[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE SUCCESS OF THE 2000 CENSUS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CENSUS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 14, 2001
__________
Serial No. 107-7
__________
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
75-289 WASHINGTON : 2001
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
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 MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
STEPHEN HORN, California PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
JOHN L. MICA, Florida CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana DC
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
BOB BARR, Georgia ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
DAN MILLER, Florida DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
DOUG OSE, California JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
RON LEWIS, Kentucky JIM TURNER, Texas
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
DAVE WELDON, Florida WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
CHRIS CANNON, Utah ------ ------
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida ------ ------
C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho ------
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
------ ------ (Independent)
Kevin Binger, Staff Director
Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director
James C. Wilson, Chief Counsel
Robert A. Briggs, Chief Clerk
Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on the Census
DAN MILLER, Florida, Chairman
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
BOB BARR, Georgia DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
------ ------
Ex Officio
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Jane Cobb, Staff Director
Andrew Kavaliunas, Professional Staff Member
Dan Wray, Clerk
David McMillen, Minority Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 14, 2001................................ 1
Statement of:
Barron, William G., Acting Director, U.S. Bureau of the
Census, accompanied by John Thompson, Associate Director,
decennial census........................................... 26
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Barron, William G., Acting Director, U.S. Bureau of the
Census, prepared statement of.............................. 30
Cannon, Hon. Chris, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah, prepared statement of....................... 24
Clay, Hon. Wm. Lacy, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Missouri, prepared statement of................... 10
Maloney, Hon. Carolyn B., a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York, prepared statement of............... 18
Miller, Hon. Dan, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Florida, prepared statement of.......................... 5
THE SUCCESS OF THE 2000 CENSUS
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2001
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on the Census,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m., in
room 2203, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dan Miller
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Miller, Cannon, Souder, Clay and
Maloney.
Staff present: Jane Cobb, staff director; Chip Walker,
deputy staff director; Mike Miguel, senior data analyst; Andrew
Kavaliunas, professional staff member; Dan Wray, clerk; Tim
Small, staff assistant; Michelle Ash, minority counsel; David
McMillen and Mark Stephenson, minority professional staff
members; and Earley Green, minority assistant clerk.
Mr. Miller. Good afternoon. A quorum being present, the
subcommittee will come to order.
We will have some opening statements before we hear from
Mr. Barron, and then we'll have a chance to have some
clarifications and some questions.
Good afternoon. Welcome to the first hearing of the
Subcommittee on the Census of the 107th Congress. I would like
to welcome our new members to the committee, our new vice
chair, Chris Cannon, who is not here yet; Mr. Barr from
Georgia. I would also like to welcome Mr. Souder, a returning
member.
On the other side we now have a new ranking member, Mr.
Clay of Missouri, and we welcome back Mr. Davis and Mrs.
Maloney, and I wish Mrs. Maloney the best in her new role as a
ranking member on the Financial Services Subcommittee.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Miller. On December 28, 2000, Director Prewitt said the
following, ``Never have we been so diverse, never have we been
so many and never have we been so carefully measured.''
Ladies and gentlemen, today is a good news day. The Census
Bureau has announced that the undercount of African Americans
and Hispanics have been cut by more than half, and the
undercount of American Indians reduced by more than two-thirds.
Also, contrary to recent questionable studies, there has been
notable improvement in the counting of infants and children.
These inroads are remarkable.
A great deal of gratitude goes out to the Nation for making
this the most accurate and inclusive census in our Nation's
history. Particularly the thousands of employees at the Census
Bureau are to be congratulated for a job well done. The field
staff and enumerators that went door to door did a tremendous
job of counting our Nation. Also, the thousands of Census
Bureau partners on the State and local level spearheaded an
outreach effort that was extraordinarily successful in making
people aware and getting people to respond to the census.
Congress, too, should be proud of the 2000 census. Congress
ensured that the funding levels needed to accurately count
America were provided. Congress ensured that the Census Bureau
developed an appropriate plan for the 2000 census and stuck to
it. While at times some people thought our oversight to be
burdensome, it is readily apparent that our focus on improving
the census played an important role.
Of course, we weren't alone in our oversight role. The
Census Monitoring Board, the General Accounting Office and the
Commerce Department's Office of Inspector General were also
important to the success of the census.
I am extraordinarily proud of the work of this
subcommittee. The Members and staff have shown tireless
dedication to their oversight responsibilities and, I believe,
have made positive contributions to the largest of our Nation's
civic ceremonies.
While the news regarding the success of the census has been
good, the political rhetoric surrounding the census threatens
to taint the entire effort. In recent weeks the rhetoric of the
postsampling community has reached an unfortunate yet familiar
tone. I guess when you can no longer argue the facts, there's
nothing left except to take cheap shots, race-baiting and name-
calling.
For months now relentless pressure has been placed on
President Bush and Secretary Evans to make some sort of
statement regarding the use of the controversial adjustment
plan known as sampling. I have maintained that the
administration is entitled to gather all the information they
deem necessary to make an informed decision on this important
issue. I still believe, and I agree with President Bush, that
adjustment is not the answer. An actual head count is the best
and most accurate way to conduct the census. Adjustment is a
Pandora's box, filled with unintended consequences, legal
uncertainty and inaccuracy.
I would like for a moment to explore some of the unintended
and unanticipated social costs of adjusting the census.
Think about the people who took the time to fill out their
census form and mail it in or those who responded to the
enumerators who went door to door. These people did what former
Director Prewitt stressed time and again was their civic duty.
Under the sampling plan you can do your civic duty, live up to
your civic and community obligation and still be counted as
less than a whole person.
I have always maintained, and this Congress has thoroughly
demonstrated, we should do all that we can to count everyone.
However, this effort should not come at the expense of those
who dutifully answered the call of our Nation. And what about
participation in this great civic ceremony in future censuses?
It is a very slippery slope. After all, why stand up and be
counted when you can sit down and be sampled?
Of course, ultimately this issue will end up back in the
courts. I firmly believe that sampling for redistricting is as
illegal as sampling for apportionment and that the Supreme
Court was clear in this regard. However, the Democrats continue
to read that decision through rose-colored glasses.
The legality of sampling is not one of degrees. A small
adjustment is no more legal than a large adjustment. If the
Census Bureau were to adjust the numbers, States should be
cautious in their use, because their plans could be thrown out
in court.
Let us not forget, it is the Democrats' spin that tells us
that the Supreme Court decision mandates sampling to be used
for other purposes except apportionment, but a Congressional
Research Service opinion, shortly after the High Court's
decision, viewed the decision quite differently saying, ``A
closer examination of other parts of the Court's opinion
indicates that it did not interpret those other purposes as
necessarily including, at least, intrastate redistricting.''
Joining us today will be Acting Director Bill Barron. Mr.
Barron was a former career employee of the Bureau of Labor
Statistics for 30 years. He was Deputy Commissioner from 1983
to 1998 before joining the Commerce Department as Deputy Under
Secretary for the Economics and Statistics Administration in
1998, and he has served as Deputy Director of the Census Bureau
since 1999.
I don't envy at all the weight that has been hoisted upon
his shoulders by a politically motivated rule put into place to
remove control over the census from a possible Republican
administration. This rule is illegal and poor public policy. It
has put blinders on Congress and has hindered our ability to
fulfill our constitutional obligation to oversee the conduct of
the decennial census.
For weeks now the internal committee within the Bureau has
been meeting to make a recommendation to the Acting Director on
whether or not to adjust numbers. Despite the constitutional,
legal and political ramifications of this decision, our
requests to observe the deliberations of these meetings have
been continually denied. This has not been the transparent
census the American people were promised.
Furthermore, this decision will not be independently
reviewed. Adjusted numbers could be released, and months from
now we could find problems. That is what happened with the
attempted adjustment in 1990. An adequate independent review of
these numbers was conducted to determine the validity. This
independent review found errors.
Contrary to what others would have you believe, the
National Academy of Sciences will be analyzing and evaluating
the adjustment for months. While the panel seems to not have a
problem with the concept of sampling, they have not concluded
that the 2000 census should be adjusted. I worry that adjusted
numbers will be released without adequate independent review.
At this point I urge caution and restraint by all parties,
especially those who have to begin their redistricting process.
The old adage, buyers beware, will never be truer when it comes
to States using adjusted numbers for redistricting purposes.
Mr. Barron, I welcome you before the subcommittee. I know
that you must feel like you've jumped from the frying pan into
the fire. The decision you are to make regarding adjusting the
count should not rest with career civil servants. I personally
don't think this is appropriate given all the considerations
outside of your expertise. Congress was right in putting this
decision at the Cabinet level to begin with. Some would have us
believe that this decision is simply one about statistics. Load
the numbers in a computer and hit enter, and that's your
answer, adjust or don't adjust. These people couldn't be
further from the truth. The adjustment decision has far-
reaching legal, political and social consequences and cannot be
compared to the release of other government statistics such as
the trade deficit or unemployment rate.
This is not a decision to be made by a group of government
civil servants, however well-intentioned, behind closed doors.
Issues of this importance should be by those most accountable
to the American people. This is why Congress originally and
rightfully put this decision in the hands of the Commerce
Secretary, a member of the President's Cabinet.
Let me end by emphasizing how thrilled all of us should be
with the inroads made with the undercount. Significant
reductions occurred in the undercount rates virtually across
the board for all minorities. The 2000 census is one we all can
and should be proud of.
Thank you. Glad to have you here.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Dan Miller follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5289.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5289.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5289.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5289.004
Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, if I may, let me first welcome our witness.
May I use this? If I first can welcome our witness.
