The 2010 Decennial Census: Background and
Issues
Jennifer D. Williams
Specialist in American National Government
February 3, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R40551
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
The 2010 Decennial Census: Background and Issues
Summary
The 23rd decennial census of the U.S. population began on January 25, 2010, in Noorvik, AK,
where the Bureau of the Census Director, among others, traveled by snowmobile and dogsled to
enumerate the residents. Most U.S. households—about 120 million—received their census forms
by mail in March, ahead of the official April 1 Census Day, and 74% of the households that
received forms mailed them back. From May through July, the Census Bureau contacted about 47
million nonresponding households and on December 21, 2010, released the official state
population figures and total U.S. resident population of 308,745,538 as of Census Day.
The Bureau’s constitutional mandate to enumerate the U.S. population every 10 years has been
summarized with deceptive simplicity: count each person whose usual residence is in the United
States; count the person only once; and count him or her at the right location. In reality, the
attempt to find all U.S. residents and correctly enumerate them is increasingly complicated and
expensive, and attracts congressional scrutiny. This report discusses the major innovations that
were planned for 2010; problems encountered; issues of census accuracy, coverage, and fairness;
and the present status of census operations.
For 2010, the Bureau devised a short-form questionnaire that asked for the age, sex, race, and
ethnicity (Hispanic or non-Hispanic) of each household resident, his or her relationship to the
person filling out the form, and whether the housing unit was rented or owned by a member of the
household. The census long form, which for decades collected detailed socioeconomic and
housing data from a sample of the population, was replaced by the American Community Survey,
an ongoing survey of about 250,000 households per month that gathers largely the same data as
its predecessor.
Another innovation for 2010 was to have been the development of highly specialized handheld
computers to automate two essential census field operations: address canvassing and nonresponse
follow-up (NRFU). The goal of pre-census address canvassing was to verify and correct census
maps and addresses for mailing census forms and sending enumerators. During NRFU, census
workers tried repeatedly to visit or telephone people who had not completed their questionnaires
and obtain information from them. Testing had revealed such serious problems with the handheld
devices that although the Bureau used them for address canvassing, it resorted to the traditional
paper-based approach for NRFU. The change required the Bureau to hire and train more NRFU
staff, at increased expense. In 2009, the total life-cycle cost of the 2010 census was projected at
$14.7 billion, instead of the previously estimated $11.5 billion. The problems with the handhelds
fueled concerns that the success of the census could be at risk. Some feared, in particular, that the
late-date changes to NRFU could impair census accuracy, reduce coverage, and exacerbate the
recurrent likelihood of differential undercount—the greater tendency for minorities and less
affluent members of society than for Whites and wealthier people to be undercounted.
Part of the Bureau’s effort to maximize census accuracy and coverage was a communications
strategy built on paid advertising, Bureau partnerships with local governments and other
organizations, and the Census in Schools program. In addition, the Bureau made questionnaires
accessible to people lacking English proficiency or having visual or hearing limitations.
Congressional Research Service
The 2010 Decennial Census: Background and Issues
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
The Short-Form-Only Census and the American Community Survey........................................... 3
Automated Field Operations........................................................................................................ 4
Problems Encountered ................................................................................................................ 4
Early Assessments by the DOC Inspector General and GAO ....................................................... 5
Their Assessments in 2010 .......................................................................................................... 7
Census Accuracy and Coverage................................................................................................... 8
Estimates of Census Coverage from Demographic Analysis .................................................. 9
Survey Estimates of Census Coverage................................................................................. 10
Coverage Evaluation Surveys and the Census Adjustment Issue .......................................... 12
Efforts toward an Equitable Census ........................................................................................... 14
Communications Outreach .................................................................................................. 14
Questionnaire Outreach....................................................................................................... 16
Protecting Data Confidentiality and Quality, Public Safety, and Census Objectivity............. 17
Concluding Observations .......................................................................................................... 20
Tables
Table 1. Timeline for the 2010 Census......................................................................................... 2
Table 2. Percentage Net Decennial Census Undercount by Race, as Estimated by
Demographic Analysis, 1940 through 2000 ............................................................................ 10
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 20
Congressional Research Service
The 2010 Decennial Census: Background and Issues
Introduction
The U.S. Constitution—Article 1, Section 2, clause 3, as modified by Section 2 of the Fourteenth
Amendment—requires a population census every 10 years, to serve as the basis for apportioning
seats in the House of Representatives. Decennial census data also are used for within-state
redistricting and in certain formulas that determine the annual distribution of more than $400
billion dollars in federal and state funds.1 Census numbers, moreover, are the foundation for
constructing national and state estimates of current population size and projections of future size.2
The Constitution stipulates that the enumeration is to be conducted “in such Manner as they
[Congress] shall by Law direct.” Congress, through Title 13 of the United States Code, has
delegated this responsibility to the Secretary of Commerce and, within the Department of
Commerce (DOC), the Bureau of the Census. Both the Commerce Secretary and the Census
Bureau Director are appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
The Census Bureau’s task in conducting the once-a-decade enumeration has been summarized
very simply: count each person whose usual residence is in the United States; count that person
only once; and count him or her at the right location, where the person lives all or most of the
time.3 Far from being simple, however, the attempt to find and correctly enumerate 100% of U.S.
residents is increasingly complicated and expensive, even though Title 13 U.S.C., Section 221,
requires compliance with the census and provides for a fine of up to $100 for nonresponse. In
accordance with provisions of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, Title 18 U.S.C., Sections 3559
and 3571, the possible fine has been adjusted to not more than $5,000. This report discusses the
major innovations that were planned for the 2010 census, problems encountered with the attempt
to automate certain census field operations, the persistent differential census undercount of less
advantaged groups in the population, efforts to ensure an equitable census, and the present status
of census operations.
As Table 1 shows, many key census activities already have occurred, and the rest will follow in
2011. The 23rd census began north of the Arctic Circle on January 25, 2010, in Noorvik, AK,
where the Bureau Director, among others, traveled by snowmobile and dogsled to enumerate the
residents.4 Most U.S. households—about 120 million—received their census forms by mail in
1 U.S. Bureau of the Census, “How It Benefits Your Community,”
http://2010.census.gov/2010census/about/community-benefits.php; and testimony of then-Acting Census Bureau
Director Thomas Mesenbourg in U.S. Congress, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National Archives, Census Data and Their Use in Federal Formula
Funding, 111th Cong., 1st sess., July 9, 2009 (Washington: 2009), p. 2.
2 U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Methodology for the United States Resident Population Estimates by Age, Sex, Race,
and Hispanic Origin (Vintage 2008): April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008,” http://www.census.gov/popest/topics/
methodology/2008-nat-meth.html; and U.S. Bureau of the Census, “2008 National Population Projections Methodology
Summary Document” and “Methodology Summary for the Interim Population Projections for States by Age and Sex:
2004-2030,” http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/methodology.html.
3 See, for example, the testimony of then-Census Bureau Director Steve Murdock in U.S. Congress, House Committee
on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, The Fiscal Year 2009 Budget,
hearing, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., April 3, 2008 (Washington: 2008), p. 4.
4 Testimony of Associate Census Bureau Director Arnold Jackson in U.S. Congress, House Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform, Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National Archives, 2010 Census: A Status
Update of Key Decennial Operations, March 25, 2010, pp. 2-3, http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/pdf/
AAJ_Testimony_3-25-10.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
1
The 2010 Decennial Census: Background and Issues
March,5 ahead of the official April 1 Census Day, and 74% of the households that received forms
mailed them back.6 From May through July, about 565,000 census takers7 contacted
approximately 47 million households that either did not receive a questionnaire or did not answer
and return it.8 On December 21, 2010, 10 days before the legal deadline, the Bureau released the
official state population figures for House apportionment and the total U.S. resident population of
308,745,538 as of Census Day.9
Table 1. Timeline for the 2010 Census
Date Action
January 2008
The Bureau opened regional 2010 census offices.
Fall 2008
Recruitment began for workers to staff “early” local census
offices.
