[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ENSURING AN ACCURATE AND AFFORDABLE 2020 CENSUS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE,
US POSTAL SERVICE AND THE CENSUS
of the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 11, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-58
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
http://www.house.gov/reform
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
82-932 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman
JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland,
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio Ranking Minority Member
JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JIM JORDAN, Ohio Columbia
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
TIM WALBERG, Michigan WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan JIM COOPER, Tennessee
PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania JACKIE SPEIER, California
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee MATTHEW A. CARTWRIGHT,
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina Pennsylvania
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
DOC HASTINGS, Washington TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
ROB WOODALL, Georgia DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky TONY CARDENAS, California
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia STEVEN A. HORSFORD, Nevada
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
KERRY L. BENTIVOLIO, Michigan
RON DeSANTIS, Florida
Lawrence J. Brady, Staff Director
John D. Cuaderes, Deputy Staff Director
Stephen Castor, General Counsel
Linda A. Good, Chief Clerk
David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and the Census
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas, Chairman
TIM WALBERG, Michigan STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts,
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina Ranking Minority Member
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
RON DeSANTIS, Florida Columbia
WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on September 11, 2013............................... 1
WITNESSES
Mr. John Thompson, Director, U.S. Census Bureau
Oral Statement............................................... 5
Written Statement............................................ 8
Mr. Robert Goldenkoff, Director, Strategic Issues, U.S.
Government Accountability Office
Oral Statement............................................... 14
Written Statement............................................ 17
Ms. Carol Cha, Director, Information Technology, U.S. Government
Accountability Office
Oral Statement............................................... 15
Written Statement............................................ 17
APPENDIX
The Honorable Stephen Lynch, a Member of Congress from the State
of Massachusetts, Opening Statements........................... 56
ENSURING AN ACCURATE AND AFFORDABLE 2020 CENSUS
----------
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal
Service, and the Census,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:31 a.m., in
Room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Blake Farenthold
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Farenthold, Walberg, Collins,
Lynch, Norton, and Clay.
Also Present: Representative Maloney.
Staff Present: Molly Boyl, Parliamentarian; Lawrence J.
Brady, Staff Director; Caitlin Carroll, Deputy Press Secretary;
John Cuaderes, Deputy Staff Director; Adam P. Fromm, Director
of Member Services and Committee Operations; Linda Good, Chief
Clerk; Michael R. Kiko, Staff Assistant; Jeffrey Post, Senior
Professional Staff Member; Laura Rush, Deputy Chief Clerk;
Scott Schmidt, Digital Director of Digital Strategy; Peter
Warren, Legislative Policy Director; Jaron Bourke, Minority
Director of Administration; Courtney Cochran, Minority Press
Secretary; Kevin Corbin, Minority Professional Staff Member;
Yvette Cravins, Minority Counsel; Devon Hill, Minority Research
Assistant; Jennifer Hoffman, Minority Press Secretary; and Mark
Stephenson, Minority Director of Legislation.
Mr. Farenthold. The subcommittee will come to order. As is
normal, we will begin the hearing by reading the Oversight
Committee mission statement. We exist to secure two fundamental
principles: First, that Americans have a right to know the
money Washington takes from them is well spent; and second,
Americans deserve an efficient, effective government that works
for them. Our duty on the Oversight and Government Reform
Committee is to protect these rights. Our solemn responsibility
is to hold the government accountable to taxpayers, because the
taxpayers have the right to know what they get from their
government.
We will work tirelessly in partnership with citizens
watchdogs to deliver the facts to the American people and bring
genuine reform to the Federal bureaucracy. This is the mission
of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
At this time, I'll recognize myself for an opening
statement. The costs of the decennial census has gone up 680
percent per household since 1960, and the 2010 Census was
almost twice as expensive per household as the 2000 Census. The
2010 Census reached $14.7 billion in cost. If the recent trends
hold true, the 2020 Census could cost the American taxpayers
$25 billion or more. This is simply unacceptable.
As government watchdogs, it's our job to make sure the
American taxpayers' money is being used appropriately and
efficiently.
The purpose of today's hearing is to find ways the Bureau
can achieve significant cost savings without impacting the
quality and integrity of the count. The most obvious of these
is adding an Internet response option to the Census, which is
now being offered on a nationwide basis for the American
Community Survey. Without getting into the pros and cons of the
community survey, it does show that technology can be better
used to gather Census data.
We should also look at the digitalization of follow-up
efforts for those who do not self-respond to the Census. In
fact, new technology has created an opportunity to completely
redesign the model. Through the Bring Your Own Device model,
the Census Bureau has the opportunity to have its temporary
field staff simply download a secure application to a smart
phone that will not only allows them to record response
information, but also has live updates with which house they
should visit next and possibly GPS data, directions, adjusting
for traffic and many other things. Collecting Census data,
there should be an app for that.
Another issue with respect to cost savings is expanding the
use of administrative records. What are the cost savings of
this and what are the privacy issues associated with inter-
governmental data sharing? Administrative records do help
improve data accuracy and reduce the need for multiple
nonresponse follow-ups.
A redesign mapping project focusing on continuously
tracking changes and partnering with the public and private
geospatial entities and perhaps even the Postal Service could
meet--I'm sorry--could eliminate the need for a nationwide
canvass in upcoming years.
We also face challenges from public distrust of the
government in light of recent scandals currently being
investigated by the full committee. The IRS targeting of groups
based on political ideology; the NSA's rampant data collection
and leaks; the administration spokeswoman, Susan Rice,
misleading the public after the Benghazi attack all have had
effects making the American public more distrustful of the
government and also less likely, I believe, and based on the
information that's coming into my office, less likely to
participate and cooperate with the government.
Take Lois Lerner. She's probably costing the taxpayers
money because people are fearful how their personal information
revealed to the Census service might be used against them, so
they're not filling out their survey, meaning the government
has to send out people to follow up with them. How will all of
these affect the response rate and accuracy in 2020? Add to
that the detailed and, in my opinion, intrusive questions asked
on the American Community Survey, and we're facing additional
challenge that potentially add costs.
Finally, we must address in a cost-effective manner the
question of accuracy, especially dealing with non-traditional
households: the homeless, those living in the shadows and non-
English speakers. We cannot craft solutions to problems like
homelessness and undocumented residents if we do not have
accurate data.
New cost saving ideas are attainable, while regaining the
public trust might be more difficult. A National Academy of
Sciences panel has stated that a realistic goal is for the 2020
Census to cost less than the 2010 Census on a per-household
basis. I think that's doable and I support this goal, and I
challenge the Census Bureau and the entire government to make
this happen. The Census coming in under budget would send a
strong signal to the American people about the stewardship of
their tax dollars, and perhaps be a way we can regain some of
the trust between the government and the governed.
With this in mind, I hope this hearing starts a dialogue
between the committee and the Census Bureau so that we can make
the 2020 Census a cost-effective success.
And with that, I'd like to welcome our witnesses and thank
you for appearing before us. We will now recognize the
distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts,
Mr. Lynch, for his opening statement.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At the outset, I'd also
like to congratulate Director Thompson on being confirmed as
the 24th director of the United States Census Bureau. We look
forward to working with you and your staff as we continue to
examine Census operations.
I'd like to also thank Mr. Goldenkoff and Ms. Cha of the
Government Accountability Office for helping this committee
with its work today. Thank you.
This is a critical moment for the United States Census
Bureau. While the next decennial Census may be 7 years away,
the agency is already in the midst of researching, testing and
implementing a variety of technological and procedural reforms
designed to better ensure a 2020 Census that maximizes cost
containment without compromising data quality.
