[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT OF THE 2000 CENSUS: STATUS OF KEY OPERATIONS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CENSUS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 14, 2000
__________
Serial No. 106-161
__________
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
67-019 WASHINGTON : 2001
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250
Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland TOM LANTOS, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
STEPHEN HORN, California PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana DC
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
Carolina ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
BOB BARR, Georgia DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
DAN MILLER, Florida JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas JIM TURNER, Texas
LEE TERRY, Nebraska THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
GREG WALDEN, Oregon JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
DOUG OSE, California ------
PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE, Idaho (Independent)
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
Kevin Binger, Staff Director
Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director
David A. Kass, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian
Lisa Smith Arafune, Chief Clerk
Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on the Census
DAN MILLER, Florida, Chairman
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
------ ------
Ex Officio
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Jane Cobb, Staff Director
Laura Chamberlain, Professional Staff Member
Amy Althoff, Clerk
Michelle Ash, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 14, 2000................................... 1
Statement of:
Mihm, J. Christopher, Associate Director, Federal Management
and Workforce Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office,
accompanied by Randolph C. Hite, Associate Director,
Accounting and Information Management Division, U.S.
General Accounting Office; and Robert Goldenkoff, Assistant
Director, General Government Division, U.S. General
Accounting Office.......................................... 18
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Maloney, Hon. Carolyn B., a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York:
Letter dated August 20, 1999............................. 11
Prepared statement of.................................... 15
Mihm, J. Christopher, Associate Director, Federal Management
and Workforce Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office,
prepared statement of...................................... 23
Miller, Hon. Dan, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Florida, prepared statement of.......................... 5
OVERSIGHT OF THE 2000 CENSUS: STATUS OF KEY OPERATIONS
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 14, 2000
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on the Census,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in
room 2203, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dan Miller
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Miller and Maloney.
Staff present: Jane Cobb, staff director; Timothy J. Maney,
chief investigator; Chip Walker, communications director; Erin
Yeatman, press secretary; Lara Chamberlain, professional staff
member; Amy Althoff, clerk; Michelle Ash, minority counsel;
David McMillen and Mark Stephenson, minority professional staff
members; and Earley Green, minority assistant clerk.
Mr. Miller. Good morning. The Census Subcommittee has a
quorum present. We will start with my opening statement, Mrs.
Maloney and Mr. Mihm's.
The census questionnaires have been mailed, and many people
have already received them. Please fill out the form and mail
it back as soon as possible. I can't overemphasize this enough
to those sitting here and those watching on TV. Your friends,
neighbors, local and State officials, local school boards and
State universities, all areas of the private sector are
dependent upon an accurate census. So when you get the
questionnaire, short form and long form, take a few minutes to
sit down and answer the questions and mail it back. America is
counting on you.
Today we again welcome the nonpartisan General Accounting
Office before the Subcommittee on the Census. As I mentioned
previously, the GAO's mission is to help the Congress oversee
Federal programs and operations to assure accountability to the
American people. GAO evaluators, auditors, lawyers, economists,
public policy analysts, information technology specialists and
other multidisciplinary professionals seek to enhance the
economy, efficiency, effectiveness and credibility of the
Federal Government both in fact and in the eyes of the American
people.
GAO accomplishes this mission through a variety of
activities, including financial audits, program reviews,
investigations, legal support and policy program analyses. GAO
is dedicated to good government through its commitment to the
values of accountability, integrity and reliability.
Last week the Director of the Census Bureau was before the
subcommittee and questioned the nonpartisan GAO and other
oversight entities for what he termed real-time oversight that,
in his mind, was not understandable. However, I would remind
everyone that in the first major mailing of census materials to
the general public, all 120 million prenotification letters
were misaddressed, and the letter itself did not explain fully
the purpose of the enclosed envelope to those who only spoke
English, obviously a majority of the population. The Director
has termed both of these errors as major embarrassments, and,
as Mr. Ryan noted, the national 800 number was not printed on
the forms. According to the Census Bureau, the 800 number was
not available at the time the forms were printed. I must admit
that I find this explanation highly improbable.
In the wake of these errors, a strong argument can be made
for more oversight, not less. And these errors also call into
question the ability of the Bureau to conduct the ACE or
estimation adjustment.
Today the GAO will have its turn to defend its actions, all
of which have been sanctioned by our subcommittee either
jointly or independently. While Mrs. Maloney attacked our level
of oversight and thought that it may be intruding on the Census
Bureau's ability to conduct the census, many of the GAO reports
have been jointly requested with her support or that of Mr.
Waxman, the ranking member of the full committee. I also found
it ironic that while Mrs. Maloney criticized the level of
oversight and called it intrusive and burdensome, in her next
breath she asked the Director to provide the subcommittee with
yet another report, this time on the level of oversight and the
amount of time that the Bureau takes to comply with the various
requests for information.
The stories in the wake of last week's hearing said that
the spirit of bipartisanship had been broken. That is not
entirely accurate. Both Mrs. Maloney and I have tirelessly
promoted the census and will continue to do so. However, I am
not in a position to tirelessly defend the Bureau at all costs.
When deserving of praise, the Bureau should receive it, but
when deserving criticism, it should also receive it.
Those of us who sit on this subcommittee in Congress, and
the President, are ultimately responsible for the census. The
American people, and rightly so, hold the elected officials
responsible for the actions of their government. This is the
people's census, and we are the people's representatives.
This subcommittee requests information because it believes
that it is needed to make an informed judgment on the success
of the 2000 census. On a regular basis the subcommittee is
questioned on the status of operations by Members of Congress,
constituents from around the Nation, and the press. Let's say a
reporter or local government official calls and asks, for
example, how, in my opinion, hiring is proceeding? Imagine the
shock if my answer was, well, the Census Bureau tells me
everything is fine. That would be not be the sign of a well-
informed chairman or a subcommittee doing its job.
While the Bureau prefers to talk about the census in
national terms, such as, ``Hiring is 4 percent ahead of
schedule,'' that does not mean anything to a reporter or city
official that calls from Dayton, OH, or San Antonio, TX. They
justifiably want to know how they are doing locally. The Bureau
may want to reevaluate the level of information that it
provides on the local level. It seems that the media is in need
of this type of information. Of course, it is not that the
Census Bureau cannot provide local information. Soon every
local government will have access to their mail response rates
daily. It is hoped that this information will encourage local
involvement and raise the 2000 mail response rate 5 percent
above that of 1990.
I believe that because hiring is such an integral part of
the census, everybody should have access to this information.
This information is not meant to embarrass the Census Bureau.
To the contrary, it is meant to spur action. An example is what
delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton has done right here in the
Nation's Capital. After press reports on the hiring shortage
here in D.C., she organized a job fair. That is a positive
action by a local official who was made aware of a problem.
This census has been a highly contentious one since the
start of the decade. Both parties in Congress are examining it
much closer than in previous decades. In fact, I would say the
Nation as a whole is taking a much closer look. But if the 2000
census is to be truly transparent, everyone should be able to
see clearly through the window without obstruction.
I am pleased to report that the Census Bureau has been very
responsive to my requests for a meeting among the oversight
parties, and that this meeting will take place after the
hearing today. I hope all of the remaining issues will be
resolved to everyone's satisfaction. I am also pleased to
report that since I raised the issue with Secretary Daley
almost 2 weeks ago, GAO has reported significant progress in
obtaining the information it feels it needs to conduct thorough
oversight.
Today we will hear testimony in a number of key areas. The
Census Bureau had to reconfigure the data capture system in
order to capture 1.5 billion pages of data from 119 million
households. I am very concerned that testing and development of
this system has been behind from the start. I am also concerned
that the new software and hardware has not been used in a
simulated census environment.
A key ingredient to the local census outreach efforts are
the Complete Count Committees [CCC]. These committees are
designed to do local outreach and promotion. However, many of
the Complete Count Committees that we visited are frustrated
from a lack of resources. One such CCC in a major county told
the subcommittee that they were shocked when they were
contacted by the Census Bureau's partnership specialists and
asked to supply materials for an upcoming event and given a 2-
day deadline. Imagine the shock of the CCC. They understood
that it was the Census Bureau that was supposed to supply the
materials, not the other way around.
And, of course, hiring remains a concern on this
subcommittee despite the Director's assertion that ``I don't
lose any sleep over it.''
I hope my concerns never bear fruit and, in fact, the local
census offices are fully staffed for a nonresponse followup.
Mr. Mihm, thank you for coming before the committee, and I
look forward to your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Dan Miller follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7019.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7019.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7019.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7019.004
Mr. Miller. Mrs. Maloney, do you have an opening statement?