Spring through Mid-Summer 2009
Census field workers completed address canvassing
nationwide to update census maps and verify addresses for
delivering census questionnaires and contacting
nonrespondents.
Fall 2009
The Bureau opened the remaining local census offices and
began recruiting enumerators needed for the peak census
workload in 2010.
March 2010
Most U.S. households received their census forms by mail.
April 1, 2010
Census Day arrived.
May through July 2010
Census enumerators conducted nonresponse fol ow-up.
September through December 2010
Regional and local census offices closed.
December 31, 2010
By this deadline, the Bureau had to transmit to the President
the official state population counts for House
apportionment.
March 31, 2011
The Bureau must finish delivering redistricting data to the
states.
April through December 2011
The Bureau is to produce and deliver other 2010 census
data products.
5 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2010 Census: Cooperation with Enumerators Is Critical to a Successful
Headcount, GAO-10-665T, April 30, 2010, p. 3.
6U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Nation Achieves 74 Percent Final Mail Participation in 2010 Census,” press release
CB10-CN.81, October 21, 2010, p. 1. This percentage matched the 2000 census mail participation rate. The Bureau
termed this rate a “fairer measure” of census compliance than the “mail response rate.” The reason is that the
denominator for the participation rate excludes housing units from which the U.S. Postal Service returned forms as
“undeliverable” (an indication that these units were vacant), but the response rate includes these units in the
denominator. U.S. Bureau of the Census, “2010 Census Participation Rates,” http://2010.census.gov/2010census/
take10map/. The national mail response rate as of April 19, 2010, was 63.2%; the Bureau had predicted that it would be
between 59% and 65%. U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2010 Census: Cooperation with Enumerators Is
Critical to a Successful Headcount, GAO-10-665T, April 30, 2010, highlights page.
7 U.S. Bureau of the Census, “$1.6 Billion in 2010 Census Savings Returned,” press release CB10-CN.70, August 10,
2010, p. 1.
8 U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Nation Achieves 74 Percent Final Mail Participation in 2010 Census,” press release
CB10-CN.81, October 21, 2010, p. 1.
9 U.S. Bureau of the Census, “U.S. Census Bureau Announces 2010 Census Population Counts—Apportionment
Counts Delivered to President,” press release CB10-CN.93, December 21, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
2
The 2010 Decennial Census: Background and Issues
Sources: Adapted from U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Interactive Timeline,”
http://2010.census.gov/2010census/about/timeline-flash.php, and unpublished information from the Bureau.
The Short-Form-Only Census and the American
Community Survey
A brief overview of modern census-taking shows how the Bureau has collected the decennial data
from 1940 onward. In that year, for the first time, the census questionnaire contained 16
supplementary questions asked of a 5% sample of the population.10 Sampling continued to be
done in conjunction with the 1950 through 2000 censuses, and in 1970 the census became
primarily a mail-out, mail-back operation.11 In 2000, for example, the Bureau sent a set of basic
questions on a short form to most housing units; a sample of units—about 17%—received a long
form containing these questions and others designed to gather socioeconomic and housing data
for various legislative and program purposes. The forms were delivered to housing units on the
Bureau’s address list, with instructions that respondents were to complete and return them.12
Departing from recent enumerations, the 2010 census questionnaire was a short form only. It
asked for the age, sex, race, and ethnicity (Hispanic or non-Hispanic) of each person in a
household, as well as the individual’s relationship to the person filling out the form. The form
also included a question about tenure, that is, whether the housing unit was rented or owned by a
member of the household.13
The long form was replaced by the American Community Survey (ACS), an ongoing survey of
about 250,000 households per month that, with few exceptions, gathers the same data as its
predecessor. The Bureau highlights the more timely availability of information as a key benefit of
the ACS.14 It provides annual data for areas with populations of at least 65,000 people, including
the total United States, all states and the District of Columbia, all congressional districts, about
800 counties, and 500 metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas. For less populous areas, the
Bureau is producing multi-year averages based on ACS data collected over several years. In 2008,
the Bureau released the first three-year averages for areas with 20,000 or more people, and on
10 The Bureau’s earlier use of sampling was not in the decennial census, but in a 1937 survey to gauge the extent of
unemployment in the nation during the Great Depression. U.S. Bureau of the Census, “History: 1930 Overview,”
http://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/overview/1930.html, and “History: 1940 (Population),”
http://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/index_of_questions/1940_population.html.
11 U.S. Bureau of the Census, “History: 1970 (Population),” http://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/
index_of_questions/1970_population.html.
12 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Measuring America: The Decennial Censuses from 1790 to 2000 (Washington: GPO,
2002), p. 98.
13 U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Explore the Form,” http://2010.census.gov/2010census/about/interactive-form.php. The
short form asked certain additional questions for administrative purposes, such as the number of people living in the
housing unit on April 1, 2010, their names, and the telephone number of the person completing the form. The Bureau
collected this information “to ensure response accuracy and completeness and to contact respondents whose forms have
incomplete or missing information.” Ibid.
14 U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey, Design and Methodology (Washington: GPO, 2009), p. 2-
1.
Congressional Research Service
3
The 2010 Decennial Census: Background and Issues
December 14, 2010, five-year averages became available for areas with fewer than 20,000
people.15
Automated Field Operations
Another innovation for 2010 was to have been the automation of two major census field
operations: address canvassing and nonresponse follow-up (NRFU). The goal of pre-census
address canvassing was for temporary Bureau field staff to verify and correct census addresses
and maps, technically called the “Master Address File” (MAF) and “Topologically Integrated
Geographic Encoding and Referencing” (TIGER) system. An accurate MAF/TIGER was
essential for directing the census forms to the right housing units and successfully conducting
nonresponse follow-up. Indeed, as the Bureau has noted, “MAF/TIGER is the foundation of the
Census—it creates the universe for all other operations that collect information from the
public.”16 NRFU required that enumerators try repeatedly to visit or telephone people who had
not completed their census questionnaires and convince them to respond. Because of the
problems discussed below, only address canvassing was automated; NRFU was not.
Problems Encountered
As part of its 2010 census preparations, the Bureau contracted with the Harris Corporation for
Field Data Collection Automation (FDCA). The objective was the development of highly
specialized handheld computers to automate address canvassing and update maps with global
positioning software, as well as conduct nonresponse follow-up. Testing eventually revealed
significant flaws in the handhelds, such as slow operation, memory problems, and a tendency to
lock up when users entered large quantities of data.17 In April 3, 2008, congressional testimony,
then-Bureau Director Steve Murdock acknowledged that the Bureau had abandoned the plan to
use the handhelds for NRFU, would resort to the traditional paper-based approach, and would
rely on the handhelds only for address canvassing.18 The change required the Bureau to hire and
train more NRFU staff, at increased expense.19 The Government Accountability Office (GAO)
testified to Congress in mid-2008 that the Bureau had reestimated the total life-cycle cost of the
2010 census at between $13.7 billion and $14.5 billion, instead of the previously estimated $11.5
billion.20 A 2009 House Committee on Appropriations report raised the estimate to $14.7 billion,21
15 U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Quick Guide to the American Community Survey (ACS) Products in American
FactFinder,” pp. 1, 3, http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/aff_acs2009_quickguide.pdf.
16 U.S. Bureau of the Census, United States Census 2010, High Risk Improvement Plan, version 7-2, November 4,
2008, p. 2.
17 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Information Technology: Census Bureau Testing of 2010 Decennial
Systems Can Be Strengthened, GAO-09-262, March 2009.
18 Testimony of then-Census Bureau Director Steve Murdock in U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, The Fiscal Year 2009 Budget, hearing, 110th
Cong., 2nd sess., April 3, 2008 (Washington: 2008).
19 U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Inspector General, Top Management Challenges Facing the Department of
Commerce, Final Report no. OIG-19384 (Washington: U.S. Department of Commerce, 2008), p. 1.
20 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2010 Census: Plans for Decennial Census Operations and Technology
Have Progressed, but Much Uncertainty Remains, GAO-08-886T, June 11, 2008, p. 1.