I would note that these important initiatives come on the
heals of a 2010 Census that according to GAO, and as the
chairman has pointed out, was the most expensive U.S. Census in
history at a cost of approximately $13 billion. Now, that was a
56 percent increase and an $8 billion cost increase from the
2000 Census, so the rate of increase is alarming.
Chief among the lessons learned from the 2010 Census that
GAO has consistently identified as key areas for reform is the
need for the Bureau to reexamine its approach to how it takes
the Census. In particular, 2010 witnessed the Bureau employing
the same mail-out, mail-back and door visit Census form process
that it has been using since 1970, despite a population that
has become increasingly demographically diverse and
significantly concerned about personal privacy. If I were a
cynic, I would--I would suggest that we might shift the
responsibility of the Census over to the NSA since they seem to
be taking--keeping track of everybody anyway.
But according to the GAO, this basic design of the
decennial Census is no longer capable of a cost-effective
enumeration, and without changes, future enumerations could be
fiscally unsustainable.
To its credit, the Census Bureau is already making changes
to reform its approach to Census taking, and I'm greatly
encouraged by its responsiveness to the recommendations issued
by GAO. Specifically the Census Bureau is currently examining
whether it could achieve meaningful cost savings by utilizing
State and local agency administrative records, including
driver's license and school documentation to identify persons
associated with a particular household address.
In addition, the Census Bureau is researching the viability
of electronic data collection and technology receptive
promotional methods, including the use of email, text messaging
and social networking sites. Moreover, the agency is testing
the feasibility of using its monthly housing and population
``American Community Survey'' data as a basis for conducting
smaller and more frequent Census-related tests throughout the
decade in place of broader, more expensive and one-time-only
tests that have defined previous decennial Census-taking
cycles.
I would also interject that I know Mr. Chaffetz and I had
discussed in the previous Congress the opportunity to utilize
the United States Postal Service, because postal workers go to
each and every home in America 6 days a week, and that does
replicate in a way the door-to-door survey that the Census
conducts, albeit we would be using existing employees who go
door to door on a regular basis and might have a better feel
for the number of residents in a particular household.
As reported by GAO in January of this year, the various
reform initiatives underway at the Census Bureau and
particularly the agency's expanding use of technology must be
accompanied by a corresponding effort to implement effective
information security policies and protocols. I share the
chairman's concern regarding the current lack of comprehensive
security programs at the Census Bureau that includes identified
security risks, up-to-date security management program
policies, meaningful information, security training for Census
employees, and effective incidence response guidance. However,
I am confident that the Bureau will continue to work with GAO
to take the necessary steps to enhance its agency-wide security
program and implement proper safeguards against the
unauthorized use or disclosure of sensitive personal
information.
Additionally, I'd like to note that the Census Bureau, like
every other Federal agency, is already feeling the impact of
the sequestration and is currently operating with a budget that
is 13 percent less than the administration's request for 2013.
Coupled with chronic underfunding over the past several years,
the agency is facing a variety of difficult decisions that pose
a challenge to its mission, from reduction in field tests and
increased reliance on existing data, to delays in planning for
the 2020 decennial Census and the suspension of the country's
economic Census. Importantly, these and other Census activities
are mission critical and result in data that is used to
determining funding allocations for community services,
infrastructure and neighborhood improvements as well as public
health and educational program and forecasting economic and
employment conditions.
These efforts are essential to our national economy and
policymaking, and I'd urge my colleagues to keep the importance
of the Census Bureau's mission in mind as we continue to
examine Census operations.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this important
hearing and I look forward to the discussion these and other
issues will come up today with today's witnesses. I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you, Mr. Lynch. Our other members
will have 7 days to submit opening statements for the record.
We will now introduce and recognize our panel.
The Honorable John Thompson is the director of the United
States Census Bureau. I add my congratulations as well on your
confirmation. Mr. Robert Goldenkoff is the director of
Strategic Issues Group at the U.S. Government Accountability
Office. And our technical expert here is Carol Cha. She's the
director of IT Group at the United States Government
Accountability Office. Welcome.
Pursuant to the committee rules, all witnesses will be
sworn in before they testify. Will you all please stand up and
raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the
testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but the truth?
Let the record reflect that all the witnesses answered in
the affirmative. You all may be seated.
In order to allow time for discussion, we'd particularly
like to ask our questions up here and feel like we get the
information we're most interested in, we would ask that you
would limit yourself to around 5 minutes with your statement.
We have in the record and hopefully everybody up here has
reviewed the written material that was provided to us. And so
if you would limit yourself to 5 minutes. We've got the little
traffic light system in front of you. The green light means
you're good to go, the yellow light means you're running out of
time, so hurry up, and the red light means stop. There will be
no tickets issued, but I will start looking sternly at you when
the red light comes on. So we will get underway.
We will now start with Mr. Thompson. Mr. Thompson.
WITNESS STATEMENTS
STATEMENT OF JOHN THOMPSON
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Chairman Farenthold, Ranking
Member Lynch, and members of the subcommittee. I am pleased to
have the opportunity to appear today before the subcommittee to
discuss 2020 Census operations. I'll make a brief statement. I
will ask that my full statement be added for the record. Let me
also say that I am delighted to return to the Census Bureau as
director, and I'm looking forward to working with the
committee.
A democracy needs credible, objective and timely
information, and the decennial Census is one of the important
sources of this information. The 2020 Census will continue this
tradition, but as with each Census, we must consider new
opportunities with respect to information technology.
I believe current plan activities will support a Census
that is significantly less costly and will deliver faster
results than the 2010 Census. I can pledge the best efforts of
the dedicated public servants of the agency, but we must also
ask the Congress for its support to ensure the Census Bureau
can face these challenges.
Among the most promising options we are researching to
accomplish our goals are, first, re-engineering the field data
collection operations; second, making better use of information
previously collected by Federal and State agencies; third,
using the Internet as the primary self-response option; and
fourth, drawing on geographic tools and data sets to eliminate
the need to physically canvass large portions of the United
States.
One of the major opportunities to reduce costs lies with
applying operations research methods to work management and
route planning. We are exploring techniques to take advantage
of automation to conduct our field work more efficiently,
including routing our interviewers, accounting for optimum
times to visit, tracking travel distances and traffic, and
other factors to minimize extensive travel and wasted visits.
We are also exploring adaptive design techniques that will
help us supply statistical methodology to do our work smarter.
The objective of this effort is to re-engineer our field
management processes, thereby reducing both the hours that our
interviewers will spend on collecting the data from households
that do not take advantage of the self-response option and
reducing the infrastructure required to support these efforts.
In addition to our efforts to re-engineer the field data
collection, we are looking at other alternatives to reduce the
non-response follow-up workload. One of the promising
innovations is the use of data people have already given to the
government to enumerate households that do not return Census
questionnaires. These data range from information about vacant
units collected by the U.S. Postal Service, to information that
is collected by various Federal and State agencies to
administer and support the programs.
We also have important opportunities to reduce the non-
response follow-up workload by improving self-response. The
traditional way of responding through the mail, then following
up through an interview is inefficient. The Internet in
contrast is becoming an increasing important tool for self-
response.
For the 2020 Census, the Census Bureau is actively testing
strategies to encourage and motivate the use of the Internet as
the primary response option. The geographic support services
initiative at the Census Bureau is directed at obtaining the
highest quality address and geospatial data.
We are looking to expand partnerships with tribal, State
and local governments as well as with the private sector. These
partnerships will be critical in allowing the Census Bureau to
develop a more focused address canvassing program that will
allow the Census Bureau to avoid re-canvassing large areas of
the country for which there are no changes or which--or for
which information can be obtained from an alternative source.
Finally, I would like to note that all these options are
buttressed by the Census Bureau's efforts to more effectively
integrate IT services and systems. Instead of building
different IT systems that serve single programs or even single
Census operations, we are building systems to share across the
enterprise.