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Census day may be 18 days away, but the census has begun.
Almost 100 million questionnaires are in the mail, and 22
million more are being delivered by hand in rural areas. I
received mine yesterday, and I urge all Americans to fill out
their questionnaires and mail it back.
As has been the case in our recent hearings, the news on
preparations for the census is good, a point which can easily
be lost in the details of a hearing. But if we look at the
forest and not the trees, things are going pretty well.
Particularly noteworthy is a new USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll out
just yesterday in which 96 percent of the respondents say they
will mail back their questionnaires. I doubt it will be that
high, but that is certainly an important indication of the all-
important mail response rate, and it is very good news.
Beyond that, and as the testimony today shows, things are
on track. All 520 offices are open and running. Though there
are localized problems, recruiting is actually ahead of
schedule nationwide at about 75 percent of the total needed.
The questionnaires--all 120 million--are printed and actually
being delivered by U.S. Post Office and Census Bureau personnel
even as we speak. As Director Prewitt has emphasized,
unexpected problems could develop tomorrow, but as of today
things are running pretty well.
Now, the chairman mentioned the problem in recruitment. I
want to give the number to the public, 1-888-325-7733, as
displayed here for people to call if they want jobs and want to
help the Census Bureau.
At our hearing last week, the issue of appropriate access
of oversight entities to census 2000 activities and information
was a major point of discussion. I do not want to belabor those
issues, but I do want to clarify the record on a couple of
points. First, the General Accounting Office and the Census
Bureau were well on their way toward reaching an agreement
regarding GAO's access to Bureau information before our last
hearing. If this fact had been clear to all concerned, I think
much of the discussion we had would have been avoided. There
was not last week nor is there today a disagreement over access
between the Bureau and GAO. I will let Mr. Mihm speak for
himself, but I understand that all of these issues have been
resolved. I also suspect that in a project of this size, scope
and complexity, it is normal to have differences that need to
be worked out and reviewed.
Second, the guidelines on oversight which the Bureau has
implemented were sent to the oversight bodies on December 16,
1999, almost 3 months ago. As best I can tell, they represent
the continuation of policies which have been in place for over
2 years, and I am somewhat surprised that they have become an
issue this late in the process. If there was a problem with
these guidelines, and they are only guidelines, it should have
been addressed long ago.
Mr. Chairman, you have raised concerns about the access of
our own staff and that of the Census Monitoring Board to field
offices. While I would note that similar visits never happened
during the 1990 census, they may have some value. But it is
also important to understand that GAO and the Inspector
General's staff are highly trained auditors and evaluators,
working under strict professional standards and their own
guidelines on how to conduct themselves in the field. Although
these agencies act in a strictly nonpartisan manner, I have
real concerns regarding the conduct of the Monitoring Board
staff given their activities in the field to date and the fact
that they are not subject to any similar guidelines for their
conduct.
I know that the chairman mentioned his concern regarding
the need for representatives of the regions or headquarters
staff accompanying subcommittee staff on their visits to local
census offices. I just want to point out that this is far from
unusual. The chairman and I both liken the census to a military
operation, and I think that is a good analogy. I just want to
point out that when Members of Congress or their staff go into
the field to visit military installations, they are usually
accompanied by half of the Pentagon, so I do not think that it
is unusual or inappropriate to have representatives accompany
our own staff. I know my staff has found the presence of
regional staff helpful in understanding the census operations
since many times they can answer questions that the local staff
cannot.
I do want to compliment the chairman on his idea of getting
all of the principals together from the Monitoring Board,
cochairs Ken Blackwell and Gil Casellas; the GAO, Mr. Mihm and
perhaps Mr. Walker; the Commerce IG, Mr. Frazier; and
ourselves, to personally resolve any issues that remain. As you
know, that is exactly what Director Prewitt suggested in his
letter of August 26 of last year to you in which he expressed
his concerns regarding the demands of various oversight bodies
and their impact on the Bureau's ability to conduct the census.
I would like to put that letter in the record and, if I could,
put this letter in and the one from February 8.
Mr. Miller. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7019.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7019.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7019.007
Mrs. Maloney. That letter of February 8 was directed to
cochairs Blackwell and Casellas, asking for a meeting to ensure
that their information requests were met. These hardly seem
like actions of someone trying to, ``hide something.'' Even if
these issues are settled at the staff level, I think a meeting
of the principals could be very useful for all concerned and
personally am ready to attend such a meeting.
Mr. Chairman, while we are reviewing the issue of
oversight, I want to pose a question. What are the oversight
goals of this committee with respect to the census? Oversight
to what end? Are we trying to make this census better, to
develop plans for the next census in 2010? If we are trying to
make sure that this census is the best it can be, then why
hasn't the subcommittee responded to the major recommendations
GAO had in their December report?
The GAO gave us some concrete statutory steps to improve
the pool of possible enumerators, which you have pointed out is
still a concern in some small pockets around the country. I
know that you strongly supported Mrs. Meeks' bill, H.R. 683,
which would have allowed current welfare recipients to receive
their benefits and work for the census at the same time, but
the Majority Leader has refused to bring it to a vote on the
floor. I also know that recruitment is still a concern in the
LCOs in both our districts. I think responding to the GAO's
suggestion incorporated in my bill, H.R. 3581, would make
sense. If this subcommittee is committed to constructive
oversight, we should act on those recommendations. Of course,
the alternative to constructive oversight is to use it to play
gotcha with the census in a continuing effort to try to stop
the use of modern statistical methods.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7019.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7019.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7019.010
Mr. Miller. Mr. Mihm, if you would stand, Mr. Hite and Mr.
Goldenkoff, and raise your right hands, and I will swear you
all in.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Miller. Let the record acknowledge that they have
answered in the affirmative.
Mr. Mihm.
STATEMENTS OF J. CHRISTOPHER MIHM, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, FEDERAL
MANAGEMENT AND WORKFORCE ISSUES, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING
OFFICE, ACCOMPANIED BY RANDOLPH C. HITE, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR,
ACCOUNTING AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT DIVISION, U.S. GENERAL
ACCOUNTING OFFICE; AND ROBERT GOLDENKOFF, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
GENERAL GOVERNMENT DIVISION, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
Mr. Mihm. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mrs. Maloney. It is
once again a great honor and pleasure to appear before you to
discuss the status of the 2000 census.
March is one of the most crucial periods in the 10-year
census cycle. Over the course of this month, the Bureau will
deliver census questionnaires to the vast majority of the
Nation's 120 million households. I also received my
questionnaire yesterday. Knowing I would appear before you
today, I made sure that I filled it out and mailed it in today.
I would have mailed it in in any case, but I wanted to get it
in today.
The Bureau will begin to process millions of completed
questionnaires at its four data capture centers located across
the country this month. Outreach and promotion efforts will be
at their greatest intensity. The Bureau's temporary work force
will approach peak levels, and coverage improvement programs
are to get under way.
I am fortunate to be joined by two of my colleagues who
have managed GAO's work on the 2000 census. Randy Hite leads
GAO's work on the wide range of Federal technology issues,
including the census; and Robert Goldenkoff has day-to-day
responsibility for much of our work on census operations.
Our statement focuses on developments that have occurred
since we last testified before this subcommittee in February
regarding essential activities such as, first, the outreach and
promotion program; second, field followup operations, including
staffing and coverage improvement; and third, data capture. In
addition, I will discuss the steps the Bureau has taken to
ensure that the census questionnaires do not contain the same
misprint as was in the mailing addresses in the notification
letters.
However, before turning to those issues, I want to spend
just a moment on the question of GAO's access to census
operational information. Mr. Chairman, as you and Mrs. Maloney
mentioned in your opening statements, we have reached agreement
with the Bureau and implemented a process that I am confident
will allow us to fulfill our role in supporting the bipartisan
oversight needs of this subcommittee. This agreement with the
Bureau provides us with access to the routine management
information on the status of the census while importantly
minimizing the burden on the Bureau. It is a new process that
they established to make sure that it reduces the burden from
the other process that they had been using. In reaching this
agreement I want to thank the Bureau for its willingness to
work with us on access issues, and the subcommittee in its
efforts, and in particular you, Mr. Chairman, for the attention
and support you gave us during this time. I deeply appreciate
your efforts on our behalf on this issue.
Turning now to the census outreach and promotion program,
the Bureau has formed partnerships with organizations across
the country to help promote the census. The Complete Count
Committees, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, are a key component
of the partnership program. They consist of local government,
religious, media and other community leaders. Not surprisingly,
in our conversation with members of these committees across the
country, we are finding significant differences regarding the
resources that they have available to promote the census and
their level of activity.