21 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Bill, 2010, report to accompany H.R. 2847, 111th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 111-149 (Washington: GPO,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
4
The 2010 Decennial Census: Background and Issues
where it remained in March 2010. NRFU was expected to account for about $2.3 billion of the
$14.7 billion.22
Early Assessments by the DOC Inspector General
and GAO
On November 18, 2008, the Commerce Department’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a
report that identified the top management challenges DOC faced as it prepared for the transition
to a new President and new Commerce Secretary. Heading the list was the need to “overcome the
setbacks experienced in reengineering decennial processes and conduct a successful 2010
Census.” The failure of the handhelds was prominent among the setbacks noted. According to the
report, the Bureau “originally intended to develop the handhelds in-house and tested prototypes in
... 2004 and 2006. The devices had serious problems in both tests,” which, in the OIG’s view,
“should have better informed the Bureau’s efforts to define requirements.”23 The decision to
contract for FDCA came “too late in the decade ... to meet ambitious fixed deadlines for the dress
rehearsal tests starting in 2007 and decennial operations starting in 2009.” Not until January 2008,
almost two years after awarding the contract, did the Bureau deliver “a first draft of a complete,
user-validated set of requirements for the handhelds and supporting infrastructure.”24 By then, the
MITRE Corporation, which periodically advised the Bureau about its information technology (IT)
programs for the 2010 census, had found that
FDCA is in serious trouble. It is not clear the system will meet Census’ operational needs
and quality goals. The final cost is unpredictable. Immediate, significant changes are
required to rescue the program. However, the risks are so large considering the available
time that we recommend immediate development of contingency plans to revert to paper
operations.25
(...continued)
2009), p. 18. For information about the Bureau’s FY2010 appropriations, see CRS Report R40644, Commerce, Justice,
Science, and Related Agencies: FY2010 Appropriations, coordinated by Nathan James, Oscar R. Gonzales, and
Jennifer D. Williams. See also CRS Report R41161, Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies: FY2011
Appropriations, coordinated by Nathan James, Oscar R. Gonzales, and Jennifer D. Williams.
22 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2010 Census: Cooperation with Enumerators Is Critical to a Successful
Headcount, GAO-10-665T, April 30, 2010, p. 3.
The actual cost of the 2010 census cannot be known for some time. Shortly after NRFU ended, however, the Bureau
reported that it had not had to use $1.6 billion of the funds available for the 2010 census. The Bureau attributed the
savings to the relatively high 74% mail response rate, which meant less nonresponse follow-up; to the greater
productivity of NRFU workers in 2010 than in 2000; and to the absence of “disasters or major operational breakdowns”
that would have necessitated drawing on contingency funds. U.S. Bureau of the Census, “$1.6 Billion in 2010 Census
Savings Returned,” press release CB10-CN.70, August 10, 2010, p. 1.
23 U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Inspector General, Top Management Challenges Facing the Department of
Commerce, Final Report no. OIG-19384 (Washington: U.S. Department of Commerce, 2008), p. 2.
24 Ibid.
25 Ibid., pp. 3-4. The MITRE quotation appeared earlier in Allan Holmes, “Census program to use handheld computers
said to be in ‘serious trouble’,” GovernmentExecutive.com, January 2, 2008, http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?
filepath=/dailyfed/0108/010208h1.htm. This article contained a link to the source of the quotation, MITRE’s November
29, 2007, “Talking Points for Meeting with [then-Census Bureau Deputy Director] Jay Waite.”
Congressional Research Service
5
The 2010 Decennial Census: Background and Issues
The OIG report acknowledged that the Bureau had taken important actions, such as management
changes and better oversight, to address these problems, but stated that “significant risks remain
for the 2010 decennial.”26
Similarly, the Government Accountability Office pointed out vulnerabilities in the Bureau’s
management of its information technology systems, including the handheld computers.27 In a
November 6, 2008, press release to announce its presidential transition website, GAO included
the upcoming census among its 13 “urgent issues ... needing the attention of [then-] President-
Elect Obama and the 111th Congress during the transition and the first year of the new
administration and Congress.”28 The 2010 census, in large part because of IT problems and a yet-
to-be-determined, but substantial, total cost, remained one of the areas GAO designated as “high
risk” in a January 2009 update of its high-risk series.29 Among the concerns GAO noted in a
March 2009 report were the following:
The Dress Rehearsal30 was originally conceived to provide a comprehensive end-to-end test
of key 2010 census operations; however, ... because of the problems encountered with the
handheld devices, among other things, testing was curtailed. As a result, although several
critical operations underwent end-to-end testing in the Dress Rehearsal, others did not.
According to the Associate Director for the 2010 census, the Bureau tested approximately 23
of 44 key operations during the Dress Rehearsal. Examples of key operations that underwent
end-to-end testing ... are address canvassing and group quarters validation.31 An example of a
key operation that was not tested is the largest field operation—nonresponse follow-up....
In December 2008, after additional development and improvements to the handheld
computers, the Bureau conducted a limited field test for address canvassing, intended to
assess software functionality in an operational environment. We observed this test and
determined that users were generally satisfied with the performance of the handhelds....
However, the test ... included only a limited subset of functionality to be used during the
2009 address canvassing operations.32
GAO further observed that although nonresponse follow-up was paper based in previous
censuses, the paper-based NRFU in 2010 would rely on “newly developed systems” that had “not
yet been fully tested in a census-like environment.... Any significant change to an existing IT
system introduces the risk that the system may not work as intended; therefore, testing all systems
26 U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Inspector General, Top Management Challenges Facing the Department of
Commerce, Final Report no. OIG-19384 (Washington: U.S. Department of Commerce, 2008), p. 2.
27 See, for example, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Information Technology: Census Bureau Needs to
Improve Its Risk Management of Decennial Systems, GAO-08-79, October 5, 2007.
28 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Office of the Comptroller General, “GAO Lists Top ‘Urgent Issues’ for
Next President and Congress; Unveils New Transition Web Site,” press release, November 6, 2008, p. 1.
29 U.S. Government Accountability Office, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-09-271, January 22, 2009.
30 GAO wrote that the Dress Rehearsal period spanned February 2006 through June 2009. During it, the Bureau
developed and tested “systems and operations, and it held a mock Census Day on May 1, 2008.” U.S. Government
Accountability Office, Information Technology: Census Bureau Testing of 2010 Decennial Systems Can Be
Strengthened, GAO-09-262, March 2009, p. 9. Beyond the Dress Rehearsal tests, the Bureau did “supplementary
testing to prepare for the 2010 Decennial Census.” Ibid., p. 10.
31 Group quarters, the addresses of which had to be validated, cover a wide variety of group housing, including college
residence halls, military barracks, nursing homes, and prisons. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Information
Technology: Census Bureau Testing of 2010 Decennial Systems Can Be Strengthened, GAO-09-262, March 2009, p. 3.
