you, Mr. Putnam. Thank you for inviting me
today. I appreciate it very, very much.
In the interest of full disclosure, I want to begin by
saying that some of the research that you are going to be
hearing about in a few moments was supported by a grant from
the Census Bureau to the Department of City Planning Fund, a
501(c)(3) that was established several decades ago to enhance
research activities at the Department of City Planning in the
city of New York.
Two decades ago, local entities, including New York,
challenged the Census Bureau to provide portraits of
neighborhoods more than once a decade. However, it wasn't until
1991, when consternation over the lackluster results of the
1990 census caused several in Congress to press the Census
Bureau to find a better way, that the idea of the ACS was
pursued in earnest.
With the support of the Congress, the Census Bureau has now
pilot-tested the ACS for more than 8 years and brought the
survey to a point where national implementation is ready to
occur.
So what is it about the ACS that should make it a priority
in this era of budget austerity? There are two main reasons
that I want to talk about today.
First, as a source of useful social and economic small area
data, the ACS does a better job than the decennial census,
which likely reached the limits of its capability in 2000. And,
second, cost-effective government requires current information,
which the ACS provides.
Regarding the former, we have evaluated the quality of
socioeconomic data from the ACS against similar data from the
2000 decennial census in Bronx County, one of the five boroughs
of the city of New York and one of the ACS test sites. What we
found was that the 2000 census did a great job counting Bronx
residents, many of whom were in historically undercounted
groups in neighborhoods that were among the poorest in the
Nation. Measuring social and economic characteristics, however,
was quite another matter.
The census long form fell on hard times in the Bronx in
2000. It appears that many forms were returned with missing
information or, even worse, literally no answers to the long-
form questions, such as those on education, income, language,
and birthplace. More than one of every five census long forms
in the Bronx had to be dropped from the pool of questionnaires
used to create estimates because they failed to achieve a
threshold designating them as minimally complete. The fact that
a majority of these questionnaires had little or no information
on them usually means that the census enumerators failed to
make direct contact with members of the household.
In contrast, we have found that the ACS is a better vehicle
than the census for collecting data on the characteristics of
the population, because the survey's methodology uses better-
trained professional interviewers who know how to collect data
from sometimes reluctant respondents. Our research shows that
followup enumerators in the 2000 ACS were far more successful
in obtaining critical information on occupation, birthplace,
and income than in the 2000 census.
Concerning the second point, the timeliness of data, we are
the data hub for city agencies in the city of New York and for
organizations that do business in the city. My staff and I have
a first-hand, on-the-ground view of the importance of data for
planning activities and for the delivery of services. And, as
was mentioned earlier, planning the future of Lower Manhattan
is a case in point.
Accurate knowledge of the characteristics of people who
live in Lower Manhattan neighborhoods helps planners make
decisions on development that is suitable for future residents,
for example, the type of housing and the need for new schools
and other facilities. Data on occupations, industry, commuting
patterns is essential in evaluating the need for transportation
infrastructure. Namely, which way a tunnel, a bridge, should go
is literally dependent on the level of commuting into and out
of areas.
The 2000 census data are now obsolete for this purpose,
given the population movements and changes in the area
associated with the aftermath of September 11th. Without an
alternative to the traditional census long form, we will have
to wait until 2012 for a post-September 11 view of the city
because there is no way at present to gauge change over shorter
periods of time.
With such a huge investment in infrastructure associated
with rebuilding Lower Manhattan, it is reasonable and cost
effective to expect that decisions be based on current
information about residents and commuter flows. Yet, this is
not the case. More generally, the planning and delivery of
services in New York City occur largely within the context of
59 geographic units, known as community districts. Created in
the late 1960's, these districts are aggregates of
neighborhoods represented by community boards with members
whose job it is to make officials within city government aware
of the changing needs of the communities they serve, from day
care for working mothers to transportation for the elderly.
We use long-form data to target districts for English
language proficiency programs, and we identify areas with large
numbers of working families with children that have fallen into
poverty and are in need of health insurance or other government
intervention to buffer the effects of an economic downturn.
But changes in immigration patterns and shifts in the
economy do not follow the decennial cycle of data, rendering
such data obsolete and compromising our capacity to establish
priorities for spending. If the ACS is allowed to go forward,
we will not have to wait 10 years for updated statistical
portraits of these districts because data will be available
every year.
In summary, every day my office receives requests from
local agencies and community service providers who look to us
for data in support of programs to meet the needs of our
population. Local nonprofit community organizations applying
for funds to rehabilitate housing, transportation planners
trying to figure out how best to run ferry service across the
East River and the Hudson. They are all looking for information
to make decisions. And while the issues and goals may differ,
the process is the same for all good governments, both urban
and rural.
