[House Report 106-88]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
106th Congress Report
1st Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 106-88
=======================================================================
2000 CENSUS MAIL OUTREACH IMPROVEMENT ACT
_______
April 13, 1999.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Burton, from the Committee on Government Reform, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 928]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Government Reform, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 928) to require that the 2000 decennial census
include either a general or targeted followup mailing of census
questionnaires, whichever, in the judgment of the Secretary of
Commerce, will be more effective in securing the return of
census information from the greatest number of households
possible, having considered the same, report favorably thereon
without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
I. Summary of Legislation..................................... 2
II. Background and the Need for Legislation.................... 2
III. Legislative Hearings and Committee Actions................. 3
IV. Committee Hearings and Written Testimony................... 3
V. Explanation of the Bill.................................... 3
VI. Compliance with Rule XIII.................................. 4
VII. Budget Analysis and Projections............................ 4
VIII. Cost Estimate of the Congressional Budget Office........... 4
IX. Specific Constitutional Authority for This Legislation..... 5
X. Committee Recommendation................................... 5
XI. Congressional Accountability Act; Public Law 104-1......... 6
XII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act; Public Law 104-4, Section
423...................................................... 6
XIII. Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) Section
5(b)..................................................... 6
i. summary of legislation
H.R. 928, the 2000 Census Mail Outreach Improvement Act of
1999, requires the 2000 decennial census to include a second
mailing of census questionnaires, either targeted (to those
households who have not yet responded by mail) or general (to
each household included in the original mailing). This bill
also gives the Secretary of Commerce the authority to choose
which method (targeted or general mailing) will achieve the
highest number of responses possible, and will be most feasible
for the Census Bureau to carry out.
ii. background and need for legislation
Beginning in the early 1990s, the Bureau began planning for
the 2000 Census and included the concept of a second mailing
strategy. According to the original Bureau plan, the procedure
for the mail survey during the first phase called for the use
of a targeted second mailing, where all households who had not
yet responded to the original census questionnaire would
receive an additional form to complete and return by mail. The
Census Bureau believed that using a ``full mail implementation
strategy'' would increase mail response rates up to 6 percent.
Additionally, the Bureau's intent to use the second mailing
procedure was endorsed by recommendations from the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS), after Congress asked them to study
and provide ways to improve the accuracy and cost-effectiveness
of the census. They too supported the use of a second mailing
strategy, citing the Bureau's own research which demonstrated
that a replacement questionnaire (in a targeted mailing
setting) would considerably increase response rates. The mail
survey procedures were very cost-effective because the increase
in response rates would provide savings in follow-up costs.
Conducting a second mailing could save up to $150 million by
reducing field data collection costs. These savings also
outweighed the additional expenditures onmail contacts, both
direct and indirect costs such as postage and de-duplication of census
forms from households who return two questionnaires.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Research Council, Commission on Behavioral and Social
Sciences and Education, letter to Dr. Martha Farnsworth Riche, November
10, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After consultation with contracting vendors, the Bureau
concluded that a second targeted mailing could not be conducted
due to technological and time constraints. Rather, a second
blanket mailing (a replacement questionnaire to all households,
regardless of whether or not they have returned the original
questionnaire) would be more feasible. The NAS agreed again
that the benefit of increased mail response outweighs the cost
of printing sufficient replacement forms and mailing one to
each household.
In the 1998 Dress Rehearsals for the 2000 decennial census,
the second blanket mailing strategy was tested at two
locations, and met all of the standards for increasing response
rates. According to the Census 2000 Dress Rehearsal Report
Card, in Columbia, SC, the response rate increased 8.6 percent
for the short form, and 6.2 percent for the long form.
