FORM CID-64 U. 5. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE DAD 201-17 Washington, 0.6., June 8 20 HEREBY CERTIFY that the annexed is a true copy of the complete administrative record upon which the Secretary of Commerce based his decision to reinstate a question concerning citizenship on the 2020 Decennial Census. base this Certi?cation on my personal involvement with the the compilation and review of the documents comprising the administrative record. A copy of this record is Ott?le in the U.S. Department of Commerce. 1401 Constitution Ave. NW. Washington, DC 20230 Sahra Park-Su. Senior Policy Advisor (Of?cial title) Sahra Park-3U who signed the jbregoi ng certificate, is now, and was at the time of sign i ng, record upon which he Secretary of Commerce based his decision to reinstate a question concerning citizenship on the 2020 Decennial Census. the custodian of the complete administrative and that fat th and credit should be given his/her certificate as such. IN WITNESS WHERE I have hereunto subscribed my name, and caused the seat of the Department of Commerce to he af- ?xed this 8th day of June two thousand eighteen For the SECRETARY OR GO Hg Certifying O?icer Topic Area 1- BACKGROUND DOCS Bates # Date Document Title 1 1- Background Docs 2000 Census AdvertisementBates 2 1- Background Docs 2000 Census Long FormBates 42 1- Background Docs 2000 Census Short FormBates 48 1- Background Docs 2010 Census FormBates 54 11/16/2012 1- Background Docs 2010 Census Match Study 11.16.12Bates 149 1- Background Docs 2018 Census Test FormBates 1- Background Docs 2020 Census LCCE Exec Summary 20171221 153 12/21/2017 Clean with Approvals PageBates 1- Background Docs 201703 Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and ACS 194 271 4/14/1988 1- Background Docs 19880414 DOJ Response Miller 277 9/22/1989 1- Background Docs 19890922 DOJ Response Bingaman 278 6/25/2014 1- Background Docs 20140625 DOJ_GC_ACS Letter 6.25.14 1- Background Docs 20140702 NIH How Well Does the ACS 7/2/2014 Count Naturalized Citizens 284 311 317 1-Background Docs 20161104 DOJ Ltr to Census Director 11/4/2016 Thompson re Use of ACS 11.4.16Bates 8/7/2017 1- Background Docs 20170807 Census Updates 1- Background Docs 20171218 Admin Records Briefing for 326 12/18/2017 Secretary Ross_12_18_17_DDBBates 336 1- Background Docs 20180118 Secretary Ross Briefing 2020 1/18/2018 Census Update 2018.01.18 FINALBates 380 1- Background Docs 20180226 Secretary Ross Briefing 2020 2/26/2018 Census Update 2018.02.26 Final PresentationBates 413 1- Background Docs 20180305 Question Submission ESA 3-53/5/2018 18Bates 435 1- Background Docs 20180306 Question Submission DOC 3-63/6/2018 18Bates 456 1- Background Docs 20180323 20180324-Answer re 2010 short 3/24/2018 form and ACS [3.23.18]Bates Page 1 of 11 457 1- Background Docs 20180323 ACS 2016 Breakoff Rates by Race 3/23/2018 Group for internet [3.23.18]Bates 467 1- Background Docs 20180323 ACS Item Allocation Rates_2016, 3/23/2018 2013, 2010 [3.23.18]Bates 481 1- Background Docs 20180323 Percent of ACS response rates by 3/23/2018 mode 2010-2017 [3.23.18]Bates 482 1- Background Docs 20180323 Response rates for ACS 20003/23/2018 2016 [3.23.18]Bates 485 1- Background Docs ACS 2000Bates 509 1- Background Docs ACS 2010Bates 523 1- Background Docs Background Docs ACS Why We Ask PlaceofBirth_Citizenship_YearofEntryBates 526 1- Background Docs Background Docs Administrative Data 3/19/2018 Inventory - Census BureauBates 1- Background Docs Background Docs Brief of Former Directors of the U.S. Census Bureau as Amici Curiae (Evenwel v Abbott)Bates 540 1- Background Docs Background Docs Census 2000 Content 9/24/2003 Reinterview Survey Accuracy of Data 9.24.2003Bates 548 1- Background Docs Background Docs Census 2000 Mail 1/30/2003 Response Rates 1.30.03Bates 524 612 1- Background Docs Background Docs CFR Adjustments of the 1990 Census for Overcounts and Undercounts Notice of Final DecisionBates 616 1- Background Docs Background Docs Crosswalk from LCCE in Exec Summary to FY 19 Pres. BudgetBates 617 1- Background Docs Background Docs Evenwel v Abbott, 136 S.Ct. 1120 (2016)Bates 641 1- Background Docs Background Docs Historical Information_Questionnaires - CensusBates Page 2 of 11 642 644 646 656 662 2- DOJ COMMUNICATIONS 3- MEDIA 4- STAKEHOLDER COMMUNICATIONS 1- Background Docs Background Docs Historical Information_Questionnaires - Citizenship QuestionBates 1- Background Docs Background Docs Kincannon, Charles 12/6/2005 Statement - Director, U.S. Census Bureau 12.6.05Bates 1- Background Docs Background Docs Measuring America The Decennial Censuses From 1790 to 2000 (Issued April 2002)Bates 1- Background Docs Background Docs MOU Status Update 3/19/2018 3.19.18Bates 1- Background Docs Background Docs Title 13 U.S.C. 213 False Statements, Certificates, and InformationBates 2- DOJ Communications 20171212 DOJ Citizenship Request to 663 12/12/2017 Jarmin 12.12.17Bates 666 734 738 742 750 3- Media - Tracker on DoJ Letter to USCB_3.23.2018Bates 3- Media camarota, Steven [article]Bates 3- Media Gupta, Vanita [RP article]Bates 3- Media Gupta, Vanita [Testimony]Bates 3- Media Vargas, Arturo [HP article]Bates 754 3- Media Vargas, Arturo [NALEO research plan]Bates 759 3- Media Vargas, Arturo [SJM op ed]Bates 763 4- Stakeholder Communications 20170714 Email Kobach to 7/14/2017 RossBates 765 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180103 Email G Lasher to R 1/3/2018 Jarmin LBates 766 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180103 Email G Lasher to R 1/3/2018 Jarmin Response 1-4Bates 767 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180104 Letter D Carpenter 1/4/2018 to R JarminBates 768 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180104 Letter Serrano Meng 1/4/2018 to Sec Ross LBates 770 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180104 Letter Serrano Meng 1/4/2018 to Sec Ross Responses 2-22Bates 772 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180104 Letter to D 1/4/2018 Carpenter to R Jarmin Response 2-20Bates Page 3 of 11 773 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180104 Letter V Gupta to 1/4/2018 Sec Ross LBates 777 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180104 Letter V Gupta to 1/4/2018 Sec Ross Response 3-13Bates 778 3- Stakeholder Communications 20170105 Email Vargas to Dep 1/5/2018 SecBates 780 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180105 Letter D Feinstein et 1/5/2018 al to Sec Ross LBates 782 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180105 Letter D Feinstein et 1/5/2018 al to Sec Ross Responses 1-31Bates 787 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180105 Letter E Bonilla-Silva 1/5/2018 to Sec Ross LBates 788 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180105 Letter E Bonilla-Silva 1/5/2018 to Sec Ross Response 2-22Bates 789 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180105 Letter J Paradis to R 1/5/2018 JarminBates 790 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180107 Letter P Collier-Kerr 1/7/2018 to Sec RossBates 793 4- Stakeholder Communications Email 20180108 M Thompson 1/8/2018 (E Helling) to CensusBates 794 4- Stakeholder Communications Email 20180109 B Anderson to 1/9/2018 Sec RossBates 797 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180109 Letter V Gonzalez to 1/9/2018 J SessionsBates 798 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180110 Letter LCCHR to Sec 1/10/2018 Ross LBates 804 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180110 Letter LCCHR to Sec 1/10/2018 Ross Response 2-22Bates 806 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180111 Letter Michigan NPA 1/11/2018 to Sec Ross LBates 808 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180111 Letter Michigan NPA 1/11/2018 to Sec Ross Responses 2-22Bates 811 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180111 Letter Shaheen 1/11/2018 McCaskill to Sec Ross LBates 813 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180111 Letter Shaheen 1/11/2018 McCaskill to Sec Ross Responses 2-22Bates 815 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180112 Letter E Effinger1/12/2018 Weintraub to Sec RossBates 816 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180116 Letter CHAC to Sec 1/16/2018 Ross Responses 2-22Bates Page 4 of 11 819 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180116 Letter CHAC to Sec 1/16/2018 RossBates 838 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180116 Letter J Manchin to 1/16/2018 Sec RossBates 840 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180117 Letter P Jayapal et al 1/17/2018 to Sec Ross LBates 847 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180117 Letter P Jayapal et al 1/17/2018 to Sec Ross Responses 2-22Bates 908 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180118 Letter C Maloney et 1/18/2018 al to Sec Ross LBates 920 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180118 Letter C Maloney et 1/18/2018 al to Sec Ross Responses 2-26Bates 1045 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180119 Letter S Kuehl et al 1/19/2018 to Sec Ross LBates 1047 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180119 Letter S Kuehl et al 1/19/2018 to Sec Ross Responses 2-22Bates 1052 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180123 Letter PAA to Sec 1/23/2018 Ross LBates 1055 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180123 Letter PAA to Sec 1/23/2018 Ross Responses 2-23Bates 1057 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180126 Letter Former Dirs to 1/26/2018 Sec RossBates 1059 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180126 Letter G Bennett to 1/26/2018 Sec RossBates 1061 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180129 Letter R Beschel to 1/29/2018 Pres TrumpBates 1064 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180129 Letter T Cochran to 1/29/2018 Sec RossBates 1067 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180130 Letter L Alejo to Sec 1/30/2018 Ross LBates 1069 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180130 Letter L Alejo to Sec 1/30/2018 Ross Responses 3-1Bates 1070 4- Stakeholder Communications Email 20180206 B Comstock 2/6/2018 (AGB) to T EdwardsBates 1073 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180206 Letter Conf of 2/6/2018 Mayors to Sec RossBates 1079 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180208 Letter J Landry to 2/8/2018 Sec Ross LBates 1081 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180208 Letter J Landry to 2/8/2018 Sec Ross Response 3-19Bates Page 5 of 11 1082 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180208 Letter Natl League 2/8/2018 Cities to Sec Ross LBates 1085 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180208 Letter Natl League 2/8/2018 Cities to Sec Ross Response 3-6Bates 1086 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180209 Letter J Reed to A 2/9/2018 Lang ABates 1088 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180209 Letter J Reed to A 2/9/2018 Lang Jarmin Response 2-28Bates 1089 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180212 Letter R Jarmin to M 2/12/2018 ThompsonBates 1090 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180212 Letter State AGs to 2/12/2018 Sec Ross LBates 1102 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180212 Letter State AGs to 2/12/2018 Sec Ross Responses 3-13Bates 1122 4- Stakeholder Communications Email 20180215 M Fidel (ADL) 2/15/2018 to Sec RossBates 1124 4- Stakeholder Communications Email 20180215 Tester (J 2/15/2018 Henry) to Philadelphia Reg OfficeBates 1125 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180215 Letter Const Acc Ctr 2/15/2018 to Sec Ross LBates 1128 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180215 Letter Const Acc Ctr 2/15/2018 to Sec Ross Responses 3-12Bates 1129 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180216 Letter S King to Sec 2/16/2018 Ross LBates 1131 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180216 Letter S King to Sec 2/16/2018 Ross Response 3-12Bates 1141 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180218 Letter K Kobach to 2/18/2018 Sec Ross LBates 1143 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180218 Letter K Kobach to 2/18/2018 Sec Ross Response 3-23Bates 1144 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180220 Letter S Choi (NYIC) 2/20/2018 to Sec Ross LBates 1149 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180220 Letter S Choi (NYIC) 2/20/2018 to Sec Ross Response 3-23Bates 1150 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180222 Letter APA VOICE to 2/22/2018 Sec Ross LBates 1152 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180222 Letter APA VOICE to 2/22/2018 Sec Ross Response 3-23Bates 1153 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180223 Letter C Lawson to 2/23/2018 Sec Ross LBates Page 6 of 11 1154 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180223 Letter C Lawson to 2/23/2018 Sec Ross Response 3-19Bates 1155 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180223 Letter J Mateer to R 2/23/2018 Jarmin LBates 1158 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180223 Letter J Mateer to R 2/23/2018 Jarmin Response 3-15Bates 1159 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180223 Letter M Warner 2/23/2018 (WV) to Sec Ross LBates 1160 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180223 Letter M Warner 2/23/2018 (WV) to Sec Ross Response 3-23Bates 1161 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180223 Letter S Marshall to 2/23/2018 Sec Ross LBates 1163 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180223 Letter S Marshall to 2/23/2018 Sec Ross Reponse 3-23Bates 1164 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180227 Letter B Goodlatte 2/27/2018 to Sec Ross LBates 1165 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180227 Letter B Goodlatte 2/27/2018 to Sec Ross Response 3-23Bates 1166 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180227 Letter J Williams to R 2/27/2018 JarminBates 1176 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180227 Letter R Jarmin to B 2/27/2018 ComstockBates 1178 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180227 Letter T Cotton et al 2/27/2018 to Sec Ross LBates 1180 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180227 Letter T Cotton et al 2/27/2018 to Sec Ross Response 3-19Bates 1183 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180227 Letters Sec Ross to 2/27/2018 CSAC MembersBates 1193 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180228 Letter R Jarmin to 2/28/2018 Sen TesterBates 1194 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180228 Schatz, Brian Post2/28/2018 Call SummaryBates 1195 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180302 Letter N Zauderer to 3/2/2018 Sec Ross LBates 1197 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180302 Letter N Zauderer to 3/2/2018 Sec Ross Response 3-23Bates 1198 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180312 Carper, Tom Post3/12/2018 Call SummaryBates 1199 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180312 Cotton, Tom Post3/12/2018 Call SummaryBates Page 7 of 11 1200 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180312 Cruz, Ted Post-Call 3/12/2018 SummaryBates 1201 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180312 Hood, Jim Post-Call 3/12/2018 SummaryBates 1202 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180312 Johnson, Ron Post3/12/2018 Call SummaryBates 1203 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180312 Landry, Jeff Post-Call 3/12/2018 SummaryBates 1204 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180312 Maloney, Carolyn 3/12/2018 Post-Call SummaryBates 1205 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180312 Miller, Tom Post-Call 3/12/2018 SummaryBates 1206 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180313 Camarota, Steven 3/13/2018 Post-Call SummaryBates 1207 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180313 Gupta, Vanita Post3/13/2018 Call SummaryBates 1208 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180313 Howard, Jerry Post3/13/2018 Call SummaryBates 1209 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180313 Kitague, Ditas Post3/13/2018 Call SummaryBates 1210 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180313 Letter M Hunter et al 3/13/2018 to Sec RossBates 1213 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180313 Vargas, Arturo Post3/13/2018 Call SummaryBates 1214 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180315 Chapman, Bruce 3/15/2018 Post-Call SummaryBates 1215 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180315 Connolly, Gerald 3/15/2018 Post-Call SummaryBates 1217 3- Stakeholder Communications 20180315 Letter P Kirsanow to 3/15/2018 R Jarmin LBates 1220 3- Stakeholder Communications 20180315 Letter P Kirsanow to 3/15/2018 R Jarmin Response 3-20Bates 1221 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180315 Murdock, Steven 3/19/2018 Post-Call SummaryBates 1222 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180319 Letter J Garcel (LCF) 3/20/2018 to Sec RossBates 1223 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180320 Letter G Meng et al 3/20/2018 to Sec Ross LBates 1224 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180320 Letter G Meng et al 3/21/2018 to Sec Ross Response 3-23Bates Page 8 of 11 1227 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180321 Letter A Torres et al 3/21/2018 to Sec Ross LBates 1237 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180321 Letter A Torres et al 3/21/2018 to Sec Ross Response G Bass 3-23Bates 1238 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180321 Letter B Kyle to Sec 3/21/2018 RossBates 1239 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180321 Letter C Gore et al to 3/21/2018 Sec Ross LBates 1242 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180321 Letter C Gore et al to 3/21/2018 Sec Ross Responses 3-23Bates 1245 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180321 Letter D Quart to Sec 3/21/2018 RossBates 1246 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180321 Letter H Weinstein 3/21/2018 to Sec RossBates 1247 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180321 Letter K Jean-Pierre 3/22/2018 to Sec RossBates 1248 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180322 Letter Const Acc Ctr 3/22/2018 to Sec RossBates 1250 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180322 Letter J Haila to Sec 3/22/2018 RossBates 1251 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180322 Letter J Hamilton to 3/22/2018 Sec RossBates 1252 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180322 Letter Ready Nation 3/22/2018 to Sec Ross LBates 1255 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180322 Letter Ready Nation 3/22/2018 to Sec Ross Responses 3-23Bates 1256 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180323 Cummings, Elijah 3/23/2018 Post-Call SummaryBates 1257 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180323 Groves, Robert Post3/23/2018 Call SummaryBates 1259 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180323 Habermann, 3/23/2018 Hermann Post-Call SummaryBates 1261 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180323 James, Kay Cole Post3/23/2018 Call SummaryBates 1262 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180323 Letter A Simotas to 3/23/2018 Sec RossBates 1263 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180323 Letter C Layne to Sec 3/23/2018 RossBates 1264 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180323 Letter D Glick to Sec 3/23/2018 RossBates Page 9 of 11 1265 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180323 Letter D Weprin to 3/23/2018 Sec RossBates 1266 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180323 Letter J Lentol to Sec 3/23/2018 RossBates 1267 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180323 Letter P Abbate to 3/23/2018 Sec RossBates 1268 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180323 Letter P Hunter to 3/23/2018 Sec RossBates 1269 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180323 Letter S Aftergood et 3/23/2018 al to Sec RossBates 1272 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180323 Letter S Aftergood et 3/23/2018 al to Sec Ross Response 3-23Bates 1273 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180323 Letter Sec Ross to M 3/23/2018 Nathan (ADL)Bates 1274 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180323 Pelosi, Nancy Post3/23/2018 Call SummaryBates 4- Stakeholder Communications 20180323 Pierce, Christine 1276 12/12/2017 Post-Call SummaryBates 5- CENSUS COMMUNICATIONS 1277 5- Census Communications 20180119 Census Technical Review 1/18/2018 of DOJ Request 1.18.18Bates 1286 5- Census Communications 20180206 Citizenship Question_Questions on the 19 Jan Memo 01312018_Responses 2/6/2018 from Census_02-06-2018-FINALBates 1298 5- Census Communications 20180206 Attachment - Citizenship 2/6/2018 Questions_ACS Item Allocation Rates_2016, 2013, 2010Bates 1304 5- Census Communications 20180215 Census Alt C vs Alt D 2/15/2018 Summary 2.15.18Bates Page 10 of 11 1308 6- DECISION MEMO 1313 5- Census Communications 20180301 Census Review 3/1/2018 Alternative D 2.15.18Bates 6- Decision Memo 20180326 2020 Census Decision Memo 20183/26/2018 03-26_2Bates Page 11 of 11 0' I .- 0 I . 1-- 000001 CC United States ensus 2000 [in?rm (Ht :f This is the official form for all the people at this address. It is quick and easy. and your answers are protected by law. Complete the Census and heip your community get what it needs today and in the future! Start Here Please use a black or blue pen. 0 How many people were living or staying in this house. apartment. or mobile home on April 1. 2000? Number of people in this number: . foster child ten. roomers, or housemates - people sta ing here on April 1, 2000 who ave no at er permanent place to stay 0 people living here most of the time while wor ing, even if they have another place to live DO NOT in this number: 0 college students living away while attending college a people in a correctional facility. nursing home. or mental hospital on April 1, 2000 0 Armed Forces personnel living somewhere else - peo le who live or stay at another place most oft time 0 Please turn the page and print the names of all the people living or staying here on April 1. 2000. tf you need help completing this form. call 1-000?471?0424 between 8:00 am. and 9:00 7 days a week. The telephone call is free. TDD - Telephone display device for the hearing impaired. Cali r-aoo-ssz-esso between 8:00 am. and 9:00 pm, 7 days a week. The telephone call is free. Si usted necesita ayuda para completar ate cuestionario flame at i-800?47i-0642 entre las 8:00 am. ias 9:00 pm. 7 dies a la semana. La iiarnada teiefdnica es gratis. The Census Bureau estimates that. for the average household, this form will take about 30 minutes to com late. including the time tor reviewing the instructions and answers. Comments about estimate should be directed to the Associate Director for Finance and Administration. Attn: Paperwork Reduction Project 0607-0856. Room 3100. Federal Budding 3. Bureau of the Census. Washington. DC 20233. Respondents are not required to respond to any Information collection unless it displays a valid approval number from the Office of Management and Budget. OMB No. 0607-0056. Apptoval Expires 121310000 000002 List of Persons Person 6 Last Name Please be sure you answered question 1 on the front page before continuing. First Name Mt Please print the names of all the people who you indicated in question 1 were living or staying here on April 1. 2000. Example Last Name Person 7 Last Name First Name MI First Name Mi Start with the person. or one of the people living Person 3 Last Name here who owns. is buying. or rents this house. apartment. or mobile home. If there is no such person, start with any adult living or staying here. First Name Mi Person 1 Last Name ?rst Name Mi Person 9 Last Name First Name Mi Person 2 Last Name ?rst Name Person 10 Last Name Name Mi Person 3 Last Name Name MI Person 11 Last Name First Name Mi Person 4 Last Name Name My Person 12 Last Name First Name Mi Person 5 Last Name Name 9 Next. answer questions about Person 1. IL.JIC1 B. JNEZ C. JHEB Form D-2 000003 Your answers are important! Every person in the Census counts. What is this person's name? Print the name of Person 1 from page 2. Last Name First Name MI What is this person's telephone number? We may Contact this person if we don ?t understand an answer. Area Code Number 6 What is this person's sex? Mark ONE box. Male 0 Female What is this person's age and what is this person's date of birth? Age on April 1, 2000 Print numbers in boxes. Month Day Year of birth NOTE: Please answer BOTH Questions 5 and 6. Is this person Spanish/Hispanicl Latino? Mark the "No' box if not Spanish/Hispanicltatino. No, not Spanisthispanic/Latino Yes. Mexican, Mexican Am. Chicano Yes, Puerto Rican Yes, Cuban Yes. other Spanish! Hispanic! Latino Print group. 7 What is this person's race? Mark one or more races to indicate what this person considers himselflherself to be. White Black. African Am.. or Negro American Indian or Alaska Native Print name of enrolled or principal tribe. 7 0 Asian Indlan 0 Native Hawaiian Chinese Guamanian or Filipino Chamorro Korean 0 Other Pacific Islander? 0 Vietnamese 0 Other Asian Print race. 7 Print race/ 0 Some other race Print race. 7 What is this person's marital status? [3 Now married Widowed Divorced Separated [3 Never married a. At any time since February 1. 2000. has this person attended regular school or college? include only nursery school or preschool, kindergarten, elementary school, and schooling which leads to a high school diploma or a college degree. No. has not attended since February 1 -) Skip to 9 Yes, public school, public college 0 Yes, private school, private college Form 000004 Person 1 (continued) b. What grade or level was this person attending? Mark ONE box. Nursery school, preschool [3 Kindergarten Grade 1 to grade 4 Grade 5 to grade 8 Grade 9 to grade 12 College undergraduate years (freshman tn senior) Graduate or professional school (for example: medical, dental, or law school) What is the highest degree or level of school this person has Mark ONE box. if currently enrolled, mark the previous grade or highest degree received. a No schooling completed 0 Nursery school to 4th grade 0 5th grade or 6th grade [3 7th grade or 8th grade 0 91h grade 0 10th grade 11th grade 12th grade, no DIPLOMA 0 HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE high school DIPLOMA or the equivalent (for example: GED) '3 Some college credit, but less than 1 year 1 or more years of college, no degree 0 Associate degree (for example: AA, AS) Bachelor?s degree (for example: BA, AB, 85) Master?s degree (for example: MA, MS, MEng, MSW, MBA) Professional degree {for example: MD, DDS, DVM, LLB, JD) 0 Doctorate degree (for example: EdDi What is this person's ancestry or ethnic origin? (For example' italian, Jamaican, African Am, Cambodian, Cape Verdean, Nomegian, Dominican, French Canadian, Haitian, Korean, Lebanese, Polish. Nigerian, Mexican, Taiwanese, Ukrainian, and so on.) Form D-2 4 0 a. Does this person speak a language other than 6 English at home? Yes No ?r Skip to 12 b. What is this language? {For example: Korean, italian, Spanish, Vietnamese) c. How well does this person speak English? Cl Very well Well 0 Not well 0 Not at all 9 Where was this person born? in the United States Print name of state. Outside the Llnited States Print name of foreign country, or Puerto Rico, Guam, etc. Is this person a CITIZEN of the United States? Yes, born in the United States ?3 Skip to 15a Yes, born in Puerto co, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, or Northern Marianas Yes, born abroad of American parent or parents Yes, a U.S. citizen by naturalization No, no'. a citizen of the United States When did this person come to live in the United States? Print numbers in boxes. Year a. Did this person live in this house or apartment 5 years ago (on April 1, 1995)? Person is under 5 years old Skip to 33 Yes, this house Skip to is No, outside the United States Print name of foreign country, or Puerto Rico, Guam, etc, below; then skip to 16. No, different house in the United States 000005 Person 1 (continued) 6 b. Where did this person live 5 years ago? Name of city. town, or post of?ce Did this person live inside the limits of the city or town? Yes Cl No, outside the city/town limits Name of county Name of state ZIP Code Does this person have any of the following long-lasting conditions: Yes a. Blindness. deafness, or a severe visron or hearing impairment? 0 b. A condition that substantially limits one or more basic physical activities such as walking, climbing stairs, reaching, lifting, or carrying? 0 Because of a physical. mental, or emotional condition lasting 6 months or more, does this person have any difficulty in doing any of the following activities: Yes a. Learning, remembering, or concentrating? b. Dressing, bathing, or getting around inside the home? c. (Answer If this person 15 16 YEARS OLD OR OVER.) Going outside the home alone to shop or visit a doctor's office? 0 d. (Answer if this person is 16 YEARS OLD OR OVER.) Working at a job or business? 0 Was this person under 15 years of age on April 1. 2000? Yes Skip [3002 a. Does this person have any of his/her own grandchildren under the age of 18 living in this house or apartment? Yes No Skip to 20a b. Is this grandparent currently responsible for most of the basic needs of any grandchildiren) under the age of 18 who live(s) in this house or apartment? 0 Yes No -9 Skip to 20a c. How long has this grandparent been responsible for the(se) grandchild(ren)? if the grandparent is ?nancially responsible for more than one grandchild answer the question for the grandchild for whom the grandparent has been responsible for the longest period of time. Less than 6 months 0 6 to 11 months 0 1 or 2 years Cl 3 or 4 years 5 years or more a. Has this person ever served on active duty in the 0.5. Armed Forces. military Reserves, or National Guard? Active duty does not include training for the Reserves or National Guard, but DOES include activation, for example, for the Persian Gulf War. Cl Yes, now on active duty 0 Yes, on active duty in past, but not now No, training for Reserves or National Guard only Skip to 21 No, never served in the military Skip to 21' b. When did this person serve on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces? Mark a box for EACH period in which this person served. Cl April 1995 or later 0 August 1990 to March 1995 (including Persian Gulf War) Cl September 1980 to July 1990 May 1975 to August 1980 Vietnam era (August 1964?April 1975) February 1955 to luly 1954 Korean conflict (June 1950?January 1955) C) World War II (September 1940?July 1947) Some other time c. In total. how many years of active-duty military service has this person had? 0 Less than 2 years 0 2 years or more Form 0-2 000006 Person 1 (continued) LAST WEEK. did this person do ANY work for either pay or profit? Mark the ?Yes? box even if the person worked only 1 hour, or helped without pay in a family business or farm for is hours or more, or was on active duty in the Armed Forces. Yes No ?9 Skip to 25a 9 At what location did this person work LAST if this person worked at more than one location, print where he or she worked most last week. a. Address (Number and street name) (if the exact address is not known. give a description of the location such as the building name or the nearest street or intersection.) b. Name of city, town. or post office c. Is the work location inside the limits of that city or town? 0 Yes No, outside the city/town limits d. Name of county e. Name of U.S. state or foreign country f. ZIP Code a a. How did this person usually get to work LAST if this person usually used more than one method of transportation during the trip. mark the box of the one used for most of the distance. Car, truck, or van Bus or trolley bus Streetcar or trolley car Subway or elevated Railroad Ferryboat Taxicab 0 0 Walked 0 Worked at home Skip to 27 Other method Form 2 6 If "Car. truck. or van" is marked in 23a. 90 to 23b. Otherwise, skip to 24a. b. How many people, including this person. usually rode to work in the car. truck. or van LAST Drove alone 2 people (3 3 people 4 people [3 5 or 6 people 7 or more people a. What time did this person usually leave home to go to work LAST 0 am. C) p.m. b. How many minutes did it usually take this person to get from home to work LAST Minutes Answer questions 25-26 for persons who did not work for pay or profit last week. Others skip to 27. a. LAST WEEK. was this person on layoff from a job? 0 Yes Skip to 25C 0 No b. LAST WEEK. was this person TEMPORARILY absent from a job or business? Yes, on vacation, temporary Illness. labor dispute, etc. Skip to 26 No Skip to 25d c. Has this person been informed that he or she will be recalled to work within the next 6 months OR been given a date to return to work? Yes Skip to 25e ONO d. Has this person been looking for work during the last 4 weeks? Yes No Skip to 25 e. LAST WEEK. could this person have started a job if offered one. or returned to work if recalled? Yes, could have gone to work No, because of own temporary illness No, because of all other reasons (in schooi, etc.) When did this person last work. even for a few days? 1995 to 2000 1994 or earlier, or never worked -9 Skip to 3? 000007 Person 1 (continued) Industry or Employer Describe clearly this person 's chief job activity or business last week. if this person had more than one job, describe the one at which this person worked the most hours. if this person had no job or business last week, give the information for his/her last job or business since 1995 . a. For whom did this person work? if now on active duty in the Armed Forces, mark this box and print the branch of the Armed Forces. Name of company, busmess, or other employer b. What kind of business or industry was this? Describe the activity at location where employed. (For example. hospital, newspaper publishing, mail order house, auto repair shop, bank) c. Is this mainly Mark ONE box. Manufacturing? [3 Wholesale trade? Retail trade? 0 Other (agriculture, construction, service, government, etc)? Occupation a. What kind of work was this person doing? (For example: registered nurse, personnel manager, supervisor of order department, auto mechanic, accountant) b. What were this person's most important activities or duties? (For example: patient care, directing hiring policies, supervising order clerks, repairing automobiles, reconciling financial records) it: 9 Was this person Mark ONE box. Cl Employee of a PRIVATE-FOR-PROFIT company or busmess or of an individual, for wages, salary, or commissions Cl Employee of a PRIVATE NOT-FOR-PROFIT, tax-exempt, or chantable organization C) Local GOVERNMENT employee (city, county, etc.) E) State GOVERNMENT employee 0 Federal GOVERNMENT employee SELF-EMPLOYED in own NOT INCORPORATED business, profess onal practice, or farm 0 in own INCORPORATED business, professnonal practice, or farm 0 Working WITHOUT PAY in family business or farm a. LAST YEAR. 1999, did this person work at a job or business at any time? Yes No ?1 Skip to 31 b. How many weeks did this person work in 1999? Count paid vacation, paid sick leave, and military servrce. Weeks c. During the weeks WORKED in 1999, how many hours did this person usually work each Usual hours worked each WEEK INCOME IN 1999 Mark the ?Yes? box for each income source received during l999 and enter the total amount received during 1999 to a maximum of $999, 999. Mark @the "No" box if the income source was not received. if net income was a loss, enter the amount and mark the "Loss" box next to the dollar amount. For income received jointly, report, if possible, the appropriate share for each person; otherwise, report the whole amount for only one person and mark the ?No" box for the other person. if exact amount is not known, please give best estimate. a. Wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, or tips from all jobs Report amount before deductions for taxes, bonds, dues, or other items. Yes Annual amount Dollars ONO b. Self-employment income from own nonfarm businesses or farm businesses, including proprietorships and partnerships Report NET income after business expenses. Yes Annual amount Dollars 0 Loss 0 No Form 13-2 7 000008 Person 1 (continued) 6 9 c. Interest, dividends, net rental income. royalty income, or income from estates and trusts Report even small amounts credited to an account. 0 Yes Annual amount Dollars 0 Loss No cl. Social Security or Railroad Retirement Yes Annual amount Dollars e. Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Cl Yes Annual amount Dollars f. Any public assistance or welfare payments from the state or local welfare office 0 Yes Annual amount Dollars ONO 9. Retirement. survivor, or disability pensions Do NOT include Social Security. Yes Annual amount?Dollars ONO h. Any other sources of income received regularly such as Veterans' (VA) payments, unemployment compensation, child support, or alimony Do NOT include lump-sum payments such as money from an inheritance or sale of a home. Yes Annual amount?Dollars What was this person?s total income in 1999? Add entries in questions 3 ia?3 1h; subtract any losses. if net income was a loss, enter the amount and mark [Ethe ?Loss" box next to the dollar amount. Annual amount Dollars None OR Loss Form 0-2 Now, please answer questions 33-53 about your household. Is this house, apartment. or mobile home Owned by you or someone in this household with a mortgage or loan? 0 Owned by you or someone In this household free and clear (without a mortgage or loan)? Rented for cash rent? Occupied without payment oi cash rent? Which best describes this building? lnclude all apartments, flats, etc, even if vacant. A mobile home [3 A one-famiiy house detached from any other house A one-family house attached to one or more houses 0 A bUIIdlng with 2 apartments 0 A budding with 3 or 4 apartments A bunlding with 5 to 9 apartments 0 A bunlding With 10 to 19 apartments 0 A bunlding With 20 to 49 apartments [3 A buulding with 50 or more apartments 0 Boat, RV, van, etc. 9 About when was this building first built? 1999 0r 2000 199510 1993 1990101994 [3 1930 to 1989 1970 to 1979 C1 1960 to 1959 C1 1950101959 1940101949 1939 or earlier When did this person move into this house, apartment. or mobile home? 1999 or 2000 1995 to 1998 1990 to 1994 1980 to 1989 1970 to 1979 1969 or earlier [300000 How many rooms do you have in this house, apartment, or mobile home? Do NOT count bathrooms, porches, balconies, foyers, halls, or half-rooms 1 room [3 6 rooms Cl 2 rooms Cl 7 rooms Cl 3 rooms 8 rooms Cl 4 rooms 9 or more rooms 0 5 rooms 000009 Person 1 (continued) How many bedrooms do you have: that is, how many bedrooms would you list if this house. apartment. or mobile home were on the market for sale or rent? No bedroom 1 bedroom 0 2 bedrooms Cl 3 bedrooms 4 bedrooms Cl 5 or more bedrooms Do you have COMPLETE plumbing facilities in this house. apartment. or mobile home; that is, 1) hot and cold piped water, 2) a flush toilet. and 3) a bathtub or shower? Yes, have all three facilities ONO Do you have COMPLETE kitchen facilities in this house, apartment. or mobile home: that is. 1) a sink with piped water, 2) a range or stove, and 3) a refrigerator? 0 Yes, have all three facilities Is there telephone service available in this house. apartment. or mobile home from which you can both make and receive calls? Yes No Which FUEL is used MOST for heating this house, apartment, or mobile home? Gas: from underground pipes serving the neighborhood Gas: bottled, tank, or LP Electricity [3 Fuel oil, kerosene, etc. Cl Coal or coke Wood Solar energy Other fuel No fuel used How many automobiles. vans. and trucks of one-ton capacity or less are kept at home for use by members of your household? 0 None more Answer ONLY if this is a ONE-FAMILY HOUSE OR MOBILE HOME All others skip to 45. a. Is there a business (such as a store or barber shop) or a medical office on this property? Cl Yes No b. How many acres is this house or mobile home on? 0 Less than 1 acre Skip to 45 1 to 9.9 acres 0 10 or more acres c. In 1999, what were the actual sales of all agricultural products from this property? Cl None [3 $2,500 to $4,999 Cl 51 to $999 $5,000 to $9.999 $1,000 to $2,499 $10,000 or more What are the annual costs of utilities and fuels for this house. apartment. or mobile home? If you have llVE'd here less than I year, estimate the annual cost. a. Electricity Annual cost Dollars OR Included In rent or in condominium fee 0 No charge or electricity not used b. Gas Annual cost Dollars OR Cl Included In rent or in condominium fee No charge or gas not used c. Water and sewer Annual cost Dollars OR 0 Included in rent or in condominium fee Cl No charge d. Oil, coal. kerosene. wood. etc. Annual cost Dollars OR Cl Included In rent or in condominium fee Cl No charge or these fuels not used Form 0-2 000010 Person 1 (continued) a Answer ONLY if you PAY RENT for this house. a. What is the rent? amount Dollars b. Does the rent include any meals? 0 Yes Ci No 6 Answer questions 47a?53 if you or someone in this household owns or is buying this house, apartment, or mobile home; othennrise, skip to questions for Person 2. a. Do you have a mortgage, deed of trust. contract to purchase, or similar debt on THIS property? Yes, mortgage, deed of trust, or similar debt [3 Yes, contract to purchase No ?3 to 48a b. How much is your regular mortgage payment on THIS property? lnclude payment only on first mortgage or contract to purchase. amount Dollars OR No regular payment requrred Skip to 483 c. Does your regular mortgage payment include payments for real estate taxes on THIS property? Yes, taxes Included In mortgage payment No, taxes paid separately or 1axes not requ:red d. Does your regular mortgage payment include payments for fire, hazard, or flood insurance on THIS property'sh Yes, insurance included in mortgage payment No, insurance paid separately or no Insurance a a. Do you have a second mortgage or a home equity loan on THIS property? Mark all boxes that apply. Yes, a second mortgage Yes, a home equity loan No Skip to 49 b. How much is your regular payment on all second or junior mortgages and all home equity loans on THIS property? amount Dollars 0R No regular payment requrred Furrn D-i 10 apartment, or mobile home All others skip to 47. 0 What were the real estate taxes on THIS property last year? Yearly amount Dollars 0R None What was the annual payment for fire, hazard, and ?ood insurance on THIS property? Annual amount Dollars OR 0 None What is the value of this property; that is, how much do you think this house and lot. apartment, or mobile home and lot would sell for if it were for sale? Less than $10,000 $10,000 to $14,999 $15,000 to $19,999 C) $20,000 to $24,999 C) $25,000 to $29,999 Ci $30,000 to $34,999 Cl $35,000 to $39,999 $40,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $59,999 Cl $60,000 to $59,999 C) $70,000 to $79,999 Cl $30,000 to $89,999 $90,000 to $99,999 Cl $100,000 to $124,999 $125,000 to $149,999 Cl $150,000 to $174,999 Ci $175,000 to $199,999 $200,000 to $249,999 $250,000 to $299,999 Cl $300,000 to $399,999 $400,000 to $499,999 0 $500,000 to $749,999 (3 $750,000 to $999,999 Cl $1,000,000 or more Answer ONLY if this is a CONDOMINIUM What is the condominium fee? amount Dollars Answer ONLY if this is a MOBILE HOME a. Do you have an installment loan or contract on THIS mobile home? Yes No b. What was the total cost for installment loan payments, personal property taxes, site rent, registration fees, and license fees on mobile home and its site last year? Exclude real estate taxes Yearly amount Dollars Are there more people living here? If yes, continue with Person 2. 00001 1 Census information helps your community get financial assistance for roads, hospitals, schools and more. What is this person's name? Print the name of Person 2 from page 2. Last Name First Name MI 0 How is this person related to Person 1? Mark ONE box. 0 Husband/wife Natural-born son/daughter Adopted son/daughter Stepson/stepdaughter Brother/sister Cl Father/ mother 0 Grandchild Cl Parent-in-Iaw Son-in-law/daughter-in-Iaw Other relative Print exact relationship. If NOT RELATED to Person 1: Roomer. boarder 0 Housemate, roommate Unmarried partner 0 Foster child 0 Other nonrelative What is this person's sex? Mark ONE box. 0 Male 0 Female What is this person's age and what is this person's date of birth? Age on April 1, 2000 Print numbers in boxes. Month Day Year of birth NOTE: Please answer BOTH Questions 5 and 6. Is this person Spanish/Hispanicllatino? Mark the "No' box if not Spanish/Hispanic! Latino. No, not Spanish/Hispanic/Latino Yes. Mexican, Mexican Am, Chicano Yes, Puerto Rican Yes, Cuban Yes, other Spanish/ Hispanic/ Latino Print group. 7 What is this person's race? Mark one or more races to indicate what this person considers himsel?herself to be. White Black, African Am., or Negro 0 American Indian or Alaska Native Print name of enrolled or principal tribe. 7 0 Asian Indian 0 Native Hawaiian Chinese Guamanian or Filipino Chamorro Islander? Vietnamese Other Asian Print race. 7 Print race/ 0 Some other race Print race. 7 What is this person?s marital status? 0 Now married Widowed Divorced Separated Never married Form 0-2 11 000012 Person 2 (continued) a a. At any time since February 1, 2000, has this person attended regular school or college? include only nursery school or preschool, kindergarten, elementary school, and schooling which leads to a high school diploma or a college degree. No, has not attended since February 1 Skip to 9 Yes, public school, public college Yes, private school. private college b. What grade or level was this person attending? Mark ONE box. Cl Nursery school, preschool C) Kindergarten C) Grade 1 to grade 4 Grade 5 to grade 8 Grade 9 to grade 12 College undergraduate years (freshman to senior) C) Graduate or professional school (for example: medical, dental, or law school) a What is the highest degree or level of school this person has Mark ONE box. if currently enrolled, mark the previous grade or highest degree received. C) No schooling completed Nursery school to 4th grade [3 5th grade or 6th grade 71h grade or 8th grade 9th grade 10th grade 0 11th grade 12th grade, NO DIPLOMA [3 HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE school or the equivalent (for example: GED) [3 Some college credit, but less than 1 year Cl 1 or more years of college, no degree C) Associate degree (for example: AA, AS) C) Bachelor's degree (for example: BA, AB, 85) C) Master's degree (for example: MA, MS, MEng, MSW, MBA) 0 Professional degree (for example: MD, DDS, DVM, LLB, JD) Cl Doctorate degree (for example: What is this person's ancestry or ethnic origin? (For example: ltalian, Jamaican, African Am, Cambodian, Cape Verdean, Norwegian, Dominican, French Canadian, Haitian, Korean, Lebanese, Polish, Nigerian, Mexican, Taiwanese, Ukrainian, and so on.) Form 12 a. Does this person speak a language other than English at home? Cl Yes No ?s Skip to 12 b. What is this language? (For example: Korean, ltalian, Spanish, Vietnamese) c. How well does this person speak English? C) Very well Well Not well [3 Not at all Where was this person born? In the United States Print name of state. Outside the United States Print name of foreign country. or Puerto Rico, Guam, etc. a Is this person a CITIZEN of the United States? 0 Yes, born in the United States Skip to 15a Yes, born in Puerto Rico, Guam, the US. Virgin Islands, or Northern Marianas Yes, born abroad of American parent or parents 0 Yes, a US. Citizen by naturalization C) No, not a Citizen of the United States When did this person come to live in the United States? Print numbers in boxes. Year a. Did this person live in this house or apartment 5 years ago (on April 1, 1995)? 0 Person is under 5 years old Skip to 33 Yes, this house Skip to 16 No, outside the United States Print name of foreign country, or Puerto Rico, Guam, etc., below; then skip to 16. No, different house in the United States 000013 Person 2 (continued) 6 b. Where did this person live 5 years ago? 0 03 Name of city, town, or post office Did this person live inside the limits of the city or town? Cl Yes No, outside the city/town limits Name of county Name of state ZIP Code Does this person have any of the following long-lasting conditions: Yes No a. Blindness, deafness, or a severe vision or hearing impairment? 0 a b. A condition that substantially limits one or more basic physical activities such as walking, climbing stairs, reaching, lifting, or carrying? DC) Because of a physical. mental. or emotional condition lasting 6 months or more, does this person have any difficulty in doing any of the following activities: Yes No a. Learning, remem ering, or concentrating? b. Dressing, bathing, or getting around Inside the home? c. (Answer if this person is 16 YEARS OLD OR OVER.) Gomg the home alone to shop or visit a doctor's office? [3 d. (Answer if this person 15 16 YEARS OLD OR OVER.) Working at a job or business? 0 Was this person under 15 years of age on April 1, 2000? Cl Yes Skip to 33 a. Does this person have any of his/her own grandchildren under the age of 18 living in this house or apartment? [3 Yes No Skip to 20a b. Is this grandparent currently responsible for most of the basic needs of any grandchild(ren) under the age of 18 who live(s) in this house or apartment? 0 Yes No Skip to 20a c. How long has this grandparent been responsible for the(se) grandchild(ren)? if the grandparent is financially responsible for more than one grandchild, answer the question for the grandchild for whom the grandparent has been responsible for the longest period of time. Less than 6 months [3 6 to 11 months 1 or 2 years Cl 3 or 4 years 0 5 years or more a. Has this person ever served on active duty in the 0.5. Armed Forces, military Reserves, or National Guard? Active duty does not include training for the Reserves or National Guard, but DOES include activation, for example, for the Persian Gulf War. Yes, now on active duty Cl Yes, on active duty in past, but not now No, training for Reserves or National Guard only ?9 Skip to 21 No, never served in the military ?1 Skip to 21 b. When did this person serve on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces? Mark a box for EACH period in which this person served. Cl April 1995 or later Cl August 1990 to March 1995 {including PerSIan Gulf War} September 1980 to July 1990 May 1975 to August 1930 0 Vietnam era {August 1964?April 1975) 0 February 1955 to July 1964 Korean conflict (June 1950?January 1955) 0 World War 11 (September 1940?July 19471 El Some other time c. In total. how many years of active-duty military service has this person had? Cl Less than 2 years Cl 2 years or more Form 0-2 13 000014 Person 2 (continued) 6 LAST WEEK. did this person do ANY work for 9 either pay or pro?t? Mark the ?Yes? box even if the person worked only 1 hour, or helped without pay in a family business or farm for 15 hours or more, or was on active duty in the Armed Forces. Yes No Skip to 25a At what location did this person work LAST if this person worked at more than one location, print where he or she worked most last week. a. Address (Number and street name) (if the exact address is not known, give a description of the location such as the building name or the nearest street or intersection.) b. Name of city. town. or post office c. Is the work location inside the limits of that city or town? 0 Yes No, outside the City/town limits d. Name of county e. Name of U.S. state or foreign country f. ZIP Code a. How did this person usually get to work LAST if this person usually used more than one method of transportation during the trip, mark the box of the one used for most of the distance. Car, truck, or van Bus or trolley bus Cl Streetcar or trolley car 0 Subway or elevated 0 Railroad Ferryboat Taxicab Cl chcle Walked Worked at home Skip to 27 Other method Form DZ 14 9 If "Car, truck, or van? is marked in 23a. 90 to 23b. Otherwise, skip to 24a. b. How many people. including this person, usually rode to work in the car, truck, or van LAST [3 Drove alone '3 2 people 3 people [3 4 people or 6 people 7 or more people a. What time did this person usually leave home to go to work LAST am. Cl pm. b. How many minutes did it usually take this person to get from home to work LAST Minutes Answer questions 25-26 for persons who did not work for pay or profit last week. Others skip to 27. a. LAST WEEK, was this person on layoff from a job? 0 Yes ?s Skip to 25c No b. LAST WEEK, was this person TEMPORARILY absent from a job or business? Yes, on vacation, temporary illness, labor dispute, etc. Skip to 26 No ?1 Skip to 25d c. Has this person been informed that he or she will be recalled to work within the next 6 months OR been given a date to return to work? Yes Skip to 25e No d. Has this person been looking for work during the last 4 weeks? Cl Yes No Skip to 26 e. LAST WEEK, could this person have started a job if offered one, or returned to work if recalled? Yes, could have gone to work No, because of own temporary illness No, because of all other reasons (in school, etc.) When did this person last work, even for a few days? 1995 to 2000 1994 or earlier, or never worked Skip to 31 000015 Person 2 (continued) Industry or Employer Describe clearly this person ?s chief job activity or business last week. if this person had more than one job, describe the one at which this person worked the most hours. if this person had no job or business last week, give the information for hislher last job or busrness since 1995. a. For whom did this person work? if now on active duty in the Armed Forces, mark this box and print the branch of the Armed Forces. Name of company, business, or other employer b. What kind of business or industry was this? Describe the activity at location where employed. (For example: hospital, newspaper publishing, mail order house, auto repair shop, bank) C. Is this mainly Mark ONE box. Manufacturing? 0 Wholesale trade? Retail trade? 0 Other (agriculture, construction, service, government, etc)? 9 Occupation a. What kind of work was this person doing? (For example. registered nurse, personnel manager, supervisor of order department. auto mechanic, accountant,I b. What were this person's most important activities or duties? {For example: patient care, directing hiring policies, supervising order clerks, repairing automobiles, reconciling financial records) Was this person Mark ONE box. 0 Employee of a PRIVATE-FOR-PROFIT company or business or of an Individual, for wages, salary, or commissions Employee of a PRIVATE NOT-FOR-PROFIT, tax-exempt, or charitable organization Local GOVERNMENT employee (city, county, etc.) State GOVERNMENT employee 0 Federal GOVERNMENT employee SELF-EMPLOYED in own NOT INCORPORATED busmess, professional practice, or farm 0 SELF-EMPLOYED in own INCORPORATED busrness, professional practice, or farm Working WITHOUT PAY in family business or farm a. LAST YEAR, 1999, did this person work at a job or business at any time? Yes NO-aSkip toBi b. How many weeks did this person work in 1999? Count paid vacation, paid sick leave, and military servrce Weeks c. During the weeks WORKED in 1999, how many hours did this person usually work each Usual hours worked each WEEK INCOME IN 1999 Mark [thhe 'Yes' box for each income source recerved during 1999 and enter the total amount received during 1999 to a maximum of $999, 999 Mark the "No? box if the income source was not received. if net income was a loss, enter the amount and mark the ?Loss? box next to the dollar amount. For income received jointly, report, if possible, the appropriate share for each person; otherwise, report the whole amount for only one person and mark the ?No" box for the other person. if exact amount is not known, please give best estimate. a. Wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, or tips from all jobs Report amount before deductions for taxes, bonds, dues, or other items 0 Yes Annual amount Dollars ONO b. Self-employment income from own nonfarm businesses or farm businesses, including proprietorships and partnerships Report NET income after business expenses. Yes Annual amount Dollars Loss 0 No Form 9-2 15 000016 Person 2 (continued) c. Interest. dividends, net rental income. royalty income. or income from estates and trusts Report even small amounts credited to an account. Yes Annual amount Dollars Loss 0 No d. Social Security or Railroad Retirement Yes Annual amount Dollars No 2. Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Yes Annual amount Dollars ONO f. Any public assistance or welfare payments from the state or local welfare of?ce Yes Annual amount Dollars 0N0 9. Retirement. survivor. or disability pensions Do NOT include Social Security. Cl Yes Annual amount Dollars ONO h. Any other sources of income received regularly such as Veterans' (VA) payments. unemployment compensation. child support. or alimony Do NOT include lump-sum pa ments such as money from an inheritance or sale 0 a home. Cl Yes Annual amount Dollars What was this person's total income in 1999? Add entries in questions Eta?31h; subtract any losses. if net income was a loss, enter the amount and mark the 'toss' box next to the dollar amount. Annual amount Dollars None OR 0 Loss 3 Are there more people living here? If yes, continue with Person 3. Form 0-2 16 Information about children helps your community plan for child care, education, and recreation. 0 What is this person's name? Print the name of Person 3 from page Ii. Last Name First Name MI 0 How is this person related to Person 1? Mark ONE box. 0 Husband/wife Natural-born son/daughter Adopted son/daughter Stepsonlstepdaughter Brother/Sister 0 Father! mother Grandchild Parent-in-law Son-in-lawldaughter-in-law Other relative Print exact relationship. If NOT RELATED to Person 1: Roomer, boarder 0 Housemate. roommate Unmarried partner 0 Foster child (3 Other nonrelative What is this person's sex? Mark ONE box. 0 Male 0 Female 0 What is this person's age and what is this person's date of birth? Age on April 1, 2000 Print numbers in boxes. Month Day Year of birth 000017 NOTE: Please answer BOTH Questions 5 and 6. Is this person Spanish/Hispanic] Latino? Mark the "No box if not Spanish/Hispaniclta rino. No, not Spanish/Hispanic/Latino Yes, Mexican, Mexican Am., Chicano Yes, Puerto Rican Yes, Cuban Yes, other Spanish! Hispanic! Latino Print group. 7 What is this person's race? Mark one or more races to indicate what this person considers himself/herself to be. White 0 Black, African Am, or Negro 0 American Indian or Alaska Native Print name of enrolled or princrpal tribe ,7 0 Indian Native Hawaiian Chinese Guamanian or Filip no Chamorro Japanese Samoan 0 Korean Other Pacific Islander? Cl Vietnamese Other Asian Print race. ;7 Print race/ 0 Some other race Print race. What is this person's marital status? Now married 0 Widowed Divorced Separated 0 Never married Person 3 (continued) a. At any time since February 1, 2000, has this person attended regular school or college? include only nursery school or preschool, kindergarten, elementary school, and schooling which leads to a high school diploma or a college degree. 0 No, has not attended since February 1 -9 Skip to 9 Yes, public school, public college Yes, private school, private college b. What grade or level was this person attending? Mark ONE box. 0 Nursery school, preschool 0 Kindergarten Grade 1 to grade 4 Grade 5 to grade 8 Grade 9 to grade 12 College undergraduate years (freshman to senior) Graduate or professional school (for example: medical, dental, or law school) What is the highest degree or level of school this person has Mark [3 ONE box. if currently enrolled, mark the previous grade or highest degree received. No schooling completed [3 Nursery school to 4th grade 5th grade or 6th grade 7th grade or 8th grade 9th grade 10th grade [3 11th grade 12th grade, NO DIPLOMA HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE high school DIPLOMA or the equivalent (for example: GED) 0 Some college credit, but less than 1 year 0 1 or more years of college, no degree Associate degree (for example: AA, AS) Bachelor's degree (for example: BA, AB, 35) Master's degree (for example: MA, M5, MEng, MSW, MEN [3 Professional degree (for example: MD, DDS, DVM, LLB, JD) Doctorate degree (for example: what is this person?s ancestry or ethnic origin? (For example: ltalian, Jamaican, African Am, Cambodian, Cape Verdean, Norwegian, Dominican, French Canadian, Haitian, Korean, Lebanese, Polish, Nigerian, Mexican, Taiwanese, Ukrainian, and so on.) Form 0-2 17 000018 Person 3 (continued) 0 a. Does this person speak a language other than English at home? 0 Yes No ?i Skip to 72 b. What is this language? (For example: Korean, italian, Spanish, Vietnamese) c. How well does this person speak English? 0 Very well Well Not well Not at all Where was this person born? In the United States Print name of state. 0 OutSIde the United States Print name of foreign country, or Puerto Rico, Guam, etc. 9 is this person a CITIZEN of the United States? Yes, born the United States Skip to i5a Yes, born in Puerto Rico, Guam, the US. Virgin Islands, or Northern Marianas Yes, born abroad of Amercan parent or parents Yes, a U.S. citizen by naturalization No, not a Citizen of the United States 6 When did this person come to live in the United States? Print numbers in boxes. Year a. Did this person live in this house or apartment 5 years ago (on April 1, 1995)? El Person is under 5 years old Skip to 33 Cl Yes, this house ?i Skip to 16 No, outs-de the United States Print name of foreign country, or Puerto Rico, Guam, etc, below: then skip to 16. No, different house in the United States Form 0-2 18 b. Where did this person live 5 years ago? Name of city, town, or post office Did this person live inside the limits of the city or town? Yes No, outside the City/town limits Name of county Name of state ZIP Code Does this person have any of the following long-lasting conditions: Yes a. Blindness, deafness, or a severe moon or hearing impairment? b. A condition that substantially limits one or more basic phy5ical activities such as walking, climbing stairs, reaching, lifting, or carrying? Cl Because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition lasting 6 months or more, does this person have any difficulty in doing any of the following activities: Yes a. Learning, remembering, or concentrating? b. bathing, or getting around insrde the home? c. (Answer if this person is 16 YEARS OLD 0R OVER.) Going outside the home alone to Shop or visat a doctor's office? Cl d. (Answer if this person is 16 YEARS OLD 0R OVER.) Working at a job or business? 0 Was this person under 15 years of age on April 1, 2000? Yes Skip to 33 Cl No No CID 000019 Person 3 (continued) 89 a. Does this person have any of his/her own grandchildren under the age of 18 living in this house or apartment? 0 Yes No Skip to 20a is b. Is this grandparent currently responsible for most of the basic needs of any grandchild(ren) under the age of 18 who Iive(s) in this house or apartment? Yes No Skip to 20a c. How long has this grandparent been responsible for the(se) grandchild(ren)? if the grandparent is financially responsible for more than one grandchild, answer the question for the grandchild for whom the grandparent has been responsible for the longest period of time Less than 6 months 0 6 to 11 months [3 1 or 2 years 0 3 or 4 years 5 years or more a. Has this person ever served on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces, military Reserves, or National Guard? Active duty does not include training for the Reserves or National Guard, but DOES include activation, for example, for the Persian Gulf War. 0 Yes, now on active duty Yes, on active duty in past, but not now No, training for Reserves or National Guard only Skip to 21 No, never served in the military Skip to 21 b. When did this person serve on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces? Mark a box for EACH period in which this person served. 0 Aprll 1995 or later a August 1990 to March 1995 (including Persian Gulf War] September 1980 to July 1990 May 1975 to August 1930 Vietnam era (August 1964?April 1975} February 1955 to July 1964 Korean conflict (June 1950?lanuary 1955) World War II (September 1940?July 1947) Some other time c. in total. how many years of active-duty military service has this person had? Less than 2 years 2 years or more LAST WEEK, did this person do ANY work for either pay or profit? Mark the "Yes" box even if the person worked only 1 hour, or helped without pay in a family business or farm for 15 hours or more, or was on active duty in the Armed Forces. 0 Yes No Skip to 25a At what location did this person work LAST if this person worked at more than one location, print where he or she worked most last week. a. Address (Number and street name) (if the exact address is not known, give a description of the location such as the building name or the nearest street or intersection.) b. Name of city, town, or post office C. Is the work location inside the limits of that city or town? 0 Yes No, outside the city/town limits d. Name of county e. Name of U.S. state or foreign country f. ZIP Code a. How did this person usually get to work LAST if this person usually used more than one method of transportation during the trip, mark the box of the one used for most of the distance. Car, truck, or van 0 Bus or trolley bus 0 Streetcar or trolley car [3 Subway or eievated Railroad Ferryboat Taxicab Bicycle Walked 0 Worked at home Skip to 27 Other method Form 0-2 19 000020 Person 3 (continued) If "Car. truck, or van? is marked in 23a. go to 23b. Otherwise, skip to 24a. b. How many people, including this person, usually rode to work in the car. truck. or van LAST 0 Drove alone 2 people 0 3 people 0 4 people 0 5 or 6 people 7 or more people a. What time did this person usually leave home to go to work LAST 0 am. 0 pm. b. How many minutes did it usually take this person to get from home to work LAST Minutes Answer questions 25?26 for persons who did not work for pay or profit last week. Others skip to 27. a. LAST WEEK, was this person on layoff from a job? Yes ?i Skip to 25c No b. LAST WEEK. was this person TEMPORARILY absent from a job or business? Yes, on vacation, temporary illness, labor Spute, etc. ?1 Skip to 25 No Skip to 25d c. Has this person been informed that he or she will be recalled to work within the next 6 months OR been given a date to return to work? ~'i'es Skip to 25e d. Has this person been looking for work during the last 4 weeks? ?r'es No Skip to 26 e. LAST WEEK, could this person have started a job if offered one, or returned to work if recalled? Yes, could have gone to work No, because of own temporary Illness No, because of all other reasons (in school. etc.) When did this person last work, even for a few days? 1995 to 2000 C) 1994 or earlier, or never worked Skip to 31 Four 0-: 20 6 Industry or Employer Describe clearly this person ?s chief job activity or business last week. if this person had more than one job, describe the one at which this person worked the most hours. if this person had no job or business last week, give the information for his/her last job or business since 1995. a. For whom did this person work? if now on active duty in the Armed Forces, mark this box and print the branch of the Armed Forces. Name of company, business, or other employer b. What kind of business or industry was this? Describe the activity at location where employed. (For example. hospital, newspaper publishing, mail order house, auto repair shop, bank) Is this mainly Mark ONE box. 0 Manufacturing? 0 Wholesale trade? Retail trade? 0 Other iagriculture, construction, service, government, etc)? Occupation a. What kind of work was this person doing? (For example registered nurse, personnei manager, supervisor of order department, auto mechanic. accountant) b. What were this person's most important activities or duties? (For example. patient care, directing hiring policies, supervising order clerks, repairing automobiles, reconciling financial records) 000021 Was this person Mark ONE box. 0 Employee of a PRIVATE-FOR-PROFIT company or business or of an individual, for wages, salary, or commissions [3 Employee of a PRIVATE NOT-FOR-PROFIT, tax-exempt, or charitable organization Local GOVERNMENT employee (city, county, etc.) State GOVERNMENT employee 0 Federal GOVERNMENT employee SELF-EMPLOYED in own NOT INCORPORATED business, professional practice, or farm SELF-EMPLOYED in own INCORPORATED business, professronal practice, or farm 0 Working WITHOUT PAY in family business or farm a. LAST YEAR. 1999. did this person work at a job or business at any time? Yes No Skip to 31 b. How many weeks did this person work in 1999? Count paid vacation, paid sick leave. and military service. Weeks c. During the weeks WORKED in 1999, how many hours did this person usually work each Usual hours worked each WEEK INCOME IN 1999 Mark @the box for each income source received during 1999 and enter the total amount received during 1999 to a maximum of $999, 999. Mark the ?No" box if the income source was not received if net income was a loss, enter the amount and mark the "toss? box next to the dollar amount. For income received iomtly, report, if possible, the appropriate share for each person; otherwise, report the whole amount for only one person and mark the "No" box for the other person. if exact amount is not known, please give best estimate. a. Wages. salary, commissions. bonuses, or tips from all jobs Report amount before deductions for taxes, bonds, dues, or other items. Yes Annual amount?Dollars b. Self-employment income from own nonfarm businesses or farm businesses, including proprietorships and partnerships Report NET income after business expenses. 0 Yes Annual amount ??Dollais 0 Loss No Person 3 (continued) c. Interest. dividends. net rental income, royalty income, or income from estates and trusts Report even small amounts credited to an account. 0 Yes Annual amount Dollars [3 Loss 0 No d. Social Security or Railroad Retirement [3 Yes Annual amount?Dollars No e. Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Yes Annual amount?Dollars No f. Any public assistance or welfare payments from the state or local welfare office 0 Yes Annual amount Dollars N0 9. Retirement. survivor. or disability pensions Do NOT include Social Security. Yes Annual amount ?Dollar5 h. Any other sources of income received regularly such as Veterans' (VA) payments. unemployment compensation. child support. or alimony Do NOT include lump-sum payments such as money from an inheritance or sale of a home. Yes Ar nual amount Dollars ONO What was this person's total income in 1999? Add entries in questions 3 13?3 1h; subtract any losses. if net income was a loss, enter the amount and mark the "toss" box next to the dollar amount. Annual amount Dollars None OR 0 Loss Are there more people living here? If yes. continue with Person 4. Form D-2 21 000022 Knowing about age, race, and sex helps your community better meet the needs of everyone. 0 What is this person*s name? Print the name of Person 4 from page 2. Last Name First Name MI 9 How is this person related to Person 1? Mark ONE box. 0 Husband/wife Natural-born son/daughter Adopted son/daughter Stepson/stepdaughter Brother/sister Father! mother 0 Grandchild Parent-in-law Son-in-Iaw/daughter-in-Iaw Other relative Print exact relationship. it NOT RELATED to Person 1: Roomer, boarder 0 Housemate, roommate Cl Unmarried partner 0 Foster child Other nonrelative What is this person's sex? Mark ONE box. Cl Male Female 0 What is this person's age and what is this person's date of birth? Age on April 1, 2000 Print numbers in boxes. Month Day Year of birth FormD-z 22 NOTE: Please answer BOTH Questions 5 and 6. Is this person Spanish! Hispanic] Latino? Mark the 'No' box if not Spanish/Hispanic! Latino. 0 No, not Spanish/Hispanic/Latino Yes. Mexican. Mexican Am, Chicano Yes, Puerto Rican Yes. Cuban [3 Yes, other Spanish/Hispanic! Latino Print group. 3 What is this person's race? Mark one or more races to indicate what this person considers himselfi'herself to be. White 0 Black, African Am, or Negro 0 American Indian or Alaska Native Print name of enrolled or principal tribe. 7 Asian Indian Cl Native Hawaiian Chinese Guamanian or 0 Filipino Chamorro Japanese Samoan Korean Other Pacific Islander? Vietnamese Other Asian Print race. 7 Print race] Some other race Print race. ,7 What is this person's marital status? 0 Now married Widowed Divorced Separated 0 Never married 000023 a. At any time since February 1, 2000, has this person attended regular school or college? include only nursery school or preschool, kindergarten, elementary school, and schooling which leads to a high school diploma or a college degree. No, has not attended since February 1 Skip to 9 Yes, public school, public college 0 Yes, private school, private college b. What grade or level was this person attending? Mark ONE box. Cl Nursery school. preschool Cl Kindergarten Grade 1 to grade 4 Grade 5 to grade 8 Grade 9 to grade 12 0 College undergraduate years (freshman to senior) 0 Graduate or professional school (for example: medical, dental, or law school) a What is the highest degree or level of school this person has Mark ONE box. if currently enrolled, mark the previous grade or highest degree received. 0 No schooling completed Nursery school to 4th grade 5th grade or 6th grade 7th grade or 8th grade 9th grade 10th grade 11th grade 12th grade, NO DIPLOMA HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE high school DIPLOMA or the equivalent (for example: GED) Some college credit, but less than 1 year 1 or more years of college, no degree Assocrate degree (for example: AA, AS) 0 Bachelor's degree (for example: BA, AB, 35) Master's degree (for example; MA, MS, MEng, MSW, MBA) Professronal degree (for example: MD, DDS, DVM, LLB, JD) Doctorate degree (for example: 0 What is this person's ancestry or ethnic origin? (For example: ltalran, Jamaican, African Am, Cambodian, Cape Verdean, Norwegian, Dominican, French Canadian, Haitian, Korean, Lebanese, Polish, Nigerian, Mexican, Taiwanese, Ukrainian, and so on.) Person 4 (continued) a. Does this person speak a language other than English at home? Yes No Skip to :2 b. What is this language? (For example: Korean, itaiian. Spanish, Vietnamese) c. How well does this person Speak English? 0 Very well Well Cl Not well Cl Not at all Where was this person born? 0 In the United States Print name of state. 0 Outside the United States Print name of foreign country, or Puerto Rico, Guam, etc. Is this person a CITIZEN of the United States? Yes, born in the United States -9 Skip to 15a Yes, born in Puerto RICO, Guam, the US. Virgin Islands, or Northern Mar anas Yes, born abroad of American parent or parents Yes, a U.S. by naturalization No, not a citizen of the United States a when did this person come to live in the United States? Print numbers in boxes. Year a a. Did this person live in this house or apartment 5 years ago (on April 1, 1995)? Person is under 5 years old Skip to 33 Yes, this house Skip to 16 Cl No, outside the United States Print name of foreign country, or Puerto Rico, Guam, etc, below,- then skip to 16. No, different house in the United States Form 23 000024 Person 4 (continued) 6 b. Where did this person live 5 years ago? Name of city. town. or post office Did this person live inside the limits of the city or town? Yes No, outsrde the crtyitown limits Name of county Name of state ZIP Code a Does this person have any of the following long-lasting conditions: Yes No a. Blindness, deafness, or a severe vision or hearing impairment? 0 b. A condition that substantially limits one or more basic physical activities such as walking, climb ng stairs, reaching, lifting, or carrying? Cl Because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition lasting 6 months or more. does this person have any difficulty in doing any of the following activities: Yes a. Learning, remembering, or concentrating? Cl b. Dressing, bathing, or getting around inside the home? c. (Answer if this person is 16 YEARS OLD 0R OVER.) Going outside the home alone to shop or Visit a doctor?s office? 0 d. (Answer If this person 15 16 YEARS OLD OR OVER.) Working at a job or busmess? DO (305 Was this person under 15 years of age on April 1, 2000? Yes Skip to 33 Cl No Form 0-2 24 a. Does this person have any of his/her own grandchildren under the age of 18 living in this house or apartment? Yes No ?1 Skip to 20a b. Is this grandparent currently responsible for most of the basic needs of any grandchild(ren) under the age of 18 who live(s) in this house or apartment? Yes No Skip to 20a c. How long has this grandparent been responsible for the(se) grandchild(ren)? if the grandparent is financially responsible for more than one grandchild, answer the question for the grandchild for whom the grandparent has been for the longest period of time. 0 Less than 6 months 0 6 to it months Cl 1 or 2 years [3 3 or 4 years Cl 5 years or more 3. Has this person ever served on active duty in the U5. Armed Forces, military Reserves, or National Guard? Active duty does not include training for the Reserves or National Guard, but DOES include activation, for example, for the Persian Gulf War. Cl Yes, now on active duty Cl Yes, on active duty in past, but not now No, training for Reserves or National Guard only ?i Skip to 21 No, never served in the military Skip to 21 b. When did this person serve on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces? Mark a box for EACH period in which this person served. Cl April 1995 or later 0 August 1990 to March 1995 (including Persian Gulf War) Cl September 1980 to July 1990 May 1975 to August 1980 Cl Vietnam era (August 1964?April 1975) 0 February 1955 to July 1964 0 Korean conflict (lune 1950?January World War II (September 1940?July 1947: Some other time c. In total, how many years of active-duty military service has this person had? Cl Less than 2 years 0 2 years or more 000025 Person 4 (continued) LAST WEEK. did this person do ANY work for 9 either pay or profit? Mark the ?Yes? box even if the person worked only 1 hour, or helped without pay in a family business or farm for i5 hours or more, or was on active duty in the Armed Forces. Yes No Skip to 25a At what location did this person work LAST if this person worked at more than one location, print where he or she worked most last week. a. Address (Number and street name) (if the exact address is not known, give a description of the location such as the building name or the nearest street or intersection.) b. Name of city, town, or post office c. Is the work location inside the limits of that city or town? Yes No, outside the city/town limits d. Name of county e. Name of US. state or foreign country f. ZIP Code a. How did this person usually get to work LAST If this person usually used more than one method of transportation during the trip, mark the box of the one used for most of the distance. Car, truck, or van Bus or trolley bus Streetcar or trolley car Subway or elevated Railroad Ferryboat Taxrcab Bicycle Cl Walked Worked at home Skip to 27 Other method If ?Car, truck, or van? is marked in 23a, go to 23b. Otherwise, skip to 24a. b. How many people, including this person, usually rode to work in the car, truck, or van LAST 0 Drove alone [3 2 people 3 people [3 4 people 0 5 0r 6 people 7 or more people a. What time did this person usually leave home to go to work LAST am. 0 p.m. b. How many minutes did it usually take this person to get from home to work LAST Minutes Answer questions 25-26 for persons who did not work for pay or profit last week. Others skip to 27. a. LAST WEEK, was this person on layoff from a job? Yes Skip to 25c No LAST WEEK. was this person TEMPORARILY absent from a job or business? Yes, on vacation, temporary illness, labor dispute, etc. Skip to 26 No Skip to 25d c. Has this person been informed that he or she will be recalled to work within the next 6 months OR been given a date to return to work? 0 Yes ?s Skip to 25 No d. Has this person been looking for work during the last 4 weeks? [3 Yes No Skip to 26 e. LAST WEEK, could this person have started a job if offered one, or returned to work if recalled? Yes, could have gone to work [3 No, because of own temporary Illness No, because of all other reasons (in school, etc.) When did this person last work, even for a few days? 0 1995 to 2000 1994 or earl er, or never worked Skip to 31 Form 0-2 25 000026 Person 4 (continued) Industry or Employer Describe clearly this person ?s chief job activity or business last week. if this person had more than one job, describe the one at which this person worked the most hours. if this person had no job or business last week, give the information for his/her last job or business since i995. a. For whom did this person work? if now on active duty in the Armed Forces, mark this box ?i and print the branch of the Armed Forces. Name of company, business. or other employer 13. What kind of business or industry was this? Describe the activity at location where employed. (For example: hospital, newspaper publishing, mail order house, auto repair shop, bank) c. Is this mainly Mark ONE box. Manufacturing? 0 Wholesale trade? Retail trade? Other (agriculture, construction, service, government, etc)? 9 Occupation a. What kind of work was this person doing? (For example: registered nurse, personnel manager, supervisor of order department, auto mechanic, accountant) in. What were this person's most important activities or duties? (For example: patient care. directing hiring policies, supervising order clerks, repairing automobiles, reconciling financial records) Form D-2 26 Was this person Mark box. Employee of a company or business or of an ind vidual, for wages, salary, or commissions Ci Employee Of a PRIVATE NOT-FOR-PROFIT, tax-exempt, or charitable organization 0 Local GOVERNMENT employee (city, county, etc.) Cl State GOVERNMENT employee Cl Federal GOVERNMENT employee SELF-EMPLOYED in own NOT INCORPORATED business, professional practice, or farm SELF-EMPLOYED in own INCORPORATED bus-.ness, professional practice, or farm Working WITHOUT PAY in family business or farm a. LAST YEAR. 1999, did this person work at a job or business at any time? Yes No Skip to 3i b. How many weeks did this person work in 1999? Count paid vacation, paid sick leave. and military service. Weeks c. During the weeks WORKED in 1999, how many hours did this person usually work each Usual hours worked each WEEK INCOME IN 1999 Mark @the 'Yes' box for each income source received during 1999 and enter the total amount received during 1999 to a maximum of $999,999. Mark the "No? box if the income source was not received if net income was a loss, enter the amount and mark the ?toss' box next to the dollar amount. For income rereivedjomtiy, report, if possible, the appropriate share for each person; otherwise, report the whole amount for only one person and mark the "No" box for the other person. if exact amount is not known, piease give best estimate. a. Wages. salary. commissions, bonuses, or tips from all jobs Report amount before deductions for taxes, bonds, dues, or other items. Yes Annualamount?Dollars Dido b. Self-employment income from own nonfarm businesses or farm businesses. including proprietorships and partnerships Report NET income after business expenses. Yes Annualamount?Dollars Lass 000027 Person 4 (continued) c. Interest. dividends. net rental income. royalty income, or income from estates and trusts Report even small amounts credited to an account. Yes Annual amount? Dollars [3 Loss 0 No d. Social Security or Railroad Retirement 0 Yes Annual amount Dollars No e. Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Yes Annual amount Dollars No f. Any public assistance or welfare payments from the state or local welfare office [3 Yes Annual amount Dollars 9. Retirement. survivor, or disability pensions Do NOT include Social Security. Yes Annual amount Dollars ONO h. Any other sources of income received regularly such as Veterans' (VA) payments. unemployment compensation, child support, or alimony - Do NOT include lump-sum pafyments such as money from an inheritance or sale 0 a home. Yes Annual amount Dollars a What was this person's total income in 1999? Add entries in questions 31a?31h; subtract any losses. if net income was a loss. enter the amount and mark the ?toss? box next to the dollar amount. Annual amount Dollars None OR 0 Loss Are there more people living here? if yes. continue with Person 5. Person Your answers help your community plan for the future. 0 What is this person's name? Print the name of Person 5 from page 2. Last Name First Name MI 9 How is this person related to Person 1? Mark [3 ONE box. Cl Husband/wife Natural-born son/daughter Adopted son/daughter Stepson/stepdaughter Brotherlsister Father/mother Grandchild Parent-in-law Son-in-law/daughter-in-law Other relative Print exact relationship. if NOT RELATED to Person 1: Roomer, boarder Housemate, roommate Unmarried partner Foster child Other nonrelative a What is this person's sex? Mark ONE box. Male 0 Female 0 What is this person's age and what is this person's date of birth? Age on April 1, 2000 Print numbers in boxes. Month Day Year of birth Forrn D-Z 27 000028 Person 5 (continued) NOTE: Please answer BOTH Questions 5 and 6. Is this person Spanish/Hispanic! Latino? Mark the "No box if not Spanish! Hispanic! Latino. [3 No, not Spanish/Hispanic/Latino Yes, Mexican, Mexican Am., Chicano Yes, Puerto Rcan Yes, Cuban Yes, other Spanish/HispaniclLatino Print group. 7 What is this person's race? Mark one or more races to indicate what this person considers himself/herself to be. White Black, African Am., or Negro Amencan Indian or Alaska Native Print name of enrolled or principal tribe. 7 Indian Native Hawaiian 0 Chinese Guamanian or Fil-pino Chamorro 0 Japanese Samoan Korean Other Pacrfic Islander? 0 Vietnamese 0 Other Man Print race. Print race-(7 0 Some other race Print race. 7 What is this person's marital status? Now married 0 Widowed Cl Divorced Separated [3 Never married Form D-2 28 a. At any time since February 1, 2000, has this person attended regular school or college? include only nursery school or preschool, kindergarten, elementary school, and schooling which leads to a high school dipioma or a college degree. 0 No, has not attended since February 1 Skip to 9 Yes, public school, public college 0 Yes, private school, private college b. What grade or level was this person attending? Mark ONE box. 0 Nursery school, preschool Cl Kindergarten Grade 1 to grade 4 Grade 5 to grade 8 Grade 9 to grade 12 College undergraduate years (freshman to senior) Graduate or professional school (for example: medical. dental, or law school) What is the highest degree or level of school this person has Mark ONE box. if currently enrolled, mark the previous grade or highest degree received. No schooling completed Nursery school to 4th grade 0 5th grade or 6th grade 7th grade or 8th grade 0 91h grade 10th grade 1 1th grade 121h grade, no DIPLOMA HIGH GRADUATE high school DIPLOMA or the equwalent (for example: GED) 0 Some college credit, but less than 1 year 0 or more years of college, no degree Associate degree (for example: AA, AS) Bachelor's degree (for example: BA, AB, BS) Master's degree (for example: MA, MS, MEng, MSW, MBA) ProleSSIonal degree {for example MD, DDS, DVM, LLB, Doctorate degree (for example: What is this person's ancestry or ethnic origin? (For example: italian, Jamaican, African Am, Cambodian, Cape Verdean, Norwegian, Dominican, French Canadian, Haitian, Korean, tebanese, Polish, Nigerian, Mexican, Taiwanese, Ukrainian, and so on. 000029 Person 5 (continued) 0 a. Does this person speak a language other than 6 b. Where did this person live 5 years ago? English at home? . . Name of city, town, or post office Yes No Skip to 12 b. What is this language? Did this person live inside the limits of the city or town? 0 Yes (For example: Korean, italian, Spanish, Vietnamese) 0? outside the cityftown limits c. How well does this person speak English? Name of county Very well Well 0 Not well Name of state Not at all Where was this person born? ZIP Code In the United States Print name of state. Does this person have any of the following 0 Outside the United States Print name of foreign long-lasting conditions: country, or Puerto Rico, Guam, etc. Yes No a. Blindness, deafness, or a severe or hearing impairment? [3 a Is this person a CITIZEN of the United States? b, A condition that substantially limits - - one or more basic physical Yes, born in the United States Skip to fSa such as walking, climbing stairs, Yes, born In Puerto Rico, Guam, the US. Virgin Islands, reaching, "?ing! or carrying? or Northern Marianas Yes, born abroad of American parent or parents 0 Because of a physical. mental, or emotional Yes, a US. citizen by naturalization condition lasting 6 months or morendoes No, not a citizen of the United States the Person have any, dIffIculty In dome any of the followmg actiwties: When did this person come to live in the Yes No United States? Print numbers in boxes. 3. Learning, remembering, or Year concentrating? b. Dressing, bathing, or getting around inside the homeAnswer if this erson 16 YEARS OLD 3. Did this parse: or apartment (0R OVER.) Geilig outside the home years ago (on p" alone to shop or visit a doctor's office? Person is under 5 Years old Skip to 33 d. (Answer if this person is is YEARS OLD Yes, this house Skip to 1'6 0R Working at a job or busmess? No, outside the United States Print name of foreign country, or Puerto Rico, Guam, etc, below; Was this person under 15 years of age on then skip to 16. April 1. 2000? Yes Skip to 33 No, different house in the United States 0 N0 2069 I II Form 0-2 29 000030 Person 5 (continued) a. Does this person have any of his/her own grandchildren under the age of 18 living in this house or apartment? 0 Yes No Skip to 20a b. Is this grandparent currently responsible for most of the basic needs of any grandchild(ren) under the age of 18 who Iive(s) in this house or apartment? Yes No Skip to 20a c. How long has this grandparent been responsible for thelse) if the grandparent is financially responsible for more than one grandchild answer the question for the grandchild for whom the grandparent has been responsible for the longest period of time. Less than 6 months 0 6 to 11 months 1 or 2 years 0 3 or 4 years 0 5 years or more a. Has this person ever served on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces, military Reserves, or National Guard? Active duty does not include training for the Reserves or National Guard, but DOES include activation, for example, for the Persian Gulf War. [3 Yes, now on active duty Yes, on active duty in past, but not now No, training for Reserves or National Guard only Skip to 2i No, never served in the mil;tary Skip to 21 b. When did this person serve on active duty in the US. Armed Forces? Mark a box for EACH period in which this person served. 