32 Ibid., pp. 21-22.
Congressional Research Service
6
The 2010 Decennial Census: Background and Issues
after changes have been made ... is critical to the success of the 2010 census.”33 GAO noted that
testing had “only recently started” for the 2010 NRFU,34 including the IT systems and
infrastructure necessary to support this operation and certain other activities, such as group-
quarters enumeration.35
Their Assessments in 2010
As nonresponse follow-up was about to begin, the Commerce Department’s OIG again identified
“serious issues” facing the Bureau:36
Much of the ... plan is on track, but the success of NRFU—which is critical—hinges on how
effectively Census controls the enormous NRFU workload and workforce.... [I]t must do so
using a Paper-Based Operations Control System (PBOCS) with less functionality than
planned and currently experiencing significant performance problems. PBOCS is essential
for efficiently making assignments to enumerators, tracking enumeration forms, and
reporting on the status of operations. And Census must recruit, hire, and pay its massive
temporary workforce with a Decennial Applicant, Personnel, and Payroll System (DAPPS)
also experiencing persistent performance limitations.37
In late March 2010, GAO, too, expressed reservations about the Bureau’s IT systems, especially
DAPPS and PBOCS. GAO called them “the most significant risk jeopardizing the cost and
quality of the enumeration. ... Indeed, neither system has yet demonstrated the ability to function
reliably under full operational loads.”38 Since December 2009, GAO noted, the Bureau had
“completed many steps to improve DAPPS performance,” and more were planned. The system
still, however, was “experiencing capacity limitations and slow response ... even though
approximately 100,000 temporary employees were ... being paid using the system versus the
more than 600,000” who would require payment “at the peak of field operations.”39 With respect
to PBOCS, continued GAO, early releases in January and February 2010 had “known defects,
such as limited functionality, slow performance, and problems generating certain progress and
performance reports.”40 Moreover, testing for “the component of the second release that will be
used to manage NRFU” was incomplete as of mid-March. The third PBOCS release had to be
developed and tested before being “ready for later field operations,” among them “the final check
of housing unit status (known as field verification), scheduled to begin in August 2010.”41
At the end of April, GAO reiterated that “the reliability of the Bureau’s automated systems, and in
particular an information technology ... system used for managing the Bureau’s field operations,
33 Ibid., p. 28.
34 Ibid., p. 17.
35 Ibid., p. 4.
36 Testimony of Commerce Department Associate Deputy Inspector General Judith Gordon in U.S. Congress, House
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National
Archives, The 2010 Census: An Assessment of the Bureau’s Preparedness, March 25, 2010 (Washington: 2010), p. 2.
37 Ibid.
38 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2010 Census: Data Collection Is Under Way, but Reliability of Key
Information Technology Systems Remains a Risk, GAO-10-567T, March 25, 2010, p. 3.
39 Ibid., pp. 7-8.
40 Ibid., p. 8.
41 Ibid., pp. 8-9.
Congressional Research Service
7
The 2010 Decennial Census: Background and Issues
is an open question.... The Bureau has taken steps to mitigate the risks posed by the unreliable IT
systems, including upgrading hardware and software, but time will tell whether they will be able
to perform as needed under full operational loads.”42
In a December 2010 report, GAO revisited the performance of PBOCS, observing that “despite
efforts to upgrade its hardware and software, PBOCS continued to experience system outages,
slow performance, and problems generating and maintaining timely progress reports” at the
beginning of nonresponse follow-up. The Bureau attributed these problems, GAO continued, “in
part, to the compressed development and testing schedule, as well as to inadequate performance
and interface testing.”43 The problems led to a backlog of census questionnaires in local census
offices, and impaired the Bureau’s ability to monitor NRFU workers’ productivity and the quality
of their interviews.44
Census Accuracy and Coverage
As noted at the beginning of this report, the idealized expectation that the decennial census should
count every person once, only once, and in the right place is deceptively simple. In reality, the
task is immense and a perfect count elusive. The failure of the handhelds for nonresponse follow-
up fueled concerns, like those of the Commerce Department OIG and GAO cited above, that the
late-date alterations to NRFU could threaten the success of the 2010 census.
The attempt to achieve complete, accurate population coverage is challenging not only because
the U.S. population is large, tends to be mobile, and is distributed over a wide geographic area,
but also because the population is increasingly heterogeneous. Many households consist of racial
and ethnic minorities; multiple families; low-income people; inner-city residents; those whose
living circumstances are atypical; international migrants to the United States who may lack
English language proficiency, lack legal status in this country, or distrust all governmental
activities; or various combinations of these attributes. Any of them can make enumeration
difficult, and some of them contribute markedly to the recurrent undercount of racial and ethnic
minorities.
An overcount of some groups within the population can occur to the extent that the Bureau
receives multiple census forms from the same people or households, then does not capture and
eliminate the duplications. A husband and wife, for example, might own a vacation home and fill
out a questionnaire there as well as at their usual residence. Another example would be parents
who erroneously list a child on the form for their household, when the child actually is away at
college and, in accordance with census residence rules, has been correctly enumerated there.
The greater tendency for minorities and less affluent members of society than for Whites and
wealthier people to be undercounted leads to differential undercounts of the former. Differential
undercounts are a recurrent problem in the decennial census and can diminish the perception that
the count is equitable to the entire population.
42 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2010 Census: Cooperation with Enumerators Is Critical to a Successful
Headcount, GAO-10-665T, April 30, 2010, p. 8.
43 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2010 Census: Data Collection Operations Were Generally Completed as
Planned, but Long-standing Challenges Suggest Need for Fundamental Reforms, GAO-11-193, p. 20.
44 Ibid., p. 21.
Congressional Research Service
8
The 2010 Decennial Census: Background and Issues
Estimates of Census Coverage from Demographic Analysis
Following the 1940 census, “Census Bureau statisticians and academic researchers refined a
statistical technique known as Demographic Analysis” (DA)45 that was used to evaluate coverage
and estimate net undercount46 in the 1940 through 2000 censuses. DA uses administrative records,
including birth and death records, together with estimates of net international migration to the
United States during a decade, to estimate the population size at a given census date. This figure
is compared with the population count from the actual census to arrive at estimates of coverage
and net undercount. The Bureau has described the process as follows:
The traditional DA population benchmarks are developed for the census date by analyzing
various types of demographic data essentially independent of the census, such as
administrative statistics on births, deaths, authorized international migration, and Medicare
enrollments, as well as estimates of legal emigration and net unauthorized immigration. The
difference between the Demographic Analysis benchmarks and the census count provides an
estimate of the census net undercount. Dividing the net undercount by the DA benchmark[s]
provides an estimate of the net undercount rate.47
Despite its utility, demographic analysis has limitations. Among them are the feasibility of
producing estimates only at the national level, not at lower geographic levels, and only for broad
racial categories (Black and non-Black).48 Uncertainty in estimating the components of net
international migration to the United States, particularly emigration, temporary migration, and
unauthorized migration, is another concern with DA.49 According to the Bureau, “the research
effect on immigration, births, and deaths led to Revised DA estimates” for 1990 and 2000. “The
Revised DA lowered the estimated net undercount rates from 1.85% to 1.65% in 1990, and from
0.32% to 0.12% in 2000, but did not alter the DA finding that the estimated net undercount rate in
2000 was substantially lower than in 1990.”50
Table 2 shows net percentage undercount estimates for the past seven censuses, as derived by
demographic analysis. The last two columns of the table, for 1990 and 2000, reflect the revised
DA estimates discussed above. The table indicates a decrease in the estimated net undercount
rates for the total population, Blacks, and non-Blacks in every census year except 1990, when the
rates increased for the overall population and the two groups within it. In each of the seven
censuses, the differential undercount persisted: the estimated net rate was higher for Blacks than
for non-Blacks.
45 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation, Statement on the Feasibility of Using Statistical
Methods to Improve the Accuracy of Census 2000, June 2000 (unpublished document), p. 4.
46 “The difference between the true, but unknown, population count and an original census count is called the net
undercount.” Kirk M. Wolter, “Accounting for America’s Uncounted and Miscounted,” Science, vol. 253 (July 1991),
p. 12.
47 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Coverage Measurement from the Perspective of March 2001 Accuracy and Coverage
Evaluation, Census 2000 Topic Report no. 4 (Washington: U.S. Bureau of the Census, February 2004), p. 7.
48 Ibid., p. 9.
49 Ibid., p. 7.
50 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
9
The 2010 Decennial Census: Background and Issues
Table 2. Percentage Net Decennial Census Undercount by Race, as Estimated by
Demographic Analysis, 1940 through 2000
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Total
5.4% 4.1% 3.1% 2.7% 1.2% 1.65% 0.12%
population
Black
8.4% 7.5% 6.6% 6.5% 4.5% 5.52% 2.78%
Non-Black
5.0% 3.8% 2.7% 2.2% 0.8% 1.08% -0.29%
Sources: Estimates for 1940 through1980 are from J.G. Robinson, et al., “Estimates of Population Coverage in
the 1990 United States Census Based on Demographic Analysis,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol.