Regarding the support that the Bureau is providing these
committees, the situation appears to be equally mixed. On the
one hand, committee representatives we contacted were generally
pleased with the assistance and guidance that they were
receiving from the Bureau's partnership staff. The local
committee representatives were also satisfied with the quality
and quantity of the English-language material that they
received from the Bureau. On the other hand, however, several
committee representatives we spoke with said the amount of
foreign-language materials, especially Spanish and Asian
languages, were insufficient to meet their needs.
In addition to the Complete Count Committees, the Bureau
Census in Schools Program is intended to increase response
rates by encouraging students to remind their parents or
guardians to respond to the census. The Complete Count
Committee and local census representatives we spoke to spoke
highly favorably of the idea of promoting the census through
the schools. Mr. Chairman, I know that you had very positive
experiences at home in that regard.
To date the Bureau has fulfilled orders for about 1.5
million teacher kits for elementary, middle and high school
teachers. However, problems have occurred in distribution of
these materials. Orders for Census in Schools materials are
taking between 2 and 4 weeks to be filled, according to the
Bureau officials responsible for the day-to-day management of
this program.
An effective publicity and outreach program is important to
boost mail response rates, which contributes to higher census
data quality and reduces the staff needs and schedule burdens
on the census. This leads to the second topic I would like to
cover, census field operations.
The Bureau's update/leave operation, which began on March
3, was the first test of the Bureau's ability to staff its
operations at near peak activities. Over 700,000 enumerators
and other staff are now in the field conducting update/leave.
However, to meet its nonresponse followup staffing needs, the
much larger operation that is coming in just a few weeks, the
Bureau needs to recruit an additional 700,000 qualified
applicants to meet its overall goal of 2.4 qualified applicants
by mid-April. Bureau data show that nationally, as of March 2,
the Bureau had recruited 74 percent of the applicants that it
needed. This was slightly ahead of the Bureau's national 71
percent goal at that point. However, 7 of the Bureau's 12
regional offices fell short of the 71 percent benchmark.
Table 1 in my written statement shows the progress that
census regions have made in meeting recruiting goals in
February and in March. Most important, at the local level, 270
of the Bureau's 511 local census offices fell below the Bureau
benchmark of 71 percent. Of these 270, 22 had recruited fewer
than half of the qualified applicants that the Bureau needed as
of March 2.
The regional and local census officials continue to
aggressively recruit applicants. For example, the Census Bureau
is working with communities to set up testing, meeting with
local leaders, the Atlanta and several other regional offices
are mailing postcards to targeted ZIP codes that have been
identified as hard-to-recruit areas, and in some cases they
have increased pay rates for enumerators and other staff.
In addition to the followup efforts--efforts to followup on
nonresponding households, the Bureau has included coverage
improvement programs in the 2000 census that are aimed at
increasing the count of the hard-to-enumerate populations. Two
of these programs are the Bureau's walk-in Questionnaire
Assistance Centers and the Be Counted Program. Bureau data as
of March 1 show that a combined total of 46,000 Be Counted
sites and Questionnaire Assistance Centers have been committed
to be established. For perspective, this is about 3\1/2\ times
the 12,600 McDonald's restaurants that are in the Nation. Being
the father of small children, I am well-acquainted, I think,
with about half of those restaurants.
As we discussed in our February report to the subcommittee,
the Bureau appears to be taking the steps needed to ensure a
successful Be Counted/Questionnaire Assistance Center effort.
They learned some key lessons from the dress rehearsal and are
taking appropriate actions.
Turning to the third topic I will discuss today, census
data capture. As of today the Bureau reports that it has
implemented the near-term system changes and completed all
scheduled test events, including an operational test at each
data capture center and a test of the four centers operating
concurrently. Further, as of today the data capture centers
have been operating for about a week, the first 2 days of which
they checked in over 117,000 questionnaires. This workload
represents about 8 percent of the daily workload expected later
this month when peak operations kick in, when they will be
processing 1.5 million questionnaires per day. Thus the actual
operations and the data that we have thus far demonstrate that
the centers are up and running, but they do not demonstrate
those centers' readiness to operate at expected production-
level workloads. Moreover, the information that we have seen on
actual operations does not address whether recent changes to
the data capture system are functioning correctly. We,
therefore, remain uncertain about the centers' readiness to
meet the full production workload anticipated to begin in about
2 weeks.
Our prepared statement details uncertainty about the
results of the Jeffersonville operational test, recent software
changes, the Bureau's four-site operational test in late
February, and other ongoing changes. In the interest of
brevity, I will highlight the software changes and the four-
site operational test.
As you know, Mr. Chairman and Mrs. Maloney, the Bureau has
decided to adopt a two-pass approach to its data capture
operations. To implement this two-pass data capture solution,
two sets of software changes or releases were required. The
first release, designed to support the first pass, that is when
they will get the 100 percent data which will be used for
apportionment purposes, was completed in early February. This
work involved modifying software to write the long form to a
storage unit rather than presenting it to keyers for immediate
action. This release was in place for the final four-site
operational test. While Bureau officials have stated that the
changes were successfully implemented, the Bureau has not yet
provided us with the procedures used for testing those changes
and the results. As a result, we do not have the information
needed to know with any certainty whether these software
changes are performing as intended.
The second issue deals with the four-site operational test.
To help prepare for the actual data capture operations during
the census, the Bureau and its contractors conducted a final
operation test from February 22 to the 25th. The test was
important because it involved production-level workloads at all
four data capture centers as well as centralized corporations
and Bureau headquarters simultaneously. However, the test was
limited in that it did not include all of the data capture
center operations such as the center's ability to sort, check
in and prepare questionnaires for processing. Most of the
questionnaires used in the test had machine-printed rather than
handwritten responses with the same answers on each
questionnaire, which would, of course, simplify keying demands.
Our overall point is some data capture operations have not
been verified with production-level workload at all DCCs.
Specifically neither the Baltimore nor Pomona center have
successfully conducted operational tests of their ability to
support a production load for sorting or documentation.
Finally, let me comment very briefly on the address list
problem and the notification letter. Since this problem was
discovered by the Postal Service last month, we have been
examining the Bureau's check to make sure that the problem was
not repeated on census questionnaires. Once they learned of the
error, the Bureau officials said that both the Bureau and its
contractors checked a sample of six types of questionnaires
with the preprinted addresses to ensure that they did not
contain the same misprint that was on the notification letters.
No such errors were found by the Bureau. My written statement
details the types of checks that the Bureau went through. In
addition, we independently reviewed a very small sample of
questionnaires. We went to four post offices in northern
Virginia and found that they did not contain any of the same
misprints as the advance letters.
In short, it appears that the Bureau is well justified in
its confidence that the address letter error in the
notification letter is not present in the census
questionnaires.
In summary, Mr. Chairman and Mrs. Maloney, let me echo a
statement that both of you made far better in your opening
statements about the importance of public cooperation with the
census. With census day just over 2 weeks away and census
questionnaires already out in the mail, one of the themes that
we have been highlighting throughout the decade has been the
importance of public cooperation with the census. The mail
response rate, a key measure of that cooperation, will be
central to determining the overall accuracy and cost of the
census. The response rate will, therefore, provide the first
indication of the success of the 2000 census. A high mail
response rate will reduce the Bureau's followup workload and
relieve some of the staffing and schedule pressures the Bureau
confronts.
On behalf of this subcommittee, we look forward to
continuing to track these and other census operations for you,
and we will be available to report at any point. Mr. Chairman,
this concludes my statement. My colleagues and I would be
pleased to answer any questions you may have.
[Note.--The GAO report entitled, ``2000 Census, Actions
Taken to Improve the Be Counted and Questionnaire Assistance
Center Programs,'' may be found in subcommittee files.]
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mihm follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7019.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7019.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7019.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7019.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7019.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7019.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7019.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7019.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7019.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7019.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7019.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7019.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7019.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7019.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7019.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7019.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7019.027
Mr. Miller. Thank you for being here today and giving us a
chance to discuss the status of the upcoming decennial census.
Oversight is a critical responsibility of Congress, and there
are four different agencies of the government involved in it:
the General Accounting Office; the Inspector General of the
Commerce Department itself; and from Congress, our staffs; and
the Monitoring Board, which was created by Congress and the
President back in 1998.
Of taxpayers' money, $17 billion is involved in this
constitutionally mandated requirement. We have a responsibility
to make sure that the money is spent wisely and we get the best
job possible, and that is what we are all concerned about. We
appreciate your being here.