0 April 1995 or later August 1990 to March 1995 (Including Persian Gulf War) September 1980 to July 1990 May 1975 to August 1980 Vietnam era (August 1964?April 1975) February 1955 to July 1964 Korean conflict (June 1950?January 1955) World War ll (September 1940?July 1947) Some other time c. in total, how many years of active-duty military service has this person had? Less than 2 years 2 years or more Form 2 30 LAST WEEK. did this person do ANY work for either pay or profit? Mark the ?Yes" box even if the person worked only 1 hour. or helped without pay in a family business or farm for 3?5 hours or more, or was on active duty in the Armed Forces. 0 Yes No Skip to 25a At what location did this person work LAST if this person worked at more than one location, print where he or she worked most last week a. Address (Number and street name) (lf the exact address is not known, give a description of the location such as the burlding name or the nearest Street or intersection.) b. Name of city, town, or post office c. Is the work location inside the limits of that city or town? 0 Yes No, outside the city/town limits d. Name of county e. Name of U.5. state or foreign country ZIP Code a. How did this person usually get to work LAST if this person usually used more than one method of transportation during the trip, mark the box of the one used for most of the distance. Car, truck, or van 0 Bus or trolley bus Streetcar or trolley car Subway or elevated 0 Railroad Ferryboat Taxicab 0 [3 Bicycle Walked Worked at home Skip to 27 Other method 000031 If "Car, truck, or van" is marked in 23a, go to 23b. 6 Otherwise. skip to 24a. b. How many people. including this person, usually rode to work in the car, truck, or van LAST 0 Drove alone 0 2 people 3 people 0 4 people 0 5 or 6 people 0 7 or more people a. What time did this person usually leave home to go to work LAST 0 am. 0 pm. b. How many minutes did it usually take this person to get from home to work LAST Minutes Answer questions 25?26 for persons who did not work for pay or profit last week. Others skip to 27. a. LAST WEEK, was this person on layoff from a job? Yes Skip to 25c No b. LAST WEEK, was this person TEMPORARILY absent from a job or business? Yes, on vacation, temporary illness, labor dISpute, etc. Skip to 26 No Skip to 25d c. Has this person been informed that he or she will be recalled to work within the next 6 months OR been given a date to return to work? Yes ?9 Skip to ESE No d. Has this person been looking for work during the last 4 weeks? 0 Yes No Skip to 2'6 e. LAST WEEK, could this person have started a job if offered one, or returned to work if recalled? Yes, could have gone to work 0 No, because of own temporary Illness No, because of all other reasons (in school, etc.) When did this person last work, even for a few days? 0 1995 to 2000 1994 or earlier, or never worked Skip to 31 Person 5 (continued) Industry or Employer Describe clearly this person 's chief job activity or business last week. if this person had more than one job, describe the one at which this person worked the most hours. If this ?person had no job or business last week, give the in ormation for his/her last job or business since 1995. a. For whom did this person work? if now on active duty in the Armed Forces, mark [3 this box and print the branch of the Armed Forces. Name of company, business, or other employer b. What kind of business or industry was this? Describe the activity at location where employed. (For example: hospital, newspaper publishing, mail order house, auto repair shop, bank) c. Is this mainly Mark [3 ONE box. 0 Manufacturing? 0 Wholesale trade? Retail trade? Other (agriculture, construction, service, government, etc)? Occupation a. What kind of work was this person doing? (For example: registered nurse, personnel manager, supervisor of order department, auto mechanic, accountant) b. What were this person's most important activities or duties? (For example: patient care, directing hiring policies, supervising order clerks, repairing automobiles, reconciling financial records) Form 31 000032 Person 5 (continued) Was this person Mark ONE box. Cl Employee of a PRIVATE-FOR-PROFIT company or busmess or of an :ndividual, for wages, salary, or commissions Employee of a PRIVATE NOT-FOR-PROFIT, tax-exempt, or charitable organization Cl Local GOVERNMENT employee (city, county, etc.) Cl State GOVERNMENT employee Cl Federal GOVERNMENT employee Cl SELF-EMPLOYED in own NOT INCORPORATED busuness, professional practice, or farm SELF-EMPLOYED In own INCORPORATED busmess. professional practice, or Farm Cl Working WITHOUT PAY in family business or farm a. LAST YEAR. 1999. did this person work at a job or business at any time? Yes No ?i Skip to 31 b. How many weeks did this person work in 1999? Weeks c. During the weeks WORKED in 1999. how many hours did this person usually work each Usual hours worked each WEEK 9 INCOME IN 1999 Mark the ?Yes? box for each income source received during l999 and enter the total amount received during 1999 to a maximum of $999, 999. Mark the 'No? box if the income source was not recewed if net income was a loss, enter the amount and mark the "1053' box next to the dollar amount. For income received jointly, report, if possible, the appropriate share for each person; report the whole amount for only one person and mark the "No" box for the other person. if exact amount is not known, please give best estimate. a. Wages. salary, commissions, bonuses, or tips from all jobs Report amount before deductions for taxes, bonds, dues, or other items Yes Annual amount?Dollars ONO b. Self-employment income from own nonfarm businesses or farm businesses. including proprietorships and partnerships Report NET income after business expenses. Cl Yes Annual amount Dollars 0 Loss No Form 32 Count paid vacation, paid sick leave, and military service. a c. Interest, dividends, net rental income. royalty 9 9 income, or income from estates and trusts Report even small amounts credited to an account. Cl Yes Annual amount Dollars Cl Loss 0 No d. Social Security or Railroad Retirement Cl Yes Annual amount Dollars No e. Supplemental Security Income Yes Annual amount Dollars No f. Any public assistance or welfare payments from the state or local welfare office Yes Annual amount Dollars ONO 9. Retirement, survivor, or disability pensions Do NOT include Social Security. Cl Yes Annual amount -- Dollars h. Any other sources of income received regularly such as Veterans' (VA) payments, unemployment compensation, child support, or alimony Do NOT include lump-sum payments such as money from an inheritance or sale of a home. 0 Yes Annual amount Dollars What was this person's total income in 1999? Add entries in questions 3 ta?3 th; subtract any losses if net income was a loss, enter the amount and mark the ?Loss? box next to the dollar amount. Annual amount Dollars 0 None OR 0 Loss Are there more people living here? If yes, continue with Person 6. 000033 Housing information helps your community plan for police and fire protection. What is this person's name? Print the name of Person 6 from page 2. Last Name First Name MI 0 How is this person related to Person 1? Mark ONE box. 0 Husband/wife Natural-born son/daughter Adopted son/daughter Stepsonlstepdaughter Brother/sister Father/mother Grandchild Parent-in-Iaw Son-in-lawldaughter-in-law Other relative Pn'nt exact relationship. If NOT RELATED to Person 1: Roomer, boarder 0 Housemate. roommate Unmarried partner 0 Foster child Other nonrelative What is this person's sex? Mark ONE box. Male Female What is this person's age and what is this person's date of birth? Age on April 1, 2000 Print numbers in boxes. Month Day Year of birth NOTE: Please answer BOTH Questions 5 and 6. Is this person Spanish! Hispanic! Latino? Mark the 'No' box if not Spanish! Hispanic! Latino. 0 No, not Spanish/HispaniclLatino Yes, Mexican, Mexican Am. Chicano Yes. Puerto Rican Yes, Cuban 0 Yes. other Spanish! Hispanic! Latino Print group. 7 What is this person's race? Mark one or more races to indicate what this person considers himself/herself to be. 0 White Black, African Am., or Negro 0 American Indian or Alaska Native Print name of enrolled or principal tribe. 0 Asian Indian 0 Native Hawaiian 0 Chinese 0 Guamanian or 0 Filipino Chamorro Japanese Samoan Islander? 0 Vietnamese Other Asian Print race. 7 Print racy Some other race Print race. 7 What is this person's marital status? Now married 0 Widowed Divorced Separated 0 Never married Form 33 000034 Person 6 (continued) a a. At any time since February 1, 2000, has this person attended regular school or college? include only nursery school or preschool, kindergarten. elementary school, and schooling which leads to a high school diploma or a college degree. 0 No, has not attended since February 1 Skip to 9 Yes, public school, public college Yes, private school, private college b. What grade or level was this person attending? Mark ONE box. Nursery school. preschool 0 Kindergarten Grade to grade 4 Grade 5 to grade 8 Grade 9 to grade 12 College undergraduate years (freshman to senior) Graduate or professional school (for example: medical, dental, or law school) 0 What is the highest degree or level of school this person has Mark ONE box. it currently enrolled, mark the previous grade or highest degree received. No schooling completed Cl Nursery school to 4th grade 5th grade or 6th grade 7th grade or 8th grade 9th grade 10th grade 11th grade Cl 12th grade, no DIPLOMA HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE high school DIPLOMA or the equivalent (for example: GED) Some college credit, but less than 1 year 0 1 or more years of coilege, no degree Associate degree (for example: AA, AS) Bachelor's degree (for example: BA, AB, 35) Master's degree (for example: MA, MS, MEng, MSW. MBA) Cl Profe55iona degree (for example: MD, DDS, DVM, LLB, JD) 0 Doctorate degree (for example: a What is this person's ancestry or ethnic origin? (For example: ltalian, Jamaican, African Am, Cambodian. [ape Verdean, Norwegian, Dominican, French Canadian, Haitian, Korean, Lebanese, Polish, Nigerian, Mexican, Taiwanese, Ukrainian, and so on.) Form 02 34 a. Does this person speak a language other than English at home? Cl Yes No Skip to 12 b. What is this language? (For example: Korean. Italian, Spanish. Vietnamese) c. How well does this person speak English? Very well Well Not well Not at all Where was this person born? In the United States Print name of state. [3 Outside the United States Print name of foreign country, or Puerto Rico. Guam, etc. 0 Is this person a CITIZEN of the United States? Cl Yes, born in the United States ?i Skip to l5a Yes. born in Puerto Rico, Guam, the US Virgin Islands, or Northern Marianas Yes, born abroad of American parent or parents Yes, a US. Citizen by naturalization Cl No, not a Citizen of the United States 0 When did this person come to live in the United States? numbers in boxes. Year a. Did this person live in this house or apartment 5 years ago (on April 1, 1995)? Person is under 5 years old ?r Skip to 33 Yes. this house Skip to 16 No. out5ide the United States Print name of foreign country, or Puerto Rico. Guam, etc, below, then skip to 16. No, different house in the United States 000035 Person 6 (continued) GB b. Where did this person live 5 years ago? Name of city, town, or post office Did this person live inside the limits of the city or town? 0 Yes No, outSIde the City/town limits Name of county Name of state ZIP Code Does this person have any of the following long-lasting conditions: Yes a. Blindness, deafness, or a severe vision or hearing impairment? b. A condition that substantially limits one or more basic phy5ical activities such as walking, climbing stairs, reaching, lifting, or carrying? 0 Because of a physical. mental, or emotional condition lasting 6 months or more, does this person have any difficulty in doing any of the following activities: Yes a. Learning, remembering, or concentrating? b. Dressing, bathing, or getting around inside the home? c. (Answer if this person is 16 YEARS OLD 0R OVER.) Going outside the home alone to shop or visit a doctor's office? d. (Answer if this person is 16 YEARS OLD OR OVER.) Working at a job or business? Was this person under 15 years of age on April 1, 2000? Yes Skip to 33 No No DC) [30% a. Does this person have any of hislher own grandchildren under the age of 18 living in this house or apartment? 0 Yes No Skip to 20a b. Is this grandparent currently responsible for most of the basic needs of any grandchild(ren) under the age of 18 who ive(s) in this house or apartment? 0 Yes No Skip to 20a c. How long has this grandparent been responsible for the(se) grandchild(ren)? if the grandparent is financially responsible for more than one grandchild, answer the question for the grandchild for whom the grandparent has been responsible for the longest period of time. 0 Less than 6 months 0 6 to 11 months Cl 1 or 2 years Cl 3 or 4 years 0 5 years or more a. Has this person ever served on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces, military Reserves, or National Guard? Active duty does not include training for the Reserves or National Guard, but DOES include activation, for example, for the Persran Gulf War. Yes, now on active duty [3 Yes, on active duty tn past, but not now No, training for Reserves or National Guard only Skip to 2? No, never served in the military Skip to 21 b. When did this person serve on active duty in the 11.5. Armed Forces? Mark a box for EACH period in which this person served. 0 Aprtl 1995 or later August 1990 to March 1995 (including Persian Gulf War} Cl September 1980 to July 1990 Cl May 1975 to August 1930 Vietnam era (August 1964?April 1975) February 1955 to July 1954 Korean conflict (June 1950?.lanuary 1955) World War II (September 1940?luly 1947) 0 Some other time c. In total, how many years of active-duty military service has this person had? Less than 2 years 0 2 years or more Fern? DZ 35 000036 Person 6 (continued) 9 LAST WEEK, did this person do ANY work for 9 9 either pay or profit? Mark the ?Yes? box even if the person worked only 1 hour, or helped without pay in a family business or farm for 15 hours or more, or was on active duty in the Armed Forces. Cl Yes No Skip to 253 At what location did this person work LAST lf this person worked at more than one location, print where he or she worked most last week. a. Address (Number and street name) (if the exact address is not known, give a descrip tron of the location such as the building name or the nearest street or intersection.) b. Name of city, town, or post office c. is the work location inside the limits of that city or town? [3 Yes No, outside the city/town limits d. Name of county e. Name of U.S. state or foreign country f. ZIP Code a. How did this person usually get to work LAST if this person usually used more then one method of transportation during the trip, mark the box of the one used for most of the distance. Car, truck, or van 0 Bus or trolley bus 0 Streetcar or trolley car Subway or elevated 0 Railroad Ferryboat Taxicab Cl B'cycle Cl Walked 0 Worked at home Skip to 27 Other method Forrn 0-2 36 If "Car, truck, or van" is marked in 23a, go to 23b. Otherwise, skip to 24a. b. How many people, including this person. usually rode to work in the car, truck, or van LAST 0 Drove alone 2 people 3 people 0 4 people 0 5 or 6 people 7 or more people a. What time did this person usually leave home to go to work LAST a.m. p.m. b. How many minutes did it usually take this person to get from home to work LAST Minutes Answer questions 25-26 for persons who did not work for pay or profit last week. Others skip to 27. a. LAST WEEK, was this person on layoff from a job? Yes Skip to 25c b. LAST WEEK, was this person TEMPORARILY absent from a job or business? Yes, on vacation, temporary Illness, labor dispute, etc. - 2i Skip to 26 No ?i Skip to 25d c. Has this person been informed that he or she will be recalled to work within the next 6 months OR been given a date to return to work? Yes Skip to 25e d. Has this person been looking for work during the last 4 weeks? Yes No _i Skip to 25 e. LAST WEEK, could this person have started a job if offered one, or returned to work if recalled? Yes, could have gone to work 0 No, because of own temporary illness 0 No, because of all other reasons (in schooi. etc) When did this person last work. even for a few days? 1995 to 2000 1994 or earlier, or never worked Skip to 31 000037 Person 6 (continued) Industry or Employer Describe clearly this person ?s chief job activity or business last week. if this person had more than one job, describe the one at which this person worked the most hours. lf this person had no job or business last week, give the information for his/her last job or business since 1995. a. For whom did this person work? if now on active duty in the Armed Forces, mark this box ?r and print the branch of the Armed Forces. Name of company, business, or other employer b. What kind of business or industry was this? Describe the activity at location where employed. (For example: hospital, newspaper publishing, mail order house, auto repair shop, bank) C. Is this mainly Mark ONE box. 0 Manufacturing? Wholesale trade? Retail trade? Other (agriculture, construction, service, government, etc. Occupation a. What kind of work was this person doing? (For example. registered nurse, personnel manager, supervisor of order department, auto mechanic, accountant) b. What were this person's most important activities or duties? (For example: patient care, directing hiring policies, supervising order clerks, repairing automobiles, reconciling financial records) Was this person Mark box. Employee of a PRIVATE-FOR-PROFIT company or business or Of an individual, for wages, salary, or commissions Employee of a PRIVATE NOT-FOR-PROFIT, tax-exempt, or charitable organization Local GOVERNMENT employee (city county, etc.) State GOVERNMENT employee Cl Federal GOVERNMENT employee SELF-EMPLOYED in own NOT INCORPORATED business, professional practice, or farm 0 SELF-EMPLOYED in own INCORPORATED business, professional practice, or farm Working WITHOUT PAY in family business or farm a. LAST YEAR, 1999, did this person work at a job or business at any time? Yes No ?ir Skip to 31 b. How many weeks did this person work in 1999? Count paid vacation, paid 5er leave, and military servrce. Weeks c. During the weeks WORKED in 1999, how many hours did this person usually work each Usual hours worked each WEEK INCOME TN 1999 Mark the "Yes' box for each income source received during 1999 and enter the total amount received during 1999 to a maximum of $999,999. Mark the box if the income source was not received if net income was a loss, enter the amount and mark the "Loss? box next to the dollar amount. For income received jointly, report, if possible, the appropriate share for each person, otherwise, report the whole amount for only one person and mark the box for the other person. if exact amount is not known, please give best estimate. a. Wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, or tips from all jobs Report amount before deductions for taxes, bonds, dues, or other items. [3 Yea Annual amount Dollars ONO b. Self-employment income from own nonfarm businesses or farm businesses. including proprietorships and partnerships Report NET income after business expenses. 0 Yes Annual amount Dollars 0 Loss 0 No Form 0-2 37 000038 Person 6 (continued) - Interest. dividends. net rental income. royalty Thank you for completing income. or income from estates and trusts Report . . even small amounts credited to an account. your O?lClal U.S. census form. Yes Annual amount?Dollars f there are more than six Cl Loss people at this address, the ?9 Census Bureau may contact (I. Social Security or Railroad Retirement Yes Annual amount ?Dollars you for the same information about these people. e. Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Yes Annual amount ?Dollars f. Any public assistance or welfare payments from the state or local welfare of?ce Cl Yes Annual amount ?Dollars 9. Retirement, survivor, or disability pensions Do NOT include Social Security. 0 Yes Annual amount ?Dollars h. Any other sources of income received regularly such as Veterans' (VA) payments. unemployment compensation. child support. or alimony Do NOT include lump-sum payments such as money from an inheritance or sale of a home. 0 Yes Annual amount ?Dollars ONO What was this person's total income in 1999? Add entries in questions 3 ia?3 lh; subtract any losses. if net income was a loss, enter the amount and mark the ?toss? box next to the dollar amount. Annual amount Dollars None OR 0 Loss Form 0-2 38 000039 I II Fol-? [3-1 39 000040 3030 I I ll? [1-3 40 000041 PLEASE DO NOT FILL OUT THIS FORM. This is not an official census form. It is for informational purposes only. States ul liommurcu Bureau ill the Census .1 This is the official form for all the people at this address. It is quick and easy, and your answers are protected by law. Complete the Census and help your community get what it needs today and in the future! Sta rt are /Please use a 4. What is Person 1's telephone number? We may call black or blue pen. this person if we don't understand an answer. Area Code Number 1 . How many people were living or staying in this house, apartment. or mobile home on April 1, 2000? Number ?f pm? 5. What is Person 1's sex? Mark ONE box. mowers in this number: Male Cl Female . foster children, roomers, or housemates DBODIB staying here 0" 1. 2000 who have 6. What is Person 1's age and what is Person 1's date of birth? no other permanent place to stay Age on April 1' 2000 a people living here most of the time whlle working. even if they have another place to live DO NOT In this number: . college students living away while attending college - people In a correctional facility, home. or mental hospital on April 1, 2000 I Armed Forces personnel living somewhere else a people who live or stay at another place most of the time NOTE: Please answer BOTH Questions 7 and 8. 7. is Person 1 SpanisthispaniclLatino? Mark the ?No? box if not Spanish/Hispanrc/Latino. No, not Yes. Puerto Flican Print numbers in boxes Month Day Year of birth 2. Is this house, apartment. or mobile home Mark ONE box. Owned by you or someone in this household with a mortgage or loan? Cl Yes. Mexican. Mexican Aim Chicano Yes. Cuban 0 Owned by you or someone in this household free and Yes. other Spanish] Hispanic! Latrno Print group. 2 clear (without a mortgage or loan}? 0 Flented for cash rent? Occu 'ed without mentoi cash rent? pl pay 8. What is Person 1's race? Mark one or more races to intimate what this person considers himself/herself to be. 3. Please answer the questions for each person living in this house, apartment, or mobile Iioime.hStart with the name of one of the geiople 8 Black. African Am, or Negro us are who owns. is buying. or rams A India orAlaslr Native ofenmiiedor be house, apartment. or mobile home. If there is no mama? mm 2 such person. start with any adult living or staying here. We will refer to this person as Person 1. What is this person's name? Print name beiow. Asian Indian Japanese Native Hawaiian Last Name Cl Chinese Korean Cl Guamaman or Chamorro Cl Filipino Cl Vietnamese Samoan Other Asian Print race 7 Other Pacific Islander Pant race. ?7 First Name MI 0 Some other race Print race. 3? OMB No. near-case: Approval Expires 12mm If more people live here. continue with Person 2. 000042 Your answers are important! indicate what this person considers himself/herself to be. '3 While Black. African Am. or Negro American lndran or Alaska Native Print name of enrolled tribe 7 Asian Indian Japanese Native Hawaiian Chinese '3 Korean Guaman an or Chamorro [3 Filipino Ci Vietnamese [3 Samoan Other As an Print race. ?7 Other Pacific Islander Print race. 7 Some other race race. 7 Census mlurrnation l'L-ltrs your community get lmuncre] Every person in the Census countsPerson 2 Person 3 ?Huh {school?s :ir?ltiim'urlr 1. What is Person 2's name? Print name below. 1 . What is Person 3's name? Print name below. Last Name Last Name F:rst Name MI First Name Mi 2. How is this person related to Person 1? Mark ONE box. 2. How is this person related to Person 1? Mark [2 ONE box. Hushandfwile ll NOT RELATED to Person 1: Husbandlwile ll NOT RELATED to Person 1: Natural?born sorddaugmer Boomer. boarder Natural-Dom sonldaughter Boomer. boarder Adopted sorddaughter Housemate. roommate Adopted sonidaughter Housemate. roommate Slepsonlstepdaughter Unmarried partner Stepsonlstepdaughter Unmarried partner Brotherlsister Foster child [3 Brotherisister [3 Foster child Fathertmother Other nonrelative Fathen'mother Other nonrelative Cl Grandchild Grandchild Parent-In-law Parent-in-law Son-tn-lawfdaughter-rn-law Son-tn-lawl'daughter-rn-law Other relative Other relative exact relationship. exact 3. What is this person's sex? Mark ONE box. 3. What is this person's sex? Mark ONE box. Ci Male Female Male Female 4. What is this person's age and what is this person's date 4. What is this person's age and what is this person's date of birth? Print numbers in boxes. of birth? Print numbers in boxes. Age on April 1. 2000 Month Day Year of birth Age on Apnr I. 2000 Month Day Year ol birth -) NOTE: Please answer BOTH Questions 5 and 6. ~b NOTE: Please answer BOTH Questions 5 and 6. 5. Is this person Spanish! Hispanic! Latino? Mark [Xi the 5. Is this person Spanish! Hispanic] Latino? Mark the "No" box if not Spanish/Hispanrc/Latrno. "No" box if not Spanish/Hispanrc/Latrno. No, not Spanish/Hispanic] Latino Yes. Pueno Rican No. not Yes. Puerto Rican Yes. Mexican, Mexican Am, Chicano Yes. Cuban Yes. Mexrcan. Mexican Am., Chicano Yes. Cuban '3 Yes. other Spanish/HispaniclLatino Pn'nt group. Yes. other Spanish/HispaniclLatino - Print group. 7 i? 6. What is this person's race? Mark one or more races to 6. What is this person's race? Mark one or more races to indicate what this person consrders hrmseh'?terseif to be. White Black. African Am. or Negro Ci American Indian or Alaska Native name of enrolled tribe. 7 Asran Indian Japanese Native Hawei an El Chinese Korean Guamanian or Chamorro Fil pino [3 Vietnamese Cl Samoan Other Asian Print race. 7 Other Pacific Islander race. ?7 [3 Some other race Print race. 7 If more people litre here, continue with Person 3. If more people live here, continue with Person 4. 000043 information about children heirs your wmmumtv [:1an lair child care. education. recreation is Person 4's name? Print name below. .ust Name First Name MI How is this person related to Person 1? Mark ONE box. If NOT RELATED to Person 1. Natural-hem sonldaughter Reamer. boarder Adopted sonldaughler Ci Housemate. roommate Stepsonlstepdaughter Unmarried partner Brotherlsister Father/mother Other nonrelattve Cl Grandchild Parent-in-Iaw Son-in-lawldaughter-in-Iaw Other relative -: Print exact relationship. What is this person's sex? Mark ONE box. Male 0 Female What is this person's age and what is this person's date of birth? Print numbers in boxes. Age on April 1. 2000 Month Day Year of birth l'E: Please answer BOTH Questions 5 and B. .5 this person Spanish! Hispanic] Latino? Mark the "No" box if not Spanish/Hrspanic/Latino. No. not Spanish/Hispan cl Latino Yes. Puerto Rican Yes. Mexican. Mexican Am. Chicano Yes. Cuban [3 Yes. other SpanisthispaniclLatino Print group. 7 What is this person's race? Mark one or more races to indicate what person considers himsel?herself to be. White Black. African Am. or Negro Amencan Indian or Alaska Native more of enrolled or pnnopa! tribe. 7 Asian Indian Japanese Native Hawa'ian Chinese Korean Guamanian or Chamorro Filipino Vietnamese Samoan Other Asuan Print race. Other Pacific Islander race. 7 Some other race race. 7 are people live here. continue with Person 5. 1. Knowing ntmutngc.r.?1cc and 2c! your everyone Person 5 What is Person 5's name? Print name below. Last Name . I 't'lul First Name MI How is this person related to Person 1? Mark [3 ONE box. If NOT RELATED to Person 1: Natural-bum sonldaughter Boomer. boarder Adopted sorVdaUth?f Housemate. roommate Stepsor?Jstepdaughter Unmarried partner Foster Fatherlmother Other nonreletive Cl Grandchild Parent-intent Sen-In-Iawldaughter-inlaw Other relative exact relationship. What is this person's sex? Mark ONE box. Male Female What is this person's age and what is this person?s date of birth? Print numbers in boxes. Age on April 1. 2000 Month Day Year of birth NOTE: Please answer BOTH Questions 5 and 6. Is this person Spanish! Hispanic] Latino? Mark the "No" box if not Spentsh/Hispanic/Latino. No. not SpanisthiSpanic/Latino Yes. Puerto Rican Yes. Mexican. Mexican Am. Chicano Cl Yes. Cuban Yes. other Print group. 7 What is this person's race? Mark one or more races to indicate what this person consrders himself/herself to be. White Black. African Am. or Negro American Indian or Alaska Native Print name of enrolled or principal tribe. 7 Asian Indian Japanese Native Hawaian Ch nese Korean Guamanran or Chamorro Filipino Vietnamese Samoan Other Aeran race. 7 Other Paci?c Islander .. Print race. 7 Some other race Pn'nt race. 7 if more people live here. continue with Person 6. 000044 1042 I 1. Your help your community plan Person 6 lortliufmure. What is Person 6's name? Print name below. ?at. Last Name First Name MI How is this person related to Person 1? Mark IE ONE box. El HusbandIWIle nor RELATED to Person 1: Natural-born son/daughter Roomer. boarder El Adopted sonldaughter Housemate. roommate El Stepsonlstepdaughter 'Jnmawied partner [3 Brotherlsister Foster child [3 Fatherlmother Other rionrelative Cl Grandchitd Parent-rn-iaw Son-rn-lawlclaughter?in?law Other relative Print exact reiationship. What is this person's sex? Mark ONE box- 0 Male Fernaie What is this person's age and what is this person's date of birth? Print numbers in boxes. Age on April I, 2000 Month Day Year of birth NOTE: Please answer BOTH Questions 5 and 6. Is this person Spanish] Hispanic] Latino? Mark the "No" box if not Spanish/Hispanic/Latino. No. not SpanishIHispaniclLatino Yes. Puerto Rican Yes, Memcan, Mexican Am. Chicano Yes. Cuban Yes, other SpamsthispanIcl Latino Print group. 7 What is this person's race? Mark one or more races to indicate what this person considers himself/herself to be. White El Black. African Arm. or Negro American indian or Alaska Native Print name of enmiled or principal tribe 7 El Asian Indian Japanese Cl Native Hawaiian Chinese Korean 0 Guamanian or Chamorro Filipino Vietnamese Samoan Other Asian Print race 7 Other Paci?c Islander Print race. 7 Some other race Print race. 7 If more people live here, list their names on the back of this page in the spaces provided. Please turn to go to last page. Fan-11 000045 If you didn't have room to list everyone who lives in this house or apartment, please list the others below. You may be contacted by the Census Bureau for the same information about these people. Person 7 Last Name First Name MI Person 8 Last Name First Name MI Person 9 Last Name First Name MI Person 10 Last Name First Name MI Person 11 Last Name First Name MI Person 12 Last Name First Name MI The Census Bureau estimates that. for the average household. this form will take about 10 minutes to complete, Including the time for reviewing the instructions and answers. Comments about the estimate should be directed to the Associate Director for Finance and Administration. Attn: Paperwork Reduction Preject 0607-0856. Room 3104, Federal Building 3. Bureau of the Census. Washington. DC 20233. Respondents are not required to respond to any information collection unless it displays a valid approval number from the Office of Management and Budget. Thank you for completing your official U.S. Census 2000 form. The ?Informational Copy" shows the content of the United States Census 2000 "short? form questionnaire. Each household will receive either a short form l100-percent questions) or a long form (100-percent and sample questions). The short form questionnaire contains 6 population questions and 1 housing question. On average, about 5 in every 6 households will receive the short form. The content of the forms resulted from reviewing the 1990 census data, consulting with federal and non-federal data users. and conducting tests. For additional information about Census 2000, visit our website at or write to the Director. Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC 20233. A. .IIC1 B. JIC2 C. .IIC3 D. .IIC4 000046 1041 If you need help completing this form. caii between 8:00 am- and 9:00 7 days a week. The telephone caii is free. TDD Telephone dispiay device for the hearing impaired. Cali between 8:00 am. and 9:00 7 days a week. The teiephone call is free. ENECESITA Si usted necesita ayuda para compietar este cuestionario Name a! entre (as 8:00 a.m. ias 9:00 7 dies 3 ia semana. La ilamada teiefdnica es gratis- 000047 Umu?sldm DeIirIarrirIIr or census This Is the officral form for all the people at this address. 5 our-I .HEAIJ it is and easy, and your answers are protected by law. 5. Please provide Information for each person living here. Start with a person living here who owns or rents this house, apartment, or mobile home. If the owner or renter lives somewhere else, start with any adult living here. This will be Person 1. .. What is Person 1?s name? Print name below. The Census must count every person living in the United Last Name I I States on April 1, 2010. I I this house. apartment, or mobile home using our guidelines. Fm Name MI . Count all people, including babies. who live and sleep here 6' What '5 Person 1 5 sex? Mark ONE box. most of the lime. El Male Female The Census Bureau also conducts counts in institutions 7. What is Person 1? 5 age and hat is agrson 1's date at birth? and other places. so: Please report babies as age 0 hiid is less than 1 year old. . . . Print boxes. - 33mg: 221:2; sanyone luring away either at college or in the Age on April 1' 2010 Mon :i-Day Year of birth I Do not count anyone in a nursing home. jail. prison. I: IF: I I detention facility. etc., on April 1, 2010NOTE: Please ansm?ues?on 8 about Hispanic origin and save ese peop 0 your arm. even ey w' re urn Question 9 about raabrF is census, Hispanic origins are not races. We here after they leave college, the nursing home. the military. jail. etc. Otherwise. they may be counted twice. 8. Is Person 1 mule. Latino, or Spanish origin? The Census must also include people without a permanent ?19' '0 Lai'm- 0' Spams? 009?" place to stay, so: Yes. W, Mexican Am. Chicano It someone who has no permanent place to stay is staying 33:1}; ?hm Ftican here on April 1. 2010. count that person. Otherwisemissed in the census. another Hispanic. Latino. or Spanish origin Printerigh icrexample :I?rgenMean, omen. Dcmhicen, Nicaraguan Salvadoran 7 1. How many people were living or staying in this house. *1 apartment. or mobile home on April 1, 2010? . . Number Of 9. What is Person 1's race? Mark one or more boxes. . 2. Were there any additional people staying here :L?x?i El Wh'ie April 1, 2010 that you did not include in Oueetloifl? El Black. African Am, or Negro Mark! IE all that apply. El American Indian or Alaska Native Print name olenro'lederprhopalhibe. El Children. such as newborn babies or.- I I Relatives. such as adult children. mm or in- -Iaws NonrelatIves. such as roommatqis or il-Ii'e-Nih baby sitters Asian Indian Japanese Native Hawaiian People stayIng here Jr Chinese Korean Ci Guamanian or Chamorro No additional peop' -6 El Filipino El Vietnamese El Samoan 3. Is this house, home El Other Asian Pn'nl race, for Other istander Pn'ni Mark I am; box aft?C?) exanrple,_ Hmong. taorr'an, Thai. race, for example. Fijian, Tongan. Owned by you or agile in this household with a Pakistani. Cambodian, andso on. 7 and so on. 7 mortgage or loan? i do home equity ioans. I I Owned by you or someone in this household free and clear (without a mortgage or loan)? Some other race Print race. 7 1:1 Rented? El Occupied without payment of rent? I I 4' We may call 'f we 10. Does Person 1 sometimes live or stay somewhere else? Area 00119 Number N0 Yes Mark all ih?i applycollege housing El For child custody i] In the military In iail or prison OMB No. 0507-09190: Approval Explr0512i31i2011. At a seasonal In a ?UP-Sine home or 53mm residence For another reason - 9 It more people were counted in Question 1. continue with Person 2. USCENSUSBUREAU 000048 1. 2. 3. 4. Print name of Person 8 Last Name I I First Name I I Ml CI How is this person related to Person 1? MarkI ONE box. [1 Husband or wife Biological son or daughter El Adopted son or daughter Ci Stepson or stepdaughter El Brother or sister Parent-in-Iaw Ci Son-in-Iaw or daughter-in-Iaw Other relative Boomer or boarder Housemate or roommate Ci Father or mother Unmarried partner Ci Grandchild Ci Other nonrelative What is this person's sex? Mark ONE box. Male Ci Female What is this person's age and what is this person's date of birth? Piease report babies as age 0 when the child is less than 1 year oid. Print numbers in boxes. Month Day Year of birth Age on April 1, 2010 El I -D NOTE: Please answer BOTH Question 5 about Hispanic origin and 5. 7. .p Question 6 about race. For this census, Hispanic origins are not races. Is this person of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin? No, not of Hispanic. Latino. or Spanish origin Yes. Mexican, Mexican Am.. Chicano Yes. Puerto Fiican Ci Yes, Cuban Yes, another Hispanic Latino, or Spanish origin Print orign Tor exampIeH'I r. Argentinean Cotonbian DomiIIcan Nimraguan, Sahadoran. Spaniard antenna 7_ Nil I -- I. What is this person '3 race? Markl I one or more boxes. El White I Black, Airican Am., or Negro El American Indian or Alaska Native E'l'l'li I 7 . Asian Indian '3 Japanese Me Hawaiian El Chinese Korean Guamanian or Chamorro El Filipino Viet Cl Samoan Other Asian Print r3061?? Other Pacific Islander Print exempts. Hmong. Laotian Thai: race for example. Tongan Pakistani, CambodianSome other race Print race. 7 Does this person sometimes live or stay somewhere else? No El Yes MarkE] ail that apply. For child custody In jail or prison In a nursing home El For another reason El In college housing [1 In the military At a seasonal or second residence If more people were counted in Question 1 on the front page. 3* continue with Person 3. 1. Print name of Last Name I I First Name I I Mi How is this person related to Person 1? Mari: ONE box. Husband or wife El Biological son or daughter El Adopted son or daughter El Stepson or stepdaughter Brother or sister Parent-in-law Son-in-Iaw or daughter-in-law Other relative Cl Boomer or boarder Housemate or roommate Father or mother Unmarried partner Grandchild El Other nonrelative What Is this person 's sex? Mark)! ONE box. El Male Female . What is this person?s age a Please report babies as a this person's date of birth? chiid is less than 1 year old. embers in boxes. Age on April 1. 2010 II Day Year of birth I: errII II IT -) NOTE: Please anslirhr?Ti-I Question 5 about Hispanic origin and Question 6 about race. For this census, Hispanic origins are not race: 5. Is this peFQon/ip?ispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin? Latino. or Spanish origin exIcan Mexican Am.. Chicano Puerto Fiican Y_es, Cuban Yes, another Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin Print origin, foremmple Argentinean Coimtbian Dornhican. Nimraguan, Salvadoran. Spaniard, andsoort 7 6. What Is this person's race? Mari: one or more boxes. White [1 Black. African Am.. or Negro American Indian or Alaska Native Prr'rriname tribe. 3 Asian Indian El Japanese Native Hawaiian Ci Chinese Korean Guamanian or Chamorro Filipino CI Vietnamese Samoan Ci Other Pacific Islander Pn example, Hmong, Laotian. Thai, race, for example, i-?rjian. Tongan. Pakistani, CambodianSome other race Print race. 7 Other Asian Print race, for 7. Does this person sometimes live or stay somewhere else? No Yes Mark IE alt that apply. In college housing El For child custody In the military El In fail or prison El At a seasonal In a nursing home 0' second residence For another reason It more people were counted in Question 1 on the tront page. continue with Person 4. .p 000049 Print name of Last Name I I First Name I I MI How Is this person related to Person 1? Mark. ONE box. I: Husband or wile CI Parent-ln-law Bioiogical son or daughter El Son-in-law or daughter-in-law Adopted son or daughter Other relative El Stepson or stepdaughter El Floomer or boarder El Brother or sister El Housemate or roommate El Father or mother El Unmarried partner El Grandchild CI Other nonrelative What is this person's sex? Mark ONE box. El Male El Female What is this person' age and what is this person' 5 date of birth? Please report babies as age 0 when the child is less than 1 year old. Print numbers in boxes. Age on April 1. 2010 Month Day Year of birth I: NOTE: Please answer BOTH Question 5 about Hispanic origin and Question 6 about race. For this census, Hispanic origins are not races. Is this person of Hispanic. Latino. or Spanish origin? CI No. not of Hispanic. Latino. or Spanish origin Yes. Mexican. Mexican Am.. Chicano Yes. Puerto Ftican Yes. Cuban Yes. another Hispanic. Latino. or Spanish origin Printorigin. lorexanple. If Argentinean, Colombian, Domhican. Nicaraguan, Salvadoran, Spaniard andsoon. 7 I ?Vin White Black African Am" or Negro [3 American Indian or Alaska Native Printnalg?f I Cl Asian Indian El Japanese ff Emilie} Hawaiian El Chinese El Korean Guamanian or Chamorro El Filipino Samoan El VIetn . Other Asian Pn'nt race, Other Pacific Islander Print example. Hmong. Laotian, that, race. for example. i-?riran, Tongan. Pakistani, CambodianSome other race Print race. 7 Does this person sometimes live or stay somewhere else? El No El Yes Mark all that apply. For child custody In jail or prison In a nursing home El For another reason In college housing El In the military El At a seasonal or second residence It more people were counted In Oueetlon 1 on the trout page. continue with Person 5. 1. Print name of [mg Last Name I I First Name I I MI How is this person related to Person 1? Mark-2 ONE box. Husband or wile Biological son or daughter Adopted son or daughter Stepson or stepdaughter Brother or sister CI Parent-in-Iaw El Son-in-Iaw or daughter-in-law El Other relative CI Ftoomer or boarder CI Housemate or roommate Father or mother El Unmarried partner Grandchild El Other nonrelative What is this person 's sex? Mark] Ir? ONE box. CI Male El Female What is this person' 5 age egg Please report babies as age this person' 5 date of birth? the child l5 less than 1 year old. . 5 mbers in boxes. Age on April 1. 2010 ?Mb Day Year of birth ?a I I -) NOTE: Please ans-bk; Question 5 about Hispanic origin and Question 6 bout race. or this census. Hispanic origins are not races. 5. Is this per of ispanic. Latino. or Spanish origin? CI Notifier? anIc Latino or Spanish origin esn?ican. Mexican Am.. Chicano rto Ftican ??Yes. Cuban Dir Aesm another Hispanic. Latino. or Spanish origin Print align. tor ample, ?5:5ng Nbaraguan?alvadoran. Spaniard andsoon. 7 32> 6. What is this person's race? Mark II one or more boxes. White El Black. African Am.. or Negro American Indian or Alaska Native Print name at enrolled orprindpal lr?ie 7 Asian Indian Japanese Native Hawaiian El Chinese Korean Guamanian or Chamorro El Filipino El Vietnamese El Samoan Other Pacific Islander Print example. Hmong. Laotian. Thai, race. for example. Fijian, Tongan, Pakistani. CambodianSome other race Print race. 7 7. Does this person sometimes live or stay somewhere else? No El Yes Mark all that apply. For child custody El Other Asian Print race. for In college housing In the military In jail or prison At a seasonal In a nursing home 0" second residence El For another reason It more people were counted In Question 1 on the Iron! page. continue with Person 6. 4 000050 1. Print name of Last Name I I First Name I I MI 2. How is this person related to Person 1? Mark. ONE box. Husband or wiie Parent-in-iaw El Biological son or daughter El Son-in-law or daughter-in-law El Adopted son or daughter El Other relative Stepson or stepdaughter El Ftoomer or boarder Brother or sister Housemate or roommate El Father or mother El Unmarried partner El Grandchild El Other nonrelative 3. What Is this person?s sex? Mark ONE box. El Male Female 4. What is this person's age and what is this person?s date of birth? Please report babies as age 0 when the child is less than 1 year old. Print numbers in boxes. Age on April 1. 2010 Month Day Year of birth NOTE: Please answer BOTH Question 5 about Hispanic origin and Question 6 about race. For this census, Hispanic origins are not races. 5. is this person of Hispanic, Latino. or Spanish origin? Yes. Cuban No. not oi Hispanic. Latino, or Spanish origin \y Yes. Mexican, Mexican Am.. Chicano Yes. Puerto Fiican Yes. another Hispanic. Latino. or Spanish origin Print tor?ilwe If more people Argentinean. Colombian. Dominican. Nicaraguan, Salvadoran. Spaniard? .11) live here, turn 1 i the page and urn?m 1 6. What is this person's race? Mark. one on 5' s. cont'nue' White hi) Black. African Am. or Negro American Indian or Alaska otanroiied orpn'ncr'pattn?beAsian Indian DCQM Native Hawaiian Chinese an El Guamenian or Chamorro Filipino a?tamese Samoan Other Asiaqwi?ti e. tor Other Pacific Islander Print exempts. n. Thar. race. for example. Hirer). Tongan. PakistaniSome other race Print race. 7 I 7. Does this person sometimes live or stay somewhere else? El No CI Yes Mark. all that apply. El In college housing For child custody In the military In jail or prison At a seasonal In a nursing home 0" second residence For another reason It more than six people were counted in Question 1 on the front page. turn the page and continue. Form n-s1 {1-15-2009} 000051 Use this section to complete information for the rest of the people you counted in Question 1 on the front page. We may call for additional infonnaiion about them. Em Y7 Last Name First Name MI Sex Age on April 1, 2010 Date oi Birth Related to Person 1? CI Male Month Day Year El Yes Female Last Name First Name April 1, 2010 Dale of Birth Fiela gerson 1? El Male Month Day Year Female Last Name First Name II VI) lull Sex Age on April 1, 2010 Date of Birth Related to Person 1? Male Month Day Yes Female mm) Last Name Awe MI Sex Age on April 1 2010 Date Agi?Birthy Related to Person 1? El Maia Yes Female No Last Name@% I I First Name MI I Sex I 1, 2010 Date of Birth Related to Person 1? Male Month Day Year Yes Female Last Name First Name MI Sex Age on April 1, 2010 Date of Birth Related to Person 1? Male Month Day Year Yes El Female No :l Thank you for completing your official 2010 Census form. mammary: 000052 .8. us Bureau ti al Processing Center If your enclosed postage-paid envelo?gEEtng. please mail your completed form to: 3, East 10th Street AV ersonville, IN 47132 If you need help com eti ms form, call 1-866-872-6868 between 8:00 am. and 9:00 7 days a week. The call is free. TDD Teteph >lay device for the hearing impaired. Gait 1-866-783-2010 between 8:00 am. an ., 7 days a week. The telephone cat! is free. Si usted necesita ayuda para completar este cuestionan'o, Name at 1-866-928-20 entre ias 8:00 am. 9:00 pm, 7 dias a ta semana. La Ilamada teietdnica es gratis. The US. Census Bureau estimates that, for the average household, this form will take about 10 minutes to complete, including the time for reviewing the instructions and answers. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect oi this burden to: Paperwork Reduction Project 0507-0919-0. US. Census Bureau. AMSD-3K138. 4600 Silver Hill Road. Washington. DC 20233. You may e-mail comments to use ?Paperwork Project 0607-0919-0' as the subject. Respondents are not required to respond to any iniormalion collection unless it displays a valid approval number from the Office of Management and Budget. 000053 This document was prepared by and for Census Bureau staff to aid in future research and planning, but the Census Bureau is making the document publicly available in order to share the information with as wide an audience as possible. Questions about the document should be directed to Kevin Deardorff at (301) 763-6033 or kevin.e.deardorff@census.gov November 19, 2012 2010 CENSUS PLANNING MEMORANDA SERIES No. 247 MEMORANDUM FOR The Distribution List From: Burton Reist [signed] Acting Chief, Decennial Management Division Subject: 2010 Census Match Study Report Attached is the 2010 Census Match Study Report. The Quality Process for the 2010 Census Evaluations, Experiments, and Assessments was applied to the methodology development, specifications, software development, analysis, and documentation of the analysis and results, as necessary. If you have questions about this report, please contact Sonya Rastogi at (301) 763-6038 or Amy O’Hara at (301) 763-5757. Attachment 000054 2010 Census Program for Evaluations and Experiments November 16, 2012 2010 Census Match Study U.S. Census Bureau standards and quality process procedures were applied throughout the creation of this report. FINAL REPORT Authors: Sonya Rastogi and Amy O’Hara Contributors: James Noon, Ellen A. Zapata, Cindy Espinoza, Leah B. Marshall, Teresa A. Schellhamer, and J. David Brown Center for Administrative Records Research and Applications 000055 This page is intentionally left blank. ii 000056 Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... ix 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 2. Background ................................................................................................................................. 1 2.1 Administrative Records in Census Programs ................................................................... 1 2.2 Previous Household Administrative Records Research ................................................... 2 3. Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 3 3.1 Data .................................................................................................................................. 3 3.1.1 Federal Data from Other Agencies ........................................................................... 3 3.1.2 2010 Census Data ..................................................................................................... 4 3.1.3 Commercial Data ...................................................................................................... 4 3.1.4 Description of Data Utilized in Address, Person, and Person-Address Pairs Results Sections.. .................................................................................................................................. 5 3.1.5 Description of Data Utilized in Demographic Quality and Coverage Results Section… ................................................................................................................................. 5 3.2 Record Linkage ................................................................................................................ 6 3.3 Count and Match Ratios ................................................................................................... 7 3.4 Best Address for Person-Address Pairs ............................................................................ 8 4. Limitations .................................................................................................................................. 8 5. Results ......................................................................................................................................... 9 5.1 Address Count and Match ..................................................................................................... 9 5.2 Person Count and Match ..................................................................................................... 24 5.3 Person-Address Pair Count and Match ............................................................................... 37 5.4 Demographic Quality and Coverage Assessment ............................................................... 50 6. Related Census Program for Evaluations and Experiments Reports ........................................ 67 7. Lessons Learned, Conclusions, and Research Implications ..................................................... 67 8. Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................... 72 iii 000057 Appendix 1. 2010 Census and Administrative Records Address Count and Match Numbers and Ratios by State .............................................................................................................................. 75 Appendix 2. Number of Administrative Records Race Response Data that Matched to the 2010 Census ........................................................................................................................................... 76 Appendix 3. Number of Administrative Records Age Response Data that Matched to the 2010 Census ........................................................................................................................................... 77 Appendix 4. Number Coverage of 2010 Census Race Data by Administrative Records Source Files ............................................................................................................................................... 78 Appendix 5. Number Coverage of 2010 Census Age Data by Administrative Records Source Files ............................................................................................................................................... 79 iv 000058 List of Tables Table 1. 2010 Census and Administrative Records Address Count and Match ........................... 11 Table 2. 2010 Census and Administrative Records Address Count Ratio, Match Ratio, and Type of Enumeration Area for the Ten States with the Lowest and Highest Ratios ............................. 13 Table 3. 2010 Census and Administrative Records Address Count Ratio, Match Ratio, and Type of Enumeration Area for the Ten Counties with the Lowest and Highest Ratios......................... 16 Table 4. 2010 Census and Federal and Commercial Administrative Records Address Count and Match Numbers and Ratios ........................................................................................................... 19 Table 5. 2010 Census and Administrative Records Address Count and Match Numbers and Ratios by Type of Enumeration Area ........................................................................................... 20 Table 6. 2010 Census and Administrative Records Address Count and Match Numbers and Ratios by Housing Unit Type ....................................................................................................... 21 Table 7. 2010 Census and Administrative Records Address Match by Race and Hispanic Origin of Householder, Mode, Imputation, and Proxy............................................................................. 23 Table 8. 2010 Census and Administrative Records Person Count and Match Numbers and Ratios by Region ...................................................................................................................................... 27 Table 9. 2010 Census and Administrative Records Person Count and Match Numbers and Ratios by State.......................................................................................................................................... 28 Table 10. 2010 Census and Federal and Commercial Administrative Records Person Count and Match Numbers and Ratios ........................................................................................................... 32 Table 11. 2010 Census and Administrative Records Person Count and Match Numbers and Ratios by Type of Enumeration Area ........................................................................................... 33 Table 12. 2010 Census and Administrative Records Person Match by Demographic Characteristics, Mode, and Proxy ................................................................................................. 34 Table 13. 2010 Census and Administrative Records Person-Address Count and Match Numbers and Ratios by Region .................................................................................................................... 39 Table 14. 2010 Census and Administrative Records Person-Address Count and Match Numbers and Ratios by State........................................................................................................................ 40 Table 15. 2010 Census and Administrative Records Person-Address Count Ratio, Match Ratio, and Type of Enumeration Area for the Ten Counties with the Lowest and Highest Ratios......... 43 v 000059 Table 16. 2010 Census and Federal and Commercial Administrative Records Person-Address Count and Match Numbers and Ratios ......................................................................................... 44 Table 17. 2010 Census and Administrative Records Person-Address Count and Match Numbers and Ratios by Type of Enumeration Area..................................................................................... 45 Table 18. 2010 Census and Administrative Records Person-Address Match by Race, Hispanic Origin, Age, Sex, Mode, and Proxy .............................................................................................. 46 Table 19. 2010 Census and Administrative Records by Housing Unit Status.............................. 48 Table 20. 2010 Census and Administrative Records Housing Unit Status by Mode ................... 49 Table 21. 2010 Census and Administrative Records Population Count at an Address ................ 49 Table 22. Difference in Population Count, when Administrative Records had a Higher or Lower Population Count Relative to the 2010 Census............................................................................. 50 Table 23. Number and Percentage of Administrative Records Hispanic Origin Response Data that Matched to the 2010 Census .................................................................................................. 51 Table 24. Percentage of Administrative Records Race Response Data that Matched to the 2010 Census ........................................................................................................................................... 52 Table 25. Percentage of Administrative Records Age Response Data that Matched to the 2010 Census ........................................................................................................................................... 55 Table 26. Number and Percentage of Administrative Records Sex Response Data that Matched to the 2010 Census ............................................................................................................................ 56 Table 27. Coverage of 2010 Census Demographic Data by Administrative Records Demographic Response Data ............................................................................................................................... 57 Table 28. Coverage of 2010 Hispanic Origin Data by Administrative Records Hispanic Origin Response Data by Mode ............................................................................................................... 58 Table 29. Coverage of 2010 Race Data by Administrative Records Race Response Data by Mode ............................................................................................................................................. 59 Table 30. Coverage of 2010 Age Data by Administrative Records Age Response Data by Mode ............................................................................................................................................. 61 Table 31. Coverage of 2010 Sex Data by Administrative Records Sex Response Data by Mode ............................................................................................................................................ .62 vi 000060 Table 32. Number and Percent Coverage of 2010 Hispanic Origin Data by Administrative Records Source Files..................................................................................................................... 63 Table 33. Percent Coverage of 2010 Race Data by Administrative Records Source Files .......... 64 Table 34. Percent Coverage of 2010 Age Data by Administrative Records Source Files............ 65 Table 35. Number and Percent Coverage of 2010 Sex Data by Administrative Records Source Files ............................................................................................................................................... 66 vii 000061 List of Figures Figure 1. Count and Match of 2010 Census and Administrative Records Addresses …………..10 Figure 2. Count Ratio of 2010 Census and Administrative Records Addresses by County……..15 Figure 3. Match Ratio of 2010 Census and Administrative Records Addresses by County….....17 Figure 4. Count and Match of 2010 Census and Administrative Records Persons.……………..25 Figure 5. Count Ratio of 2010 Census and Administrative Records Persons by County……..…30 Figure 6. Match Ratio of 2010 Census and Administrative Records Persons by County…….....31 Figure 7. Count and Match of 2010 Census and Administrative Records Person-Address Pairs……………………………………………………………………………………………....38 Figure 8. Count Ratio of 2010 Census and Administrative Records Person-Address Pairs by County………………………………………………………………………...…...……………..41 Figure 9. Match Ratio of 2010 Census and Administrative Records Person-Address Pairs by County…………………………………………………………………………..………………..42 viii 000062 Executive Summary Study Overview To reduce costs many countries use administrative data to assist in censuses or as a replacement to traditional censuses (Farber and Leggieri 2002, Ralphs and Tutton 2011). Currently administrative data are utilized in numerous, critical U.S. Census Bureau programs for population, economic, income and poverty, and health insurance estimates, but administrative data have not yet been extensively used to assist in decennial census operations. The Census Bureau is researching ways in which to use administrative data in decennial census operations to reduce costs.1 This study, building and expanding on previous research that utilized Census 2000 results, provides a foundation for decennial census operational research on administrative records by assessing the quality and coverage of administrative data relative to the 2010 Census. In the United States, decennial censuses determine apportionment of state representation to Congress, are used in state redistricting, and are used to distribute billions of federal dollars (Reamer 2010). While households are required by law to participate in the decennial census, there are many households that do not respond to initial contact attempts. This requires the Census Bureau to send enumerators door to door to collect data from non-responding households in decennial census operations called Nonresponse Followup Operations.2 This effort is expensive for the Census Bureau and was estimated to cost around 1.4 billion dollars in Census 2000 of a total census budget of six billion dollars (Farber and Leggieri 2002, Walker et al. 2012). The estimated cost of these operations in the 2010 Census was about two billion dollars (Walker et al. 2012). Administrative records may be able to assist with expensive operations such as Nonresponse Followup Operations, which would save the government and taxpayers a substantial amount of money. Census Bureau staff conducted research on the use of federal administrative data utilizing Census 2000 results. The Statistical Administrative Records System (StARS) was developed from select federal data sources in 1999. Decennial census research using these data included address and person count comparisons relative to Census 2000 (Farber and Leggieri 2002). StARS 1999 was also utilized in a field test that simulated a census in several counties during Census 2000 (Berning 2003, Bye and Judson 2004). The 2010 Census Match Study builds on this research by evaluating the federal data sources used in StARS, additional federal data sources, and commercial data. This report is also distinctive from past research in that it matches addresses and persons in administrative records to the 2010 Census to evaluate the quality and coverage of administrative data. The matching is conducted 1 For the purposes of this report, “administrative data” and “administrative records” are used interchangeably. Nonresponse Followup Operations include Nonresponse Followup, Nonresponse Followup Reinterview, Nonresponse Followup Vacant Delete Check, and Nonresponse Followup Residual. For more information, see Walker et al. (2012). 2 ix 000063 using unique address and person identifiers called master address file identification numbers and protected identification keys assigned by the Person Identification Validation System to addresses and persons in the 2010 Census and administrative records. Using count and match ratios, this study evaluates the administrative data and the 2010 Census at different levels of geography and by factors such as Hispanic origin, race, and mode of data collection. This report also evaluates the quality and coverage of Hispanic origin, race, sex, and age response data in administrative records relative to the 2010 Census. Results Overview Addresses There were 131.7 million addresses in the 2010 Census and 151.3 million addresses in administrative records. Of the 2010 Census addresses, administrative records matched to 122.0 million or 92.6 percent; 29.3 million administrative records addresses were not found in the 2010 Census; and 9.7 million addresses were in the 2010 Census, but not in administrative records. Definitional differences between addresses in the 2010 Census and administrative records contributed to the address non-matches. For instance, there were Post Office Box addresses in administrative data but none in the 2010 Census. The 2010 Census also contained physical descriptions for addresses such as “yellow house near fork in the road” that cannot be matched to administrative records. Additionally, administrative records contained non-residential addresses and may have contained new construction that was not recorded in the 2010 Census. Persons The person match ratios were lower than the match ratios for addresses. This is in part because all addresses in the 2010 Census had master address file identification numbers, thus all 2010 Census addresses had the potential to be matched to administrative records addresses with master address file identification numbers. However, in the 2010 Census, not all persons received a protected identification key, reducing the number of persons in the 2010 Census that had the potential to match to administrative records. Protected identification keys were assigned through probabilistic matching to records using name, address, and date of birth information. There were 308.7 million persons in the 2010 Census, and 279.2 million were assigned a protected identification key. There were 312.2 million unique persons in administrative records that were assigned a protected identification key and were alive on Census Day, April 1, 2010. Administrative records matched to the vast majority of persons in the 2010 Census that received a protected identification key, 273.6 million or 98.0 percent. The percentage of the entire 2010 Census universe, including records lacking protected identification keys, with matching administrative records was lower at 88.6 percent. x 000064 There were 29.6 million 2010 Census persons that did not receive a protected identification key. There were 48.8 million administrative records that were assigned a protected identification key, but did not match to the 2010 Census. Future research will study the potential overlap between these universes. There were 5.5 million 2010 Census persons with protected identification keys that were not found in administrative records data, and most of them were under the age of 17. There were several reasons why administrative data did not cover children as well as other age groups, including timing issues with tax data. Tax return data from the previous tax year failed to include babies born after January 2010, however these children would likely be reported in the 2010 Census, resulting in a lower match between administrative records and the 2010 Census for babies. Person-Address Pairs The match ratios for person-address pairs (i.e. a person at an address) were lower relative to the address results and person results, in part because the person-address pair data incorporate both address and person matching issues, including the presence of multiple addresses for persons in administrative records. Of the 312.2 million persons in administrative records that had a protected identification key, 301.5 million had a master address file identification number and 10.7 million did not have a master address file identification number. There were 216.2 million person-address pairs in the 2010 Census that matched to administrative records. Of the 308.7 million persons-address pairs in the 2010 Census, 70.0 percent matched to administrative records person-address pairs. Of the 279.2 million person-address pairs in the 2010 Census that had a protected identification key, 77.4 percent matched to administrative records person-address pairs. After the best address model was applied to persons in administrative records with multiple addresses in administrative records, there were 203.2 million person-address pairs in the 2010 Census that matched to administrative records. Of the 308.7 million persons in the 2010 Census, 65.8 percent matched to administrative records person-address pairs. Of the 279.2 million person-address pairs in the 2010 Census that had a protected identification, 72.8 percent matched to administrative records person-address pairs. There were 98.6 million administrative records person-address pairs that did not match to the 2010 Census. There were 76.0 million personaddress pairs that were in the 2010 Census which did not match to person-address pairs in administrative records. Demographic Quality and Coverage The quality of Hispanic origin response data from federal and commercial files, as defined by response match ratios between the 2010 Census and administrative data, ranged from 29.4 percent to 93.1 percent. Overall, federal data sources tended to have higher quality race data for each race group relative to the commercial data. The quality of race data varied by race group. xi 000065 The White alone, Black alone, and Asian alone populations tended to have higher quality race data in administrative records compared to Two or More Races, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander alone, American Indian or Alaska Native alone, and Some Other Race alone populations. Federal and commercial files had high quality data for age and sex responses. Across federal and commercial files that had date of birth information, the age match ratio ranged from 79.0 percent to 98.5 percent. The sex match ratios ranged from 94.7 percent to 100.0 percent. The demographic coverage analysis evaluated whether administrative data provided a demographic response to Hispanic origin, race, age, and sex groups in the 2010 Census regardless of the quality of the response. There was a Hispanic origin response present in administrative data for 92.2 percent of non-Hispanic respondents and 78.9 percent of Hispanics in the 2010 Census. The race response coverage in administrative records ranged from 46.1 percent for the Some Other Race alone population to 81.0 percent for the White alone population. Coverage by age group ranged from 84.9 percent to 94.3 percent with older age groups achieving higher coverage relative to younger age groups. Coverage for sex was 90.1 percent, where females had slightly higher coverage (90.8 percent) relative to males (89.3 percent). Research Implications 1. Administrative records can enhance, but not replace the decennial census. While the quality and coverage of administrative records relative to the 2010 Census suggests that administrative records can be utilized in decennial census operations, the quality is not high enough and the coverage is not expansive enough to replace a traditional census. 2. Use of administrative records in Nonresponse Followup can reduce costs. Administrative records cover a substantial number of Nonresponse Followup addresses and persons, and nearly half of person-address pairs. Of the 23.6 million addresses that responded in Nonresponse Followup in the 2010 Census, administrative records matched to 21.0 million or 89.2 percent.3 Administrative records also matched to a substantial number of persons that were in Nonresponse Followup in the 2010 Census. Of the 60.4 million persons in Nonresponse Followup in the 2010 Census, 48.0 million or 79.5 percent were in administrative records. Administrative records matched to a lower number and proportion of person-address pairs in Nonresponse Followup compared to addresses and persons. Of the 60.4 million 2010 person-address pairs in Nonresponse Followup, there were 28.7 million or 47.5 percent that matched to administrative records. 3 There are 47.2 million housing units in Nonresponse Followup according to the “2010 Census Nonresponse Followup Operations Assessment” (see Walker et al. (2012)). This number is much higher relative to the housing units in this report for several reasons. For instance, the number of Nonresponse Followup housing units in Walker et al. (2012) include vacant, deletes, and unresolved households, whereas the Nonresponse Followup housing units in this report are all occupied. xii 000066 Research and improvements in record linkage, refinements of the best address model, and acquiring data that cover those most likely to be in Nonresponse Followup may enhance the person-address match between the 2010 Census and administrative records. 3. Administrative records can assist in determining housing unit and occupancy status. Administrative records can assist to verify whether a housing unit is a valid livable housing unit and whether it is occupied. Occupancy status results demonstrate the value of administrative records for these purposes. Of the 116.7 million occupied housing units in the 2010 Census, administrative records indicated that 96.1 million or 82.3 percent were occupied. The 2010 Census designated 15.0 million housing units as vacant, of which administrative records found that 11.4 million or 76.1 percent were not occupied. Of the 4.9 million housing units designated as deletes in the 2010 Census, administrative records indicated that 4.2 million or 85.4 percent were not occupied.4 4. Administrative records can inform household population count assignment. Administrative records had the same population count for the majority of 2010 Census housing units that matched to administrative records. Of the 116.7 million 2010 Census occupied housing units, 96.1 million matched to administrative records. Of these, 55.5 million or 57.7 percent of housing units had the same population count. When administrative records and the 2010 Census did not have the same population count, the count differed by one person for 63.7 percent of the housing units. Further research should be conducted on this universe. 5. Acquiring additional federal, state, and commercial data can improve address, person, and demographic characteristic coverage. Administrative data do not cover children as well as they cover adults. Also, the quality of race and Hispanic origin response data from federal and commercial sources varies considerably by race and Hispanic origin group. The Census Bureau should partner with federal agencies, state agencies, community groups, and other organizations to obtain data that contain information on children living in households, and additional race and Hispanic origin response data should be acquired, particularly for groups where the quality of race or Hispanic origin response data is low in administrative records. Obtaining data for the following groups should be a priority: Two or More Races, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and American Indian or Alaska Native. 6. Administrative records can inform race and Hispanic origin determination. For some race and Hispanic origin groups, the quality of administrative records response data was high. For instance, the White alone, Black alone, and Asian alone populations had 4 Deletes refer to housing units designated for deletion from the address list. Housing units may be identified as deletes for a number of reasons including being demolished, uninhabitable, or nonresidential. Counts of 2010 Census addresses designated as deletes may vary across 2010 Census Program for Evaluations and Experiments reports as a result of different data sets being used for analysis. xiii 000067 relatively high quality race response data in administrative records compared to other race groups. The quality of administrative records files ranged from 94.7 percent to 99.1 percent for the White alone population. The quality of federal data for the Black alone population ranged from 87.4 percent to 98.3 percent. The range was considerably lower for commercial data. For the Asian alone population, the quality of both federal and commercial data ranged from 58.0 percent to 94.1 percent. Data could also be used for other race groups from administrative records, but the quality was generally lower. Research should be conducted on how administrative records can assist with race and Hispanic origin determination for censuses and surveys. 7. Administrative records can assist age and sex determination. The quality of age and sex response data in administrative records is high. For sex, the quality of administrative data ranged from 94.7 percent to 100.0 percent across administrative records files. For age, in data sources that contained date of birth, the quality of administrative records ranged from 79.0 percent to 98.5 percent. Research should be conducted on how administrative data can assist with age and sex determination for censuses and surveys. 8. Conduct additional record linkage research with the aim of improving match results for unvalidated person records. Many improvements were made to the Person Identification Validation System to enhance the assignment of protected identification keys and master address file identification numbers to administrative records data. Continued record linkage research on the Person Identification Validation System should be conducted to further enhance the assignment of protected identification keys and master address file identification numbers to persons and addresses, potentially increasing the universe of persons and addresses that can be matched and unduplicated between censuses and surveys and administrative records. For instance, of the 308.7 million persons in the 2010 Census, 29.6 million did not receive a protected identification key. Of these, 10.3 million could not be sent through Person Identification Validation System processing because they lacked name and date of birth, and 19.3 million went through Person Identification Validation System processing but failed to receive a protected identification key. Additional research should be conducted on how to minimize this latter universe. 9. Conduct record linkage research to improve match results for records with incomplete name and date of birth data. Commercial data sources often lack complete name and date of birth information. Research to unduplicate these records that failed the Person Identification Validation System, and assess the quality of the data is needed. Research on how to use records that lack personally identifiable information is needed, moving the matching approach beyond validation using the Social Security Administration Numerical Identification File. xiv 000068 10. Conduct record linkage research that improves person record unduplication. Current record linkage techniques must determine whether two people that look similar are indeed the same person or if they are two different people. Refinements on record linkage techniques will help to more accurately unduplicate person records. 11. Develop partnerships with federal and state agencies to better understand administrative records and enhance record linkage research. Partnering with federal and state agencies will facilitate knowledge sharing on the availability of data that could enhance record linkage processes. This knowledge sharing will also benefit administrative records research. For instance, a better understanding of how data were collected could assist in the validation and unduplication process and improve understanding of resulting linkages. 12. Assess whether an administrative records composite improves missing data assignment. Building an administrative records composite involves unduplicating records, assigning persons at multiple addresses to one address, and assigning one characteristic to people that have different characteristics across source files. Research should assess the quality of missing data assignment using a composite compared to using all available administrative data. 13. Analyze linked survey data, especially the American Community Survey, to explore characteristics associated with data coverage and consistency. Evaluating administrative records relative to the 2010 Census provided important information, at different levels of geography and by certain characteristics, about the quality and coverage of administrative data. Other evaluations using survey data such as the American Community Survey can provide additional insights because the American Community Survey has many additional characteristics that can be analyzed. xv 000069 1. Introduction Countries are increasingly adopting the use of administrative records within surveys and censuses to reduce costs. Many European countries such as Austria, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Switzerland already use administrative records in part or entirely in their censuses (Farber and Leggieri 2002, Ralphs and Tutton 2011). Other countries such as England, Canada, Israel, and Italy are researching ways in which to use administrative records in their censuses (Ralphs and Tutton 2011). At the Census Bureau, uses of administrative records have expanded over the years and are critical to the success of many programs including the Business Register, Intercensal Population Estimates, Local Employer Dynamics, Demographic Analysis Estimates, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, and Small Area Health Insurance Estimates. However, the use of administrative records has not been widely adopted within decennial census operations. External researchers in the 1980s and the National Academies of Sciences in the mid-1990s called for research to be undertaken on the use of administrative records in decennial census operations (Alvey and Scheuren 1982, Edmonston and Schultze 1995, Steffey and Bradburn 1994). This spurred the Census Bureau to develop StARS in 1999. StARS 1999 was constructed and evaluated by Census Bureau staff, and utilized in a Census 2000 field test that simulated an administrative records census in several counties (Farber and Leggieri 2002, Berning 2003, Bye and Judson 2004). The 2010 Census Match Study builds upon and expands this research. The 2010 Census Match Study is the first study that links administrative records to decennial census results to evaluate the quality and coverage of administrative records. This study evaluates counts and matches of addresses and persons, and persons at addresses at different levels of geography and by factors such as Hispanic origin, race, and mode of data collection. This report also evaluates the quality and coverage of Hispanic origin, race, sex, and age data in administrative records relative to the 2010 Census. 2. Background 2.1 Administrative Records in Census Programs Many important programs at the Census Bureau utilize administrative records extensively. Administrative records are used to update the Business Register, the survey frame for the Economic Census, and most monthly, quarterly, and annual economic surveys. The Population Estimates program utilizes administrative birth and death data, as well as data from Medicare, to produce annual estimates of the U.S. population at the national, state, and county levels. Uses of these estimates include federal funding allocations and survey controls. Additionally, the Local Employment Dynamics program utilizes labor market data from states to develop critical information on employment, job creation, turnover, and earnings. Demographic Analysis 1 000070 Estimates utilize administrative birth and death data, as well as data from Medicare, to assess the coverage of decennial censuses. To help inform the administration of federal programs and the allocation of federal funds to local jurisdictions, the Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates program develops current selected income and poverty estimates for states, counties, and school districts using a combination of American Community Survey (ACS) data, administrative records, population estimates, and decennial census data. The Small Area Health Insurance Estimates program provides health insurance coverage estimates for states and counties from statistical model-based methods using survey, decennial census, and administrative data sources. While administrative data have been incorporated into a number of important Census Bureau programs, it has not yet been highly utilized in decennial census operations. Research conducted utilizing Census 2000 results, this report, other 2010 Census Program for Evaluations and Experiments reports, and 2020 Census research will help determine the feasibility of using administrative data in decennial census operations. 2.2 Previous Household Administrative Records Research In response to calls from external researchers and the National Academies of Science, the Census Bureau developed StARS 1999 to research the use of administrative data in decennial census operations. StARS 1999 was assembled from six administrative records sources: (1) Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Individual Income Returns, (2) IRS Information Returns, (3) Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System (TRACS), (4) Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Medicare Enrollment Database (MEDB), (5) Indian Health Service (IHS) Patient Registration System, and (6) Selective Service System (SSS) Registration System (Farber and Leggieri 2002). In StARS 2000, and for subsequent years, an additional source file was added, (7) the HUD Public and Indian Housing Information Center (PIC) file. The StARS 1999 data were assembled to test the feasibility of acquiring, validating, and unduplicating federal administrative data. The resulting files were primarily used for count comparisons relative to Census 2000 and in a Census 2000 field test called the Administrative Records Census Experiment or AREX 2000. StARS 1999 research found that address and person counts in StARS were relatively close to the counts in Census 2000 at the national level. StARS 1999 also produced counts that were similar to Census 2000 in states in the Midwest and Northeast, but there were more discrepancies with counts in the South and Southwest. Farber and Leggieri (2002) concluded that more research needed to be conducted to produce better race and ethnicity counts. AREX 2000 investigated the possibilities of conducting an administrative records census and of using administrative records in support of a traditional census (Berning 2003). Census 2000 results for two Maryland and three Colorado counties were compared to administrative data from 2 000071 StARS 1999. Nearly a one-year lag existed between the reference period of Census 2000 and several of the administrative data sources. Count coverage of administrative data across the test counties varied according to the methodology that was used. The study also identified fewer children and more elderly people than Census 2000. Difficulties were also identified in determining the correct residence for movers. The lag between the various administrative records data reference periods and Census Day, April 1, 2000, likely contributed to these difficulties (Bye and Judson 2003). The research on StARS 1999 and AREX 2000 provided important insights regarding the use of administrative records for decennial census operations. The 2010 Census Match Study extends the administrative records research by utilizing four additional federal files and nine commercial datasets, in addition to the data used to construct StARS. The 2010 Census Match Study also utilizes data that were close to an April 1, 2010 reference date. 3. Methodology 3.1 Data The following sections briefly describe the federal and commercial data that were utilized in this report. 3.1.1 Federal Data from Other Agencies Two files were used from the IRS, the Individual Income Tax Returns 1040 and Information Returns 1099. Individual Income Tax Returns provide data for individuals who file a 1040 tax return. These data include all returns received by the IRS and include the mailing address on the return (generally as of around April 15, 2010), the name and Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) for the primary filer, and the name and TIN for any spouse and/or up to four dependents on the form. Information Returns 1099 include name, address, and TIN for individuals as reported to the IRS by financial institutions and employers on the various Information Returns (1099 forms, W2 forms, etc.). Three files were used from HUD. The PIC data are maintained by HUD for persons participating in the public housing program and other rental assistance programs. TRACS contains data for persons receiving rental assistance and participating in other assisted housing programs through HUD. Computerized Homes Underwriting Management System (CHUMS) contains data for persons who have obtained or applied for mortgages insured under HUD/Federal Housing Administration mortgage insurance programs. These files include information such as name, address, date of birth or age, sex, race, Hispanic origin, and Social Security Number (SSN). 