<DOC> [110th Congress House Hearings] [From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access] [DOCID: f:35769.wais] PROGRESS OF REENGINEERED 2010 CENSUS ======================================================================= HEARING before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON INFORMATION POLICY, CENSUS, AND NATIONAL ARCHIVES of the COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ APRIL 24, 2007 __________ Serial No. 110-6 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/ index.html http://www.oversight.house.gov ______ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 35-769 WASHINGTON : 2007 _____________________________________________________________________________ For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800 Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001 COMMITTEE ON OVERSISGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman TOM LANTOS, California TOM DAVIS, Virginia EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York DAN BURTON, Indiana PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York JOHN M. McHUGH, New York ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland JOHN L. MICA, Florida DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DIANE E. WATSON, California MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts DARRELL E. ISSA, California BRIAN HIGGINS, New York KENNY MARCHANT, Texas JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina Columbia BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota BILL SALI, Idaho JIM COOPER, Tennessee ------ ------ CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland PETER WELCH, Vermont Phil Schiliro, Chief of Staff Phil Barnett, Staff Director Earley Green, Chief Clerk David Marin, Minority Staff Director Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National Archives WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri, Chairman PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York CHRIS CANNON, Utah JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky BILL SALI, Idaho PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire Tony Haywood, Staff Director C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on April 24, 2007................................... 1 Statement of: Bowser, Robert L., mayor, East Orange, NJ, Vice Chair, Urban Economic Policy Committee, U.S. Conference of Mayors; Karen Narasaki, president and executive director, Asian American Justice Center; Kenneth Prewitt, professor, Columbia University, Director, U.S. Census Bureau (1998-2001); Joseph J. Salvo, Ph.D., director, Population Division, New York City Department of city of Planning; and Michael Murray, vice president of programs, Civil Business Unit, Government Communications Systems Division, Harris Corp.... 45 Bowser, Robert L......................................... 45 Murray, Michael.......................................... 82 Narasaki, Karen.......................................... 48 Prewitt, Kenneth......................................... 64 Salvo, Joseph J.......................................... 69 Waite, Preston Jay, Associate Director for Decennial Census, U.S. Census Bureau; and Mathew J. Scire, Director, Strategic Issues, Government Accountability Office......... 2 Scire, Mathew J.......................................... 12 Waite, Preston Jay....................................... 2 Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by: Murray, Michael, vice president of programs, Civil Business Unit, Government Communications Systems Division, Harris Corp., prepared statement of............................... 84 Narasaki, Karen, president and executive director, Asian American Justice Center, prepared statement of............. 50 Prewitt, Kenneth, professor, Columbia University, Director, U.S. Census Bureau (1998-2001), prepared statement of...... 66 Salvo, Joseph J., Ph.D., director, Population Division, New York City Department of city of Planning, prepared statement of............................................... 71 Scire, Mathew J., Director, Strategic Issues, Government Accountability Office, prepared statement of............... 14 Waite, Preston Jay, Associate Director for Decennial Census, U.S. Census Bureau, prepared statement of.................. 5 PROGRESS OF REENGINEERED 2010 CENSUS ---------- TUESDAY, APRIL 24, 2007 House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National Archives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m. in room 2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Wm. Lacy Clay (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Clay, Turner, and Maloney. Staff present: Tony Haywood, staff director/counsel; Alissa Bonner, professional staff member; Jean Gosa, clerk; Nidia Salazar, staff assistant; Jim Moore, minority counsel; Jay O'Callaghan, minority professional staff member; John Cuaderes, minority senior investigator and policy advisor; and Benjamin Chance, minority clerk. Mr. Clay. The Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National Archives will come to order. Good afternoon, and welcome to today's hearing on preparations for the 2010 census. We will probably be interrupted within the first 15 minutes by a series of votes on the House floor, so at that time we will recess and then reconvene. This hearing is a first in a series of hearings to examine the Census Bureau's ongoing efforts of conducting a complete and accurate count of the Nation's population. With the decennial survey less than 3 years away, the 2008 dress rehearsal is rapidly approaching. Preliminary testing of new technology and procedure are already underway in two cities. We are at a critical stage of preparations for 2010. The first census was conducted 217 years ago. Article 1, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution mandates an actual enumeration of the U.S. population for the purpose of apportionment of congressional seats. Information derived from census data is now used to allocate over $200 billion yearly in Federal financial assistance. In addition, State and local government agencies, businesses, academia, nonprofit organizations, and the members of the general public rely on census data to make informed decisions. Therefore, it is imperative that the data be complete, accurate, and secure. A successful census will depend upon combining excellent planning with appropriate execution. The Census Bureau used this formula to improve its overall response rate for the 2000 census. Many factors contributed to their success, including working more effectively with State, local, and tribal governments and partnering with community-based organizations to reach traditionally under-counted populations. Still, the Bureau found that there were areas for improvement. According to Census Bureau estimates from 2000, there were 700,000 duplicate addresses, 1.6 million vacant housing units misclassified as occupied, 1.4 million housing units not included, 1.3 million housing units improperly deleted, and 5.6 million housing units incorrectly located on census maps. The result was a significant undercount, which prompted Congress to call for an overhaul of the census process. In 2001 the Census Bureau began the process of developing a reengineered 2010 census. We are here today to receive a progress report on the implementation of that design. In conducting census oversight, this subcommittee must also thoroughly assess the Bureau's ability to effectively monitor contracts and subcontracts. GAO estimates that $1.9 billion taxpayer dollars will be spent on seven major contracts. The Bureau must have mechanisms in place to ensure that these contracts are monitored for cost and quality control. It is equally essential that minority-owned businesses have a meaningful opportunity to fully participate in the process. It is imperative the that Census Bureau and its major contractors involve minority firms in the important work of conducting the survey. Making a conscious effort to work with minority-owned businesses will ensure that the 2010 decennial census is truly the most inclusive, complete, and accurate census in our Nation's history. We have assembled a diverse and distinguished group of witnesses who can provide credible and authoritative assessments of the Census Bureau's reengineered plan for the 2010 decennial census. I want to thank all of our witnesses for appearing before the subcommittee today, and I look forward to your testimony. Mr. Turner is not here yet, but we will provide him opportunity for an opening statement when he does arrive. I would like to get the first panel started. Our first panel consists of the Honorable Preston Jay Waite, Associated Director for Decennial Census of the U.S. Census Bureau, and Mathew J. Scire, Director of Strategic Issues for the Government Accountability Office. Welcome to both of you. Mr. Waite, you may proceed. Let me ask you both to please stand. It is the policy of this committee to swear in all witnesses before they testify, and I would like to ask you both to please raise your right hands. [Witnesses sworn.] Mr. Clay. Let the record reflect that both witnesses have answered in the affirmative. Mr. Waite, you may proceed. STATEMENTS OF PRESTON JAY WAITE, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR DECENNIAL CENSUS, U.S. CENSUS BUREAU; AND MATHEW J. SCIRE, DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC ISSUES, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE STATEMENT OF PRESTON JAY WAITE Mr. Waite. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of the Census Bureau, I would like to thank you and the members of the subcommittee for this opportunity, and would respectfully ask to submit my written testimony for the record. Mr. Clay. Certainly. Mr. Waite. Today I would like to focus on a few key points at this important moment in the decade. We are rapidly approaching census day. It is now less than 3 years away, and the goals that we established earlier in the decade are clearly in sight. The goals of the 2010 reengineered census design are to improve accuracy, reduce operational risk, improve the relevance and timeliness of long form data, and to contain costs. We are achieving these goals through an aggressive and comprehensive testing program. The 2010 census is the best-researched and best-tested census in our Nation's history. To that end, with the support of Congress we have developed a sustained comprehensive testing program in preparation for the 2010 short form only census. We have conducted key tests each year, beginning with national mail-out tests in 2003, as well as a second mailout test in 2005, to assess the questionnaire content and wording. We have conducted major site tests in 2004 and 2006. In 2004, we conducted a test in the Queens Borough of New York City and in three counties in southwest Georgia, focused primarily on using new data collection technologies, including hand-held computers. We conducted a second major test site in 2006 in Travis County, TX, and in the Cheyenne River Reservation of South Dakota. These tests are vital to the success of the 2010 census and have served as proving grounds for our expanded automation efforts. Automation is one of the most important elements of the planned improvements for the 2010 census. We believe it will help us contain costs of field operations, reduce operational risk, and improve geographic accuracy. We are working with the private sector, Lockheed Martin on the automated data collection contract, and the Harris Corp. on automating our field data collection. We are striving to use test proven technologies, most notably the use of hand-held computers in the field for data collection. Based on these efforts, we are confident that automation will be a critical contribution to the overall success of the census. We are taking the experiences we have gained in our tests into the field in 2008 for our dress rehearsal. The sites for the dress rehearsal are in San Joaquin County, CA, and in Fayetteville and nine surrounding counties in eastern North Carolina. We have opened both these local census offices and have begun hiring in preparations for the dress rehearsal. The dress rehearsal is our last opportunity to ensure that planned procedures and operations tested throughout the decade will function as designed when you are integrated into a full census environment. As I mentioned earlier that census data 3 years away, it is important also to note that census operations actually are underway. In February of this year, we sent informational letters to each of the over 30,000 governmental units in the United States outlining our plans for the local update of census addresses or LUCA program. LUCA is one of the most important partnerships of the census. Working with local governments, we learn of new housing construction, demolitions, and conversions, as well as map feature updates. These additions to our file are fundamental to a complete housing use list and the geographic accuracy of the census. We have made significant improvements to the LUCA program since 2000. In contrast with the 2000 LUCA program, we are providing more advanced notice, better training, and better instructions. We are conducting LUCA updates prior to address listing, and participating governments will be offered options to partner with us, depending on their needs and capabilities. We believe that this will result in more governments participating, and therefore a more accurate census. Finally, in response to congressional concerns, governments will be given a longer review period, 120 calendar days instead of the 90 calendar days that we had in census 2000. We will also offer better assistance to local governments to answer their questions and to gauge their process. Mr. Chairman, the census is a very large and complex undertaking. The funding is necessarily cyclical in nature and the buildup is well underway. As has been the case in past censuses, we will incur major hardships of our funding stream is interrupted by a continuing resolution later in the decade. Should this be the case in fiscal year 2008, I would ask for your help to secure special consideration for the Census Bureau. To reach every household in America requires the success of a complex series of operations, ranging from LUCA, which enables the accuracy of the mass address file, to a well- planned integration of our automation efforts. Everything needs to occur in sequence in a very short period of time. We believe that we are well on our way to meet that challenge. The census is a significant investment in our Nation's future, and with your help I believe the 2010 census, with the shortest and simplest questionnaire since 1790, will be a huge success. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy to answer questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Waite follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.007 Mr. Clay. Thank you so much for your testimony, Mr. Waite. The bells have rung, but we are going to take Mr. Scire's testimony and then we will recess the hearing. Please proceed, Mr. Scire. STATEMENT OF MATHEW SCIRE Mr. Scire. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss preparations for the 2010 census. The Bureau has introduced significant change for 2010, including using only a short form and relying more on technology to carry out operations. These changes hold out the prospect of improving accuracy and reducing costs, but they also bring with them the need for managing the risk inherent whenever making changes to an operation as complex and critical as the decennial census. Let me start by recognizing the Bureau's efforts to increase the response rate for the decennial. First, by using only the easier-to-complete short form, the Bureau expects to increase response rate by 1 percent. Similarly, the Bureau expects to increase the ultimate response rate by sending second surveys to households that do not respond to the first. The Bureau also plans a public awareness campaign, as it did in the previous census. This campaign has two major parts: a paid advertising campaign, and a partnership program where the Bureau works with governments, community-based organizations, the media, and others to elicit public participation in the census. Mr. Chairman, one of the most significant changes to the census is the greater use of automation and technology. This includes the introduction of the handheld mobile computing device [MCD], that staff will use to conduct field work. As you know, earlier MCDs tested in 2004 and 2006 were not reliable. A new device will soon begin field use as part of the dress rehearsal in parts of North Carolina and California. The Bureau relies on this technology and other systems to support key functions. Overall, the greater reliance on contractor-developed automation and technology for the 2010 census calls for greater focus on sound acquisition and management of these key investments. To complete the census, the Bureau recruits, hires, trains the temporary work force that, at peak, exceeds one-half million. To do this, the Bureau plans to recruit five times as many applicants than it hires, and hire twice as many people as it needs, in anticipation of high levels of turnover. We believe that the Bureau could refine its approach. For example, the Bureau could do more to study the factors that affect worker performance and willingness to stay throughout an operation. Also, the Bureau could do more to consider past performance when re-hiring. We also believe the Bureau could improve its approach to training, which relies on a verbatim reading of training material. Likewise, the Bureau could do more to ensure that training sufficiently covers key challenges field staff are likely to face. These include working with reluctant respondents, as well as dealing with local conditions, such as enumerating in rural areas versus urban areas. Finally, I would like to call attention to Bureau plans for enumeration in the Gulf Coast region. The effects of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita are still visible today. Numerous housing units have been or will be demolished as a result of the hurricanes and subsequent deterioration. Conversely, in some jurisdictions there is new development of housing units. This continuing change in housing unit stock makes it difficult for local governments in affected areas to assist the Bureau in reviewing address lists as part of the LUCA 2010 program this summer. The mixed condition of the housing stock may also affect other Bureau operations. For example, Bureau field staff conducting address canvassing potentially face challenges of distinguishing between abandoned, vacant, and occupied housing units, as well as additional temporary housing units. On the other hand, non-response workload could be increased if the Bureau mails questionnaires to housing units that remain vacant on census day. The Bureau has proposed several changes to the 2010 LUCA program for the Gulf Coast region, including accelerating the timing of training for affected localities. Bureau plans for addressing the potential impact on other operations is still ongoing. In summary, Mr. Chairman, we believe that the reengineering, if successful, can help control costs and improve accuracy, yet there is more that the Bureau can do to refine recruiting, hiring, and training practices, and to prepare to enumerate in hurricane affected areas. Also, the functionality and usability of the MCD specifically, and the oversight and management of information technology investments generally bear watching. As in the past, we look forward to supporting this subcommittee's oversight efforts to promote a timely, complete, accurate, and cost-effective census. This concludes my opening remarks. Thank you again for the opportunity to speak today. I would be glad to take whatever questions you may have. [The prepared statement of Mr. Scire follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.032 Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Scire, for your testimony, and thank you both for your testimony. Without objection, we will recess at this time and reconvene in a matter of half an hour. We stand in recess until we conclude the votes on the House floor. Thank you. [Recess.] Mr. Clay. The subcommittee will reconvene. Let me thank you both for your testimony. Hopefully, we will not be interrupted for votes between now and the conclusion of the hearing. Mr. Waite, you in your testimony mentioned the issue of funding and partnership. Let me ask you, in 1998 the Bureau devoted a substantial amount of resources to the partnership program in preparation for the 2000 census. For fiscal year 2008, the President did not request any funding for partnership activities. I am concerned that this could have a negative impact on the effectiveness of census outreach efforts. How much additional funding would the Bureau need to receive in fiscal year 2008 in order to replicate the partnership program activities that were carried out in fiscal year 1998 for the 2000 census? Mr. Waite. Mr. Chairman, the partnership program is designed a little bit differently this time, and so we are planning to do more of our work closer to the census. But, in direct answer to your question, we would need about $18 million in what we call the regional partnerships to replicate what had happened in 1998. That is not the administration's plan right now, but that is what it would take. Mr. Clay. Well, if Congress were to appropriate the $18 million, would the Bureau use them to support partnership program activities in fiscal year 2008? Mr. Waite. Absolutely. The Bureau would use whatever money