We have also virtualized our servers, building a private
cloud environment which we're using to deliver a virtual
desktop infrastructure, or VDI, that allows us to decouple a
user's device from any sensitive data. This capability allows
us to dramatically increase our telework program. Now employees
can use their devices and we do not need to furnish equipment.
We believe this capacity puts us in the strong footing to
consider Bring Your Own Device, or BYOD, as a real possibility
for the 2020 Census.
In the 2010 Census, we used a custom-built mobile device
and custom-built software to run on that device. Now we have a
team working not only on the technological considerations and
security requirements, but also the personnel policies that
would have to accompany a BYOD approach for 2020 based on
utilization of off-the-shelf technology and software.
Finally, the budget requested for FY 2014 includes an
increase of $150.7 million for the 2020 Census. The Census
Bureau will need this to conduct the necessary research and
testing efforts to prepare for 2020 at this point. The work in
fiscal 2014 is critical to meet our schedule to produce
analyzed data in time for key decision-making. The next 2 years
represent an extremely critical period in the 2020 planning
development cycle. We cannot delay the work to begin developing
our major systems in fiscal year 2016, therefore, our
preparations for this effort over the next 2 fiscal years are
of the highest priority.
To meet these challenges will require the best efforts of
the Census Bureau, and we are looking forward to working with
the Congress so they can provide the support to meet these
challenges successfully.
Thank you very much, and I would be happy to respond to
questions.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you, Mr. Thompson.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82932.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82932.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82932.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82932.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82932.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82932.006
Mr. Farenthold. Before we go on to Mr. Goldenkoff, I see
the gentlelady from New York, Ms. Maloney, has joined us. She
is not officially a member of this subcommittee, so at this
point, I'd like to ask unanimous consent that she be authorized
to participate in this hearing. Without objection, so ordered.
We do have two other speakers at the table. It's my
understanding that on behalf of the GAO, Mr. Goldenkoff will
speak and Ms. Cha is here because they realized some of us up
here are tech geeks and might want to get a little more into
the weeds than might otherwise happen. So at this point we'll--
we'll recognize Goldenkoff from the GAO.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT GOLDENKOFF
Mr. Goldenkoff. Thank you. Chairman Farenthold, Ranking
Member Lynch, and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to be here today to discuss the progress the Census
Bureau is making in controlling the cost of the 2020
enumeration.
As you well know, the fundamental challenge facing the
Census Bureau is how to cost-effectively count a population
that is growing steadily larger, more diverse, increasingly
difficult to find, and less willing to participate in the
decennial.
The cost of counting each housing unit is no longer
fiscally sustainable. In 2010 dollars, the Bureau spent around
$16 to enumerate each housing unit in 1970, compared to $98 in
2010. Much like running up a down escalator, with each decade,
the Bureau has had to invest substantially more resources
simply to match the results of previous enumerations.
In our past work, we noted that to control costs while
maintaining accuracy, actions were needed in at least three
areas: first, the Bureau needs to transform itself into a high
performing organization; second, the Bureau needs to re-
engineer key Census-taking operations; and, third, the Bureau
needs to strengthen its IT management and security practices.
Joining me this morning, as was already mentioned, is Carol
Cha, director of GAO's IT acquisition management team. And our
remarks will focus on the status of the cost containment
initiatives within each of those three areas. Specifically,
we'll highlight the progress the Bureau has made to date and
what still needs to be done going forward.
I would also like to take this opportunity to welcome John
Thompson back to the Census Bureau as its newest chief
executive and wish him every success going forward. John's
experience, both inside and outside the Bureau combined with
the new 5-year fixed term of office for the Census director
should help provide the expertise and continuity of leadership
that will be important for keeping decennial preparations on
track in the years ahead.
Overall, we found that the Bureau's plans for controlling
enumeration costs show promise if effectively implemented. At
the same time, the Bureau's plans contain a number of open
questions that will need to be addressed for a successful head
count in 2020. For example, in the area of organizational
transformation, the Bureau has restructured its entire
decennial directorate in order to improve collaboration and
communication across its divisions, improve operational
efficiencies, and instill a more innovative culture.
The Bureau is also developing agency-wide standards,
guidance and tools in such areas as risk management and IT
investment to reduce duplicative efforts across the Bureau.
These and other actions the Bureau has taken are all
important steps forward, however, several initiatives require
additional attention. For example, in response to our
recommendations, the Bureau has created a cost estimation team
reporting to the director and recently hired an individual to
lead that group. Going forward, it will be important for the
Bureau to finalize its cost estimating policies, procedures and
guidance, as we have already recommended, in order to develop
reliable cost estimates for 2020.
With respect to re-engineering key Census-taking
activities, the Bureau is researching a number of operational
changes that may yield significant savings. As John already
mentioned, key among these are using the Internet as a self-
response option and replacing certain enumerated collected data
with administrative records.
To be sure, the new Census-taking methods the Bureau is
considering have the potential to reduce costs. As one example,
the Bureau estimates that administrative records could save up
to $2 billion by reducing the need for certain labor intensive
door-to-door visits by Census workers. However, the Bureau has
never used these methods at the scale needed for the decennial,
if at all, which entails a degree of operational risk; thus, as
the countdown to 2020 continues, it will be important for the
Bureau to effectively design, test and implement these new
approaches on schedule with an eye toward ensuring they will
generate the needed cost savings, function in concert with
other Census operations, and work at the scale needed for the
national head count.
I will now turn to my colleague, Carol, who will discuss
the Bureau's progress in strengthening IT management and
security practices.
STATEMENT OF CAROL CHA
Ms. Cha. Chairman Farenthold, Ranking Member Lynch, members
of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting us to testify
today.
The Bureau currently has a number of research and testing
activities that are underway, and plans to use those results to
select the IT investments to support the 2020. The technology
options being explored collectively represent a dramatic leap
from 2010 and, thus, a greater amount of risk for the Bureau.
And at this time, the Bureau has not yet achieved the level of
institutional maturity needed to reliably bring these solutions
to bear.
Accordingly, we have recently initiated work to evaluate
the status and plans for the various IT options, which include,
as Robert had mentioned, the use of the Internet, a possible
use of a Bring Your Own Device model, or BYOD, to enable
enumerators to use their own smart phones or other mobile
devices to perform field data collection and other activities,
as well as the implementation of enterprise-wide IT services
such as delivering Bureau-wide storage servers and
communication services via the cloud to--in an effort to
improve scalability and reduce complexity.
And while these options offer the potential for greater
efficiency and effectiveness, that potential is dependent in
large part on the Bureau's having well-established IT
management and security controls. IT controls that, if
effectively implemented, significantly enhance the ability to
deliver these solutions within cost, schedule and performance
targets, as well as to ensure the protection of the information
that they contain.
Our work on the 2010 Census highlighted the mismanagement,
major cost, schedule and performance issues associated with the
acquisition of several critical IT investments. Many of these
problems were caused by weaknesses in IT governance,
requirements management and IT workforce planning. For example,
in the case of the FITCA handheld computers, functional
requirements increased by thousands due in part to a lack of a
robust requirements process.
Additionally, our work earlier this year on the Bureau's IT
security posture showed that while the Bureau had taken steps
to safeguard the information and systems that support its
mission, it had not effectively implemented appropriate access
controls to protect those systems from intrusion. Accordingly,
we have made numerous recommendations aimed at strengthening
and improving the Bureau's IT management and security capacity.
To the Bureau's credit, it has made measurable progress to
address the areas of IT governance and security; however, more
work remains.
It will be critical for the Bureau to stay aggressive in
its push to fully implement our remaining open recommendations.
By doing so, the Bureau will be better positioned to deliver
its planned IT solutions in a predictable and consistent manner
and to ensure the adequate protection of these systems.