I am delighted that there is going to be a meeting this
afternoon to make sure that everybody is comfortable that they
have access, because this has to be a transparent system. If
there is not trust in the census, it threatens the whole system
of government.
Thank you for explaining why everybody should complete
their form, because it does save the government money. The more
people respond by mail, the less costly it is to followup.
Otherwise you have to send people knocking on the doors. It is
critical to every community, whether it is my hometown in
Florida--what money flows to that city from Washington--or
Tallahassee--is based on census data. So our own individual
communities, whether it is education money, transportation or
health care dollars, is based on census data or influenced by
it, and so we need to do it, and so I encourage everybody to
complete those forms.
The first major mailing of the 2000 census was almost a
failure. We are getting calls from people who are confused
about the prenotification mailing. The letters were
misaddressed, and there were no directions in English about
what to do with the envelope. Also, the national 800 number was
not included in the mailing. Director Prewitt called the first
two problems an embarrassment for the Bureau.
Let me ask you, what is your level of confidence that this
problem won't occur again? Did the Bureau use focus groups to
evaluate the particulars of that letter as far as the 800
number? And what grade would you give the Bureau for its
attention to detail and quality control at this stage?
Mr. Mihm. If I heard them correctly, there are at least
three questions in there. Let me deal first with the issue of
the focus groups and then the level of confidence that we have
and then get back to the grading.
Dealing first with the question of the focus groups, it is
our understanding, and we will be happy to do more on this,
that focus groups were not used in this. The second mailing, or
the decision to combine the notification and the notice that
there was the availability of a non-English language
questionnaire, came rather late in the census process. It was
after the dress rehearsal, and so there was not extensive
testing of this.
One of the lessons that comes out of this, and certainly
one that we have been urging throughout the decade, when you
are doing the census, you don't want to be using untested
procedures. That is why we have census tests and a dress
rehearsal so that only the smallest fine-tuning is done for the
actual census.
I attended your hearing last week and I heard, too, the
Director say that he was embarrassed and how unfortunate it was
that those errors crept in. For us the lesson is the importance
of testing, making sure all procedures and operations have been
thoroughly tested before the census.
In terms of the level of confidence that the Bureau should
have in other census mailings, dealing specifically with the
questionnaires, the Bureau checked six different types of
questionnaires--and this was after they discovered the problem
with the notification letters--checked six different types of
questionnaires, short and long forms, and did not find the
problem in any of these questionnaires. Given that it appears
that the problem with the notification letter was a systematic
error, that is, a programming error that occurred in all 120
million letters, they didn't have to do randomized samples, you
just had to do enough to make sure that it didn't occur in any
additional cases. We didn't find any problems, and so it
appears to us that the Bureau is well justified in its
confidence that this has not crept into the census
questionnaires.
In terms of your third question on the grade, clearly there
is a need for when all is said and done and the census is
over--and we are going to be, at the request of this
subcommittee and others, looking at the lessons learned from
the 2000 census--to think about the quality control procedures,
how they are constructed, and what sort of things that the
Bureau looks at as part of its quality control. I think at this
point it is probably an incomplete on the grade of the quality
control standards, but that is the type of thing that we need
to continue to look at, and we will on your behalf be vigilant
as the census moves forward.
Mr. Miller. I agree with the testing. In the pretest in
Sacramento and Columbia, they did the second questionnaire?
Mr. Mihm. Yes.
Mr. Miller. We think that they should have had a second
questionnaire, raise response rate 7\1/2\ to 15 percent, but a
decision was made prior to Director Prewitt's tenure at the
Bureau. The question is did they ever just pretest the
prenotification letter by itself, or was it only at the test
sites?
Mr. Mihm. I will have to get you that information for the
record.
Robert, do you know offhand?
Mr. Goldenkoff. No.
Mr. Mihm. We will check on that. The decision to combine
the notification letter and the availability--the notification
that there be a non-English language form available did come
coincident with the decision not to do a second mailing of the
questionnaire.
Mr. Miller. Why did they decide not to?
Mr. Mihm. There are a number of reasons, according to the
Bureau. One is that they say they received a large number of
second questionnaires that were duplicates, and that it really
overburdened the ability of their system to sort out and to
check those duplicates.
I know the Bureau was very influenced by a number of press
articles that showed up in South Carolina in which people were
quoted as complaining, ``I had just sent my form in, or I had
received my form and right away they come back and hit me with
another form.''
This is something that is going to bear some scrutiny from
us as an option that needs to be seriously examined for the
2010 census. It is hard to imagine that a publicity and
outreach campaign could not have been developed that would have
said to people, ``If you got the first form, don't mail back
the second.'' We all subscribe to magazines, and routinely get
letters that say, ``If your payment and this bill have crossed
in the mail, please throw this away.'' Thus, it was both the
policy aspect as well as some technical aspects that caused the
Bureau to be cautious on this.
Mr. Miller. You mentioned in your opening statement that
many of the access problems you experienced have now been
resolved, and I am glad to hear that. However, can you please
outline some of the problems that you encountered prior to
their resolution and explain when and how these were resolved?
Mr. Mihm. Our fundamental concern with the discussions that
we were having with the Bureau was that it was seeming to take
an inordinate amount of time and negotiation between us and
very senior people at the Census Bureau. I heard and was taken
by Dr. Prewitt's comments last week that he had to spend a
third of his time on oversight issues, including requests that
came from us. That is unacceptable, and we realize that. So our
concern was that routine information that was readily
available--that we knew from 1990 was readily available within
the Bureau was taking a lot of give and take and a lot of
negotiation. We had never been denied access to anything that
we felt was important to get. We always came to a resolution.
That is why I am so pleased with the new process that the
Bureau has in place, we will be able to routinely get the
information that we need with very little burden on senior
census managers. I am very concerned in making sure that they
don't view our data requests as burdensome to them.
Mr. Miller. Right. No one wants to have the burden. But
this seems like a bureaucratic tie-up every time you or anybody
wanted information. They had to jump so many hoops. Why did you
have to waste their time and your time when information was
fairly readily available?
Since you were involved in the 1990 census, would you
compare your staff and access now to the way that it worked in
1990?
Mr. Mihm. In 1990, we had about similar levels of
headquarters staff, about seven or eight people working full
time. As I mentioned in introductions, I am very, very
fortunate to have my colleague Randy and some of his staff be
able to help out on the data capture aspects. The headquarters
complement was about the same time as last time. In 1990,
however, GAO was 35 percent larger than we are now. In
reviewing the 1990 census, we had in five different regions
about two and a half people working 3 or 4 months on the
census, primarily during peak operations, that were responsible
for looking at the implementation of the census. We had a team
in New York, a team in Philadelphia, a team in Dallas, and a
team in Kansas City and Los Angeles where we had staff, so
there was a larger field presence last time.
In terms of the access, the source of some of our
frustration was that when we were negotiating with the Bureau,
we knew from 1990 that the information that we were asking
for--and they were not denying this, I don't want to imply that
there was a disagreement of this--but we knew that this
information was available in a readily consumable form. We were
having trouble getting equivalent levels of access that we had
in 1990. Now with the agreement that has been reached and the
new process in place, we have much more access than we had in
1990.
Mr. Miller. I am going to let you go next, Mrs. Maloney.
Mrs. Maloney. First of all, I would like to ask the
audience and the panelists how many people received their
census forms?
Pretty good.
How many mailed it back?
We have got to get the response rate up here. We know that
$2 trillion over the next 10 years is tied to census numbers.
We know that it is very important for building our roads,
bridges, and mass transit. All of government's funding formulas
are tied to these numbers, so filling it out really is
important to not only yourself and your own family, but to your
neighbors and communities that they be counted in the census
and counted in the funding formulas.
First of all, I would like to make sure that there is no
misunderstanding. Do you currently, Mr. Mihm, enjoy all of the
access that you need? Are your questions being answered?
Mr. Mihm. Yes, ma'am. As I mentioned, we are confident that
the new process that has been put in place just within the last
few days, because of the efforts of this subcommittee and
certainly the Census Bureau, will provide us with the access we
need to meet the oversight needs of this subcommittee. There
will also be give and take, as you mentioned in your opening
statement, on an operation this large about what is available
and when we get it. But the routine operational information
that describe how the census is going, is now available to us,
and I am very pleased with that.
Mrs. Maloney. You were involved in 1990?
Mr. Mihm. At GAO.
Mrs. Maloney. What was your role then?
Mr. Mihm. I was the senior evaluator responsible for our
reviews of the decennial census.
Mrs. Maloney. Could you compare the access in 1990 to the
access that you have now?
Mr. Mihm. The access that is as a result of the new
agreement is much greater than we had in 1990.