Having people come to you for this purpose is both an honor
and a challenging responsibility. We constantly are asking
ourselves, how do we get it right. That's the key to effective
government, trying to get it right. But we can't get it right
unless we have data. And ill-informed decisions result in
wasteful spending, something that no government, large or
small, can afford.
It is important that the Congress support activities that
are cost-effective for local government decisionmaking, so we
can make the most of our resources. What we do not have in
dollars, we must at least partly make up for with wise
decisions.
Therefore, we in New York would like to urge the Congress
to continue its commitment to innovation by strongly supporting
the national implementation of the ACS so that it can be
incorporated as a replacement for the long form in 2010. Time
is now of the essence, since the 2010 census planning hinges on
the implementation of the ACS. We urge the Congress to act in a
timely and decisive way.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Putnam. Thank you very much, Dr. Salvo.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Salvo follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Mr. Putnam. The subcommittee did its best to find the best
and the brightest in both the rural community and the urban
community, and I feel confident we did that with you and Mr.
Reardon. So we appreciate you being here.
We'll move on to the private sector now, and hear from Joan
Naymark, who is director of research and planning for the
Target Corp. Her department is responsible for research,
supporting the store expansion program for Target, Mervyn's,
and Marshall Field's. Before joining Target Corp., she was
manager of population studies for the Upper Midwest Council and
a research assistant in the Minnesota Office of State
Demographer.
Ms. Naymark is a member of the Census Advisory Committee to
the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, representing the U.S. Chamber
of Congress and business stakeholders. She is a member of the
Population Association of America, and a past chair of that
organization's Business Demography Committee.
She received her B.S. and M.A. degrees in sociology and
demography, magna cum laude, from Western Washington University
in Bellingham, WA, in 1975 and 1978. She has been a speaker at
national seminars and symposiums on retail geographic
information systems and demographic topics.
She has worked with the Census Bureau regarding business's
use of census products, value-added reengineering and outreach
efforts, and the 1997 through 2002 economic censuses and the
2000 decennial census.
Welcome to the subcommittee.
Ms. Naymark. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Clay. I am
really pleased to be with you today to speak on the behalf of
the American Community Survey.
I offer a strong endorsement of the American Community
Survey, a widely and deeply shared view across the business
community. The ACS is vital to economic development and for
wise government and business decisionmaking. The ACS is an
improvement over the census long form because it provides small
area information annually instead of once a decade. I have
three key points I'd like to share with you today.
First, the business community needs timely and consistent
long-form data for small geographic areas, as planned in the
ACS. Two, the ACS is an important part of our country's
economic infrastructure. And, three, the ACS deserves
congressional support and funding now. We feel very strongly
about all three points.
So, first, the business community needs updated information
on the characteristics of small areas, comparable across time
and geography to make strategically and financially sound
decisions. Let me share some examples of why these data are
important to businesses on a daily basis from my own life at
Target Corp.
We use long-form census data to select locations for new
stores, capital spending on remodeling and infrastructure,
providing merchandise marketing and advertising to match the
neighborhoods in which we operate our stores, planning our work
force, and supporting our substantial community giving program.
Target's new store site location decisions are made for the
long term over 20 years. Our original stores built in the
1960's, I'm happy to report, are still operating.
Making a wrong decision is not easily corrected. Building
for the long term brings jobs, goods and services and economic
stability to local communities. We serve all kinds of
communities, but must understand their characteristics in order
to tailor products and services to meet the needs of those
residents. The transition of older communities into better-
educated, younger family neighborhoods, or vice versa, is
difficult to observe and impossible to measure without good-
quality, small-area data.
Neighborhood data helps inform a wide range of
merchandising decisions. Home decor merchandise sells better in
some area than others, so we analyze the age and mix of housing
stock, household formation and composition. Pharmacy services,
toys, clothing all appeal to different customer groups. Area
characteristics change, but how do we know when and where that
change is occurring?
Long-form data identifies multicultural merchandise and
bilingual signing opportunities for stores with rapid Hispanic
and Asian population growth nearby. No private data vendor can
measure ethnic change at the neighborhood level; it just can't
happen. Annual ACS data would eliminate simplistic trending
following each census.
Target combines geographic information systems and computer
models to leverage the small-area data in ways not imaginable 5
years ago across the country. The maps in my written testimony
provide a spatial view of neighborhoods in metro Denver in the
year 2000 and change in the 1990's. Without the ACS, these maps
will remain in freeze-frame until the year 2013. Yet, measuring
neighborhood change is highly important to our decisions. At
what rate are new housing units being built? Do residents rent
or own their homes? What is their economic and educational
profile?