In summary, on behalf of Robert and myself, the Bureau is
making progress along a number of fronts to secure a more cost-
effective enumeration, with efforts aimed at transforming the
organization, improving the cost-effectiveness of Census-taking
methods, as well as strengthening its IT practices; however, a
high degree of risk and uncertainty exists, and it will be
critical for the Bureau to further define its roadmap for 2020
and to set clear executive-level decision points to improve its
ability to manage those risks as well as achieve desired
outcomes.
In addition, your continued oversight will also remain
vital to help ensure that the Bureau's on path to a more
efficient Census.
Thank you, and we look forward to addressing your
questions.
[Prepared statements of Mr. Goldenkoff and Ms. Cha follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82932.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82932.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82932.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82932.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82932.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82932.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82932.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82932.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82932.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82932.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82932.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82932.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82932.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82932.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82932.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82932.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82932.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82932.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82932.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82932.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82932.027
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much, and I'll take the
first stab at it, recognizing myself for 5 minutes of
questioning.
Mr. Thompson, the number we hear is $16 per household. I
assume the typical suburban or urban household is not your
problem in that dollar amount. I got my Census form in 2010,
filled it out and mailed it back. I couldn't have cost $16.
Where are your high dollar problems and what--do you have
any specific thoughts on how you address those?
Mr. Thompson. I do, Congressman. A lot of the cost in the
Census is built up in the infrastructure required to collect
the information from respondents that, not like you, don't
respond and are very difficult to get to respond. So to the
degree that we can reduce that infrastructure by using some of
the operations research methods, by using administrative
records, as you suggested before, that's where we're going to
really reduce the cost, and then we can apply some additional
methods to make the way that the interviewers work more
efficient and effective.
Mr. Farenthold. Now, is the $16 a current number, or wasn't
2010 substantially higher than that? Do you know?
Mr. Thompson. My good colleague here, who estimated the
cost, said it was much higher.
Mr. Goldenkoff. It was $100.
Mr. Thompson. Yeah.
Mr. Goldenkoff. About $98 per housing unit.
Mr. Farenthold. So it's close to $100 in--on the last
Census, when historically it's been more like 16.
Mr. Goldenkoff. Yes. That's the average overall, but it's
been going up every single decade.
Mr. Farenthold. Okay. Is your microphone on?
Mr. Goldenkoff. Sorry. It was $100 on average per housing
unit in 2010, and I think that was up from around $70 per
housing unit in--in 2000.
Mr. Farenthold. Okay. All right. Let's talk--you're talking
a little bit about technology. I'm happy to wee you brought a
laptop, Mr. Thompson. Maybe you're atypical of a government
that doesn't seem to be able to compute its way out of a paper
bag.
You're talking about a cloud-based system. Are you
developing your own cloud-based system or are you outsourcing
to a private company that has an existing cloud infrastructure?
Mr. Thompson. Right now we are building our own cloud
system, but we are in consultation with private sector experts
to build that. We have to--right now we have to build our own,
because we believe that is the best way to maintain the
security of the Census information.
Mr. Farenthold. In that case, so that brings up my next
question, actually, with respect to security. As you talk about
using other records that the government has to ease your job,
that creates a level of information sharing between--between
agencies and the obvious technical and privacy associate--
issues associated with that. In light of the information that
is leaking out from Mr. Snowden at the NSA, how--are we opening
a can of worms there with respect to privacy that we need to be
worried about, and do you feel you can access that data from
other agencies without specific congressional authorization?
Mr. Thompson. That's--those are certainly good points. So
let me start by saying that we are actively researching the use
of administrative records to improve the Census. We'll take in
information from other agencies. We give no information back
out of the Census Bureau. Once we have the information, we
protect it internally and nothing--nothing leaves the Bureau.
Mr. Farenthold. Now, that's what the NSA thought, too.
Mr. Thompson. Well, let me also say that you mentioned
security issues. And security is--I think is one of the most
important issues in assuring the public that their information
is confidential, and that's one of the reasons I was really
glad to see when I came on that the GAO was looking at the
Bureau's IT security. IT security is an ongoing challenge.
Mr. Farenthold. I'm kind of short on time. So do you feel--
do feel like you're going to need congressional authorization
to do some of this stuff, yes or no?
Mr. Thompson. I think we'll need the help of the Congress
in some instances.
Mr. Farenthold. All right. And let me go to Ms. Cha for a
second on a technical issue. We hear a lot of discussion about
needing to gear up now, but in terms of Internet time, if we're
looking at a do-it-yourself, do--how much of this work can we
do now, how much do we have to wait until we're a little closer
because we don't know what devices are going to be in vogue or
what--you know, what new technology will be developing in that
time frame?
Ms. Cha. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question. Well, as
I mentioned earlier, the Bureau is undertaking a number of
exploratory measures to look at what technology is available. I
think what's important to be mindful of is that the Bureau
focus on institutionalizing those IT management and security
controls at this time in order to be in a position to
effectively deliver those solutions, whether--my understanding
from Director Thompson is that the current plan is to start the
development planning work for systems----
Mr. Farenthold. And do you agree with--I'm sorry. Do you
agree with Director Thompson that an in-house system is
necessary and as cost-effective as, say, outsourcing to Amazon
or RackSpace or some company like that for the cloud services
that already has a big infrastructure in place?
Ms. Cha. Well, Mr. Chairman, we haven't done the work
associated with that, so it's hard for me to say. Once we get
that information and get a clearer sense of this--of the
roadmap that they intend to--to craft, we'll be in a better
position to comment.
Mr. Farenthold. Yeah. I just worry about large capital
expenditures in a high tech area that changes for a Census that
is done once every 10 years.
I've already gone a little bit over my time, so in
fairness, I will recognize Mr. Lynch for 6 minutes and 17
seconds.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't think I'll need
that, but I do want to ask, the impact of sequestration, I
realize that you do work over the 10-year Census period to get
us to a point that we deliver the Census at the end of that
period as accurately as possible. And I know in March of 2013,
we got a letter from Secretary of Commerce Rebecca Blank, who
warned that--she was Acting Secretary, actually, but she warned
that sequestration could, and I want to quote from her letter,
she said, ``it could force the agency to delay the economic
Census,'' which is the once-every-5-year survey that forms the
basis for a wide range of economic indicators, from GDP to
unemployment rates.
Sequestration also could force the Bureau to conduct fewer
field tests and increase their reliance on existing data, and
delay evaluation programs and operational design decisions
until 2015. Census advocates also say that the budget cuts will
lead to a less-informed government and create a more expensive
2020 enumeration and endanger data that business, researchers
and State and local governments utilize.
So let me ask you, Director Thompson, do you agree with the
advocates that the across-the-board cuts to the Census can
yield some damaging and negative results that can affect not
only the government policymaking, but also economic decision-
making in the private sector?
Mr. Thompson. Congressman, I do agree with that. The
Bureau, because of the limitations in 2013, had to move several
tests back to 2014. These include testing adaptive design
methodologies, which are statistical ways to make the non-
response follow-up more efficient, as well as ways to minimize
the number of visits that you would make to households, and to
test administrative records and reducing the workloads. That's
been moved back to 2014. Also some of the products on the
economic Census have actually been delayed.
So 2014 is a critical year, and without adequate funding,
we'd be forced to make decisions between what to do, what not
to do. These would involve the tests I just mentioned; it could
also involve tests that would allow us to reduce--to reach our
goal of doing a targeted canvassing. So funding for the Census
Bureau in this time is very critical.
Mr. Lynch. All right. I understand it will accommodate some
of these sequestration effects. The Bureau discussed reducing
contract work and discussed not filling vacancies that are
being created through attrition. Can you further describe the
Bureau's plan to address those type of cuts and reductions
going forward?