Mrs. Maloney. Much greater?
Mr. Mihm. Yes. As I mentioned earlier, part of our
frustration when we were negotiating with the Bureau was that
we were asking for information that we knew was readily
available, and that was what was taking so long to get to us.
Now, with this new agreement, it has minimized the burden on
the Bureau and us, and allowing much greater access than we had
in 1990.
Mrs. Maloney. Could you elaborate on your greater access
now? What didn't you have in 1990 that you felt like you
needed?
Mr. Mihm. Before I answer it directly, I don't want to give
the impression that there was information in 1990 that we
needed that we didn't think that we were getting. The Bureau
with its new procedures this time has been very forthcoming in
saying, here is not only what you are asking for, but here is
some additional information which may be informative. They have
been helpful in making sure and working with our people to make
sure that we understand their cost and progress system, that
is, what data will be available, what data will not be
available and why that data won't be available. So it is just--
it has been a pleasure the last few days.
Mrs. Maloney. I also understand that you feel that the
guidelines for observers released by the Bureau about 3 months
ago present no problems for your auditors since GAO has
established protocols for dealing with these types of issues.
Is that correct?
Mr. Mihm. Yes, ma'am. The guidelines for us are not
particularly relevant, and I don't mean that in a critical way
about the guidelines. They seem to me to cut on a couple of
categories. First, there is the series of things concerning
basic collegiality, ``Don't expect rides from the airport, show
up on time,'' we would hope that anyone would do that in any
circumstance. Second, there is the separate set of points
concerning how to conduct business, including making sure to
not interfere with an enumeration while it is going on.
We have a set of professional standards, the vernacular is
in our yellow book, which allow us to certify that every job is
done in conformance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. These standards create a higher bar of
professionalism and independence than the Bureau's Guidelines.
There has never been a time when we have been talking to the
Bureau about the importance of a field visit that the
guidelines have come up or been referred to by us or Census
Bureau. They are not a particularly relevant document for us.
Mrs. Maloney. Did the Bureau ever use their guidelines in
any way to deny you, GAO, or anyone else access to information?
Mr. Mihm. I can't speak for anyone else. I know in our case
we are quite confident and comfortable with the access that we
have been able to get at the field level. We are able to make
the trips that we need. One of the things that they ask for
generally is a 2-week window before we make a visit. We have
been able to give them those 2 weeks. If nonresponse followup
is problematic in some isolated areas, and the subcommittee
wants us to go to some areas, those aspects may be tested. But
generally we have not had a problem with them, no.
Mrs. Maloney. So they are generally just pro forma
organizing tools. Show up on time, and you don't get a ride
from the airport. You have never been denied information that
you were trying to get in your professional----
Mr. Mihm. In the case of the GAO, we have not had a problem
with those.
Mrs. Maloney. You have gotten all of the information that
you have wanted?
Mr. Mihm. Within the last few days, as a result of the
efforts of this subcommittee and the efforts of the Census
Bureau, we have come to an agreement which will allow us to
assist you in your oversight efforts.
Mrs. Maloney. The General Accounting Office is a
nonpartisan accounting and evaluating arm of Congress, the
principal watchdog of the executive branch. Your staff is
highly trained and is subject to professional and governmental
standards. Would you explain these standards to us?
Mr. Mihm. Yes, ma'am. In order to certify reports as being
done in conformance with generally accepted government auditing
standards, very similar to the point that the chairman made
last week to Mr. Prewitt about private sector auditing
standards, there is a whole series of requirements that we have
to go through embodied, as I mentioned a moment ago, in what we
call our yellow book for the very sophisticated reason that it
has a yellow cover, and it lays out for us as auditors and for
other auditors who want to do things in conformance with
government auditing standards the very specific practices that
we need to go through.
In addition, we have a set of core values that we have to
adhere to, which the Comptroller General has reinforced, of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.
We have a set of congressional protocols, which I know have
been shared with your offices, on how we deal with the Hill and
how we deal with requests, and so we have a large body of
requirements that we have to follow in that regard.
Mrs. Maloney. On the substance of your report, Mr. Mihm,
your testimony reflects GAO's usual thoughtful job. It points
out a number of what I would call minor problems. Certainly
there doesn't seem to be anything which could threaten the
success of the 2000 census?
Mr. Mihm. As I mentioned at the end of my statement, the
single greatest thing which has us concerned is fundamentally
beyond the control of the Bureau, and that is the mail response
rate. If we can, and the Census Bureau, and the efforts of this
subcommittee and everyone else can get that mail response rate
high, then the Bureau is in very good shape.
I know I don't need to remind the subcommittee, but when we
are dealing with such large numbers, even small marginal
differences can have huge implications for the census. A 1-
percentage point difference in mail response rate is about 1.2
million cases, and as Director Prewitt testified a couple of
hearings ago, if they are off more than 2 or 3 percentage
points, then there is trouble.
Now, that is one area that is not within the Bureau's
control. Within the Bureau's control there is the issue of the
DCS 2000, which is their data capture system. I am going to ask
Randy Hite, who is the expert on this, to comment on it.
Mr. Hite. I would just add one point, the second pass
operation for the data capture process, that is the changes
that need to be made to DCS 2000, have not been made yet, so
that is a development effort that still remains to be done. And
as with any software development effort, you have risks
associated with it, so that it is an unknown right now, and
that is still an item that would give us some concern at this
point in time.
Mrs. Maloney. Well, overall would you say--when I read your
testimony last night and heard it today, it seemed like
everything seemed to be on target and going well and going
forward. Is that your assessment of the census today?
Mr. Mihm. I think in key areas things are going well. The
Questionnaire Assistance Centers and Be Counted Program, that
seems to be working very well. They have learned some lessons.
They have localized staffing shortage. Over half of the
district offices or local census offices have not met
recruiting guidelines, but they are taking actions to address
that, and that is the important point there.
As I just mentioned, though, on the other hand, there is
reason for caution in the mail response rate, if we can keep
that high, and as Randy mentioned with the data capture system,
there is still some real uncertainty there.
We are just now beginning to see the processing of the
data, and they are not at anywhere near processing peak data,
the questionnaires are not there. It is not a fault of the
system, so we don't know yet how they are going to work. There
are a number of uncertainties with data processing. I don't
know if you want to add some more on that.
Mr. Hite. We don't have data now that shows that there is a
problem, but part of our concern rests with the fact that there
are data that we have not seen yet, not that the Bureau has not
been forthright in providing it, it is not available for some
of the tests which have been completed and data associated with
the performance of the system, DCS 2000, during actual
operations.
Part of GAO's job is turning hearsay into facts so you can
do the oversight that you do, and right now we don't have
that--the basis for drawing those kinds of conclusions for you
at this point.
Mrs. Maloney. I understand from the chairman that we are
going to take a field trip to the data processing center so we
can see firsthand for ourselves.
Mr. Miller. I hope to.
Mrs. Maloney. Mr. Mihm, your testimony does not mention
many activities currently under way, such as the update/leave,
the telephone assistance, the Internet response, activities in
remote Alaska and other update enumerate areas, preparations
for the accuracy and coverage evaluation, and all of these are
currently in progress. I assume the fact that because you
didn't mention these activities, that they are on schedule and
going forward appropriately?
Mr. Mihm. No, ma'am. These are very important operations,
update/leave and remote enumeration in Alaska. We have been
focusing on what in the past have been the key vulnerabilities
to a successful census. The mail response rate for the vast
majority--the 96 percent of the households that have a mail-
out/mail-back--the nonresponse followup efforts, staffing for
the nonresponse followup processing, for overall, if the Census
Bureau is successful in those efforts, the census will be
successful. If they are not successful in those efforts,
unfortunately, overwhelming success in some of these other
efforts will not pull them through. So it is more of a
reflection of what are the key vulnerabilities to the census.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Mihm, I am glad to hear that the Bureau,
after, I think, my discussion with Secretary Daley and with
Director Prewitt, has brought about a new openness. There is
nothing to be hidden in here. We need to have the transparency.
I hope this meeting will resolve any concerns.
One of the concerns that was raised early on was when I saw
these guidelines--I can see the case where all of a sudden
there is a lot of fraudulent filling out of forms and other
things going on, and if you have to give 2 weeks' notice to
visit a community, wait a minute. You have to plan your flight
schedules and hotel rooms and things like that, but you need to
have the flexibility to respond where there is a problem. If
there is a problem in Jeffersonville, you need to identify
that.
How do you sense these guidelines compare? Would Arthur
Andersen have accepted these guidelines?
Mr. Mihm. Well, the Comptroller General is a former
managing partner at Arthur Andersen, so I have to be careful
how I answer that.