Mr. Barron, I look forward to hearing your testimony today,
and I have the distinct honor as serving as the ranking
Democratic member of the Census Subcommittee. I also look
forward, Mr. Chairman, to working with you to ensure the
fairest and most accurate 2000 census possible.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Wm. Lacy Clay follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5289.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5289.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5289.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5289.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5289.009
Mr. Clay. Let me at this point defer to Mrs. Maloney in
order for an opening statement, if that's OK with you. Thank
you.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you so much, Lacy Clay, and welcome to
everyone.
As a first point, Mr. Chairman, the Republicans are today
claiming victory based upon Census Bureau preliminary results.
What may be lost upon some is that this claim of victory is
based upon the results of modern statistical methods. It's
based upon the finding of the very instrument of accuracy that
the Republican Majority has continually opposed, the ACE, the
accuracy coverage evaluation program. So it seems that the ACE
is good enough for Republican press releases, but not good
enough for counting people.
Mr. Barron--and I thought Mr. Thompson was going to join
you. Is he coming today?
Mr. Barron. He is here.
Mrs. Maloney. He is coming. Well, happy Valentine's Day to
Mr. Miller and everyone here, and I am--I have got to begin by
saying that I am sure that this is a very proud day for each of
you, the professionals at the Census Bureau, in your long and
devoted careers, serving your government. Your operational plan
for the census 2000 is already recognized as a great civic
milestone in our country's history.
I have said from this dais for 2 years that we should let
the professionals, the career experts, do their job, and you
have done so magnificently. You redesigned the form, overhauled
the national address list, created a national advertising
program. You created a professional campaign, put in the field
520 local census offices and nearly 1 million part-time
workers, designed a national partnership with more than 140,000
private, public and civic groups, and you did it on time and
under budget. Congratulations. Your public service is
commendable, and, in my view, you are patriots who served
during very, very hazardous duty. I believe you deserve all of
our gratitude and great applause.
While I am encouraged and cheered by the new enthusiasm
that I'm hearing from my friends on the Republican side of the
aisle that they now have for the census professionals at the
Bureau, I would like to offer a cautionary note and remind you
of a very familiar refrain that we heard over and over in this
hearing room. It was called, ``the rushed census.''
As a parent might advise a child on prom night, I want to
give you some advice about the hugs and kisses you're receiving
on this Valentine's Day from former critics. Sadly, it was not
long ago they accused you of rushing the census. They used this
subcommittee to investigate census professionals as
individuals. While your enumerators were still at work, they
broke a vow not to release preliminary data and held a press
conference accusing you of criminal fraud. They sought to
search all of your e-mails. They said, you are ``dangerous
people.'' They held hostage two Federal budgets, blocked flood
relief with antisampling language that the President had to
remove with a Presidential veto, and shut down the government
in order to pressure you to change your operational plan.
From this panel they investigated former Director Dr. Ken
Prewitt and questioned him about his political affiliations,
about his contributions and about whom he associated with. If
these valentine hugs today leave you open to the prospect of
going on a date with them, I would really encourage you to be
very cautious, and I mean that seriously.
It may be the best census ever, but as I am sure you are
about to tell us, we do not yet know that. Your numbers today
are preliminary, and there is a much more critical story to be
told in the details behind these numbers. They may change, they
may improve, they may get worse, and now there are some in the
administration who are rushing to prejudge these results. Once
again preliminary data is being distorted, and once again we
are on this side having the burden to call on the Chair to wait
for all the facts before jumping the gun.
We sincerely hope that it is the best census ever. The key
to this question is not just how many were missed in the net
calculation, how many were missed in total. Who was missed?
Where do they reside? Were some groups missed at higher rates
than others? What if a net of 3 million residents missed
nationally, but that 1 million were in Florida, would not
Florida insist on adjustments? The numbers released today tell
us nothing about the inevitable geographic differences in
census coverage.
A successful effort to interfere with the modern scientific
count to achieve a purely partisan advantage of one political
party, as press accounts have suggested is under way, most
recently in the Wall Street Journal, and I would like to put
that article into the record, denies liberty and
disenfranchises the unrepresented for 10 years. This is why we
call this moment in our history the most important civil rights
issue of the decade.
I remind this committee of the recent election process in
Florida. Those who felt denied access to the polls, or
disenfranchised by having their ballot set aside, or stripped
of their right to choose their political leadership, they still
have recourse. Next year they will be able to go to the polls
again in local, State and Federal elections and make their
voices heard, and believe me, the whole world will be watching.
But to those left out of the census, however, to those
people that are disenfranchised in this census by a partisan
intervention to ensure that they're not counted or recognized
or represented, to them there is absolutely no recourse, not
for 10 long years. Billions of dollars in Federal funding will
be unfairly spent. Private investment will be redirected to
those less deserving. Local planners and school boards will
overlook again those uncounted unless we do everything we can
to improve the census and ensure that it is as complete and
accurate as possible.
Let's address the so-called compromise that I keep reading
about in the paper, and this compromise is the notion that more
accurate adjusted data might be used to distribute Federal
funds, but not to distribute Federal power and political power.
Mr. Chairman, when it comes to political rights, there can be
no compromise. Every American is entitled to his or her fair
share of Federal dollars. This so-called compromise offers to
give Americans that to which they are already entitled. If the
numbers are accurate, they are accurate for every use.
We are now on the verge across this Nation of redrawing
every political jurisdiction in every State. Only those census
numbers which give us the most complete accounting of everyone
residing in our country should be used for this purpose. It is
distressing to think that there are those who would seek to use
this Federal Government, the very instrument of political
empowerment and the last sentry for people of color, women and
youth, to reverse those gains through manipulation of census
numbers.
We shall not have ended the poll tax, given suffrage to
women, lowered the voting age to 18, ensured all qualified
citizens the right to vote, arrested those who intimidated
voters at the polls to now just turn away while millions are
left uncounted, unrecognized and unempowered.
We will ultimately learn if any political influence by this
administration is used to interfere with the scientific process
of a complete and accurate count. I am reminded, Mr. Chairman,
of a very stirring moment that we shared together when we stood
with former Director Prewitt in the Ronald Reagan Building and
launched the advertising campaign for the census in November
1999. Over 1,000 people joined us. There were dozens of
television cameras and hundreds of reporters witnessed when
former Director Ken Prewitt announced that with all the modern
scientific improvements in the census, that the key technology
for the census was very simply a pen, a pencil. The struggle
for full voting rights and political empowerment cannot and
will not now be undone by the swipe of some political
appointee's pen.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5289.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5289.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5289.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5289.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5289.014
Mr. Miller. Mr. Cannon for an opening statement.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Miller. We welcome you to join us on our subcommittee.
We're glad to have you here today.
Mr. Cannon. I do have a special interest, of course. The
people of Utah feel like they were shorted a seat in this
census count, and we need to take a look at that. I would ask
unanimous consent to submit an opening statement for the record
so we can move on.
Mr. Miller. Without objection.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Chris Cannon follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5289.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5289.016
Mr. Miller. Mr. Clay, you want to add anything else?
Mr. Clay. Sure. If it's OK, I'd like to submit an opening
statement, too.
Mr. Miller. Without objection, the opening statements will
be included.
Before we get started, Mr. Barron, if you would rise and
raise your right hand--and Mr. Thompson, do you want to go
ahead and get sworn in in case you're called upon?
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Miller. Thank you.
Let the record reflect that Mr. Barron and Mr. Thompson
answered in the affirmative, and on behalf of the subcommittee,
we welcome you today, and it is indeed a pleasure to have you.
I think it's going to be a good news hearing, and I look
forward to hearing your testimony.
Mr. Barron.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM G. BARRON, ACTING DIRECTOR, U.S. BUREAU OF
THE CENSUS, ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN THOMPSON, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR,
DECENNIAL CENSUS
Mr. Barron. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, it's indeed a
pleasure to testify before you today on the status of census
2000 operations. I have testified previously before you,
Chairman Miller, when you were on the Labor-HHS Appropriations
Subcommittee and I was the Deputy Commissioner at the Bureau of
Labor Statistics, but this is the first time that I've
presented formal testimony to you since coming to the Census
Bureau nearly 2 years ago. It's indeed a pleasure.
As you noted, I'm accompanied by John Thompson, the
Associate Director for the decennial census.
I'd like to begin my testimony by discussing the success of
census 2000, as you requested in your letter of invitation.
Over the last 2 years, former Director Prewitt on many
occasions very eloquently has reported to you on various
operational successes of the census. These successes included
the fact that we have completed every planned operation on
schedule. We achieved higher than expected mail response rates,
and we met our hiring goals, implemented a highly efficient and
accurate data processing system and so on.
These operational successes culminated in the release on
December 28, 2000, 3 days ahead of schedule, ahead of the legal
deadline, of State population totals that are to be used for
the purpose of apportioning seats in the House of
Representatives. At the same time, the Census Bureau announced
the resident population of the 50 States and the District of
Columbia.
The release of the apportionment counts fulfilled the
requirement under Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, but
the apportionment numbers and all the successes that we
achieved over the last 2 years were always subject to this
caveat. While we knew we had conducted a good census
operationally, we would not know whether we succeeded in
improving the counts until the count of the population results
from the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation survey were compiled.
All of the ACE operations have now been completed, and we've
produced the first results from dual system estimation; that
is, comparing the ACE results to the census.
Today we are removing the caveat and announcing that
preliminary estimates from the ACE indicate that the census was
not only an operational success, but was also successful in
improving coverage of the population and in reducing
undercounts for some population groups.
I would call your attention to the two tables attached to
my testimony. Table 1 is preliminary estimated coverage of
census 2000 based on the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation
survey. Table 2 is estimated coverage of the 1990 census based
on the Postenumeration Survey [PES]. While we are confident of
having made improvements in coverage, I again want to emphasize
that these are preliminary estimates of the extent of the
improvement. We still have quite a bit of review and analysis,
and additional refinements will undoubtedly lead to more
precise calculations.