3 000072 The 2010 Social Security Administration (SSA) Supplemental Security Record (SSR) file includes address, personal identifiers, and date of birth for Supplementary Security Income (SSI) recipients. The 2010 Census Match Study primarily used 2010 SSR files for SSI recipients and appended information on children and spouses from a separate 2011 SSR file. The MEDB from the CMS contains Medicare enrollee data and name, address, date of birth, race, Hispanic origin, sex, and SSN. The SSS Registration File contains address and date of birth information on males, ages 18 to 25, who register with Selective Services for the purpose of creating a database which would be used in the event of a draft. The IHS Patient Registration File contains information on American Indians or Alaska Natives (AIAN) who participate in the IHS System. Spouses and children of AIANs that are not in this race group are eligible to receive these services as well. The National Change of Address file is maintained by the U.S. Postal Service and includes name, address, and move information such as the move date, the original address, and the new address. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) files include national level data for adults and children who participate or receive benefits through states’ TANF programs. These files include SSN, date of birth, sex, race, Hispanic origin, and basic geographic information (state, county, and zip code). Since addresses were not included in this file, TANF is only used for the person and demographic quality and coverage sections of this report. The Death Master File from SSA was not used in the quality and coverage analysis of administrative records relative to the 2010 Census, but assisted in processing the administrative files. It contains date of death and SSN for deaths that have been reported to SSA. Date of death information was used to help determine whether a person in administrative records was alive as of April 1, 2010. 3.1.2 2010 Census Data The Census Edited File was used for this report. This file includes the same address and person data from the Census Unedited File along with edited demographic variables and edit and imputation flags. 3.1.3 Commercial Data Nine data files containing identifying information and demographic characteristics were acquired from five commercial data vendors for the 2010 Census Match Study evaluation. These data are described below.5 5 Commercial data vendors are described by name in the Methodology section of this report, but all results in the Address, Person, and Person-Address sections reflect aggregated and unduplicated commercial data. License agreements with each vendor prohibit direct comparisons across companies. In the Demographic Quality and Coverage Assessment section, information about individual vendors is presented but vendor names are withheld. 4 000073 The Census Bureau obtained multiple datsets from three vendors, Experian, Targus, and the Veteran Service Group of Illinois (VSGI). The Experian In-Source (INS) file contains current address, name, race, Hispanic origin, age, and sex data from credit bureau header information. The Experian End-Dated Records (EDR) file is a historical file that contains the same variables as Experian INS. The Targus Federal Consumer file contains address, name, race, Hispanic origin, age, and sex data. The Targus Pure Wireless file contains name, age, sex, and some address data. The Targus National Address File (NAF) contains addresses. The VSGI Name and Address Resource Consumer (NAR) file contains current address, name, date of birth, race, Hispanic origin, and sex information from magazine/periodical change of address information, utility records, and other sources. The VSGI TrackerPlus (TRK) file is a historical file that contains the same variables as VSGI NAR. The VSGI race and Hispanic origin data were not used in this report, as they were at the tract level rather than at the individual level, thus quality and coverage of individual race and Hispanic origin data could not be assessed from this data source. The InfoUSA file contains current and historical address, name, race, Hispanic origin, age, and sex data from sources such as property taxes, voter registration rolls, and telephone book white pages. The Melissa Data Base Source (Melissa) file contains address, name, and age information from credit header records, utility bills, cellular phone records, and the U.S. Postal Service. 3.1.4 Description of Data Utilized in Address, Person, and Person-Address Pairs Results Sections All the federal and commercial data except for TANF and the Targus NAF were used in the address, person, and person-address pair result sections of this report. TANF data could not be used for the address or person-address pair evaluation as TANF did not include addresses on the file. The Targus NAF was not used for the person and person-address pair sections as the file does not contain person data. 3.1.5 Description of Data Utilized in Demographic Quality and Coverage Results Section The demographic quality and coverge analysis used select files that contained race, Hispanic origin, age, and sex data. For race, all three HUD files, IHS, MEDB, TANF, Experian EDR, Experian INS, InfoUSA, and Targus Federal Consumer were used. The Hispanic origin analysis used all of the same files that were used for race except IHS. The sex analysis included all the files used in the race analysis plus SSS, Targus Wireless, VSGI NAR, and VSGI TRK. The age analysis included all the same files as the sex analysis plus SSR and Melissa data. In addition to these files, for all demographics, previous census records (Census 2000 and ACS 2001 to ACS 2009) and the SSA Numerical Identification File (Numident) were also evaluated. The Numident includes SSN, name, date of birth, sex, and race data for all persons who have been 5 000074 assigned a SSN by the SSA. It does not include address or location information associated with records on the file, and as such it was not used in the address, person, or person-address pair results sections of this report. The federal and commercial data do not uniformly collect and report data on Hispanic origin and race. Regarding the Numident, the SSA collected race data from 1936 to 1980 via the Social Security application based on the three categories of “White,” “Black,” and “Other.” In 1980, SSA changed its categories to “White,” “Black,” “Hispanic,” “Asian, Asian American, or Pacific Islander,” and “American Indian or Alaskan Native” in order to comply with the 1977 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Directive 15 on Race and Ethnic Standards. The SSA then halted collecting race data when it transitioned to the Enumeration at Birth system in 1987. The remaining federal files report race according to the OMB revised 1997 race and ethnic standards.6 However, unlike the Census Bureau, HUD CHUMS, HUD PIC, and TANF do not include a category for Some Other Race (SOR). While it does include this category, MEDB models its race data and does not include a category for Two or More Races.7 IHS differs in that it only identifies persons as AIAN and non-AIAN. The commercial files model race data and do not model more than one race for an individual. 3.2 Record Linkage The same people and addresses are present in many of the same administrative records data sources. The administrative records files must be unduplicated in order to evaluate them relative 6 When collecting and tabulating data on race and ethnicity, federal agencies must adhere to guidance from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) 1997 Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity. The standards are available online at . OMB requires federal agencies to use a minimum of two ethnicities: Hispanic or Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino. Hispanic origin can be viewed as the heritage, nationality group, lineage, or country of birth of the person or the person’s parents or ancestors before their arrival in the United States. People who identify their origin as Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish may be any race. “Hispanic or Latino” refers to a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race. OMB requires federal agencies to use a minimum of five race categories: White, Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. For respondents unable to identify with any of these five race categories, OMB approved the Census Bureau’s inclusion of a sixth category, Some Other Race. The 1997 standards require federal agencies to permit respondents to self-identify with more than one race. For more information on how race was collected and tabulated in the 2010 Census please refer to Humes, K., N. Jones, and R. Ramirez. 2011. Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin: 2010, U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Briefs, C2010BR-02, available at . 7 Individuals who responded to the question on race by indicating only one race are referred to as the race-alone population or the group that reported only one race category. Six categories make up this population: White alone, Black or African American alone, American Indian or Alaska Native alone, Asian alone, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander alone, and Some Other Race alone. Individuals who chose more than one of the six race categories are referred to as the Two or More Races population. All respondents who indicated more than one race can be collapsed into the Two or More Races category which, combined with the six race-alone categories, yields seven mutually exclusive and exhaustive categories. Thus, the six race-alone categories and the Two or More Races category sum to the total population. 6 000075 to the 2010 Census.8 Thus, unique address identifiers called master address file identification numbers (MAFIDs) and person identifiers called protected identification keys (PIKs) were assigned to administrative records through the Person Identification Validation System (PVS). To match administrative records data to the 2010 Census, MAFIDs and PIKs must be on these data sources. The 2010 Census data already had MAFIDs, therefore only PIKs were assigned to the 2010 Census through PVS. For more information on this record linkage system see Wagner and Layne (2012). The process of assigning address identifiers starts with matching administrative data to an extract from the Census Bureau Master Address File (MAF).9 MAFIDs were assigned to administrative records with address data that matched to the MAF. The process of assigning PIKs to the 2010 Census and administrative data starts with matching these data to a reference file containing data on individuals. For the assignment of PIKs, the matching software compared personally identifiable information (PII) from administrative data and the 2010 Census to PII on person reference files. The software has two primary components, and one or both of those components can be utilized depending on the characteristics available in the administrative records and 2010 Census files. The two components are “verification” and “search.” The verification module was used when the source file contained a SSN.10 Many federal administrative files contained SSNs, but the 2010 Census and most commercial data did not include SSNs. For these data sets, the search modules in the software compared name, address, and date of birth fields to the person reference file. Administrative and 2010 Census records that matched to the person reference file through either the “verification” or “search” modules were considered validated and were assigned a PIK. 3.3 Count and Match Ratios Count and match ratios are used to evaluate the quality and coverage of administrative data relative to the 2010 Census. The count ratio is calculated by dividing the unduplicated administrative records count by the 2010 Census count and multiplying the result by 100. When the administrative records data have the same proportion of addresses, persons, or person-address 8 The 2010 Census also contains duplicates. Preliminary research that unduplicated the 2010 Census by PIK suggests there were 10.5 million duplicates in the 2010 Census. This is close to the official Census Coverage Measurement figures which suggest there were 8.5 million duplicates in the 2010 Census (Mule 2012). The 2010 Census Match Study report only uses the unduplicated 2010 Census for one analysis, the demographics quality analysis. Duplicates may vary by demographic group, potentially inflating quality of data for some groups while deflating quality for others. Thus, 2010 Census duplicate PIKs were removed from the demographics quality analysis. 9 The 2010 Census Match Study uses a Master Address File extract. For the purposes of the report, this will be referred to as the MAF. The extract used in this analysis may differ from the full Master Address File. 10 A small number of Individual Tax Identification Numbers (ITINs) were in the reference file when a PIK was assigned to 2010 Census persons. Additionally, ITINs were in the reference file when a PIK was assigned to some of the administrative data sources. 7 000076 pairs as the 2010 Census, then the count ratio is 100 percent. Count ratios above 100 percent indicate a higher count in administrative records, while a ratio below 100 percent indicates a lower count in administrative records. Count ratios closer to 100 percent indicate better administrative data whereas very low and very high count ratios indicate lower quality administrative data. The match ratio is calculated by dividing the count of 2010 Census records that match to administrative records by the 2010 Census count and multiplying the result by 100. The match ratio represents the percentage of 2010 Census addresses, persons, person-address pairs, and demographic characteristics that match to administrative records by MAFID, PIK, and PIKMAFID, respectively. 3.4 Best Address for Person-Address Pairs Administrative data sometimes have conflicting information regarding person-address pairs. For instance, one data source could have a person living at an address in Maryland, while another data source may have the same person living in Texas. To compare administrative records to the 2010 Census, a best address was chosen for persons with multiple addresses in administrative records. A logistic model was utilized to select the best address for a person-address pair. For each administrative records source, the model estimated whether a particular administrative record address is the same as the 2010 Census address for each person found in both the 2010 Census and administrative records. The independent variables were 2010 Census demographic characteristics and proximity of an administrative record to April 1, 2010. Predicted values were obtained from each regression. For each person, the address associated with the highest predicted probability of having the same administrative records and 2010 Census address was selected. When demographic characteristics for a person were unavailable, the address was selected from the source with the highest overall address match rate with the 2010 Census. There are persons at multiple addresses in the 2010 Census as well (when the same PIK appears at multiple MAFIDs), but for the person-address section these possible duplicates were kept in the 2010 Census universe.11 4. Limitations The 2010 Census Match Study included validated addresses and persons. Records lacking complete or quality data to match to the MAF or the person reference file were omitted from most analyses. The person reference file was based on the SSA Numident file which primarily includes persons with a SSN. 11 The 2010 Census duplicates were retained in the count and match analyses pending further analysis on whether the pairs were true duplicates or error resulting from the probabilistic matching in the PIK assignment process. 8 000077 One of the goals of the 2010 Census Match Study was to evaluate all items on the 2010 Census, including tenure and relationship to the householder. The administrative records data used in this study did not have tenure or relationship information on the files. Future research should evaluate how previous census records compare to the 2010 Census tenure and relationship data. The majority of the federal and commercial data do not include group quarters, while the 2010 Census has housing units and group quarters. This report does not distinguish between those who live in group quarters and those who live in housing units in the 2010 Census. 5. Results 5.1 Address Count and Match Nation Figure 1 displays the number of addresses in the 2010 Census and administrative records. As discussed in the methodology section, MAFIDs are unique identifiers for addresses. For this report, MAFIDs facilitated address record linkage between the 2010 Census and administrative records. There were 131.7 million occupied or vacant addresses in the 2010 Census, all of which had MAFIDs. There were 500.9 million addresses in the administrative records files. Of these, there were 151.3 million addresses that had a unique MAFID and 349.6 million addresses that did not have a MAFID. Future research will investigate unduplicating and assigning MAFIDs to administrative records addresses that do not have a MAFID. Of the 131.7 million 2010 Census addresses, 122.0 million (92.6 percent) matched to administrative records addresses with MAFIDs. There were 29.3 million administrative records addresses with MAFIDs that were not in the 2010 Census and 9.7 million addresses that were in the 2010 Census, but not in administrative records. There are several factors that impact the 2010 Census and administrative records address counts and matches. The 2010 Census addresses were physical locations, whereas administrative record data represented mailing addresses. For instance, there were Post Office (P.O.) Box addresses in administrative data, while the 2010 Census did not include P.O. Box addresses. Also, the 2010 Census included physical descriptions of addresses such as “yellow house near fork in the road,” which cannot be matched to administrative data. In addition, some of the commercial data utilized in this report included current and historical addresses, thus potentially containing old addresses that did not exist in April 2010. 9 000078 Figure 1. Count and Match of 2010 Census and Administrative Records Addresses 2010 Census addresses, all with MAFIDs 131.7 million Administrative records addresses with a MAFID not in the 2010 Census 29.3 million Administrative records addresses with a MAFID in the 2010 Census 122.0 million Administrative records addresses with a unique MAFID 2010 Census addresses not in administrative records 9.7 million Administrative records addresses without MAFID or state 349.6 million 151.3 million Administrative records addresses 500.9 million Sources: 2010 Census and 2010 Census Match Study Administrative Records Data. The commercial data also included non-residential addresses. Preliminary research suggests that of the 29.3 million addresses in administrative records that were not in the 2010 Census, approximately 10.1 million may have been non-residential addresses (Schellhamer 2012). The administrative records data also could have contained addresses that were unknown to the Census Bureau such as new construction. These factors that contribute to the count and match differentials between the 2010 Census and administrative records will be examined further, contributing to research for the 2020 Census. These results compare addresses with MAFIDs in administrative records to MAFIDs deemed “good census addresses” through 2010 Census operations. Additional research is required to 10 000079 determine whether the universe of administrative records addresses could have been further refined. Region Table 1 shows the count and match results comparing the 2010 Census addresses to administrative records addresses by region.12 Table 1. 2010 Census and Administrative Records Address Count and Match Numbers and Ratios by Region Region Total Northeast Midwest South West 2010 Census Address Count 131,704,730 Administrative Records Address Count 151,277,043 2010 Census and Administrative Records Address Match 121,967,283 23,647,636 29,483,646 49,980,829 28,592,619 26,090,251 33,826,863 59,002,109 32,357,820 21,410,938 27,851,765 46,166,891 26,537,689 2010 Census and Administrative Records Address Count Ratio 114.9 2010 Census and Administrative Records Address Match Ratio 92.6 110.3 114.7 118.0 113.2 90.5 94.5 92.4 92.8 Sources: 2010 Census and 2010 Census Match Study Administrative Records Data. As discussed above, there were 131.7 million addresses in the 2010 Census and 151.3 million addresses in administrative records that received a MAFID, resulting in 19.6 million more addresses in administrative records relative to the 2010 Census. The address count ratio for the total population was 114.9 percent, mirroring the counts, which indicated a larger number of administrative records addresses relative to the 2010 Census. All regions had count ratios above 110.0 percent.13 The South had the highest count ratio at 118.0 percent. In the South, there were 50.0 million addresses in the 2010 Census and 59.0 million in administrative records. The Midwest had the second highest count ratio (114.7 percent), where the 2010 Census count was 29.5 million and the administrative records count was 33.8 million. The count ratio for the West was 113.2 percent, and the Northeast had the lowest count ratio at 110.3 percent. 12 Geographic variables in 2010 Census data were used to tabulate region, state, and county tables and figures throughout this report. 13 The Northeast census region includes Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The Midwest census region includes Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. The South census region includes Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. The West census region includes Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. 11 000080 As discussed above, the address match ratio for the total population was 92.6 percent, and all regions had a match ratio above 90.0 percent. The Midwest had the highest match ratio at 94.5 percent. Of the 29.5 million addresses in the Midwest in the 2010 Census, administrative records matched to 27.9 million. The West had the second highest match ratio (92.8 percent), followed by the South (92.4 percent). The Northeast had the lowest match ratio (90.5 percent). As demonstrated by the regional pattern of count and match ratios for addresses, these ratios do not necessarily correspond to each other. The Northeast had the lowest count and match ratios of all regions, while the South had the highest count ratio, but the second lowest match ratio. State Table 2 shows count ratios, match ratios, and the distribution of Type of Enumeration Area (TEA) for the ten states that have the lowest and highest count and match ratios (see Appendix 1 for 2010 Census and administrative records address count and match numbers and ratios for all states). The state-level address count ratio ranged from 92.7 percent to 124.0 percent. Consistent with the finding that the South had the highest address count ratio relative to the other regions, many of the states with the highest count ratios are located in the South. Mississippi had the highest count ratio (124.0 percent), followed by Delaware (122.7 percent), Georgia (121.8 percent), Alabama (121.1 percent), and Louisiana (120.3 percent). All of these states are located in the South and of the ten states that had the highest count ratios, Iowa was the only one not in the South. The state with the lowest count ratio was Alaska at 92.7 percent. This was the only state where the count ratio was below 100.0 percent. After Alaska, West Virginia (103.9 percent), Vermont (106.8 percent), Maine (106.8 percent), and New York (107.0 percent) had the next lowest state count ratios. Of the ten states that had the lowest count ratios, five were in the Northeast, four were in the West, and one was in the South. This is consistent with the regional patterns observed for count ratios, where the West and Northeast had lower count ratios relative to the South and Midwest. 12 000081 Table 2. 2010 Census and Administrative Records Address Count Ratio, Match Ratio, and Type of Enumeration Area for the Ten States with the Lowest and Highest Ratios Type of Enumeration Area Remote Remote Update Update Alaska Enumerate Enumerate State Update / Leave Urban Update / Leave Ratio Mailout / Mailback Lowest Count Ratios Alaska West Virginia Vermont Maine New York Wyoming New Mexico Montana New Hampshire Rhode Island 92.7 103.9 106.8 106.8 107.0 107.8 108.0 108.3 110.0 110.0 63.2 54.9 66.5 66.4 93.9 51.4 66.6 40.6 77.3 98.3 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.3 9.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.4 2.2 1.9 4.0 6.4 6.3 4.6 0.4 23.9 45.1 27.1 30.9 4.1 44.2 26.5 52.9 18.1 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Highest Count Ratios Mississippi Delaware Georgia Alabama Louisiana Arkansas Tennessee Iowa Texas Florida 124.0 122.7 121.8 121.1 120.3 118.8 118.6 118.6 118.3 118.2 79.4 89.4 93.8 88.4 68.9 66.9 99.6 77.2 88.7 96.6 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 1.3 1.7 1.5 10.3 0.4 0.3 1.3 33.0 0.0 22.5 1.5 0.1 18.9 0.0 5.6 9.9 29.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 8.3 1.6 Lowest Match Ratios Alaska West Virginia Vermont Maine Montana New Mexico Wyoming Hawaii New Hampshire Idaho 70.5 72.8 79.9 80.5 81.1 81.9 84.5 85.9 87.5 87.8 63.2 54.9 66.5 66.4 40.6 66.6 51.4 69.9 77.3 82.6 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.4 3.6 0.0 0.2 9.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.4 2.2 6.3 6.4 4.0 0.0 4.6 3.1 23.9 45.1 27.1 30.9 52.9 26.5 44.2 26.5 18.1 14.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Highest Match Ratios Iowa Ohio District of Columbia Maryland Indiana Kansas California Connecticut Florida Nebraska 96.5 96.1 96.1 95.8 95.7 95.4 95.4 95.0 94.8 94.6 77.2 96.7 99.7 98.4 95.0 80.9 96.5 99.3 96.6 77.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.9 0.0 1.7 0.4 22.5 3.3 0.0 1.4 5.0 18.4 2.2 0.5 0.1 22.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.6 0.0 Military Sources: 2010 Census and 2010 Census Match Study Administrative Records Data. 13 000082 The state address match ratio range was 70.5 percent to 96.5 percent. The five states with the highest match ratios were in the Midwest and South. Iowa had the highest address match ratio at 96.5 percent. Ohio had the second highest match (96.1 percent), followed by the District of Columbia (96.1 percent), Maryland (95.8 percent), and Indiana (95.7 percent).14 Of the ten states that had the highest match ratios, five were in the Midwest, three in the South, and one each in the Northeast and West. Alaska (70.5 percent) had the lowest percent of addresses that matched between the 2010 Census and administrative records with MAFIDs. The following four states had the next lowest match ratios: West Virginia (72.8 percent), Vermont (79.9 percent), Maine (80.5 percent), and Montana (81.1 percent). Of the ten states with the lowest match ratios, six were in the West, three in the Northeast, and one in the South. Future research will identify reasons behind geographic differences in count and match ratios. For instance, 2010 Census and administrative records address counts and matches may be in part affected by differences in city-style and rural route addresses, where city-style addresses are easier to match. TEA can be used as an indicator of city-style addresses as compared to incomplete or rural route addresses, as Mailout/Mailback TEAs tend to have more city-style addresses relative to other TEAs such as Update/Leave and Update Enumerate.15 Looking at the ten states in Table 2 with the lowest and highest count and match ratios by TEA, many of the states with the lowest count and match ratios had lower proportions of addresses designated as the Mailout/Mailback TEA relative to states with the highest count and match ratios. County Figure 2 shows address count ratios for the 2010 Census and administrative records by county. Green indicates counties with a count ratio that is closer to 100.0 percent, yellow and orange indicate low count ratios, and blue and purple represent high count ratios. 14 For this report, the District of Columbia is treated as a state equivalent. The Census Bureau assigns a Type of Enumeration Area (TEA) value to collection blocks to assist with planning census operations for the decennial censuses. For instance, areas that have confirmed mail delivery by the U.S. Postal Service and good response rates to data collection efforts are generally assigned to a Mailout/Mailback TEA (Johanson et al. 2011). Mailout/Mailback is a data collection where forms are mailed to housing units and respondents are asked to complete their form and return by mail. Other TEAs include Update/Leave, Remote Update Enumerate, Remote Alaska, Update Enumerate, Military, and Urban Update/Leave. Update/Leave is a form of data collection where enumerators deliver questionnaires to housing units in their assignment areas and respondents are asked to complete their forms and return by mail. In Remote Update Enumerate, enumerators enumerate households; this is done in rural areas that may require special travel. Remote Alaska is a data collection method in isolated parts of Alaska where an enumerator enumerates the household. Update Enumerate is a data collection method for communities that have special needs, where an enumerator collects data from the household. Military represents areas that have military installations. Mailout/Mailback is conducted in these areas. Urban Update/Leave is a data collection method conducted in areas that have city-style addresses, but may not have good mail delivery. Enumerators leave questionnaires at housing units in their assignment areas and respondents are asked to complete and return the forms by mail. For more information on TEA delineation and definitions for the 2010 Census see Johanson et al. 2011. 15 14 000083 Consistent with regional and state descriptive statistics, many counties in states in the South and Midwest had count ratios above 110.0 percent, indicating that administrative records had a higher number of addresses in these counties relative to the 2010 Census. In the Midwest, states or areas with a number of counties with low count ratios included North Dakota, South Dakota, northern Minnesota, northern Wisconsin, and northern Michigan. In the South, West Virginia and Texas had a number of counties with low count ratios. The West had many counties with low count ratios. For instance, many counties in Alaska, Montana, and New Mexico had low count ratios. Table 3 shows count ratios (upper panel), match ratios (lower panel), and TEA for selected counties. 15 000084 Table 3. 2010 Census and Administrative Records Address Count Ratio, Match Ratio, and Type of Enumeration Area for the Ten Counties with the Lowest and Highest Ratios County Type of Enumeration Area Remote Remote Update Update Alaska Enumerate Enumerate Update / Leave Urban Update / Leave Ratio Mailout / Mailback Lowest Count Ratios Denali, Alaska Yukon-Koyukuk, Alaska Aleutians East, Alaska Hoonah-Angoon, Alaska Kalawao, Hawaii Yakutat, Alaska Northwest Arctic, Alaska Kenedy, Texas Dillingham, Alaska Bethel, Alaska 12.1 12.1 14.7 15.5 15.9 16.0 18.4 19.7 20.2 21.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.8 100.0 50.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 57.1 0.0 56.9 60.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.2 0.0 14.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 77.0 0.0 49.8 78.8 100.0 85.1 42.9 100.0 43.1 39.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Highest Count Ratios Chattahoochee, Georgia Stephens, Georgia Kiowa, Kansas Hayes, Nebraska St. Bernard, Louisiana Warren, Georgia Clay, Tennessee Houston, Tennessee Bleckley, Georgia Pike, Georgia 208.2 207.2 201.4 185.3 183.9 180.6 177.0 176.5 170.5 169.7 0.0 66.9 13.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 86.8 100.0 30.5 100.0 55.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 87.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.4 33.1 0.0 0.0 99.3 0.0 13.2 0.0 69.5 0.0 Lowest Match Ratios Denali, Alaska Yukon-Koyukuk, Alaska Aleutians East, Alaska Kalawao, Hawaii Aleutians West, Alaska Yakutat, Alaska Shannon, South Dakota Dillingham, Alaska Haines, Alaska Northwest Arctic, Alaska 8.0 9.1 12.2 12.4 12.8 12.9 13.7 13.9 14.5 14.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.8 100.0 50.2 0.0 42.7 0.0 0.0 56.9 0.0 57.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 77.0 0.0 49.8 100.0 57.3 85.1 0.0 43.1 99.9 42.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Highest Match Ratios Manassas Park, Virginia Alexandria, Virginia Manassas, Virginia St. Louis, Missouri Anoka, Minnesota Radford, Virginia Hampton, Virginia Los Alamos, New Mexico Fairfax, Virginia Minnehaha, South Dakota 99.5 99.1 98.9 98.9 98.8 98.7 98.7 98.6 98.6 98.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.0 94.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Military Sources: 2010 Census and 2010 Census Match Study Administrative Records Data. 16 000085 The count ratio range across counties was 12.1 percent to 208.2 percent. Of the ten counties with the lowest count ratios, eight were in Alaska—Denali (12.1 percent), Yukon-Koyukuk (12.1 percent), Aleutians East (14.7 percent), Hoonah-Angoon (15.5 percent), Yakutat (16.0 percent), Northwest Arctic (18.4 percent), Dillingham (20.2 percent), and Bethel (21.2 percent). Kalawao, Hawaii (15.9 percent) and Kenedy, Texas (19.7 percent) were also among the ten counties with the lowest count ratios. The ten counties that had the highest count ratios were mainly in the South, many of them in Georgia— Chattahoochee (208.2 percent), Stephens (207.2 percent), Warren (180.6 percent), Bleckley (170.5 percent), and Pike (169.7 percent). Two counties were in Tennessee--Clay (177.0 percent) and Houston (176.5 percent). St. Bernard, Louisiana (183.9 percent) was also among the ten counties with the highest count ratios. Two counties in the Midwest, Kiowa, Kansas (201.4 percent) and Hayes, Nebraska (185.3 percent) were also among the top ten. Figure 3 shows address match ratios by county. Purple and blue represent counties with high match ratios, while yellow and orange represent low match ratios. 17 000086 A number of states in the Midwest had counties with high match ratios. The majority of counties in Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio had match ratios that were 90.0 percent or above. Many counties in southern Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan also had match ratios that were 90.0 percent or above. In the Northeast, New Jersey, southeast Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts had a number of counties with high match ratios. Across the United States, counties near metropolitan areas tended to have high match ratios. For instance, in the West, counties near Los Angeles, California; San Francisco, California; Portland, Oregon; Seattle, Washington; and Denver, Colorado had high match ratios. In the South, counties near Houston, Texas; Austin, Texas; Little Rock, Arkansas; Birmingham, Alabama; Montgomery, Alabama; and Atlanta, Georgia had high match ratios. Many counties in western states, such as Alaska, Idaho, Montana, and New Mexico had a number of counties with low match ratios. West Virginia in the South was another state that had many counties with low match ratios. Address match ratios for counties ranged from 8.0 percent to 99.5 percent (Table 3, bottom panel). Similar to the address count ratios for counties, eight of the ten counties with the lowest match ratios were in Alaska—Denali (8.0 percent), Yukon-Koyukuk (9.1 percent), Aleutians East (12.2 percent), Aleutians West (12.8 percent), Yakutat (12.9 percent), Dillingham (13.9 percent), Haines (14.5 percent), and Northwest Arctic (14.9 percent). Shannon, South Dakota (13.7 percent) and Kalawao, Hawaii (12.4 percent) were also among the ten counties with the lowest match ratios. The ten counties with the highest match ratios were located in the South, Midwest and West. Six counties from Virginia were within the ten counties with the highest match ratios, Manassas Park (99.5 percent), Alexandria (99.1 percent), Manassas (98.9 percent), Radford (98.7 percent), Hampton (98.7 percent), and Fairfax (98.6 percent). Three counties in the Midwest were among the ten counties with the highest match ratios, St. Louis, Missouri (98.9 percent); Anoka, Minnesota (98.8 percent); and Minnehaha, South Dakota (98.6 percent). Los Alamos, New Mexico also had a high address match ratio (98.6 percent). Similar to the state patterns, TEAs explain some of the count and match trends by county. Counties with the lowest count and match ratios did not have any addresses in the Mailout/Mailback TEA. Eight of the ten counties with the highest match ratios were entirely in the Mailout/Mailback TEA. At least 94.0 percent of the 2010 Census addresses in the other two counties with the highest match ratios were in Mailout/Mailback. Federal and Commercial Data Table 4 shows count and match ratios for the 2010 Census and federal and commercial data. 18 000087 Table 4. 2010 Census and Federal and Commercial Administrative Records Address Count and Match Numbers and Ratios Data Type Commercial Federal In both Commercial and Federal Administrative Records Address Count 145,635,096 122,680,039 117,038,092 2010 Census and Administrative Records Address Match 119,035,878 110,914,836 107,983,431 2010 Census and Administrative Records Count Ratio 110.6 93.1 88.9 2010 Census and Administrative Records Address Match Ratio 90.4 84.2 82.0 Sources: 2010 Census and 2010 Census Match Study Administrative Records Data. There were more unduplicated addresses with MAFIDs in commercial data compared to both the 2010 Census and federal data. There were 145.6 million addresses in commercial data and 122.7 million addresses in federal data. There were 117.0 million addresses that were in both commercial and federal data. Thus, 28.6 million addresses were unique to commercial data, and 5.6 million addresses were unique to federal data. The 2010 Census-commercial and 2010 Census-federal count ratios were 110.6 percent and 93.1 percent respectively. Commercial data not only had a higher 2010 Census address count ratio relative to federal data, they also had higher 2010 Census address match ratios. Of the 131.7 million addresses in the 2010 Census, commercial addresses matched to 119.0 million or 90.4 percent. Federal data matched to 110.9 million or 84.2 percent of the 2010 Census addresses. Type of Enumeration Area Table 5 shows TEA address count and match ratios for the 2010 Census and administrative records.16, 17 TEAs that were designated for Mailout/Mailback data collection methods, where forms were mailed to housing units and respondents were asked to complete and mail back their questionnaire, had the highest count and match ratios—Mailout/Mailback and Military TEAs. The Mailout/Mailback TEA had the second highest count ratio and highest match ratio at 114.1 percent and 94.6 percent respectively. The Military TEA had the highest count ratio and second highest match ratio at 200.5 percent and 92.8 percent respectively. These TEAs were designated for Mailout/Mailback data collection in part because they had confirmed mail delivery by the postal service and had fewer enumeration challenges (Johanson et al. 2011). These addresses were also mostly city-style addresses, which generally pose less of a matching issue relative to rural route addresses (Johanson et al. 2011). 16 Note that counts for TEA differ from “2010 Census Operational Assessment for Type of Enumeration Area Delineation” (Johanson et al. 2011) as different data sets were used. 17 Not all administrative records addresses were assigned a TEA as these may include new construction that did not exist prior to address canvassing as well as non-residential addresses which are not assigned a TEA. 19 000088 Table 5. 2010 Census and Administrative Records Address Count and Match Numbers and Ratios by Type of Enumeration Area Total 2010 Census Address Count 131,704,730 Administrative Records Address Count 151,277,043 2010 Census and Administrative Records Address Match 121,967,283 2010 Census and Administrative Records Address Count Ratio 114.9 2010 Census and Administrative Records Address Match Ratio 92.6 Mailout/Mailback Military Remote Alaska Remote Update Enumerate Update Enumerate Update/Leave Urban Update/Leave No TEA 119,713,726 213,420 28,549 6,896 1,366,883 7,978,221 2,397,035 0 136,634,851 427,947 5,710 2,481 1,149,847 7,571,640 2,497,466 2,987,101 113,204,798 198,082 4,798 1,898 875,505 5,863,855 1,818,347 0 114.1 200.5 20.0 36.0 84.1 94.9 104.2 - 94.6 92.8 16.8 27.5 64.1 73.5 75.9 - Type of Enumeration Area Note: A “-“ in tables in this report indicates a ratio where the denominator was 0. Sources: 2010 Census and 2010 Census Match Study Administrative Records Data. The Urban Update/Leave TEA had the next highest count and match ratios, but they were considerably lower than the Mailout/Mailback and Military count and match ratios. The count ratio was 104.2 percent, and the match ratio was 75.9 percent. These count and match ratios were likely lower for Urban Update/Leave relative to Mailout/Mailback and Military because this form of data collection was designated for areas where the Census Bureau believed that there were issues with accurate mail delivery (Johanson et al. 2011). For instance, this TEA included multi-unit buildings where mail was delivered at a drop point instead of individual units or communities that had city-style addresses, but where many residents had mail delivered to a P.O. Box, likely impacting the match ratios between the 2010 Census and administrative records. (Johanson et al. 2011). The Update/Leave count ratio (94.9 percent) was lower than Urban Update/Leave, but this TEA had a similar match ratio (73.5 percent) to Urban Update/Leave. The Update Enumerate count and match ratios were 84.1 percent and 64.1 percent respectively. Update/Leave and Update Enumerate count and match ratios were likely lower than Mailout/Mailback and Military because Update/Leave was conducted in areas that typically do not have city-style addresses and in Update Enumerate many housing units may not have had a house number or street name, making these addresses difficult to match (Johanson et al. 2011). Remote Alaska and Remote Update Enumerate had the lowest count and match ratios. The count and match ratios for Remote Update Enumerate were 36.0 percent and 27.5 percent respectively. Remote Alaska had the lowest count and match ratios at 20.0 percent and 16.8 percent respectively. Remote Alaska and Remote Update Enumerate areas were designated as such because mail was considered undeliverable, thus accounting for the low count and match ratios. 20 000089 Housing Unit Type Table 6 shows 2010 Census and administrative records address count and match ratios by housing unit type.18 Multi-unit buildings with five to nine units had the highest count ratio (145.5 percent), followed by buildings with ten to nineteen units (136.6 percent). Multi-unit buildings with 20 or more units (118.7 percent), multi-unit buildings with two to four units (115.9 percent), and single-family homes (114.2 percent) all had lower count ratios, but they were still above 100 percent. The count ratio for trailer-mobile homes was considerably lower at 88.7 percent. The category “other,” which includes boats, recreational vehicles, and vans had the lowest count ratio at 49.4 percent. Table 6. 2010 Census and Administrative Records Address Count and Match Numbers and Ratios by Housing Unit Type 2010 Census Address Count 131,704,730 Administrative Records Address Count 151,277,043 2010 Census and Administrative Records Address Match 121,967,283 7,412,416 3,807,849 4,069,731 14,184,728 125,493 94,744,173 7,360,340 8,590,969 5,540,284 5,559,212 16,838,161 61,966 108,158,255 6,528,196 5,902,065 3,529,097 3,814,398 13,137,945 34,409 89,506,322 6,043,047 Housing Unit Type Total Multi-unit building – 2 to 4 units Multi-unit building – 5 to 9 units Multi-unit building – 10 to 19 units Multi-unit building – 20 or more units Other - boat, recreation vehicle, van, etc. Single-family Home Trailer-Mobile home 2010 Census and Administrative Records Address Count Ratio 114.9 2010 Census and Administrative Records Address Match Ratio 92.6 115.9 145.5 136.6 118.7 49.4 114.2 88.7 79.6 92.7 93.7 92.6 27.4 94.5 82.1 Sources: 2010 Census and 2010 Census Match Study Administrative Records Data. Single-family homes had the highest housing type match ratio at 94.5 percent. Most of the addresses in the United States were single-family homes in the 2010 Census at 94.7 million. Of these, administrative records matched to 89.5 million. After single-family homes, the next highest matches were in multi-unit buildings with ten to nineteen units (93.7 percent), five to nine units (92.7 percent), and 20 or more units (92.6 percent), followed by trailer-mobile homes (82.1 percent). Multi-unit buildings with two to four units (79.6 percent) had a considerably lower percentage match relative to other multi-unit building categories. This lower match may be in part due to smaller multi-unit structures having potentially more problematic addresses in some parts of the country. In some geographic areas, units are added to single units or small multi-units, and these added units may lack unit designations or mail may be delivered to one box (Virgile 2012). 18 2010 Census and administrative records address housing unit type was assigned based on unit type designation in the MAF, the structure point permanent ID, and the number of units assigned to the MAFID in the MAF. 21 000090 These types of situations would make addresses more difficult to match between administrative records and 2010 Census data. Race and Hispanic Origin of Householder and Census Operations Thus far, the figures and tables that have been discussed focus on the 131.7 million addresses in the 2010 Census and 151.3 million addresses in administrative records, regardless of whether they were occupied or vacant. The universe for this sub-section is occupied housing units. Table 7 shows 2010 Census match ratios by 2010 Census race and Hispanic origin of the householder and mode of data collection. Count ratios are not included because administrative records address data did not include demographic characteristics on the householder. The occupied housing unit universe in Table 7 is 116.7 million housing units. Of the occupied housing units in the 2010 Census, administrative records matched to 110.5 million. Note that the characteristic, mode, count imputation, and proxy data in Table 7 is from the 2010 Census, thus the Hispanic origin and race of householder analysis is not based on matched Hispanic origin and race responses in the 2010 Census and administrative records. Matched demographic response data will be evaluated in section 5.4 of this report. The proportion of 2010 Census addresses that administrative records matched was similar for both Hispanic and non-Hispanic householders. Of the 13.5 million addresses that had a Hispanic householder, administrative records matched to 12.7 million or 94.2 percent. Of the 103.3 million addresses that had a non-Hispanic householder in the 2010 Census, administrative records matched to 97.8 million or 94.7 percent. For race, 95.8 percent of 2010 Census addresses with a householder that reported Asian alone matched to administrative records. Of the 4.6 million addresses that had a householder that reported Asian alone, administrative records matched to 4.4 million. Addresses that had householders who reported Black alone had the next highest percentage matches at 94.9 percent, followed by White alone (94.8 percent), Two or More Races (94.3 percent), SOR alone (93.6 percent), and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (NHPI) alone (93.5 percent). Addresses that had AIAN alone householders had a much lower match relative to the other race groups, 82.3 percent. 22 000091 Table 7. 2010 Census and Administrative Records Address Match by Race and Hispanic Origin of Householder, Mode, Imputation, and Proxy Total Occupied Housing Units 2010 Census Address Count 116,716,292 2010 Census and Administrative Records Address Match 110,504,340 2010 Census and Administrative Records Address Match Ratio 94.7 Hispanic or Latino Origin Hispanic Not Hispanic 13,461,366 103,254,926 12,681,754 97,822,586 94.2 94.7 Race White Alone Black Alone American Indian or Alaska Native Alone Asian Alone Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Alone Some Other Race Alone Two or More Races 89,754,352 14,129,983 939,707 4,632,164 143,932 4,916,427 2,199,727 85,078,408 13,403,061 773,742 4,438,090 134,599 4,602,454 2,073,986 94.8 94.9 82.3 95.8 93.5 93.6 94.3 Mode Nonresponse Followup Mailout/Mailback Other1 23,584,428 82,780,761 10,351,103 21,039,269 80,345,450 9,119,621 89.2 97.1 88.1 116,282,183 110,166,897 94.7 434,109 337,443 77.7 109,800,016 104,480,943 95.2 6,916,276 6,023,397 87.1 Demographic Characteristics of Householder, Mode, Count Imputation, and Proxy Count Imputation Not Imputed Imputed Proxy Not by Proxy By Proxy 1 The Mode category “Other” is a residual category that includes responses that were not obtained through either Nonresponse Followup or Mailout/Mailback. Sources: 2010 Census and 2010 Census Match Study Administrative Records Data. The areas and associated TEAs where the AIAN population lives may in part be why the address match was lower in households with a householder who reported AIAN alone. For instance, only 70.2 percent of addresses where the householder was AIAN alone were in the Mailout/Mailback TEA compared to 90 percent and above for all other race groups. The match was conducted by MAFID; future research will explore whether the census addresses with high proportions of the AIAN population contained matchable addresses or physical locations. 23 000092 Administrative records matched to 80.3 million or 97.1 percent of the 82.8 million 2010 Census addresses enumerated by Mailout/Mailback.19 A lower percentage of administrative records addresses matched to 2010 Census addresses in NRFU and other modes. Of the 23.6 million addresses that responded in NRFU, administrative records matched to 21.0 million or 89.2 percent. Of the approximately 434,000 addresses for which a population count was imputed, administrative records matched to approximately 337,000 or 77.7 percent. There were 6.9 million addresses that had a form of proxy response meaning that the 2010 Census response may have come from neighbors, building managers, or new households reporting on previous households. Of these, administrative records matched to 6.0 million or 87.1 percent. Since the quality of address data should not vary significantly between NRFU and Mailout/Mailback universes or between proxy and non-proxy cases, future research should further evaluate the address match ratio differences between Mailout/Mailback and NRFU and also proxy and nonproxy responses. 5.2 Person Count and Match Nation In this section, match ratios must be interpreted slightly differently compared to the previous section on addresses. In the address count and match section, all 2010 Census addresses had MAFIDs, therefore all of the 131.7 million addresses had the potential to be matched to administrative records with MAFIDs. This is not the case for persons, as not all persons in the 2010 Census received a unique person identifier, or PIK. This reduces the number of persons in the 2010 Census that have the potential to match to administrative records, contributing to lower match ratios for persons relative to addresses. Figure 4 shows the number and match of 2010 Census and administrative records persons.20 There were 308.7 million persons enumerated in the 2010 Census, 279.2 million of which had a 19 Mailout/Mailback for mode is different from Mailout/Mailback for TEA in this report, as the latter refers to collection blocks that are designated for Mailout/Mailback data collection in an effort to determine how to efficiently enumerate people living in various parts of the country, and the former refers to the mode by which the household was actually enumerated. For example, a household may be designated in a Mailout/Mailback TEA but that household may respond via Nonresponse Followup. 20 The 2010 Census included duplicate PIKs whereas the administrative records contained unique PIKs. This resulted in instances where a single administrative record matched to multiple census records. Therefore, the sum of the count for persons in administrative records with a PIK not in the 2010 Census (48.8 million) and the count for 2010 Census PIKs in administrative records (273.6 million) does not equal the number of persons in administrative records with a PIK (312.2 million). 24 000093 PIK. There were 312.2 million persons in administrative records that were alive on Census Day and had a PIK. Administrative records matched to the vast majority of 2010 Census PIKs, 273.6 million or 98.0 percent. The percentage of all 2010 Census persons, those with a PIK and those without, that matched to administrative records is about 10 percentage points lower at 88.6 percent. For the remainder of this section, unless otherwise specified, match ratios are based on the match of all persons in the 2010 Census relative to administrative records PIKs. Figure 4. Count and Match of 2010 Census and Administrative Records Persons Persons in the 2010 Census 308.7 million 2010 Census persons, no PIK, not sent to search 2010 Census persons with a PIK 2010 Census persons, no PIK 29.6 million 279.2 million Administrative records persons with a PIK not in the 2010 Census 2010 Census PIKs in administrative records 2010 Census PIKs not in administrative records 48.8 million 273.6 million 5.5 million 10.3 million 2010 Census persons, no PIK, failed search 19.3 million Administrative records with a PIK 312.2 million Sources: 2010 Census and 2010 Census Match Study Administrative Records Data. There were 29.6 million 2010 Census persons that failed the validation process and therefore did not receive a PIK, meaning that record linkage between these persons and administrative records was not possible.21 Of these 29.6 million persons, 10.3 million could not be sent through the PVS process as they lacked name and date of birth, and 19.3 million went through the PVS process but failed the validation process. 21 Future research will focus on direct matching of persons across files without validating against a reference file. 25 000094 Of the 2010 Census unPIKed persons, there were 9.0 million persons whose 2010 Census response came from a form of proxy response wherein neighbors or new households reported on previous households. While many neighbors and new households may be able to provide name and date of birth information that would allow the validation of a record, other neighbors and new households were not able to provide this information adequately. There were also 1.2 million records that did not receive a PIK because the people in these households were imputed in the 2010 Census. There were 48.8 million administrative records that were assigned a PIK but did not match to the 2010 Census. There is likely an overlap between the 29.6 million persons in the 2010 Census that did not receive a PIK and the 48.8 million persons in administrative records that received a PIK but did not match to the 2010 Census. Future research will study these two universes and their potential overlap. There were 5.5 million 2010 Census persons with a PIK that were not in administrative records. About 4.0 million of these persons were children under the age of 17, and approximately 891,000 of these had an age of 0 in the 2010 Census. There are several reasons why this age group is less likely to be in administrative records compared to the 2010 Census. Tax data are one important source of information on children in administrative records. Therefore, how and when taxes are filed in combination with particular aspects of the tax data that the Census Bureau received from the IRS impact the coverage of children in administrative records. Children born on or after January 1, 2010 would not be claimed on 2009 taxes, therefore they may have been reported in the 2010 Census, but they would not likely be in the administrative records data used for this report. Additionally, tax forms such as 1040EZ do not collect data on dependents. There were also a number of dependents in administrative records that did not receive a PIK because there was not enough information to validate the records. Also, the IRS 1040 data used in the 2010 Census Match Study only had information on the first four dependents on a tax return, potentially limiting the number of children reported in larger households. Future research will include assessing other types of tax return data that include all dependents. Region Table 8 shows the 2010 Census person count, the number of PIKs in the 2010 Census, administrative records person count, the number of 2010 Census and administrative records that matched, and the 2010 Census and administrative records person count and match ratios by region. The 2010 Census and administrative records person count ratio for the total U.S. population was 101.1 percent. All regions also had a person count ratio of about 101 percent. The Northeast and West had the same count ratio (101.4 percent). The Midwest had a slightly lower count ratio (101.1 percent), followed by the South (100.8 percent). These count ratios mirror the person 26 000095 counts, where administrative records had a slightly higher count of persons relative to the 2010 Census for the total population and across all four regions. Table 8. 2010 Census and Administrative Records Person Count and Match Numbers and Ratios by Region Total Northeast Midwest South West 2010 Census Person Count 308,745,538 2010 Census Persons with a PIK 279,179,329 Administrative Records Person Count 312,214,325 2010 Census and Administrative Records Person Match 273,643,411 55,317,240 66,927,001 114,555,744 71,945,553 50,506,657 62,498,752 102,720,450 63,453,470 56,097,631 67,672,118 115,504,373 72,940,203 49,624,941 61,340,240 100,766,768 61,911,462 2010 Census and Administrative Records Person Count Ratio 101.1 2010 Census and Administrative Records Person Match Ratio 88.6 101.4 101.1 100.8 101.4 89.7 91.7 88.0 86.1 Sources: 2010 Census and 2010 Census Match Study Administrative Records Data. As discussed above, 88.6 percent of all 2010 Census persons (PIKed and unPIKed) matched to administrative records. The Midwest had the highest percentage of 2010 Census persons that were PIKed (93.4 percent) and that matched to administrative records (91.7 percent). The Northeast had the second highest percentage of 2010 Census persons that were PIKed (91.3 percent) and that matched to administrative records (89.7 percent), followed by the South. The West had the lowest percentage of PIKed 2010 Census persons (88.2 percent) and 2010 Census records that matched to administrative records (86.1 percent). State Table 9 shows the 2010 Census person count, the number of PIKs in the 2010 Census, the administrative records person count, the number of 2010 Census and administrative records that matched, and the 2010 Census and administrative records count and match ratios by state. The person count ratio ranged from 96.9 percent to 103.9 percent across states. Thirteen states had a count ratio below 100 percent, fifteen states had a count ratio of 100 percent, and twentythree states had a count ratio greater than 100 percent. The states with the highest person count ratios were New Jersey (103.9 percent), Illinois (103.3 percent), Georgia (102.7 percent), California (102.4 percent), and Washington (102.4 percent). The states with the lowest person count ratios were Wyoming (96.9 percent), North Dakota (97.6 percent), Arizona (97.9 percent), Montana (98.2 percent), and New Mexico (98.3 percent). All of the regions were represented within the ten states that had the highest count ratios. Of the ten states with the lowest count ratios, half were in the West, two were in the South, two were in the Midwest, and one was in the Northeast. 27 000096 Table 9. 2010 Census and Administrative Records Person Count and Match Numbers and Ratios by State 2010 Decennial Person Count 308,745,538 2010 Census Persons with a PIK 279,179,329 Administrative Records Person Count 312,214,325 2010 Census and Administrative Records Person Match 273,643,411 4,779,736 710,231 6,392,017 2,915,918 37,253,956 5,029,196 3,574,097 897,934 601,723 18,801,310 9,687,653 1,360,301 1,567,582 12,830,632 6,483,802 3,046,355 2,853,118 4,339,367 4,533,372 1,328,361 5,773,552 6,547,629 9,883,640 5,303,925 2,967,297 5,988,927 989,415 1,826,341 2,700,551 1,316,470 8,791,894 2,059,179 19,378,102 9,535,483 672,591 11,536,504 3,751,351 3,831,074 12,702,379 1,052,567 4,625,364 814,180 6,346,105 25,145,561 2,763,885 625,741 8,001,024 6,724,540 1,852,994 5,686,986 563,626 4,291,898 640,013 5,504,074 2,665,171 32,518,962 4,482,335 3,307,240 809,132 522,688 16,800,443 8,520,330 1,206,191 1,428,711 11,733,482 6,054,511 2,889,518 2,670,501 3,994,765 4,065,851 1,256,619 5,257,560 6,087,938 9,264,073 5,016,847 2,703,142 5,578,535 902,296 1,705,041 2,305,111 1,244,718 7,976,238 1,783,742 17,178,954 8,531,921 639,442 10,811,996 3,401,933 3,485,866 11,893,542 965,728 4,212,922 755,176 5,794,732 22,128,264 2,551,307 595,680 7,335,606 6,133,267 1,684,092 5,379,630 511,595 4,855,249 716,305 6,260,469 2,903,339 38,160,772 5,039,949 3,608,268 912,088 606,137 19,008,662 9,945,565 1,371,877 1,546,532 13,255,633 6,572,141 3,048,064 2,873,274 4,397,339 4,583,043 1,340,538 5,880,321 6,651,229 9,804,204 5,348,667 3,004,903 5,987,199 971,295 1,832,976 2,744,855 1,335,435 9,138,823 2,023,747 19,565,132 9,509,731 656,192 11,740,953 3,763,742 3,868,850 12,779,595 1,057,920 4,606,817 813,677 6,441,396 25,173,066 2,804,835 620,691 8,085,475 6,884,715 1,827,500 5,739,138 546,002 4,228,684 635,613 5,372,306 2,621,373 31,603,657 4,391,915 3,253,223 796,215 511,746 16,493,170 8,335,517 1,182,070 1,397,038 11,531,040 5,958,989 2,851,878 2,624,387 3,934,626 3,996,293 1,239,680 5,152,768 5,990,853 8,908,584 4,947,694 2,658,172 5,493,569 890,441 1,681,487 2,253,127 1,228,380 7,836,027 1,749,475 16,829,755 8,381,227 632,637 10,654,439 3,344,268 3,422,049 11,704,799 953,304 4,143,006 746,041 5,706,995 21,598,531 2,481,704 588,920 7,206,853 6,028,786 1,657,324 5,309,495 503,281 State Total Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming 2010 Census and Administrative Records Person Count Ratio 101.1 2010 Census and Administrative Records Person Match Ratio 88.6 101.6 100.9 97.9 99.6 102.4 100.2 101.0 101.6 100.7 101.1 102.7 100.9 98.7 103.3 101.4 100.1 100.7 101.3 101.1 100.9 101.8 101.6 99.2 100.8 101.3 100.0 98.2 100.4 101.6 101.4 103.9 98.3 101.0 99.7 97.6 101.8 100.3 101.0 100.6 100.5 99.6 99.9 101.5 100.1 101.5 99.2 101.1 102.4 98.6 100.9 96.9 88.5 89.5 84.0 89.9 84.8 87.3 91.0 88.7 85.0 87.7 86.0 86.9 89.1 89.9 91.9 93.6 92.0 90.7 88.2 93.3 89.2 91.5 90.1 93.3 89.6 91.7 90.0 92.1 83.4 93.3 89.1 85.0 86.8 87.9 94.1 92.4 89.1 89.3 92.1 90.6 89.6 91.6 89.9 85.9 89.8 94.1 90.1 89.7 89.4 93.4 89.3 Sources: 2010 Census and 2010 Census Match Study Administrative Records Data. 28 000097 The match ratios ranged from 83.4 percent to 94.1 percent across states. Thirty states had match ratios below 90 percent and twenty-one states had match ratios at 90 percent or above. The states with the highest match ratios were Vermont (94.1 percent), North Dakota (94.1 percent), Iowa (93.6 percent), Wisconsin (93.4 percent), and Maine (93.3 percent). The states with the lowest match ratios were Nevada (83.4 percent), Arizona (84.0 percent), California (84.8 percent), New Mexico (85.0 percent), and the District of Columbia (85.0 percent). Of the ten states that had the highest percentages of 2010 Census and administrative records that matched, six were in the Midwest and four were in the Northeast. Of the ten states that had the lowest percentages of 2010 Census and administrative records that matched, six were in the West, three were in the South, and one was in the Northeast. These results are consistent with the region results, where the Midwest and Northeast had higher match ratios than the South and West. County For administrative records, the universe for this sub-section on counties is persons that had information on county of residence. This is slightly lower than the total number of people with PIKs in administrative records because some data sources provided state but not sub-state geographic information. Therefore, there are about 46,000 fewer persons in administrative records represented in this section relative to other sub-sections within the person count and match section. Figure 5 shows person count ratios for the 2010 Census and administrative records by county. Green indicates counties with a count ratio that is closer to 100 percent, yellow and orange indicate low count ratios, and blue and purple represent high count ratios. This map is different from the patterns observed with address county count ratios, where there was a discernible regional and state pattern. This map shows that there were 1,454 counties, almost half of all counties, that had a count ratio close to 100.0 percent and they were distributed relatively evenly across the United States. This is consistent with regional patterns where all region count ratios were similar to the United States count ratio of 101.0 percent. The person count ratio range across counties was 48.6 percent to 355.2 percent. Of the ten counties with the lowest person count ratios, seven were in the West and three were in the South. Four of the counties in the West were in Colorado: Crowley (48.6 percent), San Juan (58.1 percent), Broomfield (63.4 percent), and Grand (66.2 percent). Three of the counties were in Alaska: Aleutians West (52.3 percent), Wrangell (57.5 percent), and North Slope (58.0 percent). The three counties that were in the South were all in Virginia—Radford (62.5 percent), Lexington (63.8 percent), and Williamsburg (66.5 percent). 29 000098 Of the ten counties with the highest person count ratios, five were in the West, three in the Midwest, and two in the South. The five counties in the West were Bristol Bay, Alaska (355.2 percent); Lake and Peninsula, Alaska (335.5 percent); Kalawao, Hawaii (332.2 percent); Gilliam, Oregon (266.2 percent); and Sierra, California (209.8 percent). The three counties in the Midwest were Lane, Kansas (251.0 percent); Blaine, Nebraska (216.1 percent); and Hardin, Illinois (185.5 percent). The two counties in the South were McMullen, Texas (325.2 percent) and Roberts, Texas (199.9 percent). Figure 6 shows 2010 Census and administrative records match ratios by county. Purple represents the counties with highest percent match, followed by blue. Green and yellow represent counties with mid-range match ratios, while orange represents low match ratios. 30 000099 The person match ratio ranged from 59.4 percent to 97.1 percent across all counties. All states in the Midwest had counties with match ratios of 95.0 percent or above. Three states in the Northeast had counties with match ratios of 95.0 percent or above—Pennsylvania, New York, and Vermont. In the South, two states had counties with match ratios of 95 percent or above— Kentucky and Virginia. The only state in the West that had a county with a match ratio of 95.0 percent or above was Montana. The Midwestern and Northeastern states also had many counties that had match ratios between 90.0 percent and 94.9 percent. Many Southern states also had counties in this range, but less so compared to the Midwest and Northeast. All states in the West, except for Arizona and Hawaii, had at least one county that had a match ratio above 90.0 percent. The majority of counties that had match ratios below 80.0 percent were located in the West and South. Of the ten counties that had the highest match ratios, nine were in the Midwest and one was in the Northeast. Two were in North Dakota: Foster (97.1 percent) and Emmons (96.6 percent). Two were in Kansas: Republic (96.9 percent) and Marshall (96.6 percent). Two were in Nebraska: Boone (96.9 percent) and Hooker (96.6 percent). Two were in Minnesota: Brown (96.8 percent) and Pope (96.6 percent). The remaining Midwestern county was Carroll, Iowa (96.7 percent). The county in the Northeast was Elk, Pennsylvania (96.8 percent). 31 000100 Of the counties that had the lowest match ratios, eight of them were in the South. Four were in Texas: Garza (59.4 percent), Concho (60.2 percent), La Salle (63.4 percent), and Reeves (68.3 percent). Two were in Georgia: Stewart (68.4 percent) and Telfair (71.5 percent). The other two counties in the South were in Glades, Florida (70.4 percent) and Issaquena, Mississippi (71.1 percent). Kalawao, Hawaii (70.0 percent) and Shannon, South Dakota (70.3 percent) also were among the ten counties with the lowest match ratios. The upper and lower bounds of the address count ratio range (12.1 percent to 208.2 percent) were considerably lower than the person count ratio range. The lower bound of the address match ratio range (8.0 percent) was sizably lower than the lower bound for the person match ratio range. Further research should investigate these differences. Federal and Commercial Data Table 10 shows person count and match ratios for the 2010 Census and federal and commercial data. In contrast to the federal and commercial address results, federal data had a higher number of persons and higher 2010 Census count and match ratios relative to commercial data. There were 302.2 million persons in the federal administrative records data and 222.0 million persons in the commercial data. The corresponding 2010 Census count ratios were 97.9 percent for federal data and 71.9 percent for commercial data. The match ratio for federal data was 87.4 percent compared to 64.6 percent for commercial data. Table 10. 2010 Census and Federal and Commercial Administrative Records Person Count and Match Numbers and Ratios Data Type Commercial Federal In both Commercial and Federal Administrative Records Person Count 222,021,125 302,191,874 211,998,674 2010 Census and Administrative Records Person Count Ratio 71.9 97.9 68.7 2010 Census and Administrative Records Person Match Ratio 64.6 87.4 63.4 Sources: 2010 Census and 2010 Census Match Study Administrative Records Data. There were 212.0 million persons that were in both federal and commercial data. There were a large number of persons that were only found in either commercial data or federal data. However, there were substantially more persons that were only in federal data. There were 10.0 million validated persons that were in commercial data but not in federal data. There were 90.2 million persons that were in federal data but not in commercial data. Type of Enumeration Area Table 11 shows 2010 Census and administrative records count and match ratios by TEA. 32 000101 Table 11. 2010 Census and Administrative Records Person Count and Match Numbers and Ratios by Type of Enumeration Area 2010 Census Person Count Administrative Records Person Count 2010 Census and Administrative Records Person Match 2010 Census and Administrative Records Person Count Ratio 2010 Census and Administrative Records Person Match Ratio Total 308,745,538 312,214,325 273,643,411 101.1 88.6 Mailout/Mailback Military Remote Alaska Remote Update Enumerate Update Enumerate Update/Leave Urban Update/Leave No TEA 284,908,805 922,712 60,261 6,411 2,103,424 15,636,992 5,106,933 0 285,001,805 869,278 55,291 5,595 2,004,466 14,834,417 4,820,539 4,622,934 252,750,046 797,116 51,203 4,605 1,713,349 13,936,170 4,390,922 0 100.0 94.2 91.8 87.3 95.3 94.9 94.4 - 88.7 86.4 85.0 71.8 81.5 89.1 86.0 - Type of Enumeration Area Note: A “-“ indicates a ratio where the denominator was 0. Sources: 2010 Census and 2010 Census Match Study Administrative Records Data. TEA count ratios for persons were higher than for addresses, and the range across TEAs showed less variation. This was to be expected given that TEA is defined by address characteristics, thus it is less likely to affect person counts. The range of TEA count ratios for addresses was 20.0 percent to 200.5 percent, while the TEA count ratio range for persons was 87.3 percent to 100.0 percent. Mailout/Mailback had a count ratio equal to 100.0 percent. There were 284.9 million people in the Mailout/Mailback TEA in the 2010 Census and 285.0 million in administrative records. Update Enumerate had the next highest count ratio (95.3 percent), followed by Update/Leave (94.9 percent), Urban Update/Leave (94.4 percent), and Military (94.2 percent) all of which had count ratios of about 95.0 percent. Remote Alaska had a slightly lower count ratio at 91.8 percent and Remote Update Enumerate had the lowest count ratio (87.3 percent). The person match ratio also varied less than the address match ratio. The TEA address match ratio ranged from 16.8 percent to 94.6 percent, while the TEA person match ratio ranged from 71.8 percent to 89.1 percent. All TEAs except Remote Update Enumerate had a match ratio above 80.0 percent. Except for Mailout/Mailback and Military TEAs, the person match ratios were higher than the corresponding address match ratios. Update/Leave had the highest match ratio (89.1 percent), followed by Mailout/Mailback (88.7 percent), Military (86.4 percent), Urban Update/Leave (86.0 percent), and Remote Alaska (85.0 percent). The match ratio for Update Enumerate was slightly lower (81.5 percent), and Remote Update Enumerate had the lowest match ratio (71.8 percent). Demographic Characteristics, Mode, and Proxy Table 12 shows the number and percentage of PIKs in the 2010 Census and the 2010 Census/administrative records match by demographic characteristics, mode, and proxy. 33 000102 Table 12. 2010 Census and Administrative Records Person Match by Demographic Characteristics, Mode, and Proxy 2010 Census Persons with a PIK Demographic Characteristics, Mode, and Proxy Total Population Hispanic or Latino Origin Hispanic 2010 Census Person Count 2010 Census with a PIK not in Administrative Records Total 2010 Census and Administrative Records Person Match 2010 Census Persons without a PIK Number Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 308,745,538 279,179,329 90.4 5,535,918 1.8 273,643,411 88.6 29,566,209 9.6 50,477,594 40,554,012 80.3 1,602,206 3.2 38,951,806 77.2 9,923,582 19.7 258,267,944 238,625,317 92.4 3,933,712 1.6 234,691,605 90.9 19,642,627 7.6 223,553,254 206,571,803 92.4 3,404,942 1.5 203,166,861 90.9 16,981,451 7.6 38,929,315 34,328,279 88.2 796,386 2.0 33,531,893 86.1 4,601,036 11.8 2,932,370 2,542,640 86.7 45,712 1.6 2,496,928 85.2 389,730 13.3 14,674,336 12,974,148 88.4 318,390 2.2 12,655,758 86.2 1,700,188 11.6 540,064 453,090 83.9 15,834 2.9 437,256 81.0 86,974 16.1 19,107,368 14,232,873 74.5 649,901 3.4 13,582,972 71.1 4,874,495 25.5 9,008,831 8,076,496 89.7 304,753 3.4 7,771,743 86.3 932,335 10.3 12,019,146 10,776,958 89.7 1,337,667 11.1 9,439,291 78.5 1,242,188 10.3 18-24 62,162,321 30,646,519 56,554,181 26,147,233 91.0 85.3 2,647,192 478,323 4.3 1.6 53,906,989 25,668,910 86.7 83.8 5,608,140 4,499,286 9.0 14.7 25-44 82,123,330 72,072,154 87.8 670,314 0.8 71,401,840 86.9 10,051,176 12.2 45-64 81,499,596 75,765,796 93.0 284,406 0.3 75,481,390 92.6 5,733,800 7.0 65-74 21,727,578 20,502,704 94.4 59,034 0.3 20,443,670 94.1 1,224,874 5.6 75 and older 18,567,048 17,360,303 93.5 58,982 0.3 17,301,321 93.2 1,206,745 6.5 Male 151,775,099 136,105,431 89.7 3,020,094 2.0 133,085,337 87.7 15,669,668 10.3 Female 156,970,439 143,073,898 91.1 2,515,824 1.6 140,558,074 89.5 13,896,541 8.9 18.4 Not Hispanic Race White Alone Black Alone American Indian or Alaska Native Alone Asian Alone Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Alone Some Other Race Alone Two or More Races Age 0-2 3-17 Sex Mode Nonresponse Followup Mailout/Mailback Other 60,432,209 49,285,340 81.6 1,239,354 2.1 48,045,986 79.5 11,146,869 205,816,623 198,977,997 96.7 2,891,481 1.4 196,086,516 95.3 6,838,626 3.3 42,496,706 30,915,992 72.7 1,405,083 3.3 29,510,909 69.4 11,580,714 27.3 295,163,226 274,587,574 93.0 5,463,417 1.9 269,124,157 91.2 20,575,652 7.0 13,582,312 4,591,755 33.8 72,501 0.5 4,519,254 33.3 8,990,557 66.2 Proxy Not by Proxy By Proxy Sources: 2010 Census and 2010 Census Match Study Administrative Records Data. 34 000103 Note that the characteristic, mode, count imputation, and proxy data in Table 12 is from the 2010 Census, thus the Hispanic origin and race analysis is not based on matched Hispanic origin and race responses in the 2010 Census and administrative records. Matched demographic response data will be evaluated in section 5.4 of this report. A higher percentage of the non-Hispanic population was PIKed in the 2010 Census relative to the Hispanic population. The non-Hispanic population also had a higher percentage that was in both the 2010 Census and administrative records relative to the Hispanic population. Of the 258.3 million non-Hispanics in the 2010 Census, 238.6 million or 92.4 percent were PIKed, and 234.7 million or 90.9 percent were in both the 2010 Census and administrative records. While these results were lower for the Hispanic population, administrative records covered a substantial proportion of the Hispanic population in the 2010 Census. Of the 50.5 million Hispanics in the 2010 Census, 40.6 million or 80.3 percent were PIKed, and 39.0 million or 77.2 percent were in both the 2010 Census and administrative records. The percentage of persons PIKed in the 2010 Census by race group ranged from 74.5 percent to 92.4 percent. The percentage of persons in the 2010 Census by race group who were also in administrative records was similar to, yet slightly lower than, the percentage PIKed in the 2010 Census, 71.1 percent to 90.9 percent. The White alone population had the highest percentage PIKed in the 2010 Census and the highest percentage in both the 2010 Census and administrative records relative to all other race groups. Of the 223.6 million persons classified as White alone in the 2010 Census, 206.6 million or 92.4 percent were PIKed, and 203.2 million or 90.9 percent were in the 2010 Census and administrative records. The Two or More Races population had the second highest percentage PIKed in the 2010 Census and the second highest percentage also in administrative records. Of the 9.0 million persons classified as Two or More Races, 8.1 million or 89.7 percent were PIKed, and 7.8 million or 86.3 percent were in the 2010 Census and administrative records. The Asian alone population had the third highest percentage PIKed (88.4 percent) in the 2010 Census and the third highest percentage that was in the 2010 Census and administrative records (86.2 percent), followed by the Black alone population, the AIAN alone population, and the NHPI alone population. The SOR alone population had the lowest percentage (74.5 percent) PIKed in the 2010 Census and the lowest percentage in both the 2010 Census and administrative records (71.1 percent). This lower PIK percentage for the SOR alone population was largely driven by the Hispanic population, as 96.8 percent of those classified as SOR alone in the 2010 Census were of Hispanic origin (Humes et al. 2011). 35 000104 The percentage of males PIKed in the 2010 Census was slightly lower than the percentage of females. Of the 151.8 million males in the 2010 Census, 136.1 million or 89.7 percent were PIKed, and 133.1 million or 87.7 percent were in both the 2010 Census and administrative records. Of the 157.0 million females in the 2010 Census, 143.1 million or 91.1 percent were PIKed, and 140.6 million or 89.5 percent were in both the 2010 Census and administrative records. For age groups, the percentage PIKed in the 2010 Census ranged from 85.3 percent to 94.4 percent. The proportions in the 2010 Census and administrative records were slightly lower and ranged from 78.5 percent to 94.1 percent. Older age groups had higher proportions that were PIKed and in the 2010 Census and administrative records relative to younger age groups. The age group 65 to 74 had the highest percentage PIKed (94.4 percent) and in administrative records (94.1 percent). Of the 21.7 million persons aged 65 to 74, 20.5 million were PIKed and about the same number were found in administrative records. The age group of 75 and older had the second highest percentage PIKed (93.5 percent) and the second highest percentage in the 2010 Census and administrative records (93.2 percent). The age group 45 to 64 had the next highest percentages that were PIKed (93.0 percent) and also in administrative records (92.6 percent), followed by the age group 3 to17 (91.0 percent and 86.7 percent). The age group 18 to 24 had the lowest percentage PIKed (85.3 percent) and the second lowest percentage in administrative records (83.8 percent). For the age group 0 to 2, 89.7 percent were PIKed, but this age group had the lowest proportion in both the 2010 Census and administrative records at 78.5 percent. More than 11 percent of this age group was in the 2010 Census with a PIK but not in administrative records. This may be due in part to the tax filing issues discussed at the beginning of the person section. Those aged 3 to 17 were also less likely than other groups to be in both the 2010 Census and administrative records, where 4.3 percent of this age group was in the 2010 Census with a PIK but not in administrative records as compared to 1.6 percent or less for the age group 18 to 24. A higher percentage of persons in the 2010 Census that lived in households that responded by mail were PIKed, and these persons were also more likely to be in administrative records compared to NRFU and other modes. Of the 205.8 million persons that were in households that responded by mail, 96.7 percent were PIKed and 95.3 percent were in administrative records. Of the 13.6 million proxy responses, a low percent were PIKed and were also in administrative records, about 33 percent. Of the 60.4 million persons in the 2010 Census that responded via NRFU, 49.3 million were PIKed and 48.0 million or 79.5 percent were in administrative records. 36 000105 5.3 Person-Address Pair Count and Match Nation This section assesses administrative data relative to the 2010 Census after the best address model has been applied to select the best address for Census Day in the administrative data.22 As discussed above, the 2010 Census also has the same PIK at multiple addresses, and these duplicate person-address pairs in the 2010 Census are included in the following analysis. Figure 7 shows the number and match of 2010 Census and administrative records person-address pairs.23 All persons in the 2010 Census were associated with an address, thus all 2010 Census person count and PIK numbers discussed in the person count and match section are the same in Figure 7. For instance, there were 308.7 million people in the 2010 Census with an address. As noted in the person count and match section, there were 312.2 million persons in administrative records that had a PIK and were alive on Census Day. Of those, 301.5 million PIKed persons had one or more MAFIDs, and 10.7 million PIKed persons did not have a MAFID. Before we applied the best address model, there were 216.2 million 2010 Census person-address pairs that matched to administrative records. Of the 308.7 million persons in the 2010 Census, 70.0 percent matched to administrative records person-address pairs. Of the 279.2 million person-address pairs in the 2010 Census that had a PIK, 77.4 percent matched to administrative records person-address pairs. After applying the best address model to administrative records with multiple MAFIDs, there were 203.2 million 2010 Census personaddress pairs that matched to administrative records. Of the 308.7 million persons in the 2010 Census, 65.8 percent matched to administrative records person-address pairs. Of the 279.2 million persons in the 2010 Census that had a PIK, 72.8 percent matched to administrative records person-address pairs. There were 76.0 million 2010 Census person-address pairs with a PIK and MAFID that did not match to administrative records. There were 98.6 million administrative records person-address pairs with a PIK and MAFID that did not match to the 2010 Census. 22 The best address model was applied to the PIKs in administrative records with two or more MAFIDs. Among those PIKs with a MAFID, about 152.8 million PIKs (50.7 percent) had exactly one unique MAFID. Of those PIKs with multiple associated MAFIDs, 75.4 million (25.0 percent) had two MAFIDs, and 39.7 million (13.2 percent) had three MAFIDs. Another 19.2 million PIKs (6.4 percent) had four unique MAFIDs in the administrative records, and 8.5 million PIKs (2.8 percent) had five MAFIDs. The remaining 5.9 million PIKs with MAFIDs in the administrative records had six or more unique MAFIDs associated with them. 23 The 2010 Census included duplicate person-address pairs whereas the administrative records contained unique person-address pairs. This resulted in instances where a single administrative record person-address pair matched to multiple census record person-address pairs. Therefore, the sum of the count for administrative records PIKMAFID pairs not in 2010 Census (98.6 million) and the count for 2010 Census PIK-MAFID pairs in administrative records (203.2 million) does not equal the number of administrative records PIK-MAFID pairs (301.5 million). 37 000106 Figure 7. Count and Match of 2010 Census and Administrative Records Person-Address Pairs Person-Address pairs in the 2010 Census 308.7 million 2010 Census persons with a PIK and MAFID 279.2 million Administrative records PIK-MAFID pairs not in 2010 Census 98.6 million 2010 Census persons, no PIK, not sent to search 10.3 million 2010 Census persons, no PIK 29.6 million 2010 Census, no PIK, failed search 19.3 million 2010 Census PIKMAFID pairs in administrative records 2010 Census PIKMAFID pairs not in administrative records 203.2 million 76.0 million Administrative records personaddress pairs, with a PIK and MAFID 301.5 million Administrative records personaddress pairs with a PIK, no MAFID 10.7 million Administrative records with a PIK 312.2 million Sources: 2010 Census and 2010 Census Match Study Administrative Records Data. Region Table 13 shows the 2010 Census person-address count, administrative records person-address count, the number of 2010 Census and administrative records person-address pairs that matched, and the 2010 Census and administrative records person-address count and match ratios by region. 38 000107 Table 13. 2010 Census and Administrative Records Person-Address Count and Match Numbers and Ratios by Region 2010 Census Person-Address Count 308,745,538 Administrative Records PersonAddress Count 301,516,209 2010 Census and Administrative Records Person-Address Match 203,157,426 55,317,240 66,927,001 114,555,744 71,945,553 53,973,110 66,094,806 111,709,332 69,738,961 36,432,719 47,943,123 73,198,676 45,582,908 Region Total Northeast Midwest South West 2010 Census and Administrative Records PersonAddress Count Ratio 97.7 2010 Census and Administrative Records PersonAddress Match Ratio 65.8 97.6 98.8 97.5 96.9 65.9 71.6 63.9 63.4 Sources: 2010 Census and 2010 Census Match Study Administrative Records Data. The person-address count ratio for the United States was 97.7 percent. Across all regions, the person-address count ratio was close to the national count ratio. The person-address count ratio was highest for the Midwest at 98.8 percent, followed by the Northeast (97.6 percent), South (97.5 percent), and West (96.9 percent). The match ratio for the United States was substantially lower than the count ratio (65.8 percent), and this was reflected across the regions. The person-address match ratio ranking among regions was the same as for the count ratios, where the Midwest had the highest match ratio (71.6 percent), followed by the Northeast (65.9 percent), South (63.9 percent), and West (63.4 percent). State Table 14 shows the 2010 Census person-address count, administrative records person-address count, the number of 2010 Census and administrative records person-address pairs that matched, and the 2010 Census and administrative records person-address count and match ratios by state. The five states that had the highest person-address count ratios were Maryland (100.4 percent), Ohio (100.1 percent), Illinois (99.9 percent), Delaware (99.3 percent), and New Jersey (99.3 percent). Of the ten states with the highest count ratios, five were in the Midwest, three in the South, and one in the West. The five states with the lowest count ratios were Alaska (84.1 percent), Wyoming (85.2 percent), New Mexico (87.8 percent), Montana (89.2 percent), and West Virginia (91.2 percent). Of the ten states with the lowest count ratios, seven were in the West, one in the South, one in the Midwest, and one in the Northeast. These results are consistent with the region person-address count ratios, where the Midwest had the highest count ratios and the West had the lowest. 39 000108 Table 14. 