88 (September 1993), p. 1065, reprinted in U.S. Bureau of the Census, Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation,
Statement on the Feasibility of Using Statistical Methods to Improve the Accuracy of Census 2000, June 2000
(unpublished document). Estimates for 1990 and 2000 are from U.S. Bureau of the Census, Coverage
Measurement from the Perspective of March 2001 Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation, Census 2000 Topic Report no.
4 (Washington: U.S. Bureau of the Census, February 2004), p. 9.
Note: Al numbers except one indicate net percentage undercounts of the total population or groups within the
population. The exception, -0.29% for non-Blacks in 2000, indicates a net overcount of this group.
On December 6, 2010, the Bureau released DA estimates of the population as of Census Day.
They were presented in five series, ranging from low to high. Although the estimates ultimately
may serve to indicate 2010 census quality, the Bureau will not use demographic analysis to
estimate net undercount. The Bureau attributed the change from past decades to the uncertainties
inherent in constructing DA estimates.51
Survey Estimates of Census Coverage
To evaluate coverage in the three most recent enumerations, the Bureau used not only
demographic analysis, but other means as well: in 1980, the Post Enumeration Program; in 1990,
the Post Enumeration Survey; and in 2000, Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation. Each evaluation
involved taking a post-census survey, designed to be statistically independent of the census, and
comparing the survey with the census results to estimate omissions from the census and erroneous
enumerations. These surveys were, as all are, subject to sampling and other errors.
• The 1980 census Post Enumeration Program yielded informative studies of the
estimation methods and results, rather than specific coverage estimates.52
• The 1990 census Post Enumeration Survey estimates indicated a net percentage
undercount of 1.61% for the total population, 0.68% for non-Hispanic Whites,
4.57% for Blacks, 2.36% for Asians or Pacific Islanders, 12.22% for American
Indians on reservations, and 4.99% for Hispanics.53
• The presentation of data by race and ethnicity changed somewhat between the
1990 and 2000 censuses, making certain categories (for example, Blacks in 1990
51 U.S. Bureau of the Census, “U.S. Census Bureau Releases 2010 Demographic Analysis Population Estimates,”
CB10-CN.87, December 6, 2010.
52 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation, Statement on the Feasibility of Using Statistical
Methods to Improve the Accuracy of Census 2000, June 2000 (unpublished document), p. 20.
53U.S. Bureau of the Census, A.C.E. Revision II, Summary of Estimated Net Coverage, Memorandum Series PP-54,
December 31, 2002, p. 3, http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/ace2.html.
Congressional Research Service
10
The 2010 Decennial Census: Background and Issues
versus non-Hispanic Blacks in 2000) not perfectly comparable. The final 2000
census Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation estimates indicated a net percentage
overcount of -0.49% for the total population, -1.13% for non-Hispanic Whites, -
0.75% for non-Hispanic Asians, and -0.88% for American Indians on
reservations (with each minus sign signifying an overcount). The estimated net
percentage undercount for non-Hispanic Blacks was 1.84%; for native Hawaiians
or other Pacific Islanders, 2.12%; for American Indians off reservations, 0.62%;
and for Hispanics, 0.71%.54
Reporting in April 2010 on the status of the Bureau’s coverage evaluation for the current census,
the Census Coverage Measurement (CCM) program, GAO explained that
The Bureau has developed separate address lists—one for the entire nation of over 134
million housing units that it will use to conduct the census and one for coverage
measurement sample areas—and will collect each set of data through independent
operations. For the 2010 Census, census operations began collecting population data from
households in January 2010 and will continue through the end of July, while CCM
operations will collect data by visiting each of the housing units in the coverage
measurement sample during an operation called Person Interviewing from August through
October.55
The statistical methodology the Bureau uses to estimate net coverage errors relies on an
assumption that the chance that a person is counted by the census is not affected by whether
he or she is counted in the independent coverage measurement sample, or vice versa.
Because violating this “independence” assumption can bias coverage estimates, the Bureau
takes special measures to maintain CCM’s separation from the census, such as developing a
separate address list for the coverage measurement sample....56
GAO noted that in December 2009 the Bureau Director approved several changes in CCM,
including higher “reinterview rates for CCM field work to improve quality assurance”; additional
training of workers for person interviewing, to help them deal with “special situations due to
current economic conditions,” such as increased homelessness; higher “supervisor-to-employee
field staffing ratios to improve quality ... of field work”; and a new “telephone-based study” of
“how well respondents recall information about their residence and possible movement since
Census Day.”57 To offset the expense of these extra measures, the Bureau authorized an almost
45% reduction in CCM sample size.58 The cut, in GAO’s assessment, would “reduce precision of
the estimates, yet the proposed changes should reduce nonsampling errors and thus provide users
with more reliable estimates.”59 Perhaps because of what the 2010 census is already likely to cost,
54Ibid.
55 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2010 Census: Plans for Census Coverage Measurement Are on Track, but
Additional Steps Will Improve Its Usefulness, GAO-10-324, April 2010, p. 4.
56 Ibid.
57 Ibid., p. 6.
58Ibid. A year earlier, the Bureau had estimated that the sample size would be about 300,000 housing units, the same as
in the 2000 census Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation. See testimony of then-Acting Census Bureau Director Thomas
Mesenbourg in U.S. Congress, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Subcommittee on
Information Policy, Census, and National Archives, Critical Operations of the 2010 Census—Status Update, hearing,
111th Cong., 1st sess., March 5, 2009 (Washington: 2009).
59 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2010 Census: Plans for Census Coverage Measurement Are on Track, but
Additional Steps Will Improve Its Usefulness, GAO-10-324, April 2010, p. 6.
Congressional Research Service
11
The 2010 Decennial Census: Background and Issues
the option of making changes to improve CCM data quality without decreasing sample size was
not addressed.
The report critiqued certain aspects of the CCM program. One observation was that even though
the Bureau had “stated the importance of using 2010 evaluation data ... for 2020 Census design,”
it had “not yet taken steps to link CCM data” to improvements for 2020.60 Another point,
particularly relevant for future census evaluations, was that the Bureau should ascertain the
“optimal time” to start person interviewing for CCM. If this operation begins too early, it can
overlap “with census data collection, possibly compromising the independence of the two
different operations and introducing a ‘contamination bias’ error into CCM data.” Starting person
interviewing too late “increases the chance that respondents will not accurately remember
household information from Census Day ... introducing error (known as ‘recall bias’) in the CCM
count.” Either error “could affect the Bureau’s conclusions about the accuracy of the census.”61
The Bureau announced on November 1, 2010, that it had completed all CCM interviews. The
results of the program will not be available until 2012, however.62
Coverage Evaluation Surveys and the Census Adjustment Issue
Although conducting surveys to evaluate census coverage is an established practice, the survey
results never have been used to correct or “adjust” miscounts in the decennial numbers that
constitute the official state population counts for House apportionment. The Supreme Court ruled
in 1999 (525 U.S. 316 (1999)) that adjustment of the apportionment numbers would be illegal
under Title 13 U.S.C., Section 195, but was silent about whether it would be unconstitutional. The
issue was contentious for at least two decades before the 1999 Court ruling and, despite it,
continues to generate controversy. Whereas supporters of adjustment argue that it is necessary to
rectify the undercount problem, opponents maintain that use of the procedure would make the
census vulnerable to political manipulation.
Then-Acting Bureau Director Thomas Mesenbourg, when asked by the ranking member of the
House Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National Archives at a March 5, 2009,
census oversight hearing if the Bureau would conduct a census coverage evaluation survey in
2010, replied that it would.63 “The focus of the 2010 coverage measurement program,” he
explained, would be “to provide better information about the components of error. So we’ll be
providing data not only on the net error, but also components of error such as duplicates,
omissions, and so on.”64 Responding to a question about whether the Bureau intended to use the
program for adjustment, Mesenbourg said that it did not.65
60 Ibid., p. 10.
61 Ibid., p. 8.
62 U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Operational Press Briefing,” transcript, November 1, 2010, pp. 2, 14.