Congress appropriates for whatever purpose, and we would do that. Mr. Clay. OK. If so, what would the activities consist of and how would they benefit your efforts to achieve an accurate census? Mr. Waite. The activities that we did in 1998 involved what we called regional partnership specialists and regional partnerships where it would be spent in the field, where people in the regions would be going around and working with communities and city groups and other groups that are interested in the census to try to get them to form complete count committees and some of those sort of things to get the local communities involved into the census effort. That is the activity that the regional partnerships will do in 2009 for sure. That is the kind of thing they would do--hiring some individuals to organize and be catalysts for partnership activity out in the communities. Mr. Clay. OK. Thank you. Former Congressman and California State Senator John Burton, founder and president of the John Burton Foundation, and other interested parties from across the country have expressed great concern about the Bureau's plan to omit the foster care question from the short form and the American Community Survey. Would you please explain as clearly as you can to the layman's ear how including either of these questions would adversely impact the overall response rate? Mr. Waite. OK. Mr. Chairman, I don't believe that we would be able to say that it would adversely affect the response rate by including them. We have done a lot of research. We are very concerned about counting everyone, and certainly counting every child and every foster child in the census. That is our primary focus. The question in mind is, after we have counted someone, we indicate how they are related to the head of the house or to the person on line one. In 2000, for the first time we had a separate category called foster child. Mr. Clay. Right. Mr. Waite. And the answers that we got from that, frankly, really were not all that good. We got information, but the information we had was only about 62 percent of the foster children that are accounted for on an adoption and foster care analysis reporting system that is run by Health and Human Services, where they actually have the rolls of the foster children. It is administrative records. They follow who these children are. Our counts nationally were about 62 percent of that. The reason, primarily, we found as we did research, was that about 20 percent of foster children are actually in a home and their guardian is a relative. It might be a grandparent, might be an uncle. Mr. Clay. Yes. Mr. Waite. And so, even though we would ask them, if you are the uncle and you say OK, I am person No. 1, and now you have this foster child, how is this foster child related to you, well, he's my nephew, even though he is a foster child, as well. So the core people were not recording that as foster children. There is also about 20 percent of the foster children are in group homes where we don't know how to ask the question about the relationship to whom. Certainly we would be happy to review that with you and talk about alternatives, but part of our consideration was we are not very confident about the numbers that we get, 62 percent of what we think is the national count. I'm not sure whether that is helpful to people, because it is not 62 percent in every State. In some States like California it is less than 40 percent, in other States it is actually over 100 percent, so there is a lot of disparity by States in our count. So the fact that data is not as good as we might have thought it was, combined with the fact that we do have a very crowded questionnaire--I don't know if you have seen our short-form questionnaire. I would be happy to show it to you afterwards. But there is a lot of information on the questionnaire. Those two things caused us to find that we would probably be better off if we didn't have that particular category. Now, the reason for the questionnaire problem has to do mechanically with the fold, but I want you to know that is not the death issue. We could probably find some way on the questionnaire. I raised the question whether it is really a good idea to collect data that is that far off of complete. Mr. Clay. Well, given how important the foster care data is to providing adequate services for foster children, will you commit to working with the subcommittee and with interested groups to find a way to include the foster care question on the short form? Mr. Waite. I absolutely will commit to working with you, and if I can't convince you that what we are doing is right, then we will find a way to put it on the form. Mr. Clay. OK. Let's look at that. Also, the 2010 census, for the census the Bureau currently plans for the first time ever in decennial operations to use mobile computing devices for address canvassing, non-response followup, and census coverage measurement. In the past, these operations were completed using a paper only process. Mr. Waite. True. Mr. Clay. In the 2004 and 2006 tests, the MCD was not reliable and did not function as intended. What contingency plans does the Bureau have in case the handheld computer does not function in the 2008 dress rehearsal? Mr. Waite. Well, first let me put that in a little bit of context. In 2004 and in 2006 the handheld devices that we used were of our own purchase, and then we built the software. We realized in 2004 that most of the problems were software problems. We weren't able to program them well enough for them to perform properly. Based on that, we began the process to go out and get the private sector, who had a lot more expertise in that area, to help us. We now have handheld devices that are being used in the dress rehearsal that are far superior in many ways. You can probably talk to the person from Harris who is, I think, on the next panel. They are far superior to the ones that we were using in 2004 and 2006. They are better programmed, they are faster. We have had pretty extensive tests on making them work. I am very confident that they are going to work properly in that test. Mr. Clay. How accurate are they now? I mean, do they actually record the address of a building? Mr. Waite. Yes, they do. Mr. Clay. And how does it deal with---- Mr. Waite. And they record the address and also the GPS coordinate of that building. Mr. Clay. OK. How does it record all the addresses in an apartment building? Mr. Waite. It doesn't individually record the GPS coordinate of the individual apartments, but, just like we did with paper, you would go inside the building and you would indicate the apartment numbers on the handheld device, just like you would on a piece of paper. We get one GPS coordinate for that building, but you would get the individual addresses in that building just the same way you did with paper. It is actually quite a bit better than paper, because now you already have it automatically in your files. When we did the paper lists we had to then send them somewhere and key the results, which oftentimes had quite a few errors associated with them. Mr. Clay. What percentage of success would you give the handheld, compared to your computers? What percentage of success? Mr. Waite. I think I could say that virtually all of the problems that we experienced in 2004 and 2006--they were problems of transmission, they were problems of speed, how quickly did the machines turn around. All of those problems have been corrected by the new machine. Mr. Clay. OK. Thank you for your responses. Mrs. Maloney, you may proceed. Mrs. Maloney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome the witnesses and thank you for your testimony. Mr. Waite, I was concerned about the lack of money, the $22 million that OMB requested from the partnership from OMB. Cutting that out just doesn't make sense to me whatsoever. I am very concerned about it. I would say that one of the key reasons that the 2000 census was better than the 1990 census was because we had this partnership, and I believe it is short- sighted and, if left uncorrected, will damage the government's ability to do a good census in 2010. I would really like to quote from Don Evans, the former Commerce Secretary and Bush-Cheney campaign chairman, and a man with, I would say, impeccable conservative credentials, and he said this before the Senate Commerce Committee. ``Partnerships, 140,000 in all with State, local, and tribal governments, community and advocacy groups, the private sector, religious organizations, educational institutions, and the Congress were key to building support and removing obstacles to participation in the census.'' So do you agree with Mr. Evans' statement? Mr. Waite. Absolutely. Mrs. Maloney. Then why is this $22 million cut out of your budget? Mr. Waite. We have a plan for partnership activities in 2009 and 2010. There isn't plans for that kind of work. It was actually $18 million. I think there may have been a misquote of the number when---- Mrs. Maloney. So $18 million. How did it get removed? Did you request for it to be removed? OMB asked for it. How did it get out of your budget? Mr. Waite. We ask for a lot of things in prioritizing the census. Mrs. Maloney. Yes. Mr. Waite. From the various places of the census, we have a lot of issues that we would like to do. Invariably, there needs to be a priority setting of things that are more or less important. I think I can say that spending money on partnerships in 2008 was not a higher priority than anything in the census that we already had. Mrs. Maloney. But you are going to spend money in 2009 and 2010---- Mr. Waite. Absolutely. Mrs. Maloney [continuing]. In the partnership? Mr. Waite. Absolutely. Mrs. Maloney. Well, how do the preparations for the 2010 census compare to a similar point in time in advance of 2000? Mr. Waite. You mean for the partnership program? Mrs. Maloney. Yes. No preparations at all. Mr. Waite. Well, preparations in all, I think this census is far advanced from where we were in 2000 in 1997. We are much better organized. We have tested our procedures a lot better. We are a long way ahead of where we were 10 years ago. The partnership program---- Mrs. Maloney. Specifically, where are you ahead than where you were in 2000? Mr. Waite. We are a long ways ahead. We have an organized LUCA program, a local update of census addresses. If you recall, last time we were trying to play catch-up with it in 1997 and 1998. We sent materials to communities that they weren't ready for, they couldn't understand very well. We didn't have very good participation. In contrast with that, we now have already mailed out the invitations to be involved in LUCA to all the 39,000 governmental units. We have a plan where we will do the LUCA in advance of address listing so we will have a clean way of verifying it. We are a long way ahead on that process. On the budget process we are a long way ahead. In 1997 we were in chaos on the budget, not knowing where we were going and what we were going to do. We now have that in control and organized. If you recall, and I'm sure you do, back in 1997 we were still trying to decide which of two tracts we might take in the census, and that was very, very difficult to try to run down two roads at the same time. I think we have a clear vision of where we are going now, how we are going to get there. We have tested the procedures that we are putting into the census better this time, thanks really to the support of the Congress all during this decade, by far better than we have done in any census previously. I think we are way ahead. Mrs. Maloney. Well, what advice would you give to Congress in how we can help make the 2010 census better than the 2000 census? What can we do to help you? Mr. Waite. I think the biggest thing that you could do to help me, the biggest thing I worry about as I look down the road at the bogeymen that are coming, I think the biggest thing that I worry about is the continuing resolution at the end of this fiscal year. Our budget for 2008 is double what it was for 2007. Mrs. Maloney. Yes. Mr. Waite. We cannot go any distance at all into fiscal year 2008 with 2007 spending without sort of derailing the train. That is the thing I worry about a great deal, that whatever resources the census is going to get, we need to get them early in the fiscal year so that we can keep moving. Mrs. Maloney. Thank you. My time is up. Mr. Waite. Thank you. Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mrs. Maloney. Mr. Scire, let me ask you, GAO recommends that the Census Bureau better target its recruiting and hiring for the characteristics of employees who are successful at census work and less likely to leave census work before an operation ends. What prompted this recommendation? Mr. Scire. Mr. Chairman, we just completed a study that we have been working on over the last year looking at recruiting, hiring, and training. The reason that we looked at that is because it hasn't been something looked at often before, and also because it represents a significant cost to the overall census. So that is what prompted the work. Mr. Clay. If implemented, what impact do you believe the recommendation will have on recruitment and hiring for the 2010 decennial census? Mr. Scire. The reason that we made the recommendation was that we thought the Bureau could gain certain efficiencies in its recruiting process, and also in its operations. At peak force, the census has half a million people that are working in the field. If they are earning, on average, $10 an hour, that means it is a $5 million an hour operation. So to the extent that you can attract people that are going to be more effective at the work, and also those that are going to stay throughout an operation, you can save some number of hours of the operation. You could also reduce retraining for individuals that are joining the operation after others have left, or even training some at the outset that are not likely to continue throughout an operation. So we really looked at it in terms of efficiency of the recruiting process, as well as the efficiency of operations. Mr. Clay. In your written testimony you state that the Commerce Department has expressed reservations about implementing the recommendations GAO made for refining the Department's recruitment and hiring strategies for the 2010 census. What impact do you believe that this will have on the recruitment? Mr. Scire. Well, I think that the Department expressed reservation largely because it does not want to be in a position where it has insufficient numbers of people to conduct the census, and we recognize that concern. That is why what we are talking about is not a major change in their operations, but rather a refinement. So we think that by doing the analysis which would permit them to identify those who are more likely to do well with the work and to stay throughout an operation, that they could reduce their cost in terms of recruiting and hiring. That, I think, is the ultimate outcome that we are looking at. Mr. Clay. Thank you for that response. GAO's analysis of the Census Bureau's figures on the average cost per housing unit for the decennial census concluded that the cost has increased from $13 in 1970 to a projected $72 for the 2010 census. That is in constant dollars for the fiscal year 2000 and amounts to a $59 increase per dwelling over 40 years. Over the same period, the overall mail response rate declined from 78 percent to 64 percent, as you reported. Some of this may be due to changing lifestyles of the population, namely people becoming more mobile. If you factor in the changing characteristics of the population, how would you rate the Bureau's efficiency in conducting the decennial census? Mr. Scire. Well, I think we can say that the Bureau faces a daunting challenge, and particularly with trying to reach a population that is increasing reluctantly to respond. We have said before that we think that the reengineering is a positive thing, that this is something that has both objectives of controlling costs and also increasing accuracy. So we look at the reengineering as something that will help ameliorate the trend that you see in terms of what it costs per household to enumerate. Mr. Clay. OK. Thank you for your response. Let me thank both members of the panel for your responses to the questions. Believe me, this will be the first time but it won't be the last that you will be before this committee. I look forward to working with both of you. Thank you very much. Mr. Waite. Thank you. Mr. Scire. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Clay. We will take the second panel. It is the policy of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to swear in all witnesses before they testify. [Witnesses sworn.] Mr. Clay. Let the record reflect that all of the witnesses answered in the affirmative. Our second panel today consists of five distinguished witnesses. We will go in this order, first with the Honorable Robert L. Bowser, mayor of East Orange, NJ, and vice chairman of Urban Policy Committee for the U.S. Conference of Mayors. Second will be Karen Narasaki, president and executive director of Asian American Justice Center, on behalf of the Leadership Conference of Civil Rights. Then we will have the Honorable Kenneth Prewitt, professor of Columbia University and former Director of the U.S. Census Bureau from 1998 to 2001. Then we will have Dr. Joseph Salvo, director of the Population Division for New York City Department of City Planning, and Mr. Michael Murray, the vice president of programs, Civil Business Unit, Government Communications Systems Division for Harris Corp. Welcome to all of you. Thank you for coming to day. Mayor Bowser, we will begin with you. Please proceed. STATEMENTS OF ROBERT L. BOWSER, MAYOR, EAST ORANGE, NEW JERSEY, VICE CHAIR, URBAN ECONOMIC POLICY COMMITTEE, U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS; KAREN NARASAKI, PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ASIAN AMERICAN JUSTICE CENTER; KENNETH PREWITT, PROFESSOR, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, DIRECTOR, U.S. CENSUS BUREAU (1998-2001); JOSEPH J. SALVO, PH.D., DIRECTOR, POPULATION DIVISION, NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITY OF PLANNING; AND MICHAEL MURRAY, VICE PRESIDENT OF PROGRAMS, CIVIL BUSINESS UNIT, GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS DIVISION, HARRIS CORP. STATEMENT OF ROBERT BOWSER Mr. Bowser. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Robert Bowser, mayor of the city of East Orange, NJ, and I currently serve as vice chairman of the U.S. Conference of Mayors Urban Economic Policy Committee. I appreciate this opportunity to appear on behalf of the Nation's mayors to share our views on the 2010 decennial census. Before I go any further, I would like to commend you, Chairman Clay, and also Ranking Member Michael Turner, for your leadership on this subcommittee and your sensitivity to local concerns. We appreciate your support for local governments. As mayors, we come to the census. We believe when it comes to the census nothing is more important than a fair and accurate count of all the people residing in our cities. In a broad sense, the decennial census is the cornerstone of our democracy. The central message I want to leave with you today is that it is critical that Congress provide full funding of the U.S. Census Bureau to ensure accuracy and cost effectiveness in planning and conducting the next census. For the past several years, the Census Bureau's budget has been vulnerable to amendments on the House floor. Members seeking money for other worthwhile projects, such as law enforcement, anti-drugs, and community policing, have seen the census funds as an easy target since the census budget is rising so quickly and significantly in preparation for the 2010 census. During the 109th Congress, the House passed an appropriations measure that would have cut Census Bureau funds by $58 million. This cut threatened to disrupt the Census Bureau's implementation of the American Community Survey, which is designed to replace the traditional long form and provide more accurate and timely data. To serve as a reliable replacement to the traditional long form, the American Community Survey must collect data from the entire population, including people living in group quarters such as college dorms, nursing homes, military barracks, and prisons. To offset the cut, the Bureau said it would have to eliminate group quarters from the American Community Survey. The Bureau also announced that the cut would force it to abandon plans to use GPS-equipped handheld computers needed to gather data information from unresponsive households. This would be unfortunate, because the new technology will save the Census Bureau an estimated $1 billion in the long term by eliminating the costly reliance on paper. Fortunately, Mr. Chairman, following the November elections last year the new leadership in Congress restored full funding for the census in the fiscal year 2007 spending bill. This will allow the Census Bureau to fully implement the American Community Survey, as well as continued development of the GPS- equipped handheld computers. For the new fiscal year, the Census Bureau has requested $797 million to continue preparing for the 2010 census. The new request amounts to $285 million increase over the current fiscal year and would allow the Census Bureau to continue census planning, testing, and development activities. One of the key elements in assuring a fair and accurate census count is starting with the accurate address list of all housing units and group quarters within each community. In 1994, Congress passed the Census Address