I also want to add another note of caution. The race and
origin groups for 1990 are not directly comparable to the
preliminary estimation groups for census 2000 because of the
different racial and origin reporting requirements of the two
censuses. However, in the interest of openness and
transparency, we believe it's warranted to share these data
because they do tell an important story about the success of
census 2000 in improving accuracy.
We can make several observations looking at these tables.
Overall coverage has been improved from 1990 to 2000.
Significant reduction occurred in the undercount rates for non-
Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics. For American Indians on
reservations, the undercount in census 2000 will be well below
the 12.2 percent figure that was reported for 1990. Also, while
there remains a difference in coverage rates for owners and
renters, the undercount of renters appears to have been
significantly reduced from 1990 to 2000. And coverage for
children under 18 years old has improved notably. Finally, for
American Indians off reservations, Asians and Native Hawaiians
and other Pacific Islanders, there are no comparable data for
1990.
While the preliminary estimates indicate there are still
undercounts for some groups, I believe we have taken
significant steps toward improving census accuracy. The full
extent of these improvements will be documented with greater
specificity in the weeks ahead, but it's a characteristic of
the Census Bureau that even when we have good news to tell, we
will be measured and deliberate until we complete our
evaluations.
I want to emphasize that the committee of Census Bureau
professionals charged with recommending whether or not to use
the results of the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation survey to
adjust the census is still receiving and reviewing detailed
tabulations and reports designed to assess the quality of both
the census and the ACE. This committee, the Executive Steering
Committee for Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation Policy, is
analyzing census data and the ACE results to determine whether
the use of the ACE to adjust the census figures would improve
results at the level of redistricting. This committee is
scheduled to make its recommendations by February 28th, with a
final decision expected by March 5th.
If I may, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to reflect briefly on some
of those elements of the good census that contributed to
significant improvements in coverage. First, the census used a
multifaceted marketing campaign to aggressively encourage
householders to complete and mail back their census forms and
to include themselves in the census. This included
partnerships, paid advertising, working with schools, improved
questionnaire design and providing multiple ways to respond.
These cumulative efforts were successful in marketing the
census. Approximately two-thirds of households answered the
census by mail, exceeding our expectations on mail response.
Second, because of our resourceful recruiting plan,
research on pay rates and recruiting, and the attractive wages
that we could afford to offer because of the full census
funding that the Congress provided, we were able to hire and
train enough highly skilled temporary staff through the course
of the census to complete all operations on time.
Third, because of the timely completion of nonresponse
followup, we had the time and the resources to conduct eight
other operations designed to improve coverage, plus conduct
additional reenumeration in selected areas. We called these
operations ``quality counts.'' If we had stopped at the end of
nonresponse followup, we would have provided an incomplete
estimate of the population. The ``quality counts'' operation
helped us improve coverage and the census estimates.
Fourth, for census 2000, the Census Bureau has used digital
imaging and optical character recognition technology for the
first time to recognize handwritten answers in addition to
blackened circles. This was a vast improvement over previous
computer systems and allowed us to process the data faster and
introduced quality assurance steps to be sure we had captured
the data accurately. Our improved data capture systems, with
the ability to capture names, also meant that we could offer
multiple options for responding to the census with confidence
that we could find and remove duplicate questionnaires.
Mr. Chairman, census staff at headquarters, in the regional
and field offices and in the processing centers, as well as our
partnering contractors, can rightly take pride in these
achievements, but many others share the credit for a successful
census 2000, and they deserve our thanks: the American public,
who helped to exceed expectations on mail response and opened
their doors to census enumerators; the temporary census
workers, who were dedicated, enthusiastic and resourceful, and
who braved tough situations to get the job done; our many
partner organizations throughout the country, who worked so
hard giving of their time and energy to participate in this
great national event; and the Congress, for oversight and your
support in providing sufficient resources to offer attractive
pay rates for temporary census workers and to conduct the other
operations so important to our success.
Mr. Chairman, in closing I want to bring to your attention
a letter of January 17, 2001, from Mr. Chris Mihm of the
General Accounting Office to then Secretary of Commerce Norman
Mineta announcing that census 2000 has been removed from the
GAO's list of high-risk Federal Government programs. That
census 2000 was ever on this list is a reminder to all of us of
the great challenges the Census Bureau faced and overcame in
conducting a successful census. In the letter Mr. Mihm
underscores the need and importance of planning for the 2010
census. Doing so will require completing the 2000 evaluations,
and that will shed further light on what worked well or what
didn't work well in this census, eliminating the long form from
the decennial census by collecting data in the American
Community Survey, improving the accuracy of our geographic data
base and our master address file, and reengineering the census
process through early planning.
Mr. Chairman, I encourage you and members of the
subcommittee to support 2010 planning, which needs to start
right away.
This concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman. I'll now be
happy to try and answer any questions that you and your
colleagues may have.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Barron.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Barron follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5289.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5289.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5289.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5289.020
Mr. Miller. Before we start, I apologize for not having
enough seats in the room for everyone, but I see that there are
three seats here in the front row that you're welcome to come
up to, and there's at least one seat I see in the second row
there. There may be some other seats, so if you want to--it's
not like classroom or something where you get stuck on the
front row or something. And if there are any other empty seats,
let someone standing know. Are there any other empty seats
anyone can identify? Thank you.
Mr. Barron, this is a good news day, and it's been a tough
decade, and I agree with you that we need to start planning for
the 2010 census. And one of the many objectives we'll have in
this subcommittee over the next 2 years is preparing for the
American Community Survey and how it addresses the problem of
the long form. We look forward to having some hearings on that.
Counting overseas Americans is certainly something we're going
to look at for the 2010 census, as well. So I look forward to
future hearings on these issues.
By all accounts so far, the actual head count is reported
to be a tremendous success. Let me give you several quotes. An
article from last Thursday's San Antonio Express news says,
``Former census Director Kenneth Prewitt said before stepping
down from his job last month that Census 2000 is the most
accurate census in the country's history.''
On December 28, former Director Prewitt said, ``Never have
we been so diverse, never have we been so many and never have
we been so carefully measured.''
On December 28th, former Commerce Secretary Mineta said,
``The participation by the people of this country in Census
2000 not only reversed a three-decade decline in response
rates, but also played a key role in helping produce a quality
census.''
On September 27, 2000, former Director Prewitt said, ``This
is truly a marvelous achievement for America and a rousing
compliment to the American people for their unprecedented
participation in making the census a success.''
In your estimation, was the 2000 census a quality census,
as Secretary Mineta suggested?
Mr. Barron. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think with the evidence
we have today, we are heading closer and closer to being able
to say that in all respects this was a very good census. We had
operational evidence prior to now, but with the preliminary
results today, we're beginning to see that we addressed one of
the most serious issues about the census over the past decade,
and that's the differential undercount. Now, clearly we've not
eliminated it, but if one thought that the differential was a
serious matter, and I think it was, if we indeed have reduced
it, as these numbers are seeming to indicate, then that's a
serious success. So that would be my position, sir.
Mr. Miller. What new efforts did the Census Bureau try in
2000 that may have made this a better census than prior ones?
Specifically, what steps did the Bureau take to make inroads
with the traditionally undercounted populations?
Mr. Barron. Well, I think the effort began very early on,
Mr. Chairman, with an effort to improve the address list, which
I think reduces the undercount generally. I think the
evaluations from 1990 indicated that a sizable proportion of
the undercount stems from problems with the address list, and
very early on the Bureau, working with the Postal Service,
sought to address that issue.
Later on, especially after the funding was provided, the
Bureau was able to engage in some rather innovative efforts,
such as the paid advertising campaign--the first paid
advertising campaign, in the statistical system that I'm aware
of. We had partnership activities throughout the country that I
think also were very creative. Those, I think, were the major
new, new items, Mr. Chairman, that helped make this census a
success.
Mr. Miller. Compare the 1990 census and 2000 census with
respect to hiring a temporary work force. You mentioned that
topic briefly in your opening statement, but why was this
aspect of the 2000 census considered more successful than in
1990? In 1990, as in 2000, we had a very full employment
economy, and there was great concerns that we were going to
have an adequate work force, a quality work force, a good work
force, and that was one of the successes. And what would you
like to comment on that?
Mr. Barron. Thank you for helping me, Mr. Chairman, because
that's another area of creative difference between this census
and 1990. This time we had a pay policy that was actually based
on salary surveys produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. I
had nothing to do with that, but it was a policy that had been
arrived at before I left the BLS, and that enabled the Census
Bureau to go out and offer attractive wages, attract and retain
people, and avoid, as I understand, one of the more difficult
problems encountered in 1990 where, with turnover, the Census
Bureau simply didn't have the staff to get the job done.
So, you're right, the pay policy had to also be funded, so
I thank the Congress for providing the funds. This was another
major change between 1990 and 2000 that contributed very
significantly to the Census Bureau's success.
Mr. Miller. Something else that was successful in the 2000
census was also the use of the computers, reading the data on
forms. It was a huge success.
Mr. Barron. Right. That's contracted out this time.
Mr. Miller. There were concerns early on about it because
it was such a huge volume, it had never been attempted before.
Mr. Barron. Huge volume, and I think whenever you do
something once every 10 years, and when the Census Bureau
didn't have the time, Mr. Chairman, and there was no funding to
begin early in the decade--and that's why I made the point
about the ACS and 2010 planning--I think that's what made the
concerns so great about computer systems. Those things
typically take time to test, and I think by the time the
funding did arrive, we were up against some pretty tight
deadlines, but through a remarkable effort through Census
Bureau staff and contractors, this worked extremely well.
Mr. Miller. You have something else?