63 Testimony of then-Acting Census Bureau Director Thomas Mesenbourg in U.S. Congress, House Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform, Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National Archives, Critical
Operations of the 2010 Census—Status Update, hearing, 111th Cong., 1st sess., March 5, 2009 (Washington: 2009).
64 Ibid.
65 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
12
The 2010 Decennial Census: Background and Issues
Nevertheless, the Obama Administration’s nominations of Gary Locke, the former Governor of
Washington, to be Commerce Secretary and Robert M. Groves, a survey research expert and
demographer, as Census Bureau Director provided occasions for some Members of Congress to
seek further assurance that sampling for adjustment would not play a role in the 2010 census.
Locke told the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation at his March 18,
2009, confirmation hearing, “The Supreme Court has made it very clear that statistical sampling
is not permissible for apportionment purposes. That is the law. We will enforce the law.”66 The
committee’s ranking member then noted that “the Supreme Court did not specifically mention ...
intrastate redistricting” and asked whether sampling would be used to adjust the data for this
purpose.67 The nominee replied, “It is my understanding that there are no plans in the Department
of Commerce or the Census Bureau to use any type of statistical sampling with respect to [the]
population count.”68 On March 24, 2009, the Senate confirmed Locke’s nomination.69
The Senate approved Groves’s nomination on July 13, 2009.70 The new Director previously
headed the University of Michigan’s Survey Research Center. From 1990 to 1992, he was an
Associate Director of the Census Bureau,71 where, according to press reports, he differed with
George H. W. Bush Administration officials over his support for 1990 census adjustment.72
Groves’s written opening remarks at his May 15, 2009, confirmation hearing before the Senate
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs stated, however, “I agree fully with
Secretary Locke’s testimony that statistical adjustment of the census is eliminated as an option for
apportionment and further that statistical adjustment will not be used for redistricting. The 2003
decision of [then-Census Bureau] director Kincannon, consistent with this, assured that no
implementation infrastructure for adjustment was put in place for 2010.”73
The committee’s ranking member observed that although sampling could not be used to adjust the
census apportionment numbers, “There is ... some question over whether sampling could be used
for redistricting and for the allocation of federal funds.” She then asked Groves, “Will you
advocate for the statistical adjustment or use of sampling during the 2010 Census?” He answered,
66 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, “Senator Hutchison Presses
Commerce Nominee Locke to Ensure a Fair and Open Census Process,” press release, March 18, 2009, p. 2.
67 Ibid.
68 Ibid.
69 “Department of Commerce, Gary Locke, of Washington, to Be Secretary of Commerce,” Congressional Record,
daily edition, vol. 155 (March 24, 2009), p. S3734.
70 “Nomination of Robert M. Groves to Be Director of the Census,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 155 (July
13, 2009), p. S7402.
71 The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “President Obama Announces More Key Administration Posts,”
press release, April 2, 2009.
72 See Carrie Dann, “Census Nomination Renews ‘Statistical Adjustment’ Debate,” Congress Daily AM,
NationalJournal.com, April 3, 2009, copy available from the CRS author; Randy James, “Robert M. Groves: Obama’s
Pick for Census Chief,” Time.com, April 7, 2009, http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1889793,00.html;
and “Obama Taps Robert Groves to Be Census Director,” Fox News.com, April 2, 2009, http://www.foxnews.com/
politics/first100days/2009/04/02/obama-taps-robert-groves-census-director/.
73Testimony of Robert M. Groves in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, Nomination of Robert M. Groves to Be Director of the Census, hearing, 111th Cong., 1st sess., May 15, 2009
(Washington: 2009). For the full text of his opening remarks, see http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/_files/
051509Groves.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
13
The 2010 Decennial Census: Background and Issues
“No, Senator,” and added in response to the same query about the 2020 census, “I have no plans
to do that for 2020.”74
In April 2010, as previously discussed, GAO issued its observations to date about the 2010
Census Coverage Measurement program. The report, requested by the ranking members of the
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and the Information Policy, Census, and
National Archives Subcommittee, repeated others’ earlier assurances that the “Bureau is not
planning to use CCM to adjust the 2010 Census. Instead, CCM will be used to evaluate coverage
error to improve the 2020 and future censuses.” 75
Efforts toward an Equitable Census
Communications Outreach
Because census accuracy and coverage are likely to persist as issues after the decennial count, the
Bureau addressed the need to publicize the census, then convince as many people as possible to
complete and return their 2010 census questionnaires, or to respond if contacted by an
enumerator. The various components of the Bureau’s integrated communications strategy were
designed to meet this two-part goal. As GAO observed, however, motivating the public to
respond to the census was “a far thornier task” than raising awareness about it.76
On September 6, 2007, the Bureau announced that it had awarded the 2010 census
communications contract to Draftfcb of New York City. Draftfcb headed a team of
communications firms that specialize in reaching minority groups: Global Hue, for Blacks and
Hispanics; IW Group, for Asians, Native Hawaiians, and other Pacific Islanders; G&G, for
American Indians and Alaska Natives; and Allied Media, for “emerging” groups, such as Arabic-
speaking people and Eastern Europeans.77 The integrated communications strategy was built on
the partnership and Census in Schools programs, as well as on paid advertising via network and
cable television, radio, the Internet, newspapers, and magazines.78
For the 2010 census, as for that in 2000, the Bureau partnered with local governments,
businesses, community organizations, neighborhood groups, and the media to help inform the
public about the census and encourage participation in it, including cooperation with enumerators
during nonresponse follow-up. The Bureau’s website presented partnership information, for
example, a list of partners.79
74 Questions by Sen. Susan M. Collins in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, Nomination of Robert M. Groves to Be Director of the Census, hearing, 111th Cong., 1st sess., May 15, 2009
(Washington: 2009).
75 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2010 Census: Plans for Census Coverage Measurement Are on Track, but
Additional Steps Will Improve Its Usefulness, GAO-10-324, April 2010, p. 3.
76 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2010 Census: Communications Campaign Has Potential to Boost
Participation, GAO-09-525T, March 23, 2009, p. 2.
77 U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Census Bureau Announces Award of 2010 Census Communications Contract,” press
release, September 7, 2007.
78 U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2010 Census Integrated Communications Campaign Synopsis, March 2009,
http://2010.census.gov/partners/pdf/Census_Plan_Synopsis_5-9-09.pdf.
79 U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Our Partners,” http://2010.census.gov/partners/.
Congressional Research Service
14
The 2010 Decennial Census: Background and Issues
Among the activities the Bureau suggested for local governments, businesses, organizations, and
groups were distributing census promotional materials, sponsoring events to raise awareness of
the census, and disseminating information about it through newsletters. Partnership staff, working
with elected officials, formed Complete Count Committees to reach traditionally undercounted
groups. Early in 2009, the Bureau mailed Complete Count Committee guides to the highest
elected officials in 39,000 state, local, and tribal governments.80
Partners also could identify possible candidates for temporary census work, such as enumerators
to conduct NRFU, and provide space for testing job applicants and training new hires. The
Bureau’s website gave information about 2010 census employment.81 As of April 11, 2010, the
Bureau had slightly exceeded its goal of recruiting 3.7 million applicants for more than 600,000
census-taker and other positions related to NRFU.82 The weak economy may have given the
Bureau a recruitment advantage, even for short-term, often part-time, jobs.