Mr. Thompson. Well, I could, but I think it would take a
long time as--at the hearing. As we went over the various
scenarios, it could----
Mr. Lynch. Well, let's talk about the trends.
Mr. Thompson. But--but in a general sense, as I said
before, the big issue would be without the adequate funding, we
would be in a position where we would be deciding what research
and development to do for 2020 and what research and
development not to do. And 2016 is the year--is a key year for
us to begin developing the systems for the 2020 Census, and we
would be developing those systems without as much information
as we would use, we would not be building in the cost-saving
methods that we would. So that we're putting the program more
and more at risk by pushing things further into the decade.
Mr. Lynch. Let me ask you, I know from my own experience
that especially with phone lines, you know, fewer and fewer
people have phone lines, and I know that you--the traditional
way has been to, you know, call in, follow up and--but now
place is less important, but no one--you know, we have one
because we just don't get rid of it, but a lot of people don't
have phone lines anymore and so place, address is less
important to the American consumer.
Are you having--are you having trouble with that or have
you developed a--a way of dealing with that that doesn't reduce
your accuracy in terms of tracking people?
Mr. Thompson. Yeah. This is--this is another topic we could
talk about for a long time, because I used to deal with this
with my previous company that I worked at. We did the biggest
telephone survey for the Federal Government.
Mr. Lynch. Were you with the CIA?
Mr. Thompson. No. This was the scientific survey. I'm
sorry.
Mr. Lynch. Oh, okay.
Mr. Thompson. And--but these--these are--these are--these
are really, really important issues, because cell phones, as
you say, are not address-based, so you have to do more probing
interviews to determine where a residence is. And there are
ways you can do this. They're more expensive. You also can't
use auto dialing techniques to call cell phones, because
they're protected under various acts, so that makes it more
expensive, too, but--but there--there--there's methodology to
deal with it; it's just more expensive and more time-consuming,
and the response for dialing cell phones is lower than for land
lines.
Mr. Lynch. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. With the remaining time, if I
could ask representatives from GAO, do you see what the
implications could be for the Census by way of the
sequestration cuts?
Mr. Goldenkoff. Yeah. It's--it's the sequestration cuts
themselves, the--as well as uncertainty in funding that comes
from a continuing resolution and, you know, a lot of this is
congressional policy, so I don't want to weigh in there, but
the fact is is that the Census Bureau has essentially scrapped
its approach, its old approach for taking the Census, these
tried and true methods, and it's trying something new for 2020.
And so past experience has shown that upfront research and
testing, these early investments in research and testing are
critical to stave off cost increases down the road. So to the
extent that budget cuts and uncertainty in funding forces the
Bureau to put off a lot of the decisions and testing into the
future, it just puts the entire operation at risk.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much. At this time we'll
recognize the vice chair, Mr. Walberg, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to the
panel for being here.
Certainly around Census time, probably one of the greatest
glut of emails, phone calls, letters, contacts we receive is
about, why, you know, why does the Census do this to us? And
specifically about questions.
But let me go back to a train of questioning the chairman
began to some degree, and that's on the historic cost, $16 per
household. And you've indicated that that has been growing
consistently over the time, and this past being $100 per
household.
What's the driving force behind, Mr. Thompson, the cost, as
you see it? And then Mr. Goldenkoff, I want to ask you the
same. What's the driving cost behind that consistent increase
in the cost per household?
Mr. Thompson. Let me take this from a couple perspectives.
In some censuses, the 2000 Census, which I was intimately
involved in, a big component of the increase in costs was a
lack of agreement on the design until late in the game. And if
you couple that--late in the decade. And if you couple that
with the growing pressures on the Census Bureau to count
everyone as accurately as possible, or to count them--the
population very accurately, that's driving the cost up.
For the 2010 Census, looking at that, there are forces on
the Census Bureau to provide an accurate count, the population
is becoming much more diverse, and the big problem is, at least
in my view, was that the Bureau was using methods to do this,
to try to produce this count, that were essentially generated
in 1970, and it's--and as--as Mr. Goldenkoff said, as previous
Director Grove says, those methods are unsustainable for taking
censuses in the future.
So it's a combination of the population becoming much more
complex, much more diverse, pressures on the Census Bureau to
produce extremely accurate data, and using methods that are no
longer up to the task.
Mr. Walberg. Mr. Goldenkoff, your response.
Mr. Goldenkoff. Those were all accurate statements and
things that GAO has said in years past. Basically as the
population has become more diverse, the Census Bureau has to
conduct more operations to ensure everyone is counted
accurately. You have people living in basements and converted
attics and in sheds in backyards, people living in cars. If
everybody filled out their Census form when they received it,
we could probably--the Census Bureau could do a very cost-
effective Census, but of course they don't, and it's the field
operations, it's the constant follow-up operation, a lot of
redundant operations that are needed that if you don't catch
someone in one operation, you'll get them in a second operation
or a third or a fourth.
So everything that John has said is true, but I'll add one
more aspect to this. It's all well and good to have these
redundant operations, but what I think the Bureau needs to do a
better job of is determining the return on investment of each
one of those Census-taking operations. For example, to develop
an accurate address list, something in the neighborhood of
around a dozen separate operations were used. Some of those add
accuracy, some of those actually may create more noise.
Mr. Walberg. Could the--just jumping in there. With the
lists and maps as well, would the private sector be able to
accomplish an assist for us at a far more accurate and reduced
cost simply because we know there are lists out there? I mean--
--
Mr. Goldenkoff. Well, yes and no. I mean, first of all,
probably the most accurate lists in terms of where mailboxes
are located comes from the Postal Service, and the Bureau is
already using that.
Where the challenge comes in is the people who live in
unconventional housing units, and that's where some amount of
address--where the address canvassing comes in where the Bureau
goes door to door looking for clues that people might be living
in a basement or in an attic or in the shed in the backyard or
possibly in the car. There are homeless people out there.
People are very mobile. So it's really not clear if the private
sector has a better address list.
Mr. Walberg. Are we asking too much, our questioning
process. Are we obtaining a greater amount of information than
really is required? Is that part of the cost?
Mr. Goldenkoff. Well--go ahead.
Mr. Walberg. Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. I--well, I believe that the information we
collect on the decennial Census is extremely critical, and I
could go over the uses of it. It's used for basically enforcing
civil rights. It's used for redistricting purposes.
I will also say that we provide that information, the
topics in the 7 year to the Congress, and then we provide the
actual questions in the 8 year to make sure that we are in
agreement with the Congress before we take the Census on the--
on the content of it.
Mr. Walberg. Well, I guess that--that's--that's, again, a
great concern of my constituents and many people, that we are
committing acts of intrusion beyond what seems to be necessary
to people. And, of course, when we're talking about costs, I
think it's a question that ought to be addressed as well. Are
we collecting absolutely necessary information, are we going
overboard in certain cases, and are we providing information
that actually gives help?
So I see my time has expired. I yield back.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much. We'll now go to Ms.
Maloney for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you very much. And congratulations Mr.
Thompson, on your new role as Director of the Census Bureau. I
was very pleased to have sent a letter supporting your
nomination during Senate confirmations, and I was very pleased
that Congress last year passed legislation that included a
provision that I had authored under separate legislation for a
long time that makes the director of the Census a presidential
term appointment of 5 years, subject to the confirmation of the
Senate, and this is very important, so that the director is
tied to the needs of the Census and not to an election
calendar.
And I agree with your testimony today that credible,
objective and timely data on population growth is fundamental
to a democracy, incredibly important for fair representation
and fair distribution of hundreds of billions of dollars in
Federal aid.
And your testimony today on the escalating cost, now up to
roughly $100 a survey, I'm really pleased to hear that you're
looking at new initiatives to cut those costs, including using
the Internet as a self-response option and replacing the door-
to-door collection with administrative records under certain
circumstances.