List Improvement Act to facilitate cooperation between the Census Bureau and local governments to improve the census address list. The Census Bureau operationalized the law in a program it called local update of census address [LUCA]. The congressional intent of the Census Address List Improvement Act was two-fold: first, Members believed that by drawing on the knowledge of local officials the Census Bureau would improve the quality of the address list; second, they believed the local government officials would have more confidence in the quality of the address list if they were active participants in the process and had the opportunity to review the address list for their jurisdiction before the census. We agree, as mayors, with the congressional intent of the Census Address List Improvement Act and we are eager to work with the Census Bureau to improve upon the process started for the 2000 census. Many of the problems from the 2000 LUCA program can be resolved by bringing local government officials into the process earlier, committing greater resources to the address list process, and increasing education so that local officials and Census Bureau employees understand their shared goals. In preparation for the 2010 census, the Census Bureau is making a number of changes to the LUCA program that will be tested in the 2008 census dress rehearsal. Among the changes, a single review cycle for all address types will replace the multiple-cycle review used for the 2000 census. The review period will also be extended from 90 days to 120 days, and designated local governments will be given two opportunities to review and provide feedback on the address lists for their area. They will also have the opportunity to repeal the results. For mayors, the LUCA program is a very important step in ensuring a fair and accurate count in 2010. Unless we establish a complete and accurate address list in each community, it will be close to impossible to ensure the accuracy of the next census. Again, the key to ensuring the successful implementation of LUCA is adequate funding that will allow the Census Bureau to conduct timely training, review LUCA submissions, 100 percent canvassing after LUCA submissions are incorporated, and allow for timely second chance review by local governments before the master file is finalized. Mr. Clay. Mr. Mayor, may I ask you to summarize, please? Mr. Bowser. I will speak of local. Mr. Clay. OK. Mr. Bowser. Mr. Chairman, because the program is so important, I directed my staff at home to develop a Census 2010 Review Committee to ensure oversight of our involvement in the LUCA program. We have input from our Department of Planning, Property and Maintenance, Code Enforcement, Public Works, Water Department, Tax Assessor's Office, and Mayor's Office. Some of the major concerns we share are to make sure we receive a complete count of all new housing units, receive a complete review of all census tracts and population centers, receive a complete count of local mental health institutions, receive a complete count of our tenant population, and develop promotional materials targeting our Caribbean population to encourage them to participate, involve community-based organizations in our various neighborhoods to encourage participation. The other thing is, this program, we need strong leadership crucial for the final years leading up to the 2010 census. As the Census Bureau shifts from planning to preparations, the current director Lewis Kincannon announced his resignation in November. Unfortunately, the administration has not nominated anyone to replace him. We feel the nominee should be a strong manager with highly respected scientific credentials and no political baggage that can affect the Census Bureau's reputation as a nonpartisan statistical agency. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I should have mentioned that each witness should summarize their testimony in order to expedite, because the committee has every statement. We will begin now with Ms. Narasaki. Perhaps you can summarize. Please proceed. STATEMENT OF KAREN NARASAKI Ms. Narasaki. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also appreciate this opportunity to come before you and share with you the Civil Rights community's interest in census 2010. As you know, I serve as Vice Chair of the Leadership Conference, which is one of the oldest and strongest national coalitions of civil rights groups. My organization co-chairs with NALEO, its civil rights task force, and for census 2000 Asian American Justice Center led the effort to educate the Asian American community. I want to tell you we share with the chairman our concern about the lack of funding for the partnership programs. We believe that this census will be even more difficult to get people to cooperate quickly. We have, since 2000, growing immigrant communities and growing diversity of languages. We have had growing concerns about privacy, and also the crackdown on immigrants that has occurred since 9/11 has driven many people into the shadows. It is going to take much more effort with community-based organizations to get the same count, much less to improve the count that we had in 2000. As you know, while we made progress in 2000, we still had a differential undercount of minority communities, which hurt certain cities and rural communities even more. These partnerships are really critical to making sure that minority communities really understand what the census is for, why you can trust the Bureau, what the privacy rules are, and how to participate quickly. And it pays for themselves, because, as the Census Bureau will tell you, every person that they don't have to do followup saves them enormous funding, so it is actually an investment that is effective, not just an expenditure. We disagree with the statement that it is not important for the partnership program to be funded in 2008 because the reality is it takes communities a lot of time to ramp up for the census. One of the things that we found was those communities who put additional funding into the outreach did a better count than those that waited too long. This outreach program is important to get the community-based organizations advocating with their local governments to make sure that they are putting more money into outreach, and also building these effective complete count committees. We do not think that we can wait for 2009 and 2010 in order to have the kind of foundation we will need to make that program fully effective. We are also concerned about the language assistance programs. We believe the Bureau has made great strides, and particularly for Spanish, but we think they are not giving enough lead time in order to do the many other languages, at least the largest other languages. We found that, for community-based organizations to work effectively with the census, translations are key, and even the word census can be translated many times in different ways in different languages. So we need to have the Census Bureau settle on their translations early so that the community-based organizations and ethnic media know what the vocabulary is going to be so that they can be consistent in their outreach and education and not cause confusion in the community. We also believe that there needs to be more funding put into the advertising campaign. That is, again, a campaign that will pay for itself, because the more people who again mail in immediately and do not require expensive person-to-person followup, the more money the Bureau saves. In 2000 the advertising campaign really helped, we think, improve, particularly for minority communities. We think that more money needs to be put in this, and particularly for the Asian community, which has to advertise in many more languages than some of the other communities. We hope that you will look at that with the Census Bureau. We also want to comment briefly on the content determination. There was, again, a review of the racial categories. We believe the Bureau made the correct determinations on the race and ethnicity questions based on the research it conducted. We were concerned that the research methodology did not offer samples so as to really accurately measure the effect of the different forms of questions on the small populations, specifically the Pacific Islanders and the Native American communities, but we believe it is too late now to change any question in terms of the race question, because we know that even minor changes can vastly affect in unexpected ways the count of various minority communities. Finally, it is important for me to note I share the mayor's concern about the American Community Survey. We are very concerned that there is not enough attention being paid on the language access and language outreach for this important survey. As you know, it replaces the long form, which provides very rich detail, much needed when looking at poverty and housing and other concerns that minority communities have. Yet, we feel that there is a significant undercount of small populations, and so we hope that is something that you will consider having a longer hearing on subsequently. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Ms. Narasaki follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.046 Mr. Clay. Thank you so much for your testimony. Mr. Prewitt, please. STATEMENT OF KENNETH PREWITT Mr. Prewitt. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much for this opportunity. With your permission, I will focus on the oversight process more than the particularities of the census, itself. I would like to start with three principles. I would urge that the subcommittee work with the Bureau to maximize public cooperation. That is obvious. On the other hand, we sometimes forget that there is no such thing as a national statistical system without the public engagement of the American people. That is, statistics are nothing more than the aggregation of millions of Americans honestly and voluntarily checking boxes, filling in forms, and answering questions. Research conducted after census 2000 documented that the partnership program, the advertising program was enormously successful, certainly reaching into the minority population, in particular, as was just stressed by Karen. I conducted some of that research, myself, and with the permission of the chairman I would like to put into the record a summary of some of that research at the end of the hearing. Mr. Clay. Without objection. Mr. Prewitt. Thank you very much. The second thing I would mention by way of a basic principle is to ensure that the purposes of the census are explained to the American people. The decennial census is a nonpartisan starting point of a process that initiates a chain of events that moves from elections to representation to legislation, and the census is a marvelous teaching opportunity to explain to the American people the basics of our representative democracy, and I would hope that the advertising partnership program can make that one of the central messages. The third principle, of course, is to ensure the highest quality results feasible. A census that is poorly conducted reflects unfavorably on the Government's ability to discharge a major constitutional responsibility. If well conducted, it signals to the public that the Government can effectively carry a large, complicated, and expensive task on schedule, on budget. The subcommittee does not have to worry about whether the professionals at the Census Bureau want a quality census or will work endless hours to ensure that outcome. It does not have to worry about the intentions of the Bureau, but it does have, nevertheless, to exercise its oversight responsibilities in determining whether census operations are working as planned and whether the Bureau has the staff and financial resources to execute its plan. So I would like to suggest a sort of theory, if you will, of how to approach the oversight responsibilities as follows: First, similar to today's hearing, what we would call sort of hearings on design issues to bring in outside voices so that the subcommittee has a high level of comfort with the design that the Census Bureau was going to implement. In 2000 we did not have the benefit of that high level of comfort between the Census Bureau and this subcommittee, and that hurt the census. I would hope under your leadership that you would reach that high level of comfort with the program at the Census Bureau, even as some of the earlier questions to Mr. Waite suggested, working on particular questions or what have you. But at a certain point the design has to be locked down. Beyond this point it is actually counterproductive to try to use the congressional oversight to fine-tune census operations at that moment I would suggest that the next major thrust of the oversight process would be to ask whether the Bureau has the resources, personnel and financial, to execute the plan that has now been agreed upon with the subcommittee. We remind ourselves constantly that the census cannot be postponed if there are funding delays. The Bureau has no choice but to proceed with optimal operations, as Jay Waite just mentioned. One thing that you want to stress, I think, in the second phase of the oversight hearings is whether the Census Bureau has in mind a Plan B if Plan A encounters troubles. For that there will have to be some contingency funding. No census can proceed on the assumption there is not going to be some unexpecteds. There will be unexpecteds, and it will take some sort of cushion to allow the Census Bureau to be quick and effective in responding to that. Finally, then, I would think that the congressional subcommittee under your leadership would turn to implementation issues. As the operations commence, hearings should be guided by one overriding question: is the census on schedule, on budget. It is the no surprise principle. No one wants a failed census, as the 1990 census was sometimes called, not the Congress, not the Census Bureau, and certainly not the American people. The only way to guard against this low possibility is for the subcommittee to focus on major problems that threaten the successful implementation of the agreed-upon design and to take necessary corrective action. The census proceeds against a relentless calendar. April 1, 2010, is the fixed census day, and a short 9 months later is the deadline for the first and most important deliverable, the State-by-State reapportionment counts. Already I have no doubt Census Bureau leadership is anxious about those looming dates, every day asking themselves are we on schedule, are we on budget. I invite the subcommittee to constantly ask that question. Thank you, sir. [The prepared statement of Mr. Prewitt follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.049 Mr. Clay. Thank you very much for that expert testimony. I appreciate it. Dr. Salvo, you may proceed. STATEMENT OF JOSEPH SALVO Mr. Salvo. Chairman Clay, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak today on behalf of Mayor Michael Bloomberg. I want to thank you for the opportunity to talk about some very important census issues. I would also like to extend a thank you to Congresswoman Maloney for her support. The decennial census is all about accuracy. First and foremost, accuracy is based on the quality of the address list that is used by the Census Bureau to mail questionnaires to most households in the United States. This is because it is not only important to be counted, but to be counted at a specific location, the right place. For most households in the United States, census questionnaires are mailed to exact addresses. An exact address is a location with a number, street name, and apartment designator. Names are not used to mail census questionnaires. The entire census operation is based on an assumption that the list of exact addresses in what is called a master address file will tie a questionnaire to a specific household, to a specific housing unit. Moreover, when a household fails to respond, these exact addresses become very important in determining locations for field workers to go so that they can obtain responses. While the Census Bureau has worked very hard in trying to update the master address file over the last few years, the fact is that real conditions on the ground have outpaced their capability, their capacity to keep the address list current in many areas. New construction, conversion of buildings from non- residential to residential use, garages that get converted to residences, attic and basement apartments, building subdivision, all of these things affect their ability to capture units. Fortunately, as you have heard, we have the local update of census addresses program [LUCA] program. A common activity in the LUCA program involves receipt of a file, the actual nest or address file from the Census Bureau by the local government, and that file is compared to locally derived lists. These lists can be from E-9-11 addresses; residential water, sewer, utility accounts; records of real property for tax purposes; construction permits; certificates of occupancy. The list goes on. The Census Bureau is currently conducting LUCA promotional meetings throughout the country in an effort to encourage participation. While the Census Bureau's efforts are admirable, our experience with the program indicates that the Bureau has not allowed enough time up front for localities to prepare. Technical training needs to begin several months before delivery of the files to localities so that they can compile and format their data to allow for efficient comparisons in the allotted time. The LUCA program, while important, is only part of the answer to the problem of compiling an accurate address list and achieving an accurate count of population. This is because of incomplete or absent labeling of apartments, the basement or the attic with a tenant, the extra tenant in the garage, the one-family house that has been subdivided into three apartments. There is an illustration, a picture at the end of my written testimony labeled illustration one that gives an example of such a property. Labels are usually not obvious when field workers conduct their canvassing operations before the census, and even when these apartments are obvious, rules do not exist on the use of labels. Most important, the absence of apartment designators means that many of the housing units will not be captured in the census because questionnaire delivery by the Postal Service is compromised. In many places you have a single mailbox, tenants sort their own mail, mail is sorted by a letter carrier using names. These are options that are not captured by the delivery of census questionnaires. Illustrations two and three in my handout give you some examples. Since questionnaires do not include names when they are mailed, the Census Bureau relies on the link to an apartment number to connect the housing unit with the questionnaire. The bottom line is that in many neighborhoods accurate labels do not exist. This deficiency means that the math is inaccurate in many places because it does not reflect all the addresses that exist. For more than 2 years, the Census Bureau has been conducting research on alternate methods to count people in small, multi-family buildings where apartment numbers are confusing or non-existent. We all have a responsibility to provide the Census Bureau with information, but the Census Bureau needs to use a new procedure--a procedure that they actually have used before but it would be new in these areas-- called update enumerate, where census workers walk around blocks with their address list in hand, knock on doors, update addresses, and count the persons behind those doors, with a set of rules regarding how to label apartments. Because the 2010 census will only include a handful of questions, we have the short form only census, it should be easy to do this. Congress should encourage the Census Bureau to identify and target neighborhoods with a preponderance of these non-traditional addresses and implement what are called update enumerate methods. Thank you very much. [The prepared statement of Mr. Salvo follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.060 Mr. Clay. Thank you so much for that. Ms. Narasaki, I understand you have to be excused. You may leave. Thank you so much for your testimony. Ms. Narasaki. Thank you. Mr. Clay. You are welcome. Mr. Murray, you may proceed. STATEMENT OF MICHAEL MURRAY Mr. Murray. Good afternoon, Chairman Clay. Mr. Clay. Hello. Mr. Murray. I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the role of Harris Corp. in supporting the Census Bureau in ensuring the success of the 2010 decennial census. As vice president of programs for Harris Corp., I am responsible for the successful execution of the MAF/TIGER program, which integrates topological data and the field data collection automation program [FDCA]. Harris is proud that both program teams are performing extremely well in support of the Census Bureau's decennial count. Our overall progress to date gives me confidence that the 2010 decennial census will be the most accurate, most complete, most cost-effective, and most secure census ever. The field data collection program was awarded to Harris Corp. in April 2006. In partnership with the Census Bureau, we have, in our opinion, made tremendous progress. Program performance is on plan. The FDCA program provides the automation support, including hardware, applications, and infrastructure necessary for the Census Bureau to collect high- quality data in an efficient and cost-effective manner for the 2010 decennial census. Harris has developed an architecture for FDCA that