Annual updates would allow forward-looking decisions, not
mistakes, based on outdated information. Until as recently as 6
months ago, Target's research still used 1990 long-form data.
It was better than nothing, but not by much. In other words,
timeliness is a critical element of accuracy in this new
century. Data that accurately described conditions in the year
2000 are historically interesting, but less relevant with each
passing year.
Point two, annual ACS data are an investment in the
economic infrastructure of this country. Government and the
private sector need to work from the same baseline of
information--objective, reliable statistics--to make sure we
are all moving in the same direction to make informed decisions
in policy to support long-term economic growth. There is no
viable alternative for the information collected in the census,
and if Congress agrees, in the proposed American Community
Survey.
The Census Bureau alone is positioned to ensure we know as
much about Bartow, FL, as we do about St. Louis, MO, as much
about rural counties in Pennsylvania as New York City. Target
Corp. studies all of them.
We need consistent information across the board. A
privately run organization couldn't replicate the conditions
and infrastructure required to collect accurate, comparable
data for neighborhoods of all sizes across the country. I
encourage you to consider the economic value-added investment
as you weigh the advantages and costs of replacing a 2010 long
form with the American Community Survey.
And my final point, just quickly, Congress needs to commit
to the American Community Survey over the long term. With
adequate sample size, field staff, and outreach efforts,
partnerships would ensure the quality and accuracy of
innovative efforts that we see the Census Bureau implementing
now. It's at a time now where full implementation is wise and
necessary to realize the promise of this information. We can't
have fluctuating support, as I know you understand. We are
firmly behind this process, but we can't get started and then
not continue.
We urge Congress to support the American Community Survey
by committing the necessary funds now and in the long term to
make the program a reality and a success for business, for our
economic infrastructure, and for the good of our country. Thank
you.
Mr. Putnam. Thank you very much. We appreciate your
comments, and look forward to the questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Naymark follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Mr. Putnam. Now I recognize Ken Hodges of Claritas. He is
director of demography at Claritas, a major supplier of
consumer marketing information products. Mr. Hodges'
responsibilities include methodology and evaluation for the
Claritas demographic estimates and projections, and the
incorporation of the U.S. census data in marketing information
products.
Prior to joining them in 1993, he spent 11 years as chief
demographer at Donnelley Marketing Information Services. He has
a Ph.D. in demography from Cornell, and remains active in the
profession of applied demography. He resides in Ithaca, NY.
Welcome to the subcommittee. You are recognized.
Mr. Hodges. Thank you very much.
I am a demographer with a company that provides information
products to a wide range and large number of businesses.
Businesses are prolific users of census data, usually in the
form of value-added products tailored to applications including
site selection and consumer segmentation. These applications
require demographic data for very small areas, and the census
is the best and often the only source of this type of
information.
The private sector has its own excellent data resources,
but they cannot replace what we get from the census. Many
private sector information products begin with the census, so
the quality of these products and the decisions based on them
depend on the quality of census data.
Especially important are the data from the census long
form, which provides detail on income, education, employment,
language, and a number of items relevant to business decisions.
And with a short-form-only census being planned for 2010,
businesses have a major stake in the American Community Survey.
Support and even enthusiasm for the ACS are growing in the
private sector because the ACS is billed as a long form
replacement with the bonus of more frequent updates. The
frequent updates hold great promise and appeal, but long form
replacement is the top priority. And for business users, long
form replacement means data for small areas. And by ``small
areas,'' businesses usually mean block groups, the level of
geography provided by the long form, and we continue to be
pleased that plans for the ACS continue to describe data at
that level.
Now, the ACS is an ambitious program, and some data users
have expressed some legitimate concerns about it. But even
these concerns help us make the case for the ACS.
First, there is concern that controlling the ACS to Census
Bureau estimates could introduce errors as there are known
problems in some Census Bureau estimates. But problems with
Census Bureau estimates should not dampen support for the ACS
itself. Businesses already use information products controlled
to these estimates as these estimates are widely used by the
suppliers in building their value-added products.
And there is reason to expect that the ACS would contribute
to significant improvements in the Census Bureau's estimates
program. For example, the ACS would require regular updates to
the master address file, which should improve estimation
capabilities. In fact, at Claritas, some of the most accurate
estimates for small areas that we've produced in the last few
years have been those based on ACS test data which are based
largely on information from the master address file.
It remains to be seen just exactly how the ACS and the
Census Bureau's estimates program would be integrated, but the
potential for improvement is with the ACS.