But relying on the Internet, it potentially could save a
great deal of money, but not everyone has access to an Internet
or--and people don't know how to use it, particularly the
elderly and certain populations. So is there a risk of an
undercount in specific populations as we rely or move to
relying on an Internet response?
Mr. Thompson. Well, Congresswoman, you're hitting a very
important point in terms of how we have to take the Census in
the United States; that is, there's no one method that will be
the right method for each segment of our diverse population.
The Internet is a--is a vehicle that can be used to enumerate a
large part of our population, in my opinion, and it will save--
it will result in a lot of resource savings. That doesn't mean
we're going to do away with the mail for everyone, or we're
going to not have to go visit them and talk to them with
interviewers that speak in language or various other methods,
but we have to realize that if we can make savings in one area,
we can use those savings to target methods to make sure that
every part of our diverse population is counted.
Mrs. Maloney. And what's the update on these operations?
Are you--do you have a lesson plan or a plan of how you're
going to use the Internet that's been produced and are you
putting that into effect, or where does it stand?
Mr. Thompson. So right now we are in the process of doing
research on a small scale that's aimed at how we can motivate
our response to the Internet. We're looking at some various
other options, which would include a pre-registration so people
might sign up in advance to do the Census, but we're--we're in
the beginning stages of doing that work, and that's what we
really need to--we need to focus on that if we're going to be
able--and get the funding to do it.
Mrs. Maloney. Okay. Can you elaborate on your testimony on
the $2 billion projected savings if you use administrative
records in 2020 to reduce the door to door? And exactly how
would that work? And certainly saving money is necessary, but--
but are there risks to increasing your reliance on
administrative records, and what can you do about these
records, and what particular types of records would the Bureau
seek? Who would have access to these records, and what type of
information would the Bureau seek to verify on relying on
administrative records?
Mr. Thompson. Well, I think the 2 billion figure was
mentioned by Robert, and I need to get straight with him on
exactly where it came from, but--but I would--I would stipulate
that there are significant savings to be realized by using
administrative records. And the Census Bureau has used--we have
used administrative records before on a small scale, as was
noted, we've used Postal Service records, we've used military
records to count the military overseas. And the Secretary of
Commerce has really broad discretion in acquiring administrate
records working with other agencies.
The big thing is--one of the big things is deciding on some
issues as to would you use administrative records in lieu of at
least trying one contact on non-response follow-up? That's
something that we need to talk about, need to really understand
and get widespread buy-in on as to whether that--that would be
acceptable. That would probably offer the greatest savings.
There are other options for using administrative records.
I will--I will say that when the Census Bureau gets records
from anywhere, the Postal Service, any source of administrative
records, we keep those records confidential. We do not give
information back out of the Census Bureau. In fact, within the
Census Bureau, only those individuals that need to actually
access the records have access to them, and we--to the extent
we can, we take identifying information off of the records.
We have used records in our research so far from a variety
of sources, from HUD, from Social Security, the Indian Health
Service, the CMS. We--we are looking to really work with the
Congress to get endorsement that this is the right methodology,
that there is support for this methodology throughout the
decade.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much. We'll now go to the
gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Collins.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This--being new to--
from this position, looking at this the first time as I've
started digging into this with my committee in the committee
side, but also my staff, this is an interesting area that often
gets overlooked with all the headlines and everything else in
the world. And as I--as I made a statement during all this, I
said a lot of times the big stuff will take care of the big
stuff, but it's the things like this that really matter to
people, because it's amazing how many questions we get on this
and how many issues, and especially from a cost perspective.
I want to ask some questions that sort of--are not random,
but sort of rapid fire, and then some just from my own case.
Mr. Goldenkoff, you had said that people are less willing to
participate. I'm going to come back to that statement here in
just a moment, but I have a question that I just haven't found.
What is the percent of non-response follow-up? What is--what is
the percent of those who--Ms. Cha, anybody who wants to answer
this real quickly.
Mr. Goldenkoff. In 2010, it was--the response rate was in
the low 60 percent, I believe.
Mr. Collins. So 60 percent did it the normal, proper way.
They get the envelope in the mail, they respond, they turn it
back in and----
Mr. Goldenkoff. Exactly. It was like 60-plus. Something
like 63.
Mr. Thompson. You have a nice chart in your--in your
prepared statement.
Mr. Goldenkoff. Yeah, I do.
Mr. Collins. And I may--I may just be missing the number.
Out of curiosity, I've asked.
Mr. Goldenkoff. 63.
Mr. Collins. Just curious. And--because the question was
just raised on the Internet. What is the highest percentage of
demographics that actually turned it in the proper way?
Mr. Goldenkoff. I----
Mr. Collins. Age demographics.
Mr. Thompson. So the characteristics of those that don't
return the questionnaires----
Mr. Collins. No. I want to know the ones that do.
Mr. Thompson. That don't return the questionnaire, tend to
be more minority, more----
Mr. Collins. No, no. I want to know those who do.
Mr. Thompson. They tend to be more non-minority, more owner
than----
Mr. Collins. Elderly? Senior adult, 45 and over? 55 and
over? 65 and over? Because I have--I have a purpose of the
question. I'm not trying to lead you----
Mr. Thompson. No, no, no, no.
Mr. Collins. --a rabbit hole here.
Mr. Thompson. I believe--I believe in the research that I--
that I've done that the elderly do respond at a higher rate
than--than--than the young. That----
Mr. Collins. Because one of the concerns is if we use the
Internet, the elderly will be, you know, disenfranchised, then
we'll--then we're turning it on the proper way and they're
going--they tend to be more responsive to this. And--and that's
why--I'm not trying be tricky. I was just trying to--you know,
as we look at the honest answers here and looking at it as we
go forward.
Mr. Goldenkoff. The Internet is just an additional method,
it's not that the other methods are being tossed. It's just one
more method that people can use.
Mr. Collins. But many times----
Mr. Goldenkoff. It's another option.
Mr. Collins. But many times when this conversation comes
up, we throw--this comes up in a lot of other areas that we're
undercounting, we're doing these kind of things based on--and
so I just wanted to get that out there.
I want to follow up also--I wish I had far more time than
this, but we'll get into, I'm sure, more----
Mr. Farenthold. The second round.
Mr. Collins. Mr. Chairman, we'll get this. I want to go
back to the one that we get a lot, and it's balancing privacy
and effectiveness. And especially in the ACS, this is where we
get a lot of questions. And I follow up on the--Congressman
Walberg's questions as well. Are we asking, you know, too much?
And I think--well, I'm interested in what you said, that you're
going to bring the questions to Congress. Do we see these? Does
that come in the form of legislation or is that just merely
informational?
Mr. Thompson. We submit the questions to the Congress.
It's--if the Congress wants to take action, they would have to
enact legislation.
Mr. Collins. Okay. So you're just bringing this for
informational purposes, and if there--if there was need to be
changed, then--okay. Thank you for that.
Mr. Goldenkoff. Mr. Collins, on the ACS, those questions at
least initially, you know, it evolved from the Census long
form. They were--they were tied to legislation.
Mr. Collins. Oh, I get it. But mostly we're not using the
long form anymore, we're using the short form, we're taking it
more, you know, frequently. And these are questions that come
in, and then, of course, you get into the, as you said earlier,
less willing to participate, and especially in this environment
that we're currently in, which will probably get not a lot
better as far as people trusting the government and trusting
the information to be held. These are the kind of questions we
get in our office all the time.
And, you know, one of the issues that, you know--you know,
given the public's increased skepticism here, I think we've got
to do a better job of how we, you know, ask the questions and
are we properly asking, and then also doing away or de-
emphasizing, because I've looked into this, there's been one
prosecution for not turning in your Census data, yet we have it
on there and it is in law and I understand that, and the threat
is if you don't turn this in, we're going to prosecute you. I
think a little less emphasis on that when people call, it would
probably help a great deal, because the next thing they do is
they call my office and say, I'm not sending this stuff in.