Mr. Barron. Well, I just wanted to observe, that I'm very
concerned about the people that work on this in 2010. I'd like
them to work in an environment that's perhaps a little less
tense than the environment that those who have worked on the
2000 census will work on, and I simply can't help but think
that, you know, in April 2000, the employment-to-population
ratio in the United States reached its all-time historical peak
of almost 65 percent, 64.8, and what that meant was that this
census was conducted during a time when I think people in this
country were feeling pretty good about their job prospects. So
I think we did benefit from a good economy at the time the
census was launched, and I think we need to be humble enough to
acknowledge that, and that's just one more reason why 2010
planning needs to get started.
Mr. Miller. Hopefully in 2010 there will be better
facilities out of Suitland.
Mr. Barron. I hope so, too.
Mr. Miller. I hope those plans are moving ahead.
Mr. Clay.
Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In 1940, the Census Bureau first discovered that African
Americans were missed by the census at rates far higher than
the population as a whole. They discovered this when more black
men registered for the draft in World War II than were counted
by the census. Since 1940, every decennial census has shown the
same result.
Mr. Barron, you've released figures today that indicate a
net national undercount of about 1 to 1.4 percent. That would
translate to about 3 to 4 million people net missed, slightly
better than the 1990's; 4.4 net missed. Can you elaborate a
little bit on that?
Mr. Barron. Yes, Mr. Clay, I can. I think when all is said
and done, we're going to see that the undercount for 2000 is
reduced. Any undercount is unsatisfactory to us at the Census
Bureau. Anybody missed is unsatisfactory, but I think the fact
that we made progress is something that we need to note.
I think we're going to see numerical improvement in the
undercount for Blacks and African Americans. I think we're
going to see improvement in the undercount for Hispanics, and I
think we'll see improvement in the undercount for renters and
children.
Now, those are important improvements, Mr. Clay, but they
don't mean that the institution for a second will say, ``Oh,
gee, our work is done, we don't care about this anymore. That's
not going to happen. The Census Bureau is going to stay
committed to working on the undercount problem as long as
there's an undercount in existence.
Mr. Clay. Mr. Barron, on a more personal basis, I represent
St. Louis, MO. In 1990, you had an undercount of 8,490
approximately. What is your estimation of the undercount of St.
Louis, MO, in the 2000 census?
Mr. Barron. Mr. Clay, we're not there yet. The numbers that
I presented today are just net national totals, and indeed the
point you're making is a very excellent one. Part of what we
need to do is to continue our analysis to examine this below
the national level, and we realize there could be differences
that occur there that are very significant.
Mr. Clay. Do you have any more detailed information you can
share with us about geographic differences in the undercount
rates? For example, do large metropolitan areas have higher
undercount rates than the suburbs or rural areas of the Nation?
Mr. Barron. Not today, but very shortly--on the computer
sites we've created to assist all the oversight folks, as well
as the National Academy of Sciences, look at our work--there
will be more detailed geographic information provided. We don't
have that today, though, sir.
Mr. Clay. Can you give us any information on the overcounts
of any population groups?
Mr. Barron. Well, from the tables that are attached to my
testimony, we can see that relative to 1990, while there is a
net overcount of older folks, it seems to be a little bit
better, but again, that's going to be another number that we're
going to need to examine more carefully by region in the days
ahead as we continue our analysis.
Mr. Clay. Final question, Mr. Barron. A lot of energy has
been spent talking about accuracy at the block level, but that
really misses the point. When you use corrected census counts
to create congressional districts of 650,000 or other large
aggregations of census tracts and blocks, the corrected counts
are generally more accurate than the census counts. Can you
explain to us how the errors in census data get larger as you
put blocks together, while the kind of error in the ACE gets
smaller as you put blocks together?
Mr. Barron. As you accumulate data from a sample, and you
have more sample observations, you're going to reduce what
statisticians call ``variance,'' and so that's going to improve
estimates from a system that's generated by something like the
ACE. In other cases, such as the census, if you're having a
systematic bias in what you're doing in your observations,
that's not going to be improved when you start adding geography
together. So that, I think, would be the heart of the
difference. The fact that data get better as you add it up from
a block to a higher level of geography, I mean, that's true of,
I think, every statistic that the Federal Government produces,
Mr. Clay, so that's not a problem that's peculiar to the ACE.
That's the nature of statistics.
Mr. Clay. But you do have confidence in the ACE?
Mr. Barron. We have confidence in it in concept. We have to
look at the particular set of data that we have for this year,
for this census and this ACE, and see how that plays out in
terms of being able to improve accuracy for redistricting, and
that's the challenge that's ahead of us over the next 2 weeks
on the committee that's mentioned in my testimony and the
chairman's.
Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Barron.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Cannon.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Barron, thank you for being with us today. As I
mentioned in my opening statement, my real concern--I have
several concerns, but one of the core concerns is the
difference in the counting of the two groups of foreign
citizens. You have, for instance, missionaries and others who
were not counted, but Federal employees and dependents who are
temporarily serving abroad who were. The failure to treat these
two groups of American citizens equally when the Bureau
tabulated the apportionment population for the 50 States
resulted in Utah being deprived of an additional Member of
Congress, to which I think the State is entitled. Are you
familiar with the issue of Utah and this count and the
missionary issue?
Mr. Barron. I'm familiar with how the Bureau arrived at the
decisions for coverage in 1990 and 2000, Mr. Cannon, and I
understand the circumstances you've described to me.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you.
Would you explain the legal authority upon which the Bureau
relied in setting two apportionment groups? Particularly upon
what basis did you decide that the second apportionment group,
consisting of those Americans who were living outside of the
United States temporarily, would only include Federal
employees, military and their dependents?
Mr. Barron. Mr. Cannon, I'm not sure that I can give you a
legal explanation for the decision. Let me tell you what the
substantive basis for it was. Basically, the Census Bureau
decided to continue for the 2000 census a practice that was
adopted for the 1990 census. Just prior to the conduct of the
1990 census there was a lot of interest emanating from the
Congress that was presented to the Census Bureau indicating
that it would be a good idea to add military, and given how so
many Federal employees also work in the military, that was then
expanded to include Federal employees as well.
That was announced and done for 1990. After the 1990
census, there did not seem to be any particular controversy or
concern about that decision, and so for 2000, as I understand
it, it was announced that practice would be continued, and
that's how we got to where we are. I'm not aware of a legal
process that arrived at that decision, sir. There may be, and I
can check on that for you and get back to you, but I'm not
familiar with it.
Mr. Cannon. We will come back to this on the particular
legal issue, but were not people like missionaries, Mormon
missionaries, counted in prior censuses?
Mr. Barron. My understanding, sir, is that if you go back
to the 1920's or 1930's, I think, that there were questions
asked of households about members of that household who might
be temporarily in residence overseas. I'm not aware that there
was a specific question per se dealing with missionaries, but I
think they would have been included by the type of question
that I just cited where if you went to someone's home and asked
perhaps the parents about someone who was temporarily overseas,
they would have been included on the census form, and perhaps
it would have been noted that they were a missionary. But I
don't think there was ever a specific question aimed at
missionaries going back over time.
Mr. Cannon. Of course, this is not specific, but if you had
information about people overseas, you would have had to have
made a decision either to ask a question or have the
information whether or not to count those people within the
State. Have those issues been dealt with over time?
Mr. Barron. Well, they haven't been dealt with extensively,
Mr. Cannon. As a result of language attached to our
appropriations bill, the Bureau is committed to reexamining
this issue. This came up prior to the situation with respect to
Utah, and we think it clearly is something that warrants
review.
There are some real challenges. As I think you've heard,
there are challenges doing the census here. Move this to an
overseas situation, and I'm certain there are some very serious
challenges in doing that as well. So we're going to be looking
at this and reporting back to the Congress because we
understand the unhappiness, and we'd like to find a way to deal
with this if we possibly can. I don't know that we can, but
we're going to try.
Mr. Cannon. Will we have another round, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Mr. Cannon. Just finishing up then very briefly, you
mentioned the statutory language requiring the Bureau's report
to Congress on counting overseas Americans. Obviously this is a
matter of urgent concern because we have to choose Congressmen,
and there's a lawsuit ongoing. Is there any way that report can
be speeded up, do you think?
Mr. Barron. I'll look into it, Mr. Cannon. I seriously
doubt that it can be done in time to be helpful in the legal
process.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Miller. In June 1999, we had a hearing on this issue of
counting of overseas Americans, and I know we'll have another
one this year, and this is one of the issues that Mrs. Maloney
and I totally agree on. The Bureau felt at that time that it
was too late to incorporate all of the overseas Americans, but
language was put in the appropriations bill in the Commerce-
Justice Committee, which I serve on, to have them come up with
a plan. And so, you know, hopefully we'll have a plan later
this year, a proposal, and as Mrs. Maloney said, we should at
least go through and do a test of that plan sometime in the
next few years so we are prepared for the year 2010.
Mrs. Maloney.
Mrs. Maloney. And just to add on that particular point on
which we do agree, I filed legislation yesterday that would
compel the Census Bureau to come forward with a plan and to
conduct a trial run so that we are ready for the next census.
Everyone talks about it, and then between the censuses nothing
happens. So we want to make sure we have a trial run, and we
have been supportive of each other's legislative efforts in
that area.
I would like to begin by noting the census document that is
on display, which quotes former Director Kenneth Prewitt, and I
would like to respectfully request that Dr. Prewitt be called
back to speak for himself so that his words are not
misinterpreted. It is a very important position that he holds.
I would like to place into the record, when there was
conflicting statements about his intentions, I called him on
February 8th, and I'd like to read what he said to me: For the
record, I have said that we believe that the 2000 census was an
operational success, but at no time have I stated or
characterized the accuracy of the 2000 census.
He further stated, only the accuracy coverage evaluation
will tell us exactly how accurate the 2000 census was. In fact,
I have counseled all interested parties not to characterize the
accuracy of the census 2000 numbers until the Census Bureau has
reported on the results of the ACE program, end quote.