Second, there has been concern that group quarters data
have not been collected in the ACS and may have been a
relatively low ACS priority. To qualify as a long form
replacement, the ACS must collect information on the population
in group quarters. But if, so far, group quarters seems to have
been a stepchild of the ACS, it may have been a stepchild of
the decennial census as well. Numerous errors in the census
2000 group quarters data already impair our ability to account
for populations in college dormitories, nursing homes, military
quarters, and other facilities. And we will live with these
errors for the rest of the decade.
In contrast, an ACS that collects information on group
quarters could provide more timely corrections to errors of
this type and would ensure better group quarters data in future
censuses. Again, the potential for improvement is with the ACS.
Third, there has been concern that delays in the full
implementation of the ACS have pushed back or delayed the
release of the first small-area data until 2010. These delays
are unfortunate, but for most business purposes, 2010 would be
acceptable as we would not expect 2010 census data to replace
the old census until 2011 and 2012. Further delays could be a
problem, but current timing is consistent with the goal of long
form replacement.
Finally, there has been concern that the schedule gives us
insufficient time to test ACS data which would be complicated
by 5-year averages, different residence rules, and other
technical issues. The ACS data would pose significant
challenges, and in an ideal world, we might do additional
testing. But census data have never lived in an ideal world. I
do not honestly know yet exactly how we would address all the
technical issues, but I know that we would. It's what we do in
applied demography.
Again, the potential for improvement is with the ACS. And
if we get a sustained ACS that is a true long form replacement,
we would incorporate the information into those products which
we provide to so many businesses. And if we do this every year,
the ACS would significantly improve the quality of these
products and better enable businesses to serve American
consumers.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify. And I
look forward to your questions.
Mr. Putnam. Thank you very much. And we appreciate you
being here.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hodges follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Mr. Putnam. Our final witness for this panel is Richard
Ogburn, who has almost 30 years of international experience and
development planning in State and regional policy analysis. He
currently is principal planner for the South Florida Regional
Planning Council, a planning and public policy agency for this
urbanized but environmentally sensitive region of 3 counties
and 68 municipalities and 4 million residents, over a third of
whom are foreign born.
Mr. Ogburn is responsible for the Council's State Data
Center Affiliate program, and performs demographic and economic
analysis of the region to support the strategic regional policy
plan for south Florida, which guides implementation of
Florida's landmark growth management legislation in the region.
He also works with local governments and service providers in
the region to improve the use and understanding of demographic
and economic data about the region, including Census Bureau
products.
Prior to joining the South Florida Regional Planning
Council in 1989, Mr. Ogburn spent 15 years working for public
planning agencies for the primary sector in the state of Bahia,
in the northeast of Brazil, where he first arrived as a Peace
Corps volunteer. He is fluent in both Portuguese and Spanish.
Mr. Ogburn earned his bachelor's degree in liberal arts
from New College in Sarasota, FL, and has Master's degrees in
Latin American studies from the University of Florida--Go
Gators--and in economics from the University of California,
Berkeley.
Welcome to the subcommittee.
Mr. Ogburn. Thank you, Mr. Putnam. And it's a pleasure to
be here. It's an honor to be here today to address you with
regard to the American Community Survey.
I have been asked to share some of the experiences that we
have had working with businesses, community organizations,
planners, policy analysts, and decisionmakers in Broward
County, one of the ACS sites, and the rest of the south Florida
region as the Census Bureau has carried out the pilot phase for
developing the approach to continuous measurement.
The board of the South Florida Regional Planning Council
believes that full implementation of the American Community
Survey will bring about a sea change in how we plan at the
local level. The ACS will support more effective allocation of
scarce public resources in our communities by enabling us to
better understand the need, more accurately target Federal,
State, and local program resources, and better assess the
impact of those resources.
As local governments and community organizations across the
Nation assume an increasing responsibility for enhancing the
quality of life in their communities, more current and better-
quality information is an essential tool. Businesses in south
Florida have little choice today but to either purchase or
develop their own local market statistics to guide decisions,
although such intercensual estimates are generally less
reliable in fast-growing regions of the country like south
Florida. Annual household characteristics of the population are
available today only for large geographies, yet programs are
targeted at local communities and neighborhoods. Data at that
level of geography is available only once every 10 years.
The American Community Survey builds on the decennial
census, which we consider the ``gold standard'' for
understanding the demographic and socioeconomic characteristics
of our communities. Using a combination of tried and true
methodologies, along with innovative new approaches, the ACS
will ensure that the information we need is collected with a
consistent approach across all jurisdictions. Without a
recognized source for information with which to plan and
evaluate programs and to understand our markets, we would be
forced to divert scarce program resources from services for
people and job creation to costly local surveys and other
information gathering.