Likewise, at the Sacramento, CA site, the response rate
increased 7.9 percent for the short form, and 5.2 percent for
the long form. In May of 1998, the Bureau decided to eliminate
the second mailing due to difficulties in handling the de-
duplication of questionnaires.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Bureau of the Census, Census 2000 Decision Memorandum No. 54,
May 11, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In July of 1998, the General Accounting Office (GAO)
testified before the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs
concerning the results of the second mailing from testing in
the 1998 Dress Rehearsals. The GAO testified that, `` * * * the
Bureau does not currently plan to use in 2000 a key ingredient
of the response rate achieved during the dress rehearsal--a
second mailing. According to a Bureau official, concerns about
public confusion have contributed to the Bureau's decision not
to use a second questionnaire mailing in 2000. The preliminary
results of the dress rehearsal suggest that the Bureau may need
to reconsider its decision. At both the South Carolina and
Sacramento sites, the Bureau obtained approximately a 7
percentage point ``bump'' in response rates by sending a second
questionnaire to all households located in mailout/mailback
areas. According to a senior Bureau official, this 7 percentage
point increase represents real additions to the court and does
not include duplicate submissions from households that already
had responded.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate,
``Decennial Census: Preliminary Observations on the Results to Date of
the Dress Rehearsal and the Census Bureau's Readiness for 2000,'' July
30, 1998 (GAO/T-GGD-98-178).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Congress is concerned with obtaining the most accurate
census possible. H.R. 928, The 2000 Census Mail Outreach
Improvement Act, reestablishes the second mailing to achieve
this goal. To best facilitate this endeavor, H.R. 928 grants
authority to the Secretary of Commerce to choose which method,
either targeted or blanket mailing, shall be used in the 2000
Census.
iii. legislative hearings and committee actions
H.R. 928 was introduced on March 2, 1999 by the Honorable
Dan Miller (R-FL). The bill was referred to the Committee on
Government Reform on March 2, 1999, and it was referred to the
Subcommittee on the Census March 10, 1999. The Subcommittee
held a mark-up on March 11, 1999. No amendments were offered,
and the measure was ordered favorably reported to the full
Committee by a vote of 6-4.
iv. committee hearings and written testimony
The Committee did not hold any specific legislative or
oversight hearings on H.R. 928. However, during an oversight
hearing entitled ``Oversight of the 2000 Census: Examining the
America Counts Today (ACT) Initiatives To Enhance Traditional
Enumeration Methods,'' held on March 2, 1999, the issue
addressed by this legislation was mentioned.
v. explanation of the bill as reported: section-by-section analysis
Section 1. Short Title. This Act may be cited as the ``2000
Census Mail Outreach Improvement Act.''
Section 2. This section requires the Secretary of Commerce
to ensure that a second mailing will occur after the original
mailing of census questionnaires in the taking of the 2000
decennial census. The replacement questionnaire will be sent
either to all households included in the original mailing, or
to each household who does not respond to the original mailing.
Whichever method is more effective in securing the return of a
completed questionnaire from the greatest number of households
will be left to the judgement of the Secretary. In making this
decision, the Secretary of Commerce shall take into
consideration factors such as the need for timely and accurate
information, cost, and ease of administration.
vi. compliance with rule xiii
Pursuant to rule XIII, clause 3(c)(1) of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, under the authority of rule X, clause
2(b)(1) and clause 3(e), the results and findings from
committee oversight activities are incorporated in the bill and
this report.
vii. budget analysis and projections
The budget analysis and projections required by section
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are contained in
the estimate of the Congressional Budget Office.
viii. cost estimate of the congressional budget office
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, March 22, 1999.
Hon. Dan Burton,
Chairman, Committee on Government Reform,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 928, the 2000
Census Mail Outreach Improvement Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark Hadley.
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson
(For Dan L. Crippen).
Enclosure.
H.R. 928--2000 Census Mail Outreach Improvement Act
In conducting the decennial census in 2000, the Bureau of
the Census will mail questionnaires to nearly 95 million
households. H.R. 928 would require the bureau to mail a
replacement questionnaire either to each household that does
not respond to the original mailing or to all households. The
bill would give the Secretary of Commerce the authority to
choose whichever option he believes would result in the greater
response rate.