And I'd like to place this into the record and request that
he be called in to speak for himself. Would that be appropriate
since you are using his words on a flier up there?
Mr. Miller. I'll see if we can have time for another
hearing on this issue, but go ahead.
Mrs. Maloney. Mr. Barron, there have been press reports
that the new administration has assured House Republican
leaders that, ``sampling is dead,'' and I'd like permission to
place into the record the various press reports that have
stated that, Mr. Chairman.
And I'd like to ask Mr. Barron, who do you think is best
qualified to make the decision on the accuracy of the corrected
versus uncorrected census numbers, the scientists and
professionals at the Census Bureau, the nonpartisan expert
professionals at the Census Bureau, or politicians? Who do you
think is best equipped to make that decision?
Mr. Barron. That's a tough question for a 33-year veteran
of the statistical system but in another sense it's not. On
statistical issues I think the Census Bureau has the expertise
to decide matters of accuracy. On legal and other issues, the
Census Bureau doesn't, and that would be my answer, Mrs.
Maloney.
Mrs. Maloney. Has there been any pressure on you to
interfere with your professional work to make a decision one
way or the other?
Mr. Barron. No, there hasn't.
Mrs. Maloney. There has been no pressure at all?
Mr. Barron. Absolutely not.
Mrs. Maloney. On the professionals, and you think that
speaks for the whole Department, you think the professionals
are being left alone to do professional work without political
interference?
Mr. Barron. Yes, ma'am. In fact, the Secretary has
encouraged me to go do what I need to do. I think the
statements made by Director Prewitt had been made before he
left, and combined with the fact that we now have some
information showing statistically we've done a good job--not a
final word, but some preliminary sense--I think that's
impressed the Secretary. So he's encouraged me to do what I
need to do.
Mrs. Maloney. Mr. Barron, that's encouraging. That's
encouraging.
Mr. Barron, just based on the numbers that you released
today, it appears that the undercount rate for African
Americans is twice that of whites, and for Hispanics it is
three times that rate, and I personally find that quite
troubling. Do you have any comment? What does that say about
the ability of traditional census-taking methods to eliminate
the differential undercount which your numbers show there is?
Mr. Barron. I share your concern that it's troubling, and I
think we need to continue to look at and investigate ways to
solve that problem. It may be that the only way that can ever
finally resolve this is using some kind of survey adjustment,
but we don't know that yet. By the same token, Mrs. Maloney, if
having an undercount for African Americans two or three times
that for Whites is a serious problem, I think we need to note
that, and note the fact that it's less than seven times, which
is where we were in 1990. So I think we need to note the
improvement without slacking off on our commitment to solve the
problem, and I think that's where we are.
Mrs. Maloney. And could you go through with us what the
next steps are in solving the problem?
Mr. Barron. Well, there's two things. We're going to
continue the process for 2000 of examining whether the use of
the accuracy and coverage evaluation survey improves data. The
first tasks are the estimates for congressional districts. At
some later point we would look at other levels of geography and
hopefully address the issue of whether these data would be used
for survey controls.
Longer term, my reference to beginning planning for 2010,
the adoption of the American Community Survey, and using new
technology to improve the address list--I think all of those
things need to be looked at longer term to see if we can make
further inroads into a problem that we agree with you needs to
be addressed.
Mrs. Maloney. What factors will weigh most heavily on the
decision of whether or not to adjust for the undercount?
Mr. Barron. I think in its most general sense, Mrs.
Maloney, the committee is going to be looking at whether at the
level of geography known as a congressional district, the data
we've assembled enable us to bring any value added to the
estimates we get from an unadjusted census.
Now, we have been reviewing and are continuing to review
loads of information. I note one of my colleagues described it
as hog heaven in terms of the amount of data we have. He's got
a different definition of heaven than I do, but I'm in there
with him and other colleagues examining data on the quality of
the census. We are looking at the quality of the data on the
accuracy and coverage evaluation survey. There are techniques
and methods that statisticians, very noted statisticians, have
developed to evaluate both and how they integrate and relate to
one another.
So that's what we're doing, and it's painstaking work
that's now happening virtually every day, and we have 2 weeks
to finish.
Mrs. Maloney. But in your preliminary----
Mr. Miller. We'll have another round.
Mrs. Maloney. This is a followup just real briefly, and
then I know my time is up.
In your preliminary numbers, which is a range, it's roughly
3 million net undercount?
Mr. Barron. Yes, at the national level.
Mrs. Maloney. Approximately. And for this particular
census, the ACE is really the only instrument available to
correct this problem; isn't that correct?
Mr. Barron. That's correct.
Mrs. Maloney. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Souder, thank you for returning to the
committee, and you're recognized.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
We've been hearing various versions of these arguments for
at least 3 years when Speaker Hastert chaired--when the census
was under Brouder, and then with Chairman Miller coming and
taking this, and I don't think the basic positions are likely
to change.
I wanted to first congratulate the Census Bureau on their
hard work and becoming more accurate in reaching many of the
people we haven't been able to reach and to thank all the
public organizations who helped with that. I had plenty of
frustrations in my area. The Chicago office came down,
attempted to address some of those, because I didn't feel they
were hiring the minorities they needed to hire to reach the
hard-to-reach population, and we tried to address that, and we
had meetings with the African American Ministerial Alliance and
Hispanic leaders in the community to try to address that
question.
Indiana still loses a seat, but we attempted to try to
address the question, and I'm sure we still have an undercount,
and I'm very concerned about that.
But as we've seen over and over on sampling, and anybody
with a business background understands the kind of basic
principles as statistical deviations that in the aggregate may
be accurate, but what we're talking here now about is how to
disaggregate the data to do congressional districts, State
legislative districts, city council districts, potentially even
township trustee in Indiana districts based on the population.
And the fundamental question is in the hard-to-count
population, people who, for example, may be illegal immigrants
but still need to be counted, people who may be homeless,
people who may be moving from the law, there are--in addition
to people who may just have moved and got lost in the system,
but there are a lot of the people who don't want to be counted,
and they are very hard to count. We see in some school
districts in my area or some schools where they will have a
transient population in that school of 75 percent of the kids
will move across school jurisdictions in a given year.
Now, my question is, in the adjustment, would anything
guarantee that if we got the--a more accurate total count that
those people would actually be in the location where they would
be put? In other words, if so and so was missed because they
were like in Fort Wayne, we have 125--at one point we had 125
houses they claimed were crack houses, but that really means
any given night four to six would be in a count, so if you
estimate that any abandoned house that was used as a crack
house has four to six people in it, you're going to be off by
120 some houses. So where do you put the additional people, and
is there any guarantee in the adjusted count that the people
you would add back in actually are a name and a place that
would have any accuracy at the township trustee level, or any
even reasonable accuracy at a city council level, and even to
some degree a congressional level, because certainly that--in
the last time we found that people that supposedly had been
undercounted in New York were actually in Milwaukee and
Indianapolis when they actually studied postcensus.
Mr. Barron. Mr. Souder, I don't believe that we can speak
to accuracy at these very detailed levels of geography that you
mentioned. Indeed, the issue that's before the committee is
whether utilizing dual system estimation can improve data for
congressional districts, which I think are like 650,000 people.
And, by the way, I think at that level, in concept, they could,
but at these very detailed levels I'm not knowledgeable, and I
don't believe----
Mr. Souder. And, in fact, since the block deviation--census
block deviation is greater in the estimating than it is in an
actual accurate hard count, could it not be just as likely that
the deviation would be greater or it would be more off under
adjustments than it would be in unadjusted?
Mr. Barron. I think as you begin to add the data,
respectfully, I don't think I'd make that conclusion, but for
2000 I have not seen the results yet.
Mr. Souder. In other words, as you move it up to a sample
size--in other words, you're arguing that potentially,
depending--and assuming no gerrymandering in a congressional
district, which, of course, most districts are gerrymandered,
and therefore it isn't even a statistical block that you can do
a deviation off of, but what you're saying is that 650,000, it
might be reliable, and what I'm saying is this census data is
far more than just that. It breaks down into every kind of
unit.
I think personally I agree with Chairman Miller that
constitutionally we have to have a hard count in the Federal
level. What you're really not talking about are congressional
districts. I'm pretty sure we'll win the court decision on
that. The Constitution says hard count, but at the State and
local level your count matters, too, and by putting in adjusted
figures that could indeed be off even more than the unadjusted
figures, you're potentially skewing the whole political system
because some people believe it may give them an advantage.
What you're saying is that the bigger the data, possibly
the adjusted would have an impact, but that as a statistician,
the smaller that is, the less impact that will be.
Mr. Barron. Yes. I think at low levels of geography, the
census data are pretty noisy to begin with, and I think we
would like to demonstrate there's a block level improvement.
Mr. Souder. Given the fact that we're moving ahead, what
reason is there not to release the unadjusted data now?
Mr. Barron. Well, we're not going to know exactly the
degree of confidence that we have in the block level data
unadjusted until we finish this process. Now, it is true that's
virtually complete, but it's not totally complete until we
finish the ACE process. So that's the best answer I can give
you on that, Mr. Souder.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Mr. Miller. We'll go on to a second round.
I would like to refer to a quote by Mr. Prewitt, Director
Prewitt, that was made at a public forum with the Brookings
Institute, and it's published actually on the Web page of the
Brookings Institute, and I think you have a copy in front of
you. Let me read the quote from Director Prewitt: ``Just one
final word, envision a two-by-two table on which you have a
sample survey, the accuracy and coverage evaluation, good and
bad. So you've got four possibilities. You've got the
possibility of a good census and a good ACE. Under those
circumstances would we adjust? Probably not, because why pay
the social cost and the confusion and concerns and so forth? If
you start with a good census, you don't need to adjust, so you
wouldn't.''