By enabling us to strengthen our economies and our
communities, the ACS will contribute to enhancing the quality
of life as well as the security of the Nation as a whole.
The South Florida Regional Planning Council represents 68
municipalities and 3 counties, with a population of over 4
million residents, a region that's larger than 24 States. We
work with a broad array of Federal, State, and local public
sector organizations. We also provide information services to
the businesses and nonprofit organizations as well as the
general public in our region.
The technical assistance we provide includes planning for
land use and natural resources, transportation, economic
development, affordable housing, emergency preparedness,
hazardous materials, and human service systems. We also provide
geographic information services and support for collaborative
processes and consensus building.
As an affiliate of the Florida State Data Center, we
receive and disseminate Census Bureau data. In virtually all of
the programs and projects in which we participate, we use
demographic and socioeconomic data to develop our analysis of
regional trends and to profile areas of the region.
In my written comments I've identified some specific types
of work that we do that would benefit from full implementation
of the ACS, and I will be happy to answer any questions on
those at an appropriate time.
In south Florida, 176 new residents settle each day. That
means 50,000, 60,000, 70,000 new residents each year. All of
these need jobs, housing, transportation, water, schools,
hospitals, etc. Seven out of every 10 of these new residents
are foreign-born. Today, the foreign-born represent 40 percent
of the region's population, up from 25 percent in 1980. That's
1.6 million people.
Factors that are largely external to the region affect the
pace and flow of immigrants from abroad, which makes it almost
impossible to model the population. Shifts of the population
within the region also play a key role in determining the pace
and composition of growth in smaller areas in south Florida.
In my written comments, I have provided some examples of
the impact of the fast pace of growth, the shifts of population
within the region, and the impact of natural disasters. Many of
you will remember Hurricane Andrew that swept through southern
Miami-Dade County in 1992. It devastated the city of Homestead.
That city's population, which was almost 27,000 in 1990, is
estimated to have fallen to under 19,000 by 1993, and then
grown back to 32,000 in the year 2000. The only way that those
estimates were able to be made was by going out and doing work
on the ground separately from any existing statistical
measurement procedure. It was necessary for the University of
Florida and the county to go out together and work on making
those estimates.
I've also provided some examples of how we use the data and
how we expect to be able to use the data in the future. Many of
the uses today involve the development of needs assessments and
strategic plans, affordable housing needs assessments for the
comprehensive planning process in the State of Florida,
tracking crime statistics in small areas in each county in
order to target the use of resources, developing facilities
expansion plans for our service delivery organizations, and
fulfilling the requirements of the growth management
legislation in the State of Florida through the comprehensive
planning process in each and every local government.
In summary, as local responsibilities grow, not having
annual community level data to design programs, to monitor
implementation, and to evaluate the results of those programs,
as well as to support business decisions, is no longer an
option. We use the data to provide technical assistance to our
constituents, and they use the information to inform decisions
that affect all of us.
We believe that the American Community Survey offers the
best option because it builds on the decennial census. It will
make it possible to monitor and evaluate targeted program
implementation, and it ensures trustworthy data for all, with
the least expenditure of scarce resources.
Mr. Putnam. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ogburn follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Mr. Putnam. And as has been the custom, our ranking member
will lead off with the questions.
Thank all of you for your testimony.
Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank all of you here.
Let's start with Ms. Naymark. At our last hearing, Don
Hernandez, representing the Population Association of America,
and Linda Gage from California raised the issue of the quality
of the population instruments produced by the Census Bureau.
Can you explain to this nontechnical audience, why is it
that these estimates are important to the American Community
Survey?
Ms. Naymark. Thank you, Mr. Clay.
Accuracy is highly important to the business community as
we use the information. I am not a statistician. I listen to
the dialog and conversation between the Census Bureau and the
stakeholder community about sampling frames and lots of
statistical terms which I couldn't possibly explain to you. I
do know there is a strong dialog.
There is a strong concern with quality. Lots of issues were
raised even at the end of last week in the Decennial Advisory
Committee meetings about small data accuracy and the technical
issues, coverage, and all the different measurements of
quality. We have to have consistent quality across the country.
We need to understand what the issues are, understand there are
some which are more measurable than others, but quality is a
key concern as we move forward.
It's something that perhaps is unanswerable at this point.
I would have to refer to people who are more knowledgeable
technically. But quality is one of our primary concerns and
issues. But I'm very comfortable with the process that I've
been observing, about how the Bureau is addressing issues of
accuracy and how they expect to continue to test, develop,
listen, partner, etc.