In my experience they are unusual for other agencies. I
don't often, when I examine other agencies, and in our
discussions I mentioned I have looked at quite a few in other
aspects of my work, see something like that. However, the
census is a very unusual undertaking in that it is so
nationally diverse, the Bureau's dealing with so many temporary
employees at various levels, and this is not to excuse or
justify something if you have concerns, it is just to say that
there may be explanations why they have it in this case and I
don't see it in other cases.
Another way that it is different in assessing the census is
the real-time aspect. Much of GAO work is less real time than
working on the decennial census. Perhaps the closest analogous
situation could be the work that we do during filing season for
the IRS. We do a great deal of real-time assesments of tax
filing. I haven't spoken to my colleagues whether they have
anything similar to this in their work.
Mr. Miller. The Census Bureau made it out of the field
ahead of schedule during the dress rehearsal. This seemed to be
at the expense of accuracy since the level of proxy data was as
high as 20 percent. What was the level of proxy data in 1990,
and has the Bureau decided on a maximum level for 2000? What do
you think are acceptable levels of proxy data?
Mr. Mihm. One of the things that is unfortunate from the
data capture operations in 1990 is we don't have a good number
for the amount of proxy data in 1990. The Bureau did record
what they called ``last resort data,'' which is their final
attempt to get data, and presumably some of that or even a lot
of that may have been proxy data, but nobody knows for sure. We
do know, though, in some large urban local census offices, in
1990, upwards to 20 percent of the nonresponse followup
enumeration was done using the proxy data. Unfortunately, the
highest office in the Nation was the northeast Manhattan office
where 42 percent of the nonresponse universe was enumerated
using last resort and presumably proxy data in 1990.
The Bureau's goal for 2000 is to have 6 percent of the
universe be proxy data, and this is why it was such a concern
that in all three locations during the dress rehearsal they
were significantly outside of that number during the dress
rehearsal--as you mentioned, 20 percent in Sacramento.
Mr. Miller. Why did they allow such high proxy data during
the dress rehearsal?
Mr. Mihm. It is an issue that we are still talking to the
Census Bureau about, and there has not been a thorough
evaluation, in our view, of the causes of this high usage of
last resort or proxy data during the dress rehearsal.
As you mentioned in your question, it at least was helpful
in getting out of the field early in the various locations or
on time in the various locations. The Bureau believes, though,
that part of it was just a failure at the enumerator and crew
leader level to adequately follow procedures. So what they are
trying to do is reinforce the procedures and the importance of
going through the six contacts, at least three of those must be
personal visits, before you do proxy data. That should be
helpful. We would have preferred to see a fuller examination, I
think, of really what were the causes to make sure that it was
a lack of following established procedures.
Mr. Miller. As you know, the use of proxy data can affect
the quality of the census that we have, so it is very important
as we go through this, if we are using too much proxy data, we
need to be aware, and that is one of the things that we need to
find out as we approach that proxy data period, which is in
June.
Mr. Mihm. Toward the end of nonresponse followup.
Mr. Miller. You stated that with the update/leave you have
fewer problems with recruiting because they can hire
immediately.
Mr. Mihm. Yes, sir.
Mr. Miller. How long have some individuals sat in the
applicant pool, and why is this important for hiring, because I
am hearing from last week that people get hired in January, and
they don't get the phone call until May. How much of a problem
is that shelf life of that applicant pool?
Mr. Mihm. It can be a significant problem or challenge for
the Bureau in that they establish very ambitious recruitment
goals which require a ramp-up in order to meet.
Referring to our statement, we found in discussions with
local census offices, where that office's update/leave
operations is under way, they are the ones that are most ahead
on recruitment because they are able to offer a job
immediately. If you come and take the test and you pass the
test, the Bureau would be able to say the job is available
right now. For a nonresponse office the wait may be up to
several weeks. This is at least part of the reason that the
Census Bureau needs 9, 10, 11 applicants for every position.
When they begin to hire, they burn through those lists of
qualified applicants very, very quickly. The Bureau tends to
find that if an applicant was looking for a second job, he or
she will have found a job somewhere else, will have lost
interest in the census, or will have forgotten that they have
even applied to the Census Bureau. That is one of the reasons
that they burn through the list of applicants very, very
quickly.
Mr. Miller. Let me switch to the data capture system,
because you have been expressing concern about that for a month
now. What is your current assessment of the risk of developing
the new two-pass system for data capture?
Mr. Hite. I will deal with the second pass first. Part of
our concern there deals with any software development effort
where you have a cadre of core software engineers that are very
intimate with the behavior of the software, and those people
are invaluable, and you want those individuals involved in any
changes to the system as well as involved in the operations of
the system. Well, the approach that the Census Bureau was going
to take for data capture operations was to have those parties
available as part of technical support during data capture
operations because they are so important. But now with the move
to the two-pass, concurrent with first-pass data operations,
census will have to be developing the second-pass software. So
those core software engineers are going to be diverted to the
development effort for the second pass.
The Census Bureau has said their primary priority is going
to be supporting ongoing data capture operations, but
nevertheless, you are taking a group of very important
resources, and you are spreading them across two activities,
and so you are stretching your resources. There is a resource
risk there.
If you look at the schedule that has been established for
the development and the conduct of the first pass, the testing
of the second pass, and the initiation of the second pass,
there is very little tolerance for any slippage in the
schedule. As soon as first-pass operations conclude, then
census needs to have tested the second pass, so that it is
ready to begin second-pass operations. So, for example, a lower
response rate that could cause first-pass operations to be
extended is going to have an impact on second-pass operations
beginning on time.
That is the primary risk that I see with regard to the
second pass. With respect to the first-pass operations, I don't
have data now that shows me that I shouldn't have confidence in
the performance of the first-pass software, but then again, I
don't have the data that I need in order to have that
confidence. I need to see the results of the software
integration test or the system integration test, and we have
not seen that yet. The first-pass software was exercised as
part of the four-site OTDR, the operational test, and we
haven't yet gotten the report on the results of that test. So
we need to see that kind of data in order to put us in a
position to have confidence about the performance of the two-
pass software.
Mr. Miller. Why haven't you received that? Is there a
delay, or is that a problem?
Mr. Hite. There is a normal period that transpires from the
conclusion of the test and the development of the test report,
and I believe in the case of Census it has been about a 30-day
period for that, and that is not unusual.
My understanding is that, for example, the Jeffersonville
OTDR report was to be available or sent to Census Headquarters
May 6. We have not received that yet. I don't have a date off
the top of my head when the four-site OTDR report was to be
available, but we expect to have that request fulfilled when
that report is available.
Mr. Miller. The second-pass data, is that the long form
data?
Mr. Hite. The way it works, the second pass will retrieve
the long form images from a disk storage, and from those long
form images they will present to the image keyers the fields
where there is low confidence so that those keyers can correct
that data. So it does deal with the long form images. However,
during first-pass short form as well as long form, images are
optically read, and that data are forwarded to Census
Headquarters. And they are the correct data that are produced
during the second pass that are also forwarded to headquarters
and will supplant the data that was forwarded to headquarters
as part of the first pass.
Mr. Miller. How comfortable are you that the optical
reading, the whole process from A to Z, unloading it from the
trucks, processing them through, scanning, filing, capturing
the data and the handwritten forms, how comfortable do you feel
that it is going to work?
Mr. Hite. You have to break it up into each of the steps.
With some items I am quite confident. The optical character,
the optical mark recognition, I think the testing has proved
that to be within accepted bounds.
With regard to the check-in, the sorting at production
levels, that depends on which site we are talking about,
because at some sites it was tested, and it was successfully
tested, and they demonstrated their ability at those levels. It
was not successfully tested at Pomona and Baltimore. There we
have questions.I21The scanning of the images at production
levels, that is what the four-site OTDR was to give us. We
understand that there were production levels put through the
system. There are issues about the key from image productivity
rates at some OTDRs. For example, at Phoenix, those rates were
achieved. At Pomona they were not. At the four-site OTDR,
because of the nature of the forms which were used, which were
basically forms with preprinted information, all the answers
being the same, you are not going to get a true read of the key
from image rates because it reduces the demands on key for
image such that the keyer sees the same section of the form to
correct any keying from.
So it is variable depending on what steps in the process we
are talking about. It is variable depending on what sites we
are talking about.
Mr. Miller. Thank you.
Mrs. Maloney.