The Bureau invited local-government partners to participate, as they did for the 2000 census, in
the Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) campaign. LUCA was made possible by P.L. 103-
430 (108 Stat. 4394) to assist the Bureau in improving the Master Address File. Under the
program, local, state, and tribal governments could review MAF and document any mistakes they
found in it. LUCA for the 2010 census began in January 2007. According to the Bureau, it
received the LUCA data and entered them into MAF.83 LUCA participants could review the
changes made and appeal requested changes that were not accepted.84
The Census in Schools initiative for 2010 focused on educating children in kindergarten through
12th grade about the importance of census participation, so that they could convey this message to
their parents.85 Scholastic, Inc., joined with the Bureau to produce English and Spanish teaching
guides, lesson plans, maps, brochures, and take-home materials for students, all of which were
posted on the Census-in-Schools website86 and on Scholastic.com. Printed materials were
distributed to public and private schools nationwide.87
80 Testimony of then-Acting Census Bureau Director Thomas Mesenbourg in U.S. Congress, House Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform, Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National Archives, Census
2010: Assessing the Bureau’s Strategies for Reducing the Undercount of Hard-to-Count Populations, hearing, 111th
Cong., 1st sess., March 23, 2009 (Washington: 2009), p. 5.
81 U.S. Bureau of the Census, “2010 Census Jobs,” http://2010.census.gov/2010censusjobs/.
82 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2010 Census: Cooperation with Enumerators Is Critical to a Successful
Headcount, GAO-10-665T, April 30, 2010, p. 6.
83 Information obtained at a December 18, 2008, meeting between the CRS author and officials from the Census
Bureau’s Decennial Management Division, Office of the Associate Director for Communications, and Congressional
Affairs Office.
84 U.S. Bureau of the Census, “2010 Decennial Census Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA),”
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/luca2010/luca.html. For appeals procedures, see U.S. Office of Management and
Budget, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, “Procedures for Participating in the Appeals Process for
the 2010 Decennial Census Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) Program; Notice,” 74 Federal Register 47424-
47429, September 15, 2009.
85 Testimony of then-Census Bureau Director Steve Murdock in U.S. Congress, House Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National Archives, The 2010 Census
Communications Campaign, hearing, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., July 10, 2008 (Washington: 2008), pp. 4-5.
86 U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Census in Schools,” http://www.census.gov/schools/.
87 Testimony of then-Acting Census Bureau Director Thomas Mesenbourg in U.S. Congress, House Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform, Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National Archives, Census
2010: Assessing the Bureau’s Strategies for Reducing the Undercount of Hard-to-Count Populations, hearing, 111th
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
15
The 2010 Decennial Census: Background and Issues
Questionnaire Outreach
The conventional mail-out of 2010 census questionnaires to about 120 million U.S. households
was discussed earlier in this report. Noted below are other operations, which focused on the hard-
to-count.
Approximately 13 million bilingual census forms, in English and Spanish, were mailed to
neighborhoods with high concentrations of Spanish-speaking residents.88 Questionnaires in
Spanish, Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, and Russian, along with guides in 59 languages other than
English, were made available upon request.89 In addition, for people who did not receive census
forms at their homes, “Be Counted” forms in English and the five other languages listed above
were placed in various public locations, such as libraries, community centers, and places of
worship. The Bureau also provided telephone assistance, including assistance for the hearing
impaired, as well as Braille and large-print questionnaire guides.90
In March and April 2010, the Bureau undertook the enumeration of residents in what GAO has
termed “diverse dwellings,” including migrant-worker housing, boats, college dormitories,
nursing homes, and prisons.91 Service-based enumeration, which took place at the end of March,
was designed to count the homeless at places where they receive assistance, such as soup kitchens
and mobile food vans. A count of people living outdoors occurred at the same time.92
The Bureau also implemented procedures whereby address listers, during address canvassing,
could identify possibly inhabitable housing units in areas of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas
that were damaged by Gulf Coast hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005 and Ike in 2008. Then, in a
March 2010 update-leave operation, field workers hand delivered about 1.2 million census forms
to these units, some of which were not on the Bureau’s address list. Besides leaving
questionnaires to be completed and returned by mail, the workers made any necessary updates to
addresses and maps.93
Update leave was used as well in places throughout the United States “where the ‘address’ may
not reflect the actual location of the housing unit,” and in areas “that do not receive either regular
(...continued)
Cong., 1st sess., March 23, 2009 (Washington: 2009), pp. 3-4.
88 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2010 Census: Data Collection Is Under Way, but Reliability of Key
Information Technology Systems Remains a Risk, GAO-10-567T, March 25, 2010, p. 18.
89 Testimony of Associate Census Bureau Director Arnold Jackson in U.S. Congress, House Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform, Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National Archives, 2010 Census: A Status
Update of Key Decennial Operations, March 25, 2010, p. 5, http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/pdf/
AAJ_Testimony_3-25-10.pdf.
90 Ibid. See also testimony of then-Census Bureau Director Steve Murdock in U.S. Congress, House Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform, Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National Archives, The 2010
Census Communications Campaign, hearing, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., July 10, 2008 (Washington: 2008), p. 5.
91 College dormitories, nursing homes, and prisons, along with military barracks, are examples of group quarters noted
previously in this report. U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2010 Census: Cooperation with Enumerators Is
Critical to a Successful Headcount, GAO-10-665T, April 30, 2010, p. 3.
92 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2010 Census: Data Collection Is Under Way, but Reliability of Key
Information Technology Systems Remains a Risk, GAO-10-567T, March 25, 2010, p. 19.
93 Ibid., pp. 22-23.
Congressional Research Service
16
The 2010 Decennial Census: Background and Issues
or at-home mail delivery.”94 About 12 million questionnaires were hand delivered, including the
previously mentioned 1.2 million in certain Gulf Coast areas.
Protecting Data Confidentiality and Quality, Public Safety, and
Census Objectivity
The Census Bureau is staffed by federal career civilians, many of whom are trained as
statisticians, demographers, and IT professionals. Title 13 U.S.C. provides for a series of penalties
against any Bureau officer or employee found to have committed certain offenses. These penalties
have been adjusted in accordance with provisions of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, Title 18
U.S.C., Sections 3559 and 3571. Whoever neglects or refuses to perform his or her duties (Title
13, Section 212) can be fined not more than $5,000. A Bureau officer or employee can be fined
not more than $250,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both, if the person “willfully
and knowingly swears or affirms falsely as to the truth of any statement required” of him or her;
“willfully and knowingly makes a false certificate or fictitious return”; or “knowingly or
willfully” supplies or supplied “any false statement or false information with reference to any
inquiry” for which the person “was authorized and required to collect information” (Title 13,
Section 213). Wrongful disclosure of confidential information (Title 13, Section 214) can result in
a fine of not more than $250,000 or not more than five years’ imprisonment, or both.
Besides operating under these constraints, 2010 census workers were subject to Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) background checks of their names and fingerprints, at an estimated cost of
$450 million for fingerprinting.95 According to March 2010 congressional testimony by GAO,
about 22% of those hired for address canvassing had unclassifiable prints, generally due to local
census office workers’ errors in taking the prints for submission to the FBI.96 The Census Bureau
tried to obtain clearer prints of nonresponse follow-up hires through improved training of the
local census office workers and by supplying each office with at least one digital fingerprint
scanner. The Bureau estimated that about 10% to 12% of workers, instead of 22%, would have
unclassifiable prints when the scanners were used.97 If, as GAO testified, the fingerprint check
during address canvassing revealed “a criminal record that made an employee unsuitable for
employment, the Bureau either terminated the person immediately or placed the individual in a
nonworking status until the matter was resolved.”98 Address-canvassing hires whose prints were
unclassifiable “were allowed to continue working if their name background check was
acceptable.” GAO “did not receive a response from the Bureau” about whether it would “allow ...
workers with unclassifiable prints to continue” NRFU work.99 Congress could choose to review
94 Testimony of Associate Census Bureau Director Arnold Jackson in U.S. Congress, House Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform, Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National Archives, 2010 Census: A Status
Update of Key Decennial Operations, March 25, 2010, p. 4, http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/pdf/
AAJ_Testimony_3-25-10.pdf.
95 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2010 Census: Census Bureau Should Take Action to Improve the Credibility
and Accuracy of Its Cost Estimate for the Decennial Census, GAO-08-554, June 2008, p. 16.
96 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2010 Census: Data Collection Is Under Way, but Reliability of Key
Information Technology Systems Remains a Risk, GAO-10-567T, March 25, 2010, p. 11.