Based on information from the Bureau of the Census and
subject to appropriation of the necessary amount, CBO estimates
that implementing H.R. 928 would cost either $110 million--if
replacement questionnaires are mailed just to nonrespondents--
and $275 million--if replacement questionnaires are mailed to
all households. Based on the response rate for the 1990 census
and information from the bureau, CBO estimates that around 40
percent of all households will not respond to the original
questionnaire. The bureau expects to spend about $160 million
on postage for the original questionnaires and estimates that
printing a second questionnaire for all households would cost
$75 million. Based on the experience of the dress rehearsal of
the 2000 census, CBO estimates that the bureau would spend $40
million to process questionnaires from a second mailing to all
households. CBO cannot predict which of the two options the
Secretary of Commerce would choose for replacement
questionnaires. Sending a second mailing to all households
could increase the overall response rate more than a targeted
mailing because the bureau could reach nonrespondents more
quickly. However, it is unclear whether the difference in the
overall response rate would be significant.
In addition to the costs cited above, H.R. 928 could affect
spending by the Bureau of the Census in two other ways, but CBO
cannot estimate their effects. First, the bureau would likely
incur additional costs to process more duplicate questionnaires
if a complete second mailing is done. During the dress
rehearsal, the bureau found that more than one-third of all
second questionnaries that were returned were duplicates of
original questionnaires. Second, because H.R. 928 could
increase the rate of response by mail, it could reduce the
costs for having temporary employees telephoning or visiting
households that did not respond to the questionnaire.
H.R. 928 would not affect direct spending or receipts;
therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply. H.R. 928
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose no
costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
The CBO staff contact is Mark Hadley. This estimate was
approved by Paul N. Van de Water, Assistant Director for Budget
Analysis.
IX. SPECIFIC CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY FOR THIS LEGISLATION
Clauses 1 and 18 of Article 1, Sec. 8, and Article 1, Sec.
2 of the Constitution grant Congress the power to enact this
law.
X. Committee Recommendation
On March 17, 1999, a quorum being present, the Committee on
Government Reform ordered the bill favorably reported.
Date: March 17, 1999.
Summary: Final Passage of H.R. 928.
Offered by: Hon. Dan Miller.
Approved by Record Vote, 23 Ayes to 20 Nays.
Vote by Members: Mr. Burton--Aye; Mr. Gilman--Aye; Mrs.
Morella--Aye; Mr. Shays--Aye; Ms. Ros-Lehtinen--Aye; Mr.
McHugh--Aye; Mr. Horn--Aye; Mr. Mica--Aye; Mr. Davis of
Virginia--Aye; Mr. McIntosh--Aye; Mr. Souder--Aye; Mr.
Scarborough--Aye; Mr. LaTourette--Aye; Mr. Sanford--Aye; Mr.
Barr--Aye; Mr. Miller--Aye; Mr. Hutchinson--Not Voting; Mr.
Terry--Aye; Mrs. Biggert--Aye; Mr. Walden--Aye; Mr. Ose--Aye;
Mr. Ryan--Aye; Mr. Doolittle--Aye; Mrs. Chenoweth--Aye; Mr.
Waxman--Nay; Mr. Wise--Nay; Mr. Owens--Nay; Mr. Towns--Nay; Mr.
Kanjorski--Nay; Mrs. Mink--Nay; Mr. Sanders--Nay; Mrs.
Maloney--Nay; Ms. Norton--Nay; Mr. Fattah; Mr. Cummings--Nay;
Mr. Kucinich--Nay; Mr. Blagojevich--Nay; Mr. Davis of
Illinois--Nay; Mr. Tierney--Nay; Mr. Turner--Nay; Mr. Allen--
Nay; Mr. Ford--Nay; Ms. Schakowsky--Nay.