Mrs. Maloney. Throughout this, shall we say, effort to get
an accurate census, recruitment has been a tremendous concern,
given the extremely strong economy and the low unemployment
rate, and, in fact, the Census Bureau is still hiring, and you
can call if anyone is unemployed and needs a job at 1-888-325-
7733, or you can check the Census Bureau's Internet site at
www.census.gov/jobs2000, so we can try to get more people
informed to go to these jobs to bring this recruitment effort
up.
But as of March 2, 2000, recruiting nationally is slightly
ahead of schedule; that seven regions are below their goals and
five are above; that 22 of 520 local census offices are
experiencing severe recruitment problems. Is this fairly good,
or how does this compare to 1990, the recruitment levels?
Mr. Mihm. I think it is a good story at least thus far, and
we will have to see how things pan out when they actually begin
to hire. Certainly the number of offices that appear to be in
the severe category, which is, granted, not a term of art, is
smaller this time around. They vary in numbers, we are looking
at 22 offices, and the Census Bureau is tracking a bottom 50.
Last time in 1990, there were over 100 offices that were
experiencing some difficulties, or it appeared that they would
be experiencing some severe difficulties.
I guess the concern is and has always been that at a
national level you are going to do well. Nationally you can
meet these goals in recruiting and hiring. The challenge to the
census is to be able to hire people across the country. There
is no other employer that has to hire people in every
neighborhood in the country. That is the tough thing that they
face. They have made a strong commitment, which we completely
agree with, for data quality reasons they want to hire people
to enumerate their own neighborhoods. Thus, extra applicants in
one part of town will not help the Bureau in another part of
town. That is the challenge that they faced in 1990, and they
still face in 2000.
Mrs. Maloney. The Bureau takes a number of steps to address
local recruiting problems which you outlined in your testimony.
Do they seem adequate to you?
Mr. Mihm. Yes. They seem to be taking important and
aggressive action to address these, and I should have added
this is one of the important differences I think this time
compared with 1990. Certainly in 1990, when they had problems,
they would go out and take actions. But this time there seems
to be a much more focused effort in identifying low-performing
local census offices going in and using targeted recruitment
mailings, in some cases raising pay rates for enumerators--that
is something that they obviously only want to do as a last
resort--bringing in swat teams to help with that recruitment.
There are a whole series of efforts that they are undertaking
at a local and regional level.
What we will see over the next 3 weeks is whether this
extra intense effort is actually going to make a difference. We
will be tracking those offices as well the Bureau.
Mrs. Maloney. So it seems that they have learned from the
problems of the 1990's and have taken concrete steps to address
it.
Can you think of anything that the Bureau should be doing
that it is not doing to help in recruitment?
Mr. Mihm. We do not have an open series of recommendations
on what they should be doing in the recruitment area. The only
matter that we offered up for Congress's consideration was
possible legislative exemptions. The Bureau, as I mentioned in
my statement, is pursuing at least some of those dealing with
welfare or TANF down with State governments, and it is
reportedly making some progress in that regard.
The fundamental challenge that the Bureau faces in terms of
recruitment is the nature of the census job, it is not the most
attractive. It is short-term and temporary, obviously. It
doesn't have benefits. Although it is very important for our
Nation that this work be done, it is a hard sell due to the
combination of the nature of the job and labor markets.
Mrs. Maloney. I introduced legislation to respond to your
last report, H.R. 3581. You mentioned the TANF problem, which
Congresswoman Meeks has worked hard on in trying to allow
current welfare recipients to receive their benefits and work
for the Census Bureau. One of the problems of dealing through a
State system, some States will not take those steps. My own
State has not taken that step, so Federal legislation would
greatly help. I know that the chairman supports these efforts.
We could do this in a bipartisan way and expand the field of
possible workers for the Census Bureau, by also allowing
military personnel to take these jobs. So that is one thing
that we could do in a positive way to help and to respond to
GAO, and I hope we will be able to move that this year.
Anyway, Mr. Hite, to go back to you on the data capture,
you discussed the decision to move to a two-pass system and
some of its implications. My understanding is that the decision
to move to the two-pass system resulted from the key from image
productivity rate. It seems like a sound decision, but what is
your view?
Mr. Hite. The two-pass solution is one of three options
that the Census Bureau considered, one option of which is to do
nothing, which is always an option, but was unacceptable. The
two-pass approach is technically feasible. It is a reasonable
approach.
The key to any type of approach or any type of plan or
solution is the implementation of it. With any implementation
there is risk associated with it. I have no objection to the
approach that they have taken. The key will be to make sure
that it is implemented according to schedule and according to
specifications so that it functions as it is intended to do.
Mrs. Maloney. Wasn't the February test a full load on the
testing?
Mr. Hite. The four-site test yes, it was production-level
workloads first being scanned through the system to create the
digital images, and then for the data to be captured through
the optical recognition, and then forwarded on to headquarters.
It also involved, as I mentioned, the changes for the first-
pass software so that the images for the long forms--I'm sorry,
the sample data associated with the long forms could be written
to disk for storage until they would be needed for the second
pass.
They also tested some centralized operations, the central
coordination center, the technical support, the individual site
support. So it tested a number of things. The test is very
important, and hence we look forward to seeing the test report.
Mrs. Maloney. Earlier you stated that you were uncertain
about the data capture centers' readiness to meet full
production-level workloads. Can you describe what is a full
production-level workload?
Mr. Hite. The volumes that the data capture centers expect
to be able to process during peak production are roughly 1.5
million forms per day. Thus far we are looking at 17,000 based
on the first 2 days of operation. The 1.5 million are the
production-level volumes, and, as I understand it, for the
four-site OTDR, the volumes were upwards of 2 million, so they
were pushing production-level volumes through the system
beginning with the scanning process, but it didn't include the
check-in and the sorting and the preparation of the forms prior
to the scanning beginning.
Mrs. Maloney. I was under the impression that all of the
four centers were supposed to be as identical as possible. Is
that correct?
Mr. Hite. The centers are identical in terms of their
configuration. They will all rely on clusters, but the number
of clusters vary depending on the expected workloads. In the
case of any type of operation that relies on human beings, the
centers are going to be different in that the people operating
the system are different. And in the case of some centers, some
forms will be processed--for example, the Jeffersonville data
capture center--that are not being processed at other centers.
So there are some differences, but from a physical
configuration standpoint, yes, they are the same.
Mrs. Maloney. Based on what you know today, do you have any
reason to believe that the data capture centers or systems will
not perform as expected?
Mr. Hite. No, ma'am. As I mentioned, I don't have the basis
to believe that they are not going to perform as expected. I
need to see information for me to say that I have confidence
that they will perform as expected, and I haven't seen that
information yet.
Mrs. Maloney. What additional information do you need?
Mr. Hite. I would like to see the software integration test
results and procedures for the first pass, the systems
integration test procedures and results. I would like to see
the test report for the Jeffersonville OTDR, and the test
report for the four-site OTDR.
Mrs. Maloney. Would you describe that test for us?
Mr. Hite. The four-site OTDR?
Mrs. Maloney. Yes.
Mr. Hite. This was a test of all four DCCs operating in
conjunction with headquarters operations in processing
production load volumes of questionnaires. The test began with
the scanning operations, the forms being fed into the scanner
to create a digital image of those forms, the forms to be
optically read for the marks and the characters, and for those
data then to be prepared and formatted for transmission to
census headquarters and confirmation of the receipt of that
information. It also involved a number of support activities
associated with the data capture operations, including onsite
technical support and centralized technical support, the
operational control center and headquarters.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you. It is good to hear that you expect
them to perform as expected.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Miller. I will ask a couple of short questions.
Of the two-pass system, what impact does that have on the
cost and any delay of data release?
Mr. Hite. With regard to cost, there is a marginal cost
associated with the two-pass operation. We do not--we have not
yet received an estimate on the total cost associated with
that, but I can tell you the cost number that I have seen
associated with the development contractor making the changes
to the system, and in that case I have seen a $35.2 million
figure, which would include $10 million for the disk storage,
for storing the digital images awaiting the two-pass process,
and also for the software changes associated with the two-pass
approach. There is also cost associated with a tape
verification back-up system. There are additional costs
associated with keeping the data centers open and operating
longer, but we have yet to receive a cost estimate on that.
Mr. Miller. And the delay of the data release, is that
going to be impacted?
Mr. Hite. Chris, I don't know if you want to comment on
this or not, but we have been told by Census that it is not
going to have an impact. We don't have any independent
information on that.
Mr. Mihm. We still need to look into that, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Miller. One response to Mrs. Maloney's proposed bill. I
do support Mrs. Meeks' bill allowing people on welfare to work.
However, the reaction we are receiving is that once we passed
welfare reform in 1996, and it has had a great deal of success,
one of the ideas is that we allow States to make decisions. And
if we start opening it up and mandating things, there is real
concern by many that we are breaking that original agreement.