97 Ibid., pp. 11-12.
98 Ibid., p. 11.
99 Ibid., p. 12.
Congressional Research Service
17
The 2010 Decennial Census: Background and Issues
the problems encountered in the fingerprinting operation, their implications for public safety, the
delayed decision to use digital scanners, and the operation’s final cost.
The Bureau Director, in contrast to other Bureau officers and employees, is a presidential
appointee. News articles,100 early in the Obama Administration, stating that the Director might
report to the White House, instead of, as Title 13 U.S.C. stipulates, the Commerce Secretary, 101
raised concern among some Members of Congress that the 2010 count could be subject to
political manipulation. Subsequent articles102 about Administration assurances that the Director
would continue reporting to the Secretary did not entirely allay this concern. Gary Locke,
speaking to the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee on March 18, 2009,
before his confirmation as Commerce Secretary, emphasized that the decennial census “will be
run out of the Department of Commerce and by a Director who will work with the Congress, the
Administration, and our state and local leaders ... in making this a successful count.”103 Robert M.
Groves’s written opening remarks to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Committee at the May 15, 2009, hearing on his nomination to be Bureau Director stated that
“government statistical agencies must be independent of partisan politics” and that “this country
needs an objective, nonpartisan, professional Census Bureau.”104
The Bureau, in all matters related to the decennial enumeration and the rest of its activities under
Title 13 U.S.C., is subject to oversight. In the 111th Congress, the House Oversight and
Government Reform Committee, Information Policy, Census, and National Archives
Subcommittee, and the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Federal
Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security
Subcommittee, conducted decennial census oversight hearings. A change in the 112th Congress is
that the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s Health Care, District of
Columbia, Census, and National Archives Subcommittee has Census Bureau oversight. The
100 See, for example, Jonathan Allen, “White House to Bypass Commerce—and Gregg—on Census,” CQ Today Online
News, CQ.com, February 5, 2009, 5:54 a.m., http://www.cq.com/document/display.do?dockey=/cqonline/prod/data/
docs/html/news/111/news111-000003024858.html@allnews&metapub=CQ-NEWS&binderName=latest-news-
binder&seqNum=13.
101 H.R. 1254, 111th Congress, introduced on February 3, 2009, by Rep. Maloney and referred to the House Oversight
and Government Reform Committee, Information Policy, Census, and National Archives Subcommittee, would have
removed the Census Bureau from the Commerce Department and made it an independent establishment. The Director
would have been a presidential appointee with a five-year term of office. Two other proposals would have kept the
Bureau in the Commerce Department, but given the Director a five-year term and somewhat greater autonomy within
DOC than is now the case. The measures were H.R. 4945, which Rep. Maloney introduced on March 25, 2010, and S.
3167, a companion bill introduced the same day by Sen. Carper. The House bill was referred to the Oversight and
Government Reform Committee. S. 3167, referred to the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee,
Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security Subcommittee,
was ordered to be reported favorably, as amended, on April 28, 2010. The Senate passed S. 3167 on December 8,
2010, but the bill failed in the House on December 14, 2010.
102 See, as examples, Jonathan Allen, “White House: Census Director to ‘Work Closely’ with West Wing,” CQ Today
Online News, CQ.com, February 5, 2009, 6:34 p.m., http://www.cq.com/document/display.do?dockey=/cqonline/prod/
data/docs/html/news/111/news111-000003025792.html@allnews&metapub=CQ-NEWS&binderName=latest-news-
binder&seqNum=12; and Keith Koffler, “Census Control Clarified,” Roll Call, March 11, 2009, pp. 1, 22.
103 Testimony of Gary Locke in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Nomination of Gary Locke to Be U.S. Secretary of Commerce, hearing, 111th Cong., 1st sess., March 18, 2009
(Washington: 2009), p. 2.
104 Testimony of Robert M. Groves in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, Nomination of Robert M. Groves to Be Director of the Census, hearing, 111th Cong., 1st sess., May 15, 2009
(Washington: 2009). For the full text of his opening remarks, see http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/_files/
051509Groves.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
18
The 2010 Decennial Census: Background and Issues
Bureau’s operations and funding requests receive further attention from the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees. The relevant Appropriations Subcommittees in the 112th Congress
are those on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies. The Government Accountability
Office also has evaluated various aspects of the 2010 census and has issued many reports, some
of which this CRS report has cited. In addition, the MITRE Corporation advised the Bureau
periodically about its IT programs for the 2010 census and, as previously mentioned, noted
serious problems with the plans the Bureau once had for Field Data Collection Automation.105
The National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on National Statistics (CNSTAT), established in
1972 “to provide an independent and objective resource for evaluating and improving the work of
the highly decentralized U.S. federal statistical system,”106 evaluated the 2010 census research
program, especially in relation to 2020 census planning.107
A decade ago, the bipartisan Census Monitoring Board, established under Section 210 of P.L.
105-119 (111 Stat. 2440), scrutinized the objectivity of the 2000 census. Section 210 provided for
an eight-member board, with two members appointed by the Senate majority leader; two by the
Speaker of the House; and four by the President, one at the recommendation of the Senate
minority leader and one as recommended by the House minority leader.
The function of the board was “to observe and monitor all aspects of the preparation and
implementation of the 2000 decennial census.” Each co-chairman of the board, along with any
staff designated by the co-chairs, was to have “access to any data, files, information, or other
matters maintained by the Bureau of the Census (or received by it in the course of conducting a
decennial census of population) which they may request.”
The board was to prepare interim and final reports for Congress. The final report, due by
September 1, 2001,108 was to “contain a detailed statement of the findings and conclusions of the
Board.” All reports were to address, among other matters, the degree to which the Census
Bureau’s preparations for Census 2000 “shall achieve maximum possible accuracy at every level
of geography”; “shall be taken by means of an enumeration process designed to count every
individual possible”; and “shall be free from political bias and arbitrary decisions.”
The law authorized $4 million in appropriations for the board in each fiscal year from FY1998
through FY2001. The board went out of existence on September 30, 2001.
105 See Allan Holmes, “Census program to use handheld computers said to be in ‘serious trouble’,”
GovernmentExecutive.com, January 2, 2008, http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?filepath=/dailyfed/0108/
010208h1.htm. This article contained a link to MITRE’s November 29, 2007, “Talking Points for Meeting with [then-
Census Bureau Deputy Director] Jay Waite.”
106 See Committee on National Statistics, “About CNSTAT,” http://www7.nationalacademies.org/cnstat/
What%20is%20CNSTAT.html.
107 See, as examples, Lawrence D. Brown, Michael L. Cohen, et al., Experimentation and Evaluation Plans for the
2010 Census (Washington: National Academies Press, 2008); and Robert M. Bell and Michael L. Cohen, eds.,
Coverage Measurement in the 2010 Census (Washington: National Academies Press, 2009).
108 The Board’s presidential members and congressional members prepared separate final reports, both dated
September 1, 2001.
Congressional Research Service
19
The 2010 Decennial Census: Background and Issues
Concluding Observations
The Census Bureau’s mandate to conduct the 2010 decennial census, which would have been
demanding and costly under the best circumstances, faced additional challenges because the
Bureau’s contract with the Harris Corporation to produce handheld computers for Field Data
Collection Automation yielded only partial success. The Bureau’s decision not to use the
handhelds for nonresponse follow-up called into question whether a paper-based NRFU, with
persistent IT problems, could account adequately for historically under-enumerated population
groups. The Bureau reported an encouraging national participation rate of 74% for the mail-out,
mail-back part of the census, but it has yet to estimate, through the Census Coverage
Measurement program, how well the census accounted for the whole population. Although the
Bureau has completed interviewing for the CCM survey, the CCM findings will not be available
until 2012. Concerns about possible bias in the enumeration, and about whom the census counts,
miscounts, or omits, likely will persist into the future because the census numbers serve such
important national, state, and local purposes.
Author Contact Information
Jennifer D. Williams
Specialist in American National Government
jwilliams@crs.loc.gov, 7-8640
Congressional Research Service
20