I'm looking at another exhibit, the chart that Mr. Prewitt
said to visualize. You see that there's only one instance out
of four where adjustment might be recommended, and that's if
you have a bad census. But you have testified that we have a
good census, and former Director Prewitt and Secretary Mineta
have indicated that it was not only a good census, but a
quality census, a marvelous achievement for America, the most
accurate census in the country's history.
Mr. Barron, why does a good census make adjustment harder
to justify?
Mr. Barron. What we're looking at in our committee, Mr.
Chairman, is to see whether or not we can make a good census
even better, and I don't know how that fits into Dr. Prewitt's
description here, but I'm sure he knew that could come to pass
as well. So I don't think there'd be any difference between Dr.
Prewitt and me on that matter.
We think we at least need to examine whether, given that we
have a very excellent Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation survey,
whether that can add to the accuracy with which we can produce
estimates for congressional districts, which are a pretty
sizable hunk of geography. Now, that's what we're engaged in
right now. We don't have any preconceived notion about that
other than, in concept, it ought to work, but in practice we
need to see.
So that's where we are, and it's really an effort to see if
we can make a good census even better.
Mr. Miller. But if you have a bad census and good ACE, it's
easy to argue the adjustment. You could argue the adjustment,
not counting the legal and social costs of it. I mean, it's
more than just a statistical question, as I have said.
Mr. Barron. Right.
Mr. Miller. But with a good census it really is harder to
justify adjustment.
Mr. Barron. A good census makes our job tougher in terms of
discerning, I guess some statisticians might call it, ``signal
from noise.'' We have done a very good job. So now as we
approach--I don't want to say perfection because I'm not sure
anybody will ever get to ``perfection,'' and I don't want the
2010 census people to come find me wherever I am and lynch me--
but I think if you have done a very good job applying the ACE,
distinguishing improvement from noise becomes tougher, but
that's the task ahead of us.
Mr. Miller. Good job of counting 99 percent of the people,
and so the question is do we add this other factor or problem.
Mr. Barron. Right.
Mr. Miller. Let me refer to this quote of Director Prewitt
that said that you would not adjust if you had a good census.
``You've got the possibility of a good census and good ACE,
under those circumstances would we adjust? Probably not,
because why pay the social costs and the confusion concerns and
so forth.''
Let's think about the social costs, the confusion and
concerns for just a minute. We know that a traditional head
count has always been legal, but an adjusted census may not be.
We know that a traditional head count has always been
constitutional, but an adjusted one may not be. We know that
the traditional 2000 census is probably the lowest error in
history, but that adjustment would have its own error.
Let me stop there and ask you a question about sampling
error. Would you explain sampling error and the problems it can
introduce into the adjustment process?
Mr. Barron. Well, in general, sampling error would be the
difference between the value of a population if you could count
or enumerate every member of that population, and the noise you
get from having selected a sample.
I think one of the issues in play here in anticipating what
might have happened from 1990 is that our statisticians have
designed and we have executed an Accuracy and Coverage
Evaluation survey, which is an excellent survey. I mean, it's
really been an impressive survey effort with double the sample
size of the 1990 PES. So in this particular case we've, I
think, confronted head on the issue of sampling error as
applied to the issue in front of us for adjustment in 2000.
We're not done looking at it yet, but I think variance or
sampling errors are probably not going to be an issue for us as
we look at this adjustment issue.
Mr. Miller. In the census that we've just conducted, there
is no sampling error.
Mr. Barron. There are other kinds of errors.
Mr. Miller. But they're not sampling errors.
Mr. Barron. Right.
Mr. Miller. But there's no sampling error. I mean, we have
the nonsampling error.
Mr. Barron. Right.
Mr. Miller. When you adjust, you introduce sampling error;
is that correct?
Mr. Barron. Yes, there would be an error. And if we can't
discern improvement from no improvement, then that would be a
reason for us not to adjust. On the other hand, if we think we
can improve the estimates, then from a statistical perspective,
not these other perspectives, but from a statistical
perspective, we would recommend adjusting.
Mr. Miller. By adjusting you're introducing the whole error
issue of sampling error to your data.
Mr. Barron. Right.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Souder was talking about the block level
data all the way up to the State population and the Nation's
population. I mean, you're introducing a whole new set of
problems, and that's part of the tough choices that you're
facing, but----
Mr. Barron. It is.
Mr. Miller. Not counting the legal and social cost
problems, but you're introducing a totally new set of problems
that have never been in the census as sampling error. Isn't
that a serious concern, introducing sampling error into the
whole set of numbers?
Mr. Barron. We will be able to frame that and describe that
for people, Mr. Chairman. We're still in process, so I haven't
reached a conclusion on this, but my sense is that sampling
error is probably the least of our concerns because we will be
able to frame that and describe that to people as we do for the
Current Population Survey or other sample surveys that the
government does. So I'm not--you know, I don't believe that
that's a problem for us here.
Mr. Miller. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Clay.
Mr. Clay. Mr. Barron, as you testified, the Bureau released
the apportionment total for the States on December 28th. Do you
have any comments you'd like to share with us, or did you see
any surprises in the data as it came back?
Mr. Barron. I suppose the only surprise, Mr. Clay, was that
the total population estimate was bigger perhaps than people
had anticipated, bigger than some of the estimates from other
demographers, including our own. So I think that was perhaps a
bit of a surprise, but I think we were very pleased with the
results, and we had worked with folks from the States to look
at those numbers before they were published, and I think we
were very pleased.
Mr. Clay. Mr. Barron, have you discussed with the Secretary
the rule currently in place which governs the decisionmaking
process on whether or not to release corrected data?
Mr. Barron. Only in a very, very general way. I have spent
much more time talking to the Secretary about the building in
Suitland that we inhabit that needs improvement, and I have
talked with him about the data that we released today not from
the perspective of the rule at all, but from the perspective of
I think we've done a good job, you should know about this. I
will also acknowledge that in briefing him on this, which was
at my request, by the way, my sense was the data was going to
leak, and I guess it did.
Mr. Clay. And so you are operating under the assumption
that those rules will remain in place until your process is
completed?
Mr. Barron. Mr. Clay, I have no information to the
contrary.
Mr. Clay. Thank you. Thank you.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Cannon.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You mentioned earlier that you were part of discussions
about the legality--or not legality, but the practicality of
counting people who are temporarily overseas. Who else was part
of those discussions?
Mr. Barron. I'm sorry, Mr. Cannon, if I misspoke. I was
describing to you my understanding of discussions that took
place. I was not involved in those personally. I was recounting
history to you as best I understand it.
Mr. Cannon. But you heard that, I take it, from other
Bureau personnel?
Mr. Barron. Yes. Actually on the issue of adding the
military and Federal civilians in 1990, there is some
correspondence on that between the then Secretary of Defense,
who I believe is now the Vice President, and others encouraging
the Census Bureau to do so.
Mr. Cannon. You don't know if the issues of the violation
of the apportionment clause or the free exercise clause or the
equal protection clause of the Constitution were every
considered in that process then?
Mr. Barron. No, sir. I'm sorry, I can't speak to that.
Mr. Cannon. And on the same line you--were you or Director
Prewitt ever advised of a potential violation of either the
Constitution or those clauses or the restoration of the
Religious Freedom Act as it related to temporary missionaries
in particular?
Mr. Barron. No, sir, I'm not aware of any briefings or
conversations on that.
Mr. Cannon. Apparently someone has said somewhere that
counting Americans temporarily overseas would be infeasible,
unreliable, and prohibitively expensive. Do you know if there's
any factual basis in the Department for that conclusion?
Mr. Barron. Well, there was a hearing on the issues
surrounding counting Americans overseas last--I think it was
last--I'm sorry if my memory's failing me on exactly when that
was.
Mr. Cannon. I'm more concerned not with the hearings, but
with the internal discussions in the Department.
Mr. Barron. It is extremely difficult. So the flavor of
those remarks is something that I think I have heard, because
it's a daunting task to figure out how we might count Americans
overseas for the most part.
Mr. Cannon. The daunting task would include the difficulty
of counting military and their dependents and other Federal
workers?
Mr. Barron. At least in that case there's a source we know
about, and I think in some other cases, probably the Mormon
Church, they probably have very good records. In lots of other
cases, there are no records.
Mr. Cannon. Did you ever communicate with the Mormon Church
or any other churches about their records of Americans overseas
temporarily?
Mr. Barron. No, sir.
Mr. Cannon. Let me jump to another matter, which I'm sure
will please the chairman and others. I am disturbed that
there's possible politicalization of the Bureau or of staff
there with apparently their own agenda opposed to that of the
administration and the congressional majority. Last week, for
instance, a Census Bureau staff member in the public affairs
office sent to various State Governor liaisons a highly
political press release by Congresswoman Maloney. It actually
was an attack on the Bush administration. I think there's an
attached copy of that, which is, you know, fine for--you know,
Congresswoman Maloney and I disagree on issues, and that's
appropriate here, but probably not for the Bureau. Is it--is
there--do you have policy dealing with what kinds of things
should go out from the Bureau?
Mr. Barron. There is a policy, Mr. Cannon. First, let me
say that I apologized for that, and I apologize again. That was
inappropriate. The policy is that we use that mechanism to
distribute Census Bureau press releases and products, and since
that matter was brought to my attention, we emphasized that
policy. I think most people understand that. We had a lapse in
judgment here, which I regret.
Mr. Cannon. And what was the response with that employee?
Was he reprimanded? Was the matter investigated?
Mr. Barron. The matter has been investigated. I must say to
you I've had such an exciting week, I don't know much beyond
that, but I am confident that it's not going to happen again.
Mr. Cannon. Do you know if anything similar has occurred
with the employee who sent out that press release in the past,
or is this just a one time matter?