That is the concern that we are having.
I am glad to hear you say that some States are looking at
the TANF requirements to make it possible. I understand the
concerns about mandating something out of Washington.
In some areas like working military--INS and IRS people
cannot work for the census, for good reason. And the same way
with military, so we have to be careful with any current
Federal employees.
Let me ask two more questions. You mentioned in your
testimony that there have been multiple delays in the mailing
of both recruiting and teaching material for the Census in
Schools Program since early fall. What is the cause of these
delays, could they have been prevented, and what do you feel
the impacts of the delays will be? I have enjoyed the
opportunity to go to schools, and I think it is a good program.
What are the delays and why?
Mr. Mihm. The story of the delays is--it is a long and
complex one that we won't go into at this time. We are still
trying to disentangle it from the Bureau. Robert has focused on
this.
Mr. Goldenkoff. The cause of the delays, as Chris said, is
unclear. I think it is something that the Bureau would like to
know as well. We are still trying to unravel it. We do know
first that there were multiple actors involved. There was
Scholastic, the company that was responsible for creating the
material. There was another contractor which was responsible
for distributing the material. There was the Government
Printing Office, and there was the Bureau itself. So there was
a web of these different actors involved that were not always
going in the same direction.
In October 1999, the distributor ran out of some of the
teacher kits, and you have probably seen them, they are very
eyecatching and glossy, and the local partners we have spoken
to have all given them high marks. The Bureau was not
immediately notified that the distributor had run out of some
of the teacher kits.
In the meantime, in fall 1999, there were some delays in
developing some of the materials that were used for the full
recruiting package that went out to the principals. There was
one period of recruiting in the spring of 1999 when teachers in
hard-to-enumerate areas were invited to participate in the
program; but then there was a second mailing to principals and
others which was supposed to take place in September. Because
of the delays within Scholastic, that mailing did not go out
until December 1999. That is the framework for delays.
Some of those--the problem was cleared up. As of mid-
December, the distributor resumed filling orders for the
teaching kits, and principals and others started to get their
kits beginning in January.
As was said earlier, the turnaround time is now 2 to 4
weeks. As to whether they get them in time, it depends partly
on when the material is requested. We are in that 2 to 4-week
timeframe right now. But also, I should say that the material
is available off the Bureau's website. It can be downloaded;
however, it is not the same level of quality. That is one of
the local Complete Count Committees did, they actually
downloaded it.
Mr. Miller. Thank you. I am sorry that the information is
not getting out as quickly as we had hoped. We are big
supporters of the Census in School Program. Mr. Bass has gone
to schools, Mrs. Maloney has, and I have, and I know that they
have been very positively received by students, and they
hopefully get their parents motivated.
One final question, and you will be back again next month.
Would you describe what type of oversight the GAO has planned
for the next 6 months?
Mr. Mihm. Subject to your approval, because we are a staff
agency of the Congress, and so we work on your behalf, but over
the next several weeks, as we ramp up for nonresponse followup,
we will be taking full advantage of the access to information
that this subcommittee has been helping us secure in focusing
on mail response rates by local census office, looking and
comparing that to where they are on their recruitment efforts,
and trying to get a sense is there a subset of census offices
where we are going to have the greatest trouble in meeting
schedule and data quality. And, Mr. Chairman, you have been
particularly clear in making sure that we are focused on proxy
data.
We will also be looking very closely at the ACE. We are
looking at a series of key operational indicators that will
tell us and hopefully inform the subcommittee on how the ACE is
going while it is going on. One of the things that was a bit
problematic last time, that is in 1990, was that we only get a
sense of the quality of the ACE long after a decision has been
made to adjust--in that case, obviously, not to adjust--census
data, after much of the interest has dissipated and the
public's attention goes on to other things. Only then do we get
a full view of the quality of the adjusted number. We are going
to be looking at operational indicators at the ACE. We fully
expect, putting my colleague on the hook here, that we will
continue to look very, very closely at data processing
operations and following up on these reports as they become
available from the Census Bureau and seeing how they work, and
I guess at the largest sense being available for the
subcommittee to look into things that can best support you in
your oversight efforts.
Mr. Miller. Thank you.
Mrs. Maloney.
Mrs. Maloney. Census in the Schools is one of our favorite
programs. I have gone to a number of schools and had lesson
plans with students. It is inspiring to watch them learn about
the census and informing their own families about the census
and its importance.
Weren't the delays as a result of the decision really to
reach out to 100 percent of the schools, not just 40 percent of
the schools? Wasn't that one of the reasons for the delays? But
I just want to make clear that there are no continuing problems
now, are there, with Census in the Schools?
Mr. Mihm. Let me deal with the second part and ask Robert
to respond to the first.
Our information from the people that are running the Census
in Schools Programs is that they are still experiencing these
delays in getting the kits. If you are looking at a 4-week
delay at this point, it is not going to make sense for a
teacher to submit a request for a kit. It is in response to
these delays that some of the Complete Count Committees and
regional census staff that we have talked to have been taking
action, either downloading the information off of the Internet
in the case of the Dade County Complete Count Committee. They
were disappointed. They said, we basically missed the window of
opportunity in Dade County for Census in the Schools to be
effective. So there is still a bit of a delay.
The Census Bureau has made clear to us that they will
continue to process any requests as soon as they can as long as
they have kits. So there is no drop-dead deadline that requests
must be in by. We can still hope for some response or kits to
be met out there through nonresponse followup.
Mr. Goldenkoff. The other part of your question as to the
reason for what--the expansion of the program, we are still
looking into that.
Mrs. Maloney. Well, I want to go back to the recruitment
challenge and really to compliment GAO not with just coming
forward with rhetoric, but with concrete proposals that we in
Congress and our communities can enact to increase the pool of
people that can go out and be enumerators and help get the
count.
The chairman said we should not interfere with the States,
but the census is a Federal program. It is a Federal project.
It is not about politics, it is about people and making sure
that every person literally counts.
We have heard from GAO concrete examples of how we can have
a contingency plan to help get the count up and to make sure
that the recruitment levels are met by allowing welfare
recipients to have these jobs and not lose their TANF benefits,
and by allowing military personnel to work for the census.
These are important contingencies, and I feel we should act on
them because we know what is at stake.
We know in the last census 8 million Americans were missed,
and over 4 million were counted twice, and we also know that
there is a disturbing civil rights trend that the people that
are missed are overwhelmingly the poor in rural and urban
areas, African-Americans, Latinos, Asians, Native Americans,
children. These are the people that the Census Bureau, the
scientists have told us are overwhelmingly missed, and it seems
to me going back to the stated purpose of hiring from
neighborhoods, in these poor neighborhoods a very likely labor
pool would be welfare recipients who could go out and get job
experience to help them move from welfare to permanent work,
but also be part of helping their neighbors and their
communities get an accurate count, because this census is
really the basis of virtually all demographic information that
is used not only in government, but by journalists and
community leaders, educators, policymakers, and businesspeople
when they plan where they should put their businesses.
Everyone relies on accurate census data, so I really--
although we usually agree on many things, I really feel that we
should on a Federal level act since the Federal census is a
Federal program and so much is at stake, literally $2 trillion
over the next 10 years, literally dollars that are needed for
schools and emergency response, for education. We should
followup on GAO's concrete proposals that they put before us on
ways to assist the professionals at the Census Bureau in
reaching their recruitment levels.
That's my last question if this is the last round. If not,
I have a lot more to say.
Mr. Miller. We all have the same goal and objective: to
have the best count possible and have, in effect, no
differential undercount. The Bureau has developed a plan to
count those undercounted populations. We are anxious for the
results.
We have been very supportive of the total dollars spent on
the census. It is going to cost $6.8 billion. My understanding
is that--I know that the Bureau has been working very closely
with the welfare-to-work population. They developed a program
with Goodwill. My understanding is that some 37 States and the
Virgin Islands have granted exemptions, so we are moving in the
right direction. I feel confident we are going to have a good
census.
We appreciate your oversight responsibilities. I am happy
to see that there has been increased transparency made
available through the Census Bureau, and I look forward to
hearing that from all of the other agencies involved. Thank you
for being here today.
Mr. Mihm. Thank you for your efforts on the access issues,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Miller. I ask unanimous consent that all Members' and
witnesses' written opening statements be included in the
record. Without objection, so ordered.
In case there are additional questions that Members may
have, I ask unanimous consent that the record remain open for 2
weeks for Members to submit questions and for the witnesses to
submit written answers as soon as practicable.
The meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:35 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]