XI. Congressional Accountability Act; Public Law 104-1; Section
102(b)(3)
H.R. 928 requires the Secretary of Commerce to include
either a general or targeted followup mailing of census
questionnaires in taking the 2000 Decennial Census. The Act
does not apply to the House of Representatives or to the
Senate, thus H.R. 928 does not apply to Congress.
XII. Unfunded mandates Reform Act; Public Law 104-4, Section 423
The Committee finds that the legislation does not impose
any Federal mandates within the meaning of section 423 of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (PL 1044).
XIII. Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) Section 5(b)
The Committee finds that the legislation does not establish
or authorize establishment of an advisory committee within the
definition of 5 U.S.C. App., Section 5(b).
MINORITY VIEWS
H.R. 928, which requires either a blanket or targeted
second mailing of the census questionnaire, should not be
supported. To get a fair and accurate census, we must allow the
professionals at the Census Bureau to make the many critical
decisions involved in taking a census, based on their expertise
and experience. Those Census Bureau professionals have told us
that conducting a second mailing is a bad idea.
Current law requires that the census start on April 1,
2000, that state population totals be reported to the President
and Congress by December 31, 2000, and that final population
counts be reported to the states by April 1, 2001. During that
time, census takers must assign 275 million people to 120
million addresses on a fixed, single date, April 1, 2000--a
task of mind boggling scope and complexity.
H.R. 928 compromises the ability of the Census Bureau to
meet these deadlines and would have the effect of blocking the
use of modern statistical methods in determining the final
totals from the 2000 Census. The statutory deadline established
by 13 U.S.C. for the release of those totals is April 1, 2001.
Any second mailing would add a minimum of six weeks before
nonresponse follow-up could begin, making it impossible for the
Census Bureau to use modern statistical methods and meet the
April 1, 2001, deadline. The Census Bureau would be forced to
release less accurate numbers on April 1, 2001, which were not
corrected for overcounts and undercounts.
The Census Bureau tested a blanket second mailing in a
dress rehearsal and it didn't work. About 40% of the ``second''
forms returned during the dress rehearsal were duplicates. If
that rate were repeated at the national level in 2000, there
would be over 11 million duplicates. As Census Bureau Director
Dr. Kenneth Prewitt explained, ``For Census 2000, a work load
of this magnitude would significantly delay data processing
operations and potentially introduce significant errors into
the data. In addition, our dress rehearsal experience indicated
that the public was confused by the second mailing.''
1 In addition, a National Academy of Sciences panel
advises that a blanket second mailing could reduce the accuracy
of the census.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Kenneth Prewitt, Director of the Census Bureau, Memorandum for
the Secretary, 3 (March 16, 1999).
\2\ National Research Council, Committee on National Statistics
Panel on Alternative Census Methodologies, Measuring a Changing Nation,
Modern Methods for the 2000 Census, 22 (February 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is also fault with a targeted second mailing. Dr.
Prewitt stated, ``printing vendors informed us they would
require at least a month to send a second mailing targeted only
to nonresponding housing units. A targeted second mailing
would, thus, have significantly delayed the start of the
nonresponse follow-up operation. Our experience and research
indicate that the longer the delay between Census Day and the
start of nonresponse follow-up, the more inaccuracies are
introduced to the census data.'' 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Memorandum for the Secretary, supra note 1, 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The value of a second mailing is substantially outweighed
by the risks that it introduces in other census operations and
the delays it would cause in achieving the most accurate census
totals.
Henry A. Waxman.
Tom Lantos.
R.E. Wise, Jr.
Major R. Owens.
Edolphus Towns.
Paul E. Kanjorski.
Patsy T. Mink.
Bernard Sanders.
Carolyn B. Maloney.
Eleanor H. Norton.
Chaka Fattah.
Elijah E. Cummings.
Dennis J. Kucinich.
Rod R. Blagojevich.
Danny K. Davis.
John F. Tierney.
Jim Turner.
Tom Allen.
Harold E. Ford, Jr.
Jan Schakowsky.