They don't need to know this. Are they going to prosecute me?
So maybe more of a follow-up than anything else. The
questions that come from there, however, as we do this, the
ability to save money, the ability to look at this, I am very
concerned, as the chairman is, that we're developing software,
we're developing the platform process now that could really be
outdated in 6 to 7--you know, 6 years, 7 years as we start
again. What's the thought process that went into that, not just
laying groundwork, as you said, but I'm concerned that even the
answers you get now may be outdated even in 2 or 3 years. So
what is being taken into account there?
Ms. Cha. Well, I can't speak on the Bureau's behalf, but I
can tell you that high performing organizations, what they do
is they typically have an internal team that is tasked with
looking at and keeping up with the key technological trends,
and to anticipate and identify those disruptive technologies
that may affect their core business, and then develop options
for--for actually implementing them into their business.
Ms. Cha. So, and that is occurring in both the Federal and
the private sector space. So that is just one example in the
Federal sector. When you look at the Department of
Transportation, they do have certain major programs, for
example, that have a technology scan and assessment group that,
for example, looks at technology options for deploying things
such as connected vehicles, for example. So those things are
occurring, but I think Director Thompson would be in a better
position to talk about what they are doing to ensure that they
stay abreast of the current----
Mr. Collins. Mr. Chairman, we'll come back to that but this
is the question because before this committee in particular, we
hear more problems, and I think, Mr. Chairman will agree and
the ranking member as well, we hear more concerns on IT
mismanagement and expenses almost than any other thing that we
do. And so it is really concerning to me when I say we're going
to build our own system. So I will refer back to the chairman
and we'll continue on.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much. You know the Lord
works in mysterious ways. Mr. Collins brought up the American
community survey. I realize this committee had a hearing on
that last year, but oddly enough, guess what I got in the mail
last month? Guess what phone call I got last week, very
threatening nature, by the way, because I had not yet filled it
out because I wanted to go through this hearing first.
I do think at some point we'll review that, and I expect
Mr. Collins and I would love to visit with you specifically
about that, and if we determine that everything wasn't covered
last year, we may jump into that again. It may be time to
review what we are asking. And when you are asked questions
like what your mortgage is, how much your electric bill is? I
understand some of the purposes of these and the committees
that would want them, but it's not raised well to the American
people, and it's an issue that I get a lot. That is obviously
out of scope of this hearing. We were talking about costs. But
I do think it remains an issue that a lot of our constituents
are concerned about.
So let me go on with a couple of questions. We talked a
little bit, Mr. Thompson, and actually I'm going to take this
to the GAO because this was before your time, the electronic
slate program that was, we paid to develop custom hardware and
software for the enumerators last time around in 2010. It's my
understanding that that never really worked beyond them being
able to enter their time. From practical purposes, they weren't
able to put a lot of data in that. Is that consistent with your
findings or have you investigated the success of that at all?
Ms. Cha. Well, in looking at the major systems that were
acquired for 2010, that does seem to be consistent. So for
example with the FITCA handheld computers which was customed
developed hardware and software, ultimately the Bureau
delivered a half-baked solution that ran into significant cost
overruns and ultimately at the end of the day required that
manual workaround in order to meet the immutable 2010 deadline,
and that ultimately led to a $3 billion increase to the
ultimate cost.
Mr. Farenthold. And I commend that mistake to you, Mr.
Thompson and Ms. Cha as a consideration with respect to really
something cloud-based and less done in house. Computer
technology doesn't have a 10-year life span. Technology changes
so quickly that you really are potentially buying a computer
system that will be used for one Census when maybe renting
something through a cloud service might be worth looking at.
You talked a little bit about statistical methodology.
There is no proposal in your statistical methodology that does
away with we're going to try to count everyone. We're not going
to make assumptions like when somebody does a phone poll of X
number of likely voters, they extrapolate the whole country. We
really are going to try to do what the Constitution requires,
is that correct?
Mr. Thompson. Yeah, exactly, Congressman. I was very clear
in my confirmation hearing about that is that that is not a
technique that I think is appropriate for taking the decennial
Census.
Mr. Farenthold. And then with respect, you also talked
about changing methodology with respect to how you get hold of
nonresponders. What do you see as your number one or number two
failures in areas and how do you--groups meet, bridge, you
know, people who live in cars or undocumented residents, where
are your big failures and what are your top one or two ideas
for addressing that?
Mr. Thompson. So our research has showed that the people
that are less likely to be counted or harder to count tend to
be minority, they tend to be highly mobile, they tend to be
maybe more renters and in unusual living situations. So the
effort has to be--and they are and it is more expensive to
count those individuals. So my goal is to find ways to count a,
the big part of the population which is relatively easier to
count, a lot more cost effectively, thereby freeing up
resources that we can then target to counting.
Mr. Farenthold. At some point, I would like to get from
you, and if you could maybe do that in writing based on time
considerations, what you consider to be your top five counting
problems and your top five proposed solutions, and they may not
necessarily jibe. It is kind of the 80/20 rule you might be
able to, your solutions might be for a problem that is a little
further down the line, but it is an easier solution. But I want
to see what your biggies are. And can you tell me a little
about, you're spending a lot of time and effort on geospatial
data, there is a lot of that already out there and it doesn't
change that much, obviously you get new houses built, but they
don't move, and at what point are we doing something that there
is no longer a need for but there is such a marketplace for
with GPS's in everybody's cars and the prevalence of Google
Maps, at what point is this geospatial data collected and
maintained by the government a worthwhile deal or something
that the private sector has taken it over, we have ceded it and
it is done.
Mr. Thompson. Well, you are talking about something that is
very dear to my heart in terms of targeted canvassing. That is
we don't have to build everything. We can buy it, we can get it
off the Internet, we can work with private companies. We don't
have to do it all ourselves and that is why it's exciting now
to look to foreign partnerships with the private sector to get
information that will--I'm stumbling and I'm sorry--that will
allow us to not have to canvass all of the country.
Mr. Farenthold. And finally, I hope Mr. Lynch will explore
some of the postal, he mentioned in his opening statement, the
possibility nobody knows the area better than the postal worker
who walks it every day. I think there is a huge opportunity for
that. Understanding that postal workers are paid a lot more
than Census workers, so we've got to factor that into the
costwise equation. But I know Mr. Lynch brought it up. If he
doesn't ask the question I will.
And then finally my last question is, you mentioned the
need for Congressional action with respect to possibly
authorizing sharing of data, and Mr. Collins brought up the
possibility of amending the questions both on the short form
Census and the American Community Survey.
The sooner we do that the better I think in your preparing.
At some point, could you also let us, send a letter to this
committee with some of the changes that you think you would
like to see in legislation? Because we actually probably move
slower than you do.
With that, I will recognize Mr. Lynch for a second round of
questioning.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will follow up on
that point. Back in September, 2011, GAO recommended that the
Secretary of Commerce and the United States Postal Service
consider a couple of things: One, expanding their current
collaborative efforts to include recruiting mail carriers or
retired mail carriers for the 2020 Census. And the second thing
that they talked about was assessing whether strategies can be
developed to reduce undeliverable as addressed mail in the
Census.
So, Mr. Goldenkoff, you want to take a crack at this and
just see where we are, what those--I did read the GAO reports
but I want to get this on the record. Where are we with those
efforts of collaboration?