Mr. Clay. Thank you for that answer.
Mr. Hodges, it's my understanding that the residency rules
for the American Community Survey require a person to be living
at an address for 2 months to be counted. Migrant laborers
often are not at a single address for 2 consecutive months. Do
you believe that the procedures in the ACS are adequate to
capture the migrant labor population in States like Missouri or
California?
Mr. Hodges. Certainly the residency rules and the
differences between the ACS and the census are among those
technical challenges that I described. I'm not prepared to
comment specifically on the migrant population, but I would
note that the core objective of the ACS is to identify
population characteristics rather than counts, but that with
the seasonal populations, there is an opportunity actually in
the ACS to generally do a better job of capturing seasonal
populations, whereas the census counts, according to usual
residents, according to April 1st, you would collect data
through the year and in some seasonal areas get a better sense
of the size and characteristics of the population than you
would with a snapshot long form.
Mr. Clay. I see. Thank you for that answer.
Mr. Chairman, I will have to cut my questions short. But I
appreciate the opportunity to talk with the panel. Thank you.
Mr. Putnam. Thank you, sir, for your interest.
All of you are in agreement that the ACS is a superior tool
to the long form; is that correct? Is there anyone who
disagrees with that statement?
So, that being the case--and of course you heard the first
panel with the Census Bureau and the Department; obviously they
believe the same--is there anyone out there that you are aware
of that thinks that it's a bad idea to get rid of the long form
and go to the ACS? Is there any group in the private sector? Is
there some group of scientists somewhere, or demographers or
sociologists who think that we are making a big mistake and we
just didn't invite them to the panel? Are you aware of anyone
out there?
Dr. Salvo.
Mr. Salvo. There are concerns within the community of
transportation data users that the estimates produced by the
ACS be based on sufficient sample size, and that the issues
involving residents and the lack of a single time point--the
fact that estimates are created over a series of years, there
is concern within that community about the quality of these
numbers--and they have called for the Census Bureau to continue
to pursue their research on how best to refine numbers on
journey to work, on commuting.
That is a concern that I am aware of that the Census Bureau
is attempting to address.
Mr. Putnam. Anyone else? Have the rest of you heard that?
South Florida Regional Planning Council transportation
issues are huge for you. What have you heard from your road
builders and TPOs and MPOs and everyone else involved?
Mr. Ogburn. What we hear is that, yes, there are some
concerns about quality.
But I'd like to address the issue more broadly, I think,
than just the transportation planners. And I believe that we
all understand that this is a new methodology. It's a new way
of collecting and making use of the data, and there will be a
learning process for all of us. And I think it's really
important to understand that the Census Bureau has a process in
place, at least as we perceive, to attempt to develop answers
to the questions as they come up, to anticipate many of those
questions and to have the research done ahead of time.
You can't transition from a once-every-10-year survey
focused on April 1st of each decade to a month-to-month survey
without some very substantial methodological changes. And it
will cause a great deal of disruption, it seems to me, among
those of us who do planning on a regular basis, in the
beginning, until we learn how to use the data. And I would
suggest that's an important part of the roll-out of the ACS on
a national level, in making sure that there are opportunities
for those of us who are engaged in planning activities at the
local level to learn how to use the data appropriately.
But I frankly believe that those issues will be overcome as
we move forward in the national implementation.
Mr. Putnam. Mr. Hodges.
Mr. Hodges. I will volunteer that I was once one of those
who is very skeptical of the American Community Survey. And
this dates back to the mid-1990's when it was first proposed.
And I think it's fair to say that the early descriptions of
this program were not all that appealing to those of us with a
major stake in small-area data.
But I would like to point out that through professional
organizations--we worked extensively with the Census Bureau,
and the Census Bureau's ACS staff has been very responsive to
the concerns that we have expressed--and that over the years
the ACS has evolved into a product that is much more appealing
to those of us with a stake in small-area data, so that even
though it's--there are some who have more concerns than others,
it is a much more appealing product right now, thanks, I think,
to the collaborative work with the Census Bureau. And we look
forward to that continuing.
Mr. Putnam. Mr. Reardon, did you want to add anything to
that, while I have you? Are you fully satisfied that the
concerns of rural communities across America, that those
concerns are met by the ACS?
Mr. Reardon. Absolutely. I don't know what we would do
without the data anymore, the fluctuations in a rural community
are so rapid and so vast. In a population of 14,000, the daily
obituaries change the face of the county.
We need this. You know, is Joe working today? I don't know.
And when we look at the census data in a rural community, were
we having a good day when they did that? If we did, we don't
qualify for a lot of grant funding.