Mr. Barron. I don't know, sir. My understanding is this was
a one-time matter.
Mr. Cannon. Great. Thank you. I appreciate your being here,
your candid answers and very clear answers, and I yield back,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Miller. Mrs. Maloney.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Barron, I would like to go through a series of
questions and see if you have a number to give us, and if you
don't know, then for the record just merely state that you
don't know.
First of all, do you today know the total number of
erroneous enumerations?
Mr. Barron. No, ma'am, we don't.
Mrs. Maloney. You do not know?
Mr. Barron. We do not know.
Mrs. Maloney. Do you know the total number of duplicates?
Mr. Barron. We have some estimates of duplicates, and I
think if you give me a second, I can give you that number.
Now, duplicates does cover a number of things, but because
in this census we went out of our way to be inclusive in terms
of constructing our address list, we anticipated that we could
have a problem with duplicate addresses, and our estimate of
this is that we had about 2.4 million of those. And having done
some, I think, very creative and innovative work, we looked at
that number, and we have deleted about 1.4 million of them as
being duplicates and have maintained or retained about 1
million records.
There's probably error in this somewhere, Mrs. Maloney, but
we're pretty confident that we've done a good job with dealing
with this issue.
Mrs. Maloney. Is the ACE program the only way to correct
these duplicates?
Mr. Barron. The ACE is a very excellent way of dealing with
this problem, and it also in its estimation structure deals
with the variance that's attributed to duplicates as we go
through the census process.
Mrs. Maloney. Do you know the net undercount for New York,
California or Florida?
Mr. Barron. No, ma'am, we do not know that at this point.
Mrs. Maloney. Do you know the total number of African
Americans missed?
Mr. Barron. We have a range estimate, but as our press
release today indicates, we don't have a precise number for
that now, but we do have a range. I can give you the numbers
associated with the range if you wish.
Mrs. Maloney. I have that, but the point is you just have a
range, but it could be defined more with the ACE program,
correct?
Mr. Barron. No. As a result of the ACE, this is going to be
the range. So we're pretty confident that the final number is
going to be within that range, and we will have a point
estimate as we did----
Mrs. Maloney. There's no way that you're going to define
this any more; you're just going to have a range?
Mr. Barron. No. We'll end up with what we had in 1990,
which is a point estimate. There always is a range surrounding
a point estimate. Since we're still in process, we thought we
would do what was done in 1990, by the way. In 1990, when this
information was first produced, a range was published, and
we've replicated that process this time.
Mrs. Maloney. Do you have the total number of children
missed?
Mr. Barron. We don't have a number now, no.
Mrs. Maloney. Do you know whether the improvements in
counts of minorities took place in cities, suburbs or rural
areas, or what the differentials are in those counts and those
geographic areas?
Mr. Barron. I don't, but the information that we're going
to put up for your staff and others to look at as part of our
oversight of our process in conducting the final stages of the
census will be available very shortly.
Mrs. Maloney. So you don't have that information now, but
it will be available shortly?
Mr. Barron. Yes, yes. Actually on all these things it will
be available shortly, but that one is coming up very shortly,
probably within a day or so.
Mrs. Maloney. About how many different metrics or measures
of accuracy will the ESCAP committee consider before making a
decision on whether or not to correct the raw count?
Mr. Barron. I don't have a count for you, Mrs. Maloney.
There's a pretty strong array of measures that statisticians
have arrived at to examine both the accuracy of the census, the
accuracy of ACE, and when you try to adjust the census count
with the ACE, whether you're in effect adding value or not. So
there is a set of measures, but I have not counted.
Mrs. Maloney. So at this point there's still a considerable
amount that the Census Bureau does not know, so you need to
complete your work basically?
Mr. Barron. We need to complete our work.
Mrs. Maloney. And if you were asked today to give your
recommendation on whether to adjust, would you have enough data
to make that decision?
Mr. Barron. Today?
Mrs. Maloney. Uh-huh.
Mr. Barron. No, ma'am. I think we have enough data coming,
but what we've not done is completed our analysis and review of
that data, and that's the real challenge we have before us over
the next 2 weeks.
Mrs. Maloney. And you will have that information. So you're
still very much in a work in progress which you need to really
get more information, to get more accurate information?
Mr. Barron. Very much so.
Mrs. Maloney. I just want to note that in this subcommittee
press release, Dr. Prewitt is quoted not once, twice, not three
times, but four times, and I'd just like to reiterate my
request that he be called to this committee to speak for
himself. Thank you.
Mr. Miller. We all use quotes from different sources. This
was one that was pulled off the Web. It's a public forum. It's
kind of a funny thing to question, you don't get a quote to
use.
But one of the issues that was brought up was the count of
children in 1990 was a problem, and I believe we've had a great
success on children. Would you comment about that first?
Mr. Barron. Well, while we don't have the final numbers,
and our press release does deal with a range, it looks like
we've made very significant improvement in what's been
recognized as a serious problem, which is the undercount of
children. Last time the undercount was over 3 percent, and this
time we estimate that when our efforts are completed, the
undercount of children is going to be somewhere within the
range of 1.2 to 1.9 percent. So that's a big improvement over
the past. It is still there. It's still a problem, and again,
just because we've improved something doesn't mean I'm saying
that we're going to rest on our laurels. But it's an
improvement, and we ought to, I think, recognize it.
Mr. Miller. That is a huge improvement, and we're very
pleased about that.
You're operating under a regulation that specifically
delegates the adjustment decision from the Secretary of
Commerce to the Census Bureau Director, correct?
Mr. Barron. Yes.
Mr. Miller. For the record, is a position of Census Bureau
Director a political position?
Mr. Barron. Yes, it is.
Mr. Miller. Are you a political appointee or career civil
servant, and how long have you served in the government?
Mr. Barron. I'm a career civil servant, and I began in the
government June 17th, 1968.
Mr. Miller. For the record, are you serving as the Acting
Census Bureau Director, or have you been confirmed as Census
Director?
Mr. Barron. I'm an Acting Census Bureau Director.
Mr. Miller. Now, since there is no official Census Bureau
Director, how does the law work? Does the adjustment decision
now fall to you, the Acting Director, a civil servant?
Mr. Barron. My understanding is that it does, Mr. Chairman.
My further understanding is that there was a law passed within
the past several years that dealt mostly with recess
appointments, but it somehow reinforces the idea that I would
be an Acting Director. I'm not sure I understand that. I'm just
doing the best I can, but I think the role I have been playing
in census 2000, at least in terms of managing us through to
completion, means I can do that, but in terms of Directors and
Acting Directors I don't define those things.
Mr. Miller. The census numbers you released in December
were unadjusted State-level population totals for apportioning
the 435 seats in the House of Representatives. The numbers to
be released next month are the population totals at various
geographic levels of redistricting, for redistricting. The
million-dollar question before you is whether these numbers
should be adjusted. What are the various geographic levels
census data is distributed for, and how many people are in
those different geographic levels, starting with blocks and
working our way up?
Mr. Barron. I'm not sure I'm going to be able to answer
that question completely. We do start with blocks, tracts, and
there are various geopolitical units going up.
Mr. Miller. What's the average size of a block and a tract,
for example?
Mr. Barron. I believe a block is--you know, I don't know.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Thompson maybe could even chime in, the
average block--how many tracts.
Mr. Thompson. About 9 million blocks.
Mr. Miller. About 9 million blocks.
Mr. Thompson. They vary in size, but we use an average
sometimes of 30 housing units per block. There's 60,000 census
tracts. And we use an average of around 1,000 housing units.
Mr. Miller. About how many you say within a tract, about
1,000?
Mr. Thompson. 1,000 to 2,000 housing units.
Mr. Miller. Whereas in a block there's varying numbers.
Mr. Thompson. Well, blocks vary considerably in size. For
planning purposes sometimes use an average of 30 housing units
per block. In urban areas it's bigger than 30. In rural areas
it's less than 30.
Mr. Miller. For the adjustment decision about to be made,
what's the smallest number of geography that the Bureau
considers important to know whether adjustment improves
accuracy? What are you focused on, what level of accuracy?
Mr. Barron. The level that we're focused on for this
process that we're engaged in is the level of the congressional
district. That's all that we're focused on at this time. At
some subsequent point, we'd like to address the issue of what
is the best data set to use for survey controls and things like
that, but that would be later. Right now it's the congressional
district decision that is the object of our attention.
Mr. Miller. But your focus is on block level accuracy,
tract level accuracy; what's the next level above tracts in the
hierarchy? What's the accumulation of tracts?
Mr. Thompson. At that point there's really not a higher
level--you have counties, you have places, you have voting
districts.
Mr. Miller. So is your focus on tracts or blocks?
Mr. Barron. The focus is on congressional districts. That's
the focus.
Mr. Miller. And congressional districts are made of blocks?
Mr. Barron. Some of blocks.
Mr. Miller. And the Constitution, as the Supreme Court
ruled, is one man, one vote, and every congressional district
has to be essentially the exact same size as another
congressional district in that State, and in order to get that
exact number--I mean, our districts cannot vary within our
States by more than a couple of people. You have to work with
block data, right? I mean, I guess you don't deal with
redistricting, but the point is block data, one block at a time
is what we work with. We don't have a defined county we work
with. We work with a block here and block there, and we add the
blocks together, and the concern we have with block level data
is the accuracy is not there.
Back in 1990, since this is--the Cape report said that for
population areas of 100,000 or less, you cannot tell if
adjustment improves accuracy; is that right? At populations of
100,000 or less, you cannot tell whether that improves
accuracy?
Mr. Barron. I believe that's what that report said, yes,
and you know, the issue before us now, Mr. Chairman, is whether
when you get to something that's as large as a congressional
district, can you tell. I mean, that's the decision that we're
facing, and we think you can, but that remains to be proven.