2010 Census and Administrative Records Person-Address Count and Match Numbers and Ratios by State State Total Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming 2010 Census Person-Address Count 308,745,538 Administrative Records PersonAddress Count 301,516,209 4,779,736 710,231 6,392,017 2,915,918 37,253,956 5,029,196 3,574,097 897,934 601,723 18,801,310 9,687,653 1,360,301 1,567,582 12,830,632 6,483,802 3,046,355 2,853,118 4,339,367 4,533,372 1,328,361 5,773,552 6,547,629 9,883,640 5,303,925 2,967,297 5,988,927 989,415 1,826,341 2,700,551 1,316,470 8,791,894 2,059,179 19,378,102 9,535,483 672,591 11,536,504 3,751,351 3,831,074 12,702,379 1,052,567 4,625,364 814,180 6,346,105 25,145,561 2,763,885 625,741 8,001,024 6,724,540 1,852,994 5,686,986 563,626 4,680,999 597,613 5,882,725 2,769,483 36,895,430 4,864,921 3,492,906 891,639 591,770 18,571,203 9,548,384 1,253,669 1,448,474 12,822,700 6,416,121 2,977,126 2,792,230 4,218,816 4,411,361 1,278,617 5,794,145 6,453,301 9,667,350 5,245,597 2,857,348 5,830,474 882,079 1,780,571 2,654,172 1,286,020 8,727,028 1,807,812 18,666,689 9,169,433 623,567 11,552,963 3,577,427 3,716,295 12,482,815 1,005,285 4,475,235 766,213 6,290,515 24,293,996 2,693,874 580,449 7,877,584 6,561,481 1,689,994 5,619,894 480,416 2010 Census and Administrative Records PersonAddress Match 2010 Census and Administrative Records PersonAddress Count Ratio 2010 Census and Administrative Records PersonAddress Match Ratio 203,157,426 97.7 65.8 2,981,411 340,527 3,702,602 1,795,591 23,858,501 3,277,496 2,523,428 623,461 342,003 12,167,579 5,996,844 741,802 1,007,470 8,630,674 4,675,947 2,266,850 2,034,442 2,851,115 2,779,649 862,986 4,121,327 4,528,654 7,092,248 4,014,818 1,722,241 4,120,999 569,270 1,323,040 1,616,682 927,007 5,963,720 1,056,957 11,472,664 6,191,068 448,212 8,518,977 2,219,125 2,610,007 9,075,510 692,881 3,022,905 534,715 4,319,859 15,479,039 1,884,028 385,869 5,648,319 4,598,158 937,140 4,282,201 319,408 97.9 84.1 92.0 95.0 99.0 96.7 97.7 99.3 98.3 98.8 98.6 92.2 92.4 99.9 99.0 97.7 97.9 97.2 97.3 96.3 100.4 98.6 97.8 98.9 96.3 97.4 89.2 97.5 98.3 97.7 99.3 87.8 96.3 96.2 92.7 100.1 95.4 97.0 98.3 95.5 96.8 94.1 99.1 96.6 97.5 92.8 98.5 97.6 91.2 98.8 85.2 62.4 47.9 57.9 61.6 64.0 65.2 70.6 69.4 56.8 64.7 61.9 54.5 64.3 67.3 72.1 74.4 71.3 65.7 61.3 65.0 71.4 69.2 71.8 75.7 58.0 68.8 57.5 72.4 59.9 70.4 67.8 51.3 59.2 64.9 66.6 73.8 59.2 68.1 71.4 65.8 65.4 65.7 68.1 61.6 68.2 61.7 70.6 68.4 50.6 75.3 56.7 Sources: 2010 Census and 2010 Census Match Study Administrative Records Data. 40 000109 The five states with the highest person-address match ratios were all in the Midwest: Minnesota (75.7 percent), Wisconsin (75.3 percent), Iowa (74.4 percent), Ohio (73.8 percent), and Nebraska (72.4 percent). Of the ten states with the highest match ratios, eight were in the Midwest, one in the South, and one in the Northeast. The five states with the lowest person-address match ratios were Alaska (47.9 percent), West Virginia (50.6 percent), New Mexico (51.3 percent), Hawaii (54.5 percent), and Wyoming (56.7 percent). Of the ten states with the lowest match ratios, six were in the West and four were in the South. Consistent with address results, states with low person-address count and match ratios tended to have fewer person-address pairs in Mailout/Mailback TEAs relative to states that had high count and match ratios. County Figure 8 shows the person-address count ratios by county. Blue indicates counties with a count ratio close to 100 percent. Many states in the Midwest had counties with count ratios close to 100 percent, such as Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. In the Northeast, a few states had counties with count 41 000110 ratios around 100 percent such as Pennsylvania and New Jersey. In the South, states that had counties with count ratios around 100 percent included Maryland, Tennessee, Kentucky, Delaware, and Alabama. Many states in the West had counties with low count ratios relative to the Midwest and South. These states include Wyoming, Arizona, New Mexico, and Alaska. Figure 9 displays person-address match ratios by county. Purple and blue indicate counties with higher match ratios, while yellow and orange represent low match ratios. States in the Midwest that had counties with high match ratios include Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Indiana. In the South, states such as Virginia, Maryland, and Tennessee had counties with high match ratios. In the Northeast, states with high match ratios included Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Many states in the West and South had a number of counties with low match ratios. Table 15 shows count ratios, match ratios, and TEA by county. Of the ten counties in the United States that had the lowest count ratios, eight were in Alaska: North Slope (17.1 percent), Aleutians West (19.3 percent), Wrangell (21.7 percent), Bethel (25.2 percent), Nome (26.0 percent), Haines (26.3 percent), Petersburg (27.3 percent), and Yukon-Koyukuk (29.2 percent). One county in Wyoming and one county in South Dakota were also among the ten counties with the lowest count ratios, Teton (29.2 percent) and Todd (31.9 percent), respectively. 42 000111 Table 15. 2010 Census and Administrative Records Person-Address Count Ratio, Match Ratio, and Type of Enumeration Area for the Ten Counties with the Lowest and Highest Ratios Type of Enumeration Area County Lowest Count Ratios North Slope, Alaska Aleutians West, Alaska Wrangell, Alaska Bethel, Alaska Nome, Alaska Haines, Alaska Petersburg, Alaska Teton, Wyoming Yukon-Koyukuk, Alaska Todd, South Dakota Highest Count Ratios Kalawao, Hawaii Bristol Bay, Alaska McMullen, Texas Lake and Peninsula, Alaska Gilliam, Oregon Lane, Kansas Blaine, Nebraska Roberts, Texas Sierra, California Hardin, Illinois Lowest Match Ratios Aleutians East, Alaska Aleutians West, Alaska Kalawao, Hawaii Yukon-Koyukuk, Alaska Shannon, South Dakota Yakutat, Alaska Northwest Arctic, Alaska Dillingham, Alaska Todd, South Dakota Nome, Alaska Highest Match Ratios Poquoson, Virginia Medina, Ohio Ozaukee, Wisconsin Monroe, Illinois Anoka, Minnesota Wood, Wisconsin Washington, Wisconsin Scott, Minnesota Waukesha, Wisconsin Washington, Minnesota Military Remote Alaska Remote Update Enumerate Update Enumerate Update / Leave Urban Update / Leave 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 55.3 21.3 0.0 64.3 61.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 44.7 78.7 93.0 35.7 38.9 100.0 92.6 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 330.0 323.6 300.7 296.4 248.0 232.0 204.0 191.0 187.0 170.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.2 17.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 84.8 82.2 100.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.5 2.2 2.4 2.4 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.4 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 65.5 21.3 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 57.5 51.9 0.0 61.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 34.5 78.7 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 42.5 48.1 0.0 38.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 85.1 83.7 83.5 83.5 83.4 83.0 82.9 82.8 82.8 82.6 100.0 99.2 100.0 95.6 100.0 97.9 100.0 99.9 99.8 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 4.4 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ratio Mailout / Mailback 17.1 19.3 21.7 25.2 26.0 26.3 27.3 29.2 29.2 31.9 Sources: 2010 Census and 2010 Census Match Study Administrative Records Data. 43 000112 Kalawao, Hawaii (330.0 percent) had the highest county count ratio, followed by Bristol Bay, Alaska (323.6 percent). Among the counties with the highest count ratios, three additional counties were in the West: Lake and Peninsula, Alaska (296.4 percent); Gilliam, Oregon (248.0 percent); and Sierra, California (187.0 percent). Two were in the South in Texas: McMullen (300.7 percent) and Roberts (191.0 percent). Three were in the Midwest: Lane, Kansas (232.0 percent); Blaine, Nebraska (204.0 percent); and Hardin, Illinois (170.0 percent). Seven of the ten counties with the lowest match ratios were in Alaska: Aleutians East (0.9 percent), Aleutians West (1.5 percent), Yukon-Koyukuk (2.4 percent), Yakutat (3.0 percent), Northwest Arctic (3.0 percent), Dillingham (3.1 percent), and Nome (3.7 percent). Two counties were in South Dakota: Shannon (2.4 percent) and Todd (3.4 percent), and one county was in Hawaii: Kalawao (2.2 percent). Of the ten counties with the highest match ratios, Poquoson, Virginia had the highest at 85.1 percent. The remaining nine counties were in the Midwest. Four of the counties were in Wisconsin: Ozaukee (83.5 percent), Wood (83.0 percent), Washington (82.9 percent), and Waukesha (82.8 percent). Three were in Minnesota: Anoka (83.4 percent), Scott (82.8 percent), and Washington (82.6 percent). One county was in Ohio: Medina (83.7 percent), and one county was in Illinois: Monroe (83.5 percent). For the person-address match ratios, as was observed for addresses, of the ten counties with the lowest and highest match ratios, counties that had more TEAs designated as Mailout/Mailback had higher matches. There was no discernible TEA pattern for count ratios. Federal and Commercial Data Table 16 shows count and match ratios for the 2010 Census and federal and commercial data. Table 16. 2010 Census and Federal and Commercial Administrative Records Person-Address Count and Match Numbers and Ratios Data Type Commercial Federal In both Commercial and Federal Administrative Records PersonAddress Count 219,466,721 292,328,979 210,279,491 2010 Census and Administrative Records PersonAddress Count Ratio 71.1 94.7 68.1 2010 Census and Administrative Records PersonAddress Match Ratio 48.8 65.4 48.3 Sources: 2010 Census and 2010 Census Match Study Administrative Records Data. Federal data had a higher number of person-address pairs and higher 2010 Census count and match ratios relative to commercial data. There were 292.3 million PIKs in federal data with a best address assigned in administrative records, resulting in a 2010 Census count ratio of 94.7 percent. There were 201.9 million 2010 Census records that matched to federal administrative records for a match ratio of 65.4 percent. There were 219.5 million PIKs in commercial data 44 000113 with a best address assigned in administrative records, and the 2010 Census count ratio was 71.1 percent. There were 150.6 million 2010 Census records that matched commercial data for a match ratio of 48.8 percent. There were 210.3 million person-address pairs that were found in both federal and commercial data. There were a large number of person-address pairs that were only found in either commercial data or federal data. However, similar to the person results, there were substantially more person-address pairs that were only in federal data relative to commercial data. There were 9.2 million person-address pairs that were in commercial data but not in federal data. There were 82.0 million person-address pairs that were in federal data but not in commercial data. Type of Enumeration Area Table 17 shows 2010 Census and administrative records person-address count and match ratios by TEA. Table 17. 2010 Census and Administrative Records Person-Address Count and Match Numbers and Ratios by Type of Enumeration Area 2010 Census and Administrative Records PersonAddress Count Ratio 2010 Census and Administrative Records PersonAddress Match Ratio 2010 Census Person-Address Count Administrative Records PersonAddress Count 2010 Census and Administrative Records PersonAddress Match Total 308,745,538 301,516,209 203,157,426 97.7 65.8 Mailout/Mailback Military Remote Alaska Remote Update Enumerate Update Enumerate Update/Leave Urban Update/Leave No TEA 284,908,805 922,712 60,261 6,411 2,103,424 15,636,992 5,106,933 0 280,093,025 619,979 35,019 5,278 1,700,836 12,922,334 4,210,134 1,929,604 191,914,484 358,116 2,902 1,679 801,040 7,787,827 2,291,378 0 98.3 67.2 58.1 82.3 80.9 82.6 82.4 - 67.4 38.8 4.8 26.2 38.1 49.8 44.9 - Type of Enumeration Area Note: A “-“ indicates a ratio where the denominator was 0. Sources: 2010 Census and 2010 Census Match Study Administrative Records Data. The count ratios for TEA ranged from 58.1 percent to 98.3 percent. The Mailout/Mailback TEA had the highest count ratio at 98.3 percent, followed by Update/Leave (82.6 percent), Urban Update/Leave (82.4 percent), Remote Update Enumerate (82.3 percent), Update Enumerate (80.9 percent), Military (67.2 percent), and Remote Alaska (58.1 percent). The match ratios were considerably lower than the count ratios. The match ratios ranged from 4.8 percent to 67.4 percent. The Mailout/Mailback (67.4 percent), Update/Leave (49.8 percent), and Urban Update/Leave (44.9 percent) TEAs had the highest match ratios; followed by Military (38.8 percent), Update Enumerate (38.1 percent), and Remote Update Enumerate (26.2 percent). Remote Alaska had the lowest match ratio at 4.8 percent. 45 000114 Demographic Characteristics and Census Operations Table 18 shows 2010 Census and administrative records person-address match ratios by race, Hispanic origin, age, sex, mode, and proxy. Table 18. 2010 Census and Administrative Records Person-Address Match by Race, Hispanic Origin, Age, Sex, Mode, and Proxy 2010 Census Person-Address Count 308,745,538 2010 Census and Administrative Records PersonAddress Match 203,157,426 2010 Census and Administrative Records Person-Address Match Ratio 65.8 Hispanic or Latino Origin Hispanic Not Hispanic 50,477,594 258,267,944 26,854,907 176,302,519 53.2 Race White Alone Black Alone American Indian or Alaska Native Alone Asian Alone Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Alone Some Other Race Alone Two or More Races 223,553,254 38,929,315 2,932,370 14,674,336 540,064 19,107,368 9,008,831 155,730,544 21,472,380 1,360,223 9,831,674 287,415 9,052,400 5,422,790 69.7 55.2 46.4 67.0 53.2 47.4 60.2 12,019,146 62,162,321 30,646,519 82,123,330 81,499,596 21,727,578 18,567,048 6,685,410 39,928,333 14,815,295 51,755,207 60,092,094 16,699,927 13,181,160 55.6 64.2 48.3 63.0 73.7 76.9 71.0 Sex Male Female 151,775,099 156,970,439 97,583,770 105,573,656 64.3 67.3 Mode Nonresponse Followup Mailout/Mailback Other 60,432,209 205,816,623 42,496,706 28,721,088 158,248,584 16,187,754 47.5 76.9 38.1 Proxy Not by Proxy By Proxy 295,163,226 13,582,312 200,630,386 2,527,040 68.0 18.6 Demographic Characteristics, Mode, and Proxy Total Population Age 0-2 3-17 18-24 25-44 45-64 65-74 75 and older 68.3 Sources: 2010 Census and 2010 Census Match Study Administrative Records Data. 46 000115 Similar to the person results, a higher percentage of non-Hispanic person-address pairs in the 2010 Census matched to administrative records relative to Hispanics. Of the 258.3 million nonHispanics in the 2010 Census, 176.3 million or 68.3 percent matched to administrative records person-address pairs. Of the 50.5 million Hispanics in the 2010 Census, 53.2 percent matched to administrative records person-address pairs. The match ratio ranged from 46.4 percent to 69.7 percent across race groups. Similar to the person results, the White alone population had the highest percentage of 2010 Census records that matched to administrative records person-address pairs. Of the 223.6 million persons in the 2010 Census that were classified as White alone, 155.7 million or 69.7 percent matched to administrative records person-address pairs. The Asian alone population had the second highest match ratio at 67.0 percent, followed by the Two or More Races population (60.2 percent), the Black alone population (55.2 percent), the NHPI alone population (53.2 percent), and SOR alone population (47.4 percent). The AIAN alone population had the lowest match ratio at 46.4 percent. The person-address match ratio ranged from 48.3 percent to 76.9 percent across age groups. The person-address results follow the same pattern as the person results for age, where match ratios were higher for the older age groups and lower for younger age groups. The age group 65 to 74 had the highest match ratio (76.9 percent), followed by those aged 45 to 64 (73.7 percent). The age group 18 to 24 had the lowest match ratio at 48.3 percent. The age group 0 to 2 had the second lowest match ratio (55.6 percent). Consistent with the person results, the match ratios for males and females were similar, and females had a slightly higher match ratio. The match ratio for females was 67.3 percent, and the match ratio for males was 64.3 percent. Similar to the address and person results, a larger number and percentage of 2010 Census personaddress pairs that responded via Mailout/Mailback matched to administrative records compared to NRFU and other modes. Of the 205.8 million persons in the 2010 Census that responded via Mailout/Mailback, 158.2 million or 76.9 percent were in administrative records. Of the 60.4 million 2010 Census person-address pairs in NRFU, 28.7 million or 47.5 percent matched to administrative records. Similar to but even lower than the person results, a low number and percentage of 2010 Census person-address pairs that had a proxy response were in administrative records. Of the 13.6 million responses in the 2010 Census that were provided via proxy, administrative record personaddress pairs matched to 2.5 million or 18.6 percent. The preceding results indicate that direct replacement of administrative records data would result in variable coverage across states and could produce undercounts for various race, Hispanic origin, and age groups. The 2010 Census Match Study was designed to evaluate the quality and 47 000116 coverage of administrative records data relative to the 2010 Census. The person-address section, as with the address and person sections, reflect different dimensions of the administrative records data to inform future planning and operational uses. Occupancy Status Table 19 shows 2010 Census and administrative records by occupancy status. Table 19. 2010 Census and Administrative Records by Housing Unit Status Housing Unit Status Total Occupied Vacant Delete 2010 Census Housing Unit Count Number 136,592,084 116,716,292 14,988,438 4,887,354 2010 Census and Administrative Records Same Housing Unit Status Number Percent 111,659,541 81.7 96,083,076 11,404,442 4,172,023 82.3 76.1 85.4 2010 Census and Administrative Records Different Housing Unit Status Number Percent 24,932,543 18.3 20,633,216 3,583,996 715,331 17.7 23.9 14.6 Sources: 2010 Census and 2010 Census Match Study Administrative Records Data. There were 136.6 million addresses in the 2010 Census that had an occupancy status of occupied, vacant, or delete. Administrative records can inform whether a housing unit is occupied if there is a person in administrative records that lives at a particular housing unit. Administrative records can indicate whether a unit is not occupied if there is no person at that address in federal or commercial files. Units not occupied in administrative records may have either vacant or delete status in the 2010 Census. Of the 136.6 million 2010 Census addresses, administrative record person-addresses pairs had the same housing unit status for 111.7 million or 81.7 percent of addresses. Of the 116.7 million housing units that were designated as occupied in the 2010 Census, administrative records indicated that 96.1 million or 82.3 percent of these addresses were occupied. Administrative records indicated that the remaining 20.6 million addresses were not occupied. The 2010 Census had 15.0 million addresses that were designated as vacant. Administrative records indicated that 11.4 million or 76.1 percent of these 15.0 million addresses were not occupied, but that 3.6 million or 23.9 percent were occupied. In the 2010 Census, there were 4.9 million addresses that were designated as deletes. Administrative records found that 4.2 million addresses or 85.4 percent were not occupied and approximately 715,000 addresses or 14.6 percent were occupied in administrative records. Table 20 shows 2010 Census and administrative records housing unit status by mode. Of the occupied housing units in the 2010 Census (116.7 million), 82.3 million responded via Mailout/Mailback. For 72.1 million or 87.6 percent of these addresses, administrative records 48 000117 also found the address to be occupied and 10.2 million or 12.4 percent were vacant. This percentage is lower for both the other and Nonresponse Followup mode categories. Of the 23.6 million addresses in Nonresponse Followup, administrative records indicated that 16.2 million addresses or 68.5 percent were occupied, and 7.4 million addresses or 31.5 percent were vacant. Table 20. 2010 Census and Administrative Records Housing Unit Status by Mode Mode Total Nonresponse Followup Mailout/Mailback Other 2010 Census Housing Unit Count Occupied in Administrative Records Vacant in Administrative Records Number Number Percent Number Percent 116,716,292 96,083,076 82.3 20,633,216 17.7 23,584,428 82,315,147 10,816,717 16,163,930 72,141,619 7,777,527 68.5 87.6 71.9 7,420,498 10,173,528 3,039,190 31.5 12.4 28.1 Sources: 2010 Census and 2010 Census Match Study Administrative Records Data. Population Count Table 21 shows whether the population count at an address is the same, lower, or higher in administrative records relative to the 2010 Census. Table 21. 2010 Census and Administrative Records Population Count at an Address Housing units Occupied Housing Units in 2010 Census and Administrative Records 96,083,076 Population Count Lower in Administrative Records Number Percent 17,122,713 17.8 Population Count the Same in Administrative Records Number Percent 55,469,632 57.7 Population Count Higher in Administrative Records Number Percent 23,490,731 24.4 Sources: 2010 Census and 2010 Census Match Study Administrative Records Data. Of the 116.7 million 2010 Census occupied units, 96.1 million were also designated as occupied in administrative records. Of these, 55.5 million or 57.7 percent of the 2010 Census and administrative records addresses had the same population count. For 17.1 million or 17.8 percent of addresses, administrative records had a lower population count relative to the 2010 Census. For 23.5 million or 24.4 percent of addresses, administrative records had a higher population count relative to the 2010 Census. Table 22 shows the difference in the population counts when administrative records had a higher or lower population count at an address relative to the 2010 Census. 49 000118 Table 22. Difference in Population Count, when Administrative Records had a Higher or Lower Population Count Relative to the 2010 Census Difference in Population Count, when Administrative Records had a Higher or Lower Population Count Relative to 2010 Census Tota1 1 2 3 4 5 6 or More Total Housing Units Occupied in Both the 2010 Census and Administrative Records, where Administrative Records had Higher or Lower Population Count Number Percent 40,613,444 100.0 25,851,974 8,329,611 3,399,243 1,518,342 694,777 819,497 63.7 20.5 8.4 3.7 1.7 2.0 Population Count Lower in Administrative Records Number Percent 17,122,713 100.0 10,947,832 3,475,349 1,568,248 663,782 266,772 200,730 63.9 20.3 9.2 3.9 1.6 1.2 Population Count Higher in Administrative Records Number Percent 23,490,731 100.0 14,904,142 4,854,262 1,830,995 854,560 428,005 618,767 63.4 20.7 7.8 3.6 1.8 2.6 Sources: 2010 Census and 2010 Census Match Study Administrative Records Data. When administrative records had either a lower or higher number of people at an address relative to the 2010 Census, for the majority of addresses, the administrative records population count was either higher or lower by one person. Of the 17.1 million records that administrative data had a lower population count relative to the 2010 Census, 10.9 million or 63.9 percent of these records were lower by one person. Similarly, of the 23.5 million records where administrative data had a higher population count, 63.4 percent of these records were higher by one person. About 20 percent of the records were either lower or higher by two persons. About 8 percent of the records were either lower or higher by three persons, and the percentages were successively lower for four, five, and six or more persons. Future research is needed to explore the sources and reasons for the count differences. 5.4 Demographic Quality and Coverage Assessment Since agreements with commercial data vendors prohibit direct comparisons of data across sources, commercial file names will not be used when presenting analysis comparing the commercial data sources. Instead, commercial data files will be called commercial file 1, commercial file 2, etc. in this section. Some commercial data files do not have data for Hispanic origin, race, or sex. Quality Assessment This section discusses the quality of demographic characteristics in the federal and commercial files, using 2010 Census unedited demographic characteristics as the gold standard for comparison purposes. For each data source in the 2010 Census Match Study, persons were matched to the 2010 Census by PIK and then responses from the 2010 Census were compared to the demographic data provided by federal agencies and commercial data vendors. 50 000119 In addition, Numident and previous census records’ demographic data were evaluated, specifically the Census 2000 and 2001-2009 ACS data as these are large sources of demographic data that could be used in conjunction with other administrative data to assist in census operations.24 Tax files are not included in this analysis as they do not contain demographic characteristics, and other federal files only include some demographic characteristics. Quality of Hispanic Origin Data in Administrative Records Table 23 shows the number and percentage of persons that had the same Hispanic origin response in administrative records and the 2010 Census by administrative records source. While the terminology “response” is used in this section, the data from some sources were modeled for Hispanic origin and race and therefore were not based on a response from a resident of the household. Table 23. Number and Percentage of Administrative Records Hispanic Origin Response Data that Matched to the 2010 Census 2010 Census and Administrative Records Hispanic Origin Response Match by Source File Federal Files Previous Census Records Numident HUD CHUMS HUD PIC HUD TRACS TANF MEDB Commercial Files Commercial File 1 Commercial File 2 Commercial File 3 Commercial File 4 Hispanic Number Percent Not Hispanic Number 18,137,918 18,898,237 507,655 1,009,383 14,181 220,988 812,807 93.1 54.2 80.0 86.0 78.6 70.7 29.4 162,270,334 215,259,972 3,987,563 4,405,539 105,010 1,659,036 37,825,607 99.4 99.7 98.5 98.1 98.6 98.3 99.9 8,260,777 11,868,492 9,206,375 4,510,662 83.5 77.3 80.2 77.1 94,604,335 140,335,009 114,014,452 50,604,881 98.2 98.0 98.0 97.9 Percent Sources: 2010 Census and 2010 Census Match Study Administrative Records Data. The quality of data for non-Hispanics in federal files was considerably higher compared to Hispanics. The quality range was also less variable for non-Hispanics compared to Hispanics. The quality of Hispanic origin data in federal files ranged from 29.4 percent to 93.1 percent for the Hispanic population and 98.1 percent to 99.9 percent for the non-Hispanic population. 24 For the 2010 Census, previous census records (Census 2000 and 2001-2009 ACS data) were used in race and Hispanic origin item imputation processes. 51 000120 Previous census data had the highest match for Hispanic response data in federal sources at 93.1 percent, followed by HUD PIC (86.0 percent) and HUD CHUMS (80.0 percent). MEDB had the lowest percentage of Hispanic response data that matched the 2010 Census at 29.4 percent. The percentage of data for Hispanics in commercial files that matched to the 2010 Census ranged from 77.1 percent to 83.5 percent. For Hispanics, commercial file 4 had the lowest percentage that matched to the 2010 Census and commercial file 1 had the highest percentage that matched. Similar to federal files, commercial sources also had high quality response data for nonHispanics. Quality of Race Responses in Administrative Records Table 24 shows the percentage of federal and commercial race response data that matched to the 2010 Census (see Appendix 2 for numbers). Table 24. Percentage of Administrative Records Race Response Data that Matched to the 2010 Census 2010 Census and Administrative Records Race Response Match by Source File Federal Files Previous Census Records Numident IHS HUD CHUMS HUD PIC HUD TRACS TANF MEDB Commercial Files Commercial File 1 Commercial File 2 Commercial File 3 Commercial File 4 American Indian or Alaska Native Alone White Alone Black Alone 96.8 99.1 96.2 98.3 N/A 98.0 97.2 96.1 97.6 99.0 N/A 87.4 96.3 95.4 95.9 97.9 63.2 51.4 97.6 24.6 41.7 46.9 73.0 49.1 97.9 97.8 94.9 94.7 43.6 37.3 61.1 58.2 N/A 6.4 13.2 8.6 Asian Alone Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Alone Some Other Race Alone Two or More Races 94.1 84.3 59.7 74.4 54.9 17.7 36.3 N/A 65.0 89.3 87.3 80.9 58.0 N/A 46.9 62.5 37.0 76.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 14.5 N/A 14.1 N/A N/A 3.6 6.9 9.7 12.8 N/A 85.2 73.6 79.7 79.8 14.3 19.2 17.0 16.6 3.0 1.1 3.4 3.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A Note: N/A in tables in this report indicates that data were not available for a demographic group. Sources: 2010 Census and 2010 Census Match Study Administrative Records Data. The White alone population had the highest quality response data in both federal and commercial files relative to other race groups. In federal files, the quality of race response data ranged from 96.1 percent to 99.1 percent for the White alone population. Commercial files had a similar though slightly lower range, from 94.7 percent to 97.9 percent. Among the federal files, Numident had the highest percentage of White alone response data that matched to the 2010 Census (99.1 percent), followed by MEDB (99.0 percent), and HUD CHUMS (98.0 percent). HUD TRACS had the lowest percentage match for White alone response at 96.1 percent. For the 52 000121 commercial files, commercial file 4 had the lowest percentage match (94.7 percent) while commercial file 1 had the highest match (97.9 percent) for the White alone response. The quality of response data was lower for the Black alone population relative to the White alone population in federal data. The quality of the race response data for the Black alone population ranged from 87.4 percent to 98.3 percent. The commercial files had a considerably lower percentage of the Black alone population that matched to the 2010 Census relative to the White alone population, a range from 37.3 percent to 61.1 percent. Among federal files, similar to the White alone population, the Numident had the highest percentage match for the Black alone population at 98.3 percent. This was followed by MEDB (97.9 percent) and HUD PIC (96.3 percent). HUD CHUMS had the lowest percentage Black alone response match to the 2010 Census (87.4 percent). Commercial file 2 had the lowest percentage match for the Black alone population, and commercial file 3 had the highest percentage that matched. The quality of federal file race response data was considerably lower for the AIAN alone population compared to the White alone and Black alone populations. The percentage of AIAN alone race responses that matched to the 2010 Census in the federal files ranged from 24.6 percent to 97.6 percent. IHS and TANF were the two federal files that had a relatively high percentage of AIAN alone responses that matched, 97.6 percent and 73.0 percent respectively, whereas 63.2 percent of the responses in previous census records matched, and 51.4 percent or fewer of the responses for the remaining federal data sources matched the 2010 Census. Similar to the Black alone population, HUD CHUMS had the lowest percentage of AIAN matches (24.6 percent). Commercial file 1 did not have any data on the AIAN population. Among the commercial files that had data on this population, the percentages of responses that matched the 2010 Census were low, 6.4 percent to 13.2 percent. Similar to the Black alone population, commercial file 2 had the lowest percentage of AIAN alone responses that matched, and commercial file 3 had the highest. For the federal files, the Asian alone population had higher percentages of race responses that matched the 2010 Census relative to the AIAN alone population, but lower percentages compared to the White alone and Black alone populations, 58.0 percent to 94.1 percent. Previous census records had the highest percentage match (94.1 percent), followed by HUD PIC (89.3 percent) and HUD TRACS (87.3 percent). MEDB had the lowest percentage of Asian alone responses that matched at 58.0 percent. For commercial files, the Asian alone population had higher percentages that matched the 2010 Census relative to both the Black alone and AIAN alone populations, but lower matches relative to the White alone population. The percentage of commercial data responses that matched the 2010 Census for the Asian alone population ranged from 73.6 percent to 85.2 percent. Similar to the Black alone and AIAN alone populations, commercial file 2 had the lowest match for the Asian alone population. Similar to the White alone population, commercial file 1 had the highest match. 53 000122 For the NHPI alone population, 59 percent or higher of the responses in four of the seven federal datasets matched the 2010 Census. TANF had the highest percentage of NHPI alone responses that matched (76.0 percent), followed by the Numident (74.4 percent), HUD PIC (62.5 percent), and previous census records (59.7 percent). HUD TRACS had the lowest percentage of responses that matched for this population at 37.0 percent. The percentage of responses that matched in the commercial files for the NHPI alone community was considerably lower than the White alone, Black alone, and Asian alone populations, but higher than the AIAN alone population. For the NHPI alone population, 14.3 percent to 19.2 percent of the responses in the commercial files matched to the 2010 Census. Commercial file 1 had the lowest match and commercial file 2 had the highest match. Only four of the seven federal files had a race category equivalent to SOR. Of these four data sources, MEDB had the lowest percentage of SOR alone responses that matched to the 2010 Census (14.1 percent), and previous census records had the highest percentage (54.9 percent). About 14.5 percent of HUD TRACS SOR alone responses matched to the 2010 Census and the Numident matched to 17.7 percent. These match percentages were the second lowest matches across all race groups for the federal data. In the commercial files, 1.1 percent to 3.4 percent of the SOR alone responses matched to the 2010 Census. This was the lowest match percentage of all the race groups represented in the commercial files. Similar to the majority of race groups, commercial file 2 had the lowest percentage of SOR alone responses that matched to the 2010 Census. Commercial file 3 and commercial file 4 had the highest percentages that matched. The multiracial population had the lowest percentage of responses that matched in the federal files to the 2010 Census relative to other race groups. Of the five federal files that had data on the multiracial population, previous census records had the highest percentage that matched at 36.3 percent. HUD CHUMS had the lowest percentage that matched at 3.6 percent. TANF, HUD TRACS, and HUD PIC matched the 2010 Census multiracial population at 12.8 percent, 9.7 percent, and 6.9 percent respectively. The commercial files did not classify individuals as multiracial. Quality of Age Responses in Administrative Records Table 25 shows the percentage of federal and commercial age response data that matched to the 2010 Census overall and by age group (see Appendix 3 for numbers). The percentage of records that matched the age data in the 2010 Census was 95.2 percent or higher for all federal source files except HUD CHUMS. MEDB had the highest percentage match on age at 98.5 percent, followed by the Numident (97.9 percent) and SSS (97.8 percent). HUD CHUMS had the lowest age response match at 24.4 percent. The match is low because the HUD CHUMS file only included persons’ year of birth, while the other files provided date of birth which more accurately can be matched to the age of persons in the 2010 Census. Relative to the federal files, the commercial files had lower percentages of age responses that matched to the 2010 Census. 54 000123 Commercial file 4 had the highest percentage of age responses that matched (90.5 percent) whereas commercial file 1 had the lowest percentage match (79.0 percent). Table 25. Percentage of Administrative Records Age Response Data that Matched to the 2010 Census 2010 Census and Administrative Records Age Response Match by Source File Federal Files Previous Census Records Numident IHS HUD CHUMS HUD PIC HUD TRACS SSR SSS TANF MEDB Commercial Files Commercial 1 Commercial 2 Commercial 3 Commercial 4 Commercial 5 Commercial 6 Commercial 7 Commercial 8 Age Total 0-2 3-17 18-24 25-44 45-64 65-74 75 and older 95.7 97.9 96.6 24.4 97.0 96.9 95.2 97.8 96.7 98.5 85.7 97.6 95.3 N/A 95.8 96.5 97.0 N/A 96.3 97.5 94.7 98.0 96.3 N/A 96.9 96.7 97.3 N/A 96.7 96.0 95.3 97.8 96.6 19.1 97.1 97.1 97.6 98.0 97.0 97.5 95.6 98.0 97.0 24.5 97.4 97.1 97.0 97.7 97.2 98.0 96.1 98.1 96.8 25.0 97.3 96.9 95.6 N/A 96.4 98.1 96.5 98.6 96.3 25.9 97.0 97.4 92.3 N/A 94.4 98.8 96.3 96.6 94.9 26.8 96.2 96.9 89.4 N/A 88.1 98.3 79.0 88.9 89.1 90.5 88.6 80.9 87.2 90.4 0.3 16.8 6.4 59.3 N/A N/A N/A 71.4 N/A N/A 3.1 0.3 N/A 20.0 N/A 73.5 77.2 83.3 81.4 85.4 79.1 75.4 78.6 92.0 78.6 87.6 88.6 90.3 90.3 82.0 88.1 90.6 79.5 90.1 90.2 91.5 88.4 80.9 87.5 90.3 79.2 91.1 90.8 92.2 87.5 84.2 87.1 90.7 78.3 89.8 89.9 91.0 86.1 84.0 85.9 90.4 Note: N/A indicates that data were not available for a demographic group. Sources: 2010 Census and 2010 Census Match Study Administrative Records Data. Across the federal files, the quality of age response data showed some slight variation according to age group. Where differences existed was in the presence of age response data. The HUD CHUMS file did not include anyone under the age of 18, MEDB included relatively few persons under 18, and the SSS file only included data on those between the ages of 18 to 25. Similarly, the commercial records had relatively few persons under the age of 18 and had lower match rates for those who were included. Commercial file 2 included more people under age 18 but the quality of the age data was lower relative to other age groups. Quality of Sex Responses in Administrative Records Table 26 shows the number and percentage of federal and commercial sex response data that matched to the 2010 Census. 55 000124 Table 26. Number and Percentage of Administrative Records Sex Response Data that Matched to the 2010 Census 2010 Census and Administrative Records Sex Response Match by Source File Federal Files Previous Census Records Numident HUD CHUMS HUD PIC HUD TRACS IHS MEDB SSS TANF Commercial Files Commercial File 1 Commercial File 2 Commercial File 3 Commercial File 4 Commercial File 5 Commercial File 6 Commercial File 7 Female Number Percent 99.582.513 132,710,367 2,310,839 3,742,607 1,341,994 1,117,176 23,691,186 99.5 99.4 98.1 99.0 98.9 99.4 99.6 N/A 1,298,748 N/A 99.1 63,605,178 81,263,837 67,065,482 31,208,537 76,293,351 412,740 50,177,060 98.8 98.6 97.0 97.0 97.2 95.6 97.2 Male Number Percent 91,377,033 125,356,726 2,437,053 2,199,033 695,095 995,603 19,068,303 11,994,797 768,904 99.5 99.4 98.7 97.9 98.2 99.2 99.7 100.0 98.1 55,906,815 72,248,387 59,346,369 25,412,404 68,872,874 324,334 45,989,876 97.0 98.6 97.7 97.4 97.9 94.7 98.4 Note: N/A indicates that data were not available for a demographic group. Sources: 2010 Census and 2010 Census Match Study Administrative Records Data. The quality of sex response data ranged from 94.7 percent to 100.0 percent across both federal and commercial files for both sexes. Among the federal administrative files, HUD PIC had the lowest percentage that matched for males at 97.9 percent. SSS had the highest match rate for males at 100.0 percent. HUD CHUMS had the lowest percentage that matched for females at 98.1 percent, and MEDB had the highest at 99.6 percent. For the commercial administrative files, commercial file 6 had the lowest percentage match for both males at 94.7 percent and females at 95.6 percent. Commercial file 2 had the highest match for males at 98.6 percent, and commercial file 1 had the highest match for females at 98.8 percent. Demographic Coverage Assessment This section discusses demographic characteristic coverage of the 2010 Census by the federal and commercial files, including the Numident and previous census records. Persons in the 2010 Census were matched by PIK to each data source to determine if the federal or commercial files provided any demographic data for that person on Hispanic origin, race, age, and sex regardless of the quality. This assessment indicates whether data are present for demographic groups in the 2010 Census, not whether the demographic data are the same in the 2010 Census and administrative records. 56 000125 Table 27 shows whether demographic data were present in administrative records by demographic group. Administrative records had Hispanic origin response data for 278.0 million persons in the 2010 Census (90.1 percent). A higher percentage of non-Hispanics had Hispanic origin response data in administrative records relative to Hispanics. Of the 258.3 million nonHispanics in the 2010 Census, administrative records had Hispanic origin response data for 238.2 million or 92.2 percent. Of the 50.5 million Hispanics in the 2010 Census, 39.8 million or 78.9 percent had Hispanic origin response data in administrative records. Table 27. Coverage of 2010 Census Demographic Data by Administrative Records Demographic Response Data Coverage of 2010 Census Demographic Data by Administrative Records Demographic Response Data Demographic Characteristics 2010 Census Total Population Number 308,745,538 Percent 100.0 Number 278,484,228 Percent 90.2 Hispanic or Latino Origin Hispanic Not Hispanic 308,745,538 50,477,594 258,267,944 100.0 100.0 100.0 278,045,021 39,814,879 238,230,142 90.1 78.9 92.2 Race White Alone Black Alone American Indian or Alaska Native Alone Asian Alone Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Alone Some Other Race Alone Two or More Races 308,745,538 223,553,254 38,929,315 2,932,370 14,674,336 540,064 19,107,368 9,008,831 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 239,489,480 181,023,292 30,456,240 2,256,067 10,839,299 377,663 8,799,778 5,737,141 77.6 81.0 78.2 76.9 73.9 69.9 46.1 63.7 Age 0-2 3-17 18-24 25-44 45-64 65-74 75 and older 308,745,538 12,019,146 62,162,321 30,646,519 82,123,330 81,499,596 21,727,578 18,567,048 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 278,123,833 10,771,945 56,522,460 26,032,464 71,307,164 75,632,822 20,498,121 17,358,857 90.1 89.6 90.9 84.9 86.8 92.8 94.3 93.5 Sex Male Female 308,745,538 151,775,099 156,970,439 100.0 100.0 100.0 278,038,511 135,515,017 142,523,494 90.1 89.3 90.8 Sources: 2010 Census and 2010 Census Match Study Administrative Records Data. Data on race were available for 239.5 million or 77.6 percent of 2010 Census respondents. Administrative records provided the greatest level of race data coverage for the White alone population and the lowest level of race data coverage for the SOR alone population in the 2010 57 000126 Census. Of the 223.6 million persons classified as White alone in the 2010 Census, 181 million or 81.0 percent had race data in administrative records. The next highest level of race data coverage was for the Black alone population (78.2 percent), followed by AIAN alone (76.9 percent), Asian alone (73.9 percent), NHPI alone (69.9 percent), and the Two or More Races population (63.7 percent). Administrative records contained race data for just under half (46.1 percent) of the SOR alone population. Administrative records provided coverage of age data for 278.1 million or 90.1 percent of all persons on the 2010 Census. Coverage by age group in the 2010 Census ranged from 84.9 percent to 94.3 percent with older age groups more likely to have age data present in administrative records relative to younger age groups. Age coverage by administrative records was greatest for those in the 65 to 74 age group (94.3 percent), followed by 75 and older (93.5 percent), 45 to 64 (92.8 percent), 3 to 17 (90.9), 0 to 2 (89.6 percent), and 25 to 44 (86.8 percent) age groups. The age group with the lowest coverage was those aged 18 to 24 at 84.9 percent. Sex data were available in the administrative records for 278.0 million or 90.1 percent of all persons on the 2010 Census. Coverage was slightly higher for females in the 2010 Census than for males. For females in the 2010 Census, 90.8 percent had data on sex in administrative data. For males in the 2010 Census, 89.3 percent also had data on sex in administrative records. Coverage by Mode by Demographic Group Table 28 shows whether Hispanic origin data were present in administrative records by mode. Table 28. Coverage of 2010 Hispanic Origin Data by Administrative Records Hispanic Origin Response Data by Mode Coverage of 2010 Hispanic Origin Data by Administrative Records Hispanic Origin Response Data NRFU Hispanic Not Hispanic Mailout/Mailback Hispanic Not Hispanic Other Hispanic Not Hispanic 2010 Census Administrative Records Number 60,432,209 12,474,326 47,957,883 Percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number 48,868,213 8,673,291 40,194,922 Percent 80.9 69.5 83.8 205,816,623 28,619,508 177,197,115 100.0 100.0 100.0 198,842,905 25,137,353 173,705,552 96.6 87.8 98.0 42,496,706 9,383,760 33,112,946 100.0 100.0 100.0 30,333,903 6,004,235 24,329,668 71.4 64.0 73.5 Sources: 2010 Census and 2010 Census Match Study Administrative Records Data. 58 000127 Administrative data had Hispanic origin response data for 96.6 percent of persons whose response was obtained via Mailout/Mailback in the 2010 Census. There were 80.9 percent of NRFU respondents in the 2010 Census that had Hispanic origin response data in administrative records. Administrative records covered about 10 percent more of the non-Hispanic population compared to the Hispanic population regardless of mode. Table 29 shows whether race data were present in administrative records by mode. Table 29. Coverage of 2010 Race Data by Administrative Records Race Response Data by Mode Coverage of 2010 Race Data by Administrative Records Race Response Data 2010 Census Administrative Records NRFU White Alone Black Alone American Indian or Alaska Native Alone Asian Alone Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Alone Some Other Race Alone Two or More Races Number 60,432,209 38,193,839 9,665,248 614,416 2,935,599 170,657 6,574,514 2,277,936 Percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number 40,596,485 27,279,990 6,828,025 466,097 1,836,450 111,437 2,658,243 1,416,243 Percent 67.2 71.4 70.6 75.9 62.6 65.3 40.4 62.2 Mailout/Mailback White Alone Black Alone American Indian or Alaska Native Alone Asian Alone Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Alone Some Other Race Alone Two or More Races 205,816,623 158,738,870 22,179,559 1,367,303 9,415,785 234,376 8,587,123 5,293,607 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 173,992,345 137,265,519 19,345,638 1,117,407 7,614,070 190,972 4,868,058 3,590,681 84.5 86.5 87.2 81.7 80.9 81.5 56.7 67.8 Other White Alone Black Alone American Indian or Alaska Native Alone Asian Alone Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Alone Some Other Race Alone Two or More Races 42,496,706 26,620,545 7,084,508 950,651 2,322,952 135,031 3,945,731 1,437,288 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100 0 100.0 24,900,650 16,477,783 4,282,577 672,563 1,388,779 75,254 1,273,477 730,217 58.6 61.9 60.4 70.7 59.8 55.7 32.3 50.8 100.0 100.0 Sources: 2010 Census and 2010 Census Match Study Administrative Records Data. Data on race collected via Mailout/Mailback was most likely to be covered by administrative records (84.5 percent), followed by NRFU (67.2 percent), and other response operations (58.6 percent). 59 000128 All race categories had the highest levels of coverage in Mailout/Mailback mode. Administrative records race response coverage for 2010 Census respondents in Mailout/Mailback ranged from a high of 87.2 percent for the Black alone population to a low of 56.7 percent for SOR alone. Persons reporting White alone via Mailout/Mailback had the second highest administrative records race coverage (86.5 percent), followed by AIAN alone (81.7 percent), NHPI alone (81.5 percent), Asian alone (80.9), and Two or More Races (67.8 percent). The coverage rate for race responses collected via NRFU was highest for AIAN alone. Of the approximately 614,000 persons who reported AIAN alone in NRFU, administrative records had race data for approximately 466,000 or 75.9 percent of respondents. The White alone population had the next highest coverage rate (71.4 percent), followed by the Black alone (70.6 percent), NHPI alone (65.3 percent), Asian alone (62.6 percent), and Two or More Races (62.2 percent) populations in NRFU. The SOR alone population had the lowest coverage rate in NRFU at 40.4 percent. Table 30 shows whether age data were present in administrative records by mode. Of 2010 Census respondents with a PIK in Mailout/Mailback, 96.6 percent had age data in administrative records. Age response coverage was lower for NRFU (80.9 percent) and other modes (71.4 percent). Among NRFU respondents, the age groups 3 to 17 and 0 to 2 had the highest age response coverage in administrative records at 84.8 percent and 83.3 percent respectively. This was followed by age groups 45 to 64 (82.3 percent), 65 to 74 (81.5 percent), and 75 and older (80.3 percent). Administrative record coverage for age data was lowest in NRFU for the 18 to 24 (76.4 percent) and 25 to 44 (78.4 percent) age groups. 60 000129 Table 30. Coverage of 2010 Age Data by Administrative Records Age Response Data by Mode Coverage of 2010 Age Data by Administrative Records Age Response Data NRFU 0-2 3-17 18-24 25-44 45-64 65-74 75 and older Mailout/Mailback 0-2 3-17 18-24 25-44 45-64 65-74 75 and older Other 0-2 3-17 18-24 25-44 45-64 65-74 75 and older 2010 Census Administrative Records Number 60,432,209 2,713,417 13,959,494 7,322,346 19,498,293 12,498,785 2,447,491 1,992,383 Percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number 48,867,705 2,261,220 11,839,104 5,594,530 15,293,653 10,283,837 1,994,655 1,600,706 Percent 80.9 83.3 84.8 76.4 78.4 82.3 81.5 80.3 205,816,623 7,161,233 39,058,528 15,982,399 52,033,098 60,075,645 17,372,352 14,133,368 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 198,892,28 5 6,894,732 37,769,055 15,164,326 49,279,405 58,829,943 17,101,837 13,852,987 96.6 96.3 96.7 94.9 94.7 97.9 98.4 98.0 42,496,706 2,144,496 9,144,299 7,341,774 10,591,939 8,925,166 1,907,735 2,441,297 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 30,363,843 1,615,993 6,914,301 5,273,608 6,734,106 6,519,042 1,401,629 1,905,164 71.4 75.4 75.6 71.8 63.6 73.0 73.5 78.0 Sources: 2010 Census and 2010 Census Match Study Administrative Records Data. Table 31 shows whether sex data were present in administrative records by mode. Similar to other demographic characteristics, administrative record coverage was highest for sex in the Mailout/Mailback universe (96.6 percent) and lower in the NRFU universe (80.9 percent) and via other modes (71.4 percent). For each of the three response mode categories, administrative record coverage of females in the 2010 Census was slightly higher than for males. 61 000130 Table 31. Coverage of 2010 Sex Data by Administrative Records Sex Response Data by Mode Coverage of 2010 Sex Data by Administrative Records Sex Response Data NRFU Male Female Mailout/Mailback Male Female Other Male Female 2010 Census Administrative Records Number 60,432,209 30,490,505 29,941,704 Percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number 48,866,122 24,352,259 24,513,863 Percent 80.9 79.9 81.9 205,816,623 99,125,339 106,691,284 100.0 100.0 100.0 198,838,820 95,563,261 103,275,559 96.6 96.4 96.8 42,496,706 22,159,255 20,337,451 100.0 100.0 100.0 30,333,569 15,599,497 14,734,072 71.4 70.4 72.4 Sources: 2010 Census and 2010 Census Match Study Administrative Records Data. Coverage by Source File Table 32 shows administrative records coverage of Hispanic origin response data by federal and commercial data source. For all demographic characteristics, the size of the source file strongly influenced the coverage of demographic data in the 2010 Census. The range of coverage for the 2010 Census Hispanic population in federal data was 0.04 percent to 78.1 percent and 13.0 percent to 33.9 percent for commercial data. The Numident file had the highest percent coverage of Hispanic origin response data for the Hispanic population (78.1 percent) and non-Hispanic population (92.1 percent). Previous census records had the second highest coverage at 43.1 percent for the Hispanic population and 69.1 percent for non-Hispanics. HUD TRACS had the lowest coverage for Hispanics (0.04 percent) and non-Hispanics (0.05 percent). Commercial data sources covered 13.0 percent to 33.9 percent of Hispanics in the 2010 Census and 22.0 percent to 60.6 percent of non-Hispanics. Among the commercial sources, commercial file 2 provided the highest level of Hispanic origin response coverage at 33.9 percent for Hispanics and 60.6 percent for non-Hispanics. 62 000131 Table 32. Number and Percent Coverage of 2010 Hispanic Origin Data by Administrative Records Source Files Coverage of 2010 Hispanic Origin Data by Administrative Records Hispanic Origin Response Data by Source Hispanic Not Hispanic Number 50,477,594 Percent 100 Number 258,267,944 Percent 100 Previous Census Records 21,764,183 43.1 178,348,197 69.1 Numident 39,399,214 78.1 237,807,990 92.1 697,169 1.4 4,316,851 1.7 1,364,197 2.7 5,377,679 2.1 20,987 0.0 127,991 0.0 MEDB 3,070,925 6.1 42,825,729 16.6 TANF 365,626 0.7 1,963,550 0.8 Commercial File 1 11,349,460 22.5 122,397,813 47.4 Commercial File 2 17,093,059 33.9 156,451,837 60.6 Commercial File 3 12,732,083 25.2 49.0 Commercial File 4 6,540,972 13.0 126,544,309 56,774,215 2010 Census Federal Files HUD CHUMS HUD PIC HUD TRACS Commercial Files 22.0 Sources: 2010 Census and 2010 Census Match Study Administrative Records Data. Table 33 shows administrative records coverage of race response data by federal and commercial data source (see Appendix 4 for numbers). With few exceptions, the White alone population had higher coverage rates across the sources relative to other race groups. The coverage rate for the White alone population ranged from 0.1 percent to 71.1 percent in federal data and 18.5 percent to 55.2 percent in commercial data. Previous census records had the highest coverage rate (71.1 percent) for the White alone population, followed by the Numident at 66.0 percent. The IHS had the lowest coverage rate at 0.1 percent. Of commercial files, commercial file 4 had the lowest coverage rate for the White alone population, and commercial file 2 had the highest. Commercial file 4 had the lowest coverage rate and commercial file 2 had the highest for all race groups. The coverage rate for the Black alone population ranged from 0.03 percent to 66.9 percent across federal sources and 16.9 percent to 45.9 percent in commercial data sources. The Numident had the highest coverage rate for the Black alone population (66.9 percent), followed by previous census records (57.0 percent). Similar to the White alone population, IHS had the lowest coverage rate at 0.03 percent. 63 000132 Table 33. Percent Coverage of 2010 Race Data by Administrative Records Source Files Coverage of 2010 Race Data by Administrative Records Race Response Data by Source Asian Alone Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Alone Some Other Race Alone Two or More Races White Alone Black Alone American Indian or Alaska Native Alone Federal Files Previous Census Records Numident HUD CHUMS HUD PIC HUD TRACS IHS MEDB TANF 71.1 66.0 1.7 1.1 0.4 0.1 16.9 0.5 57.0 66.9 1.4 8.3 2.1 0.0 11.6 2.0 55.3 54.0 1.0 2.9 0.8 41.4 9.2 2.3 49.5 64.1 1.0 1.2 0.6 0.0 8.5 0.2 43.7 57.6 1.2 3.7 0.5 0.1 6.4 3.2 32.7 6.7 1.1 2.6 0.6 0.1 2.4 0.6 48.3 36.8 1.0 4.0 1.0 2.7 5.3 1.7 Commercial Files Commercial File 1 Commercial File 2 Commercial File 3 Commercial File 4 38.9 55.2 43.6 18.5 28.9 45.9 32.6 16.9 15.5 35.8 22.6 10.6 27.0 41.6 29.9 13.0 12.1 27.0 16.5 8.2 2.1 27.8 2.6 1.3 14.4 31.1 18.2 9.2 Sources: 2010 Census and 2010 Census Match Study Administrative Records Data. For the AIAN alone population, the federal coverage rate ranged from 0.8 percent to 55.3 percent, and the commercial coverage rate ranged from 10.6 percent to 35.8 percent. Similar to the White alone and Black alone populations, the Numident and previous census records had the two highest coverage rates. Previous census records had the highest coverage at 55.3 percent, and the Numident had the second highest coverage rate at 54.0 percent. IHS also covered a relatively substantial proportion of response data at 41.4 percent. HUD TRACS had the lowest coverage rate at 0.8 percent. The federal coverage rate for the Asian alone population ranged from 0.01 percent to 64.1 percent, and the commercial coverage rate ranged from 13.0 percent to 41.6 percent. As with the previous race groups discussed, the Numident and previous census records had the greatest coverage for the Asian alone population. The Numident covered 64.1 percent of the 2010 Census Asian alone population, and previous census records covered 49.5 percent. For the NHPI population, the federal coverage rate range was 0.1 percent to 57.6 percent, and the commercial coverage rate range was 8.2 percent to 27.0 percent. The Numident and previous census records had the highest coverage rates, 57.6 percent and 43.7 percent respectively. IHS had the lowest coverage rate at 0.1 percent. With few exceptions, the SOR alone population had the lowest coverage rates across federal and commercial data sources. The federal coverage rate ranged from 0.1 percent to 32.7 percent, and 64 000133 commercial data covered 1.3 percent to 27.8 percent. Previous census records had the highest coverage at 32.7 percent, followed by the Numident at 6.7 percent. The federal coverage rate for the Two or More Races population ranged from 1.0 percent to 48.3 percent, and the commercial coverage rate ranged from 9.2 percent to 31.1 percent. Previous census records covered 48.3 percent of the 2010 Census Two or More Races population, followed by the Numident at 36.8 percent. Table 34 shows administrative records coverage of age response data by federal and commercial data source (see Appendix 5 for numbers). Table 34. Percent Coverage of 2010 Age Data by Administrative Records Source Files Age Coverage of 2010 Age Data by Administrative Records Age Response Data by Source Federal Files Previous Census Records Numident HUD CHUMS HUD PIC HUD TRACS IHS MEDB SSR SSS TANF Commercial Files Commercial File 1 Commercial File 2 Commercial File 3 Commercial File 4 Commercial File 5 Commercial File 6 Commercial File 7 Commercial File 8 0-2 3-17 18-24 25-44 45-64 65-74 75 and older 1.5 89.5 0.0 2.9 1.2 0.6 0.0 0.8 0.0 2.9 42.1 90.9 0.0 4.1 0.9 0.9 0.0 1.7 0.1 1.7 69.9 84.9 0.9 2.3 0.7 0.9 0.5 1.9 37.4 0.9 67.7 86.8 3.5 1.7 0.4 0.8 2.2 1.7 2.1 0.6 79.9 92.8 1.7 1.4 0.5 0.7 8.9 2.8 0.0 0.2 84.0 94.3 1.0 1.5 1.3 0.6 90.5 3.9 0.0 0.1 85.0 93.5 0.5 1.6 2.2 0.4 91.4 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 9.7 25.9 25.9 12.7 1.7 0.2 4.5 1.2 31.7 39.2 42.2 22.9 45.4 0.6 24.4 40.0 49.8 65.1 62.2 25.1 74.1 0.4 48.9 66.4 55.7 70.7 67.9 26.5 77.2 0.1 58.9 67.8 53.4 66.9 65.3 26.0 73.3 0.0 59.6 62.2 Sources: 2010 Census and 2010 Census Match Study Administrative Records Data. The Numident age response data covered a substantial proportion of 0 to 2 year olds in the 2010 Census at 89.5 percent. All other federal and commercial data sources covered less than 3 percent each. The Numident age response data also covered a substantial proportion of those 3 to 17 years old in the 2010 Census at 90.9 percent. Previous census records covered 42.1 percent. All other data covered less than 4.2 percent. The Numident covered 84.9 percent of the 18 to 24 age group, followed by previous census records at 69.9 percent. Commercial file 2 and commercial file 3 had the highest coverage rates 65 000134 for the 18 to 24 age group among commercial files at 25.9 percent each. The Numident covered 86.8 percent of the 25 to 44 age group, and previous census records covered 67.7 percent. Commercial file 5 and commercial file 3 had the highest coverage for this age group at 45.4 percent and 42.2 percent respectively. The Numident covered the highest percentage of age responses for the age groups 45 to 64, 65 to 74, and 75 and older. Commercial file 5 had the highest coverage for all three of these age groups among the commercial data. Table 35 shows administrative records coverage of sex response data by federal and commercial data source. Table 35. Number and Percent Coverage of 2010 Sex Data by Administrative Records Source Files Coverage of 2010 Sex Data by Administrative Records Sex Response Data by Source 2010 Census Male Female Number 151,775,099 Percent 100.0 Number 156,970,439 Percent 100.0 Federal Files 98,056,250 64.6 106,215,624 67.7 135,270,982 89.1 142,309,140 90.7 HUD CHUMS 2,607,763 1.7 2,472,911 1.6 HUD PIC 2,535,359 1.7 4,212,021 2.7 817,071 0.5 1,537,300 1.0 1,096,844 0.7 1,219,319 0.8 MEDB 20,481,253 13.5 25,415,378 16.2 SSS 13,211,190 8.7 70,171 0.0 874,359 0.6 1,455,174 0.9 60,929,919 40.1 67,686,745 43.1 77,959,856 51.4 87,230,172 55.6 64,421,794 42.4 73,002,480 46.5 27,970,377 18.4 34,345,858 21.9 74,729,309 49.2 82,823,112 52.8 Previous Census Records Numident HUD TRACS IHS TANF Commercial Files Commercial File 1 Commercial File 2 Commercial File 3 Commercial File 4 Commercial File 5 Commercial File 6 Commercial File 7 370,287 0.2 462,087 0.3 49,329,354 32.5 54,231,282 34.5 Sources: 2010 Census and 2010 Census Match Study Administrative Records Data. The federal coverage rate for males ranged from 0.5 percent to 89.1 percent, and the commercial coverage rate ranged from 0.2 percent to 51.4 percent. For females, the federal data covered 0.04 percent to 90.7 percent, and commercial data covered 0.3 percent to 55.6 percent. Numident had the highest coverage for both males (89.1 percent) and females (90.7 percent). Previous census records had the second highest coverage at 64.6 percent for males and 67.7 percent for females. Commercial file 6 had the lowest coverage rate for males and females, and commercial file 2 had the highest coverage. 66 000135 Overall, the Numident and previous census records had the highest coverage of demographic response data across all demographic groups. For many demographic groups such as age and sex, and for the White alone, Black alone, and Asian alone populations, these datasets also tended to have relatively high quality response data. 6. Related Census Program for Evaluations and Experiments Reports The following Census Program for Evaluations and Experiments reports are related to the Census Match Study. • • • 2010 Census Evaluation of Small Multi-Unit Structures Report 2010 Census Nonresponse Followup Operations Assessment 2010 Census Operational Assessment for Type of Enumeration Area Delineation 7. Lessons Learned, Conclusions, and Research Implications Administrative records data are available for use in census operations. Data with a reference date appropriate for Census Day can be identified. Once acquired, federal and commercial data can be processed, unduplicated, and ready to use for Census purposes within two to four weeks. The 2010 Census Match Study used twenty files from eight federal agencies and five commercial data vendors. Administrative records data are reliable for address and count confirmation for persons and addresses. Administrative records data confirmed person data in the 2010 Census for 273.6 million persons or 98.0 percent of census respondents with a PIK. Administrative records failed to match 2010 Census records lacking name data. 2010 Census address data were confirmed for 122.0 million addresses or 92.6 percent. Administrative records data can improve census data quality for respondent characteristics and treatments of missing data. Census data quality can be improved by integrating administrative records information into item imputation methods. For instance, administrative data, including the Numident and previous census records had high quality age and sex data. They also contain age and sex response data for about 278 million persons in the 2010 Census. Administrative data use can reduce the cost of future data collections by enhancing the MAF and through strategies addressing non-response. Administrative records can help direct field operations to areas with low person and address confirmation and areas of new construction with an operation such as targeted address canvassing. Administrative records data can be used to confirm housing unit status and to identify or confirm occupied status. Of the 116.7 million occupied housing units in the 2010 Census, administrative records showed agreement for 96.1 million. Administrative records show potential for use in household size imputations. About 55.5 million housing units in the 2010 Census had the same population count in administrative 67 000136 records. When administrative records and the 2010 Census differed in population count for housing units, the population count differed by one person for 63.7 percent of those housing units. The 2010 Census Match Study was designed to compile an unduplicated list of administrative records addresses and persons. The lists were counted and compared to 2010 Census results. Validated records in the lists were matched by unique housing unit and person identifiers. This matching was done to assess the quality and coverage of information in the administrative records files, but in essence simulated an administrative records census. The results indicate that the United States does not have an administrative records infrastructure suitable for an administrative records census. The 2010 Census Match Study sought to find the same person in the same housing unit, but the complexities of the administrative records data made the comparisons difficult and at times suspect. The complexities ranged from missing and false name, address, and date of birth information to data universe and timing discrepancies. Efforts to mitigate these challenges, such as only including validated (PIKed) persons in the comparisons introduced new problems, since the PIKed persons are likely different from the unPIKed persons in terms of characteristics and response propensities. Yet overall, the results indicate sufficient promise in administrative records to pursue operational designs for future frames and censuses. The 2010 Census Match Study should be viewed as a national-level proof of concept for household administrative records, demonstrating the Census Bureau’s ability to acquire and process public and private administrative records. The results indicate that the additions to the federal files used in StARS were worthwhile. Commercial data were a useful addition for address coverage, but more work is needed to understand how the data can enhance person coverage or person follow up operations. The unduplicated administrative records files provide high coverage, high quality information to inform occupied status imputations, and more work is needed to explore how administrative records data can be used in household size imputations without creating overcounts and undercounts of key populations. The demographic data quality analyses revealed that administrative records files contain high coverage, high quality information on age and sex, and that federal files can enhance previously collected census data for race and Hispanic origin information. Future operational uses of administrative data need to focus on which files are fit for their particular needs; this study’s results indicate that neither one file nor one composite will be adequate for both item and count imputations. Research Implications 1. Administrative records can enhance, but not replace the decennial census. While the quality and coverage of administrative records relative to the 2010 Census suggests that 68 000137 administrative records can be utilized in decennial census operations, the quality is not high enough and the coverage is not expansive enough to replace a traditional census. 2. Use of administrative records in Nonresponse Followup can reduce costs. Administrative records cover a substantial number of Nonresponse Followup addresses and persons, and nearly half of person-address pairs. Of the 23.6 million addresses that responded in Nonresponse Followup in the 2010 Census, administrative records matched to 21.0 million or 89.2 percent. Administrative records also matched to a substantial number of persons that were in Nonresponse Followup in the 2010 Census. Of the 60.4 million persons in Nonresponse Followup in the 2010 Census, 48.0 million or 79.5 percent were in administrative records. Administrative records matched to a lower number and proportion of person-address pairs in Nonresponse Followup compared to addresses and persons. Of the 60.4 million 2010 person-address pairs in Nonresponse Followup, there were 28.7 million or 47.5 percent that matched to administrative records. Research and improvements in record linkage, refinements of the best address model, and acquiring data that cover those most likely to be in Nonresponse Followup may enhance the person-address match between the 2010 Census and administrative records. 3. Administrative records can assist in determining housing unit and occupancy status. Administrative records can assist to verify whether a housing unit is a valid livable housing unit and whether it is occupied. Occupancy status results demonstrate the value of administrative records for these purposes. Of the 116.7 million occupied housing units in the 2010 Census, administrative records indicated that 96.1 million or 82.3 percent were occupied. The 2010 Census designated 15.0 million housing units as vacant, of which administrative records found that 11.4 million or 76.1 percent were not occupied. Of the 4.9 million housing units designated as deletes in the 2010 Census, administrative records indicated that 4.2 million or 85.4 percent were not occupied. 4. Administrative records can inform household population count assignment. Administrative records had the same population count for the majority of 2010 Census housing units that matched to administrative records. Of the 116.7 million 2010 Census occupied housing units, 96.1 million matched to administrative records. Of these, 55.5 million or 57.7 percent of housing units had the same population count. When administrative records and the 2010 Census did not have the same population count, the count differed by one person for 63.7 percent of the housing units. Further research should be conducted on this universe. 5. Acquiring additional federal, state, and commercial data can improve address, person, and demographic characteristic coverage. Administrative data do not cover children as well as they cover adults. Also, the quality of race and Hispanic origin response data from federal and commercial sources varies considerably by race and Hispanic origin group. The Census Bureau should partner with federal agencies, state 69 000138 agencies, community groups, and other organizations to obtain data that contain information on children living in households, and additional race and Hispanic origin response data should be acquired, particularly for groups where the quality of race or Hispanic origin response data is low in administrative records. Obtaining data for the following groups should be a priority: Two or More Races, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and American Indian or Alaska Native. 6. Administrative records can inform race and Hispanic origin determination. For some race and Hispanic origin groups, the quality of administrative records response data was high. For instance, the White alone, Black alone, and Asian alone populations had relatively high quality race response data in administrative records compared to other race groups. The quality of administrative records files ranged from 94.7 percent to 99.1 percent for the White alone population. The quality of federal data for the Black alone population ranged from 87.4 percent to 98.3 percent. The range was considerably lower for commercial data. For the Asian alone population, the quality of both federal and commercial data ranged from 58.0 percent to 94.1 percent. Data could also be used for other race groups from administrative records, but the quality was generally lower. Research should be conducted on how administrative records can assist with race and Hispanic origin determination for censuses and surveys. 7. Administrative records can assist age and sex determination. The quality of age and sex response data in administrative records is high. For sex, the quality of administrative data ranged from 94.7 percent to 100.0 percent across administrative records files. For age, in data sources that contained date of birth, the quality of administrative records ranged from 79.0 percent to 98.5 percent. Research should be conducted on how administrative data can assist with age and sex determination for censuses and surveys. 8. Conduct additional record linkage research with the aim of improving match results for unvalidated person records. Many improvements were made to the Person Identification Validation System to enhance the assignment of protected identification keys and master address file identification numbers to administrative records data. Continued record linkage research on the Person Identification Validation System should be conducted to further enhance the assignment of protected identification keys and master address file identification numbers to persons and addresses, potentially increasing the universe of persons and addresses that can be matched and unduplicated between censuses and surveys and administrative records. For instance, of the 308.7 million persons in the 2010 Census, 29.6 million did not receive a protected identification key. Of these, 10.3 million could not be sent through Person Identification Validation System processing because they lacked name and date of birth, and 19.3 million went through Person Identification Validation System processing but failed to receive a protected identification key. Additional research should be conducted on how to minimize this latter universe. 70 000139 9. Conduct record linkage research to improve match results for records with incomplete name and date of birth data. Commercial data sources often lack complete name and date of birth information. Research to unduplicate these records that failed the Person Identification Validation System, and assess the quality of the data is needed. Research on how to use records that lack personally identifiable information is needed, moving the matching approach beyond validation using the Social Security Administration Numerical Identification File. 10. Conduct record linkage research that improves person record unduplication. Current record linkage techniques must determine whether two people that look similar are indeed the same person or if they are two different people. Refinements on record linkage techniques will help to more accurately unduplicate person records. 11. Develop partnerships with federal and state agencies to better understand administrative records and enhance record linkage research. Partnering with federal and state agencies will facilitate knowledge sharing on the availability of data that could enhance record linkage processes. This knowledge sharing will also benefit administrative records research. For instance, a better understanding of how data were collected could assist in the validation and unduplication process and improve understanding of resulting linkages. 12. Assess whether an administrative records composite improves missing data assignment. Building an administrative records composite involves unduplicating records, assigning persons at multiple addresses to one address, and assigning one characteristic to people that have different characteristics across source files. Research should assess the quality of missing data assignment using a composite compared to using all available administrative data. 13. Analyze linked survey data, especially the American Community Survey, to explore characteristics associated with data coverage and consistency. Evaluating administrative records relative to the 2010 Census provided important information, at different levels of geography and by certain characteristics, about the quality and coverage of administrative data. Other evaluations using survey data such as the American Community Survey can provide additional insights because the American Community Survey has many additional characteristics that can be analyzed. 71 000140 8. Acknowledgements The authors of this report would like to thank Deborah Wagner, Damon Smith, Matthew Bouch, Mary Layne, Juan Carlos Humud, and Michael Moldoff for PVSing the files used in the 2010 Census Match Study. We would also like to thank Brian Clark for assisting with quality controls for the report. 72 000141 9. References Alvey, Wendy and Fritz Scheuren. 1982. “Background for an Administrative Record Census,” Proceedings” Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section, American Statistical Association. Berning, Michael. 2003. “Administrative Records Experiment in 2000 (AREX 2000),” U.S. Census Bureau. Bye, Barry and Dean Judson. 2004. “Results From the Administrative Records Experiment in 2000,” Census 2000 Synthesis Report No. 16, U.S. Census Bureau. Edmonston, Barry and Charles Schultze, eds. 1995. Modernizing the U.S. Census, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. Farber, James and Charlene Leggieri. 2002. “Building and Validating a National Administrative Records Database for the United States,” New Zealand Conference on Database Integration. Humes, Karen, Nicholas Jones, and Roberto Ramirez. 2011. “Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin: 2010, U.S. Census Bureau,” 2010 Census Briefs, C2010BR-02. Downloaded from (www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs /c2010br-02.pdf). Johanson, Carrie, Mark Scheu, and Keith Wechter. 2011. “2010 Census Operational Assessment for Type of Enumeration Area Delineation,” 2010 Census Program for Evaluations and Experiments, 2010 Census Planning Memoranda Series No. 164, U.S. Census Bureau. Judson, Dean and Barry Bye. 2003. “Synthesis of Results from the Administrative Records Experiment in 2000 (AREX 2000),” U.S. Census Bureau. Mule, Thomas. 2012. “2010 Census Coverage Measurement Estimation Report: Summary of Estimates of Coverage for Persons in the United States,” DSSD 2010 Census Coverage Measurement Memorandum Series #2010-G-01, U.S. Census Bureau. Ralphs, Martin and Paul Tutton. 2011. “Beyond 2011: International Models for Census Taking: Current Processes and Future Developments,” Beyond 2011 Project, Office for National Statistics. Version 1.0. Reamer, Andrew. 2010. “Counting for Dollars: The Role of the Decennial Census in the Geographic Distribution of Federal Funds,” Brookings. Downloaded from (http://www.brookings.edu). Schellhamer, Teresa. 2012. “2010 Census Match Study: Commercial Data Analysis and Evaluation,” Center for Administrative Records Research and Applications Internal Memorandum, U.S. Census Bureau. Steffey, Duane L., and Norman M. Bradburn, eds. 1994. Counting People in the Information Age, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 73 000142 Virgile, Matthew. 2012. “2010 Census Evaluation of Small Multi-Unit Structures Report,” 2010 Census Program for Evaluations and Experiments, 2010 Census Planning Memoranda Series No. 175, U.S. Census Bureau. Wagner, Deborah and Mary Layne. 2012. “The Person Identification Validation System (PVS): Applying the Center for Administrative Records Research & Applications’ (CARRA) Record Linkage Software,” Center for Administrative Records Research and Applications Internal Paper, U.S. Census Bureau. Walker, Shelly, Susanna Winder, Geoff Jackson, and Sarah Heimel. 2012. “2010 Census Nonresponse Followup Operations Assessment,” 2010 Census Program for Evaluations and Experiments, 2010 Census Planning Memoranda Series No. 190, U.S. Census Bureau. 74 000143 Appendix 1. 2010 Census and Administrative Records Address Count and Match Numbers and Ratios by State 2010 Census Address Count 131,704,730 Administrative Records Address Count 151,277,043 2010 Census and Administrative Records Address Match 121,967,283 2010 Census and Administrative Records Address Count Ratio 114.9 2010 Census and Administrative Records Address Match Ratio 92.6 2,171,853 306,967 2,844,526 1,316,299 13,680,081 2,212,898 1,487,891 405,885 296,719 8,989,580 4,088,801 519,508 667,796 5,296,715 2,795,541 1,336,417 1,233,215 1,927,164 1,964,981 721,830 2,378,814 2,808,254 4,532,233 2,347,201 1,274,719 2,712,729 482,825 796,793 1,173,814 614,754 3,553,562 901,388 8,108,103 4,327,528 317,498 5,127,508 1,664,378 1,675,562 5,567,315 463,388 2,137,683 363,438 2,812,133 9,977,436 979,709 322,539 3,364,939 2,885,677 881,917 2,624,358 261,868 2,631,070 284,581 3,181,603 1,563,799 15,636,385 2,548,541 1,657,153 498,142 350,341 10,626,269 4,981,082 577,083 738,029 6,139,013 3,257,283 1,585,541 1,451,380 2,272,290 2,364,806 771,113 2,681,983 3,164,933 5,180,638 2,647,850 1,580,466 3,145,375 523,045 931,234 1,331,766 676,146 3,997,308 973,685 8,679,561 5,106,116 349,441 5,843,980 1,936,908 1,907,428 6,289,674 509,921 2,522,339 400,931 3,336,464 11,800,449 1,103,249 344,442 3,833,196 3,270,218 916,389 2,894,197 282,207 1,958,393 216,396 2,579,685 1,187,413 13,048,320 2,053,765 1,413,863 374,029 285,015 8,517,678 3,768,449 446,412 586,574 4,998,755 2,675,370 1,290,013 1,177,071 1,740,059 1,820,451 581,006 2,279,666 2,644,298 4,272,367 2,207,463 1,137,206 2,492,094 391,384 753,912 1,073,041 537,997 3,316,124 738,415 7,135,118 3,985,836 280,019 4,928,956 1,465,664 1,585,086 5,095,426 429,334 1,961,875 320,781 2,647,011 9,219,315 885,863 257,772 3,177,164 2,711,528 641,667 2,454,964 221,220 121.1 92.7 111.9 118.8 114.3 115.2 111.4 122.7 118.1 118.2 121.8 111.1 110.5 115.9 116.5 118.6 117.7 117.9 120.3 106.8 112.7 112.7 114.3 112.8 124.0 115.9 108.3 116.9 113.5 110.0 112.5 108.0 107.0 118.0 110.1 114.0 116.4 113.8 113.0 110.0 118.0 110.3 118.6 118.3 112.6 106.8 113.9 113.3 103.9 110.3 107.8 90.2 70.5 90.7 90.2 95.4 92.8 95.0 92.2 96.1 94.8 92.2 85.9 87.8 94.4 95.7 96.5 95.4 90.3 92.6 80.5 95.8 94.2 94.3 94.0 89.2 91.9 81.1 94.6 91.4 87.5 93.3 81.9 88.0 92.1 88.2 96.1 88.1 94.6 91.5 92.7 91.8 88.3 94.1 92.4 90.4 79.9 94.4 94.0 72.8 93.5 84.5 State Total Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Sources: 2010 Census and 2010 Census Match Study Administrative Records Data. 75 000144 Appendix 2. Number of Administrative Records Race Response Data that Matched to the 2010 Census 2010 Census and Administrative Records Race Response Match by Source File Federal Files Previous Census Records Numident IHS HUD CHUMS HUD PIC HUD TRACS TANF MEDB Commercial Files Commercial File 1 Commercial File 2 Commercial File 3 Commercial File 4 Asian Alone Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Alone Some Other Race Alone Two or More Races White Alone Black Alone American Indian or Alaska Native Alone 143,932,741 137,393,038 19,590,220 23,441,066 924,308 746,723 6,438,417 7,463,346 127,055 211,511 2,533,345 169,495 1,424,434 N/A N/A 3,453,455 1,992,676 826,971 879,503 35,061,707 N/A 456,376 2,768,089 659,247 662,025 4,084,997 1,118,731 6,375 30,164 8,872 43,363 119,988 N/A 86,759 140,313 68,696 22,129 680,144 N/A 2,747 10,985 789 11,578 N/A N/A N/A N/A 11,021 N/A 46,696 N/A 2,925 21,697 7,359 17,428 N/A 80,838,100 104,760,397 87,472,679 36,691,939 4,576,674 6,023,253 7,182,423 3,514,892 N/A 49,702 80,738 24,430 3,212,143 3,818,328 3,306,341 1,428,767 8,512 19,317 13,804 6,666 9,411 6,865 13,203 6,654 N/A N/A N/A N/A Note: N/A indicates that data were not available for a demographic group. Sources: 2010 Census and 2010 Census Match Study Administrative Records Data. 76 000145 Appendix 3. Number of Administrative Records Age Response Data that Matched to the 2010 Census Age 2010 Census and Administrative Records Age Response Match by Source File Total 0-2 3-17 18-24 25-44 45-64 65-74 75 and older Federal Files Previous Census Records 177,391,205 112,085 22,721,169 17,981,703 48,621,085 57,993,070 16,294,058 13,668,035 Numident 247,246,597 9,437,770 50,571,159 63,311,618 68,127,690 18,537,623 14,984,587 IHS 1,982,375 58,605 461,447 22,276,150 235,454v 594,965 471,707 103,237 56,960 HUD CHUMS 1,102,445 N/A N/A 45,498 662,649 318,821 51,624 23,853 HUD PIC 5,629,036 282,150 2,138,739 576,799 1,157,731 953,821 278,559 241,237 HUD TRACS 1,933,895 117,310 458,322 184,889 292,834 303,777 241,166 335,597 SSR 5,752,842 77,311 917,048 487,295 1,130,532 1,875,155 655,365 610,136 SSS 11,362,121 N/A N/A 9,925,993 1,436,128 N/A N/A N/A TANF 1,962,999 284,341 924,045 218,901 396,722 124,740 11,724 2,526 MEDB 40,976,596 154 3,050 109,286 1,482,235 6,285,208 18,055,914 15,040,749 Commercial File 1 67,267,479 2 464 2,026,853 19,023,391 30,180,482 8,947,185 7,089,102 Commercial File 2 99,550,908 2,869 264,000 5,815,815 25,918,317 44,461,470 12,992,241 10,096,196 Commercial File 3 99,034,982 N/A N/A 5,691,945 28,355,217 42,634,879 12,458,996 9,893,945 Commercial File 4 44,394,816 N/A N/A 2,913,010 15,573,662 17,211,069 4,832,777 3,864,298 105,057,114 N/A 45 306,784 31,025,912 49,538,772 13,600,440 10,585,161 Commercial Files Commercial File 5 Commercial File 6 672,329 5 10 47,364 367,703 231,700 22,390 3,157 Commercial File 7 69,141,668 N/A N/A 959,538 16,433,959 32,667,361 10,405,506 8,675,304 Commercial File 8 94,729,380 2 4,865 227,067 27,324,495 45,364,561 12,381,914 9,426,476 Note: N/A indicates that data were not available for a demographic group. Sources: 2010 Census and 2010 Census Match Study Administrative Records Data. 77 000146 Appendix 4. Number Coverage of 2010 Census Race Data by Administrative Records Source Files Coverage of 2010 Race Data by Administrative Records Race Response Data by Source File Asian Alone Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Alone Some Other Race Alone Two or More Races White Alone Black Alone American Indian or Alaska Native Alone Federal Files Previous Census Records Numident HUD CHUMS HUD PIC HUD TRACS IHS MEDB TANF 158,912,424 147,538,811 3,737,173 2,354,609 980,146 184,336 37,838,250 1,014,945 22,172,600 26,032,144 553,772 3,236,689 798,188 10,859 4,525,110 781,662 1,622,741 1,584,438 28,399 83,620 22,003 1,213,533 268,365 66,149 7,262,106 9,410,029 141,411 172,802 86,587 1,525 1,248,345 31,426 236,058 310,889 6,371 20,131 2,583 557 34,817 17,247 6,240,160 1,273,753 211,123 495,651 109,232 12,263 457,020 105,998 4,347,896 3,317,079 89,764 356,228 87,265 243,411 481,100 151,340 Commercial Files Commercial File 1 Commercial File 2 Commercial File 3 Commercial File 4 86,991,717 123,505,687 97,488,071 41,413,258 11,239,910 17,879,478 12,694,945 6,574,714 455,389 1,048,547 663,084 309,933 3,961,908 6,103,276 4,381,886 1,906,532 65,395 145,686 89,047 44,160 400,642 5,309,302 487,464 246,747 1,300,500 2,799,946 1,636,702 831,043 Sources: 2010 Census and 2010 Census Match Study Administrative Records Data. 78 000147 Appendix 5. Number Coverage of 2010 Census Age Data by Administrative Records Source Files Age Coverage of 2010 Age Data by Administrative Records Age Response Data by Source File Federal Files Previous Census Records Numident HUD CHUMS HUD PIC HUD TRACS IHS MEDB SSR SSS TANF Commercial Files Commercial File 1 Commercial File 2 Commercial File 3 Commercial File 4 Commercial File 5 Commercial File 6 Commercial File 7 Commercial File 8 0-2 3-17 18-24 25-44 45-64 65-74 75 and older 181,917 10,755,280 464 346,868 146,157 70,172 2,467 95,226 5,599 342,572 26,175,297 56,519,662 2,530 2,526,583 557,649 537,573 17,131 1,077,384 63,968 1,086,642 21,416,592 26,024,257 260,965 708,426 229,341 282,007 150,614 585,922 11,464,531 262,594 55,633,830 71,248,022 2,904,253 1,382,735 358,202 690,349 1,805,897 1,383,920 1,710,190 468,505 65,122,878 75,612,369 1,385,413 1,147,854 370,604 546,098 7,278,641 2,316,885 27,464 149,436 18,253,613 20,497,398 219,255 336,633 288,031 120,249 19,674,307 839,000 5,366 14,908 15,773,075 17,357,698 101,905 298,257 405,192 69,654 16,967,643 813,067 4,243 4,305 6,757 29,025 9,894 5,668 8,631 173 4,500 7,719 48,352 550,213 317,884 129,303 58,890 5,328 31,905 59,100 2,968,988 7,922,515 7,927,196 3,885,747 520,819 72,300 1,391,778 355,481 26,060,043 32,154,081 34,646,629 18,792,309 37,306,506 497,604 20,070,632 32,820,483 40,555,390 53,039,219 50,699,174 20,482,692 60,386,506 315,476 39,821,425 54,107,625 12,096,480 15,361,780 14,763,017 5,752,650 16,774,769 29,811 12,793,870 14,729,763 9,912,223 12,416,700 12,121,167 4,823,882 13,617,147 5,150 11,066,280 11,540,612 Sources: 2010 Census and 2010 Census Match Study Administrative Records Data. 79 000148 000149 11528023 o??uzoEun?iuaczcooinugcgo? 9.0.. .35.. :oqutaEOonEuE=? .m goo-18353503- avg-?28 .Ar .nln- .h a?mzo 3 232E .255. jib-?33521?! .3323; .m IE. nun.? .N ggiggigg?ug. ..?geauzse.cna Wr .qr;}nUnruzmmw .. .32 2.2.8 28 JV, 000150 1 3523049 in: 05 :0 58.5 955?58 .81 EB. 05 co cox-go 5 38:33 Eu! EOE ?ttings-9.3 29:8 28 Eta! 5.3% .o .955 .9 coal :5 .w .nuol?oc?noc?tn Eiuigng??g EU ?siui?au. .5949 =3 95:3 .2. a. .95 .q 2.9.3.2850 ?lth-Sun 3538558 58253.; 3 811.58.11.2de ail-8.3? slashing-.2; right aria-i; n. wings-sluEIEQ-Snagnwang .N ?59.3 2.5941 3.53 269.3 ecu E3.- ncito .3 .251. t. 5.3.5 .18 n. .0 ?nalist-059:0 ciao?3.3nc?s?uougsoiniu?ctto .- ED is: ?ghigsgo?-z?? glue its .EIE Big 1.55.983; Hanna. I . . gaging-3.8.45 .a gala: gags ins-Ea 538:8; italics; Egan-3535 Elisa?3.3188 n? ag; gist-3.3.3; Ella-135.3? Bias-8.3.3; 3318.3 Biu?s; n? 0 gain}! 0 gins?.3, 02D puso 2332.5. .5.- 8 cat!? 35 noon .N 7.5 slut HE 32.2.55; 31528031 000151 69.330: dung??no: a?couco?ongioacacnuiua?go? a?comzo?on?zsoazzcoo.?n??o? i all to is: 28.35} .3 x3 is: 2 alga?agrar? 58:38.1: .3.- niaaguatnaeiki 93.15.38 h?hl?iusl?i Elan it}! ?attain Eng gas?Ii n? b.3555. 1.3.5 gig Egg a Egg uiil? .inS Ian-liaise -5335 tiara??m SIB 51:53. BEES is.? Em BED in I gain-L . . I. .. . I.. Elia: . 0 . is Niagara-Lagging ??nishiigi is; liking-Bin gig; in; .a a . 8323353: 55.33.3199: Elk?.55; is; 383. Eng II- giants; Ii- elihiggxuguez ?In 8.5% 1111..? ?353.13 a W: 3333i n. .. . Basal Ham?25H; Sissies-Inga; .n coating-.8! Earl-E's; Eli. ?nial-sis casual-53.. Eli-n.3, alas-3.3.. n? Eili? 03388.; Hines-Id? 0 80.3.3! n? 8. glauggig a: n. ?Satin-IN; ?231., ?Sigitigiligd _u ?niag?gt?g gigg?eagmi :15! gigg?ag?i :33 Entozuzluussa??iiztcoe?isd ?lial-Bantu Ez?oc?ssag?eso?hinaito Eioigg??h?z? none-:2: .F veg-ELL; "528056 11528072 - Lanna-maul much-I annual-11 Inga. mum? I B.?Wsp?md?lmu?m.umlaho??n? ?w Plain-ma mum-ms31' Ouldalrlh mmumrm. Lam DY ?mm? Moorland 1.3015 lam Du Yuroihim mm ?In-Fm- l:lr- Mum human-Illa a 1? mm II mm Human. Last tsunam- manhunt?: [1 _l ?autumnal-M mummy! I 5" .zm .. Donut-Putnam El smum El mun-um ?Emwm::wa In E1 u? hruMill-m. Ll. am mm El mm 0mm ?Hm" DRUM El "wand" mm mum Huh-numb, I mam [Imam 5:11: El mm a mm a Thank you for completing the 2018 Census Test. a L: :1 4.Wls?lhmm?su?m?mm - - mw?u?mw ?mum": 1mm1mm 5. muons s'spm mu mm. 'adauo?l W293..- .- mam-i 118.20 ?mm mun-mama? 7Mmbm nmET mugnwl pl?! MUWMWI Ml 1'1"me ma ?mm? In 7 5 000152 11528080 2020 Census Life-cycle Cost Estimate Executive Summary Version 1.0 For Official Use Only This estimate has been prepared in support of the Version 3.0 release of the 2020 Operational Plan. Estimates contained herein are as of October 10, 2017 December 21, 2017 000153 Approval of Estimate Approved and Submitted by: ___________________________________________ Associate Director for Decennial Programs ______________________ Date Endorsed by: ___________________________________________ Chief Financial Officer ______________________ Date 000154 2020 Census Life-cycle Cost Estimate Page i Table of Contents 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Executive Summary Purpose ............................................................................................ 