So the American Community Survey data really shows us a
clearer picture of where we are at today, and I believe it's
perfect for a rural community. I couldn't see how we could get
along without it anymore.
Mr. Putnam. Mr. Hodges raised the issue of the Census
Bureau working with the professional associations and those of
you who are on the front lines to improve upon the ACS model.
Is there any area of concern that any of you have where they
have not sought the appropriate input, or the outreach has been
lacking in preparing for this transition to a new mode?
All right. Very good.
The information itself, the content of the questionnaire,
is it up to date? Is it current? Are we asking the right
questions? Are we sampling correctly and are we seeking the
right data?
Ms. Naymark, from the private sector.
Ms. Naymark. The long form of the American Community Survey
covers a lot of ground, and I know that there's an issue of
respondent burden on the American public. But the questions
included describe the very basics of the demographic, economic,
social, housing structure which when compared, one against the
other and with external information, I think are very basic.
I know all questions that are included have been thoroughly
examined by the Bureau. They all have some legislative or
program needs for being on the questionnaire. But from our
perspective, when combined together, the information in the
aggregate described communities and characteristics which are
absolutely essential for understanding change over time and
across small areas.
Mr. Putnam. Anyone else?
Dr. Salvo.
Mr. Salvo. Just in contrast to what was said earlier, I
mean, the neighborhood I live in, broadly defined, would have
14,000 or 15,000 people in it, and everything that was just
said applies to my neighborhood in an inner city area.
It's so appropriate to have the two of us comment on this
because, in effect, I have the same issues that this gentleman
has. I have the same problems I need to deal with in an effort
to provide services to people, in an effort to get funding I
wanted to bring an 8 X 10 picture in here of the look on my
face when somebody comes to me and says, how are we doing, and
I cannot tell them how we're doing.
I don't want to use the word ``guess,'' but it gets pretty
close to that sometimes. And sometimes decisions ride on things
that I say, and that's--the ACS is a relief in some ways to
those of us who are in this position of having to steer people
to help people out, and despite the bumps in the road--and
there are going to be bumps in the road--it is a path that we
want to pursue.
Mr. Putnam. Anyone else?
Mr. Hodges.
Mr. Hodges. I'll just note quickly that if the census and
ACS were left to the private sector, the questionnaire might be
much longer than it is already. There may be policy concerns
that will have the content of the ACS evolving over the years,
but we recognize that the census and ACS are Federal operations
for Federal purposes. We derive tremendous benefit from them,
just the same, and expect to continue to do so.
Mr. Putnam. Ms. Naymark.
Ms. Naymark. I would simply add, in the best of all
possible worlds, from a business perspective, we would love to
have the American Community Survey and a 2010 long form. As I'm
using 2000 census--the long form census, I keep thinking, now,
why is it going to be a good thing that I won't have this ever
again, because it's incredibly powerful information.
But, in sum, the tradeoffs of having annual information,
along with the bumps in the road, in trying to understand
moving averages and the different characteristics--seasonality,
etc.--will be a very rich source of information that they think
will far outweigh another long form. So we understand we cannot
have that, we can't have both, but long-form data are very
powerful for us.
Mr. Putnam. All of you are familiar with the rising levels
of concern about privacy and confidentiality and their impacts
on response rates. What are you observing in the individual
spheres of influence in terms of microlevel trends along that
area that we should be aware of and the Census Bureau should be
prepared to adjust to?
And, second, do you feel that the confidentiality
provisions of Title 13 are adequate?
I'll let you start with the first half, Mr. Ogburn.
Mr. Ogburn. I certainly think the confidentiality
requirements are adequate, and the history of the Census
Bureau, I think, with regard to preserving confidentiality is a
good example of how that has been done, and it has been a very
good one. The efforts that were made during the 2000 census to
conduct outreach to the many diverse populations that we find
in south Florida included an effort to reinforce the commitment
of the Census Bureau to confidentiality, and I think it was
largely that and the use of people who had been previously
selected from within some of those communities that allowed the
2000 census to be much more successful at completing a count of
the population in south Florida.
I think something that we don't bring into the conversation
very often, but it occurs to me and has been the subject of
some discussions among some of us in south Florida, is that
under the circumstances an awful lot of administrative records
data is being used today increasingly to attempt to answer the
questions that we're unable to answer because we don't have
year-to-year small-area data.
The power of geographic information systems is enabling
local organizations to go out and establish partnerships with
those who have individual people's data and their addresses;
and we attempt to solve some of the questions that we address
on a day-to-day basis in our planning activities by using that
data, with guarantees that we must sign for confidentiality in
the use of that data, to be able to understand these phenomena,
to be able to better understand how to direct scarce resources
into the communities that we serve.