Mr. Goldenkoff. Well they are ongoing it is my
understanding as was already mentioned, the partnerships that
the Bureau wants to form for the geospatial data, the GSSI
which will allow for a rolling updating of the address list
throughout the decade, instead of doing it in the 2 years
before the Census basically taking one large bite all at once,
do it in smaller increments, and that will be very helpful for
targeted address canvassing. There are other opportunities for
collaboration with the Postal Service that the Bureau will need
to explore, particularly as it gets several year down the road.
For example, of the roughly 600,000 enumerators that were
hired to do nonresponse follow-up, only 2,400 were postal
workers. And if the Bureau had perhaps done a more targeted
approach to actually, a targeted recruitment of postal workers
they could have gotten a lot more. And as you said, these are
people who know the neighborhoods, they know how to deliver
stuff. This is what they do for a living. They know the
complexities of the different neighborhoods. They already have
the background checks done. So that's an option there as well.
Use of postal facilities that the Postal Service doesn't
need, the Postal Service has a lot of extra space. Perhaps the
Census Bureau can use some of those for their local Census
office. There might be some opportunities there as well.
Mr. Lynch. Right. I know that in the GAO report that I
read, it had a dollar figure of $41 an hour for an urban postal
worker--excuse me, an urban mail carrier, a letter carrier, and
I think it was $34 for a rural letter carrier. But the
retirees, obviously, would be a lesser cost. They've already
got their pension, they've already got retiree health benefits.
I'm just curious if, you know, in looking--the Postal Service
has already put out several early retirement programs,
incentives to get postal workers to retire.
Many of those workers have expressed a desire to continue
working part-time or in some capacity. This might offer us an
opportunity if we worked through the postal workers with their
unions to actually recruit some of those postal workers, letter
carriers that they might want to supplement their income but
they wouldn't have the full range of benefits that you know an
active letter carrier currently requires.
Mr. Goldenkoff. And that's where the trade-offs seem to be
taken into account, the cost benefit. You mentioned the hourly
wage rates for the mail carriers of $34 and $41 depending if
they were rural or urban. That compares with $15 per hour on
average for a Census enumerator. So you see there's a huge cost
difference. And to the extent that some enumeration takes place
in the evenings, on weekends, postal workers I guess would be
making additional money for overtime, for example, working on
Sundays.
So you can see how the cost increase can be significant if
they are doing it as part of their postal job as opposed to
being employed directly as a temporary employee by the Census
Bureau.
Mr. Lynch. I just question the efficiency of someone
walking into a neighborhood they have never been in before and
they're supposed to find people as opposed to the efficiency of
a letter carrier that has been down that street, knocked on
that door, been in that house a thousand times.
Mr. Goldenkoff. You're absolutely right and that's why if
they were hired as supplemental income, just sort of on their
own, not through their postal employment, but just as anybody
else, but it was targeted recruitment, there could be both not
only cost savings there, but also it could be done more
efficiently.
Mr. Lynch. What about reducing the number of undeliverable
as addressed mailings? Mr. Thompson or Ms. Cha, as well, if you
any thoughts on how we go about that, or Mr. Goldenkoff.
Mr. Goldenkoff. What we were getting at there is some forms
just because of the nature of the address, the Postal Service
can't find the particular address, and so the, using Postal
Service records, for example, those can be eliminated before
they get sent out.
The other thing I want to say too is that to the extent
that there is this partnership going on, it doesn't necessarily
have to be a one-way flow of benefits. The Postal Service can
make use of Census information to improve their operational
efficiencies as well, and there has been some cases of that in
2010.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you. I see my time has expired. I yield
back.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you and we are bumping up against the
time we need to get to the 9/11 ceremony remembrance. I know
Mr. Collins had about 1 minute more he wanted to take and Ms.
Norton you walked in.
Are you guys able to wait until we are done with the 9/11
remembrance on the Capitol steps and we'll reconvene then? We
can't miss the 9/11 event. I believe the House Members were
supposed to report there at 10:45 so. We'll, if you guys are
willing to hustle over there, we'll go ahead.
And Mr. Collins, if you can keep it to a minute and with
your closing we'll go and give Ms. Norton and Mr. Clay a
chance.
Mr. Collins. I'm going to give a lesson, this is something,
as I said a few minutes ago, it was very interesting and my
office we are going to be very involved, I want to echo the
chairman's sentiment. Think now about what you need from
Congress. Think now about what you want to bring before us to
change. Get it to us now so we can have the input and we are
not in a last minute. That is the main thing that I want to
emphasize and my office and my staff will be willing to work
with you. Please do so. Thank you and I yield back.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you. We'll recognize Ms. Norton now,
the gentlelady from the District of Columbia.
Ms. Norton. I simply want to ask about the value or lack
thereof of the community survey. Has it increased the accuracy
of the Census, this monthly survey? You use it as a base for
the Census.
Does it increase the costs if you didn't have it or if it
is voluntary, would it be valuable any longer? Would it cost
any less?
Mr. Thompson. So, thank you for the question, Congresswoman
Norton.
The American Community Survey replaced the decennial Census
long form to provide that valuable information.
Because the American Community Survey is taken on a rolling
basis, the information it provides is more current and
therefore more accurate than the decennial Census long form.
The American Community Survey is therefore a very valuable
resource for planning programs, administering programs. And it
is used by a variety of stakeholders, city planners, the
private sector.
Ms. Norton. Does it increase the cost significantly, I
mean, if it were voluntary?
Mr. Thompson. Oh--yeah, if the American Community Survey
was made voluntary I think Dr. Groves--it would increase the
cost. My recollection is that Dr. Groves in his testimony last
July indicated that the costs might go up by as much as $60
million a year.
Ms. Norton. Has it decreased the undercount? Has it had an
effect on the undercount?
Mr. Thompson. The American Community Survey Census is
providing more current information. The information can be used
for better planning and thus reduce the undercount to some
degree.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Farenthold. And we'll go to Mr. Clay now.
Mr. Clay. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I will be as
brief as possible.
Mr. Thompson, on March 15th of this year, I, along with
several Members of Congress, transmitted a letter to the Census
Bureau urging the Bureau to define a national solution to
ensure that incarcerated individuals are counted at their last
legal residence. The U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in
June of 2012 upholding a Maryland law that tabulates prisoners
as residents of their home addresses for the purpose of
redistricting. However, since the current Census Bureau policy
designates a prison cell as a residence it prevents populations
of more than 1,500 Federal and State prisons that are largely
male, urban and African American or Latino from being counted
as residents of their home community.
These incarcerated individuals normally have no ties to the
prison location, cannot vote, and most often, return to their
home communities upon release. Our letter urged the Bureau to
count these individuals at their last legal home address to
prevent districts housing prisoners from being overrepresented.
Can you share your thoughts on counting the prison
population?
Mr. Thompson. Congressman, at least I, at the Census
Bureau, take the rules that we use to count individuals very
seriously. After each Census and before each Census, the Census
Bureau works with the variety of stakeholders to try to ensure
that the rules they use to count people are the most
appropriate for that Census. And for the 2020 Census, we have
not made our decision yet. And my opinion on this will be based
on consultations with stakeholders to try to adopt rules that
will be most appropriate to count people. So I'm looking
forward to talking with you and other stakeholders on how to
count not just the prison population but other components for
population.
Mr. Clay. And be aware that several States have implemented
laws like the one upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court for Maryland
that allows for you to count prisoners from their home
districts. Because when you think about it, it skews the
redistricting process when you count prisoners in prisons who
are not there permanently.
I know in my home State of Missouri, they are able to
create State representative districts because of prison
populations in rural areas, and it skews the entire process. So
I want you to be aware, and I look forward to working with you
and sharing our views about this issue.
So Mr. Chairman and Mr. Thompson thank you and I yield
back.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much. I apologize. We are
going to have to rush out here. We really do want to
participate in the 9/11 ceremony. I would like to thank the
panel and the witnesses, and we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:50 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82932.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82932.029