1 2. Background ............................................................................................................................ 2 2.1 The 2020 Census .............................................................................................................. 2 2.2 Uses of Decennial Census Data ....................................................................................... 2 2.3 Challenging Environmental Factors ................................................................................ 3 2.4 A New Design for the 21st Century .................................................................................. 6 2.5 The Role of the LCCE....................................................................................................... 8 2.6 Improving the LCCE ........................................................................................................ 9 3. Overview of the 2020 Census LCCE .................................................................................. 10 3.1 Scope of the Estimate ..................................................................................................... 12 3.2 Cost Estimation Approach ............................................................................................. 13 3.3 Cost Estimation Methodology ........................................................................................ 14 Major Assumptions................................................................................................................ 15 3.4 Independent Cost Reviews .............................................................................................. 16 3.5 Cost Sensitivity Analysis................................................................................................. 18 Monte Carlo Uncertainty ....................................................................................................... 18 Discrete Risks ........................................................................................................................ 19 Unknown-unknown Risk ....................................................................................................... 20 4. LCCE Summary .................................................................................................................. 20 4.1 The Cost Estimation Results........................................................................................... 20 4.2 Detailed Costs by WBS Category ................................................................................... 21 Program Management Costs .................................................................................................. 22 Census / Survey Engineering Costs ....................................................................................... 23 Frame Costs ........................................................................................................................... 24 Response Data Costs ............................................................................................................. 25 Published Data Costs ............................................................................................................. 26 Test, Evaluation and Special Census Costs ........................................................................... 27 Infrastructure Costs................................................................................................................ 28 Secretarial Controlled Contingency Costs ............................................................................. 29 4.3 IT Costs .......................................................................................................................... 30 000155 2020 Census Life-cycle Cost Estimate Page ii 2020 IT Systems and Services Cost Details .......................................................................... 32 CEDCaP Cost Details ............................................................................................................ 33 4.4 LCCE Major Cost Drivers ............................................................................................. 33 Costs Drivers by Budget Object Class .................................................................................. 34 5. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 36 000156 [This page intentionally left blank] 000157 2020 Census Life-cycle Cost Estimate Page 1 1. Introduction The goal of the 2020 Census is to count everyone once, only once, and in the right place. As the cost of completing this goal has significantly increased each decade since 1970 as the population becomes more challenging to count, the Census Bureau undertook a challenge this decade to design the 2020 Census to cost less per housing unit than the 2010 Census (when adjusted for inflation), while continuing to maintain high quality results. The cost of repeating the 2010 Census methodology in 2020 is $120 per housing unit and the 2020 Census, as currently designed, is expected to cost $107 per housing unit (including contingency) 1. The Census Bureau plans to achieve this through the most automated, modern, and dynamic decennial census in history. The 2020 Census embraces technology to ensure a fair and accurate count that will lay the framework for censuses for decades to come. The 2020 Census Operational Plan Version 3.0 released in October 2017 details plans for the first decennial census to update the Census Bureau’s address frame using geographic information systems and aerial imagery instead of sending census employees to walk and physically check all 11 million census blocks; the first to encourage the population to respond to the 2020 Census using the Internet and over the telephone, reducing the need for expensive paper data capture; the first to use data the public has already provided to the government and data available from commercial sources to enable focusing of additional visits in areas that have traditionally been hard to enumerate; and the first to use sophisticated operational control systems to send Census Bureau employees to follow up with nonresponding housing units and to track daily progress. 1.1 Executive Summary Purpose This executive summary of the 2020 Census Lifecycle Cost Estimate (LCCE) is intended to provide the public with a high-level overview of the November 2017 version of 2020 Census LCCE and the supporting 2020 Census LCCE Basis of Estimate (BoE) and related documentation artifacts. The executive summary does not contain a detailed breakout of the costs, assumptions, etc. Detailed documentation of the 2020 Census LCCE is contained in the BoE and its accompanying suite of artifacts. This suite is the detailed formal documentation of the cost estimate that is not published for the general public but rather is intended for official government use including for auditors and oversight bodies. 1 Note that all costs are presented in then-year (also called current-year) dollars. Then-year dollars are those that have been inflated using an established inflation rate that are expressed in the year when the disbursements or expenditures are expected to occur. The 2020 Census uses the Chained Price Index (CPI) from the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB’s) Table 10.1 entitled Gross Domestic Product and Deflators Used in the Historic Tables: 1940-2022. 000158 2020 Census Life-cycle Cost Estimate Page 2 2. Background 2.1 The 2020 Census The purpose of the 2020 Census is to conduct a census of population and housing and disseminate the results to the President, the States, and the American people in keeping with Article I and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. To accomplish this, the Census Bureau must count everyone once, only once, and in the right place. As the 2020 Census draws near, the Census Bureau has designed a 2020 Census that ensures the coverage of the population and housing is as complete as possible. The design will serve to minimize the undercounting or overcounting the population, particularly as related to the differential impact on subgroups of the population. 2 The Census Bureau is fully committed to designing and conducting a 2020 Census that accurately counts every person residing in America. The primary requirement served by the decennial census is the apportionment of seats allocated to the states for the House of Representatives. This requirement is mandated in the U.S. Constitution: Article I, Section 2, “The actual enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years” Fourteenth Amendment, Section 2, “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State” 2.2 Uses of Decennial Census Data As discussed above, decennial data are used to apportion the number of seats in Congress among the states. Decennial data at the census block level are also used by governmental entities for redistricting, i.e., defining the representative boundaries for congressional districts, state legislative districts, school districts, and voting precincts. Additionally, decennial data are used to enforce voting rights and civil rights legislation. The Census Bureau also uses the decennial census results to determine the statistical sampling frames for the American Community Survey (ACS), which replaced the long form in the decennial census, and the dozens of current household surveys conducted by the Census Bureau. The results of these surveys are used to support important functions, such as appropriating 2 A detailed discussion of the quality implications of the 2020 Census design can be found in Chapter 7 of the 2020 Census Operational Plan Version 3.0. 000159 2020 Census Life-cycle Cost Estimate Page 3 federal funds to local communities (an estimated $675 billion annually3); calculating monthly unemployment, crime, and poverty rates; and publishing health and education data. Finally, Census Bureau data, including decennial data, play an increasingly important role in the United States economy. As people expand their use of data to make decisions at the local and national levels, they increasingly depend on data from the Census Bureau. Today, local businesses look at data provided by the Census Bureau on topics like population growth and income levels to make decisions about whether or where to locate their restaurants or stores. Similarly, a real estate investor, who is considering investing significant funds to develop a piece of land in the community relies on Census Bureau data to measure the demand for housing, predict future need, and review aggregate trends. Big businesses also rely heavily on Census Bureau data to make critical decisions that impact their success and shape the economy at the national level. As noted above, the decennial census is the foundation for the Census Bureau’s demographic survey data. 2.3 Challenging Environmental Factors Multiple environmental factors have the potential to impact the Census Bureau’s ability to conduct a fair and accurate count. The Census Bureau is committed to proactively addressing the challenges outlined below in Figure 1 and further elucidated in greater detail in the section below. 3 Marisa Hotchkiss and Jessica Phelan, Uses of Census Bureau Data in Federal Funds Distribution: A New Design for the 21st Century, Census Working Papers, 2017 (Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau, September 2017), p. 3. 000160 2020 Census Life-cycle Cost Estimate Page 4 Figure 1: 2020 Census Environment 4 • Constrained fiscal environment: Discretionary caps and sequestration through 2021 have placed pressure on funding available for the research, testing, design and implementation work for the 2020 Census that is especially important during 2016 through 2018 to ensure successful innovation in the 2020 Census. Each fiscal year during the 2020 Census lifecycle, appropriated funding has been less than requested or not provided at the start of each fiscal year. The Census Bureau has had to reprioritize its projects, either by cancelling certain activities like field testing or postponing activities to later in the decade, increasing operational risk to the program. 4 • Rapidly changing use of technology: Stakeholders expect the decennial census to leverage technological innovation, yet the rapid pace of change makes it challenging to plan for and adequately test the use of these technologies before they become obsolete. • Information explosion: Rapid changes in information technology create stakeholder expectations for how the Census Bureau interacts with the public to obtain and disseminate data products. This creates the possibility of gaps between stakeholder A detailed discussion of the major program risks can be found in Chapter 6 of the 2020 Census Operational Plan. 000161 2020 Census Life-cycle Cost Estimate Page 5 desires that the Census Bureau uses the latest technology and the program’s ability to meet those expectations. • Declining response rates: Response rates for Census Bureau surveys and for outside surveys have declined over the past few decades as people are overloaded with requests for information and become increasingly concerned about sharing information. The 2020 Census has a direct impact on cost because lower selfresponse rates require greater uses of expensive field operations to contact nonresponding households. • Distrust in government: Concerns continue to grow about information security and privacy, the confidentiality of information given to the government, and how government programs will use the information collected. This makes it more difficult to collect important demographic survey information. This problem is magnified by the general concern around data security that is intensified whenever a high-profile data breach occurs. If a substantial segment of the public is not convinced that the Census Bureau can safeguard their response data against data breaches and unauthorized use, then response rates may be lower than projected, leading to an increase in cases for follow-up and costs. • Increasingly diverse population: The demographic and cultural make-up of the United States continues to increase in complexity, including a growing number of households and individuals of limited English proficiency, who may experience language barriers to enumeration and varying levels of comfort with government involvement. The program is working to form partnerships with these communities to communicate the benefits of responding and engender their trust. In the absence of such partnerships, the program risks that these communities will not be fully covered by the 2020 Census. • Informal, complex living arrangements: Households are becoming more diverse and dynamic, making it a challenge to associate an identified person with a single location. For example, blended families may include children who have two primary residences. Additionally, some households include multiple relationships and generations. This makes it more difficult for the Census Bureau to reach respondents, as well as creates a risk that people will either be missed by the census, or counted twice. • A mobile population: The United States continues to be a highly mobile nation. Based on results from the 2015 American Community Survey, approximately 15 percent of the population moves in a given year. The continued growth in cellular telephone technology and the reduction in landline telephones tied to physical locations also make it more difficult for the Census Bureau to reach respondents, as 000162 2020 Census Life-cycle Cost Estimate Page 6 well as creates a risk that individuals will either be missed by the census, or counted twice. 2.4 A New Design for the 21st Century The societal, demographic, and technological trends listed above can result in a population that is harder and more expensive to enumerate. The Census Bureau has, decade after decade, spent more money to maintain the same level of accuracy as previous censuses, as it has become more challenging to locate individuals and solicit their participation through traditional methods. The innovations described in the 2020 Census Operational Plan Version 3.0, estimates that cost avoidance can be realized relative to replicating a design similar to that of the 2010 Census. Estimates for expected total costs for the 2020 Census are approximately $17.5B in 2020 if the Census Bureau repeats the 2010 Census design and methods. With the innovations described below, as of October 2017 the Census Bureau estimates that it can conduct the 2020 Census for approximately $15.6B 5. Field costs associated with Address Canvassing and Nonresponse Followup operations comprise the most expensive aspects of the 2020 Census. Four innovation areas are aimed at reducing the costs of fieldwork to support a complete and accurate count. A reengineered Address Canvassing operation is expected to reduce the field workload for address updating by 70 percent. Selfresponse innovations, which are aimed at generating the largest possible self-response rate, coupled with the use of administrative records and third-party data, are intended to reduce the field workload associated with Nonresponse Followup. Finally, the reengineered field operations are intended to increase the efficiency of those operations, allowing managers and fieldworkers to be more productive and effective. Figure 2 describes at a high-level how the 2020 Census will be conducted. This design reflects a flexible approach that takes advantage of new technologies and data sources while minimizing risk. 5 Note that all costs are presented in then-year (also called current-year) dollars. Then-year dollars are those that have been inflated using an established inflation rate that are expressed in the year when the disbursements or expenditures are expected to occur. The 2020 Census uses the Chained Price Index (CPI) from the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB’s) Table 10.1 entitled Gross Domestic Product and Deflators Used in the Historic Tables: 1940-2022. 000163 2020 Census Life-cycle Cost Estimate Page 7 Figure 2: The 2020 Census - A New Design for the 21st Century The first step in conducting the 2020 Census is to identify all of the addresses where people could live, or Establish Where to Count. An accurate address list helps ensure that everyone is counted. For the 2020 Census, the Census Bureau began an in-office review of 100 percent of the nation’s addresses in September 2015 and is continually updating the address list based on data from multiple sources, including the U.S. Postal Service, tribal, state, and local governments, satellite imagery, and third-party data providers. The Census Bureau has already completed the first pass of the entire nation with this in-office Address Canvassing operation. This office work will also determine which parts of the country require fieldwork to verify address information. In-Field Address Canvassing will begin in 2019 and is anticipated to cover approximately 30 percent of all addresses where in-office address canvassing methods do not work well like where tree cover interferes with the use of imagery or in cities where high-rise construction makes address change difficult to detect using aerial imagery. As discussed earlier, response rates to surveys and censuses have been declining. To Motivate People to Respond, the 2020 Census will include a nation-wide communications and partnership campaign. This campaign is focused on getting people to respond on their own (selfrespond). It costs significantly less to process a response provided via the Internet or through a paper form than it does to send a fieldworker to someone’s home to collect their response. Advertising will make heavy use of digital media, tailoring the message to the audience. The partnership program will use trusted voices in the community to explain the importance of the 2020 Census and encourage wide participation. 000164 2020 Census Life-cycle Cost Estimate Page 8 The Census Bureau Counts the Population by collecting information from all households, including those residing in group or unique living arrangements. The Census Bureau wants to make it easy for people to respond anytime and anywhere. To this end, the 2020 Census will offer the opportunity and encourage people to respond via the Internet and will encourage, but not require, people to enter a unique Census Identification with their response. Online responses will be accurate, secure, and convenient. The goal for the 2020 Census is to reduce the average number of visits to nonresponding households relative to prior decennial censuses by using available data from government administrative records and third-party sources. The Census Bureau plans to use these data to identify vacant households, to determine the best time of day to visit a particular household, and to count the people and fill in the responses with existing high-quality data from trusted sources. These uses of government administrative records and third-party sources have shown promise during our testing throughout the decade and will be tested again in the 2018 End to End Census Test. Deploying our resources in the field in the most cost-effective ways allows the Census Bureau to focus time and manpower to maximize response rates across geographic areas and demographic groups. In addition, the majority of fieldworkers will use mobile devices for collecting the data. Operations such as recruiting, training, and payroll will be automated, reducing the time required for these activities. New operational control centers will rely on automation to manage most of the fieldwork, enabling more efficient case assignment, automatic determination of optimal travel routes, and reduction of the number of physical offices. In general, a streamlined operation and management structure is expected to increase productivity and save costs, such that Census Bureau staff may focus on their core mission of conducting a complete and accurate count. The last step in the 2020 Census is to Release the 2020 Census Results. The 2020 Census data will be processed and sent to the President for apportionment by December 31, 2020, to the states for redistricting by April 1, 2021, and to the public beginning in December 2021. 2.5 The Role of the LCCE The LCCE is the estimated cost of developing, producing, deploying, maintaining, operating and disposing of a system or program over its entire lifespan. The LCCE is prepared to support and inform budget requirements, source selections, resource allocation trade-off analyses, program change decisions, and major program reviews. The LCCE provides the basis for the official projected cost for a system or program that is communicated to the Department of Commerce (DOC), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Congress, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the public. As the basis for the official projected cost of the program, the LCCE provides Census Bureau and Department of Commerce leadership with critical information for making program decisions, establishing executable budgets, and proactively addressing financial issues. 000165 2020 Census Life-cycle Cost Estimate Page 9 Section 3 of this document provides an overview of the approach, methodology, major assumptions, cost drivers and cost profile of the 2020 Census LCCE. 2.6 Improving the LCCE As discussed in Chapter 2 of the GAO Cost Estimation and Assessment Guide, entitled Why Government Programs Need Cost Estimates and the Challenges in Developing Them 6, developing a quality cost estimate is a significant challenge. Developing a good cost estimate requires stable program requirements, access to detailed documentation and historical data, well-trained and experienced cost analysts, a risk and uncertainty analysis, the identification of a range of confidence levels, and adequate contingency and management reserves. Even with the best of these circumstances, cost estimating is difficult. It requires both science and judgment. And, since answers are seldom if ever precise, the goal is to find a ‘reasonable’ answer. In June 2016, the GAO released a report 7 on its May 2016 assessment of the 2020 Census LCCE and judged the estimate as “not reliable.” GAO provided a set of recommendations for the Census Bureau to implement that would facilitate the improvement of the 2020 Census LCCE. Specifically, the GAO recommended that the 2020 Census LCCE ensure that: 1. The estimate includes all life-cycle costs and documents all cost-influencing assumptions. 2. The planned documentation plan captures the source data used; contains the calculations performed and the estimating methodologies used for each element; and describes step by step how the estimate was developed. 3. The estimating technique for each cost element is used appropriately and that variances between planned and actual cost are documented, explained, and reviewed. 4. The estimate includes a sensitivity analysis, major cost elements are cross-checked to see whether results are similar, and an independent cost estimate is conducted to determine whether other estimating methods produce similar results. As a result, the Census Bureau developed a Cost Estimation Enhancement Plan to mature the 2020 Census LCCE and its associated processes via a series of three-month sprints. The action plan covers four enhancement areas. These areas are: 1) Documentation Enhancement, 2) Process Enhancement, 3) Cost Estimate Enhancement, and 4) Cost Integration Enhancement. The specific artifacts associated with the enhancement efforts are shown below. • 2020 Census LCCE BoE – a document that describes, step by step, the scope of the estimate, the cost estimating process, and the data sources, assumptions, and methods used so that a cost analyst unfamiliar with the program could understand what was done 6 GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide, March 2009, GAO-09-SP, page 15. 2020 Census: Census Bureau Needs to Improve Its Life-Cycle Cost Estimating Process, June 30, 2016, GAO-16628 7 000166 2020 Census Life-cycle Cost Estimate • • • • • Page 10 and replicate it. This artifact directly addresses most of the GAO recommendations on the need for improved documentation. 2020 Decennial Census Program Cost Estimation and Assessment Process (CEAP) – a document that establishes a cost estimation and analysis process that will provide a common framework for planning, developing, and managing cost estimates in alignment with GAO and other best practices. This process directly addresses the GAO recommendations for improved cost estimation practices. Cost Center of Excellence (CCOE) Charter – charter that lays out roles and responsibilities for a body of 2020 Census Programs cost estimation subject matter experts and stakeholders. This body will support the improvement of cost estimation practices and usage across the program. This charter directly addresses the GAO recommendations for improved internal practices and internal controls. Decennial Directorate Cost Guidance – guidance document to support the implementation and governance associated with the CEAP and the CCOE. This guidance directly addresses the GAO recommendations for improved internal practices and internal controls. 2020 Census Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) Dictionary – document that defines the WBS elements and a platform to guide more effective understanding of how to categorize costs in a consistent manner. This artifact directly addresses the GAO recommendations for improved documentation and the need to ensure that the estimate covers the entire scope of the program. 2020 LCCE Version Control Plan – document that establishes a disciplined approach to cost estimate updates, changes and releases. This artifact directly addresses the GAO recommendation to improve documentation and internal controls. In addition to reflecting GAO best practices, the revised 2020 Census Life Cycle Cost Estimate provided in this document reflects an extensive 2020 Census program management and cost assessment review conducted by Secretary Wilbur L. Ross and Under Secretary for Economic Affairs Karen Dunn Kelley during 2017. Additional details concerning this assessment can be found in the October 31, 2017 Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee testimony of Secretary Ross. 8 3. Overview of the 2020 Census LCCE The 2020 Census LCCE has been developed by a team within the Decennial Budget Office (DBO). This small team is comprised of certified cost estimators and experienced subject matter experts from the Census Bureau and supporting contractor resources. The team has consulted with independent cost estimators from the Department of Commerce in detail in developing the estimate. Note that all costs are presented in then-year (also called current-year) dollars. Then-year dollars are those that have been inflated using an established inflation rate that are expressed in the year when the disbursements or expenditures are expected to occur. The 2020 Census uses the 8 This testimony can be reviewed at the following URL: http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/download/testimony-ross2017-10-31 000167 2020 Census Life-cycle Cost Estimate Page 11 Chained Price Index (CPI) from the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB’s) Table 10.1 entitled Gross Domestic Product and Deflators Used in the Historic Tables: 1940-2022. The 2020 Census is a large and complex operation, and therefore the cost estimate that supports it is also large and complex. To accommodate the operation, the 2020 Census LCCE is built using a multi-dimensional database and data manipulation and reporting tools. The tool the 2020 Census LCCE is built upon is called the Decennial Budget Integration Tool (DBiT). DBiT is used by the Decennial Programs to develop cost estimates and to perform budgeting, planning, and execution management functions for the 2020 Census using the IBM Cognos TM1 platform. IBM Cognos TM1 is an enterprise planning software platform that can accommodate the entire planning cycle by taking advantage of advanced OLAP and reporting capabilities.9 The current DBiT platform provides two major capabilities: i) Enterprise Planning, which is used by the DBO for cost modeling and estimation, budget planning, formulation and execution; and ii) Business Intelligence, which enables highly-capable analysis and interactive reporting. Within the 2020 Census LCCE there are 1,151 data cubes and over 1,859 inputs and assumptions. There are over 77,000 summary cost records. The use of the IBM TM1 Cognos platform’s data warehousing capabilities provides the 2020 Census LCCE with the ability to use multi-dimensional cubes to bring data sets to bear for calculations, analyses and reference. This has allowed for the Census Bureau to develop a cost estimate with a high degree of rigor and complexity while maintaining the ability to fully document and analyze the data and results. In the example cube shown in Figure 3 below, the dimensions of Time, Product and Measures are drawn into a cube that can then be used for variety of analyses. 9 TM1 is an IBM tool that enables the generation of cost estimates with higher levels of dimensionality, precision, accountability, and reporting. The enterprise planning capabilities of TM1 are well-suited for detailed modeling of the cost of complex programs comprised of multiple products and operations, which require hundreds or thousands of variables. TM1 Performance Modeler can produce estimates under multiple model scenarios using groups of inputs that conform an internally-consistent regarding the estimate. TM1 Performance Modeler also supports cost model sensitivity and uncertainty analysis around key input variables by enabling the ingestion of parameters that define simple statistical distributions around a central estimate for each variable (i.e., minimum, median, and maximum), as well as an interface to support quick model re-estimation and Monte Carlo simulations. 000168 2020 Census Life-cycle Cost Estimate Page 12 Figure 3 Example Data Cube and Associated Concepts 3.1 Scope of the Estimate The time frame covered by the 2020 Census LCCE is a 12-year period from fiscal years 2012 to 2023. The scope of the 2020 Census includes 35 operations. 10 The 2020 Census operations are organized into eight major areas that correspond with the Census Bureau standard WBS as shown in Figure 4 below. Figure 4: 2020 Census LCCE WBS Top-level WBS Elements The 35 operations needed to conduct the 2020 Census are shown in Figure 5 later in this section. The graphic is organized into the major areas that correspond with the 2020 Census Program WBS shown above. Program Management, Census/Survey Engineering, and Infrastructure are combined into one general group called Support, which is shown at the top of the diagram. In addition, a separate area, Other Censuses, accounts for the Island Areas Censuses operation, which is unique to the Decennial Census programs. 10 The term operation refers to both support and business functions. For example, Program Management is considered a support function, and Address Canvassing is considered a business function. 000169 2020 Census Life-cycle Cost Estimate Page 13 Figure 5: 2020 Census Operations 3.2 Cost Estimation Approach The 2020 Census LCCE’s methodology is primarily based on a bottoms-up cost estimation approach. Other methodologies (such as historical data, subject matter expertise, and analogous systems) are used when appropriate. The 2020 Census Program cost estimation team followed the guidance contained in the GAO’s, GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Developing and Managing Capital Program Costs (GAO-09-3SP) 11. Specifically, the 2020 Census LCCE’s methodology aligns to GAO’s 12-step Cost Estimating Process as shown in Figure 6 below (with the steps enumerated to better demonstrate the process flow). 11 GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide, March 2009, GAO-09-SP, page 8. 000170 2020 Census Life-cycle Cost Estimate Page 14 Figure 6: GAO 12-step Cost Estimation Process The 2020 Census LCCE utilizes an approach designed to produce a quality cost estimate in line with best practices and GAO guidelines. This calculation flow enables a clear understanding to facilitate a line-of-sight of how the assumptions, the inputs, and the processes/calculations to the outputs/results. By following the cost estimate, the process can be effectively replicated and understood. An illustration of this approach along with a brief description of each of the four primary process areas is shown in Figure 7 below. Figure 7: 2020 Census LCCE Documentation Approach 3.3 Cost Estimation Methodology The 2020 Census Program cost estimators worked with subject matter experts to obtain data and document the variables that influence the cost of the 2020 Census. Subject matter experts aided the identification of parameters associated with each variable, including historical data collected from the 2010 Census, the American Community Survey, and the 2020 Census Research and Testing Program. The 2020 Census LCCE team used the inputs after reviewing them for relevancy and credibility in consultation with Decennial Programs leadership. 000171 2020 Census Life-cycle Cost Estimate Page 15 The parameters for the variables were entered into the Decennial Budget Integration Tool (DBiT). 12 The DBiT Enterprise Planning capability allows for modeling the cost of complex programs such as the 2020 Census. Hundreds of variables across the 35 operations were incorporated into the model to generate a total cost estimate for the 2020 Census. The cost model required three parameters for each variable (minimum, median, and maximum) derived from historical data, test results, or expert opinion. For example, one input parameter used to estimate the Nonresponse Followup workload included an estimated overall self-response rate after six weeks, using the following values: minimum of 55.5 percent, median of 60.5 percent and maximum of 65.5 percent. These values were based on findings from the 2010 Census, the American Community Survey, and the 2020 Census Research and Testing Program. Major Assumptions Table 1 lists the major assumptions, how they have changed from the December 2015 version of the LCCE, the reasons for the change, and the relative impact of the change on the overall cost. Table 1: Major Assumptions and Impact of Changes Item Change Reason Impact Major + Overall Response Rate Decreased from 63.5% to 60.5% More conservative assumption due to increased burden for internet selfresponse including expectation that authentication steps will be added at the log in for internet self-response and the elimination of Save and Return functionality for self-response. Major Contracts Increased due to reestimation Updated cost data from contract award system, reconciliation with the DOC ICE and greater ability to define requirements at low levels. Major + NRFU Pay Rates Reduced -$3.65 (in 2020) to $18.85 (was $22.50) Updated pay analysis showed an expected lower pay rate. Major - AdCan Pay Rates Reduced: -$5.35 (in 2019) to $17.06 (was $22.42) Updated pay analysis showed an expected lower pay rate. Major - NRFU Productivity Decreased as result of more conservative approach Use of historical 2010 data rather than research and test data. Major + 12 DBiT is a system of applications developed on the IBM Cognos platform comprised of two major capabilities. Enterprise Planning is a modeling tool used for cost modeling and estimation, and the Business Intelligence capability is used to analyze and report cost information. 000172 2020 Census Life-cycle Cost Estimate Page 16 In-Field AdCan Increased from 25% to 30% Updated operational assumption based on stopping Active Block Resolution in in-office Address Canvassing. Major + CQA Call Volume Increased by 5% Expected increased calls to CQA due to elimination of Save and Return for internet self-response. Major + ACO Staffing Adjusted assumed staff levels to match durations Updated analysis of schedule to align work with task timing. Major - Early Census Area Offices Increased 31 to 40 Updated for higher in-field Address Canvassing workload driven by pausing Active Block Resolution portion of InOffice Address Canvassing. Minor + ACO Office Size Increased 890 square feet Updated for re-planned operations, staff increases, and use of laptops. Minor + Device as a Service Switched multiple Updated operational assumptions to operations from handhelds align with updated operational plans. to laptops Major - To account for uncertainty around the various parameters, the cost estimators ran a Monte Carlo simulation. This method randomly samples parameters from a probability distribution for each variable (based on the minimum, median, and maximum) and then uses those values to calculate a cost estimate. Repeating this process thousands of times yields a distribution of cost estimates. Monte Carlo outputs (a cost estimated value) were identified at the 80th percentile level, a point estimate at which 80 percent of all the cost estimates were equal to or less than this estimate. This translates to an 80 percent probability that funding at this level will be adequate to conduct the 2020 Census. Additionally, acknowledging the inherent uncertainty of many of these assumptions, funding has been added throughout the WBS to manage discrete risks. Known areas of risk that have been mitigated with this funding include the assumption for the response rate, the pay rates for temporary field staff, and the field supervisory-staff ratio. The 2020 Census program will manage the program to the estimates included in the LCCE, and will only need to utilize the additional funding, if these estimates prove to be incorrect. This is shown further in section 3.5. 3.4 Independent Cost Reviews The 2020 Census LCCE has been compared to two independent cost estimates (ICEs) 13 in its developmental history. GAO treats an ICE as a useful tool to determine the fidelity of a cost estimate. Specifically, the GAO states: 13 An ICE is conducted by an independent organization using the same technical and procurement information used to develop the POE. The ICE provides an unbiased test of a LCCE’s reasonableness in terms of cost, risk, etc. 000173 2020 Census Life-cycle Cost Estimate Page 17 An ICE is considered one of the best and most reliable validation methods. ICEs are typically performed by organizations higher in the decision-making process than the office performing the baseline estimate. They provide an independent view of expected program costs that tests the program office’s estimate for reasonableness. Therefore, ICEs can provide decision-makers with additional insight into a program’s potential costs – in part, because they frequently use different methods and are less burdened with organizational bias. Moreover, ICEs tend to incorporate adequate risk and, therefore, tend to be more conservative in forecasting higher costs than the program office. 14 In both comparisons of the cost estimates, there were differences in individual cost categories, but the overall (total) cost was similar between the ICE and the 2020 Census Program Office Estimate (POE). 15 The primary reason for the differences were the estimating method and the different application of contingency and uncertainty. The results of the ICE to POE comparisons are shown in Figure 8 below. Following the completion of the first POE by the Decennial Budget Office in early 2016, the Census Bureau’s Office of Cost Estimation and Assessment (OCEAA) conducted the first ICE beginning in FY 2015 and ending prior to the 2020 Census Milestone 2 Review in June 2016. The differences between the point estimate (direct cost) was approximately two percent. The OCEAA ICE used more conservative costs for mitigating risks and uncertainty, and therefore the difference for mitigating risk and uncertainty was just over 30 percent. The total delta between the May 2016 POE and the June 2016 ICE was 6.4 percent. The differences between the ICE and the POE were reconciled through a series of meetings between the OCEAA ICE team and the 2020 Census LCCE. The information from the reconciliation was used to update the POE. The second comparison of the 2020 Census POE to an ICE was conducted during September 2017. The second ICE, which was completed in August of 2017, was conducted by the DOC’s Office of Acquisition Management (OAM). Following reconcilitation with the 2020 Census POE, it informed the LCCE released by the Office of the Secretary (OS). The OAM ICE utilized a top-down approach that made use of newly available Census data on IT and contract costs. The difference in direct costs (the point estimate) was over nine percent; largely due to more direct reliance on 2010 Census historical operational assumptions. However, the OAM ICE assumed less costs to mitigate risk and uncertainty. The overall difference was approximately 4.2 percent. Following reconciliation between the April 2017 POE and the August 2017 ICE, additional reconciliation occurred with the Office of the Secretary estimate in September 2017. The difference in risk and uncertainty between this latest estimate and the April 2017 POE accounted for the addition of $1.1B in Secretarial-controlled contingency. The results of the reconciliation 14 GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide, March 2009, GAO-09-3SP, page 186 A POE is the official projected cost for a system or program that is formally submitted to justify budget requirements to higher headquarters, Congress, GAO and others. 15 000174 2020 Census Life-cycle Cost Estimate Page 18 between the DOC OAM/OS ICE and the April 2017 version of the 2020 Census POE are shown in the bottom row of the table and became the November 2017 2020 Census POE being presented in this document. The delta between the two estimates is under one percent. Model Developer Direct Cost May-16 Jun-16 POE ICE DBO OCEAA $ 10,989 $ 11,229 -2% N/A $ $ 1,323 1,931 -31% N/A $12,312 $13,160 -6% N/A Apr-17 POE DBO $ 10,284 -10% $ 3,196 106% $13,480 -4% N/A Date Delta 16 Risk & Uncertainty Delta Total Cost Total Delta Aug-17 ICE DOC OAM $ 11,406 N/A $ 1,551 N/A $14,074 Sep-17 ICE DOC OAM/OS $ 11,406 N/A $ 4,218 N/A $15,625 N/A Nov-17 POE DBO $ 11,405 0% $ 4,220 0% $15,625 0% Figure 8: Comparison to Independent Cost Estimates 3.5 Cost Sensitivity Analysis After the updated point estimate was compared to the ICE (Step 7 of the GAO 12-step cost estimation process) and updated as a result, the point estimate cost was then adjusted for risk and uncertainty (to include contingency) in Step 8 and Step 9 of the GAO process. A description of the program risk and uncertainty in the form of Secretarial-Controlled Contingency is outlined below. Program Risk Program Risk comprises two areas of costs to mitigate risk in the estimate – Monte Carlo Uncertainty and Discrete Risks – and totals $1.42 billion spread across the WBS level 2 framework. Monte Carlo Uncertainty To account for uncertainty around the various parameters, the cost estimators ran a Monte Carlo simulation. This method randomly samples parameters from a probability distribution for each variable (based on the minimum, median, and maximum) and then uses those values to calculate a cost estimate. Monte Carlo uncertainty is applied to the Program Management WBS element. The Program Management WBS covers elements associated with the definition and implementation of program management policies, processes, and the control functions for 16 Delta columns represent percent change for each POE relative to its proximal ICE. 000175 2020 Census Life-cycle Cost Estimate Page 19 planning and implementing the 2020 Census to ensure an efficient and well-managed program. The estimated costs for Monte Carlo uncertainty was approximately $292M. Discrete Risks Discrete risks are those specifically referenced in the 2020 Census Program Risk Register. Each of these official risks have their own risk range assigned to them in the LCCE. The following discrete program risks have been reflected in the risk-adjusted cost estimate via additional sensitivity analyses: 1. Self-response rates are critical variables with expected large impacts in the Response Data life-cycle costs. The self-response rate was assumed to decline below modeled levels, which causes an increase in the Nonresponse Followup Workload. The impact of this risk was estimated by decreasing self-response rates from 60.5% to 55.0%. The estimated cost for this risk was $247.6M. 2. The cost of field operations is considered sensitive to the size and cost of new recruits in specific geographic areas, so this risk models recruitment size and wage rate of the temporary workforce as not adequate for a given geographic area. This risk was modeled by increasing the wage rate of the temporary workforce by $0.50. The estimated cost for this risk was estimated to be $76.7M. 3. The Census Bureau has postulated a significant increase in the efficiency of field operations, with a higher Enumerator-to-Supervisor staffing ratio than in the 2010 Census. This assumption used to generate the point cost estimate is contingent on the proper implementation and management of resources, and the risk that planned efficiencies from field management staffing are inadequate to support the temporary workforce. The impact of this risk was estimated by assuming a decrease in the Enumerator-to-Management staffing ratio from 20:1 to 16:1. The cost for this risk was estimated to be $44.4M. 4. Risks identified in the 2020 Life-Cycle Risk Register were analyzed, quantified, integrated into the estimate; mitigations were also evaluated and incorporated in the estimate when relevant, as part of the 2020 LCCE process. The Census Bureau Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) process was followed to ensure the integration/linkage of the 2020 Decennial Program risks into the cost estimation process. The costs for these risks was estimated to be $763.5M. Examples of the risks in the risk register include cybersecurity incidents, system scalability, and internet data collection. Careful research, testing and planning throughout the decade has led the Census Bureau to establish a higher self-response rate and operate effectively with a lower wage and higher supervisory ratio. However, due to the cost sensitivity of each of these assumptions, further evidence is needed before the Census Bureau can retire these risks and reduce the estimates appropriately and responsibly without endangering a high quality 2020 Census. The current supervisory to staffing ratio assumption is the assumption that can be refined the most through additional testing. As such, it will be managed to 20:1 in the 2018 End-to-End Census Test, and it is likely the observations and analysis of its effectiveness will inform and refine the estimates for this discrete risk. 000176 2020 Census Life-cycle Cost Estimate Page 20 Even with research, testing and planning, response rates and wages are more difficult to predict with precision, as the exact value for each that will be experienced in the 2020 Census lie further from the direct control of the 2020 Census program managers. The response rate could be affected unpredictably by both public and private data breaches, the public’s overall opinion of the government, and the Census Bureau’s commitment to confidentiality. Wage rates for a temporary work force are impacted by the strength of the economy and the competitiveness of the job market. As a result of these external factors, it is unlikely these risks could be retired and the corresponding estimates included for these discrete risks reduced until very late in the cycle. The Census Bureau will continue to manage the 2020 Census Program to the objective assumptions contained within the LCCE that is based on the higher threshold assumptions noted in items one through three above and be continuously monitoring external conditions and their impact on the self-response rate and wage rate assumptions. Even though the program may carry these risks throughout the entire lifecycle, the Bureau is committed to managing this risk and minimizing the use of contingency funding. For example, the Census Bureau will invest in a robust communications and partnership program designed to promote self-response through accurate and timely information about data security and confidentiality. Secretarial-Controlled Contingency The Secretarial-Controlled Contingency represents the unknown-unknown category of risk to account for unforeseen risks, such as a natural disaster driving residents of an area away from their residences leading up to Census Day for the 2020 Census. This category is a 10 percent addition to the risk-adjusted cost. The Department of Commerce will only approve use of this contingency following a formal governance process involving the Department’s oversight bodies. The cost assigned to the unknown-unknown risk was $1.2B. At the end of the risk and uncertainty analyses, the risks and uncertainty were added to the point estimate to produce a total risk-adjusted cost estimate for the 2020 Census Program the life-cycle cost was determined to be approximately $15.6B. 4. LCCE Summary 4.1 The Cost Estimation Results This section discusses the summary costs of the 2020 Census LCCE. The figure below presents estimated life-cycle cost for each of the WBS level-2 elements of the Census Bureau WBS. Response Data, which includes most costs associated with the actual collection of data by multiple means, and other supporting activities such as printing, distribution, and questionnaire support, accounts for over one third of the total cost of the 2020 Census at $5.8B. Infrastructure, with a cost of $3.8B, is the second largest cost component; this WBS element includes the required IT and field operations investments, as well as the infrastructure required to support 000177 2020 Census Life-cycle Cost Estimate Page 21 logistic management and service centers. Census Survey and Engineering, which includes systems engineering and integration, system security, content and forms design, and language services, comes third with $1.8B, followed by $1.3B in program management and $1.2B in contingencies. Note, the years FY12-FY16 are actuals from Commerce Business System (CBS) taken in August 2017. The cost estimate summary is shown in Table 2 below. Table 2: Cost Estimate Summary ($K) 4 Response Data 5 Published Data $3,114 $5,574 $1,082 6 Test, Evaluatio n, Special Censuses $17,119 $8,076 $3,946 $7,760 $3,428 $19,660 $18,411 $26,613 $18,163 $40,651 $16,186 $26,133 $84,797 $117,667 $63,214 2 Census / Survey Engineering Fiscal Year 1 Program Management FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 17 FY 2018 18 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 Grand Total $8,553 $15,986 $8,256 4.2 3 Frame 7 Infrastructure 8 SecretarialControlled Contingency Grand Total $11,584 $63,012 $25,590 $41,481 $98,537 $11,175 $48,076 $85,330 $227,427 $55,527 $14,830 $94,125 $92,838 $340,289 $82,232 $91,348 $31,940 $82,526 $159,132 $649,641 $199,902 $58,632 $246,285 $20,857 $39,080 $127,723 $755,693 $60,210 $257,117 $98,402 $218,367 $18,078 $54,544 $281,355 $49,000 $1,037,073 $310,227 $356,264 $312,228 $1,088,377 $17,130 $76,265 $977,298 $314,000 $3,451,788 $486,771 $343,959 $64,104 $3,894,973 $13,191 $180,700 $1,710,421 $669,000 $7,363,119 $107,776 $263,227 $36,018 $118,368 $33,047 $122,594 $232,745 $91,000 $1,004,776 $48,561 $165,900 $14,017 $28,513 $36,679 $35,929 $59,771 $39,000 $428,370 $25,097 $59,770 $12,474 $17,819 $17,656 $16,060 $37,387 $19,000 $205,263 $1,263,772 $1,822,466 $737,914 $5,791,073 $219,093 $792,608 $3,817,063 $1,181,000 $15,624,989 Detailed Costs by WBS Category The figures below chart the level-3 WBS elements that make up each of the level-2 WBS elements discussed above, along with one or more bullet points that stress the key recommendations or takeaways depicted in the charts. As illustrated in Figure 9 below, $10.8B (close to 70 percent) of the projected $15.6B 2020 Census costs are expected to be incurred in FY19 to FY20; this highlights the significant concentration of expenditure in those years, as well as the importance of prior preparation to deploy investments and operations efficiently over this period of intense activity, and the potential for significant deviations in cost. 17 FY17 reflects the enacted spending profile as of August 2017. FY18 reflects the $187M budget adjustment to the original $800.2M for an adjusted total of $987M. An approximately $50M was added for contingency for a total of $1,037M. 18 000178 2020 Census Life-cycle Cost Estimate Page 22 Figure 9: 2020 LCCE Costs by Level-2 WBS Program Management Costs The program management element, which includes all activities that implement and support policies, processes, and control functions oriented to improve the efficiency of operations and management of the program, accounts for $1.26B over the lifespan of the 2020 Census Program (above eight percent of total program cost). The program management costs are shown in Figure 10 below. Program management costs to mitigate risk and uncertainty are the largest program management cost and are especially high during the program implementation phase (FY19-FY20). This area includes the Monte Carlo uncertainty funding, as well as certain discrete risks from the risk 000179 2020 Census Life-cycle Cost Estimate Page 23 register that could require the inclusion of additional program oversight, scheduling, or similar program management efforts. Figure 10: Program Management Costs by WBS Level 3 Census / Survey Engineering Costs Census/Survey Engineering costs are estimated at $1.8B over the lifespan of the 2020 Census Program, representing around 12 percent of the life-cycle cost of the program. An overview of the Census / Survey Engineering costs is shown below in Figure 11. Systems Design and Integration (SEI) is by far the main driver of program costs associated with Census/Survey Engineering. This is consistent with expectations for a program of this size, which is developing an integrated system-of-systems to complete its innovative redesign. The concentration of SEI costs around the implementation phase of the program is indicative of potential high technical integration and testing costs and risks to deliver the 2020 Census system of systems. The total life-cycle cost for the Technical Integration contract in the LCCE is $1.5B (including overhead). 000180 2020 Census Life-cycle Cost Estimate Page 24 Census/Survey design is the second component of costs under this WBS category. Though much smaller than SEI, it includes the operational (readiness, integration, and testing) and demographic (content and forms) design of surveys. Figure 11: Census / Survey Engineering Costs by WBS Level 3 Frame Costs Frame activities are expected to cost the Decennial Program around $738M, which represent 4.7 percent of the life-cycle cost of the program. These are the costs spent by the program with the goal of developing a high-quality address and geospatial frame that serves as the universe for the enumeration activities. Figure 12 below provides an overview of the Frame costs. Address frame, the delivery of a complete and accurate address list and spatial database for enumeration, including the type and characteristics of each living quarter, is the main driver of the cost associated with frame activities, followed by geospatial frame, which provides the geographic foundation to support data collection and tabulation activities. The spike in address frame in FY19 is associated with in-field address canvassing executed prior to the deployment of 2020 Census field enumeration operations. 000181 2020 Census Life-cycle Cost Estimate Page 25 Figure 12: Frame Costs by WBS Level 3 Response Data Costs The Response Data, a cost of $5.8B (approximately 37 percent of the total 2020 Census estimate), is the largest driver of costs for the Decennial Census Program. It consists of activities to perform the collection of information from 2020 Census respondents by multiple means of communication, including; all operations associated with the gathering of responses, management of cases, and initial processing of the data. Figure 13 below provides an overview of the Response Data costs. One of the larger cost drivers of this area are the costs for Census Questionnaire Assistance (CQA). The life-cycle cost of CQA contract is included in the LCCE is $817M (including overhead). The concentration of expected expenses in FY20 reflects the nature of Response Data, which comprises a large portion of the activities connected to the actual deployment of resources in the field to perform the collection of Census data. Over half of the Response Data cost in FY20 correspond to computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) files, which includes nonresponse followup; one of the costliest activities of the 2020 Census. Computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) files, or the initial response processing (which includes Census questionnaire assistance), is the second largest cost in FY20. 000182 2020 Census Life-cycle Cost Estimate Page 26 This is followed by advertising and partnerships campaigns grouped under Respondent Outreach activities. The costs for advertising and partnership in the LCCE is $822M (including overhead). Figure 13: Response Data Costs by WBS Level 3 Published Data Costs Published Data is the least expensive level-2 WBS activity with life-cycle costs of $219M, which represents less than 1.5 percent of the 2020 Census life-cycle cost. Even though Published Data is a relatively inexpensive component, it is a high-value one that includes activities that support imputation of data and adjustments, data review and analysis, tabulation, and data product dissemination. An overview of the Published Data costs is shown in Figure 14 below. The highest cost within Published Data is Data Products, which includes the preparation, review, approval, and dissemination of final data products; it spikes in FY16 and FY22, when the most relevant intermediate and final products are completed and released. Tabbed data, which includes data reviews, analysis, and tabulation is the second highest cost within this category; its time profile is smoother than Data Products given the more continuous nature of the activities under it. CEDSCI, the system that will be used to disseminate the 2020 Census data, is not part of this cost estimate. CEDSCI is an enterprise system. Its separate cost estimate is maturing as the requirements are further defined as supporting contracts are awarded. 000183 2020 Census Life-cycle Cost Estimate Page 27 Figure 14: Published Data Costs by WBS Level 3 Test, Evaluation and Special Census Costs Test, Evaluation, and Special Censuses is a level-2 WBS that account for costs that approach $793M or five percent of the 2020 Census life-cycle cost. This level-2 WBS element comprises two relatively unrelated sets of activities: Test and Evaluation, and Special Censuses. Figure 15 illustrates the Test and Evaluation, and Special Censuses costs. Test and Evaluation assesses the quality of the 2020 Census and prepares the Decennial Program for the 2030 Census. It includes coverage measurement, as well as evaluations and experiments. It covers the post-enumeration survey and sample, the identification of matches between the 2020 Census and the survey, an independent collection of information for the coverage measurement sample, the development of measures of success, and the early planning activities to support the transition and design of the 2030 Census. Test and Evaluation accounts for the large majority of the $793M in costs associated with this level-2 WBS element. Coverage measurement, Census tests, and research and planning are the activities that require the largest uses of funds within Test and Evaluation. Special Censuses, includes the enumeration of residents of Islands Areas including American Samoa, Northern Mariana, Guam, and Virgin Islands. The cost of Special Censuses is a relatively small portion of the total cost of this level-2 WBS element. 000184 2020 Census Life-cycle Cost Estimate Page 28 Figure 15: Test, Evaluation, and Special Censuses Costs by WBS Level 3 Infrastructure Costs Infrastructure is the second highest cost element at the level-2 of the WBS with total costs that exceed $3.8B or almost one quarter of the 2020 Census life-cycle cost. Approximately half of those costs are expected to be incurred in FY20 when field office infrastructure 19, staff, office space, and equipment uses peaked, along with non-HQ staffing operations, such as training, recruiting, and onboarding. This includes the cost of the Field IT infrastructure contract, which has yet to be awarded. The lifecycle cost for this contract in the LCCE is $416M (including overhead). Figure 16 below shows the Infrastructure costs. Consistent with the peak infrastructure spending in FY20, Program Risk is included in the prioryears to mititgate potential operational risks described previously. Program Risk costs are projected in FY19 and FY20 to account for the risks with deployment and execution. IT infrastructure, though not as significant as other Infrastructure components, peaks earlier than those (in FY16 and FY18), as it needs to be ready for deployment before the additional staff is hired and the space and other infrastructure is fielded. 19 This includes Area Census Offices (ACO) and Regional Census Centers (RCC) 000185 2020 Census Life-cycle Cost Estimate Page 29 Figure 16: Infrastructure Costs by WBS Level 3 Secretarial-Controlled Contingency Costs The DOC has established a contingency cost element to account for unknown-unknown risks, which would include the impact to the 2020 Census operations of an unforeseen event, such as a natural disaster significantly affecting a large area of the country driving up the costs of accurately enumerating those areas. Figure 17 provides an overview of the scale and time frame in which the Secretarial-Controlled Contingency costs are allotted in the 2020 Census LCCE. 000186 2020 Census Life-cycle Cost Estimate Page 30 Figure 17: Secretarial Controlled Contingency Costs 4.3 IT Costs IT costs are spread throughout the 2020 Census WBS. A cross cut of the IT cost in the 2020 Census is described in this section. The cost estimators developed a multi-step process to estimate the IT components of each operation and WBS element. This process does not apply uniformly to all IT components, but includes the integration of past execution data, as well as cost estimates produced parametrically and/or by analogy with past estimates or similar systems. The LCCE team utilized the list of 52 systems developed by Census Bureau’s Enterprise Architecture Group (EAG), along with other IT elements to achieve a comprehensive estimate of all IT costs in the 2020 Census. To describe this, two categories were developed by the LCCE team to align the IT costs to the LCCE WBS. These categories and their descriptions are shown in Figure 18 below. Please note that all the costs shown in this section includes overhead. 000187 2020 Census Life-cycle Cost Estimate IT Cost Category 2020 IT Systems and Services 2020 CEDCaP Page 31 Description Systems on the EAG’s 52 systems list that support the 2020 census and the service contracts that support IT development, maintenance, etc. (such as the Technical Integration contract) An enterprise system for data collection and processing that is being developed to support data collection and response processing first for the 2020 census and later other Census Bureau surveys and censuses Figure 18: 2020 Census IT Cost Categories The graph below in Figure 19 illustrates the breakout of costs by 2020 IT Services and Systems and 2020 CEDCaP costs. In this graph, the 2020 IT Services and Systems costs are the largest element of IT costs in the 2020 Census LCCE. The total estimated cost for the IT costs is $4.97B. 000188 2020 Census Life-cycle Cost Estimate Page 32 Figure 19: IT Costs by Fiscal Year 2020 IT Systems and Services Cost Details The 2020 IT Systems represent system capabilities funded by the 2020 Census. These 52 systems include many small and relatively inexpensive systems, including Decennial Response Processing System and Integrated Logistics Management System, but also includes larger and more expensive systems, including Census Schedule A Hiring, Recruiting and Payroll System, Geographic imagery and matching systems, and the Decennial Tabulation System. 000189 2020 Census Life-cycle Cost Estimate Page 33 Supporting the development and integration of these systems are the 2020 IT Services, which largely contain contract costs, but also includes infrastructure costs. The major contracts in this category include Decennial Device as a Service (DaaS), Field IT Deployment, FITd, and Technical Integration. It also includes the cost of IT infrastructure provided in the Census Bureau’s data center related to the 2020 Census and the costs related to security assessment and testing prior to the issuance of an authority to operate. CEDCaP Cost Details CEDCaP is the enterprise system that supports data collection for not only the decennial census but other censuses as well. This is a major investment that peaks in FY17 and FY18 to support the 2018 End-to-End Test and lay the foundation for the ramp up to the 2020 decennial census. The CEDCaP program includes the development of key systems for the 2020 Census, including the Operational Control Systems, Internet Self-Response, and the Enumeration instrument for Nonresponse Followup. These are key to modernization of the 2020 Census and represent the future of how decennial censuses will be conducted. The lifecycle cost of the CEDCaP program has been estimated separately from the rest of the 2020 Census by certified cost estimators in the program office, and is an input to the 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate. 4.4 LCCE Major Cost Drivers The cost of the 2020 Census LCCE are largely driven by a relatively few areas. The primary cost drivers are those associated with Major Contracts and CEDCaP, Field Operations, Overhead (nonCEDCaP), Program Risks and Secretarial-Controlled Contingency. This is illustrated in Figure 20 below that shows the individual and cumulative percent of costs. Note that the 18 remaining cost categories account for a small portion (approximately 20 percent) of the total cost. Cost Category 04. Major Contracts and CEDCaP 02. Field Operations 03. Overhead (nonCEDCaP) 01. Program Risk 01. Secretarial-Controlled Contingency 09. HQ LOE 05. ACO Staffing 06. Program Management 07. Staffing Operations - CSHarP 08. Other Cost ($K) $ 4,056,500 $ 2,050,400 $ 1,477,200 $ 1,426,900 $ 1,181,000 $ 757,900 $ 696,700 $ 515,600 $ 500,900 $ 2,978,500 Percent 25.9% 13.1% 9.4% 9.1% 7.6% 4.8% 4.5% 3.3% 3.2% 19.0% Cumulative Percent 25.9% 39.0% 48.5% 57.6% 65.2% 70.0% 74.5% 77.8% 81.0% 100.0% Figure 20: 2020 Census LCCE Major Cost Drivers 000190 2020 Census Life-cycle Cost Estimate Page 34 Figure 21 below provides a summary of the top level-3 WBS cost elements across the program. This chart highlights the mission-oriented nature of the 2020 Census in that Response Datarelated cost elements (as denoted by the number 4 before the cost element title) figure prominently in the top cost elements at level-3 of the WBS. The other major cost elements are Census Survey Engineering and Program Management. This fact demonstrates the scope and scale of the design and management challenges associated with the 2020 Census operations. Note that in the figure below, the costs contain overhead. Figure 21: Top WBS Level 3 Cost Elements Costs Drivers by Budget Object Class The federal government’s standard chart of accounts utilizes a standard set of budget categories called Budget Object Classes (BOC). Funds are allocated using BOC. The BOC provide a view of the 2020 Census LCCE costs by resource category. Figure 22 below provides the top-five costs by BOC. 000191 2020 Census Life-cycle Cost Estimate Page 35 Figure 22: Top Lifecycle Costs by Object Class & Fiscal Year Another view of the major cost elements by BOC is shown in Figure 23 below. This graph highlights the cost significance of contracted services within the 2020 Census LCCE. 000192 2020 Census Life-cycle Cost Estimate Page 36 Figure 23: Top Life-cycle Costs by Object Class 5. Conclusion The 2020 Decennial Census is a large and complex program that has a 12-year life-cycle and a projected total cost of $15.6B. The estimate includes the mobilization of space, people and infrastructure across the entire United States and its territories. The 2020 Census LCCE is a key tool for management to justify budget requirements, support resource allocation decisions, and to develop an informed understanding of the projected costs and risks of their programs. A reliable LCCE will increase the probability of program success. The Census Bureau will be using the 2020 Census LCCE to focus on delivering a cost-effective and high-quality census. Despite the challenges of developing, improving and maintaining a reliable cost estimate for a program as large and complex as the 2020 Decennial census, the Census Bureau is using certified cost estimators, independent cost estimators, advanced tool sets, and ongoing enhancements to internal controls to continuously improve the cost estimate. This commitment is underscored by the close working relationship that the Decennial Programs Directorate has established with both GAO and the DOC. The Census Bureau will continue to build upon the current version of the 2020 Census LCCE and will be regularly updating the cost estimate with further refined data and further strengthened internal controls. 000193 Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey Federal Legislative and Program Uses Issued March 2017 Revised 000194 The original version of the appendix has been revised. 000195 Contents Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Protecting the Information Collected by These Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Operational Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and the American Community Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Gender. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Race/Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Relationship. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Tenure (Owner/Renter). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Subjects Planned for the American Community Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Acreage and Agricultural Sales. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Ancestry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Commuting (Journey to Work). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Computer and Internet Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Disability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Fertility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Grandparent Caregivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Health Insurance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Home Heating Fuel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Home Value and Rent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Income. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Industry, Occupation, and Class of Worker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Labor Force Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Language Spoken at Home. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Marital Status and Marital History. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Migration (Previous Residence)/Residence 1 Year Ago. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Place of Birth, Citizenship, and Year of Entry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Plumbing Facilities, Kitchen Facilities, and Telephone Service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 School Enrollment, Educational Attainment, and Undergraduate Field of Degree. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Selected Monthly Owner Costs (Cost of Utilities, Condominium and Mobile Home Fees, Taxes,   Insurance, and Mortgages) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)/Food Stamps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Units in Structure, Rooms, and Bedrooms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Vehicles Available. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Veteran Status, Period of Service, and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)   Service-Connected Disability Rating. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Work Status Last Year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Year Built and Year Moved In. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Appendix: Year Current Subjects Planned First Asked in Decennial Census Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1 U.S. Census Bureau Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey iii 000196 000197 Introduction BACKGROUND Since 1790, a national census of the U.S. population has been conducted every 10 years, as required by the U.S. Constitution. Additional information beyond the population count has been collected with each census in response to the challenges facing the nation and a national desire to understand ourselves. In the 20th century, most addresses received a “short” form, while a portion of addresses received a more detailed “long” form. The Census 2000 short form was designed to collect basic demographic and housing information (i.e., age, race, gender, relationship, and tenure) to be used for apportionment and redistricting. The long form sent to approximately 1 in 6 households collected social, housing, and economic information (i.e., citizenship, educational attainment, disability status, employment status, income, and housing costs) that was used to plan and determine funding for a wide array of federal, state, local, and tribal programs. Since 2005, in order to provide communities, businesses, and the public with the detailed longform information more frequently, these data have been collected monthly (and released annually) through the American Community Survey (ACS).1 This innovation enabled the 2010 Census to be a “short-form-only” census. Decoupling the collection of short- and long-form data allowed the U.S. Census Bureau to focus decennial census efforts on the constitutional requirements to produce a count of the resident population, while employing technology in both collections to improve efficiencies, improve accuracy, and reduce costs. The result has been the dissemination of more current and detailed information than has ever been available. The 2020 Decennial Census Program, comprised of the 2020 Census and the ACS, will provide an official count through a “short-form-only” census, as well as a portrait of communities counted across the nation through data collected by the ACS. This program is the only data-gathering effort that collects information from enough people to produce comparable data for every geographic area recognized by the Census Bureau. 1 The ACS also collects short-form data on its questionnaire. However, ACS asks for basic demographic and housing information from a sample of households, while the decennial census asks for basic demographic and housing information from all households. U.S. Census Bureau SUBMISSION OF SUBJECTS PLANNED FOR THE 2020 DECENNIAL CENSUS PROGRAM Section 141(f) of the Census Act requires that the subjects to be included in the next census be submitted to Congress no later than 3 years before the census date. The contents of this handbook describe the subjects that will be asked on the 2020 Census and the ACS. The Census Act also requires that the questions to be included in the next census be submitted to Congress no later than 2 years before the census date. A document that meets that requirement for the 2020 Census and the ACS will be submitted to Congress by March 31, 2018. ABOUT THE SUBJECTS PLANNED FOR THE 2020 DECENNIAL CENSUS PROGRAM Throughout each decade, regular content reviews are conducted to ensure that the information collected through the decennial census program is required by federal programs. Beginning after the 1990 Census, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in conjunction with the Census Bureau, asked federal agencies to provide information describing their data needs. This information, updated each decade by subsequent changes to federal legislative requirements, is used to evaluate content considered for the decennial census program. To prepare for the 2020 Census, OMB and the Census Bureau embarked on a comprehensive review including chartering the Interagency Council on Statistical Policy (ICSP) Subcommittee on the ACS and conducting the 2014 ACS Content Review. This effort was designed to examine and confirm the value of each question on the ACS, and to confirm and update the statutory and regulatory authority for the questions with federal agencies. In 2016, the Census Bureau asked federal agencies to provide any updates to this documentation. The resulting information about federal uses is presented throughout the descriptions of the subjects on the following pages. These descriptions are designed to give the reader a clear understanding of 1) the relationship between questions asked of respondents and the summarized data that are released in published tables, 2) how federal agencies use the resulting data, and 3) the benefits of the data at the community level. Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey 1 000198 Protecting the Information Collected by These Subjects The Census Bureau has an obligation to produce accurate, relevant statistics about the nation’s economy and people, but we recognize that the information collected in these subjects is often private. We depend on cooperation and trust, and promise to protect the confidentiality of this information. Federal law protects this information; Title 13 of the U.S. Code protects the confidentiality of all collected information. Violating this law is a crime with severe penalties. Please visit . OUR PRIVACY PRINCIPLES We recognize the value of respondent trust, and we believe that when a person answers the 2020 Census or the ACS we must serve as caretakers of the information. The Census Bureau’s Privacy Principles remind us of this promise and help ensure the protection of respondent information throughout all of our activities. The Privacy Principles are our guidelines. They help us as we determine content to consider respondents’ rights and concerns. Every principle embodies a promise to the respondent. Necessity: Do we need to collect information on this subject? Every time we prepare to ask a question, we determine whether the information is truly necessary. All of the information we collect is used for federal programs. •• We promise to collect only information necessary for each survey and census. •• We promise that we will use the information only to produce timely, relevant statistics about the population and the economy of the United States. Openness: Do respondents know why we are collecting this information? We collect information only for statistical purposes, and it is never used to identify individuals. Before participating, respondents have the right to know why we are conducting the survey or census, why we are asking specific questions, and the purposes for which the information will be used. •• We promise to inform respondents about the purpose and uses for every survey or census we conduct before respondents provide answers. Respectful treatment of respondents: Are our efforts reasonable and do we treat people with respect? •• We promise to minimize the effort and time it takes for respondents to participate in the data collection by efficient designs. •• We promise to use only legal, ethical, and professionally accepted practices in collecting data. •• We promise to ensure any collection of sensitive information from children and other sensitive populations does not violate federal protections for research participants and is done only when it benefits the public good. Confidentiality: How do we protect this information? In addition to removing personally identifiable information (i.e., names, telephone numbers, and addresses) from our data files, we use various approaches to protect personal information—including computer technologies, statistical methodologies, and security procedures. Our security measures ensure that only a restricted number of authorized people have access to private information and that access is only granted to conduct our work and for no other purposes. Every person who works with census confidential information collected by the Census Bureau is sworn for life to uphold the law. Violating the confidentiality of a respondent is a federal crime with serious penalties, including a federal prison sentence of up to 5 years, a fine of up to $250,000, or both. •• We promise that every person with access to respondent information is sworn for life to protect respondent confidentiality. •• We promise that we will use every technology, statistical methodology, and physical security procedure at our disposal to protect respondent information. 2 Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey U.S. Census Bureau 000199 Operational Questions Some operational questions will appear on the 2020 Census and American Community Survey that will not result in published counts or estimates. These questions are asked to better administer the data collection process and to ensure greater accuracy of the data collected through the other subjects. A person’s contact information, including name and phone number, are requested in case someone must be reminded to complete their response or to verify information in a follow-up operation. Contact information is not part of published estimates and is carefully protected, as mandated by federal law, to respect the personal information of respondents. An address is verified or requested to ensure that the data collected from the people in each household are included in the correct place. The U.S. Census Bureau is required to provide state legislatures with the small-area census population tabulations necessary for legislative redistricting. For example, a county count will be a summary of the data collected from all of the addresses in that county. To ensure that a household’s data are included with the correct town, county, and state counts, we need to ensure that we know where the information was collected. Addresses are not part of published tabulations and are carefully protected, as mandated by federal law, to respect the personal information of respondents. U.S. Census Bureau The 2020 Census questions about the number of people in the home, whether anyone was included who does not usually live or stay there, or whether anyone who does usually live or stay there was forgotten, are used to ensure that everyone is counted once, only once, and in the right place. The first U.S. decennial census in 1790 established the concept of “usual residence” as the main principle in determining where people were to be counted. The Census Bureau uses residence criteria to determine whom to count and where, especially because the place where a person lives and sleeps most of the time is not necessarily the same as the person’s voting residence or legal residence. Asking these additional questions helps ensure that no one is missed, people are not counted in multiple locations, and that people are included in the right place. The 2020 Census questions about maritime vessels, military living quarters, and other group quarters facilities, such as college or university student housing, nursing/ skilled nursing facilities, group homes, emergency and transitional shelters for people experiencing homelessness, and other such locations, are used to better administer the data collection process in group living situations. Asking these additional questions helps ensure accurate classification of group quarters which is a part of the Census Bureau’s mission to ensure that everyone is counted once, only once, and in the right place. Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey 3 000200 Selected Statutory Uses of Operational Questions Data U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census The Census Act,13 USC § 141(c) U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census The Census Act,13 USC § 181 4 Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey U.S. Census Bureau 000201 Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and the American Community Survey U.S. Census Bureau Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey 5 000202 000203 Age Age asked since 1790. AGE AND DATE OF BIRTH QUESTIONS ARE USED TO UNDERSTAND THE SIZE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF DIFFERENT AGE GROUPS AND TO PRESENT OTHER DATA BY AGE. Age data are used in planning and funding government programs that provide funds or services for specific age groups, such as children, working-age adults, women of childbearing age, or the older population. These statistics are also used to enforce laws, regulations, and policies against age discrimination in government programs and in society. AGE DATA HELP COMMUNITIES: Provide Assistance to Older Americans Knowing how many people in a community are aged 60 and older helps local officials provide programs and services that enable older adults to remain living safely in their homes and communities (Older Americans Act). Age data are also used in programs that provide services and assistance to seniors, such as financial assistance with utilities (Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program). U.S. Census Bureau Provide Assistance to Children and Families Knowing the numbers and ages of children in families in combination with other information, such as household income, health insurance status, and poverty status, can help communities enroll eligible families in programs designed to assist them. For example, age data are used in targeted efforts to enroll eligible people in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program. Educate Children and Adults Knowing how many children and adults depend on services through schools helps school districts make long-term building, staffing, and funding decisions. Age in combination with other information, such as disability status, language spoken at home, and poverty status, assists schools in understanding the needs of their students and qualifying for grants that help fund programs for those students (Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965). Ensure Equal Opportunity Knowing the ages of people in the community in combination with information about housing, employment, and education, helps government and communities enforce laws, regulations, and policies against discrimination based on age. For example, age information is used to analyze the employment status of workers by age (Age Discrimination in Employment Act). Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey 7 000204 Selected Statutory Uses of Age Data U.S. Department of Agriculture 42 USC §§ 1472, 1474, 1485, 1486, 1490, and 1490a 7 CFR 3550.10 U.S. Department of Education 20 USC §§ 6333, 6334(a)(1), 6335(a), and 6337(b)(1)(A) U.S. Department of Education 220 USC §§ 6821, 6824, 7011(5), and 7801(20) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Community Living 42 USC 300kk U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111–148, § 10334; 42 USC 300kk U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation 42 USC § 1397ii(b)(2)(A)–(C) U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 12 USC § 1701q; 24 CFR part 891 U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division Voting Rights Act of 1965, Public Law 89-110, as amended, § 203; 52 USC § 10503; 28 CFR Part 55 U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352; 42 USC § 2000e-2 U.S. Department of Labor Older Americans Act Amendments of 2000, Public Law 109-365, 42 USC § 3056e; 20 CFR 641.140, 641.360, and 641.365 U.S. Department of Labor 29 USC §§ 49f(a)(3)(D), 49g(d), and 49l-2(a)15 U.S. Department of Transportation Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act, Public Law 11494; 49 USC § 5303(c), (e), (h), (i), (j),(k), and (n) U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 38 USC § 8104(b)(2) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), Public Law 92-500, 33 USC § 1254(a)(1)–(2), (b)(2), (b)(6), (b)(7), (n) (1), and (o)(1) U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of General Counsel Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, Public Law 90-202, 29 USC § 623(a)–(d) and 633a; 29 CFR 1625.7(d); Hazelwood School Dist. v. United States, 433 U.S. 299 (1977) U.S. Social Security Administration The Social Security Act, Public Law 74-271, as amended, 42 USC § 401(c) 8 Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey U.S. Census Bureau 000205 Gender Gender asked since 1790. GENDER DATA HELP COMMUNITIES: A QUESTION ABOUT THE GENDER OF EACH PERSON IS USED TO CREATE STATISTICS ABOUT MALES AND FEMALES AND TO PRESENT OTHER DATA, SUCH AS OCCUPATION, BY GENDER. Gender data are used in planning and funding government programs and in evaluating other government programs and policies to ensure they fairly and equitably serve the needs of males and females. These statistics are also used to enforce laws, regulations, and policies against discrimination in government programs and in society. U.S. Census Bureau Ensure Equal Opportunity Knowing the gender of people in the community in combination with information about housing, voting, language, employment, and education, helps government and communities enforce laws, regulations, and policies against discrimination on the basis of gender. For example, gender data are used to enforce laws against discrimination based on gender in education programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance (Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972). Understand Changes Knowing whether people of different genders have the same opportunities in education, employment, voting, home ownership, and many other areas is of interest to researchers, advocacy groups, and policymakers. For example, the National Science Foundation uses gender data to provide information on women in the science and engineering workforce, and several agencies use gender data to investigate whether women, including women who are military veterans, have similar employment opportunities as men. Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey 9 000206 Selected Statutory Uses of Gender Data U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families 42 USC § 8623(a)(2) and (4), § 8629(a)(1)–(3), and (6), § 8629(b) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Community Living 42 USC 300kk U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality 42 USC §§ 299a(a)(3),(6),(8), 299b-2(a)(1), and 299(c)(1)(B) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111148, § 10334; 42 USC 300kk U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Bureau of Clinician Recruitment and Service 42 USC § 254e; 42 CFR 5.2 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation 42 USC § 1397ii (b)(2)(A)–(C) U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Fair Housing Act, Public Law 90–284, 42 USC 3600–3620, 42 USC 3608(e) U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352, 42 USC § 2000e(2)(k); Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio; 490 U.S. 642 (1989) U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 USC § 1701 et seq. U.S. Department of Transportation Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act, Public Law 11494; 49 USC § 5303(c), (e), (h), (i), (j),(k), and (n) U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 38 USC § 546 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), Public Law 92-500, 33 USC § 1254(a)(1)–(2), (b)(2), (b)(6), (b)(7), (n) (1), and (o)(1) U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of General Counsel Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352;42 USC § 2000e2(k)(1)(A); Hazelwood School Dist. v. United States, 433 U.S. 299, 307–308 (1977) U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of Research, Information, and Planning Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352; 42 USC § 2000e2(k)(1)(A); Hazelwood School Dist. v. United States, 433 U.S. 299, 307–308 (1977) U.S. Social Security Administration The Social Security Act, Public Law 74-271, as amended, 42 USC § 401(c) 10 Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey U.S. Census Bureau 000207 Race/Ethnicity Race asked since 1790, ethnicity asked since 1970. QUESTIONS ABOUT A PERSON’S RACE OR ETHNICITY ARE USED TO CREATE DATA ABOUT RACE AND ETHNIC GROUPS. These data are required for federal and state programs and are critical factors in the basic research behind numerous policies, particularly for civil rights. Race and ethnicity data are used in planning and funding government programs that provide funds or services for specific groups. These data are also used to evaluate government programs and policies to ensure they fairly and equitably serve the needs of all racial and ethnic groups and to monitor compliance with antidiscrimination laws, regulations, and policies. States also use these data to meet legislative redistricting requirements. The U.S. Census Bureau collects race and ethnicity data in accordance with the 1997 Office of Management and Budget standards on race and ethnicity. The categories on race and ethnicity are based on self-identification and generally reflect a social definition of race and ethnicity. The categories are not an attempt to define race and ethnicity biologically, anthropologically, or genetically. •• Monitor compliance with the Voting Rights Act and enforce bilingual requirements. •• Monitor and enforce equal employment opportunities under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. •• Identify segments of the population who may not be getting needed medical services under the Public Health Service Act. •• Allocate funds to school districts for bilingual services under the Bilingual Education Act. Understand Changes Knowing if people of different races and ethnicities have the same opportunities in education, employment, voting, home ownership, and many other areas is of interest to researchers, advocacy groups, and policymakers. The National Science Foundation uses data on race and ethnicity to provide information on people of different racial and ethnic backgrounds in the science and engineering workforce. Several federal agencies use race and ethnicity data to investigate whether housing or transportation improvements have unintended consequences for specific race and ethnic groups. Data on race and ethnicity are used with age and language data to address language and cultural diversity needs in health care plans for the older population. Administer Programs for Specific Groups RACE AND ETHNICITY DATA HELP COMMUNITIES: Ensure Equal Opportunity Knowing the races and ethnicities of community members in combination with information about housing, voting, language, employment, and education, helps government and communities enforce antidiscrimination laws, regulations, and policies. For example, race and ethnicity data are used in the following ways: Knowing how many people are eligible to participate in certain programs helps communities, including tribal governments, ensure that programs are operating as intended. For example, the Indian Housing Block Grant program, Indian Community Development Block Grant program, and Indian Health Service all depend on accurate estimates of American Indians and Alaska Natives. Data for the American Indian and Alaska Native population come from the questions about a person’s race or ethnicity. •• Establish and evaluate the guidelines for federal affirmative action plans under the Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program. U.S. Census Bureau Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey 11 000208 Selected Statutory Uses of Race/Ethnicity Data U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 13 USC § 141(c) U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 52 USC § 10503 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families Community Services Block Grant Act, Public Law 105-285, 42 USC §§ 9902(2), 9903, and 9908(b)(1)(A), (b)(11), and (c)(1)(A)(i) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Community Living Older Americans Act of 1965, Public Law 89-73, 42 USC § 3018 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Community Living 42 USC 300kk U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111148, § 10334; 42 USC § 300kk U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Indian Health Service Snyder Act, Nov. 2, 1921, c. 115, 25 USC § 13; Transfer Act, Aug. 5, 1954, c. 658, § 2, 42 USC § 2001(a); Indian Healthcare Improvement Act, Public Law 94-43; 25 USC § 1602 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, Public Law 101–625, 42 USC 12705(b)(1)–(3); 24 CFR Part 91, 24 CFR 91.205(a)–(c) U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, 42 USC 11371– 11376; 24 CFR Part 91 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, 42 USC 5306(a)(1); 24 CFR §1003.101 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Native American Housing Assistance and SelfDetermination Act of 1996, Public Law 104-330, as amended, 25 USC § 4152(b); 24 CFR 1000.324–1000.330 U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 USC § 2000e-2 U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division Voting Rights Act of 1965, § 203, 52 USC § 10503; 28 CFR Part 55 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), Public Law 92-500, 33 USC § 1254(a)(1)–(2), (b)(2), (b)(6), (b)(7), (n) (1), and (o)(1) U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of Research, Information, and Planning Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352, 42 USC § 2000e2(k)(1)(A); Hazelwood School Dist. v. United States, 433 U.S. 299, 307–308 (1977) 12 Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey U.S. Census Bureau 000209 Relationship Relationship asked since 1880. A QUESTION ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP OF EACH PERSON IN A HOUSEHOLD TO ONE CENTRAL PERSON IS USED TO CREATE ESTIMATES ABOUT FAMILIES, HOUSEHOLDS, AND OTHER GROUPS, AND TO PRESENT OTHER DATA AT A HOUSEHOLD LEVEL. Relationship data are used in planning and funding government programs that provide funds or services for families, people living or raising children alone, grandparents living with grandchildren, or other households that qualify for additional assistance. RELATIONSHIP DATA HELP COMMUNITIES: Provide Assistance to Families Knowing more about families, such as the ages of children, household income, health insurance status, and poverty status, can help communities enroll eligible families in programs designed to assist them, such as Head Start and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and can help communities qualify for grants to fund these programs. Relationship data are also used to ensure that programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families are making a difference for families. Understand Changing Households Provide Adequate Housing Knowing about the different types of households in a community (single people, couples, families, roommates, etc.) helps communities understand whether available housing meets the needs of residents. Information about the relationships among people in a household, in combination with housing costs and the combined income of all people in a household, helps communities understand whether housing is affordable for residents. U.S. Census Bureau When housing is not sufficient or not affordable, relationship data can help communities enroll eligible households in programs designed to assist them, and can help communities qualify for grants from the Community Development Block Grant, HOME Investment Partnership Program, Emergency Solutions Grant, Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS, and other programs. Information about living arrangements and how they are changing, including whether older residents are staying in their homes as they age, whether young people are living with parents or moving in with roommates, and which kinds of households include young children, can help communities plan future programs and services for residents. For example, the Social Security Administration estimates future program needs based on the current relationships of working people. Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey 13 000210 Selected Statutory Uses of Relationship Data U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics 42 USC § 242k(b), (h), and (l) U.S. Department of Energy Energy Conservation and Production Act, Public Law 94-385, as amended, 42 USC § 6861, 6864; 10 CFR 440.10 U.S. Department of Transportation Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act, Public Law 114-94; 49 USC § 5303(c), (e), (h), (i), (j),(k), and (n) U.S. Department of Education 20 USC §§ 6333, 6334(a)(1), 6335(a), 6337(b)(1)(A) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families 42 USC §§ 8629 (a) (1)–(3) and (5)–(6), 8629 (b), and 8622 (11) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families 13 USC § 141 note U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Community Living Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000, Public Law 106-402, § 124(c)(5); 42 USC 15024 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148, §10334; 42 USC 300kk U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation 42 USC § 1397ii (b)(2)(A)–(C) U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, 42 USC 11371– 11376; 24 CFR Part 91 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, Public Law 93-383, 42 USC 5301, 5302, and 5305; 24 CFR 91.205(a)–(c ), 91.305(a)–(c), 570.208(a)(1), 570.483(b)(1), 570.704(a)–(c), 570.707(a)–(c), and 570.901 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, Public Law 101–625, 42 USC 12705(b)(1)–(3); 24 CFR Part 91; 24 CFR 91.205(a)–(c) U.S. Social Security Administration The Social Security Act, Public Law 74–271, as amended, 42 USC § 401(c) U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2008, Public Law 110-389, Title III—Labor and Education Matters, Subtitle C— Vocational Rehabilitation Matters, § 334, 38 USC § 3122 14 Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey U.S. Census Bureau 000211 Tenure (Owner/Renter) Tenure asked since 1890. Plan Community Development A QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER A HOME IS OWNED OR RENTED IS USED TO CREATE DATA ABOUT TENURE, RENTERS, AND HOME OWNERSHIP. Tenure is the most basic characteristic to asses housing inventory. Tenure data are used in government programs that analyze whether adequate housing is affordable for residents. Tenure data are also used to provide and fund housing assistance programs. These statistics are also used to enforce laws, regulations, and policies against discrimination in private-market housing, government programs, and in society. TENURE DATA HELP COMMUNITIES: Provide Adequate Housing Knowing the different types of households in a community (single people, couples, families, roommates, etc.) and rates of home rental and ownership helps communities understand whether available housing meets the needs of residents. Data about owners and renters, in combination with housing costs and the combined income of all people in a household, help communities understand whether housing is affordable for residents. Knowing how the balance of rented homes, mortgaged homes, and homes owned free and clear changes over time can help communities understand changes in local housing markets; identify opportunities to improve tax, assistance, and zoning policies; and to reduce tax revenue losses from vacant or abandoned properties. Tenure is also used in formulas that communities use to determine housing assistance funding (Fair Market Rents). Ensure Equal Opportunity Knowing the characteristics of people who rent and people who own homes in the community, such as age, gender, race, Hispanic origin, disability, helps government and communities enforce laws, such as the 1968 Fair Housing Act, designed to eliminate discrimination in housing. Understand Changing Households Knowing whether older residents are staying in homes as they age or moving into rented homes; and whether young people are staying with parents, renting with roommates, or buying homes, can help governments and communities distribute funds appropriately between home ownership and rental housing programs and services for residents. When housing is not sufficient or affordable, data about owners and renters can help communities enroll eligible households in programs designed to assist them, and can help communities qualify for grants from the Community Development Block Grant, HOME Investment Partnership Program, Emergency Solutions Grant, Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS, and other programs. U.S. Census Bureau Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey 15 000212 Selected Statutory Uses of Tenure Data U.S. Department of Agriculture 42 USC §§ 1472, 1474, 1485, 1486, 1490, 1490a, 1490l, 1490m, 1490p-2, 1490r; 7 CFR 1940.563–564, 1940.575, 3560.11, and 3560.152(a)(2) U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, 42 USC § 11371–11376; 24 CFR Part 91 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, Public Law 93–383, as amended, 42 USC § 1439 (d)(1)(A)(i); 24 CFR 791.402 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development United States Housing Act of 1937, Public Law 93-383, as amended, 42 USC § 1437f(c)(1); 24 CFR 888.113; 24 CFR 982.401 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, Public Law 101–625, 42 USC 12705(b)(1)–(3); 24 CFR Part 91, 24 CFR 91.205(a)–(c) U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Rehabilitation Act of 1973, § 504, Public Law 93-112, 29 USC 794; 24 CFR § 8.22(b); 24 CFR § 8.23(a) U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 12 USC § 4568 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 12 USC § 1701q; 24 CFR part 891 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Tax Reform Act of 1986, Public Law 99-514, 26 USC § 42(d)(5)(B)(ii)(I), (iii)(I), (iv), and(g); 15 U.S.C § 631 U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division Voting Rights Act of 1965; 52 USC § 10301; 28 CFR Part 51; LULAC v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006); Johnson v. DeGrandy, 512 U.S. 997 (1994); Thornburg V. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986) U.S. Department of Transportation 49 USC § 5303; 49 CFR Part 613 U.S. Department of Transportation Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act, Public Law 114-94; 49 USC § 5303(c), (e), (h), (i), (j),(k), and (n) U.S. Department of Transportation 49 USC §§ 6302(b)(3)(B), 6302(c), 6304(a), 6309(a) 16 Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey U.S. Census Bureau 000213 Subjects Planned for the American Community Survey U.S. Census Bureau Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey 17 000214 000215 Acreage and Agricultural Sales Acreage asked since 1960, agricultural sales asked since 1960. Support Agricultural Programs QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ACREAGE ASSOCIATED WITH HOUSES, MOBILE HOMES, AND AGRICULTURAL SALES ARE USED TO CREATE DATA ABOUT AGRICULTURAL PROPERTIES AND TO BETTER UNDERSTAND HOME VALUE STATISTICS. These data are used in planning government programs designed to benefit the farm population and identifying or excluding agricultural areas for many other programs. Knowing which areas of a community are agricultural helps communities ensure eligible institutions receive funding for cooperative agricultural extension work and agricultural research. This funding is distributed to eligible institutions based on a legislatively determined formula that uses these data. Plan Community Development Knowing the size and agricultural nature of areas of each community can help communities understand changes in local housing markets; identify opportunities to improve tax, assistance, and zoning policies; and reduce tax revenue losses from vacant or abandoned properties. ACREAGE AND AGRICULTURAL SALES DATA HELP COMMUNITIES: Provide Equitable Housing Assistance Knowing which homes might qualify for farm subsidies, and which homes qualify for housing subsidies, is important to ensure that funds are fairly allocated. For example, the historical definition of Fair Market Rents, used to allocate housing assistance, has always excluded units on acreage of more than 10 acres to eliminate those units that might benefit from farm subsidies and therefore have lower-than-market rents. Understanding which kinds of properties are eligible for certain programs helps communities inform eligible residents and determine whether the community is eligible for funds based on its farm population. U.S. Census Bureau Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey 19 000216 Selected Statutory Uses of Acreage and Agricultural Sales Data U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Tax Reform Act of 1986, Public Law 99-514, 26 USC § 42(d)(5)(B)(iii)(I); 15 USC § 631 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development United States Housing Act of 1937, Public Law 93-383, as amended, 42 USC § 1437f(c)(1); 24 CFR 888.113, 24 CFR 982.401 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Air Pollution Control Act (Clean Air Act), Public Law 84-159, 42 USC § 7403(a)(1), (b)(6), (b)(7), (e), and (g) U.S. Federal Reserve Board Public Law 95-128,12 USC § 2901 et seq.; 12 CFR 228.12 U.S. Federal Reserve Board Public Law 94-200, 12 USC § 2809(a);12 CFR 203 20 Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey U.S. Census Bureau 000217 Ancestry Ancestry asked since 1980. ANCESTRY DATA HELP COMMUNITIES: A QUESTION ABOUT A PERSON’S ANCESTRY OR ETHNIC ORIGIN IS USED TO CREATE STATISTICS ABOUT ANCESTRY GROUPS IN AMERICA. Ancestry data are used in planning and evaluating government programs and policies to ensure they fairly and equitably serve the needs of all groups. These statistics are also used to enforce laws, regulations, and policies against discrimination in society. Ensure Equal Opportunity Knowing the ethnic groups in a community in combination with information about housing, voting, language, employment, and education, helps government and communities enforce laws, regulations, and policies against discrimination based on national origin. For example, ancestry data are used to enforce nondiscrimination in education (including monitoring desegregation); to enforce nondiscrimination in employment by federal agencies, private employers, employment agencies, and labor organizations; and to enforce laws, regulations, and policies against discrimination in federal financial assistance (Civil Rights Act of 1964). Understand Changes Knowing whether people from different backgrounds have the same opportunities in education, employment, voting, home ownership, and many other areas is of interest to researchers, advocacy groups, and policymakers. For example, ancestry data are used with age and language data to address language and cultural diversity needs in health care plans for the older population. U.S. Census Bureau Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey 21 000218 Selected Statutory Uses of Ancestry Data U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics 42 USC § 242k(b), (h), and (l) U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division Title VI of Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 USC § 2000d–2000d-7; 28 CFR 42.101–42.112; 28 CFR 42.401– 42.415; 28 CFR 50.3; 67 Fed. Reg. 41,555 (June 18, 2002); Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974) U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974, 20 USC § 1701 et seq.; Castaneda v. Pickard, 648 F.2d 989 (1981) U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 USC § 2000c et seq. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of General Counsel Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352; 42 USC § 2000e-2(k)(1)(A); Hazelwood School Dist. v. United States, 433 U.S. 299, 307–308 (1977) U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of Research, Information, and Planning Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352; 42 USC § 2000e-2(k)(1)(A); Hazelwood School Dist. v. United States, 433 U.S. 299, 307–308 (1977) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), Public Law 92-500, 33 USC § 1254(a)(1)–(2), (b)(2), (b)(6), (b)(7), (n) (1), and (o)(1) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families Community Services Block Grant Act, Public Law 105-285, § 673 (2), 674, and 681A, 42 USC § 9902 (2), 9903, and 9908 (b)(1)(A), (b)(11), and (c)(1)(A)(i) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Indian Health Service Snyder Act, Nov. 2, 1921, c. 115; 25 USC § 13; Transfer Act, Aug. 5, 1954, c. 658, § 2, 42 USC § 2001(a); 42 C.F.R. § 136.12(a) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 USC § 2000d; Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act § 1557, 42 USC § 18116 22 Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey U.S. Census Bureau 000219 Commuting (Journey to Work) Journey to work asked since 1960. QUESTIONS ABOUT WHERE PEOPLE WORK, HOW THEY GET THERE, WHEN THEY LEAVE, AND HOW LONG IT TAKES ARE USED TO CREATE DATA ABOUT COMMUTING OR A PERSON’S JOURNEY TO WORK. Journey to work data are used in planning and funding for improvements to road and highway infrastructure, developing transportation plans and services, and understanding where people are traveling in the course of a normal day. These data are also used to evaluate transportation plans to ensure they fairly and equitably serve the needs of all groups. COMMUTING DATA HELP COMMUNITIES: Local agencies and organizations use these statistics to plan transportation programs and services that meet the diverse needs of local populations, including the disabled population, bicycle commuters, carpool and ride-shares, and many other groups. Commuting data are also used to forecast future use of new or updated transportation systems. Ensure Equal Opportunity Knowing where people could reasonably commute from in order to work in a certain area is used by communities and businesses for employment planning, and by communities and governments to enforce laws, regulations, and policies against employment discrimination. Understand Changes in Commutes As commuting patterns change, information about where people could reasonably commute from in order to work in a certain area is used to understand commercial markets and labor force participation, and to plan local emergency response programs. Improve Transportation Planning Knowing where people commute to and from, and what time of day they are commuting, helps transportation planners create mass transportation and metropolitan transportation plans that are compliant with various transportation, environmental, and antidiscrimination regulations. U.S. Census Bureau Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey 23 000220 Selected Statutory Uses of Commuting (Journey to Work) Data U.S. Department of Energy Energy Policy Act of 1992, Public Law 102-486, 42 USC § 13385 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families Community Services Block Grant Act, Public Law 105-285, 42 USC § 9902 (2), 9903, and 9908 (b)(1)(A), (b)(11), and (c) (1)(A)(i) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services 2003 Medicare Modernization Act, 42 USC § 1395ww(d)(13) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, National Center for Healthcare Workforce Analysis Public Health Service Act, §§ 761(b)(2)(A), 792(a), 792(b)(2), and 806(f)(1), 42 USC §§ 294n, 295k, and 296e U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 USC § 2000e(2) (k); Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642 (1989) U.S. Department of the Interior Public Law 102-477, 25 USC §§ 3401 and 3416; Senate Report 102-188 U.S. Department of Transportation 49 USC § 5303; 49 CFR Part 613 U.S. Department of Transportation Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act, Public Law 11494; 49 USC § 5304; 49 CFR Part 613, Subpart B U.S. Department of Transportation Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act, Public Law 11494; 49 USC § 5303(c), (e), (h), (i), (j),(k), and (n) U.S. Department of Transportation 49 USC §§ 6302(b)(3)(B), 6303(c ), 6304(a), 6309 (a) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), Public Law 92-500, 33 USC §§ 1254(a)(1)–(2), (b)(2), (b)(6), (b)(7), (n)(1), (o)(1) U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of Federal Operations The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Public Law 93-112; 29 USC § 791(b); 29 CFR 1614.602 24 Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey U.S. Census Bureau 000221 Computer and Internet Use Computer and Internet use asked since 2013. QUESTIONS ABOUT THE COMPUTERS AND DEVICES THAT PEOPLE USE, WHETHER PEOPLE ACCESS THE INTERNET, AND HOW PEOPLE ACCESS THE INTERNET ARE USED TO CREATE DATA ABOUT COMPUTER AND INTERNET USE. These statistics were first released to the public in September 2014. The questions were added as a requirement of the Broadband Data Improvement Act of 2008. They help federal agencies measure the nationwide development of broadband access and decrease barriers to broadband access. U.S. Census Bureau COMPUTER AND INTERNET USE DATA HELP COMMUNITIES: Ensure Residents Can Communicate State and local agencies can use these statistics to evaluate access to broadband in their communities. They can measure access to information on the Internet, including access for schools, libraries, rural health care providers, and other public services. Communities ensure their residents are connected to assistance programs, emergency services, and important information. These statistics may also be useful to understand whether to use Internet or more expensive outreach methods for distributing important public health or safety information. Federal agencies use these data to evaluate the extent of access to, and adoption of broadband, with a focus on underserved areas. State and local agencies might choose to use these statistics to evaluate access to broadband in their communities. Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey 25 000222 Selected Statutory Uses of Computer and Internet Use Data U.S. Federal Communications Commission Broadband Data Improvement Act of 2008, Public Law 110385, 47 USC § 1303(d) U.S. Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration Broadband Data Improvement Act of 2008, Public Law 110385, 47 USC § 1303(d) U.S. Department of Transportation Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act, Public Law 11494; 49 USC § 5304; 49 CFR Part 613, Subpart B 26 Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey U.S. Census Bureau 000223 Disability Disability asked since 1830. Ensure Equal Opportunity QUESTIONS ABOUT A PERSON’S DIFFICULTY WITH SPECIFIC DAILY TASKS ARE USED TO CREATE STATISTICS ABOUT DISABILITY. Disability data are used in planning and funding government programs that provide funds or services for populations with disabilities. In addition, these data are used in evaluating other government programs and policies to ensure that they fairly and equitably serve the needs of all groups. These statistics are also used to enforce laws, regulations, and policies against discrimination. DISABILITY DATA HELP COMMUNITIES: Provide Adequate Housing Knowing the different types of disabled households in a community helps communities understand whether available housing meets the needs of residents. When housing is not sufficient or not affordable, disability data can help communities enroll eligible households in programs designed to assist them and can help communities qualify for grants from the Community Development Block Grant, HOME Investment Partnership Program, Emergency Solutions Grants, Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS, and other programs. Provide Health Care to Children and Families Knowing the disability status of people in the community in combination with information about housing, voting, employment, and education, helps governments and communities enforce laws, regulations, and policies against discrimination based on disability status. For example, disability data are used to evaluate whether there are health care or public health program disparities based on disability status (Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000). Provide Assistance to People With Disabilities Knowing how many people in a community over a certain age have a disability helps local officials provide programs and services to older adults that enable them to remain living safely in their homes and communities (Older Americans Act). Disability status data are also used in programs that provide services and assistance to people with a disability, such as financial assistance with utilities (Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program). Understand Changes Knowing whether people with disabilities have the same opportunities in education, employment, voting, home ownership, and many other areas is of interest to researchers, advocacy groups, and policymakers. Communities also need to understand changes in the needs and geographic concentrations of people with disabilities to ensure that they can meet the community’s needs during weather events, disasters, and public health emergencies. Knowing the disability status of people in families in combination with other information, such as household income, health insurance status, and poverty status, can help communities enroll eligible families in programs designed to assist them. For example, disability data are used to target efforts to enroll eligible people in Marketplace, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Disability data are also used to ensure that Marketplace, Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP programs are adequately serving these families. U.S. Census Bureau Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey 27 000224 Selected Statutory Uses of Disability Data U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics 42 USC § 242k(b), (h), and (l) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Public Health Service Act, § 301, 42 USC 241; Public Health Service Act, § 3101, 42 USC 300kk U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Community Living 42 USC 300kk U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Community Living Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000, Public Law 106-402, § 124(c)(5); 42 USC 15024 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Community Living Older Americans Act of 1965; Public Law 89-73; 42 USC § 3013, 3024, 3030s-1, 3032 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111148, §10334; 42 USC 300kk U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration Public Health Service Act § 792(b)(2), 42 USC § 295(k)(b)(2) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Indian Health Service Snyder Act, Nov. 2, 1921, c. 115; 25 USC § 13; Transfer Act, Aug. 5, 1954, c. 658, § 2, 42 USC § 2001(a); Indian Healthcare Improvement Act, Public Law 94-43, 25 USC § 1602 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights Rehabilitation Act of 1973, § 504 , Public Law 93-112; Americans With Disabilities Act Titles II and III, as amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, Public Law 110-325, 42 USC 126 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, 42 USC 11371– 11376; 24 CFR Part 91 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, Public Law 101–625, 42 USC 12705(b)(1)–(3); 24 CFR Part 91; 24 CFR 91.205(a)–(c) U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Rehabilitation Act of 1973, § 504, Public Law 93-112, 29 USC 794; 24 CFR §8.22(b); 24 CFR §8.23(a) U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 38 USC § 546 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 38 USC § 8104(b)(2) 28 Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey U.S. Census Bureau 000225 Fertility Fertility asked since 1890. Understand Changing Households A QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER A WOMAN HAD A BABY IN THE LAST YEAR IS USED TO CREATE STATISTICS ABOUT FERTILITY. Fertility data are used in planning government programs and adjusting other important data, such as the size of the population eligible for different services, as new people are born. These statistics can also be used to project the future size of the population and to understand more about growing families. FERTILITY DATA HELP COMMUNITIES: Provide Health Care to Children and Families Knowing the numbers of women with a recent birth in combination with other information, such as marital status, labor force status, household income, health insurance status, and poverty status, can help communities understand changes in the demand for health care. For example, knowing how many American Indian babies are born can help communities, tribes, and the federal government estimate the demand for health care through the Indian Health Service. U.S. Census Bureau Knowing the characteristics of women who are giving birth, including where in the country they live, is important to understand the relationships among different development patterns, including housing and travel information and public health and pollution. Though local vital statistics offices typically have a count of births per year, fertility data are able to provide federal program planners, policymakers, and researchers with additional statistics about the age, education, and employment of parents in households welcoming children, and other important information about the homes (age, size, etc.) and households (income, language spoken, etc.) for a more complete picture of families. State and local agencies can use these statistics in combination with other information about new mothers, such as education and income, to understand future needs for the local education system and health services. Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey 29 000226 Selected Statutory Uses of Fertility Data U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), Public Law 92-500, 33 USC § 1254(a)(1)–(2), (b)(2), (b)(6), (b)(7), (n)(1), and (o)(1) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Snyder Act, Nov. 2, 1921, c. 115, 25 USC § 13; Transfer Act, Indian Health Service Aug. 5, 1954, c. 658, § 2, 42 USC § 2001(a); Indian Healthcare Improvement Act, Public Law 94-43, 25 USC § 1602 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Snyder Act, Nov. 2, 1921, c. 115, 25 USC § 13; Transfer Act, Indian Health Service Aug. 5, 1954, c. 658, § 2, 42 USC § 2001(a); Indian Healthcare Improvement Act, Public Law 94-43, 25 USC § 1602 30 Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey U.S. Census Bureau 000227 Grandparent Caregivers Grandparent caregivers asked since 2000. QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER A PERSON IS THE PRIMARY CAREGIVER FOR HIS/HER GRANDCHILDREN AND HOW LONG HE/SHE HAS CARED FOR HIS/ HER GRANDCHILDREN, ARE USED TO CREATE STATISTICS ABOUT GRANDPARENT CAREGIVERS. Grandparent caregiver data help federal agencies understand the special provisions needed for federal programs designed to assist families, as older Americans are often in different financial, housing, and health circumstances than those of other ages. These data are also used to measure the effects of policies and programs that focus on the well-being of families, including tax policies and financial assistance programs. GRANDPARENT CAREGIVER DATA HELP COMMUNITIES: Provide Assistance to Families Knowing more about families, particularly those where grandparents care for grandchildren, along with data about the ages of children, household income, disability, and poverty status can help communities enroll eligible families in programs designed to assist them, such as the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and can help communities qualify for grants to fund these programs. These data are also used to evaluate programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Provide Assistance to Older Americans Knowing how many people in a community are over a certain age, including whether older Americans are caring for grandchildren, helps local officials fund programs and services targeted to reach older adults with the greatest economic and social needs (Older Americans Act). Understand Changing Households Knowing more about how often grandparents are responsible for the basic care for grandchildren and how long they have been responsible in combination with information about age, presence of children, income, etc., can help communities understand if available housing and services are meeting residents’ needs. U.S. Census Bureau Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey 31 000228 Selected Statutory Uses of Grandparent Caregivers Data U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 13 USC § 141 note U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families 13 USC § 141 note 32 Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey U.S. Census Bureau 000229 Health Insurance Health insurance asked since 2008. Provide Health Care for Veterans QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SOURCES OF A PERSON’S HEALTH INSURANCE ARE USED TO CREATE STATISTICS ABOUT THE PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE COVERED BY HEALTH INSURANCE AND THE SOURCES OF HEALTH INSURANCE. Health insurance data are used in planning government programs, determining eligibility criteria, and encouraging eligible people to participate in health insurance programs. HEALTH INSURANCE DATA HELP COMMUNITIES: Provide Assistance to Children and Families Knowing the health insurance coverage status in combination with other information, such as number and age of children in families, household income, and poverty status, can help communities enroll eligible families in programs designed to assist them. For example, health insurance coverage status and age data are used to target efforts to enroll eligible people in Marketplace, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Health Insurance data are also used to ensure that Marketplace, Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP programs are improving health outcomes for families. U.S. Census Bureau Knowing the number and characteristics of veterans eligible to use Department of Veterans Affairs health care, compared to those currently using services, can help communities and the federal government estimate the future demand for health care services and facilities for veterans. Provide Health Care for American Indians Knowing the health insurance coverage of American Indians can help communities, tribes, and the federal government estimate the demand for health care through the Indian Health Service. Understand Changes Knowing the health insurance coverage status of people in a community helps planners identify gaps in community services, plan programs that address those gaps, and qualify for funding for those programs. Knowing more about changes in health insurance coverage rates and the characteristics of people who have or do not have health insurance is also of interest to researchers, advocacy groups, and policymakers. For example, State Councils on Developmental Disabilities use health insurance coverage data in their comprehensive reviews and analyses of the unmet needs of people with developmental disabilities. Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey 33 000230 Selected Statutory Uses of Health Insurance Data U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality 42 USC §§ 299a(a)(3), (6), (8), 299b-2(a)(1), and 299(c)(1)(B) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics 42 USC § 242k(b), (h), and (l) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111148, §10334; 42 USC 300kk U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Indian Health Service Snyder Act, Nov. 2, 1921, c. 115, 25 USC § 13; Transfer Act, Aug. 5, 1954, c. 658, § 2, 42 USC § 2001(a); 42 CFR § 136.12(a) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights Rehabilitation Act of 1973, § 504; Public Law 93-112; Americans With Disabilities Act, Titles II and III, as amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, Public Law 110-325, 42 USC, Chapter 126 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation 42 USC § 1397ii (b)(2)(A)–(C) U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Public Law 106-117, 38 USC §§ 8134(a)(2) 34 Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey U.S. Census Bureau 000231 Home Heating Fuel Home heating fuel asked since 1940. Estimate Future Energy Demand QUESTIONS ABOUT HOME HEATING FUEL ARE USED TO CREATE DATA ABOUT HOME ENERGY USE. These data are used in government programs that analyze community air quality and energy needs. Federal agencies use these statistics to forecast future energy demand, analyze the fuels available to community residents, and plan and fund programs that help low-income residents afford to heat their homes. HOME HEATING FUEL DATA HELP COMMUNITIES: Provide Assistance With Utilities Knowing the current users of certain heating systems and the kinds of systems used in new homes helps communities predict future demand for fuels and the future costs of systems in use in a community. For example, the Department of Energy uses these data to project demand over the next 30 years, assessing the energy needs of the U.S. economy in a domestic and international context. Measure Environmental Impacts Communities with older heating systems may have lower air quality at times when they are in high use. Home heating fuel data are used to develop an inventory of the national aggregate emissions of each greenhouse gas and to research and report on the relationships among different development patterns (including housing and travel information) and public health and pollution (Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act). Knowing which fuel is used to heat homes in combination with the cost of those fuels and the characteristics of the low-income households that need assistance with their utilities, helps communities enroll eligible households in assistance programs like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program and qualify for grants to fund assistance. These data are also used to evaluate whether these programs benefit eligible households. U.S. Census Bureau Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey 35 000232 Selected Statutory Uses of Home Heating Fuel Data U.S. Department of Energy Energy Policy Act of 1992, Public Law 102-486, Energy Policy Act of 1992, Public Law 102-486, 42 USC § 13385 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families 42 USC § 8629(a) and (b) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families 42 USC § 8623(a)(2) and (4), § 8629(a)(1)–(3) and (6), § 8629(b) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families 42 USC § 8623(a)(2) and (4) and § 8622(11) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families 42 USC § 8629(a)(1)–(3) and (6) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Air Pollution Control Act (Clean Air Act), Public Law 84-159, 42 USC § 7403(a)(2), (b)(1), and (b)(6) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Air Pollution Control Act (Clean Air Act), Public Law 84-159, 42 USC § 7403(a)(1), (b)(6), (b)(7), (e), and (g) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), Public Law 92-500, 33 USC § 1254 (a)(2), (b)(6), and (s) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), Public Law 92-500, 33 USC § 1254(a)(1)–(2), (b)(2), (b)(6), (b)(7), (n) (1), and (o)(1) 36 Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey U.S. Census Bureau 000233 Home Value and Rent Home value asked since 1940, rent asked since 1940. QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MONTHLY RENT AMOUNT OR HOW MUCH THE HOME AND PROPERTY ARE WORTH ARE USED TO PRODUCE STATISTICS ABOUT RENT AND HOME VALUE. When housing is not sufficient or not affordable, housing cost data can help communities enroll eligible households in programs designed to assist them and can help communities qualify for grants from the Community Development Block Grant, HOME Investment Partnership Program, Emergency Solutions Grants, Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS, and other programs. Plan Community Development These data are used in government programs that analyze whether adequate housing is affordable for residents and provide and fund housing assistance programs. These statistics are also used to enforce laws, regulations, and policies designed to eliminate discrimination in private-market housing, government programs, and in society. HOME VALUE AND RENT DATA HELP COMMUNITIES: Provide Adequate Housing Knowing the different types of households in a community (single people, couples, families, roommates, etc.) helps communities understand whether available housing meets the needs of residents. Housing costs in combination with relationship and combined income of all people in a household helps communities understand whether housing is affordable. Knowing how the balance of rented homes, mortgaged homes, and owned homes changes over time can help communities understand changes in local housing markets and identify opportunities to improve tax, assistance, and zoning policies. Ensure Equal Opportunity Knowing more about people who rent and people who own homes in the community in combination with age, gender, race, Hispanic origin, disability, and other data, helps government and communities enforce laws, such as the 1968 Fair Housing Act designed to eliminate discrimination in housing. When rental housing is not affordable, rent data are used to identify rental distribution of housing units (the standard cost of different types of housing in different areas of the country) and to determine Fair Market Rents, which the Department of Housing and Urban Development uses to determine the amount of tenant subsidies in housing assistance programs. U.S. Census Bureau Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey 37 000234 Selected Statutory Uses of Home Value and Rent Data U.S. Department of Agriculture 42 USC 1485, 1486, 1490a, 1490l, 1490m, 1490p-2, 1490r; 7 CFR 1940.560–1940.567, 1940.575; 7 CFR 3550.10, 3560.11, 3560.152(a)(2), 3560.254(c) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families Community Services Block Grant Act, Public Law 105-285, 42 USC § 9902 (2), 9903, and 9908 (b)(1)(A), (b)(11), and (c)(1)(A)(i) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families 42 USC §§ 9902 (2), 9908(b)(1)(A), and 9914 (a) and (c ) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality 42 USC §§ 299a(a)(3),(6),(8), 299b-2(a)(1), and 299(c)(1)(B) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Social Security Act, Public Law 74-271, § 1848e(1)(A), 42 USC § 1395w-4(e)(1)(A) U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, Public Law 101–625, 42 USC 12705(b)(1)–(3); 24 CFR Part 91, 24 CFR 91.205(a)–(c) U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, 42 USC 11371– 11376; 24 CFR Part 91 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Native American Housing Assistance and SelfDetermination Act of 1996, Public Law 104-330, as amended, 25 USC § 4152(b); 24 CFR 1000.324–1000.330 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development United States Housing Act of 1937, Public Law 93-383, as amended; 42 USC § 1437f(c)(1); 24 CFR 888.113, 24 CFR 982.401 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, Public Law 110-289, Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, § 1338, 12 USC § 4568 U.S. Department of Transportation 49 USC §§ 6302(b)(3)(B), 6303(c ), 6304(a), and 6309 (a) U.S. Department of Transportation Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act, Public Law 114-94; 49 USC § 5303(c), (e), (h), (i), (j),(k), and (n) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), Public Law 92-500, 33 USC § 1254(a)(1)-(2), (b)(2), (b)(6), (b)(7), (n)(1), and (o)(1) 38 Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey U.S. Census Bureau 000235 Income Income asked since 1940. Provide Assistance to Children and Families QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FUNDS A PERSON RECEIVES FROM VARIOUS SOURCES ARE USED TO CREATE STATISTICS ABOUT INCOME, ASSISTANCE, EARNINGS, AND POVERTY STATUS. Income data are used in planning and funding government programs that provide economic assistance for populations in need and measure the economic well-being of the nation. Income and poverty estimates are often part of allocation formulas that determine how food, health care, job training, housing, and other assistance are distributed. INCOME DATA HELP COMMUNITIES: Provide Adequate Housing Knowing the combined income of all people in a household in combination with housing costs helps communities understand whether housing is affordable for residents. When housing is not sufficient or not affordable, income data can help communities enroll eligible households in programs designed to assist them and can help communities qualify for grants from the Community Development Block Grant, HOME Investment Partnership Program, Emergency Solutions Grant, Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS, and other programs. Knowing household income in combination with other information, such as the number and age of children in families, health insurance status, and poverty status, can help communities enroll eligible families in programs designed to assist them. For example, income data are used to identify eligibility and provide funding in programs like Medicaid, the Child and Adult Care Food Program, and Head Start. Educate Children and Adults Knowing how many children and adults depend on services through schools helps school districts make long-term building, staffing, and funding decisions. Household income and family composition determine poverty status, which is used along with school enrollment, information on disability status, and language spoken at home, to help schools understand the needs of their students and qualify for grants that help fund programs for students with needs for additional services or assistance, including free/reduced price school lunches (Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965). Plan Community Development Knowing more about the financial situation of residents, including income, employment, and housing costs, can help communities qualify for loan and grant programs designed to stimulate economic recovery, improve housing, run job-training programs, and define areas as empowerment or enterprise zones. Provide Assistance to Older Americans Knowing how many older people in a community are living in poverty in combination with other information, such as age and disability status of other family members, can help communities ensure these residents receive appropriate assistance, such as financial assistance with utilities (Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program). U.S. Census Bureau Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey 39 000236 Selected Statutory Uses of Income Data U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act, Public Law 95-113, Title XIV; Act of May 8, 1914, ch. 79, 7 USC § 3175; 7 USC § 343(d) U.S. Department of Agriculture Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, 42 USC § 1759a(g) U.S. Department of Agriculture 7 USC § 2020(e)(1); 7 CFR 272.4(b)(6) U.S. Department of Agriculture 42 USC § 1766(f)(3)(A)(ii)(I)(aa) and 1766(f)(3)(E)(i); 7 CFR 226.15(f) U.S. Department of Education 20 USC § 6333, 6334(a)(1), 6335(a), 6337(b)(1)(A) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Community Living 42 USC 300kk U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148, §10334; 42 USC 300kk U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Public Health Service Act, § 301, 42 USC 241; Public Health Service Act, § 3101, 42 USC 300kk U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, 42 USC 11371– 11376; 24 CFR Part 91 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Native American Housing Assistance and SelfDetermination Act of 1996, Public Law 104-330, as amended, 25 USC § 4152(b); 24 CFR 1000.324–1000.330 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, 42 USC 5306(a)(1); 24 CFR §1003.101 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, Public Law 93–383, as amended, 42 USC § 1439 (d)(1)(A)(i); 24 CFR 791.402 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 as amended; Public Law 93-383, as amended, 42 USC 5301, 5302, and 5305; 24 CFR 91.205(a)–(c ), 91.305(a)–(c), 570.208(a)(1), 570.483(b)(1), 570.704(a)–(c), 570.707(a)– (c), 570.901 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Tax Reform Act of 1986, Public Law 99-514, 26 USC § 42(d)(5)(B)(ii)(I), (iii)(I), (iv), and(g); 15 U.S.C § 631 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, Public Law 101–625, 42 USC 12705(b)(1)–(3); 24 CFR Part 91, 24 CFR 91.205(a)–(c) 40 Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey U.S. Census Bureau 000237 Industry, Occupation, and Class of Worker Industry asked since 1820,1 occupation asked since 1850, class of worker asked since 1910. Ensure Equal Employment Opportunity QUESTIONS ABOUT A PERSON’S EMPLOYER, THE KIND OF BUSINESS OR INDUSTRY OF THAT EMPLOYER, THE KIND OF WORK A PERSON DOES, AND THAT PERSON’S MOST IMPORTANT ACTIVITIES ARE USED TO PRODUCE INDUSTRY, OCCUPATION, AND CLASS OF WORKER STATISTICS. Knowing more about people who are employed or looking for work in combination with educational attainment, age, gender, race, Hispanic origin, disability status, veteran status, and other data, helps governments and communities enforce civil rights laws against employment discrimination. For example, these data are used to enforce nondiscrimination in employment by federal agencies, private employers, employment agencies, and labor organizations (Civil Rights Act of 1964). Understand Changes These data are used to provide information about the labor force in government programs, to evaluate government programs and policies to ensure they fairly and equitably serve the needs of all groups, and to enforce laws, regulations, and policies against discrimination in society. INDUSTRY, OCCUPATION, AND CLASS OF WORKER DATA HELP COMMUNITIES: Provide Employment Opportunities Knowing the characteristics of growing or declining industries and occupations is an important part of estimating changes in the economy. Labor force estimates are used in funding decisions; to ensure surveys are accurate, including surveys that provide official labor market estimates; and to understand change in other data (Wagner-Peyser Act and Workforce Investment Act). Class of worker data, in particular, are used by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture to understand changes in farm workers and agriculture. Knowing whether programs designed to employ specific groups, such as people with disabilities or veterans, are succeeding is important to employers, federal agencies, and federal government contractors (Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act, Rehabilitation Act of 1973). Industry, occupation, and class of worker data provide additional detail about the jobs and careers pursued by people participating in these programs.1 State and local agencies use these statistics to identify labor surplus areas (areas with people available for hiring and training), plan workforce development programs including job fairs and training programs, and promote business opportunities. 1 Industry asked in 1820, 1840, and 1910 until present. U.S. Census Bureau Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey 41 000238 Selected Statutory Uses of Industry, Occupation, and Class of Worker Data U.S. Department of Agriculture Smith- Lever Act of 1914, 7 USC § 343(c) U.S. Department of Agriculture 7 USC 3222b, NIFA Funding Opportunity Announcement (RFA) U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act, Public Law 95-113, Title XIV, 7 USC § 3222 U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act, Public Law 95-113, Title XIV, 7 USC § 3221 U.S. Department of Agriculture Act of Mar. 2, 1887, ch. 314, 7 USC § 361c U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation 42 USC § 1397ii (b)(2)(A)–(C) U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,Public Law 88-352, 42 USC § 2000e-2 U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352, 42 USC § 2000e-2 U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352, 42 USC § 2000e-2; Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642 (1989) U.S. Department of Transportation 49 USC § 5303; 49 CFR Part 613 U.S. Department of Transportation 49 USC §§6303(c ) and 6304(a); U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2008, Public Law 110-389, Title III—Labor and Education Matters, Subtitle C— Vocational Rehabilitation Matters, § 334—Longitudinal study of Department of Veterans Affairs vocational rehabilitation programs, 38 USC § 3122 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of Federal Operations The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Public Law 93-112; 29 USC § 791 (b); 29 CFR 1614.602 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of General Counsel Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, Public Law 90-202,29 USC § 623(a)–(d) and 633a; 29 CFR 1625.7(d); Hazelwood School Dist. v. United States, 433 U.S. 299 (1977) U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of General Counsel Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352, 42 USC § 2000e2(k)(1)(A) U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of Research, Information, and Planning Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352; 42 USC § 2000e2(k)(1)(A); Hazelwood School Dist. v. United States, 433 U.S. 299 (1977) 42 Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey U.S. Census Bureau 000239 Labor Force Status Labor force status asked since 1890. QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER A PERSON WORKED LAST WEEK AND, IF THE ANSWER IS NO, WHY HE/SHE WAS NOT WORKING, WHETHER HE/SHE PLANS TO RETURN TO WORK, AND HOW MUCH THEY WORKED IN THE PAST YEAR ARE USED TO PRODUCE STATISTICS ABOUT THE LABOR FORCE, INCLUDING UNEMPLOYMENT STATISTICS. Labor force data are used in planning and funding government programs that provide unemployment assistance and services. These data are also used to evaluate other government programs and policies to ensure they fairly and equitably serve the needs of all groups, and to enforce laws, regulations, and policies against discrimination in society. LABOR FORCE DATA HELP COMMUNITIES: State and local agencies use these statistics to identify labor surplus areas (areas with people available for hiring and training), plan workforce development programs, including job fairs and training programs, and to promote business opportunities. Ensure Equal Opportunity Knowing more about people who are employed or looking for work in combination with age, gender, race, Hispanic origin, disability status, veteran status, and other data, helps governments and communities enforce laws, regulations, and policies against discrimination in employment. For example, labor force data are used to enforce nondiscrimination in employment by federal agencies, private employers, employment agencies, and labor organizations (Civil Rights Act of 1964). Understand Changes Knowing the characteristics of people who are working or looking for work is an important part of estimating changes in the economy. Labor force estimates are used in funding decisions; to ensure surveys are accurate, including surveys that provide official labor market estimates; and to understand change in other data (Wagner-Peyser Act and Workforce Investment Act). Provide Employment Opportunities Knowing whether programs designed to employ specific groups, such as people with disabilities or veterans, are succeeding is important to employers, federal agencies, and federal government contractors (Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act, Rehabilitation Act of 1973). U.S. Census Bureau Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey 43 000240 Selected Statutory Uses of Labor Force Status Data U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Community Living Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000, Public Law 106-402, Section 124(c)(3); 42 USC §15024 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 42 USC § 1397ii (b)(2)(A)–(C) Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352, 42 USC § 2000e-2; Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642 (1989) U.S. Department of Labor 29 USC §§ 49f(a)(3)(D), 49g(d), and 49l-2(a) U.S. Department of Labor Workforce Investment Act of 1998, Public Law 105-220; 20 CFR 668.296(b) and 668.440 U.S. Department of Transportation 49 USC § 5303; 49 CFR Part 613 U.S. Department of Transportation Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, Public Law 112-141 (2012), 49 USC § 5304 (a); 49 CFR Part 613, Subpart B U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 38 USC § 546 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2008, Public Law 110-389, Title III—Labor and Education Matters, Subtitle C— Vocational Rehabilitation Matters, Section 334—Longitudinal study of Department of Veterans Affairs vocational rehabilitation programs, 38 USC § 3122 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of Federal Operations The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Public Law 93-112, 29 USC § 791 (b); 29 CFR 1614.602 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of General Counsel Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, Public Law 90-202, 29 USC § 623(a)–(d) and 633a; 29 CFR 1625.7(d); Hazelwood School Dist. v. United States, 433 U.S. 299 (1977) U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of General Counsel Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352, 42 USC § 2000e2(k)(1)(A) U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of Research, Information, and Planning Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352, 42 USC § 2000e2(k)(1)(A); Hazelwood School Dist. v. United States, 433 U.S. 299 (1977) 44 Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey U.S. Census Bureau 000241 Language Spoken at Home Language spoken at home asked since 1890.1 Ensure Equal Opportunity QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER A PERSON SPEAKS A LANGUAGE OTHER THAN ENGLISH AT HOME, WHAT LANGUAGE HE/SHE SPEAKS, AND HOW WELL HE/SHE SPEAKS ENGLISH ARE USED TO CREATE STATISTICS ABOUT LANGUAGE AND ABOUT ABILITY TO SPEAK ENGLISH. Language data are used in planning government programs for adults and children who do not speak English well. These data are also used to ensure that information about public health, law, regulations, voting, and safety is communicated in languages that community members understand.1 LANGUAGE SPOKEN AT HOME DATA HELP COMMUNITIES: Educate Children Knowing how many children and youth with limited English-speaking abilities depend on services through schools helps school districts make long-term staffing and funding decisions. Language spoken at home in combination with other information, such as disability status, school enrollment, and poverty status, helps schools understand the needs of their students and qualify for grants that help fund programs for those students (Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965). 1 Knowing the languages spoken by people in the community in combination with information about housing, voting, employment, and education, helps the government and communities enforce laws, regulations, and policies against discrimination based on national origin. For example, language data are used to support the enforcement responsibilities under the Voting Rights Act to investigate differences in voter participation rates and to enforce laws and policies related to bilingual requirements. Knowing languages spoken in a community also helps federal agencies identify needs for services for people with limited English proficiency under Executive Order 13166. Understand Changes Knowing whether people who speak languages other than English have the same opportunities in education, employment, voting, home ownership, and many other areas is of interest to researchers, advocacy groups, and policymakers. For example, language data are used with age and ancestry data to address language and cultural diversity needs in health care plans for the older population. Language spoken at home was not asked in 1950. U.S. Census Bureau Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey 45 000242 Selected Statutory Uses of Language Spoken at Home Data U.S. Department of Agriculture 7 USC § 2020(e)(1); 7 CFR 272.4(b)(6) U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 52 USC § 10503 U.S. Department of Education 20 USC §§ 6821 and 6824, 7011(6), and 7801(25) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families 42 USC § 9835(g) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Community Living 42 USC § 300kk U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Community Living Older Americans Act of 1965, Public Law 89-73, as amended, 42 USC §§ 3013, 3024. 3030s-1, 3032 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111148, § 10334; 42 USC § 300kk U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics 42 USC § 242k (l) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation 42 USC § 1397ii (b)(2)(A)–(C) U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act 42 USC § 11371–11376; 42 USC § 12901; 24 CFR Part 91; 24 CFR Part 576; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, Public Law 101–625, 42 USC § 12705(b)(1)–(3); 24 CFR Part 91, 24 CFR 91.205(a)–(c) U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division Voting Rights Act of 1965, § 203, 52 USC § 10503; 28 CFR Part 55 U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI, 42 USC § 2000d–2000d-7; 28 CFR 42.101–42.112; 28 CFR 42.401– 42.415; 28 CFR 50.3; Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974) U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974, 20 USC § 1701 et seq.; Castaneda v. Pickard, 648 F. 2d 989 (1981) U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division Voting Rights Act of 1965,52 USC § 10301; 28 CFR Part 51; LULAC v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006); Johnson v. DeGrandy, 512 U.S. 997 (1994); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986) 46 Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey U.S. Census Bureau 000243 Marital Status and Marital History Marital status asked since 1880, marital history asked since 1850. Provide Assistance to Families QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER A PERSON IS CURRENTLY MARRIED, WIDOWED, DIVORCED, SEPARATED, OR NEVER MARRIED; WHETHER HIS/HER MARITAL STATUS CHANGED IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS; AND LIFETIME MARRIAGES ARE USED TO CREATE STATISTICS ABOUT CURRENT MARITAL STATUS AND MARITAL HISTORY. Marital status and marital history data help federal agencies understand marriage trends, forecast future needs of programs that have spousal benefits, and measure the effects of policies and programs that focus on the well-being of families, including tax policies and financial assistance programs. MARITAL STATUS AND MARITAL HISTORY DATA HELP COMMUNITIES: Knowing more about families, particularly blended and single-parent families, along with data about the presence of children, labor force status, and poverty status, can help communities enroll eligible families in programs designed to assist them, such as the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and can help communities qualify for grants to fund these programs. These data are also used to evaluate programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Understand Changing Households Knowing more about community marriage trends (whether people are marrying later in life, not getting married, or marrying again) in combination with information about age, presence of children, income, etc., can help communities understand if the available housing, job training, rental assistance, and administrative services and programs are meeting residents’ needs during their major life changes. These data also help the federal government plan for the future. For example, the Social Security Administration estimates future program needs based on the current relationships of working people. Provide Benefits to Spouses and Survivors Knowing more about how many spouses and ex-spouses may qualify for programs with spousal benefits, including veteran and social security programs, can help federal agencies ensure adequate funding and facilities for these programs and can help communities determine where gaps in benefits and services might exist. U.S. Census Bureau Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey 47 000244 Selected Statutory Uses of Marital Status and Marital History Data U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 13 USC § 141 note Administration for Children and Families U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 42 USC §§ 299a(a)(3), (6), (8), 299b-2(a)(1), and 299(c )(1)(A) Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 42 USC § 242k(b), (h), and (l) Center for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 42 USC § 1397ii (b)(2)(A)–(C) Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 38 USC § 546 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 38 USC § 8104(b)(2) U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2008, Public Law 110-389, Title III—Labor and Education Matters, Subtitle C— Vocational Rehabilitation Matters, Section 334—Longitudinal study of Department of Veterans Affairs vocational rehabilitation programs 38 USC § 3122 U.S. Social Security Administration Social Security Act, Public Law 74–271 as amended, 42 USC § 401(c) 48 Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey U.S. Census Bureau 000245 Migration (Previous Residence)/Residence 1 Year Ago Residence 1 year ago asked since 1930. QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER A PERSON MOVED IN THE LAST YEAR AND WHERE HE OR SHE LIVED 1 YEAR AGO ARE USED TO CREATE STATISTICS ABOUT WHERE PEOPLE ARE MOVING (TO/ FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND WITHIN THE UNITED STATES). Migration (residence 1 year ago) data are used in planning government programs and adjusting other important geographic data as people move. The characteristics of people who have moved are also an important part of estimating population changes. These population estimates are used in funding decisions, to ensure surveys are accurate, to understand change in other data, and to produce official international migration estimates. U.S. Census Bureau MIGRATION/RESIDENCE 1 YEAR AGO DATA HELP COMMUNITIES: Understand Changes Knowing the characteristics of people who have moved and the patterns of migration (where people move to and from) is an important part of estimating population changes. Population estimates are used in funding decisions, to ensure surveys are accurate, to understand change in other data, and to produce international migration estimates. These data also help agencies assess residential stability and the effects of migration on urban and rural areas. Knowing where certain populations move to and from helps federal agencies assess the needs of counties with large refugee populations and the effects of immigration on local areas. Knowing the characteristics of people who live or have lived in certain areas is important to understand the relationships among different development patterns, including housing and travel information, public health, and pollution. These data may also assist state and local agencies in developing programs that attract new residents or employers. Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey 49 000246 Selected Statutory Uses of Migration/Residence 1 Year Ago Data U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 13 USC § 181 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families Community Services Block Grant Act, Public Law 105-285, 42 USC §§ 9902 (2), 9903, and 9908 (b)(1)(A), (b)(11), and (c)(1) (A)(i), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Indian Health Service Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, 25 USC § 13; 42 USC § 2001(a); 42 CFR 136.12(a) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), Public Law 92-500, 33 USC § 1254(a)(1)–(2), (b)(2), (b)(6), (b)(7), (n) (1), and (o)(1) 50 Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey U.S. Census Bureau 000247 Place of Birth, Citizenship, and Year of Entry Place of birth asked since 1850, citizenship asked since 1820,1 year of entry asked since 1890.2 Educate Children QUESTIONS ABOUT A PERSON’S PLACE OF BIRTH, CITIZENSHIP, AND YEAR OF ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES ARE USED TO CREATE DATA ABOUT CITIZENS, NONCITIZENS, AND THE FOREIGNBORN POPULATION. These statistics are essential for agencies and policymakers setting and evaluating immigration policies and laws, seeking to understand the experience of different immigrant groups, and enforcing laws, policies, and regulations against discrimination based on national origin. These statistics are also used to tailor services to accommodate cultural differences.1, 2 Knowing how many foreign-born children depend on services through schools helps school districts make staffing and funding decisions. Place of birth, citizenship, and year of entry statistics in combination with other information, such as language spoken at home, help schools understand the needs of their students and qualify for grants that help fund programs for those students (Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965). Understand Changes Knowing whether people of different races or countries of birth have the same opportunities in education, employment, voting, home ownership, and many other areas is of interest to researchers, advocacy groups, and policymakers. These data may also help communities with large refugee populations that qualify for financial assistance (Immigration Nationality Act). PLACE OF BIRTH, CITIZENSHIP, AND YEAR OF ENTRY DATA HELP COMMUNITIES: Ensure Equal Opportunity Knowing how many people in the community are born in other countries in combination with information about housing, voting, language, employment, and education, helps the government and communities to enforce laws, regulations, and policies against discrimination based on national origin. For example, these data are used to support the enforcement responsibilities under the Voting Rights Act to investigate differences in voter participation rates and to enforce other laws and policies regarding bilingual requirements. 1 2 Citizenship asked 1820–1830, 1870, and 1890 to present. Year of entry asked 1890–1930, and 1970 to present. U.S. Census Bureau Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey 51 000248 Selected Statutory Uses of Place of Birth, Citizenship, and Year of Entry Data U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 52 USC § 10503 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 13 USC § 141(c) U.S. Department of Education 20 USC §§ 6821, 6824, 7011(5), and 7801(20) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families Community Services Block Grant Act, Public Law 105-285, 42 USC §§ 9902 (2), 9903, and 9908(b)(1)(A), (b)(11), and (c)(1) (A)(i) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics 42 USC § 242k(b), (h), and (l) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI; Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Section 1557 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation 42 USC § 1397ii (b)(2)(A)(C) U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Fair Housing Act, Public Law 90–284, 42 USC 3600–3620; 42 USC 3608(e) U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division Voting Rights Act of 1965, § 203; 52 USC § 10503; 28 CFR Part 55 U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII, Public Law 88-352, 42 USC § 2000e-2 U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII, Public Law 88-352, 42 USC § 2000e-2 ; Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642 (1989) U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of Federal Operations The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Public Law 93-112, 29 USC § 791 (b); 29 CFR 1614.602 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of General Counsel Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352, 42 USC § 2000e2(k)(1)(A) U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of Research, Information, and Planning Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352,42 USC § 2000e2(k)(1)(A); Hazelwood School Dist. v. United States, 433 U.S. 299 (1977) U.S. Social Security Administration Social Security Act, Public Law 74–271, as amended, 42 USC § 401(c) 52 Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey U.S. Census Bureau 000249 Plumbing Facilities, Kitchen Facilities, and Telephone Service Plumbing facilities asked since 1940, kitchen facilities asked since 1940, telephone service asked since 1960. Plan Community Development QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PRESENCE OF HOT AND COLD RUNNING WATER, A BATHTUB OR SHOWER, A SINK WITH A FAUCET, A STOVE OR RANGE, A REFRIGERATOR, AND TELEPHONE SERVICE ARE USED TO CREATE DATA ABOUT INDICATORS OF HOUSING QUALITY. These data are used in planning and funding government programs that identify areas eligible for housing assistance, rehabilitation loans, and other programs that help people access and afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing. Public health officials may also use this information to locate areas in danger of ground-water contamination and waterborne diseases. PLUMBING FACILITIES, KITCHEN FACILITIES, AND TELEPHONE SERVICE DATA HELP COMMUNITIES: Knowing how the quality of different types of homes in combination with whether they are occupied or vacant, can help communities identify opportunities to improve tax, assistance, and zoning policies and to reduce tax revenue losses from vacant or abandoned properties. These data may also be useful in identifying types of homes in disaster-prone areas during emergency planning and preparation. Ensure Residents Can Communicate Measuring the extent of telephone service, including access for schools, libraries, health care providers, and low-income residents, helps communities ensure their residents have universal access to assistance programs, emergency services, and important information. Measure Environmental Impacts Substandard plumbing systems may impact the local water supply. Understanding where these systems are concentrated helps communities research their wastewater infrastructure needs and work to improve their systems. Provide Adequate Housing Knowing more about the quality of housing in a community helps communities understand whether available housing meets the needs of residents. When housing is not sufficient or not affordable, data on household facilities can help communities enroll eligible households in programs designed to assist them, and can help communities qualify for grants from the Community Development Block Grant, HOME Investment Partnership Program, Emergency Solutions Grant, Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS, and other programs. U.S. Census Bureau Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey 53 000250 Selected Statutory Uses of Plumbing Facilities, Kitchen Facilities, and Telephone Service Data U.S. Department of Agriculture 42 USC §§ 1472, 1474, 1485, 1486, 1490, 1490a, 1490c, 1490d, 1490e, and 1490l,; 7 CFR 1940.560–1940.567, 1940.575; 7 CFR 3550.10, 1980.312, 3560.11; 7 CFR 3550.53(a), 3550.67(b), 3550.68(c); 7 CFR 1980.301(d); 7 CFR 3560.152(a)(2), 3560.254(c) RD Instruction 1980-D, Exhibit C U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Native American Housing Assistance and SelfDetermination Act of 1996, Public Law 104-330, as amended, 25 USC § 4152(b); 24 CFR 1000.324–1000.330 (Also Appendices A and B) U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development United States Housing Act of 1937, Public Law 93-383, as amended, 42 USC § 1437f(c)(1); 24 CFR 888.113; 24 CFR 982.401 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, Public Law 101–625 42 USC 12705(b)(1)–(3); 24 CFR Part 91; 24 CFR 91.205(a)–(c) U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Tax Reform Act of 1986, Public Law 99-514, 26 USC § 42(d) (5)(B)(ii)(I), (iii)(I), (iv), and (g); 15 U.S.C § 631 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, § 1338, 12 USC § 4568 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, Public Law 101-625, 42 USC § 12747(b)(1)(A) and (B); 24 CFR 92.50(a), (b), and (c) U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division Voting Rights Act of 1965, 52 USC § 10301; 28 CFR Part 51; LULAC v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006); Johnson v. DeGrandy, 512 U.S. 997 (1994); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986) U.S. Department of Transportation Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act, Public Law 114-94; 49 USC § 5304; 49 CFR Part 613, Subpart B U.S. Federal Communications Commission Telecommunications Act of 1996, Public Law 104-104, 47 USC §151 and 254; 47 CFR 54.702(i) 54 Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey U.S. Census Bureau 000251 School Enrollment, Educational Attainment, and Undergraduate Field of Degree School enrollment asked since 1850, educational attainment asked since 1940, undergraduate field of degree asked since 2009. QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER A PERSON IS ATTENDING SCHOOL OR COLLEGE, THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION HE/SHE HAS COMPLETED, AND THE FIELD OF ANY COMPLETED UNDERGRADUATE COLLEGE DEGREES ARE USED TO CREATE DATA ABOUT EDUCATION. Knowing how many adults do not have a high school diploma or equivalent helps schools understand the needs of adult students and qualify for grants that help fund programs for these students (Workforce Investment Act). Knowing the major fields of study of adults with bachelor’s degrees enables efforts to develop the nation’s science, technology, engineering, and mathematics labor force (America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010). Ensure Equal Opportunity These statistics are used to analyze the characteristics and needs of school-aged children and to understand the continuing education needs of adults. SCHOOL ENROLLMENT, EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT, AND UNDERGRADUATE FIELD OF DEGREE DATA HELP COMMUNITIES: Educate Children and Adults Knowing how many children and adults depend on services through schools helps school districts make long-term building, staffing, and funding decisions. School enrollment in combination with other information, such as disability status, language spoken at home, and poverty status, helps schools understand the needs of their students and qualify for grants that help fund programs for those students (Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965). U.S. Census Bureau Understanding more about the characteristics of people enrolled or not enrolled in school helps government and communities enforce laws, regulations, and policies against discrimination in education (Civil Rights Act). Knowing the educational attainment of workers compared to those seeking employment in combination with age, gender, race, Hispanic origin, disability, and other data, helps enforce nondiscrimination in employment by federal agencies, private employers, employment agencies, and labor organizations (Civil Rights Act of 1964). This information is also used in targeting voting rights enforcement (Voting Rights Act). Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey 55 000252 Selected Statutory Uses of School Enrollment, Educational Attainment, and Undergraduate Field of Degree Data U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families 42 USC § 9835(g) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Community Living Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000, Public Law 106-402, Section 124(c)(5); 42 USC § 15024 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality 42 USC § 299a(a)(3),(6),(8); 42 USC § 299b-2(a)(1); 42 USC § 299(c )(1)(A) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics 42 USC § 242k(b), (h), and (l) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation 42 USC § 1397ii (b)(2)(A)–(C) U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974, 20 USC § 1701 et seq.; Castaneda v. Pickard, 648 F.2d 989 (1981) U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Rights to Public Education and Equal Educational Entitlement), 42 USC § 2000c et seq. U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division Voting Rights Act of 1965, § 203; 52 USC § 10503; 28 CFR Part 55 U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division Voting Rights Act of 1965, 52 USC § 10301; 28 CFR Part 51; LULAC v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006); Johnson v. DeGrandy, 512 U.S. 997 (1994); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986) U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352, 42 USC § 2000e-2; Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642 (1989) U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 38 USC § 546 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2008, Public Law 110-389, Title III–Labor and Education Matters, Subtitle C– Vocational Rehabilitation Matters, Section 334–Longitudinal study of Department of Veterans Affairs vocational rehabilitation programs, 38 USC § 3122 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 38 USC § 8104(b) (2) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), Public Law 92-500, 33 USC § 1254(a)(1)–(2), (b)(2), (b)(6), (b)(7), (n)(1), and (o)(1) U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352, 42 USC § 2000eOffice of General Counsel 2(k)(1)(A) U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352, 42 USC § 2000eOffice of Research, Information, and Planning 2(k)(1)(A); Hazelwood School Dist. v. United States, 433 U.S. 299 (1977) 56 Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey U.S. Census Bureau 000253 Selected Monthly Owner Costs (Cost of Utilities, Condominium and Mobile Home Fees, Taxes, Insurance, and Mortgages) Cost of utilities asked since 1940, condominium and mobile homes fees asked since 1990, taxes asked since 1940,1 insurance cost asked since 1980, mortgages cost asked since 1940. Plan Community Development QUESTIONS ABOUT THE USE AND COST OF COMMON UTILITIES, ANY APPLICABLE CONDOMINIUM AND MOBILE HOME FEES, TAXES, UTILITIES, MORTGAGES, AND HOME LOANS ARE USED TO PRODUCE STATISTICS ABOUT SELECTED MONTHLY OWNER COSTS. These data are used in government programs that analyze whether adequate housing is affordable for residents and to provide and fund housing assistance programs. These statistics are also used to enforce laws, regulations, and policies against discrimination in government programs and in society.1 Knowing how housing costs change over time can help communities understand changes in local housing markets and to identify opportunities to improve tax, assistance, and zoning policies. Ensure Equal Opportunity Knowing more about the housing costs of people who own homes in the community in combination with age, gender, race, Hispanic origin, disability, and other data about the household residents, helps government and communities enforce laws, such as the 1968 Fair Housing Act designed to eliminate discrimination in housing. SELECTED MONTHLY OWNER COSTS DATA HELP COMMUNITIES: Provide Adequate Housing Comparing housing costs to household income (the combined income of everyone in the household) helps communities understand whether housing is affordable for residents. When housing is not sufficient or not affordable, housing cost data can help communities enroll eligible households in programs designed to assist them, and can help communities qualify for grants from the Community Development Block Grant, HOME Investment Partnerships Program, Emergency Solutions Grants, Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS, and other programs. 