And the possibility that we will have annual ACS data will
make it much less necessary to delve into that terrain. It will
make it less common that we will be pursuing individuals' data.
The use of a sample which can be tabulated at a block group
level is a much less intrusive approach than the use of the
administrative records data that we're being forced to move
toward in the absence of ACS data. I don't know if it's
possible to present that to the public to garner additional
support for voluntary participation in the census.
So I'm not sure what the answer to that is. But I
personally believe that we run many more risks of invasion of
our privacy if the use of administrative records data is
allowed to advance in order to answer these questions in lieu
of having the ability to have that data coming out of a sample
that can be dealt with by a government entity that has a long,
well-established record of protecting confidentiality.
Mr. Putnam. Thank you. Anyone else?
Dr. Salvo.
Mr. Salvo. It's an interesting observation that for the
2000 census, the Census Bureau, we think, in New York City did
a fine job in counting. And that's what the census does best;
it counts very, very well.
As I indicated earlier, it's almost ironic that by
increasing the count and reaching out to people that you've
probably never have found before, you, in effect, have exposed
a problem, which is this problem in getting people to respond
to the long form. The people who are very tough to reach are
the people who are going to be most reluctant to tell you about
their employment and income and so on.
What we've observed about the ACS is that the interviewers
have this ability to educate people, to let them know about the
survey, to talk to them, to relate to people in a way that the
temporary work force that was used in 2000 could not. I, like
my colleague here, was also very reluctant when I first heard
about the ACS plan. What won me over was exposure to the
interviewing teams that go out in nonresponse followup to
elicit responses, their capacity to get people to feel
comfortable providing them with information and to educate them
about the importance of that information, sometimes under very
difficult circumstances.
And as we reach more and more of our population and as we
go into those places and approach the hardest to enumerate, we
need to have people like that asking the questions about
employment and income, because otherwise, we're not going to
get that information in any useful form.
Mr. Putnam. Mr. Reardon.
Mr. Reardon. Just in an experience that we had, one of the
ladies who works in my office--she'll tell you she used to be a
senior citizen, and she received one of the surveys. And she
came into the office and she said, I know you are aware of
this. What is this?
And I said, well, there's a number to call if you have any
questions.
She came in the very next day, very excited. They handled
her question so well, she was pleased and excited to fill out
the survey.
So I commend the Census Bureau on the people that they have
to answer those questions. She was very nervous about it, and
after one phone call, she was not only at ease with it, she was
excited, they explained it in such a good way.
So fortunately, living in a small county, I can talk to
some of the people who have filled out these surveys, and we
just run into them occasionally.
Mr. Putnam. Super.
Anyone else?
Ms. Naymark.
Ms. Naymark. There is nothing more important than
protecting the confidentiality of the information. I feel very
confident in the Census Bureau's record at protecting the
private information that is collected. There's nothing more
important over the long term.
The business community has similar issues. What we're
hearing from our guests and throughout the business community
is how important and increasingly important the issue of
privacy is--education policies demonstrating, you know, your
record, both for business and for the Census Bureau--working
with partnerships for the Census Bureau to help the people who
would be responding understand, highly trained interviewers,
all of those things are highly critical to maintaining that
trust, because once breached, you know, it is impossible to go
backward.
Mr. Putnam. Mr. Hodges for a final word.
Mr. Hodges. Very briefly, a similar situation to what Mr.
Ogburn described exists in the private sector where we are
seeing two different types of applications, those that do
involve the use of individual data, targeting individual
consumers by name and address, and those which, by contrast,
focus on neighborhood-level data.
In none of the individual consumer applications that I'm
aware of has there been any interest at all in working through
the census or the ACS, it is always through the private
consumer data bases; so that I've always viewed that the census
and the ACS would fit into this as well. The ACS and the census
would always be the contrast, those applications involving
neighborhood-level applications, preserving confidentiality of
the individuals.
Mr. Putnam. Thank you very much. I want to thank all of you
on the second panel and all of our witnesses for their
testimony today. The subcommittee looks forward to working with
all of you as we move toward a final determination on the ACS,
which should be made very soon by the Congress.
I also want to thank Mr. Clay for his participation and his
interest in these issues. In the event that there are
additional questions we did not have time for today, the record
shall remain open for 2 weeks for submitted questions and
answers.
I want to thank you again for coming over here. We had a
very balanced second panel, rural America, inner city America,
very international flavor to it; and certainly the private
sector's influence as well. So you added to the dialog greatly.
With that, the meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:12 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional information submitted for the hearing record
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
<all>