is low risk, modular, flexible, scalable, and utilizes proven technologies and commercial off-the-shelf products to the maximum extent possible. The program architecture integrates wireless technology, GPS, and information technology in order to provide a highly available support structure to census field operations. It maintains data integrity, accuracy, and security. Multiple overlapping security measures are provided for IT and telecommunications throughout the FDCA enterprise to protect title 13 data. Some specific security features include fingerprint authentication, password authentication, automatic data encryption during storage, encrypted data transmission over a private network, firewalls, virus protection, and a kiosk feature that limits the device for only FDCA use. Harris has successfully completed the design, development, and formal test and implementation effort for dress rehearsal address canvassing operations as planned. We have deployed the office equipment and application software necessary to support next month's dress rehearsal address canvassing operations. Harris has deployed nearly 1,400 handheld computers and established the FDCA infrastructure, which includes a help desk, a network operations center, a security operations center. This system supports operational activities at Stockton and Fayetteville local census offices and the Charlotte and Seattle regional census centers. We have initiated the engineering efforts associated with the next two significant dress rehearsal operations, automating paper-based operations and non-response followup. I would like to thank the members of this committee for the invitation to testify. Harris Corp. appreciates the opportunity to share with you the successful completion of key FDCA milestones and our plans for moving forward to ensure the 2010 decennial census is the most comprehensive, most accurate, most cost effective, and most secure census ever. I look forward to answering any questions you might have, and I would like to note at the end of the hearing and with the agreement of the chairman we will provide a demonstration of key attributes and functionality of the handheld computer for those interested. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Murray follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5769.068 Mr. Clay. Thank you very much for your testimony. Let me start with Mayor Bowser. Mr. Mayor, State governments have been invited to participate in the LUCA program during the 2008 census dress rehearsal. This requires that they obtain information from local jurisdictions. It has come to the subcommittee's attention that some local jurisdictions are reluctant to share the information for fear that it might be shared with third parties other than the Census Bureau. What specific actions or programs has the U.S. Conference of Mayors instituted to work with Members and State officials to ensure that information gathered for the dress rehearsal is not shared with any agency other than the Census Bureau? Mr. Bowser. Well, I know within our own community we only assign two people to handle the census, and one works with the county because we are trying to put together a bigger program than just the local effort. The U.S. Conference of Mayors is getting ready to have some training sessions to make sure that the information is not shared beyond what is necessary for the Census Bureau. I think that is the best I can say about that. Mr. Clay. So the Conference of Mayors, the U.S. Conference of Mayors does have a plan to facilitate the local programs with the Bureau? Mr. Bowser. Yes. Mr. Clay. OK. Thank you for that response. Dr. Prewitt, let me begin by thanking you for your service to the Nation as Director of the Census from 1998 until 2001. Much of the success of the 2000 decennial census can be directly attributed to your leadership and dedication. I also want to thank you for acknowledging the diligence and commitment of the Bureau's staff. You are right in your assessment that some Members are not aware of how difficult a task we have assigned to the Bureau. Their task is made all the more difficult when Congress does not provide sufficient resources for planning and implementation of the decennial census. Again, thank you for making that point. I also appreciate your providing your professional opinion on how the subcommittee can best approach oversight of the census. What do you believe were the most notable successes of the 2000 census? And in your response I would like for you to address the role partnerships might have played in achieving your goals at the time. Mr. Prewitt. Thank you very much for your kind comments, Mr. Chairman. With respect to specifically the partnership program, I traveled a great deal. I felt that the Director of the Census had a kind of a role somewhere between a preacher and a cheerleader, to try to explain, but also to celebrate, if you will, the census. I must have visited in the neighborhood of 200 different events that were organized by the partnership program. They all had the same characteristic. There was just a community excitement and an understanding of this responsibility. I won't detail this, but, for example, I remember in San Antonio the oldest Catholic church in the country, as a matter of fact, dedicated a whole mass just to the census, because they felt so strongly about the importance of reaching out to the undocumented in that area and used the church to make that message. Chambers of commerce, corporations all over the country. So insofar as the census becomes a kind of a government responsibility that is owned by the people, that happened through the partnership program. It is very difficult to document the exact payoff in the response rate; however, I was, at the end of the census, very pleased to recognize the GAO, itself, recognized that the partnership program had made a difference in the mail-back response rate, which saves money. More important than that, it engaged the American people in this very important civic responsibility. Mr. Clay. So the key is actually to involve communities and involve Americans in the census and make them feel a part of the census, and I guess explain to them, through the advertising, that this is essential to us building this country. Mr. Prewitt. I think, if I could continue for a second, Mr. Chairman, you appreciate, of course, in 2000 there was a partisan battle about the census. It was intense, and it sort of crippled some of the things we would have liked to have done. I will just give you one example. It would be marvelous in 2010 if on April 1st the U.S. Congress stops collectively its business and all of them sit there and fill out their form on television to say to the American people this is what this is all about. So those kinds of things would create a fundamentally different, I think, mind set, if you will, about what a census can be. Mr. Clay. And you also talked about how this committee needs to use the oversight function through different stages of the census, the lead up to the dress rehearsal, actually in that period between 2008 and 2010, and to troubleshoot, actually, and to make sure that everything is prepared to go for that April 1st date. I mean, you stressed it in your testimony. Mr. Prewitt. Yes. Mr. Clay. I guess you can't say it often enough to us to actually use the oversight function. Mr. Prewitt. Of course, on behalf of the American people, you are the responsible agency to make sure that there is a good census. And I think don't underestimate the extent to which hearings operate as a discipline on the Bureau, making sure they have their act together, they have their answers in place. Even though it sounds sometimes rote, I can tell you back at the Bureau when we get ready for hearings we take it very, very seriously. So there is a real responsibility that the Congress can exercise. Mr. Clay. Thank you so much for that response. Dr. Salvo, in response to you raising the issue of non- traditional housing patterns, particularly multi-unit dwellings, what specific challenges do you believe the Bureau will face with respect to these units during the 2008 dress rehearsal, and what adjustments would you recommend they make to the current plan to address these challenges? Mr. Salvo. Well, ideally it would be great if the Census Bureau tested this procedure that I have outlined called update enumerate where, in effect, blocks in the test area are identified as having addresses that, frankly, cannot be mailed to, and instead enumerators are sent out to conduct the enumeration in person, to knock on doors, fix the list, and conduct the enumeration. Again, we are dealing with a short form only census. Penetration of these households in small, medium, and large cities--and I should say that. What I am talking about exists in many places--can only occur if the local people, people who are hired locally by the Bureau, go out and pound the pavement and knock on those doors and enumerate people contained within those housing units. Mr. Clay. OK. You raise a good point. Now let me go to Mr. Murray. Will your handheld devices address the issue that he raised about five different mailboxes being in one what was initially a single family home. I mean, he supplied us with photos of a single family house that was converted into a three-unit house that had five mailboxes. How would your handheld address that? Mr. Murray. Yes, it will. It has the capability to, as they are address canvassing that particular street or area or where you are seeing the multiple mailboxes, the enumerator will be standing at the base of the mailbox. It will have the addresses that are currently on record in the device. It also has the capability to go and add new addresses for the additional mailboxes that have been identified. Mr. Clay. I see. The subcommittee has learned that there are concerns about the time line of training, the training time line. What is the status of the project, Mr. Murray? Are you all on schedule and on budget? Mr. Murray. We are currently on schedule and, as I mentioned, we have deployed the FDCA system to support the dress rehearsal, address canvassing operations in Stockton and Fayetteville, and it is ready for operations. We have a field force out there right now. We have IT technicians supporting the Bureau and, again, are ready to support those operations. With respect to the budget, we are on plan. With respect to the overall program, there are challenges in fiscal year 2007 that we are addressing. Mr. Clay. OK. And, of course, the cost for the project is $200 million, which is a substantial expense. Is the program adaptable for future use? Mr. Murray. For the MAF/TIGER program it is $200 million. For FDCA it is $600 million. For MAF/TIGER, there is a marriage between MAF/TIGER and FDCA that can occur. MAF/TIGER basically does