Mr. Miller. Is block level data better adjusted or
unadjusted? I mean, that's what we work with.
Mr. Barron. I would say----
Mr. Miller. Maybe going back to 1990. I know you don't have
the answer for 2000.
Mr. Barron. We're looking at the issue of whether
congressional districts are better when you add the blocks
together. This other issue is something I'd have to go consult
with my experts on and get back to you.
Mr. Miller. One of the problems Mr. Souder brought up, and
it's something that's not our focus constitutionally, we're
looking at congressional districts, but I have got cities in my
district that are very small. The total population of Anna
Maria Island--there's three cities on one island in my area.
There's just a couple thousand people in each city, and they
have to draw city council districts, and there's no question,
but, you know, you're working with a total city population of
2,500 people, and you divide it up into five city council
districts, what would they use, adjusted or unadjusted data?
Mr. Barron. I don't think I have a recommendation for them
when you work with something that small.
Mr. Miller. When you only have 2,500 people in the total
population, you have real problems if you try to use adjusted
data, I would think. It's well below 100,000.
Mr. Barron. I think at that level everything these people
have access to is going to have a certain amount of noise, and
what we're doing is trying to provide better estimates for a
higher level of aggregation.
Mr. Miller. Are you more focused on block or tract level? I
know you keep saying you're focused on congressional districts,
but you have got to look at those two levels of data. Which is
the one you're trying to decide or making the decision process
on?
Mr. Barron. The decision process that we're working on
basically takes blocks and adds them together, and then we
determine whether that estimate, having aggregated the data,
whether that estimate is better.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Clay.
Mr. Clay. Mr. Chairman, just one issue to raise; was
wondering would we have an opportunity to hear from Dr. Prewitt
at some time in the near future?
Mr. Miller. That's definitely a possibility. He's always a
very good witness.
Mr. Clay. He sounds like he's the expert. Being a freshman
Member of Congress, I'd like the opportunity to hear from him
if possible.
Mr. Miller. Director Prewitt deserves great congratulations
for making the census so successful. We didn't always agree on
every issue, but one thing I advocated was make sure we had all
of the resources that the Bureau could use to get the most
accurate census possible. Since I serve on that appropriations
subcommittee, we agreed there. And so Director Prewitt did an
outstanding job leading the Census Bureau during a very
difficult time, and so I commend him on that, and if it's
possible, we'll love to have him back.
Mr. Clay. I would hope, just in conclusion, that--I would
hope we would leave no American uncounted because it's so
important as far as Federal resources, as far as highway
redistricting that we have an actual count and an accurate one.
And I think that's the key to a good census is that it is
accurate, and I'd like to ensure somehow or have a level of
comfort that we do have the most accurate count possible.
Mr. Miller. Well, since 1790, when Jefferson did the first
census, I think we can all probably say that this is the best
census ever because it's hard even to comprehend what the
census was like when the U.S. marshals did it--I think it was
the U.S. marshals in 1790 or in the 1890's or something. And so
we have a lot to be pleased with right now, but it's not
perfect.
Mr. Clay. No, it's not perfect.
Mr. Miller. But we sure have made tremendous strides, and
you all are to be congratulated.
Mrs. Maloney.
Mrs. Maloney. Yes. Mr. Thompson, getting back to the line
of questioning of the chairman on the block level versus larger
geographic areas, is there a legislative district in America
that is made up of one block, Mr. Thompson?
Mr. Thompson. I don't know if there's a legislative
district made up of one block or not. I don't know the answer
to that.
Mrs. Maloney. Well, I can tell you that legislative
districts, even the smallest ones, school districts, city
council districts, are made up of literally thousands of
blocks. That's what makes up a representative area. It's not
one block, it is thousands of blocks, and have you not
testified that the higher levels there are of geographic area,
that ACE becomes more accurate?
Mr. Thompson. Yes.
Mrs. Maloney. Well, I think that's an important point.
Now, I think that one of the themes that we keep hearing
here today is the people talk that, you know, that we have a
measurement that is more accurate, but it is this ACE
measurement that is also the measurement used to correct for
the undercount. So if it's accurate for the measurement, then
it should be accurate for the use of correcting for the
undercount.
And I just have heard talks today, you know, at one point
we think that maybe there's going to be an undercount of
roughly 3 million, and at one point there was an undercount of
4 million, and we know that 8 million was missed in the last
census in 1990, and 4.4 were counted twice. But I think the
main point is how many blacks and Hispanics does it take to be
missed in a census for the Republican Party to agree that they
should be corrected for the undercount, because in my--my
position is that every person counts, and whether it's 8
million or 4 million or 3 million or 2 million, all of these
people should be counted, and if you're not counted, the
injustice is more extreme, I would argue, than what happened in
Florida.
And the Florida fiasco will have a chance next year to go
and vote again, and believe me, I truly believe that the
corrections will be made, and every vote hopefully will be
counted. But if people are missed in this census, it will be 10
years before the correction can be made. If we don't correct
for the undercount, there will be missed Federal dollars, there
will be missed Federal representation, not to mention data is
less accurate.
So I just want to make a point that we need to count every
American, and if there is an undercount, it should be corrected
in general fairness and for what's at stake in representation
and distribution of Federal funds.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Miller. Mrs. Maloney, being from the big city of New
York City, your jurisdiction areas within there are much larger
than my area in southwest Florida, which is a beautiful area.
But we have communities incorporating cities that have 1,500
people in it, and so you start dividing up those areas--and
there aren't a lot of blocks in those areas, and so there's no
question I think that I would advise small communities to be
very cautious if they were looking at adjusted data.
But when you go through the redistricting process, it's one
block at a time. It's not like it's a defined area like the
State of Florida, the State of New York or the city limits of
New York City. It is adding a block here, taking a block there,
so we get the exact same numbers. And so you work with block
data.
And what you will argue is you add them all together, and
the errors average out, but the bottom line is you're working
with one block at a time, and that block by itself is not
accurate when you start adjusting. So there's a legitimate
debate about the accuracy of that data at the block level for
redistricting purposes, and that's really what the
constitutional purpose of the census is.
Mr. Barron, I've finished.
Does anyone else have anymore questions?
Mrs. Maloney. I have one closing question, and I'd like to
ask Mr. Barron it if I may.
Mr. Director, John Kennedy and many others have said that
defeat is an orphan, but success has 1,000 fathers. Real
quickly, I'd like to ask you where some of the enhancements and
improvements for this census 2000 plan came from. I want to
know who were the key players. Was it the Census Bureau
professionals, the National Academy of Sciences, Congress, the
Commerce Department, the White House? I'd like you to designate
where the idea and where these improvements came from, the
redesigning of the form to make it more user-friendly?
Mr. Barron. That was a Census Bureau idea.
Mrs. Maloney. The optical scanning technology to read
handwriting?
Mr. Barron. That was a Census Bureau proposal.
Mrs. Maloney, if I may, since John was involved in this
more than I was, I was not there at the time, I want to ask him
to respond to some of these if I may.
Mrs. Maloney. OK. Certainly.
Mr. Barron. Am I right so far? I'm two for two.
The partnership program. I think the partnership program
was a Census Bureau proposal, probably Commerce Department, but
also the Census Bureau has strong advisory committees involving
its partners. So I think that goes back in history. So maybe
that's something that originates with lots of people.
Mrs. Maloney. But basically the Census Bureau.
Mr. Barron. Well, perhaps both.
Mrs. Maloney. The advertising campaign.
Mr. Barron. I don't know.
Mr. Thompson. That was generated by the Census Bureau, but
we got a lot of advice from our advisory committees and the
Congress about paid advertising and how important it was. So I
think that's something that came up in partnership, so I
wouldn't want to claim it was the Census Bureau's idea only.
Mrs. Maloney. But the Census Bureau in collaboration with
advisers----
Mr. Thompson. We certainly endorsed it and embraced it and
went forward with it.
Mrs. Maloney. Higher pay scales for enumerators.
Mr. Thompson. That was our basic research that went into
that.
Mrs. Maloney. The three-part mailing of an advance letter,
the form and the postcard?
Mr. Barron. Census Bureau.
Mrs. Maloney. So basically the major enhancements came from
the Census Bureau.
Congratulations on a job done well so far, and I wish you
well in your remaining days to complete the work before you and
to come forward with more accurate numbers and your
recommendations.
Mr. Barron. Thank you.
Mr. Miller. I concur with Mrs. Maloney to congratulate the
people at the Census Bureau for coming up with these ideas and
implementing a very successful census. I am sorry that some of
the recognition did not arrive for the individuals, but
hopefully we will have some way we can make sure individuals
are given the recognition they deserve.
Mr. Barron, you are in a terribly unfortunate position
today. An extremely important decision, one that has far-
reaching ramifications, is now weighing heavily on the
shoulders of a dedicated, highly capable, career civil servant.
I'm sure Congress did not mean for this to happen. The
regulation seems to have intended--the regulation seems not to
have intended it either, but both Congress and the regulation
put the adjustment decision with political appointees, and you
are not a political appointee. You are a civil servant with 30
years of outstanding service at the Bureau of Labor Statistics
before going to the Commerce Department 2 years ago. Thank you
for the job you've done.
Thank you, Mr. Thompson.
On behalf of the subcommittee, I would like to thank you
for appearing before us today. I ask unanimous consent that all
Members' written opening statements be included in the record.
Without objection, so ordered.
In case there are additional questions that Members may
have for our witnesses, I ask unanimous consent for the record
to remain open for 2 weeks for Members to submit questions for
the
record, and that the witness submit written answers as soon as
possible. Without objection, so ordered.
Thank you again. Meeting adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:50 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional information submitted for the hearing record
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5289.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5289.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5289.023