the base road network, and FDCA has the capability to add additional roads. The advantage of MAF/TIGER is MAF/TIGER in the long run will be able to add roads on a larger scale. FDCA will add roads as the enumerators are literally address canvassing the streets. The handheld device that we have built has the capability of adding roads real time while the enumerators are out on the street on those roads using the GPS technology. Mr. Clay. I see. Thank you for that response. Let me ask Mayor Bowser, I assume you were the mayor of East Orange during the 2000 census? Mr. Bowser. Just after. Mr. Clay. Just after. OK. So you did not experience, or did you have---- Mr. Bowser. I did participate briefly, because I was the director of public works in the city at the time that the preparation was getting ready for the 2000 census, and we did have a lot of preparation. What I failed to mention before when you asked about the U.S. Conference of Mayors, what they are doing, at the winter conference right here in D.C. the Census Bureau had a booth at our conference there, and at the June conference, which will be in California in Los Angeles, there will be workshops that will be taking place about the census in preparation for that coming up. Mr. Clay. So you think the partnership is essential? Mr. Bowser. It is necessary in a community like mine where we are in the categories of 50,000 to 100,000 people. We are the highest percentage of people of color, so when folks show up don't look like most of the people in the city, they get very scared. So you need to partnership to go and take some of the canvassers around and do whatever you have to do to make sure the church members are getting involved, the young people are getting involved. That is what we are prepared to do. Mr. Clay. And when you don't do that, that is when the under-counts occur. Mr. Bowser. Exactly. Mr. Clay. Thank you for that response. Mr. Prewitt, as you know, there is concern about Director Kincannon's resignation and the impact that it might have on the implementation of the 2010 census. You have served as Director of the Bureau and are fully knowledgeable of the type of leadership that is required of the head of the agency. Would you like to share any thoughts concerning the skills set the next Director should possess? Have you thrown your hat into the ring? Please feel free to comment on it. Mr. Prewitt. On the latter part of your question, sir, I felt very strongly when I was Director and after I left--and I put that in the record many times--that the Census Bureau Director should be a 5-year term appointment, not one that is coterminous with the Presidential change in leadership, for all the right reasons, without going through that. I was quite saddened by the fact that my resignation was accepted at about 12:02 on January 20, 2000. As soon as President Bush said I do it was the end of my tenure. I would be deeply complimented if the White House were to approach me about being the Census Bureau Director now, and I say that very seriously because I think it would be a signal that we do not think the Census Bureau directorship is a partisan appointment, that it is beyond and above. It is like the National Science Foundation, the head of NASA. It is a scientific job fundamentally, not a political job. I haven't thrown my hat in the ring because I didn't think it would do any good, but I think it would be a very strong signal to the country that we see the census as outside of the political process, starting a political process, but it, itself, is outside the political process. So I think the most important criteria is someone that not only has the technical capacity and the managerial capacity, of course, to manage something that is complicated, and so forth, but also knows what the census stands for in the history of this country. Mr. Clay. While you were Director, did you ever offer up or encourage anyone in this body to offer and propose that we come up with a 5-year term? It is quite an intriguing concept that makes a lot of sense, especially with what we are going through now. Mr. Prewitt. I believe that Congresswoman Maloney at one time, indeed, framed some legislation on exactly that issue for sort of a seven into two cycle so you overlap the decennial, and it is too bad that legislation hasn't moved forward. Mr. Clay. Thank you for that. Dr. Salvo, any comments on Mr. Prewitt's response as far as a new Director for the Census? Do you have any ideas about that? Mr. Salvo. Well, I certainly agree that statistical demographic competency should be very, very high on the list of any candidate. Essentially, the head of the Census Bureau is given a job that requires an understanding of the science as the foundation for the decennial census and for the American Community Survey and all the programs at the Census Bureau. I would second Mr. Prewitt's kind of affirmation of the importance of getting someone in who really understands the science and how those things work. Mr. Clay. Thank you for that. The subcommittee has learned that there are concerns about the time line for LUCA training and the review and comment period. In your opinion, should the time line be revised? And if so, how? Mr. Salvo. The time line needs to be revised. The Census Bureau is in the field now doing what is called promotional LUCA training, which amounts to getting people interested in the program, getting them to come forward and agree to participate. When I go out with the Census Bureau--and I have gone out-- there is a lot that can be done to prepare jurisdictions from a technical standpoint. For example, there is software that the Census Bureau has that they can begin to introduce to the jurisdictions as an incentive to participate in LUCA. That needs to be done within the next 2 months, because summer is coming up, the files will be delivered in the fall. You cannot do technical training at the same time that you deliver the files. It needs to be done several months in advance, which means June of this year would be a good time point. Mr. Clay. How about you, Mayor Bowser? How do you feel about the time line with LUCA? Mr. Bowser. Well, I think the time line seems to be a little bit too compressed. Certainly, the more preparation you have, because this is too important to really the lifeblood of the cities and to the country, so the more prepared you are, the more accurate the numbers are going to be, and then everybody can benefit from that. Mr. Clay. Thank you so much. Mr. Murray, the handheld devices will not be field tested until next month. GAO expressed concerns that leaves little time to correct any problems with the devices before the 2008 dress rehearsal. Does Harris have a plan for addressing problems that might arise during the field test and correcting them before the dress rehearsal? Please explain. Mr. Murray. I was actually very delighted to meet Mr. Scire from the GAO, because I have been reading his reports for some time from the 2004-2006 tests, so during the break I had the opportunity to actually walk through the new device, provided him a brief demo as to how we have addressed the issues that have been identified in his report. So right now the key is the handheld device is built. This is the device that will work for decennial. We will test it during dress rehearsal. We have done some extensive testing on it so far. From a production standpoint, we have gone through what we call destructive testing on over 1,000 units, where we have done everything from shock and vibration testing, dropping them in water, seeing what they will do, what they won't do, every type of possible test. So we believe this device is solid, it is ready. The software is complete today for, again, dress rehearsal, address canvassing. It works. We have demonstrated it in our formal tests. So we are very comfortable and very confident that this device will be successful going forward. Mr. Clay. And, Mr. Murray, the devices have various security features. What has Harris done to ensure the reliability of these features? Mr. Murray. The first thing with respect to liability, for dress rehearsal we have delivered 1,388. We did a 100 percent test of all of those units, and every one of them worked. With respect to security, security is embedded throughout the architecture. As soon as an enumerator goes to a house, as they are entering the data, when they complete that housing data that they have entered, that data is then encrypted on the SD card that is located in the device. Once they complete that assignment and they walk away from that house, if they are in cell range that data is automatically transmitted over a private network, secure private network, and it is encrypted, and then it is removed from the device, itself. Mr. Clay. The handheld devices allow canvassers to collect GPS coordinates. The accuracy rate required by the Census Bureau is 3.5 meters. Do the devices meet or exceed that requirement? Mr. Murray. The devices do meet that. There are some limitations when you are in the middle in the city and your GPS is obstructed. Satellites are obstructed by tall buildings, or when you are in certain mountains there are some GPS obstructive. When you have clear shots of GPS satellites, it works flawlessly. Mr. Clay. OK. What happens when there are obstructions? How do you followup? Mr. Murray. They will take a mark, and they are able to take a mark, and the device will remember that mark. That particular mark will not be accurate to the three meters. It will be off by a couple of meters beyond that three meters. Mr. Clay. And that requires a person or enumerator to followup? Mr. Murray. Correct. Mr. Clay. OK. All right. Let me ask a final question of Mr. Bowser. I hear we have votes coming. Mr. Mayor, the Census Bureau will have regional and local offices to provide assistance to local officials. What are your expectations of the local offices, and how can they be a resource to your members in implementing the 2010 census? Mr. Bowser. Well, what we did during the last census I think really worked well, because regional offices' representatives made periodic regular visits to our community, because we are sort of like in the center of the county, and we would bring some of the surrounding communities in so that we all shared the same information at the same time, so the regional offices worked very well with us. Mr. Clay. All right. Let me wrap up this hearing by thanking all of you all for giving your time today, for coming here and testifying on such an important subject. I appreciate your expertise and your testimony today. I will adjourn the hearing. Mr. Murray, you do have permission to do a demonstration after the hearing. Mr. Murray. Thank you. Mr. Clay. Thank you so much. Thank you all for being here. The committee is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] <all>