1 Cost of utilities asked since 1940, condominium and mobile homes fees asked since 1990, taxes asked in 1940 and since 1980, insurance cost asked since 1980, mortgages cost asked since 1940. U.S. Census Bureau Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey 57 000254 Selected Statutory Uses of Selected Monthly Owner Costs Data U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis 15 USC § 1516; Department Organization Order 35-1A U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, 42 USC § 11371–11376, 42 USC § 12901; 24 CFR Part 91; 24 CFR Part 576; 24 CFR Part 574 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996, Public Law 104-330, as amended, 25 USC § 4152(b); 24 CFR 1000.324–1000.330 (Also appendices A and B) U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, Public Law 101–625, 42 USC § 12705(b)(1)–(3); 24 CFR Part 91; 24 CFR 91.205(a)–(c) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), Public Law 92-500, 33 USC § 1254(a)(1)–(2), (b)(2), (b)(6), (b)(7), (n)(1), and (o)(1) 58 Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey U.S. Census Bureau 000255 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)/Food Stamps SNAP/food stamps asked since 2005. Evaluate SNAP QUESTIONS ABOUT A HOUSEHOLD’S RECEIPT OF FOOD STAMPS/SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (SNAP)1 ARE USED TO CREATE STATISTICS ABOUT PARTICIPATION IN FOOD ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS. SNAP data are used in planning and funding government programs that provide food assistance and in evaluating other government programs.1 SNAP DATA HELP COMMUNITIES: Knowing more about food-assistance program participation is used to evaluate the SNAP program and award bonuses to communities that administer SNAP funds well. Understand Changes State and local agencies use these statistics to assess state food assistance needs and participation rates for eligible families and individuals and to determine gaps in services and programs. Faith-based and other nonprofit organizations use information about food assistance needs to determine where food banks, food kitchens, and other programs could be beneficial and how the needs of their communities can be met with additional resources and services. Provide Food Assistance to School Children Knowing more about food assistance program participation in combination with school enrollment, income, and poverty status, can help communities streamline administration of the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program by replacing administrative paperwork with American Community Survey estimates of students eligible for free and reduced-price meals. 1 In 2008, the food stamp program was renamed SNAP, but the question uses both program names to minimize confusion. U.S. Census Bureau Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey 59 000256 Selected Statutory Uses of SNAP Data U.S. Department of Agriculture Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, 42 USC § 1759a(g) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families Community Services Block Grant Act, Public Law 105-285, 42 USC § 9902 (2), 9903, and 9908 (b)(1)(A), (b)(11), and (c)(1)(A) (i) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families 42 USC § 9835(g) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families 42 USC §§ 8629 (a)(1)–(3) and (5)–(6), 8629 (b), and 8622 (11) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families 13 USC § 141 note U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families 42 USC § 603(a)(4) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), Public Law 92-500, 33 USC § 1254(a)(1)–(2), (b)(2), (b)(6), (b)(7), (n) (1), and (o)(1) 60 Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey U.S. Census Bureau 000257 Units in Structure, Rooms, and Bedrooms Units in structure asked since 1940, rooms asked since 1940, bedrooms asked since 1960. QUESTIONS ABOUT THE TYPE OF BUILDING, UNITS IN THE STRUCTURE, NUMBER OF ROOMS, AND NUMBER OF BEDROOMS ARE USED TO CREATE DATA ABOUT HOUSING TYPES AND HOUSING DENSITY. These data are used in government programs that analyze whether adequate housing is available and affordable for residents and provide and fund housing assistance programs. The number of rooms in combination with the number of people living in a unit provides a ratio of people to rooms, which can be used to measure the extent of overcrowding among our nation’s households. These statistics are also used to enforce laws, policies, and regulations against discrimination in government programs and in society. UNITS IN STRUCTURE, ROOMS, AND BEDROOMS DATA HELP COMMUNITIES: Provide Adequate Housing Knowing the different types of housing, and how many people occupy that housing, helps communities understand whether available housing meets the needs of residents. For example, these data are used to measure overcrowding in communities and are used as integral components to set Fair Market Rents for all areas of the country. When housing is not sufficient, data can help communities enroll eligible households in programs designed to assist them (such as the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program), and can help communities qualify for grants from the Community Development Block Grant, HOME Investment Partnerships Program, Emergency Solutions Grants, Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS, and other programs. These data provide benchmark statistics that measure progress toward the Congressional declaration of goals for a national housing policy—a decent home and suitable living environment for every American family. Plan Community Development These data are used to identify adequate housing and may be useful in identifying types of structures in disaster-prone areas during emergency planning and preparation. U.S. Census Bureau Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey 61 000258 Selected Statutory Uses of Units in Structure, Rooms, and Bedrooms Data U.S. Department of Agriculture 42 USC §§ 1472, 1474, 1485, 1486, 1490, 1490a, 1490c, 1490d, 1490e, 1490l, 1490m, 1490p-2, 1490r; 7 CFR 1940.560–1940.567, 1940.575; 7 CFR 3550.10, 1980.312, 3560.11; 7 CFR 3550.53(a), 3550.67(b), 3550.68(c); 7 CFR 1980.301(d); 7 CFR 3560.152(a)(2), 3560.254(c) RD Instruction 1980-D, Exhibit C U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families 42 USC § 8629 (a) and (b) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families 42 USC §§ 8623 (a) (2) and (4), 8629 (a) (1)–(3) and (6), 8629 (b) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Social Security Act, Section 1848e(1)(A) U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Native American Housing Assistance and SelfDetermination Act of 1996, Public Law 104-330, as amended; 25 USC § 4152(b); 24 CFR 1000.324–1000.330 (Also appendices A and B) U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Housing and Community Development Act of 1974; 42 USC § 5306(a)(1); 24 CFR 1003.101 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 12 U.S.C § 1701q; 24 CFR Part 891 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act; 42 USC §11371– 11376; 42 USC § 12901; 24 CFR Part 91; 24 CFR Part 576; 24 CFR Part 574 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, Public Law 93-383, as amended, 42 USC § 1439 (d)(1)(A)(i); 24 CFR 791.402 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, Public Law 93-383 as amended, 42 USC §§ 5302(a)(6)(D)(iv), (a)(9), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (20), and (b) and 5306(a), (b)(1), (2), and (3) and (d)(1); 24 CFR 1003.101 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, Public Law 101–625’ 42 USC § 12705(b)(1)-(3); 24 CFR Part 91; 24 CFR 91.205(a)–(c) U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, section 1338, 12 USC § 4568 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), Public Law 92-500, 33 USC § 1254(a)(1)–(2), (b)(2), (b)(6), (b)(7), (n)(1), and (o)(1) 62 Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey U.S. Census Bureau 000259 Vehicles Available Vehicles available asked since 1960. A QUESTION ABOUT THE VEHICLES AVAILABLE TO EACH HOUSEHOLD IS USED TO CREATE DATA ABOUT VEHICLE ACCESS. Local agencies and organizations use these data to plan programs and services for the disabled population, bicycle commuters, carpool and ridesharers, and many other groups; and to predict future use of new or updated transportation systems based on their understanding of the current users of various transportation options. Understand Changes in Vehicle Use Vehicle data are used in planning and funding for improvements to road and highway infrastructure, developing transportation plans and services, and understanding how people are traveling in the course of a normal day. These data are also used to evaluate pollution and access to transportation in emergencies. Understanding vehicle availability and use helps communities understand exposure to air pollution and plan programs to help people without vehicles move about the community. Knowing whether people could evacuate using their personal vehicles in an emergency also helps communities plan emergency response. VEHICLE AVAILABILITY DATA HELP COMMUNITIES: Improve Transportation Knowing how many households have access to vehicles, in combination with where people commute to and from, and whether they commute with a personal vehicle helps transportation planners create mass transportation and metropolitan plans that are compliant with various regulations. U.S. Census Bureau Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey 63 000260 Selected Statutory Uses of Vehicles Available Data U.S. Department of Energy Energy Policy Act of 1992, Public Law 102-486, 42 USC § 13385 U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 USC § 1973 et seq.; 28 CFR Part 51; LULAC v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006); Johnson v. DeGrandy, 512 U.S. 997 (1994); Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986) U.S. Department of Transportation 49 USC § 5303; 49 CFR Part 613 U.S. Department of Transportation Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act, Public Law 114-94, 49 USC § 5304; 49 CFR Part 613, Subpart B U.S. Department of Transportation Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act, Public Law 114-94, 49 USC § 5303(c), (e), (h), (i), (j),(k), and (n) U.S. Department of Transportation 49 USC §§ 6302(b)(3)(B), 6303(c ), 6304(a), and 6309(a) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Air Pollution Control Act (Clean Air Act), Public Law 84-159, 42 USC § 7403(a)(2), (b)(1), and (b)(6) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Air Pollution Control Act (Clean Air Act), Public Law 84-159, 42 USC § 7403(a)(1), (b)(6), (b)(7), (e), and (g) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), Public Law 92-500’ 33 USC § 1254 (a)(2), (b)(6), and (s) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), Public Law 92-500, 33 USC § 1254(a)(1)–(2), (b)(2), (b)(6), (b)(7), (n)(1), and (o) (1) 64 Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey U.S. Census Bureau 000261 Veteran Status, Period of Service, and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Service-Connected Disability Rating Veteran status asked since 1890, period of military service asked since 1890,1 VA service-connected disability rating asked since 2008. Provide Health Care for Veterans QUESTIONS ABOUT A PERSON’S MILITARY SERVICE AND SERVICECONNECTED DISABILITY RATING ARE USED TO CREATE ESTIMATES OF VETERANS AND THEIR NEEDS AT THE COMMUNITY LEVEL. Data about veterans are used in planning and funding government programs that provide funds or services for veterans and in evaluating other government programs and policies to ensure they fairly and equitably serve the needs of veterans. These statistics are also used to enforce laws, policies, and regulations against discrimination in society. Though the VA maintains veterans’ records, these statistics do not provide federal program planners, policymakers, and researchers with additional statistics about all veterans, regardless of whether they use VA services. 1 VETERAN STATUS, PERIOD OF SERVICE, AND VA SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITY RATING DATA HELP COMMUNITIES: Administer Programs for Veterans Knowing the numbers and characteristics of veterans eligible for federal programs benefiting veterans, such as the VA Home Loan Guarantee program, the Post-9/11 GI Bill, and job training and hiring preference programs can help communities and the federal government estimate the future demand for these programs and services. These data are also used to evaluate these programs to determine whether they are benefiting veterans as intended. 1 Knowing the number of veterans eligible to use VA health care in combination with age, disability, and service-connected disability ratings, can help communities and the federal government estimate the future demand for health care services and facilities. Communities in need of major VA medical facilities throughout the country make a case for new construction projects using these data to estimate the expected usage of new facilities. Plan End-of-Life Options for Veterans Knowing where veterans are living toward the end of their lives is important, as the VA estimates the number of nursing home and domiciliary beds needed based on the concentrations of eligible veterans over age 65. These data are also important for the VA National Cemetery Administration, whose goal is to have a VA burial option within 75 miles of a veteran’s residence. These data are used to plan construction of new cemeteries near the communities where veterans choose to live. Ensure Equal Opportunity Knowing the veteran and service-connected disability rating status of people in the community in combination with information about housing, voting, employment, and education, helps government and communities enforce against discrimination based on veteran or disability status. Understand New Challenges for Veterans Knowing more about the characteristics of veterans returning to civilian life is also important to combat specific problems they may face. For example, these data are used in research to understand why veteran status is a predictor of homelessness. Such data have been combined with administrative data produced by shelters in an attempt to understand and document which interventions reduce homelessness among veterans. Veteran status and period of service were not asked in 1920. U.S. Census Bureau Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey 65 000262 Selected Statutory Uses of Veteran Status, Period of Service, and VA Service-Connected Disability Rating Data U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 42 USC § 1397ii (b)(2)(A)–(C) Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352, 42 USC § 2000e-2 U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352, 42 USC § 2000e-2.; Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642 (1989) U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Veterans Millennium Health Care Benefits Act, Public Law 106117, Section 101; 38 USC § 1710, 8131(1), and 8134(a)(2) U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 38 USC § 308(b) U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 38 USC § 8104(b)(2) U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 38 USC § 546 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2008, Public Law 110-389, Title III—Labor and Education Matters, Subtitle C— Vocational Rehabilitation Matters, Section 334—Longitudinal study of Department of Veterans Affairs vocational rehabilitation programs, 38 USC § 3122 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Veterans Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act, Public Law 106-117, Section 613(b)(2) 66 Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey U.S. Census Bureau 000263 Work Status Last Year Work status last year asked since 1880. QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW MANY WEEKS A PERSON WORKED IN THE LAST YEAR, AND HOW MANY HOURS HE OR SHE WORKED EACH WEEK ARE USED TO PRODUCE STATISTICS ABOUT FULL-TIME AND PART-TIME WORKERS, AS WELL AS YEAR-ROUND AND SEASONAL WORKERS. Data on work status last year are used in planning and funding government programs that provide unemployment assistance and services, and to understand trends and difference in wages, benefits, work hours, and seasonal work. These data are also used to evaluate other government programs and policies to ensure they fairly and equitably serve the needs of all groups, and to enforce laws, regulations, and policies against discrimination in society. WORK STATUS LAST YEAR DATA HELP COMMUNITIES: State and local agencies use these statistics to identify labor surplus areas (areas with people available for hiring and training), plan workforce development programs including job fairs and training programs, and promote business opportunities. Ensure Equal Opportunity Knowing more about people who are employed or looking for work, in combination with age, gender, race, Hispanic origin, disability status, veteran status, and other data, helps governments and communities enforce laws, policies, and regulations against discrimination in employment. For example, data on work status last year are used to enforce laws against discrimination in employment by federal agencies, private employers, employment agencies, and labor organizations (Civil Rights Act of 1964). Understand Changes Knowing the characteristics of people who are working or looking for work is an important part of estimating changes in the economy. Estimates of work status last year are used in funding decisions; to ensure surveys are accurate, including surveys that provide official labor market estimates; and to understand change in other data (Wagner-Peyser Act and Workforce Investment Act). Provide Employment Opportunities Knowing whether programs designed to employ specific groups, such as people with disabilities or veterans, are succeeding is important to employers, federal agencies, and federal government contractors (Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act, Rehabilitation Act of 1973). U.S. Census Bureau Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey 67 000264 Selected Statutory Uses of Work Status Last Year Data U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Community Living Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000, Public Law 106-402, Section 124(c)(5), 42 USC § 15024 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families Community Services Block Grant Act, Public Law 105-285, 42 USC § 9902 (2), 9903, and 9908 (b)(1)(A), (b)(11), and (c)(1) (A)(i) U.S. Department of Labor Workforce Investment Act of 1998, Public Law 105-220; 20 CFR 668.296(b) and 668.440 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of Federal Operations The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Public Law 93-112, 29 USC § 791(b); 29 CFR 1614.602 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of Research, Information, and Planning Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352, 42 USC § 2000e2(k)(1)(A); Hazelwood v. United States, 433 U.S. 299 (1977) 68 Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey U.S. Census Bureau 000265 Year Built and Year Moved In Year built asked since 1940, year moved in asked since 1960. Plan Community Development QUESTIONS ABOUT WHEN A BUILDING WAS BUILT AND WHEN A PERSON MOVED INTO THAT HOME ARE USED TO CREATE DATA ABOUT HOUSING AGE AND AVAILABILITY. Knowing how the balance of different ages of homes in combination with whether they are occupied or vacant, can help communities identify opportunities to improve tax, assistance, and zoning policies and to reduce tax revenue losses from vacant or abandoned properties. These data may also be useful in identifying older structures in disaster-prone areas during emergency planning and preparation. These data are used in government programs that analyze whether adequate housing is available and affordable for residents, provide and fund housing assistance programs, and measure neighborhood stability. Knowing more about the age of the housing stock in combination with the financial situation of residents, including income, employment, and housing costs, can help communities qualify for loan and grant programs designed to stimulate economic recovery, improve housing, run job-training programs, and define areas as empowerment or enterprise zones. YEAR BUILT AND YEAR MOVED IN DATA HELP COMMUNITIES: Provide Adequate Housing Knowing the ages of housing in a community helps communities understand whether available housing meets the needs of residents. When housing is not sufficient or older than a certain age, housing data can help communities enroll eligible households in programs designed to assist them (such as the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program), and can help communities qualify for grants from the Community Development Block Grant, HOME Investment Partnerships Program, Emergency Solutions Grants, Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS, and other programs. U.S. Census Bureau Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey 69 000266 Selected Statutory Uses of Year Built and Year Moved In Data U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families 42 USC § 8629(a) and (b) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families 42 USC §§ 8623(a)(2) and (4), 8629 (a)(1)–(3) and (6); 42 USC 8629(b) U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development United States Housing Act of 1937, Public Law 93-383, as amended, 42 USC § 1437f(c)(1); 24 CFR 888.113; 24 CFR 982.401 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, Public Law 93–383, as amended, 42 USC § 1439 (d)(1)(A)(i); 24 CFR 791.402 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, Public Law 93-383 as amended, 42 USC § 5302(a)(6)(D)(iv), (a) (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (20), and (b); 42 USC§ 5306(a), (b)(1), (2), and (3) and (d)(1); 24 CFR 1003.101 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, Public Law 101–625, 42 USC 12705(b)(1)–(3); 24 CFR Part 91; 24 CFR 91.205(a)–(c) U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Tax Reform Act of 1986, Public Law 99-514, 26 USC § 42(d)(5)(B)(ii)(I), (iii)(I), (iv), and (g); 15 U.S.C § 631 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, Public Law 101-625, 42 USC § 12747(b)(1)(A) and (B); 24 CFR 92.50(a),(b), and (c) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), Public Law 92-500, 33 USC § 1254(a)(1)–(2), (b)(2), (b)(6), (b)(7), (n)(1), and (o)(1) 70 Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey U.S. Census Bureau 000267 Appendix: Year Current Subjects Planned First Asked in Decennial Census Program U.S. Census Bureau Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey A-1 000268 Year Current Subjects Planned First Asked in Decennial Census Program Subjects Planned for 2020 Census and/or ACS Year Subject First Asked in Decennial Census or ACS Acreage 1960 Age 1790 Agricultural Sales 1960 Ancestry 1980 Bedrooms 1960 Citizenship 1820 Class of Worker 1910 Commuting (Journey to Work) 1960 Computer and Internet Use 2013 Condominium and Mobile Home Fees 1990 Cost of Utilities 1940 Disability 1830 Educational Attainment 1940 Ethnicity 1970 Fertility 1890 Gender 1790 Grandparent Caregivers 2000 Health Insurance 2008 Home Heating Fuel 1940 Home Value 1940 Income 1940 Industry 1820 Insurance 1980 Kitchen Facilities 1940 Labor Force Status 1890 Language Spoken at Home 1890 Marital History 1850 Marital Status 1880 Migration (Previous Residence)/Residence 1 Year Ago 1930 Mortgages 1940 Occupation 1850 Period of Military Service 1890 Place of Birth 1850 Plumbing Facilities 1940 Race 1790 Relationship 1880 Rent 1940 Rooms 1940 School Enrollment 1850 A-2 Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey Years Not Asked 1840–1860, 1880 1830, 1850–1900 1950 1920 U.S. Census Bureau 000269 Year Current Subjects Planned First Asked in Decennial Census Program—Con. Subjects Planned for 2020 Census and/or ACS Year Subject First Asked in Decennial Census or ACS Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)/ Food Stamps 2005 Taxes 1940 Telephone Service 1960 Tenure (Owner/Renter) 1890 Undergraduate Field of Degree 2009 Units in Structure 1940 VA Service-Connected Disability Rating 2008 Veteran Status 1890 Work Status Last Year 1880 Year Built 1940 Year Moved In 1960 Year of Entry 1890 U.S. Census Bureau Years Not Asked 1950–70 1920 1940–1960 Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey A-3 000270 av1ee? eeHe i gm? . and: ea m2? m. me ea: 1L8.mheeneue1ef3w?ke . me la ms ?beereble e. MSller Bareeter etiiee e9 gene ene ?nahlagtee. e. . 30393 new be. mm? reapenee te your reggae: for the e! the ?epsrteene e? ?uetiee en H.a. 3535, :31: ee prevene en the at thei?euee e1 by the of seneue population figures whee inczuee eiiene? . 351e, ?Releelng te as ye letien. In principal ere. H.e. 3639 ?bula eliminate ?11: ellene Seam the United eke ee eeneue tebuletion when eepertien ?g representetivee in the etetee. Like 3.3. 363$, 351% eeul? illegal eliene ?rem the cannue count. 3: inelede for perteenmene membere ef the erme? ?eeceea civil en es the eepertment e: betenee. ?epen?ente e? euch me kefa er living eef the bezee, ee e?e? these blaze ehey re?3e eerieue caneeitutiene pre lame. tee eE the eeueteenth emenemene ee the thee: the eeverei :e their elve numbeze. counting the whale number a erggne snatene ?ee u.e. Genet., emend. ezv. rule eenetitutionez peovaetee eheli be emeng 3 in pert, the previelen in I. a. e: ?ne eeneeteetlen the: prevs?edl a a . ehell he appartiene? emeng the eevere: . . ?e eheir Humbere, ehieh eheae he determine -hy e??te en the whale eueher e? a . . hree steehe ee ell ether y?r?a?a a 00271 0 siehnuah we heve net sauna ear the ex 16:98 HU.313 u?ubd? umqv implemented by as mm. mm.? Section 2 as am: ms vauaaquira the Secretary at Gl?narea 9 make suah adjustmanta in iota: ,ZEtia? Eiguraa as any be nectawatg u: an auah anthuda and praeuduraa as in Incrabarr determinas In stag: shat allana In he ?nite Basins in vsnletlen'et the {an grating anal anal: not he enunsud 3n tutu sting iatlan for purpuaan a? auh?aa- zian as a aaezian. was magisiative hiatur aacampanfing secalan a n8 aha ?aurtaantn Amendment makaa ulnar ha: 89: all gargana. aaiens in is aauntrs. ta 3% Ina; E?i in tha ?shun um: ui gamma tn gash Mate.? m. aha sna of the was an? the staging a: tha.?1ava masna an and ta based an aha ?thrua tsehs" gravia an a? if Artiela 1: ea nata 1. wha uncanaaruaetan ?angrasn weaiiga? that ghee readmitted tha terms: caniaderata seatea vaula no creana that: population base by {arty ?avaent aadigg twaava an their yrs-war total a: aia?taan. En an azzert to undermine this wreath in pail: eel gauar haiara states wars tn the unann. ?he Th?r variaua sarmuzaa dastgned ta raduua as rasantatia? whenever asataa aa aa acted iaeriminatad age nae pasziana as thair mala papuiaasea assiu?ing thaw gram waking on $33 haaia B: 336% 1: en la there was at nIESaane an r: 13 the whiatyu winth a greposel ghat 3% an ?ha aumhar as male aver egg as ?ew. a. .. Gang, aloha, a?sh eanga, lat ?eas. ?06 (388 J. anavarp la 1 scant.) ?rsieza ?bunaing wathera wars awara ahaz ?ns ?anau?' an? appartienmaut. wauzd be ??539? af atata labaaleantap an: a: 339: (CI ?g??t?rr 39: at a 3' 2 Bagaiaa l?ltb! Pravl?a?i ?ts ta ulati?n at tats; pafu?gflan under aha aansua! a3 raga a for kianman: at Raprasanuaeivaa in anagrasa ?g tha ?avarnl atatas snail as eampleted within 9 aonthm sitar the eanaua ?at& and #336 by khe Secraearg to tag Praal?ant at he Uhiaa? atataaWV: 000272 - an: ramnn . . wan/w lad: at: mgiaxw 153% m: 315 mat aartaua Iron many as aha Hartharn athhaa, in ?aw England. These status had a shrapartlanatal large gugulahiena of nanvatara, Inch ll uamah late: man ha alt thair human to giants: in tha want! and aliana; nap. canhxing, has at the at glnal armistra 09 tha faurtienth Amanamant, ?atw? vain as! main; his anondman: ha ?aunt parsona rather than attiaana. ?In any of aha attach nae hold their tafrananhatian in part by at hhalr alilns. aha the ha {ha 13 are: aha aha la a! hasten at: ha pass amen ah: am! a moat. St'auah acaaptabla 89 than.? gang. ?laha; 35th cbng., lat Sana. 333 {16663. asth ?ahata art: the ansn?nanh?a languaga. the hapuhlisana kahuna enhaarnad.that the hauzd nna tha ?anaha. whay aharaiara wan: inaa caucus. agreeing ha ha _haund by its and a?cptad aha {anaent languaga regarding ?peraaha? raahaa than "attiaana.? Knew thahanalng aha ta of appananta aha hither; this language ha ha kin aara than a pal algal aampran aa assignaa an ?azure a! a a amen at aha hahuhzia ha held tha'naior ty and the anpara anina an an the a number as garaana? 1n: anus, aha Eangr aa that panned aha ham in $366 not aniy he: a aha that allana wauza ha ah the cahaua but nauh thair incluainh as art as a an that aha vauld pasa hr *ha 1n?aatria1 aha: 61a ha notwizhatanaiaa aha aekahazaag- meat that aliens aara hat h?i? aE aha aalitia?an. ?aw ahia ai?aahl the legal - Ia huh a! aha haala a: has an& a has! a? man aha wanna, and thla ha Inna ah aiftaan was . . . . In 1850 aara in the so :1 a aes,a3a unnaturallaa? paws ha he birth. aha in aha rahal stitch 233 55;. aatiaata that wauid inaa aha aha grahahly tau, ha thaa aha a: aha: aura at fact. anaa ivania haw. ?hla away aa& a hat atahaa weal In that: i an. ?l?h?g shah ??nga. l?t $355 ?1366?: a a ALE ??tg 3' at 1&3: a ?ang. alaha. hath Cang.. lat ?as. ?1366) ?ing? aha alaa Lg; at 393$ af San. 3 a 000273 un?n- . . wmu:a# m?au 34/1df95 16:59 NB.E13 fhay rajaetad argumenta than ?h?uld ha an _paapla with armnnant sing to a annuity. was: canaciauazy unnaa an inn nae aliens ta advanca their dun: unnaarnss ansurtng engage a: the amandmunt hy the narth-rn status anevdensaz to a a Shuth a! any additiunai regrenantatlon Ln at is natawarthx that an: ?uprene Cnurtg'ln analysing apatlan oi tha Eaurtannth Amandmant, ha: tuna warn ?parann? to inciuae aliens. ?whatever his ?esta; ?near the inat- gratian laws. an alien ta sutaiy a truan' in any ordinary Hanna 9! that term. halens; even altenm one preaanua in this annuity is unlawiuz. have lung bash dun prenaas of law by she Fifth and ?nuttaanth ansn?annsa.? ?,j?i?ni??gy5. $57 3.3. 393 313 (3333) re' a aan a; ?33 v.3. It uauld Etna a a: annuma that thase wham aha ataitars of the Paus?eaath intenda? ea incluas in the word araana? in seatsan a a? aha emanamant are aha Bang ?93$sons? neluaed Bx aaeakan 3. we ma?a na?a that any ?angrans ata n9% -. tha assua as 5313 sa-aliana whan it a hatea aka I Fourtaanth amanamant. I wag huwavaw. @633 31a an be an - illagai allsn In sass, whe baa baa a g?atuaa gangs LVES guvarning arraas aha 92 aliana Erna megesta cauntriuEtat. ca?i?iwd at so v.3.c. 3a wha @raasaant la aushuviaea ta arfaae. assure an? ramava, with tha ata a! the aaueta aha aha ga?araz marshals. an: aueh aalana he Haracvar ?gta statutory authority haa ma?a eaarataa? grist ta altnauah the isaua wag net waiaa? in has ashata evar $33 @aurteenth kman?aant, certain $133335 of axiana genie 3% asexuaga gram the Unlta? atatea in 186$ ans reaf?a? aw ar?ar a? aha ?raaidan: if aha? aeteaytea so vaturn. 3 ?br?an aha H. 1 Lama:fiL?iy?gig?gw??i??i?i?I 1-8 E13853. 0' 3$13131 $3 Fad. T53 tang: lgl?i ml Emi?i?l 353 {$35 3313}: 13 ?ara?vaw, aubaequant have auknawia?gga $3 ahasr affaraa ?a aneluae aliana Eran the canaus. that a Amandman: requsras the cuuntt?g we all 911633. wag Can debatad paasaga as thas at? have ancludad aliens in the Gaunt tar rtt??aent 92 regraauntattvas. ?ne Rap. awaa, *15: 35 go. 3a.?aa?u (1 31); any. 323, $2d canq., Qas?. (1 33). Ema aenate la a: haa aarllar inaua? an uplala? Banalu?t enaa a: wna auuld nut ha aaclu?ed. $1 ceng. Rae. 1333 135 93. In a hill ta anczu?a aa $5 000274 a-n. wlda - all-:- Ema napartaant at ?uatlca has a?vlsu? {?antiuai that aligns nuns ha tuulu?ad within the eanau?;?ur purpasaa as a rutonln? Raprangntatlves. an? has aanpted It guilt an aaur?. Ha hava reaxaminnd thim yaaltian.and ?untlnua :9 but av: that it in sauna. Aaeor?ingi . wa find that to the axtnn: $639 ?ne 3914 ecui axelude titaga; aliana {sum the cangga, thay ara unconstitutlanal. . we turn now an the quasttan a! whathar t: 13 tlanal ta includa in any tabulation a! papuzatton for ngf?li? tha any Hamburg 9: ?wand 599993. a slam angiu sea a the nepaftm??t a! nefansa (any! at depandau a a: such a :93 or in ?am, when any Each indtv EH31: are Isa Quad in a past cuts: a he Unitaa $2 933. while as anatsnua 2e rsviaw the ease law and Iagislativa sears pertinent to rusnlutlen at this astinn, 9% hate that thxcughaum the 6335893 an seesian 3 es tha ourtaanth haenemant, ahera seams :9 ha a pramlaa that aha aenaua wauxd gaunt inhabitanta 92 the United Baggaa. and nut ia?iviauala aha dl? ?at rasida in ans at aha ata?en. qgrlaua,?gnhta 53 ha tha that vausa'aa appart a?aant purgaaea i ah ttary pavaennelr a vilsaa amplayaea. 69 their a ?9waantap an much in?lvi?naxa L?va autatda the unita? ata?aa. 99 Egzragzra ?nat agp?aa a? this peeviata? in Ea?+ 3319 3% was 3Q {can .5 ?ea. @392 (3996) we Raf. 919:} ?ax: yam vane a1 ens 99%. yea mnat aha aanatltut an? . 33 waattmaar-a? havld savanna; ?ngernarw?avtsarmill-553.gitlg?; 9~t" .5 5339., at i? 1'29 :3 ?ve Mamnran?um 69 P?lnta and ?ueharitiaa ?n $3 $8 nef?ndant?a Hattun an aiamiss the natian BE in a altarnativa. for Summary Qu?gemant and in 9951919? ta aayllea- at a far a $991 ainarr Injunct an. Eile? in (155a). ?ha Hamnranaum is raprint in tha Hearth 3, supra mute 11, at 13%. wna 2333 agar: sn?orsa? the arnman 'a penition an age 435 gupg. at (raga ?g sast?aa a to include' 311 a tans) (dictum). . a apartman a arcaeumm a i an 9 an a naua ?ne an hag nave: Ear appereianmant purpnsas v.3. aghasaaeura military gargannai er ?tata nepartnanh parsonnaz ahatiunsa abraad. wag Euraau?? practiaa ta hasea aha concept :9 Hana; - rasidanea. whleh hinteriaalzy has hash ?a anea ?a whara a g?raan 000275 nag-II Hal?? @hn caring ae Managamune an? nu?gat has advlua? ?hia napartmene that ?hera 39 ha ah aetien tn the 92 ghia repart tram the standp?int a: hg a?miniaaraglan?a ainaaraly,-? ??ana 3. Sara a: ?g atturnay ?anarai - this. ail-ma - US. Department of Justice Of?ce of Legislative Affairs 0:11;: of?: Assistant Ammo}- Omens Honorable Jeff Bingaman Chairman . Subcommittee on Government Information and Regulation United States Senate washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Binganan: ?ashingmm LIC- 2 2 1539 You have requested the views of the Department of Justice concerning the constitutionality of proposed legislation - excluding illegal or deportahle aliens-from the decennial census count. In the past, the Department of Justice has taken the position that section two of the Fourteenth Amendment which provi?es for ?counting the whole_nunher of persons in each state" and the original Apportionment and Census Clauses of Article I section two of the Constitution require that inhabitants of States who are illegal aliens be included in the census count. In our review of this issue to date, we have found no basis for reversing this position. The Office of Hanagement and Budget has advised this Department that it has no objection to the submission of this Jreport to Congress. Sincerely, Carol T. Crawford Assistant Attorney General 000277 U. S. Department of Justice Justice Management Division Office of General Counsel Washington. D. C. 20530 JUN 2 5 2014 Mr. Kelly R. Welsh General Counsel US. Department of Commerce Of?ce of the General Counsel 1401 Constitution Ave., NW Washington, DC 20230 Re: Legal Authority for American Community Survey Questions Dear Mr. Welsh: I have been asked to respond to your letter of May 9, 2014, to Attorney General Holder, in which you requested a review of the questions asked in the American Community Survey (ACS) on behalf of the Department of Justice (DOJ), as well as an af?rmation that the questions remain relevant and the legal authorities supporting use of the information are accurate and complete. I apologize for the delay in providing this response, which was due to the decentralization of DOJ ?5 relevant programs. We sincerely appreciate your of?ce?s ?exibility with respect to the timing of this response. In undertaking this review, working through point of contact for this ACS review, Mr. William Sabol, we asked DOJ component organizations to identify whether they rely on ACS information, and to provide the requested assurances. Ultimately, only two DOJ components indicated that they use ACS information: the Civil Rights Division (CRT) and the Of?ce of Justice Programs (OJ P). Within OJ P, only the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJ S) uses ACS information. Both CRT and have described their current needs for relevant ACS information and have provided assurances that the authorities for such uses remain current. 1 have attached a document describing numerous uses of ACS information and the relevant current statutory authorities. With respect to S, that organization has advised me that it is authorized under 42 U.S.C. 3732 to collect a wide range of data relating to crime and the criminal justice system, and is speci?cally directed to collect victimization statistics regarding individuals with developmental disabilities under the Crime Victims with Disabilities Awareness Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-301, Oct. 27 1998; 112 Stat. 2838 as amended; 42 U.S.C. 3732 (Note). Further, while there is no speci?c statute directly referencing use of the ACS, BJ is authorized under 42 U.S.C. 3732(d) to enter agreements with any federal agency for assistance in data collection and analysis necessary to perform its multi-faceted mission. 000278 Accordingly, please accept this letter as af?rmation that it continues to need relevant information as described above and in the attachment, and that the legal authorities for the use of such information are accurate, current and complete. Mr. Sabol has transmitted the information about the legal authorities to the ACS Content Review staff at Census. Please let me know if you have any questions about this letter. I can be reached at (202) 514-3452, or at Arthur?arv?husdoi.gov. Sincerely yours, Arthur E. Gary General Counsel Attachment Cc: Jocelyn Samuels, CRT Lee Lofthus, JMD Karol Mason, OJP Ben Mizer, OAG William Sabol, BJS 000279 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CIVIL RIGHT DIVISION REQUIREMENTS FOR AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY DATA Statutory Rec uirement Title Citations Classification Uses Lowest geography ACS Characteristics Frequency 42 U.S.C. 1973 et segI 28 CPR Part 51; Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 U.S. 1 (2009); Used in the enforcement LULAC v. Perry, 548 U.S. reSponsibilities under the 399 (2006); Johnson v. Voting Rights Act to DeGrandy 512 US. 99Fl determine eligible voting (1994}; Thornburg v. populations for analysis (Singles, 4?8 U.S. 30 and for presentation in AGE, RACE, HISP, Voting Rights Act of 1965 [1936] federal litigation Census block group CIT Annual 42 U.S.C. 1973 et seen; 23 C.F.R. Part 51; Used in the enforcement LULAC v. Perry, 548 responsibilities under the U.S. 399 (2006); Voting Rights Act to Johnson v. DeGrandy, determine disparities in 512 U.S. 99? (1994); voter participation rates Thornburg v. for analysis and for Census block group AGE, RACE, HISP, Gingies,478 US. 30 presentation in federal American Indian! CIT, INC, A'l'r, LAN, Voting Rights Act of 1965 {1986) litigation Alaskan Native area AUTO, PHONE, TEN Annual Used in the enforcement responsibilitiES under the Census tract American oting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.SC. 1973aa-1a; 28 Voting Rights Act's Indian; Alaskan Native AGE, RACE, HISP, "Election 203 C.F.R. Part 55 bilingual requirements area CIT, ATT, LAN, Annual 000280 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CIVIL RIGHT DIVISION REQUIREMENTS FOR AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY DATA Statutory Rec uirement Title Citations Classification Uses Lowest geog ra phy ACS Characteristics Frequency Title ?v?I of Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Nondiscrimination in federally assisted programs and activities) 42 USC to 2000d- Lau v. Nichols, 414 US. 563 28 CFR 42.101 to 42.112; 28 CFR 42.401 to 42.415; 28 CFR 50.3; 63? Fed. Reg. 41,555 (June 18, 2002) Used by the Department of Justice, other federal agencies that offer federal financial assistance, and recipients of federal financial assistance to comply with and enforce the prohibition against discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. Census block group RACE, ANC, LAN, INC, AGE, HIS Annual "Executive Order 13166: Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency 65 Fed. Reg. 50,121 (August 16, 2000) Used by federal agencies and recipients of federal financial assistance to provide, identify any need for services to those with limited English proficiency (LEP) in order to comply with the prohibition against national origin discrimination programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance and federally-conducted programs and activities. Census block group ANC, LAN, INC, AGE, HIS Annual Fair Housing Act of 1968 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq. 24 C.F.R. 100.500 Used in enforcement efforts to eliminate and remedy unlawful discrimination in housing. Census block group SEX, HISP, RACE, ANC, DIS, INC, HHREL, STRUC, YRBUILT, TEN, RENT Annual ?Equal Credit Opportunity Act 15 U.s.c. 1691 etseq. Used in enforcement efforts to eliminate and remedy unlawful discrimination in lending. Census block group SEX, AGE, HISP, RACE, VAL, ANC, MS, Annual 000281 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CIVIL RIGHT DIVISION REQUIREMENTS FOR AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY DATA Statutory Rec ulrement Title Citations Classification Uses Lowest geography ACS Characteristics Frequency Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) Titles and 42 U.S.C. 12131-12189; 23 C.F.R. Parts 35 and 36 Used to assist generally with ADA enforcement responsibilities (including evaluating the impact of discriminatory policies and practices on affected populations of persons with disabilities) and to evaluate the impact of proposed regulatory changes to implement the requirements of titles II and of the ADA. Census tract neesex, RACE, HISP, err, 015, cow, LF, Pow, JTW, occ, IND, INC, WSLY. Annual I Rights to Public Education nd Equal Educational Entitlement} ILCivil Rights Act of 1964 42 U.S.C. 2on0: et seq. Used in the enforcement of nondiscrimination in education by state and local governments, including monitoring desegregation Place AGE, SEX, RACE, ANC, HISP, ATT ENR, Annual Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 19H- 20 et seq Castaneda v. Pickard, 648 F.2d 989 (1931) Used in the enforcement of nondiscrimination in education by state and local governments, including ensuring action to assist English language learners in overcoming language barriers Place AGE, sex, RACE, ANC, HISP, ENR, LAN Annual Title IX of the Education Amendments of 19732 20 U.S.C. 1101 et seq. Used to enforce the prohibition against discrimination on the bias of sex in education programs and activities receiving federal ?nancial assistance Census block group SEX Annual 000282 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CIVIL RIGHT DIVISION REQUIREMENTS FOR AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY DATA Statutory Reqtnren1ent Title Citations Classification Uses Lowest geography AC5 Characteristics Frequencv Used to determine compliance with consent decrees entered by federal SEX, AGE, HISP, courts in pattern or RACE, CIT, ATT, Title VII of the Civil Rights practice employment VET, LF, POW, JTW, Act of 1964 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. discrimination lawsuits Place IND, DCC Annual Used to determine whether RACE, CIT, Title VII of the Civil Rights group is underrepresented VET, LF, POW, JTW, Act of 1964 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. in employer's workforce Place IND, OCC Annual Used to plan enforcement SEX, AGE, HISP, of prohibition against RACE, CIT, ATT, Section 707 of Title VII of the pattern or practice VET, LF, POW, JTW, Civil Rights Act of 1964 42 U.S.C. 2000e?6 employment discrimination Place IND, DCC Annual 42 U.S.C. 2000e or Used, in conjunction with SEX, AGE, HISP, seq Wards Cove other data, to demonstrate RACE, CIT, AIT, Title VII of the Civil Rights Packing Co. v. Atom?o, prima facie case of VET, LF, POW, JTW, Act of 1964 490 U.S. 642 (1989) employment discrimination Place IND, OCC Annual Used to calculate classwide SEX, AGE, HISP, wages lost due to pattern RACE, LF, Title VII of the Civil Rights or practice of employment YRLW, WSLY, IND, Act of 1964 42 U.S.C. discrimination. Place OCC, INC Annual 000283 tduosnuew- WV WV ea NIH Public Access Author Manuscript Published in ?nal edited form as: Dcmogchs. 2013 July 2; 29(1): 1?32. How Well Does the American Community Survey Count Naturalized Citizens? Jennifer Van Hook3 and James D. Bachmeietb 3Population Research Institute, The State University bTemple University Abstract Background?Citizenship status among the foreign born is a crucial indicator of social and political incorporation, yet there are good reasons to suspect that citizenship status is inaccurately reported on US. surveys. Objective?This paper updates research carried out in the mid- 1990s by Passel and Clark (1997) on the extent to which foreign-born non-citizen respondents in US. govemment?sponsored surveys misreport as naturalized citizens. Methods?We compare demographic estimates of the resident naturalized foreign-bom population in 2010, based on administrative data, to estimates from the 2010 American Community Survey (ACS). Results?Similar to previous research, we ?nd that misreporting in the ACS is especially high among immigrants from all countries/regions who report fewer than ?ve years in the US. We also ?nd that among longer-term foreign-born residents, misreporting is concentrated only among those originating in Mexico, especially men, a ?nding that diverges from Passe! and Clark in that we ?nd no evidence of over-reporting among immigrants from Central America and the Caribbean. Finally, the estimated magnitude of misreporting, especially among longer-term Mexican-bom men, is sensitive to assumptions about the rate of emigration in our administrative- based demographic estimates, and assumptions about coverage error in the ACS, though altering these assumptions does not change the conclusions drawn from the general patterns of the results. Conclusions?For applications that use citizenship as an indicator of legal status, we recommend that self-reported data on citizenship be accepted at face value for all groups except those with less than ?ve years of US. residence and Mexican men. Introduction Immigration and immigrant integration continue to be topics of enormous social signi?cance, particularly for countries like the United States where immigrants make up 13% of its population. in the context of anti-immi grant policies and attitudes that treat societal outsiders differently, citizenship status among the foreign born is a crucial indicator of social and political incorporation in the United States (Van Hook, Brown, and Bean 2006) and other immigrant-receiving societies (Bloemraad 2006),and is strongly associated with political participation, access to public assistance, health care, and jobs (Passel, Clark and ?x 1997; DeSipio 2001; Fix and Zimmermann 2001; Van Hook and Balistreri 2006). Citizenship is also a key variable for the production of estimates of the characteristics of the unauthorized foreign-bom population (Passel, Van Hook, and Bean 2006). Social scientists and policy therefore rely heavily on survey items on citizenship to answer questions 000284 Vcl'HlN tduosnuew 1duosnuew Joqtnv Vcl'HlN Van Hook and Bachmeier Page 2 about immigrants, their well-being, and their impact on host societies (Bloemraad, Korteweg and Yardakul 2008). Given the importance of citizenship for research on immigrants, it is important to assess the accuracy of citizenship reporting in surveys. In the United States, data on naturalization and citizenship largely come from Census Bureau surveys, such as the Current Population Survey (CPS), the long form of the decennial Census (2000 and earlier), and the American Community Survey (ACS). Prior research, carried out in the mid- 19905 by Passel and Clark (1997), suggests that the number of naturalized citizens is over-estimated in Census data, possibly because some non-citizens misreport as citizens. We update and extend this work by comparing demographic estimates of the resident naturalized foreign-bom population in 2010, based on administrative data, to estimates from the 2010 American Community Survey (ACS). Prior Research and Study Contributions In the United States, immigrants may naturalize after ?ve years of legal permanent residency if they meet the criteria for citizenship they must demonstrate English pro?ciency and pass a civics test), or after three years if they are married to a US. citizen or have served in the US. military (US. Citizenship and Naturalization Services 2012). Because citizenship grants immigrants eligibility for a wide variety of public assistance programs and civic activities (Passel, Clark and Fm 1997; DeSipio 2001; Fix and Zimmermann 2001), and because it serves as an indicator of social inclusion and integration (Van Hook, Brown, and Bean 2006; Bloemraad 2006), researchers interested in immigrant integration and the well-being of immigrants and their children often incorporate citizenship into their analyses. For example, using Canadian and US. Census data Bloemraad (2006) ?nds that rates of naturalization among immigrants in Canada, which has a multiculturalist policy regime, are relatively higher than those for immigrants in the United States, where federal policy with respect to the civic incorporation of immigrants is, by comparison, more laissez-faire. In another example, Van Hook and Balistreri (2006) found that children living in households with noncitizens experienced steeper declines in food support and increases in food insecurity following the enactment of legislation that cut public assistance programs to noncitizens. Data on citizenship has also been used in research on the characteristics of the unauthorized immigration. Few surveys ask questions about immigrants? legal status. lnforrnation on citizenship, which is a common survey question, along with other indicators of legal status. has been used to impute who among the foreign born are legally resident (Passel and Cohn 2009). Citizenship is strongly associated with legal status because naturalized citizens are composed entirely of legally-resident persons, while noncitizens are composed of a mixture of legal statuses, including unauthorized migrants, legal permanent residents, and other legal non-immi grants (Passel, Van Hook, and Bean 2006). There are good reasons to suspect that citizenship is inaccurately estimated in Census data. During the late [9905, Passel and Clark (1997) compared the number of persons that are reported as naturalized in the 1990 Census and the 1996 Current Population Survey (CPS) with the number of naturalized citizens based on administrative data from the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). They found the Census/CPS estimates to be much higher than the INS-based estimates for two groups. Among new arrivals (those in the US. fewer than ?ve years) from all national origins, about 75% of those who were reported as naturalized were probably not. Among longer-resident Mexican and Central American immigrants, about one-third of those who were reported as naturalized were probably not. Demogr Res. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 July 02. 000285 :Journ?v?vaenm. r3. 0 1d I menus t" ouinvvya-HIN .l Itduasnuaw Van Hook and Bachmeier Page 3 Although other possible explanations exist, the discrepancy between administrative records and the Census/CPS has been attributed to false reporting of citizenship among Mexican and Central American immigrants, possibly because many of them are unauthorized and have an incentive to hide their status from interviewers or Census takers, or because they are confused about their citizenship status. This assessment has limited the value of the citizenship variable for research on immigrant naturalization and legal status. For example, skepticism about the accuracy of citizenship reporting has led the Pew Hispanic Center to refrain from using citizenship as an indicator of legal status among most recently-arrived immigrants and all Mexicans and Central Americans (Passel et al. 2006). For several reasons, we seek to update and extend the research conducted by Passel and Clark (1997). First, Passel and Clark's research was presented at a conference but the details of their methodology were never published in a peer-reviewed outlet. For this reason, it has been dif?cult to evaluate and replicate their work. Here, we provide a detailed description of the data and methods used to evaluate Census-based estimates of the number of naturalized citizens. While our method is not identical to Passel and Clark's method, it adheres to the same basic logic. Like Passel and Clark, we use administrative data on naturalization to evaluate the number of citizens enumerated in Census data, working under the premise that administrative records of naturalization are less sensitive to error than Census data. Second, we seek to update the Passel and Clark estimates because no evaluations of citizenship reporting have been done since their study. Reporting error may have increased due to increased DHS enforcement activities both at the U.S.-Mexico border and in the US. interior (Haddal 2010). The increased risk of deportation and heightened costs of re-entering the United States if deported may have made migrants less willing to provide accurate responses to questions about citizenship. Thus, at the same time that Federal and state/local policy vis-a-vis immigrants has shifted toward the increasing exclusion of non-citizens (Portes and Rumbaut 2006) and especially unauthorized migrants from certain rights, bene?ts and access to labor markets, the changing policy context may have also encouraged increased misreporting of naturalization among non-citizen immigrants, especially in govemment-sponsored surveys. Passel and Clark examined citizenship in the 1996 March Current Population Survey and the 1990 Census, data collected over 15 years ago. We evaluate the number of naturalized citizens in the 20I0 American Community Survey (ACS). Discussed further below, the ACS was designed as a replacement of the decennial Census long form, and now serves as the major source of information about the size and composition of the foreign born population in the United States. Third. we go beyond the Passel and Clark estimates by exploring the sensitivity of the results to three sources of uncertainty in the calculations: sampling error, emigration of naturalized citizens, and coverage error of naturalized citizens in Census data. We explain how these factors in?uence estimates of the number of citizens and identify plausible ranges of emigration and coverage error based on past research. We then use these ranges to produce a range of estimates of the discrepancy between administrative and census estimates of the number of citizens. These ranges help us eliminate some of the most important alternative explanations for discrepancies between administrative and census-based estimates. If a discrepancy is consistently evident across all plausible ranges of sampling error, emigration, and coverage error, this lends support to idea that the discrepancy is due to an actual difference between the number of naturalized citizens represented in Census data and the number of naturalized citizens in the population, rather than the assumptions we make in the process of evaluating census data. Finally, we stress that our aim is to evaluate the ACS citizenship data as it is produced for public use by the Census Bureau. Therefore, we do not attempt to ?correct" the citizenship Demogr Res. Author manuscript; available in PMC 20l4 July 02. 000286 iduosnuew Jouinv iduosnuew Jouinv Vcl'HlN iduosnuew Jouinv Van Hook and Bachmeier Page 4 status or place of birth data reported in the public-use ?les of the ACS, such as by recoding what appear to be implausible responses to the citizenship question foreign born with fewer than ?ve years of US. residence), by adjusting the survey weights to account for insider knowledge of coverage error or other problems with the sampling weights, or by using restricted-use census data. We instead treat the ACS data as a competent non-Census Bureau analyst would. Data and Methodology To assess the current level of citizenship reporting error, we estimated the number of naturalized citizens in mid-year 2010 by age group, sex, region of origin, and duration of residence based on the number of Of?ce of Immigration Statistics (OIS) naturalization records. We then compared the DIS-based estimates with the corresponding numbers in the 2010 American Community Survey (ACS) (also a mid-year estimate). The difference between the two provides an indication of over- or under?representation of naturalized citizenship in the ACS. As mentioned above, the discrepancy can arise from errors other than reporting error. Most importantly, the ACS estimates are also subject to sampling error and coverage error, and the OIS-based estimates may not be accurate because of erroneous assumptions about the extent to which immigrants remain in the United States after naturalizing. We provide ranges of estimates based on plausible ranges of sampling error and coverage error (in the ACS), and emigration among naturalized citizens (for the OlS-based estimates). We are therefore able to assess not only the ACS-OIS difference, but also whether the difference could possibly be explained by sampling error or alternative assumptions about emigration or coverage error. In what follows, we describe the data, samples, methods, and errors associated with the production of the and OIS-based estimates. This is then followed by a descriptionof how we compare the two sets of estimates. We conducted all data analyses in Stata 12.11. All Stata programs and data ?les used to produce the ACS and 018 estimates are provided at [link here]. Estimates Based on the American Community Survey Data?The 2010 ACS interviewed approximately 1.9 million US. housing units, or 2.4 percent of ail occupied US. housing units, and 145 thousand persons in group quarters?. We used the one-year public use 2010 ACS, which contains a l-in? 100 sample of the US. population (N 3 ,061,692 persons), obtained from the Integrated Public? Use Microdata Series (IPUMS) (Ruggles et al. 2010)?. We used the ACS, rather than the decennial Census or the Current Population Survey (as done by Passel and Clark), for several reasons. First, the decennial census no longer asks questions about citizenship. By design, the ACS repiaced the decenniai long form in the early 20003 and is now the only large US. sample with questions about naturalization and citizenship. The CPS would have been a good alternative, but the ACS is better because it includes a question about the year of naturalization, an item that is important for our estimates. Additionally, the ACS has a much larger sample than the CPS, which reduces sampling error. Finally, the ACS is representative of the US. resident population while the CPS is representative of a sub-set? the civilian noninstitutionalized population. While we do not expect this to make much EStata is a general software package for data analysis and statistics (see '?Data were extracted from DemogrRes. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 July 02. 000287 Van Hook and Bachmeier Page 5 difference, the more inclusive ACS population is a closer match to the OlS-based estimates, which capture the entire US. resident population of naturalized citizens. As described in the next section, the 018 estimates are limited to those who arrived in the United States in 1990 or later and naturalized age 18 or older. To match the universe for the 018 estimates, the ACS sample is limited to the same population: foreign-bom naturalized citizens who came to the US. to stay in 1990 or later and who naturalized age 18 or older (N 47,842). The key variables used to produce the ACS estimates include country or region of birth (categorized as Mexico, Central American/Caribbean, Asia, and all other regions), sex, age (18-29, 30-39, and duration of US. residence (categorized 6 and 5+ years; recoded from the year the respondent reported he/she came to live in the U.S.), citizenship status, and age naturalized recoded from year of naturalization). Citizenship is based on the question: ?Is this person a citizen of the United States?" to which respondents would have to answer ?Yes, US. citizen by naturalization? in order to be counted as a naturalized citizen?. Persons marking this response are then asked to indicate the speci?c year of naturalization. Year of entry is ascertained by the question: ?When did this person come to live in the United States?? Respondents are further asked to indicate the speci?c year of immigration. P??w?m?vwmw 49115.5 a Errors and Omissions in ACS Data?As discussed above, citizenship status could be mis-reported. This is the type of error we are most interested in evaluating. However, there are several other possible sources of error in the ACS estimates that we wish to account for. While it is impossible to identify and enumerate everysource of error, we attempt to account for the errors that seem most likely to affect our evaluation. waoyinvwdeiami: First, ACS estimates are subject to sampling error. To assess the size of sampling error, standard errors and con?dence intervals were calculated using the Successive Differences Replication (SDR) method described in the ACS design and methodology documentation 3.. (US. Census Bureau 2009). To do so, we employed the ACS replicate weights provided by c; the Census Bureau. For more details, interested readers should refer to the accompanying stata program for the ACS analyses (available on-line), as well as to the useful description of the method provided at the website Second, ACS estimates are subject to imputation error. Item nonresponse on the immigration questions is 4.5% on country of birth, 9.0% on year of entry, 5.2% on citizenship, and 15.1% on year of naturalization". The US. Census Bureau uses a ?hot- deck? method for imputing missing data on these iterns, but the details of their methodology are unclear. While missingness varies in magnitude", it is worth noting that some sub- populations such as young adult and elderly Mexicans have relatively high rates of missing data on key variables. To the extent that the Census Bureau's hot deck method does not accurately assign missing values, the naturalized population totals in the ACS will be prone to error. Third, there may be some reporting error or inconsistencies associated with some of the immigration-related items in the ACS other than citizenship, particularly year of entry and IvThe I990 Census asked the identical question as the 2010 ACS. and the CPS asks a similar question: "Did you become a citizen of the United States through Naturalization?? . vNaturalized citizens. of course. are the only persons who answer the question about year of naturalization. Thus. 15.1 percent of the citizens had missing data on this question, while the other percentages reported are for the entire foreign-bum sample. average allocation rate for person variables in the 2010 ACS was 5.8 percent. For context. rates for other commonly used ACS variables are: year last married employer-provided health insurance hours worked per week occupation and income Demogr Res. Author manuscript: available in PMC 20l4 July 02. 000288 iduasnuew Jomnv tduosnuew Joumv-vd?HIN, Jomnv Van Hook and Bachmeier Page 6 year of naturalization. Ellis and Wright (I998) showed that there were inconsistencies in responses to questions about year of entry and place of residence one year earlier in the Current Population Survey. Recently-arrived immigrants who are engaged in circular migration may ?nd the year of entry question particularly confusing and could plausibly report the year of their ?rst trip, last trip, or a year in between (Redstone and Massey 2004). This suggests that, at least for temporary migrants, year of entry may understate duration of U5. residence. In a related vein, and as we discuss in more detail below in relation to the OIS data, differences in the questions used to determine year of immigration between the two data sources also lend uncertainty to the comparative estimates of the naturalized population."" A fourth source of error in the ACS data is coverage error. By coverage error, we refer to discrepancies between the number in a given population represented in the ACS and the actual population that are not due to sampling error or reporting error. Coverage error among the foreign born can arise from inadequate representation of housing units containing foreign born persons in the ACS sample or sampling frame, omissions of individuals from household rosters, or from errors in the sampling weights. If the number of naturalized citizens in the ACS were too low because of coverage error, then this would influence the comparison with OIS based estimates of the number of naturalized citizens independently of reporting error in the ACS. Many observers suspect that coverage error is higher for the foreign born than the native born population, particularly among the US. Mexican-bom population. The reason is simply that groups characterized by residential mobility and complex living arrangements, illicit activity, fear of detection, and socio-political marginality are less likely to be picked up in censuses or surveys (Swanson, Siegel and Shryock 2004). A comprehensive review of this work was provided by Van Hook and Bean (I998). During the 20003, the two leading producers of estimates of the unauthorized foreign-born population, the Of?ce of Immigration Statistics (OIS) and the Pew Hispanic Center (Pew), assumed that coverage error was, respectively, 10(Hoefer, Rytina and Baker 2011) and 13 percent (Passel and Cohn 2009) for the unauthorized foreign born, and about 2.5% for other foreign born. OIS rested its assumption about coverage error on a survey conducted in Los Angeles that was then compared to Census counts (Marcelli and Ong 2002). Pew based its assumption on the levels of enumeration error estimated for the 2000 Census, which were calculated by incorporating data from the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation (ACE) post-enumeration surveyv'?. Recent evidence based on a triangulation of three different methods that examine trends in births, deaths, and net migration. however, suggests higher coverage error among all Mexican born in 2000 than estimated by OIS and Pew (about 15-20% coverage error). but declining rates throughout the 2000 decade (Van Hook et al. 2012)?. "'Additionally. responses to the year of entry and year of naturalization questions may suffer from year heaping. in which respondents are more likely to report years ending in 5 or 0. Examination of the data did suggest some digit preference among respondents for these years. but also showed considerable heaping in years ending with digits 8 and 9. reflecting. we believe. actual spikes in both immigration and naturalization during the late l990s. Because this type of heaping re?ects actual trends in immigration and naturalization. we do not smooth the data. We did produce a supplementary set of results (available upon request) based on smoothed year of entry and year of naturalization data (Myers I940). The results were very similar to those presented here. This makes sense. Year heaping resulting from digit preference would present the greatest concern if year variables were used as continuous measures. but we designed our analyses to minimize our reliance of these variables. We only use year of entry to drop pre-l990 arrivals from the sample. and for some analyses to discern between those arriving in the last ?ve years versus live or more years. Similarly. we only used year of naturalization to classify respondents as naturalizing at age l8 or older. We discuss the limitations of these indicators and possible implications for the results in the conclusions. previous post-enumeration surveys. the 2000 ACE re-interviewed a strati?ed sample of households shortly following the decennial census. Respondents in the post-enumeration survey were matched to Census respondents in order to assess rates of omission. duplication. and net coverage error. Although the ACE did not produce separate estimates for the foreign born. the Pew Hispanic Center used the ACE to arrive at a l3 percent ?gure by assuming unauthorized rates of coverage error two to three times those for others within the same race/Hispanic origin. age and sex grouping. Demogr Res. Author manuscript; available in PMC 20l4 July 02. 000289 Van Hook and Bachmeier Page 7 This evidence places coverage error in the range of 25% (for legal foreign born), to 10% to 13% (for unauthorized foreign born), to 15-20% (for Mexican foreign-bom). Considering that coverage error is likely to be even lower among naturalized citizens than all foreign . born or the Mexican born (because they are not unauthorized), we assumed a narrow range at of coverage error of 0% to We adjusted for coverage error in selected analyses by dividing the ACS estimate by one minus the assumed coverage error rate in the case of )3 5% coverage error, the adjusted ACS estimate ACS estimate/ .95). 3 Estimates Based on Of?ce of Immigration Statistics (018) Naturalization Records OlS-based estimates of the naturalized citizens in 2010 were derived from the numbers of 033 naturalizations in 013 administrative records. 018 data on naturalizations are historical gag records of events (?flows?) occurring over time, so they need to be converted to a ?stock? estimate of the number of naturalized citizens for a given point in time July 2010) to be comparable with ACS estimates. Once a person becomes a naturalized citizen, they may remain living in the United States and be represented in the 2010 ACS. Alternatively, they may have died or emigrated from the United States. and therefore could not be represented in the 2010 ACS. - :1 To account for deaths and emigration, we used the cohort-component projection method (Rowland 2003). More speci?cally, for each naturalization cohort, we estimated the number remaining by the time of the 2010 ACS (July 1, 2010 on average) by subtracting an estimate of deaths (D) and emigrants (E) that likely occurred during the follow-up period, that is, between the year of naturalization and July 1, 2010. For example, for a cohort age 20 that naturalized in 1995 (N20. 1995), the number of naturalized citizens age 35 in 2010 (?35.2010) 15: C35. zoro=Nzo. 1995 - D1995- 2010 - E1995- 2010 More generally, for a given cohort that naturalized at age a in year t, t, 01- 2010 - 2010 r. We describe below how we estimated each component of this equation. Naturalizations (Na, t) Data: The 018 routinely compiles data obtained from the administrative records of legal immigrant admissions and naturalizations kept by the US. Department of Homeland i Security. These ?les are not available as public use data. The naturalization ?les include a :0 record for each naturalization event occurring in the United States since the mid 19705. Attached to each record is the demographic and immigration-related information age, sex, country of birth, year of admission to the US, year of arrival to the US.) for the people who became citizens. Unlike the ACS, missing data do not pose signi?cant problems for the 018 data. Out of the 5.4 million naturalization records used to produce our estimates, only 0.05% were missing on age, 0.03% on sex, 0.1 1% on country of birth, and 0.40% on year of 2 arrival". E. l"The three methods involve (1) comparisons of US. births to Mexican born mothers with US. born children counted in the (2) comparisons of estimates of net migration from Mexico to the United States based on Mexican census data and US. Census data; and (3) comparisons of deaths to the Mexican born in the United States, and the underlying population that "produced" those deaths. with the number enumerated in the Census and ACS. Demogr Res. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 July 02. 000290 tduasnuaw 1dposhuaw10qmv tduosnuew Jomnv Van Hook and Bachmeier Page 8 Because no public use data are available, the Of?ce of Immigration Statistics generously provided a ?le to us containing detailed cross-tabulations of the number of naturalizations by year of naturalization, age at naturalization?, sex, year of arrival and region of birth (Mexico, Central American/Caribbean, Asia, Other). Combined, the cross-tabulations described the size and characteristics of 122,660 different naturalization cohorts. Together, these cohorts experienced 5.4 million naturalizations between January 1, 1990 and July 1, 2010*". Of course, we later combined these groups for presentation purposes, but the underlying detail granted us considerable ?exibility. Errors and Omissions in 018 Naturalization Data: Like the ACS data, the 018 data are subject to errors and omissions. First, the 018 data include only those who naturalized as adults age 18 and older. Children ages 0-17 may obtain ?derivative" citizenship from their parents when they naturalize, but the US. government does not produce easily accessible or interpretable statistics on derivative citizenship among children. We therefore limited our analyses (for both the 018 and ACS estimates) to those who naturalized as adults age 18+. Second, to be included in the DIS naturalization ?le, a person must have a matching record in the computerized OIS admission ?le and these ?les do not extend back before 1972. Thus pre-1972 arrivals (who contributed about 10% of all naturalizations between 1990 and 2010) are not in the computerized OIS naturalization ?le. To minimize this error, we limited our naturalization estimates (for both 018 and AC8) to those who arrived in the United States in 1990 or later. Third, naturalization data were not available for the approximately 100,000 LPR records out of 1.7 million that were not originally included in DHS flow data between 2001 and 2010 due to delayed data entry. For naturalizations occurring between 2001 and 2010, we therefore proportionately adjusted the number of naturalizations upward by a small percentage in order to add back in the 100,000 missing records. Speci?cally, we weighted the 1,661,815 cases that naturalized after 2000 by the ratio: (1,761,816/ 1,661,816). Fourth, information in the 013 data on year of arrival may be unreliable because it is based on a variety of sources sometimes determined from other documents, sometimes self- reported, etc.). Additionally, self-reported year of arrival is based on a question about the year of the respondents? last trip to the United States, which is different from the census question (year the respondent came to the US. to live). In our analyses, we therefore use year of arrival in a limited manner, namely to identify those who arrived in 1990 or later, and to discern recently-arrived immigrants (with less than 5 years of US. residence) from longer-resident immigrants. Deaths estimated the likely number of deaths to each naturalization cohort by multiplying the appropriate age-, sex-, and year-speci?c annual probability of dying (qx) by the number remaining in the cohort for each year of the follow-up period. No life table for naturalized citizens exists, so we used the life tables produced by the Social Security "Even though missingness in the 015 data is not high enough to bias estimates of the characteristics of naturalized citizens. we did not want to discard the records with missing data or our estimates of naturalized citizens would be too low. Since the 018 data was given to us in the form of cross tabulations rather than individual records. we could not use standard methods to handle missing data. Instead. we simply distributed the records with missing data proportionately across the categories of each variable (i matching the observed distributions). ?015 provided data for ?ve-year age groups. We subdivided the data into single-year age groups for the purpose of performing the projections (which are considerably easier computationally for single years of age), with the numbers of naturalizations equally allocated across single-year age groups. After the projection was done. the age groups were collapsed into very broad age categories (18-29. 30-39, 40+) for the purpose of comparison with the ACS. did not report month of naturalization. so we estimated the number of naturalizations from January I. 2010 through July 1. 2010 as half the total number occurring in the 2010 calendar year. Demogr Res. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 July 02. 000291 Van Hook and Bachmeier Page 9 Administration (Bell and Miller 2005), which estimate mortality risks for the United States based on NCHS vital statistics for ages 0-64 and Medicare files for ages 65 and older across an . ,x all years of the projection period. Thus they yield more accurate estimates of old-age mortality (with less age misreporting) and reflect the mortality experiences of those eligible .35 for Medicare, including naturalized immigrants. The Social Security Life Tables are 3 available from the Max Plank lnstitute's Human Life-Table Database (http:/l Mortality is a small component of the OlS-based estimates, and the I: estimates do not vary much when alternative U.S. life tables are used except for the oldest 3 age groups (not a major concern because over 90% of the naturalized citizens in our sample are younger than 65). Emigrants estimated the number of emigrants for each naturalization :1 . a cohort by applying a set of race-, age- and duration-speci?c emigration rates each year of i r; i? the projection period. Because no of?cial statistics on emigration from the United State have i been collected since 1956 (Kraly 1998), emigration among the foreign born has been it estimated with a variety of indirect demographic methods, which have yielded a range of . estimates. Because of uncertainty about emigration, we apply four different sets of 91? estimates. The first assumes no emigration at all, and the other three come from published if}? estimates, which roughly correspond with ?low?, ?moderate?, and ?hi gh" levels of emigration. For the latter three, we used rates that vary by 5-year age group, sex, race or country of birth (Mexico vs. other), and duration of US. residence (0-4, 5-9, and l0+ years). 3% 'rZ- iff,? (in The ?low? estimates are those produced by Ahmed and Robinson (1994). These are based .50. on comparisons of cohorts followed over time between I980 and I990 censuses. The Ahmed and Robinson rates are broken down by race/ethnicity: Hispanic, white, black, and Asian. We used the Hispanic rates for Mexicans and Central/South Americas, the white rates for Europeans and Canadians, the Asian rates for all Asians, and the black rates for all other immigrants (mostly Caribbeans and Africans). The ?moderate? estimates are those based on Social Security work history files (Schwabish 2009). These use a three-year discontinuation in U.S.-reponed earnings as an indicator of emigration. Because unauthorized immigrants do not qualify for Social Security, the Social Security-based rates may most closely describe the emigration patterns of legal immigrants and (by extension) naturalized citizens. Our rates came from a prediction model provided to J, us by Schwabish, which permitted us to produce annual emigration rates by age, sex, l: duration of residence, and Mexican originx'". We used the Mexican rates for Mexicans and Central Americans, and the non-Mexican rates for all other immigrants. 9 Finally. the ?high? estimates are those based on the CPS-matching method (Van Hook. Zhang, Bean, and Passel 2006). These use attrition from the Current Population Survey to . 3:4 estimate emigration. We used this method together with data from the 1996-2009 CPS to ?t produce annual probabilities of emigration for naturalized foreign?bom individuals in the if) CPS. We then estimated a prediction model of the probability of emigration, and used the estimated coef?cients to construct predicted emigration rates by age. sex, duration of . UB . 1m. .. gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Jonathon Schwabish for providing the prediction model. The model was discrete-time event history model (logistic regression) predicting the odds of emigrating in a given year. The model was estimated on a person-year file that contains a record for every foreign-ham Social Security recipient from the time of entry into the Social Security system until emigration or censorship. We used the coef?cients to calculate the log-odds of annual emigration for each demographic group, which we then converted to predicted probabilities (i annual emigration rates). -00 ad- Demogr Res. Author manuscript; available in PMC 20l4 July 02. 000292 . id?uosnuew lOltt?V tduosnuew I?ll-199ml?? 10?1an Van Hook and Bachmeier Page 10 residence, and Mexican originxi". We used the Mexican rates for Mexicans and Central Americans, and the non-Mexican rates for all other immigrants. Figure 1 illustrates the three sets of emigration rates for male Mexican immigrants with 0-4 years of US. residence. Readers will notice that the ?low?, ?moderate?, and ?high? labels are broadly descriptive but are only partially accurate. Their rank order changes around age 55. At younger ages, the Ahmed/Robinson ?low? rates are lowest, the Van Hook ?high? rates are highest, and the Schwabish ?moderate? rates fall in the middle. However, at older ages the Van Hook ?high? rates fall below the Schwabish ?moderate? rates. Projection Details?We projected forward each naturalization cohort from the year of its naturalization to July l, 2010 (the ACS estimate date), subtracting deaths and emigrants and adding one year of age to the remaining members of the cohort, for each year of the follow- up period?. The ?rst and last years of the follow-up period consisted of only six months. In the ?rst year, we assumed naturalizations occurred evenly throughout the year, so the duration of the ?rst year averaged six months. In the last year (2010), the projection period was only six months (from January 1 through July 1). The projections were conducted using Stata for all l22,660 naturalization cohorts. To compare the projected numbers of naturalized citizens for July 1, 2010 with 2010 ACS estimates, we collapsed the surviving cohorts into manageable groupings: by country/region; by country/region, sex, and duration of residence and 5+ years); and by Mexican origin, age grouping (18-29, 30-39, and and sex. Comparing OIS with ACS estimates Results We compare each of the and ACS-based estimates of naturalizations. We report the difference as a raw number (ACS 018) and a percentage difference - 100]. We take into consideration three criteria for determining the presence of reporting error. First, the difference between the OlS-based estimates of naturalizations for a given sub-population Mexican immigrant women) and the corresponding ACS estimate must be signi?cantly different. That is, the 018 estimate must fall outside the bounds of the ACS 95 percent con?dence interval. Second, the ACS estimate must fall outside the bounds of OlS-based estimates given a plausible range of assumptions about emigration. Third, the 018 estimate must fall outside the bounds of ACS estimates given a plausible range of assumptions about coverage error. In reporting results, we ?rst focus in Tables l-3 on the size of the differences and whether they may be explained by sampling error or by alternative assumptions about emigration. Later, in Tables 4?5, we add in the complexity of making alternative assumptions about coverage error. In Table we report the number of naturalizations from the DIS tables, components of change, and the resulting estimate of naturalized citizens, as well as the corresponding estimate from the ACS. These ?gures are reported for the entire foreign-Dom population and separately for Mexicans, Central Americans/Caribbeans, Asians, and ?Other? immigrants, with varying levels of emigration assumed. "iVWe adjusted the estimates for return migration to reduce the influence of circular migration on the emigration rates. Additionally. we use the model to produce estimates rather than simply producing rates for each demographic group separately because of sample size constraints. estimated the number of deaths and emigrants simultaneously for each year of the follow-up period. That is. we used mathematical equations developed for multiple decrement life tables. which take into account the size of the cohort at all instances in time that it is at risk for death and emigration (Preston. Heuveline. and Guillot 200i DcmogrRes. Author manuscript; available in PMC 20l4 July 02. 000293 1 . trawaeuinvivaenm. ll. . far is!; .. 'tq'rqit x-i; . Idmsnu t? . 5 . 3 i Thy. var 1 a .- .msn- "new. 7 at" Van Hook and Bachmeier Page 11 The ACS estimates about 5,260,000 foreign-bom residents arriving in the U.S. after 1989 and naturalizing as adults. This is nearly identical to the 018 estimate (5,316,000 naturalizations) when we assume zero emigration, an implausible assumption. However, if we account for emigration, we estimate signi?cantly more naturalized citizens in the ACS than the OlS-based estimates. Expressed as a percentage of the DIS estimate, the magnitude of the discrepancy increases from 4, 7, to 10 percent and becomes statistically signi?cant 66 when we apply the ?low moderate? and ?high? emigration rates, respectively. Table 1 indicates that the difference is concentrated largely among Mexican immigrants, among whom the discrepancy is signi?cant and ranges from 25 percent (assuming no emigration) to 38 percent (assuming high emigration). Unlike the previous work of Passel and Clark (1997), comparison of ACS and 018 estimates do not suggest signi?cant levels of misreporting among Central Americans/Caribbeans, for whom the ACS estimate is signi?cantly higher than the OlS-based estimate only when assuming ?moderate? or ?high" levels of emigration. Also, when we assume no emigration among Asians, the ACS estimates signi?cantly fewer naturalizations than are estimated in the 018 data. This is probably because emigration is almost certainly gm nonexistent for this group. When we assume low or moderate emigration, the differences are insigni?cant, and at high levels of emigration, the ACS-based estimate is only 3 percent higher than the 018 estimate. Finally, naturalizations among immigrants born elsewhere in the world are not signi?cantly higher in the ACS when we assume no emigration. But the gap increases as the assumed rate of emigration increases, from 5 to 8 to 10 percent, respectively, at ?low?, ?moderate?, and ?high? levels of emigration. Table 2 reports the naturalization estimates by sex, region of birth, and duration of U.S. residence. For both men and women from all origin regions, the estimated number of naturalized citizens in the ACS is substantially and signi?cantly higher than the DIS-based estimates among immigrants with fewer than ?ve years in the U.S. For example, the number of naturalized Mexican men with fewer than ?ve years of U.S. residence is nearly 27 times higher (2587%) in the ACS than the 018 estimates. Another way to express this is that among the 16 thousand reporting as citizens in the ACS, only about 600 (or about 4 percent) are likely to actually be naturalized citizens. Among those in the U.S. for ?ve or more years, the gap is much lower in relative terms, and concentrated among Mexican men. The 2010 ACS estimates about 250,000 naturalizations among Mexican-bom men with 5 or more years of U.S. residence (i arrived in 1995 or later), and naturalizing as adults. Even when assuming no emigration among Mexican men with 018 naturalization records, the ACS estimate is signi?cantly higher by 37 percent, and this increases to 41 . 43 and 54 percent when ?low?, ?moderate?, and ?high" rates of emigration, respectively, are assumed. Though ACS estimates are signi?cantly higher among Mexican women as well, the magnitude of estimated over-reporting is substantially lower than among Mexican men, ranging from 7 percent at low levels of emigration to 17 percent at high rates of emigration. In Table 3, 018 and ACS estimates are presented for Mexican and non-Mexican men and women by age group by varying rates of emigration. We note that the 018 estimates do not always decline as emigration increases from the ?low? to the ?moderate? to the ?high? series because of age crossovers in various emigration estimates. Regardless of assumptions about emigration, ACS estimates are especially high relative to the OlS-based estimates among Mexican men of all age groups and Mexican women aged 40 and older. The same pattern does not hold among non-Mexicans, among whom the discrepancy remains relatively low across all age groups. Up to this point, our ACS estimates of naturalization have not been adjusted for possible under-coverage of the foreign-born in the ACS. To illustrate the impact of coverage error, Demogr Res. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 July 02. 000294 rduosnuew Journv rduosnuew Joumv rduosnuew Van Hook and Bachmeier Page 12 we report in Table 4 percentage differences between the ACS and 018 estimates at three levels of assumed coverage error. For all groups, the discrepancies increase as rates of assumed emigration and coverage error increase. For example, among Mexican-born men aged 18-29, the gap is about 26 percent if no coverage error is assumed (assuming no emigration). This increases to 29 percent when we assume 2.5 percent coverage error, and to 32 percent when we assume 5 percent coverage error. The same pattern holds for Mexican women 18-29, though the magnitude of over-reporting is substantially lower, ranging from -I percent to 4 percent (assuming no emigration), and is not signi?cant in any instance. This shows that the naturalization reporting error estimates shown in Tables 1-3 are low-end estimates. They will be higher for groups that are underrepresented in the ACS. Finally, we summarized the differences and assessed whether these can be explained by sources other than reporting error in Table 5. In the ?rst column, we present the percentage difference while assuming moderate emigration and no coverage error. In the next three columns, we designate with a the differences that are greater than can be explained by sampling error (assuming moderate emigration and no coverage error), (2) alternative plausible assumptions about emigration (assuming no coverage error), and (3) alternative plausible assumptions about coverage error (assuming moderate emigration). Finally, the last column indicates with a whether the difference is so large that it cannot be explained by any of these three sources of error and are therefore is very likely to re?ect reporting error. For example, the gap for Mexicans is 31 percent if we assume ?moderate? levels of emigration and no coverage error (2"d row). The in the second column indicates that this gap is statistically signi?cant. The in the third column indicates that the gap remains no matter what we assume about emigration (with no coverage error). The in the fourth column indicates that the gap remains no matter what we assume about coverage error (with moderate emigration). Finally, in the ?fth column indicates that the gap remains signi?cant under all combinations of plausible assumptions about sampling error, emigration, and coverage error. Overall, the results con?rm that the discrepancies for three groups are large enough to suggest reporting error among: (1) all immigrants with less than five years of US. residence, (2) Mexican men of all ages and durations of residence, and (3) Mexican women ages 40 and older. Of course, there may be alternative explanations for the discrepancies other than reporting error, but our analyses eliminate three of the major alternative explanations. Conclusion Naturalization is an important, though under-examined, indicator of immigrants? social and political integration, and numerous government-sponsored population surveys include questions about citizenship status (Costanzo, Davis and Malone 2002). It is therefore important to gauge the degree to which immigrants may misreport their citizenship status in response to such questions. To the best of our knowledge. estimates of the misreporting of naturalization have not been generated since the mid-1990s (Passe! and Clark 1997). Our objective in this paper has been to update this research and provide the first set of estimates of reporting error among immigrants in the American Community Survey (ACS). Naturalization reporting error was estimated by comparing a demographic estimate based on administrative data from the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Of?ce of Immigration Statistics with the number of naturalizations reported in the 20l0 ACS. Similar to the earlier work of Passe] and Clark (1997), we ?nd that the ACS estimates of naturalized citizens are much higher than OlS?based estimates among immigrants from all regions of the world who have lived in the US. fewer than five years. Among immigrants Dcmogr Res. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 July 02. 000295 Van Hook and Bachmeier Page 13 residing in the US. for ?ve or more years, the OIS-ACS discrepancy is concentrated among those bom in Mexico, especially men of all ages and women age 40 or older. In fact, the discrepancy is particularly large for both men and women age 40+, which is a little surprising given that the unauthorized population is concentrated among young and working-aged adults, and we expected the unauthorized to be most likely to misreport. Nevertheless, these patterns cannot be explained by sampling error, alternative assumptions about emigration, or coverage error. We can only speculate as to the reasons behind the apparently high rates of over-reporting among Mexican immigrants. There remains the remote possibility that the discrepancies derive from inaccurate assessments of by differences in how duration of residence is measured between the 018 and However, the results seem more likely to reflect the fact that large portions of Mexicans, particularly young Mexican men, are unauthorized migrants. When compared with the total foreign born population, the 2010 estimates of the unauthorized population (Hoefer, Rytina, and Baker 201 1) suggest that 55% of Mexican foreign born are unauthorized compared with 28% of Central Americans] Caribbeans, 8.5% of Asians, and 10% of all other national origins. Estimates of the Mexican unauthorized population by age and sex are dif?cult to locate, but one report based on the 2000 Census (Passel, Van Hook, and Bean 2004) suggests that Mexican-bom men and ?ii-f7; women younger than 30 were the most likely to be unauthorized among all age, sex. and ?355, national origin groups. For example, 89.4% were estimated to be unauthorized compared with 34.6% of same-aged non-Mexican foreign-bom men. Such high prevalence of . . . . u; unauthorized status may help explain the large discrepancy among young Mexican-bom men. "at? ?3 1n the case of Mexican immigrants age 40+, the results are more dif?cplt to explain since the rigid. proportion unauthorized for this age group is lower than younger Mexican immigrants. .4 5" Perhaps one clue is that most of these migrants arrived in the United States as older adults (due to the fact that we restricted the sample to immigrants arriving in the US. in 1990 or later to be consistent with the population re?ected in the DIS data). Among all naturalized 3 Mexican immigrants counted in the 2010 ACS,just 14 percent of those aged 40?64 and 8 percent of those aged 65+ arrived in the US. in 1990 or later. We suspect that the distinctive and! group of older-arriving immigrants in our sample knows little to no English, may well be . --. unauthorized migrants reuniting with adult children who have settled in the U.S., and as such, may live in complex multi-generational households. To the extent that these attributes characterize older-arriving Mexican migrations, these factors may combine to lend dif?culty 53:. in collecting complete and accurate survey data about them, and thus be in part responsible for their high rates of overreporting of naturalization. Supplementary analyses further r-?r . reveal high levels of missing data on immigration items for this group, so missing data and inaccurate missing data allocations may also help explain their high gap in the number of naturalized citizens. . x"'However. we think this is unlikely. Fewer than 10% of the naturalized citizens in our analyses were age 65 or older. Additionally. supplementary analyses show that the OIS-ACS discrepancy is equally high among the older age groups with lower mortality rates (age 40-64) and higher mortality rates (age x""We think this is unlikely. To explain. the ACS question. ?When did this person come to live in the United States?" lacks speci?city and it is possible that respondents who have made multiple trips to the US. would report their ?rst, last. or any trip in between (Redstone and Massey 2004). However. the primary source of year of entry information in the 018 data is more speci?c. asking respondents to indicate their ?Date of Last Arrival (mm/dd/myj?. Thus. circular migrants would be more likely to answer the ACS question with the year of their ?rst or second trip, while indicating their most recent year of arrival (a later year) on their LPR application form. As an example. imagine a Mexican immigrant who ?rst entered the country as an unauthorized immigrant in 1985 and made annual trips back and forth before legalizing in 1995 and naturalizing by 2000. Helshe may plausibly indicate on his/her LPR application 1995 as the year of last arrival. but an earlier year (say 1985) as the year he/she ?rst came to live on the ACS. in our analysis. this person would be excluded from the ACS sample of post-I989 an'ivals but included in the 015 data. To the extent that - this is the common scenario among circular migrants (and we have no way of con?rming that it is). this would lead to fewer - naturalized immigrants being counted in the ACS than indicated in the 015 data. not more as we observe. ?fa'r m, - {3.0.41? menu-aw ad Demogr Res. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 July 02. 000296 idyosnuaw Jomnv lleoanBW Vcl?HlN rduosnuew Joumvlvaarrm. .. - Van Hook and Bachmeier Page 14 One difference between our results and those of Passel and Clark is that they ?nd over- reporting of naturalization among longer-term immigrants for both Mexicans and Central Americans. Our results do not suggest substantively signi?cant levels of naturalization over- reporting among immigrants born in countries other than Mexico. We do not have a strong explanation for this difference from Passel and Clark. It may arise from a real change in reporting among Central Americans, or it may arise from methodological differences, such as in how emigration is treated. The OIS-ACS gap for Central Americans could not be explained by sampling error or coverage enor, but was signi?cant when we assumed moderate or high levels of emigration. Still another divergence from the Passel and Clark study is that we found little evidence of over-reporting among Mexican women, particularly those younger than 40. This does not necessarily con?ict with Passel and Clark's ?nding concerning Mexicans, but instead builds on it since they did not break down their results by Mexican-origin, age and sex. Finally, our analyses suggest that our conclusions are robust to alternative assumptions about emigration and coverage error. Even if there were no emigration and no coverage error at all, the ACS estimates would be higher than the 018 estimates for many groups. And, when we assumed higher (non-zero) emigration, this reduced the OIS-based estimates, which then further increased the OIS-ACS discrepancy. Similarly, when we accounted for coverage error of the foreign born in the ACS, this again increased the gap between 018 and ACS estimates. Moreover, it is clear that if coverage error for some groups (such as Mexican male immigrants) were even higher than 5% (which we assumed to be on the ?high end"), this would serve to further increase the OIS-ACS gap. Passel and Clark's (I997) evaluation of naturalization reporting error appears to have assumed no coverage error and low emigration rates. Thus their estimates probably represented lower-bound estimates of reporting error. In conclusion, it is reassuring that the results do not indicate signi?cant naturalization reporting error among non-Mexicans with ?ve or more years of US. residence and young Mexican women. On the other hand, the results continue to provide evidence for naturalization over-reporting for all groups of Mexican men, older Mexican women, and all recent arrivals, regardless of assumptions about emigration or coverage error. We therefore recommend that ACS data on citizenship be accepted at face value for all groups except those with less than ?ve years of US. residence, Mexican men, and older Mexican women. Acknowledgments This research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health (RC2 HD064497. POI HD062498. and 2R24HD04I025). References Ahmed, Robinson,.lG. Estimates of Emigration of the Foreign-bom Population: l980-l990. Population Division. US. Census Bureau; Washington, DC: I994. Bell, Miller. ML. Life Tables for the United States Social Security Area l900-2100 Actuarial Study No. 16. 2005. Bloemraad, I. Becoming a Citizen: Incorporating Immigrants and Refugees in the United States and Canada. University of California Press; 2006. Bloemraad I, Korteweg A, Yurdakul G. Citizenship and Immigration: Multiculturalism, Assimilation, and Challenges to the Nation-State. Annual Review of Sociology. 2008; 34( I [53?79. Costanzo, Davis, Malone, N. Guide to International Migration Statistics: The Sources, Collection, and Processing of Foreign-80m Population Data at the US. Census Bureau. US. Census Bureau; Washington. DC: 2002. Population Division Working Paper #68 Dcmogr Res. Author manuscript; available in PMC 20l4 July 02. 000297 Van Hook and Bachmeier Page 15 DeSipio, L. Building America, One Person at a Time: Naturalization and Political Behavior of the Naturalized in Contemporary US. Politics. In: Mollenkopf. John; Gerstle. Gary. editors. Pluribus Unum? Immigrant. Civic Life and Political Incorporation. Russell Sage Foundation; New York: 2001. p. 67-106. Ellis M. Wright R. When Immigrants are Not Migrants: Counting Arrivals of the Foreign-Born Using the US. Census. International Migration Review. 1998; 32(1): 127?44. lPubMed: 12321468] Fix M. Zimmermann W. All under One Roof: Mixed-Status Families in an Era of Reform. Migration Review. 2001; HaddaI.CC. Border Security: The Role of the US. Border Patrol. Congressional Research Service; Washington. DC: 2010. Hoefer, Rytina. Baker, BC. Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2010. Department of Homeland Security; Washington, DC: 2011. Kraly. EP. Migration Between Mexico and the United States: Binational Study. Vol.2 Research Reports and Background Materials. Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the US. Commission on Immigration Reform; Mexico City and Washington. DC: 1998. Emigration: Implications for US. Immigration Policy Research; p. 587-618. Marcelli. Ong. PM. 2000 Census Coverage of Foreign-Bom Mexicans in hos Angeles County: Implications for Demographic Analysis. Paper presented at the 2002 Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America; Atlanta. GA. 2002. Minnesota Population Center. Replicate Weights in the American Community Survey I Puerto Rican Community Survey. University of Minnesota; Minneapolis, MN: 2012. on-line at: http:// 13/2012] Myers RJ. Errors and Bias in the Reporting of Ages in Census Data. Transactions of the Actuarial Society of America. 1940; Passe]. 18.; Clark. RL. How Many Naturalized Citizens Are Thee? An Assessment of Data Quality in the Decennial Census and CPS.. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America; Washington. DC. March 1997; 1997. Passel. Cohn. D. A Portrait of Unauthorized Immigrants in the United States. Pew Hispanic Center; Washington. DC: 2009. PasseI.JS.; Clark. Fix. M. Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section of the American Statistical Association: 1997. American Statistical Association; Alexandria. VA: 1997. Naturalization and Other Current Issues in US. Immigration: Intersections of Data and Policy.. Passel.JS.; Van Hook, Bean. FD. Immigration Studies Whitepapers No. 3. Sabre Systems; Washington. DC: 2006. Narrative Pro?le with Adjoining Tables of Unauthorized Migrants and Other Immigrants. Based on Census 2000: Characteristics and Methods. Portes. Rumbaut. RG. Immigrant America: A Portrait. University of California Press; Berkeley. CA: 2006. Preston, Heuveline. Guillot. M. Demography: Measuring and Modeling Population Processes. Blackwell; Oxford: 2001 . Redstone I. Massey DS. Coming to Stay: An Analysis of the US. Census Question on Immigrants' Year of Arrival. Demography. 2004; lPubMed: 1562295 I Rowland. DT. Demographic Methods and Concepts. Oxford University Press: 2003. Ruggles. Alexander. Genadek. Goeken. Schroeder. Sobek. M. Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 5.0 [Machine-readable database]. University of Minnesota; Minneapolis. MN: 2010. Schwabish.JA. Identifying Rates of Emigration in the United States Using Administrative Earnings Records. Congressional Budget Office; Washington. DC: 2009. Swanson. Siege]. Shyrock, HS. The Methods and Materials of Demography. Emerald Group Publishing; San Diego. CA and London: 2004. US. Census Bureau. American Community Survey Design and Methodology. US. Census Bureau; Washington. DC: 2009. US. Citizenship and Naturalization Services. Citizenship Through Naturalization. 2012. ?4 a: - ?r?rv i? .J?ng/ Demogr Res. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 July 02. 000298 A ?t . - I tduosnu'ew-Joutnv yd Van Hook and Bachmeier Page 16 Van Hook J, Balistreri KS. Ineligible Parents, Eligible Children: Food Stamps Receipt, Allotments and Food Insecurity among Children of Immigrants. Social Science Research. 2006; 35( [)2228?25 1. Van Hook, Bean, FD. Migration Between Mexico the United States: Binational Study. Thematic Chapters. Vol. 1. Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs and US. Commission on Immigration Reform; Mexico City and Washington, DC: 1998. Estimating Underenumeration among Unauthorized Mexican Migrants to the United States: Applications of Mortality Analyses.; p. 55 [-70 Van Hook,.l.; Bean. Bachrneier,JD.; Tucker,C. The Hidden Dimension: Coverage Error and the Estimation of the US. Unauthorized Mexican Population. 2012. In progress Van Hook 1, Brown SK, Bean FD. For Love or Money? Welfare Reform and Immigrant Naturalization. Social Forces. 2006; Van Hook J. Zhang W. Bean FD. Passe! IS. Foreign-bom Emigration: A New Approach and Estimates Based on Matches CPS Files. Demography. 2006; 43:361?382. [PubMedz 16889133] Demogr Res. Author manuscript; available in PMC 20l4 July 02. 000299 Van Hook and Bachmcier Page 17 0.08 0.07 4 - - mmaumm a? . ?Mmeumnmn i2 0.0.03 cm 7 i 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 5569 60-64 4 Figure 1. Estimates of Foreign-born Emigration Demogr Res. Author manusctipt; available in PMC 20 4 July 02. 000300 Joumv tduasnuew Joumv iduosnuew Jomnv Van Hook and Baehmeier Page 18 Table 1 Estimated Naturalized Citizens (thousands) based on 018 naturalization records and ACS, by Region of Birth, July 2010 (see notes below) OIS-based estimates (components of change between Jan I, 1990 and July 1, Comparison with 2010 American 2010) Community Survey (ACS) Naturalizationsl Deathsz Emigrants3 Remaining mumbled C'm?m Nat'ed Citizens, ACSI Dirt" Din" All Countries/Regions No Emigrationj 5,496 180 0 5,316 -56 ?1 AIR ?low" Emigration 5,496 173 243 5,079 181 4 5,260 SSA "Moderate" Emigration 5,496 166 398 4,932 328 .7 VH ?high" Emigration 5,496 167 531 4,798 462 10 4' Mexico No EmigrationAIR "low" Emigration 470 5 1 455 127 28 581 SSA ?Moderate" Emigration 470 5 21 444 137 3] VH ?high" Emigration 470 5 43 422 159 38 Central American/Caribbean No Emigration3 792 19 0 773 2 0 AIR ?low" Emigration 792 19 I9 754 21 3 SSA ?Moderate" Emigration 792 ?high" Emigration 792 18 83 691 84 12 Asia No Emigration-3 2,466 91 0 2,376 174 _7 AIR Emigration 2,466 87 136 2,243 ?4l ?2 2,202 SSA ?Moderate" Emigration 2,466 83 197 2,186 16 VH ?high" Emigration 2,466 84 244 2,138 64 3 Other Regions No EmigmiOHJ 1,767 65 0 1,702 ?1 0 AIR Emigration 1,767 63 77 1,627 74 5 1,701 SSA ?Moderate" Emigration 1,767 60 135 1,573 128 8 VH "high" Emigration L767 61 160 1,546 155 10* Note: Estimates are for naturalized citizens who naturalized between Ill/1990 and 7/1/2010 [Excludes naturalizations of immigrants who arrived before 1990 or who naturalized as children aged 0-17. ZBased on Social Security administration lifetable (Bell and Miller 2005) JAIR Ahmed Robinson 1994 SSA Social Security (Schwabish 2009) VH Van Hook et al. 2006 ("high") 4Dift' (ACS OIS) Demogr Res. Author manuscript; available in PMC 20 4July 02. 000301 Van Hook and Bachmeier Page 19 5mm (ACS - onsyons 0 loo 0 Absolute difference between 015 and ACS estimate is greater then twice the standard error of the ACS estimate. Demogrkn. Author manuscript; available in PMC 20l4 July 02. 000302 iduosnuew 10'4an iduosnuew Van Hook and Bachmeier Table 2 Page 20 Estimated Naturalized Citizens (thousands), by Sex, Duration of Residence, and Region of Birth, July 2010 (see notes below) <5 years US. Residence 5+ Years of (15. Residence 0151 ACSI Di??z 0151 ACSI Dil?fz Men Mexico 1' No Emigrationj '6 2587 183 37 AIR ?low" Emigration .6 2588 178 41 16.0 250 I 3 SSA Moderate Emigration .6 2589 175 43 VH "high" Emigration .6 2590 162 54 Central AmericanlCan'bbean I No Emigrationj 1366 322 1 v- - . 3 AIR low Emigration .2 1382 313 2 I73 3'20 SSA Moderate Emigration 1404 305 high Emigration .l 143' 282 13 Asia I No Emigration] 5'0 395 1?029 ?9 NR ?low" Emigration 4.9 403 960 ?3 24.7 935 SSA ?Moderate" Emigration 4.9 403 4' 956 ?2 VH ?hi gh" Emigration 4.9 404 949 ?1 Other Regions at 4- N0 Emigration?? 4'5 360 767 ?4 NR ?low Emigration 4.4 369 ?t 732 0 20.8 734 SSA ?Moderate" Emigration 4high Emigration 4.4 370 71] 3 Women Mexico 4' 8 No Emigrationj '8 1689 28' 7 ., .. . . low Emigration .8 1700 276 9 13.8 302 3 SSA Moderate Emigration .8 1727 268 13 VH ?high Emigration .8 1726 259 17 Central American/Caribbean air it No Emigrationj I ?2 1097 449 ?6 AIR "low" Emigration Demogr Res. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 July 02. 000303 Van Hook and Baehmeier Page 21 6 years US. Residence 5+ Years 0111.8. Residence ors' acs? 95 ors' 95 Dirt2 SSA ?Moderate? Emigration 1.2 1 128 423 0 vr-r "high" Emigration I 2 1127' 407 4 - Asia No Emigration" ?3 208' ?33? A/R?low" Emigration 11.2 212' 1.266 350 1207 SSA ?Moderate" Emigration 1.1 2'4 1.213 0 VH "high" Emigration 1 1.1 216' 1.174 3 Other Regions No Emigration: ?3 361 ?5 AIR ?low" Emigration 6.2 369 885 4 28.9 918 SSA "Moderate" Emigration 6.1 847 371 8 "high" Emigration 6.1 373 824 I I Note: Estimates are for naturalized citizens who naturalized between ll 1/1990 and 7/1/2010 [Excludes naturalized immigrants who arrived before 1990 or who naturalized as children aged 0-17. 2 ?bDil'f (ACS - OISVOIS 100 3A1R Ahmed Robinson SSA Social Security (Schwabish 2009) VH Van Hook et al. 2006 (?high") . Absolute difference between 015 and ACS estimate is greater than twice the standard error of the ACS estimate. Demogr Res. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 July 02. 000304 tduosnuew JOHJNV 10'4an Vc?li'HlN iduosn new Joumv Vd-eH IN Van Hook and Bachmeier July 2010 (see notes below) Table 3 Estimated Naturalized Citizens of all Years of US. Residence (thousands), by Age, Sex, and Mexican Origin, Men Women 0181 ACSI Dill} DinJ ors? ACSI Di??z 1)th Mexicans Age l8-29 No Emigration4 46 12 26 68 I AIR ?low" Emigration 45 58 13 29 66 67 SSA ?Moderate" Emigration 45 13 29 4* 66 VH ?high" Emigration 42 16 37 63 4 Age 30-39 49 No Emigration4 82 '9 73 '08 5 AIR ?low" Emigration SSA ?Moderate" Emigration ?high" Emigration Emigration4 55 52 94 It 107 29 AIR ?low" Emigration 54 107 53 99 105 3] 136 SSA ?Moderate" Emigration 52 55 105 10] 35 VH ?high? Emigration 48 59 '22 97 38 Non-Mexicans Age 18-29 No Emigration4 282 5 2 345 ?l3 AIR "tow" Emigration 267 20 8 329 2 287 332 SSA ?Moderate" Emigration 277 4 336 ?5 VH ?high? Emigration 266 21 8 321 ID Age 30-39 No Emigration4 587 45 -4 795 46 AIR ?low" Emigration 548 I4 3 754 25 562 779 SSA ?Moderate" Emigration 564 ?l 0 755 23 VH ?high" Emigration 542 Emigration4 1258 ?56 _4 [583 ?67 AIR ?low" Emigration 120] I 0 1525 - 9 SSA ?Moderate? Emigration 147 1202 55 5 I410 I 517 107 Demogr Res. Author manuscript; available in PMC 20l4 July 02. Page 22 000305 Van Hook and Bachmeier Page 23 Men Wo? ors? acs? 95 Dirt" ors? acs? 9r. ?high? Emigration 1144 58 5' 1335 :31 9- Note: Estimates are for naturalized citizens who naturalized between Ill/1990 and 7/1/2010 [Excludes naturalized immigrants who arrived before I990 or who naturalized children aged 0-17. 20m (AC5 - 015) 3%Diff (ACS - . 4A1R Ahmed Robinson 1994 SSA Social Security (Schwabish 2009) ("moderate"), Vl-l Van Hook et al. 2006 ("high?) I Absolute difference between ms and ACS estimate is greater than twice the standard error of the ACS estimate. Demogr Rea Author manuscript; available in PMC 20l4 July 02. 000306 10 AIM 17103 u! alqeuezua tldposnueur Joqmv 'sog] Jfowaa ldussnuew Joumv 1duosnuew Joumv 1duosnuew Joumv IN Table 4 Percentage leference between 018 and ACS estimates Whlle ACS Coverage Error Assumptions, by Mex1can On gm, Age, and Sex (see notes below) Men Women 0% Coverage Error 2.5% Coverage Error 5% Coverage Error 0% Coverage Error 2.5% Coverage Error 5% Coverage Error Mexicans Age 18-29 vi' No Emigration! 26 29 32 1 4 AIR ?low Emlgration SSA Moderate Emlgratlon high Emigrauon 37 41 44* 6 8 11 Age 30-Emlgratlon AIR low Emlgratlon SSA Moderate Emtgrauon high Emigratron 39Emigrauon AIR low Emlgratton 99SSA Moderate Emigration 105 110 116 34 38 41* 7" 1* Em?gra?NonvMexicans Age 18?29 No Emigrationz AIR low Emigratlon 8* 10 13 1 3 6? SSA ?Moderate? Emigration 4 6 9 ?l 1 4 000307 Jagawqaeg DUB 3001-] 17z 939d 'zo 1710: u; alqenumz tidposnueui Jomnv "sayJEowaa 10'4an ldlmanBW 1?3?an iduosnuew mumv 0% Coverage Error Men 2.5% Coverage Error 5% Coverage Error 0% Coverage Error 2.5% Coverage Emr 5% Coverage En'or VH ?high? Emigration Age 30-39 No Emigratiunz AIR "low" Emigration SSA ?Moderate" Emigration VH ?high" Emigration Age 40+ No Emigrationz AIR ?low" Emigration SSA ?Moderate" Emigration VH ?high" Emigration 3 I4 1. 9 OISMOIS 100 ZAER Ahmed Robinson 1994 SSA 2 Social Security (Schwabish 2009] VH Van 8 Absolute difference between 015 and ACS estimate is greater than twice the standard error of the ACS estimate. 000308 Jagawqoeg pun HUGH 5; 939d idi?Iosnuew Joumv 1duosnuew JOLlan 1duosnuew Joumv Van Hook and Bachmeier Sensitivity of OIS-ACS difference to sampling error, assumptions about emigration, and assumptions about coverage error (see notes below) Table 5 Page 26 Difference Egreater than can be explained by plausible assumptions about: Di?'erencea Sampling Error? Emigrationb Coverage En-orc Any 0f the 3 All Countrieisegions 7 Mexico 31 Central American/Caribbean 6 Asia 1 Other Regions 8 Men, <5 years of US. Residence Mexico 2589 Central American/Caribbean 1404 Asia 403 Other Regions 369 Women, <5 years of US. Residence Mexico [727 Central American/Caribbean 1 128 Asia 214 Other Regions 37] Men, 5+ years of U5. Residence Mexico 43 Central Americaanaribbean 5 Asia ?2 Other Regions 3 Women, 5+ years of US. Residence Mexico l3 Central AmericanJ?Caribbean 0 Asia ?1 Other Regions 8 Mexican Men 18-29 29 30-39 29 40+ 105 Mexican Women 18 29 2 30.39 1 I 40+ 34 Non-Mexican Men 18-29 30 39 40+ 5 Dcmogch-s. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 July 02. 000309 Van Hook and Bachmeier Page 27 Difference is er than can be her! It uslble am dons about: Difference? Sampling Error" Emigrationb Coverage Emrc Any own 3 Non-Mexican Women 18-29 -l 55. 30-39 3 . 3:5; 40+ 8 . yes ?assuming moderate emigration (SSA series) and no coverage error (these estimates come from Table 1, last column for the top panel: Table 2. 3rd and ti?I columns for tlte middle panel: and Table 3. 4th and 8Ill columns for the bottom panel) whit? .1 mt,? v-V estimate (assuming no coverage error) falls signi?cantly outside range of ms estimates while varying emigration assumptions it r:OlS estimate (assuming moderate emigration) falls outside range of ACS estimates while varying coverage error assumptions 35. .3 it?? I 4 . AJ 1., .Li? .iol.io Ff Demogr Res. Author manuscript; available in PMC 20l4 July 02. 000310 US. Department of Justice Justice Management Division O?ice of General Counsel November 4, 2016 John H. Thompson Director Economics and Statistics Administration U.S. Census Bureau Unites States Department of Commerce Washington, DC. 20233-0001 Re: Legal Authority for American Community Survey Questions Dear Mr. Thompson: This letter supplements my letter of July 1, 2016, in which I advised that, at that time, the Department of Justice had no needs to amend the current content and uses or to request new content in the American Community Survey (ACS) for the 2020 Census. In 2014, the Department af?rmed its continuing needs and legal justi?cation for existing subjects and questions in the ACS. I understand your of?ce recently has been in communication with Department of?cials regarding new uses sought by the Department relating to LGBT populations. Consistent with those communications, this letter formally requests that the Census Bureau consider a new topic in the ACS relating to LGBT populations. The attached spreadsheet accurately re?ects the legal authority supporting the necessity for the collection of this information. Please let me know if you have any questions about this letter or wish to discuss this request. I can be reached at (202) 514-3452, or at Arthur.Gary@usdoj. gov. Sincerely yours, as. m/ General Counsel Attachment Cc: Civil Rights Division Of?ce of the Deputy Attorney General 000311 000312 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION REQUIREMENTS FOR AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY DATA Statutory Requ_irement 11tie Citations olence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 42 usc 13925(b)(13) Classi?cation The following statutes enforced by the Department bar discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or both. Uses Would be used to enforce prohibitions against discrimination in programs or activities raceivlng financial assistance administered by the Office on Violence Against Women. ?-uen Place Annual olence Against Women 42 USC 3796ggtb)(5), - ct of 1994, as amended, 379699(b)(19), of Trafficking and 379699-710), - ience Protection Act of 10420(c)(1)(8), 2000, Violence Against 1397103), omen and Department of 13971(d)(4), 1397S(a), lusiice Reauthorizadon Act 13975(g)(3)(C)(ii), -f 2005, Violence Against 14041(b)(1), 14041(b)(4), omen Beaumorizatlon Act 14045(a)(1), of 2013 14045b(b)(10). Would be used to help administer grants, and plan education about and enforcement of prohibitions against discriminadon in programs or activities receiving ?nancial assistance administered by OVW. Census block group Annual . 42 USC 2000a et seq.; 42 USC Wards tie VII of the Civil Cove Packing Co. v. ehts Act of 1964 . Atonio, 490 0.5. 642 (1 3 Would be used to enforce the prohibition against unlawful employment discrimination. Place Illinnual VII of die Civil Rights Act of 1964 42 056 200011 et seq. Would be used to help plan education and enforcement efforts concerning the prohibition against unlawful employment discrimination. Census block group "Hill 20 use 1701 et seq.; tie at of the 34 can Education 106.2300), Amendments of 1972 105.52, Would be used to enforce the prohibition against unlawful discrimination in education programs and activities receiving foderai financial assistance. Place Annual 000313 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION REQUIREMENTS FOR AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY DATA Sta . Ryuirement Title tie Ix of the Education - endments of 1972 Citations 20 USC 1701 el: seq. Classi?cation Uses Would be used to help plan education and enforcement efforts concerning the prohibition against unlawful discrimination In education programs and activities receiving federal ?nancial assistance. Census block group Fgguencv Annual Fair Housing Act of 1968 42 USC 3601 et seq. 3 24 CFR 100.500; Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc, 135 S. Ct. 2507 (2015). Would be used to enforce the prohibition against unlawful disalrninatlon in housing. Place Annual alr Housing Act of 1968 42 USC 3601 etseq.; 24 CFR 100.500. Would be used to help plan education, testing and enforcement efforts to eliminate unlawful discrimination in housing. Census block group Annual ual Credit 15 USC 1691 etseq.; 12 CFR 202.6 n.2 ould be used to enforce prohibition against unlawful discrimination in ending. Place Annual Equal Credit Opportunity 15 USC 1691 etseq. Would be used to help plan education and enforcement efforts to eliminate unlawful discrimination in lending. Census block group Annual Omnibus Crime Control and fa Streets Act of 1968 42 USC 3789dfc): 28 CFR Would be used to enforce the prohibition against unlawful discrimination In criminal justice programs receiving federal financial assistance. Place Annual 000314 Statutory Title DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION REQUIREMENTS FOR AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY DATA eauirement Citations Classification USES amen. Omnibus Crime Control and - afe Streets Act of 1968 42 USC 3789d(c) Would be used to help plan education and enforcement efforts to eliminate unlawful discrimination in criminal justice programs receiving federal ?nancial assistance. Census block group muen Annual uveniie Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 42 USC 5672(b) Would be used to enforce the prohibition against unlawful discrimination in juvenile justice programs receiving federal ?nancial assistance. Place Annual uvenile Justice and Delinquency Fremtion Act of 1974 42 usc 567203) Would he used to heip plan education and enforcement en?orts to eliminate uniaw?ll discrimination in juvenile justice programs receiving federal ?nancial assistance. Census block group Annual Civil Rights of lnstitu?onalized Persons 42 use 1997 et seq. Would be used in enforce the prohibition against egregious or ?agrant violations of law for persons residing in or con?ned to covered institutions. Census block group Annual Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act 42 USC 1997 et seq. Would be used to help plan education and enforcement efforts to eliminate egregious or ?agrant violations of law for persons residing in or con?ned to covered institutions. Census block group Annual 000315 StatutDW Title Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION REQUIREMENTS FOR AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY DATA eoulrement Citations 42 USC 14141 Classi?cation USES Lowest 929mm Would be used to enforce the prohibition against patterns or practices of unlawful conduct by law enforcement or by officials in the juvenile justice system. Place Freuen Annual olent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 42 USC 14141 Would be used to help plan education and enforcement efforts to eliminate patterns or practices of unlawful conduct by law enforcement or by of?cials in the juvenile Imm- :tthew Shepard and James Byrd, Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 009 18 USC 249 Census block group Annual Would be used to help plan education and enforcement efforts to prosecute and deter covered hate crimes against LGBT individuals. Census block group Annual of Crime Act of I 984 42 usc 10604(e) Would be used to help plan education and enforcement efforts to eliminate unlawful discrimination in crime victim compensation programs receiving federal ?nancial assistance. Census block group Annual 000316 To: Vi?lbur Ross_; Lenihan, Brian (Federal) Cc: Herbst, Ellen (Federal)_; Teramoto, Wendy (Federal) From: Hernandez, Israel (Federa Sent: Tue 8/8/2017 12:44:15 AM Importance: Normal Subject: Census Updates Received: Tue 8/8/2017 12:44:17 AM INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY SUBJECT: 2020 Census Updates Audit We are two weeks from concluding our deep dive audit of the budget, contracts, the technology, and the 2020 schedule. Findings will be gathered and put together on Friday, August We are scheduled to meet with you and present on Wednesday, August Included in the meeting will be the audit teams and Census leadership. Today, on August the former CTO of IBM and a former Program Manager Executive also from IBM began their technical review of the IT systems and the overall Program Management. They will be present at the meeting and their findings will be included in the report to you on August We have set up a daily evening call at 8pm to review the taskers for the final report. Week of June 28 The Census Bureau continues to work with the team led by the Office of Acquisitions Management to ensure they have the information they need to conduct their assessment of the 2020 Census Lifecycle Cost Estimate, the Program, and the design of the 2020 Census. The Senate Appropriations Committee markup this week funded the 2020 Program at $24 million above the President?s request, and the House Appropriations mark, which will keep 2020 Census operations on track. 2018 End-to-End Test We are also focused on preparing for the 2018 End?to-End Census Test. The in-field address canvassing operations set to begin on August 28, 2017 in Bluefield-Beckley?Oak Hill, West Virginia; Providence County, Rhode Island; and Pierce County Washington. Recruitment and hiring the address canvasing staff is underway in all three sites. In addition, all systems required for this operation are on schedule and undergoing final integration testing prior to going live for the test. Challenge On July 26, challenged the Census Bureau decision to override the automatic stay of their protest of the decennial device-as- a-service contract, which was awarded in June to CDW-G, in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Depending on the ruling, work on the contract could be stopped for a matter of days or for several months. While the 2018 End-to- End Census Test could still proceed as planned under a short delay, anything longer than a few days will require the peak operations of the 2018 End-to-End Census Test to be re-planned or de-scoped to accommodate lost development time. Week of August 4 000317 The Census Bureau continues to make preparations for the 2018 End-to-End Census Test, which will begin later this month with the in-field address canvassing operation. Last week?s update noted that the systems for this portion ofthe test are undergoing final testing. Operationaiiy, ail three Area Census Offices are now opened for the test, with the office locations in Beckiey, West Virginia; Providence, Rhode Island; and Pierce, Washington. Additionaily, recruitment, hiring, and onboarding of field staff for address iisting continues in ail three sites. The Census Field Supervisors are on board, and training began on Juiy 31 as scheduled. End-To-End Federal Register Related to the 2018 End-to-End Census Test, the Department of Commerce will soon be asked to ciear a draft OMB package of a 30- day Federai Register Notice seeking approval of a recalculation of the number of househoids requiring in-field address canvassing. The Census Bureau has worked with OMB to receive expedited approvai once the package is transmitted from the Department. Timeiy approvai will ensure the Census Bureau can work ali addresses existing within the test sites. 2020 Operations Turning to the operations of the 2020 Census itself, there are severai pieces of good news: On July 13, the Generai Services Administration moved forward on the ieasing process for the 40 early Area Census Offices required to support the in-fieid address canvassing operation for the 2020 Census. The Block Boundary Suggestion Project, Phase 1 ofthe Redistricting Data Program, is now compiete, having received, processed, and fuliy verified over 960 submissions from states. To update on the protest on the decennial device-as-a-service contract, as of August 2 the challenge to the Census Bureau decision to override the automatic stay of their protest in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims is stiil pending adjudication. if the decision is made to reverse the override, requiring work on the contract to be stopped until the final decision on the protest is made by GAO in October, there wiil be significant damage to the 2018 End-to-End Census Test peak operations. Census Questions Relating to finalizing the questions on the census form, Representative Steve King of Iowa announced on Juiy 28 that he would introduce the ?Census Accuracy Act of 2017,? which would amend the 2020 Census questionnaire to include questions on citizenship, and legal status. Whiie citizenship is already inciuded on the American Community Survey, the Census Bureau does not ask about iegai status in any of its coilections. Additional updates on the 2020 Census Program are inciuded in the attached chart. HOT TOPICS (2020 Census) Budget Securing the resources necessary to conduct a cost effective, high quaiity decenniai census The Census Bureau is conciuding work supporting the team led by the Office of Acquisitions Management in the conduct of their assessment of the 2020 Census Lifecycie Cost Estimate, the Program, and the design of the 2020 Census. The Census Bureau wiil fuily reconcile and explain differences with the independent cost estimate prior to officially updating the 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate this fail. Content Finalizing census questions for an increasingly diverse population On Juiy 28, Representative Steve King of Iowa announced he would introduce the "Census Accuracy Act of 2017,? which wouid amend the 2020 Census questionnaire to include questions on citizenship and Iegai status. Whiie citizenship is aiready inciuded on the American Community Survey, the Census Bureau does not ask about legai status in any of its coliections. 2018 End-to?End Census Test Readiness 000318 Ensuring we are ready to fully test systems by the 2018 End-to-End Census Test The in-field address canvassing operation for the 2018 End-to-End Census Test is set to begin in August in Biuefield- Beckiey-Oak Hill, West Virginia; Providence County, Rhode Island; and Pierce County, Washington: 0 Recruitment and hiring of the address canvasing field staff is well underway in all three sites. 0 On July 31, training of Census Field Supervisors in all three sites commenced on schedule. 0 Ali three Area Census Offices for the 2018 End-to-End Census Test are now opened. The Census Bureau has submitted to the Department of Commerce a draft OMB package of a 30-day Federal Register Notice seeking approval of a recalculation of the number of households requiring in-field address canvassing in the 2018 End- to-End Census Test. The Census Bureau has worked with OMB to receive expedited approval once the package is transmitted from the Department. Timely approval will ensure the Census Bureau can work all addresses existing within the test sites. A Production Readiness Review was held on July 26 for systems supporting the ln-Field Address Canvassing Operation of the 2018 End-to-End Census Test. The systems received approval to move forward in Operational Readiness testing and to be deployed into the production environment. A Production Readiness Review was held on July 31 for systems supporting the temporary employee recruiting activities of the peak operations ofthe 2018 End-to-End Census Test. The systems received approval to move forward in Operational Readiness testing and to be deployed into the production environment. 2020 Census Operationai Readiness Finalizing and Implementing 2020 Census Operations On July 13, the General Services Administration moved forward on the leasing process for the 40 early Area Census Offices required to support the in-field address canvassing operation for the 2020 Census. The Census Bureau will be seeking approval from the Department of Commerce in the near future to proceed with the leasing of the remaining 208 Area Census Offices for the 2020 Census. The Block Boundary Suggestion Project, Phase 1 of the Redistricting Data Program, is now complete, having received, processed, and fully verified over 960 submissions from states. This nationwide project for the 2020 Census provided states the opportunity to submit their suggestions for the 2020 Census tabulation block inventory. in addition, states had the opportunity to submit suggested legal boundary updates as weli as updates to other geographic areas. These actions allowed states to construct some of the small area geography they need for legislative redistricting. 2020 Census Systems Readiness Finalizing 2020 Census systems A Systems Requirements Review was held on July 31 covering the business requirements for seven operations for the 2020 Census, which were approved to move forward into the Systems architecture design. A deep dive on systems readiness was presented as a part of the meeting on the 2020 Census on August 3. Maior Contracts Updated on key private sector partnerships As of August 2, the challenge to the Census Bureau decision to override the automatic stay oftheir protest ofthe decennial device-as-a-service contract in the US. Court of Federal Claims is stiil pending adjudication. if the decision is made to reverse the override, requiring work on the contract to be stopped until the final decision on the protest is made by GAO in October, there will be significant damage to the 2018 End-to-End Census Test peak operations. Stakeholder Engagement Providing updates on progress and challenges to key stakeholders and oversight such as GAO, OIG, and Congress 000319 On July 28, the OIG issued its draft memorandum entitled ?2020 Census: Evaluation of Interactive Review Address Canvassing Operation Reveaied Issues with Quaiity Assurance Controls?. The findings and recommendations reiate to concerns the OEG has about the design and impiementation of the quality assurance portion of this operation, which couid iead to a higher error rate by clerks than designed. The Census Bureau is reviewing these concerns and preparing formai agency comments due to OIG by August 25. Although DOC has not received formal letter notifications yet, GAO has indicated they iikely wili he iaunching two new audits soon: 0 A review of our scheduiing methods, practices, and toois. A review of plans to ensure inclusion of hard-to-count popuiations in the 2020 Census. Topic: Advanced Trade reiease and GDP Issue: Accuracy of quarterly GDP release On 7/27 at 8:30 the Census Bureau reieased Advanced International Trade and Advanced Business Inventories for June 2017. This reiease is significant in that these data feed directiy into the Advanced GDP reiease on Friday 7/28. Prior to the Census Bureau producing this release, BEA wouid need to estimate these statistics, often leading to significant revisions to iater estimates of GDP. By Census producing these advanced reiease the duaiity of the GDP has been greatiy improved TopiaEconomic Census lssue:2017 Economic Census Re-pianning Based on flat iine funding in FY 2017 and similar ievels anticipated in FY 2018, key aspects ofthe 2017 Economic Census have been re?planned. These changes wiil mean deiays in data coilection, processing and the dissemination of finai data products Externai talking point have been cieared at Census and need DOC approvai so we can begin taiking to stakeholders about how to best mitigate the impacts of delays and sampie reductions. Topic: Modernizing Economic Statistics Compieted proof-of-concept effort with The NPD Group's scanner data with positive results on the potentiai for using data to reduce respondent burden and help with non-response on the Monthiy and Annuai Retail Trade Survey as weil as the Economic Census. Next phase of project wiil use additional NPD data to 1) Assess impact on MRTS estimates when NPD data is used in piace of reported or imputed data 2) Create experimental 2017 Economic Census store and product ievel estimates for a singie NAICS code that NPD has broad coverage of. Research on this project be presented at both the 2017 American Statistical Association's Joint Statisticai Meetings and the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe's Workshop on Statistical Data Coiiection. We are aiso exploring the use of this data to caicuiate price and quantity indexes and hope to enter into an agreement between academia, NPD (private sector), and the Census Bureau to compare different methodoiogies. Payment processor data and anaiysis tool has been received from Palantir. This data consists of credit card receipts from approximateiy 50% of ali credit card transactions. We are currently assessing the duaiity of the data. The Energy Information Agency expressed an interest in the SABLE machine learning tool, developed by the Economic Directorate, and attended severai demonstrations in the Census Topic: Trade Statistics Between The United States and Puerto Rico Issue: Continued collection of these transactions Regulations require the coiiection oftransaction information for goods shipments between the United States and Puerto Rico The courier organizations and the government of Puerto Rico have requested to eiiminate this requirement BEA requires these statistics for the caicuiation of Puerto Rico GDP and the statistics are one of the few Bigtzeos of economic information avaiiabie on Puerto Rico. Meeting occurred in May 2017 with the following Puerto Rico representatives: Secretary EVlanuel Laboy, George Laws Garcia Director of Government Affairs at the Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration (PRFAA), Diego Sanchez Gallardo Policy Advisor a PRFAA, Aimee Rendon Garcia Special Aide to the Secretary, Edward Calvesbert (tentative) Advisor to the Secretary. Brian Moyer, Director of BEA, also attended. All parties agreed that no alternative source for this data exists and while alternatives are developed and explored, the collection would continue. Topic: 2020 Census Field Infrastructure First 40 Area Census Offices (ACOs) 2020 Census GSA lease procurements are subject to the Procurement Integrity Act so procurement sensitive information the number of offers received) must be protected from disclosure; After the closing date, GSA will notify Census of specific projects that have not received offers or offers did not pass the pre-screening due diligence; Therefore, Census only knows when no offers exist for a given ACO, offering no qualitative or quantitative information for the other Lack of metrics and detailed information hinder intelligent decision-making over the 3-5 month period (mid-July through October) when should be making solid decisions and identifying contingencies in high risk markets (except markets with NO offers); Impact: Introduces risk that some ACOs may not be able to open on time. In constant dialogue with GSA and ifthis first phase ends up failing or having serious delivery issues, Census will elevate as necessary Topic: Other Field Directorate Information Topic: Other Field Directorate Information Issue: Information Only Field Division is at an inter-censal peak with the American Housing Survey and all other ongoing surveys underway; There are 12, 000 employees within Field Division, of which 10,000 are working in the Regions; AHS is ahead of schedule and will complete data collection in mid-November 2017. Topic:l_aunch of an online Content Hub Targeting August 8 launch for a new landing page (we internally call the Content Hub) which includes headlines, bylines, images, graphics and videos in the style of a news website. The goal is to reach a broader audience by offering a more conversational and approachable way to showcase Census data. Multiple presentations to DOC staff (including OPA, Acting ESA Under Secretary, Chief Economist) highlighted the current in-development version ofthe site. TopiczCensus Information Centers (CIC) Annual Training Conference Annual Conference (August 10-11 in Atlanta, GA) for the CIC network - 52 non-profit groups (a mix of national and community-based organizations) that each have an MOA with the Census Bureau. The CICs help underserved populations access Census data. The conference will provide updates on key Census initiatives including the 2020 Census and the 2017 Economic Census. Topic:Civic Digital Fellowship Demo Day Summer 2017 is the first year of a tech student internship program. This year, we have 14 interns as part of a Census Bureau - Harvard University collaboration. Future years will include other federal agencies, helping attract the next generation of public servants in the tech area. "Demo Day? (Tuesday, August 8, 2:30-5 ETA Conference Room) will highlight intern projects. 000321 Metro Closure From August 5 through August 20, the Green Line Metro stations at Suitland (which serves the Census Bureau Headquarters building) and Branch Avenue will be closed due to maintenance work. WMATA will provide a free shuttle bus back and forth between the Naylor Road and Suitland Metro stations. Additionally, the Census Bureau is increasing the frequency of its shuttle to and from the Department of Commerce during the Metro station closure. Census has also built in work schedule and telework flexibilities for its employees. Topic:2020 Communications Plan The 2020 Communications Plan outlines the Census Bureau's approach to planning and executing the 2020 Census integrated Communications Campaign which will maximize the self-response rate and then conduct outreach to those who do not respond to the census on their own. Two iterations of the plan are envisioned. Version 1.0 is undergoing clearance within the Census Bureau after receiving it from the contractor, Team After Census Bureau review is complete, the plan will go to DOC, a briefing on the plan will be provided and DOC comments will be incorporated prior to the plan?s public release. A public comment period will be held. Version 2.0 is planned for release in late summer 2018, and will address and/or incorporate all comments received, specifically from our stakeholders. Using Administrative Records in the 2020 Census Briefing for Secretary Ross December 19, 2017 000326 Historical Usage of Administrative Records • • • • • • 1890 – Creation of the frame of mortgage holders in connection with the 1890 Census 1939 – Acquisition of Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form SS-4 business birth data from the Social Security Administration to append industry classification information to economic census records 1940 - Beginning with the 1940 Census, usage of demographic administrative records to develop separate population estimates to evaluate census coverage • The Census Bureau has produced intercensal estimates for the population since this era combining several sources of administrative records to obtain estimates of births, deaths, and migration 1970 - Enumeration of the population living in institutional quarters through personal interview using institutional records 1990 - Since the 1990 Census, usage of administrative records to enumerate military and federal civilian workers and their dependents serving overseas The use of administrative records is grounded in strong laws that guide how the Census Bureau both accesses and protects administrative records 000327 2 Utilizing Administrative Records and Third-Party Data Use information people have already provided to reduce expensive in-person follow-up. Improve the Quality of the Address List Increase Effectiveness of Advertising and Contact Strategies Validate Respondent Submissions Reduce Field Workload for Followup Activities Update the address list Support the micro-targeted advertising campaign Validate incoming data from federal, tribal, state, and local governments Create the contact frame (e.g., email addresses and telephone numbers) Validate respondent addresses for those without a Census ID and prevent fraudulent submissions Remove vacant and nonresponding occupied housing units from the Nonresponse Followup workload Optimize the number of contact attempts 000328 3 2020 Census Contact Strategy #1 Initial letter #2 Reminder letter #6 First visit by enumerator and notice of visit #3 Reminder postcard #4 Questionnaire #5 Not too late postcard #7 Final postcard about one week after visit 000329 4 Administrative Records Usage for Reducing Contacts Identifying Vacant and Nonexistent Addresses With No Field Contacts Can we determine if 101 Main Street is vacant or nonexistent (does not meet our definition of a housing unit)? Example sources: • • • • • • • • United States Postal Service information • USPS Undeliverable-as-Addressed (UAA) reasons for census mailings made around April 1 • Delivery Sequence File information Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 1040 filings IRS 1099 information returns Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Medicare Enrollment database Indian Health Service Patient database Third-party Veterans Service Group of Illinois (VSGI) files Census Bureau Master Address File ACS Area-level estimates: % vacancy, % poverty, % Hispanic, etc. 000330 5 Administrative Records Usage for Reducing Contacts Identifying Vacant and Nonexistent Addresses With No Field Contacts UndeliverableAs-Addressed (UAA) Use administrative records to determine possible vacant and nonexistent address (UAA around Census Day) Administrative record vacant Administrative record nonexistent address Send mailing to address about 6 weeks after Census Day Address has opportunity to self-respond Deliverable Address receives NRFU field visits 000331 6 Administrative Records Usage for Reducing Contacts Using Administrative Records to Enumerate NRFU Housing Units Can we reduce the number of contacts for 101 Main Street? 1. Build a roster from most recent administrative record sources – Internal Revenue Service Individual Tax Returns 1040 – Internal Revenue Service Informational Returns – Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Medicare Enrollment database – Indian Health Service Patient Database – Census Bureau Kidlink 2. Check that multiple sources indicate the family lives at an address 3. Evaluate the roster – How likely is it that we are counting all of the people rostered in the right place? – How likely is it that the household composition of the rostered family matches the Census? 4. Decision for 101 Main Street 000332 7 Administrative Records Usage for Reducing Contacts Using Administrative Records to Enumerate NRFU Housing Units Two examples of higher and lower confidence for 101 Main Street Example of higher confidence: • • • • • • James and Mary Brown filed IRS 1040 taxes in April at 101 Main Street. James and Mary Brown received IRS 1099/W2 information at this address in January. Our third party file says James and Mary Brown both live at the 101 Main Street. We do not find James or Mary Brown at any other address on our files. USPS postal carriers did not indicate the second or third census mailings to 101 Main Street were undeliverable-as-addressed. 101 Main Street is in an area with lower mobility. Example of lower confidence: • • • • Bill Smith filed IRS 1040 taxes in February at 101 Main Street. Our third party file indicates that Bill Smith lives at 5 Broad Street. 101 Main Street was undeliverable-as-addressed for the second mailing in March. 101 Main Street is in an area with higher vacancy and mobility. 000333 8 Administrative Records Usage Administrative Record Enumeration and Characteristic Imputation Can we reduce the number of contacts for 101 Main Street? Administrative Records Source Possibilities Age and Sex • Past Census Bureau responses to 2010 Census and previous American Community Surveys • Social Security Administration (SSA) Numeric Identification File (Numident) Race and Hispanic Origin • Past Census Bureau responses • Country of origin from SSA Numident • State program participation data • Census Bureau Best Race and Hispanic Origin from federal sources Relationship to Householder • Census Bureau Kidlink file Tenure • Housing and Urban Development program participation • Tax and Deed Information 000334 9 National Directory of New Hires A potential new administrative records source to enhance quality of the 2020 Census • The federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) operates the National Directory of New Hires (NDNH), a database established by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) for the purposes of assisting state child support agencies in locating parents and enforcing child support orders. In addition, Congress authorized specific state and federal agencies to receive information from the NDNH for authorized purposes. • Three Files – New Hires File: Contains new employee name, social security number and address information – Unemployment Insurance File: contains claimant name, social security number and address information for individuals who received or applied for benefits – Wage File: contains for each employee information on wage information and who their employer is • Possible usages for the 2020 Census of the New Hires file and the Unemployment Insurance files – Provide an additional source when building rosters from administrative record sources for Nonresponse Followup eligible addresses – Provide a second source of corroborating information that a family found on administrative record sources lives at an address – Possible usage of Unemployment Insurance File to identify addresses to receive full contact strategy • Usages to other programs at the Census Bureau including the Longitudinal Employer Household Dynamics Program 000335 10 2020 Census Update January 18, 2018 James B. Treat, Assistant Director Decennial Census Programs for Program, Operations, and Schedule Management 000336 Agenda • Performance Management Approach • Status Reporting • Background – Risk Management Process 000337 1/17/2018 2 Performance Management Approach U.S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration U.S. CENSUS BUREAU censusgov (Uniteds States? Bureau Performance Management Update The 2020 Census is comprised of Regular Monthly Reporting in 8 Areas • 35 Operations (24 are in-scope for the 2018 End-to-End Census Test) • 52 Systems (44 are in-scope for the 2018 End-to-End Census Test) and • Over 25,000 activities with over 42,000 dependencies Periodic Reporting in 22 Areas 000339 1/17/2018 4 Performance Management Update Regular Monthly Reporting in 8 Areas • Hot Topics – Albert E. Fontenot, Jr. • Cyber Security – Kevin Smith • Systems Readiness – Atri Kalluri • Critical Path – James B. Treat • Major Contracts – Luis J. Cano • Budget – Joanne Buenzli Crane • Stakeholders and Oversight – Albert E. Fontenot, Jr. • Risks – James B. Treat 000340 1/17/2018 5 Performance Management Update Periodic Performance Management Reporting in 22 Areas • Area Census Office Lease Status – Slide 30 • Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) – Slide 31 • PEGA Productivity and Progress Report • • • • • • • • • • • 2018 Systems ATO Risk Report Regional Census Center Build-out Data Capture Center Lease/Build-out Recruiting Data Address Canvassing Printing Self-Response Rates Call Center Lease/Build-out Census Questionnaire Assistance Update Leave Nonresponse Followup • • • • • • • • Group Quarters Operations Remote Alaska & Update Enumerate Data Capture Activities Post-Data Collection Processing P.L. 94-171 Data and Geographic Products Post Enumeration Survey Operations OMB Clearance Activities Scalability & Performance Testing 000341 1/17/2018 6 Status Reporting Regular Reporting U.S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration U.S. CENSUS BUREAU censusgov (Uniteds States? ensus Bureau 2020 Census Hot Topics for DOC Awareness: Week of January 15, 2018 Changes to the Race/Ethnicity Question • The Census Bureau has begun to implement separate questions for race and ethnicity without the Middle Eastern North African (MENA) minimum reporting category for both the 2018 End-to-End Census Test and the 2020 Census. • The Census Bureau’s Decision Memo and supporting communications materials will be finalized by January 19. We expect press inquires and letters from Congress and stakeholders on this issue. • By law, the actual question wording that will appear on the 2020 Census questionnaire must be submitted to Congress by March 31. Residence Criteria • The Residence Criteria FRN is moving through clearance at the Department. It must be cleared by January 19 in order to publish it before the 2020 Census Program Management Review (PMR) on January 26. The Census Bureau’s Decision Memo and supporting communications materials will be finalized by January 19. Citizenship • The Census Bureau is evaluating a request from the U.S. Department of Justice on adding a question about citizenship status and has a well-established process for considering requests for new question to the Decennial Census and the American Community Survey. • Communications materials and a standard response to the letters we are getting from Congress will be finalized by January 19. • The Census Bureau has received 2 FOIAs on this issue. 2020 Census Program Management Review • The Census Bureau will hold its next 2020 Census Program Management Review on Friday, January 26, 2018 at 1:00 PM, in the Census Bureau’s Auditorium. The C-SHaRPS system will be demonstrated at 12:00 pm. 2020 Census Life Cycle Cost Estimate (LCCE) • In support of the 2020 Census LCCE, the Executive Summary of the underlying Basis of Estimate, which has cleared OMB review, will be transmitted to Congress imminently. • After receiving the Basis of Estimate and its related suite of documentation of the LCCE, GAO resumed its engagement on the cost estimation on January 9. USPS and Census Bureau Pilot for the 2018 End-to-End Census Test • While finalizing the Interagency Agreement for the Postal Carriers as Enumerators Pilot, attorneys from the USPS and Commerce Department identified conflicts of law between Titles 18 and 39 (USPS authority) and Title 13 (Census Bureau authority). • All other USPS Partnership work remains on schedule. Recruiting for the 2018 End-to-End Census Test • As of January 16, we have 1,717 qualified candidates. Our goal for entering training is 1,166 employees so that we can have approximately 1,049 trained employees entering the Nonresponse Followup operation. • The Census Bureau will continue to aggressively recruit candidates and remain concerned about recruiting for the 2020 Census. National Partnership • The Census Bureau is building the infrastructure to establish contacts with corporations and national partners. Census Scientific Advisory Committee (CSAC) and National Advisory Committee on Racial, Ethnic and Other Populations (NAC) • Refreshing charters for both committees – currently routing renewed charters through DOC for signature as the current charters are set to expire in March: CSAC expires March 17 and NAC expires March 24. • Meetings are scheduled for both committees this spring. • Refreshing team members for CSAC – an executive selection panel will convene to fill nine current and upcoming member vacancies on 000343 January 24. 1/17/2018 8 2020 Census CyberSecurity – Summary The Census Cybersecurity effort is to resolve these risks: External Risks • Compromising User Devices (Public) • Compromising External Network Access • Impersonating the Census • Inserting Invalid Responses Internal Risks • Disrupting the Internet Self Service Website • Data Breaches • Compromising User Devices (Census) The Census bureau are taking actions to mitigate these risks through coordination with Federal partners by: Creating a Scalable Secure Network for 2020 Census Respondents: Working with OMB, DHS, and Cloud Provider to develop scalable and secure network connection in the cloud. • Federal Working Group with Cloud Provider (OMB, DHS, Cloud Provider, Network Providers) • Current Solution is Network Provider Based • Future Solution will be Cloud Provider Based (working towards using during FY18 Test): Strengthening Our Incident Response Capabilities (DHS FIRE): Advance ability to continually Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, and Recover from possible cyber threats. • Building from DHS assessment that “Census is well positioned to Respond to Incidents” • Moving forward with creating Insider Threat capability plan with outside expertise • Improving visibility of cybersecurity issues by implementing tools from private industry and federal government Improving Our Cybersecurity Posture: Improve knowledge, processes, procedures, and/or technology. • Increasing knowledge resources • Collaboration with NIST cybersecurity Center of Excellence for recommended practices • Regular Cybersecurity briefings with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) • Develop approach across federal intelligence community to engage and utilize their resources during cyber threat response • Testing Technology • Publically facing Internet Self Response system security tested for 2nd time by Private Industry; Federal Government (DHS) test in Feb ‘18 The Census Bureau is working on a scalable secure network and improving their ability to actively see, secure, and resolve cybersecurity risks for the 2020 Census. 000344 1/17/2018 9 Confidential and Pre-Decisional 2020 Census Cybersecurity - Authority to Operate (ATO) Status 2018 End to End Test – 44 Systems 2020 Census – 52 Systems No Level of Effort (54%) (Green) • 52% have obtained ATOs (done) • 2% (1 system) does not require an ATO (NA) No Level of Effort (88%) (Green) • 86% will have obtained ATOs from the FY18 End to End Test (done) • These systems will be maintained annually Small Level of Effort (37%) (Grey) • 30% have ATOs and are moving to 2020 Infrastructure. These systems are moving from servers in the Census data center to the technical integrator • 7% have ATOs and are being modified. These systems are already housed in the infrastructure and are developing additional capabilities. • 2% (1 system) does not require an ATO (NA) High Level of Effort (TBD) (Blue) • 12% are new; • Post Enumeration Survey • Customer Relationship Management and Experience • Decennial Device as a Service High Level of Effort (9%) (Blue) • 9% are new; Getting ATO before FY18 Test Since Dec -17 Done +13% (+5) New -5% (-2) Modified +3% (+1) Moving -9% (-4) The Authority to Operate (ATO) process is quality control for Cybersecurity done for all systems to continually reduce information technology security risks to an acceptable level. 000345 1/17/2018 10 2020 Census Systems Readiness See attached, full-size handout (provided at briefing). 000346 1/17/2018 11 2020 Census Critical Path Report THIS IS A PROTOTYPE – The report goes live in February. 000347 1/17/2018 12 2020 Census Major Contracts *Census Schedule A Human Resources and Recruiting, Payroll System (C-SHaRPS) - Recruiting & Assessment (R&A) Awarded: November 10, 2016 Awardee: CSRA Life Cycle Cost Estimate: $125.0M Total obligated as of December 2017: $7.4M FY2018 obligations/commitments as of December 2017: $0.6M Contractor met with Secretary: December 12, 2017 • Contract in production supporting recruitment and assessment for the 2018 End-to-End Census Test peak operations. • Contractor continues to resolve any defects encountered during the 2018 End-to-End Census Test. • Please Note: The Census Bureau has confirmed with the CSRA Contractor that the 2020 R&A scalable requirement was and is understood. Census Schedule A Human Resources and Recruiting, Payroll System (C-SHaRPS) – Fingerprinting Awarded: November 21, 2017 Awardee: IndraSoft, Inc Life Cycle Cost Estimate:$94.3M Total obligated as of December 2017: $3.7M FY2018 obligations/commitments as of December 2017: $3.7M • Gunnison Consulting Group filed a protest on December 1. • Protest resolved and IndraSoft Inc. resumed performance on December 23. • C-SHaRPS worked with IndraSoft to determine the scope of work feasible for the 2018 End-to End Census Test given the late award from the Supply Chain Risk Assessment and protest. • Note: Key fingerprinting dates • Census Field Supervisors: February 7 – February 26, 2018 • Enumerators: February 20 – March 18, 2018 • Fingerprint plan for the 2018 End-to-End Census Test: • IndraSoft solution will not be used to support the background clearance process for the Census Field Supervisors. Current Census Bureau fingerprint process will be used for the supervisors. • The plan is to use a hybrid approach to fingerprint enumerators for peak operations using IndraSoft processes and Census Bureau equipment/sites. *Contractor met with Secretary 000348 1/17/2018 13 2020 Census Major Contracts Integrated Communications Contract Awarded: August 24, 2016 Awardee: Young & Rubicam (Y&R) Life Cycle Cost Estimate: $520.0M Total obligated as of December 2017: $17.9M FY2018 obligations/commitments as of December 2017: $17.2M OMB approved the 2020 Census Barriers, Attitudes, and Motivators Survey (CBAMS). *Census Questionnaire Assistance (CQA) Awarded: July 11, 2016 Awardee: General Dynamics Information Technology (GDIT) Life Cycle Cost Estimate: $681.4M Total obligated as of December 2017: $73.1M FY2018 obligations/commitments as of December 2017: $30.2M Contractor met with Secretary: October 26, 2017 • CQA achieved ATO for all systems and facilities on January 11. • Continue Contractor recruitment at both call centers (Jacksonville, FL and Sandy, UT) focusing on customer service representatives to meet staffing needs for the 2018 End-to-End Census Test. 2020 Census Printing and Mailing Awarded: October 16, 2017 Awardee: Cenveo Life Cycle Cost Estimate: $142.6M Total obligated as of December 2017: $0.9M FY2018 obligations/commitments as of December 2017: $0.9M • 2018 End-to-End Census Test print orders issued. • Obtain security authorization for Print Vendor’s solution by February 11. *Decennial Device as a Service (dDaaS) Awarded: June 29, 2017 Awardee: Computer Discount Warehouse – Government (CDW-G) Life Cycle Cost Estimate: $423.2M Total obligated as of December 2017: $8.5M FY2018 obligations/commitments as of December 2017: $0.9M Contractor met with Secretary: December 18, 2017 • CDW-G prepared to provide the devices for the 2018 End-to-End Census Test Nonresponse Followup operation. *Contractor met with Secretary 000349 1/17/2018 14 2020 Census Major Contracts *2020 Enterprise Census and Survey Enabling (ECaSE) Platform Awarded: June 19, 2017 Awardee: immixGroup, Inc. Life Cycle Cost Estimate: $167.3M Total obligated as of December 2017: $46.5M FY2018 obligations/commitments as of December 2017: $13.2M Contractor met with Secretary: October 26, 2017 • Delivered Nonresponse Followup and Update Leave functionality for integration testing by the TI for the 2018 End-to-End Census Test. This included the enumeration application, the Field OCS and the Survey OCS. • Identified performance measures to track productivity and cost and corrective actions needed to address cost growth issue. Field IT Deployment (FITd) Awarded: TBD Awardee: TBD Life Cycle Cost Estimate: $422.7M Total obligations/commitments as of December 2017: $0 FY2018 obligated as of December 2017: $0 • Request for Proposal (RFP) released January 11. *Technical Integrator (TI) Awarded: August 26, 2016 Awardee: T-Rex Solutions, LLC Life Cycle Cost Estimate: $1,278.1M Total obligated as of December 2017: $228.6M FY2018 obligations/commitments as of December 2017: $41.6M Contractor met with Secretary: October 26, 2017 • Obtain ATO for Release C 2020 On-Premise environment by January 19. • TI continues integration and testing for Releases C and D. *Contractor met with Secretary 000350 1/17/2018 15 2020 Census Spend Plan, Obligations/Commitments, & Variance As of December 31, 2017 (Cumulative $ Millions) 2020 Census Total 2020 Census Total Spend Plan 2020 Census Total Obligations/Commitments 2020 Census Total Variance 2020 Operations (Non IT) 2020 Operations Spend Plan 2020 Operations Obligations/Commitments 2020 Operations Variance 2020 IT 2020 IT Spend Plan 2020 IT Obligations/Commitments 2020 IT Variance 2020 CEDCaP 2020 CEDCaP Spend Plan 2020 CEDCaP Obligations/Commitments 2020 CEDCaP Total Variance Totals may not add due to rounding Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep $62.1 $33.0 $29.1 $241.6 $202.8 $38.8 $362.9 $294.0 $68.9 $487.2 $544.8 $588.6 $703.6 $740.2 $842.2 $926.8 $964.0 $987.2 $29.6 $22.6 $7.0 $81.1 $64.2 $16.9 $171.3 $129.0 $42.3 $208.4 $232.2 $256.4 $283.4 $309.4 $335.0 $356.8 $383.4 $402.9 $26.3 $9.7 $16.6 $134.5 $119.4 $15.1 $156.7 $137.0 $19.7 $238.1 $263.2 $272.9 $348.2 $351.3 $422.0 $477.4 $485.7 $488.6 $6.1 $0.8 $5.3 $25.8 $19.3 $6.5 $34.8 $28.2 $6.6 $40.6 $49.4 $59.3 $72.0 $79.6 $85.1 $92.3 $94.6 $95.4 The 2020 Census Program has committed or obligated nearly 30 percent of the total plan of $987 million in the first quarter. However, there is a 19 percent variance against planned spending. The variance of $42.3 million in 2020 Census operations is made up of $10.1 million in salary lapse and $32.2 million in contracts and other objects mostly due to delays. The variance in 2020 Census IT systems and operations is $19.7 million is made up of $0.9 million in salary lapse and $18.8 million in contract delays. The $6.6 million variance in CEDCaP is made up of $1.2 million in salary lapse and $5.4 million in contracts. 000351 1/17/2018 16 Major Contracts Spend Plan, Obligations, & Commitments As of December 31, 2017 000352 1/17/2018 17 Major Contracts Spend Plan, Obligations, & Commitments As of December 31, 2017 (Continued) ($ Millions) CDWG - Device as a Service Spend Plan Obligations/Commitments Variance CSRA - C-SHARPS Spend Plan Obligations/Commitments Variance Indrasoft - Fingerprinting Spend Plan Obligations/Commitments Variance Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $2.2 $0.7 $1.5 $2.4 $0.9 $1.5 $2.6 $2.8 $3.0 $3.2 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.5 $0.5 $0.0 $0.6 $0.6 $0.0 $3.3 $3.3 $3.3 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $3.7 $3.7 $0.0 $3.7 $3.7 $0.0 $5.1 $5.1 $5.1 May Jun Jul Aug Sep $3.4 $5.4 $5.6 $5.8 $5.9 $3.3 $3.3 $3.3 $3.3 $3.3 $3.3 $6.5 $6.5 $6.5 $16.0 $16.0 $16.0 000353 1/17/2018 18 Budget Impacts for 2020 Census Risks As of January 2018 Budget Impacts for 2020 Census Risks as of January 2018 Risk Trigger 2020 Census Risk Status Corrective Action for the protest for the Fingerprinting Contract Acquisition Lead Time (IF 2020 Census design decision milestones do not allow the requisite lead times for acquisition processes and reviews, THEN the Census Bureau may not be able procure the necessary products and services in sufficient time to align with the 2020 Census Life Cycle.) The supply chain risk was reassessed and the results reviewed by OGC. The protesting vendor was briefed on the revised supply chain risk assessment. The protesting vendor withdrew their protest. Work has resumed with the vendor who was awarded the contract, Indrasoft. Components of their solution will be used in the 2018 Endto-End Census Test. Budget Year Impacted Life Cycle Cost Impact of the Risk Trigger Vendor 2 was awarded the contract with a Life Cycle estimate of $94 million. The 2020 Census Life Cycle Cost Estimate (LCCE) included $146 million for fingerprint. Trend LCCE impact: adds $52 million to contingency associated with clearance of employees 000354 1/17/2018 19 Budget Impacts for 2020 Census Risks As of January 2018 (Continued) Budget Impacts for 2020 Census Risks as of January 2018 Risk Trigger 2020 Census Risk Status Allocation to Integrated Communications Contract (Young & Rubicam [Y&R]) Funding Requests Not Realized (IF the funding appropriated during each fiscal year of the 2020 Census life cycle is less than requested, THEN the ability to implement the critical systems and operations supporting the 2020 Census will be adversely affected.) The vendor for our Integrated Communications contract, Y&R, has elevated concerns associated with funding availability for advance planning in FY 2018. The is no contingency funding in FY 2018. The Census Bureau is working to identify options to fund this advance planning work and minimize risk if the funding cannot be provided until FY 2019. Budget Year Impacted FY 2018 Cost Impact of the Risk Trigger $5.3 million - $14.5 million Trend LCCE: $520 million Impact to the LCCE: $0 There is funding available for these activities in FY 2019. Updates on mitigation were provided in January. 000355 1/17/2018 20 Budget Impacts for 2020 Census Risks As of January 2018 (Continued) Budget Impacts for 2020 Census Risks as of January 2018 Risk Trigger 2020 Census Risk Status Evaluation of CEDCaP – ECaSE (Pega Systems) Backlog Funding Requests Not Realized (IF the funding appropriated during each fiscal year of the 2020 Census life cycle is less than requested, THEN the ability to implement the critical systems and operations supporting the 2020 Census will be adversely affected.) The CEDCaP program manager has identified sources of funds in other CEDCaP projects to cover more than $6 million of the $11 million projected shortfall in ECaSE for FY 2018. The remaining shortfall will be covered with a combination of contractor efficiencies and development team reductions. Budget Year Impacted Life Cycle Cost Impact of the Risk Trigger LCCE: $965 million Trend Impact to the LCCE current risk analysis projection could add: $100 million Requirements were further reduced at the end of December. A new projected cost is pending, but is anticipated to lower the cost risk. Updates on mitigation were provided in January. 000356 1/17/2018 21 Budget Impacts for 2020 Census Risks As of January 2018 (Continued) Budget Impacts for 2020 Census Risks as of January 2018 Risk Trigger 2020 Census Risk Status Separate Race and Ethnicity Questions Late Design Change (IF late in the decade either external factors or policies prevent the Census Bureau from implementing the integrated design as planned, THEN the Census Bureau will have to change the design which will increase the cost or reduce the quality of the 2020 Census.) The Census Bureau made operations and systems modifications to accommodate OMB’s decision to maintain the current race and ethnicity standard. There were manageable impacts to budget, schedule (systems integration testing), and risk. Budget Year Impacted FY 2018 Cost Impact of the Risk Trigger FY 2018: $1.5 million (covered by salary lapse) Trend Impact to the LCCE: none 000357 1/17/2018 22 2020 Census Stakeholders and Oversight GAO The next quarterly meeting with GAO to discuss the open recommendations, strategies, and priorities will be on January 30. • Life Cycle Cost Estimate (LCCE) Audit • The LCCE audit resumed with an entrance conference on January 10, where GAO met with the Chief Financial Officer and the Decennial Census Programs Budget Team. • Their questions and topics of interest are based on their examining of the revised Basis of Estimation documentation submitted to them on December 11. • Systems Audit • The GAO systems audit continues. • There is no feedback from GAO at this time. • Plans for Hard-to-Count Populations Audit • GAO is beginning this work pursuant to its authority under 31 U.S.C. 717 after receiving a request from the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. • The entrance meeting with GAO was held on December 6. • Research Questions and Scope: • What socio-demographic groups are considered “hard to count” and why? • What is the status of the Census Bureau’s efforts to enumerate the “hard to count” in 2020? • To what extent is the Bureau’s current plans for enumerating the “hard to count” in 2020 addressing the nation’s changing demographics and key design changes introduced for the 2020 Census; and leveraging earlier lessons learned (e.g., prior recommendations from GAO, NAS, DOC advisory committees, the Bureau’s own evaluations and experiments, and others)? • GAO is conducting meetings with various Census Bureau experts and documents are being provided to GAO, as requested. OIG • Background Check Audit • The Census Bureau received the OIG Background Check draft report on December 18. • These are the tentative findings, which OIG discussed during an exit conference: • Escalating costs and inadequate quality assurance practices pose risks to 2020 Census background check activities. • The Census Bureau is not adequately monitoring contractor activities. • Program officials are not always allocating background check costs to the correct fund. • The Census Bureau is developing a response and will provide comments by late January. • Area Census Office (ACO) Locations Audit • The Census Bureau held an informal exit meeting for the OIG audit on ACO locations and expects to receive a draft report by late January/early February. • The audit included a close look at the delineation criteria and model, as well as the Life Cycle Cost Estimate associated with field infrastructure innovation. Congress • The Census Bureau resumed the quarterly briefings with the Appropriations Staff (House and Senate Minority and Majority). The latest briefing was held on December 8. • The Census Bureau briefed Senate staff on December 29 (about 50% of the Senate staff attended). 000358 1/17/2018 23 2020 Census GAO Recommendations Topics Total Recs Closed Recs Open Recs Recs with Action Plan Due Date in Future Documents Submitted: Awaiting GAO Decision to Close Life Cycle Cost Estimate 14 10 4 - 4 Schedule 12 5 7 - 7 IT 19 14 5 - 5 IT Security 4 - 4 - 4 Address Canvassing 2 - 2 2 - Field/Training Procedures 6 1 5 4 1 Administrative Records 1 1 - - - Project Management 3 3 - - - Oversight 1 - 1 - 1 Workforce/Recruitment 6 4 2 - 2 United States Postal Service 2 2 - - - Nonresponse Followup 5 5 - - - Integrated Partnerships and Communications 6 - 6 1 5 Census Coverage Measurement 3 3 - - - TOTAL 84 48 36 7 29 000359 1/17/2018 24 2020 Census OIG Recommendations Topics Total Recs Closed Recs Open Recs Recs with Action Plan Due Date in Future Documents Submitted: Awaiting OIG Decision to Close 3 Address Canvassing Test 6 0 6 1 Administrative Records 4 2 2 2 Life Cycle Cost Estimate 5 1 4 4 2015 Test Design 4 3 1 1 2020 Census Planning 35 33 2 2 Master Address List 7 6 1 1 TOTAL 61 45 16 7 7 000360 1/17/2018 25 2020 Census Risk & Issue Management – Structure 26 The risk and issue management process is conducted at all levels of the 2020 Census Portfolio Portfolio Risks Program Risks (i.e. SE&I, NRFU, ADCAN, etc) 245 Project Risks (i.e CEDCaP, 2020 Solutions) Sub-Projects Systems (CEDSCI, PEARSIS, ECaSE-ISR) and Major Contracts (i.e. Pega, Technical Integrator) 2020 Census Portfolio Risk Management Process 000361 1/17/2018 26 2020 Census Quadrant Total Risks % RED 2 8% YELLOW 22 84% GREEN 2 8% TOTAL 26 100% Probability Enterprise Risk & Issue Management – Risk Register 5 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 3 7 2 2 0 0 2 7 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 3 4 5 The selected risks that follow represent the major concerns that could affect the design or the successful implementation of the 2020 Census. • • Impact Public Perception of ability to Safeguard Response Data (Probability 3, Impact 5) RED Cybersecurity Incidents (Probability 3, Impact 5) RED Yellow risks with Probability and Impact equal to or great than 3, see background slides 000362 1/17/2018 27 2020 Census Program Risk & Issue Management – Summary of Risks RED Total Risks 48 0 4 3 5 9 4 0 1 5 7 12 3 0 13 14 17 12 2 3 21 23 40 12 1 2 10 10 19 3 1 2 3 4 5 % 19.6% YELLOW 96 39.2% GREEN 101 41.2% TOTAL 245 100% Probability Quadrant 5 Impact There are currently 245 open program/operations risks in the 2020 Census Portfolio. These program risk registers contain risks pertaining to the project and sub-projects covered by the program. Some of the common concerns covered by these risks include: • System and Application Development/Readiness • Hiring and Staffing Problems • Funding • Contracts and Acquisition • Scope Changes 000363 1/17/2018 28 Bureau Status Reporting Periodic Reporting U.S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration U.S. CENSUS BUREAU censusgov United States? EHSUS Periodic Performance Management Reports Area Census Office Lease Status – Wave 1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Bronx South, NY Caguas, PR Concord, NY Denver, CO Houston West, TX Miami North, FL Oakland, CA Raleigh, NC San Antonio East, TX 000365 1/17/2018 30 United States? ensus Bureau Periodic Performance Management Reports Local Update of Census Addresses Executive Hepart Weekafianuary 15,3313 2112!] Local Update at census Addresses Status: I. [in Traci: Data current as at: January 12, 2013 Campletian Date: January 31,. 2013 Hates: - Extended the registratran deadir'nefar naturai' disaster areas untii' January 31, EDIE I #2 states are registered ta participate, as frarn 23 states in Edit] Luca 10,9941! Gavernments Registered or In- Praaess ta Register Registered and hi tF ?j at' Participating REeiEtra??n 113:5 1e.saeae.eai #53 i Caverage Measures 95-455 Of the paputatr'an covered 95.2% thhe hausr'ng covered Sautee: Brady tum -mar'ted Hepart. January 12, EDIE U.S. CENSUS BUREAU censusgov U.S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration Background 2020 Census Risk Management Process U.S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration U.S. ENSUS BUREAU 1/ censusgov United States? Census Bureau 0) SK: 832 HO \0 N00 2020 Census Portfolio Management Structure 2020 Census Portfolio The 2020 Census Portfolio is comprised of 35 Operations/Programs. Each Operation/Program includes a number of projects. For example the SE&I Program includes CEDCaP, 2020 Developed and Enterprise Enabling Systems. These systems are supported by IT development and integration contracts. Systems Enginneering & Integration Program System of Systems Pega DdaaS Technical Integrator CQA C-SHaRPS ILMS Learning Mgt. System 000368 1/17/2018 33 2020 Census Risk & Issue Management – Process Portfolio risks are defined as risks that span the 2020 Census life cycle and could jeopardize achieving the 2020 Census goals and objectives. The broadly defined portfolio risks represent threats to the success of the portfolio rather than to individual programs or projects. • Have the potential to be realized more than once during the life cycle. • Span several years with many potential risk events over that period. Thus, these risks remain open on the 2020 Census Portfolio risk register until the latest possible date the risk event could occur. • May elevate from the program, project and sub-project level because of the potential to impact portfolio goals. • Risks at this level can spin-off multiple issues, however the risk may remain if it still has the potential to occur again. 000369 1/17/2018 34 2020 Census Risk & Issue Management – Governance The 2020 Census Risk Review Board (RRB) is the overall governing body presiding over the 2020 Census Portfolio, program and project level risk and issue management processes. All processes follow industry best practices and are in alignment with the Enterprise Office of Risk Management and Program Evaluation (ORMPE) Risk Review Board (RRB) includes representatives across all programs. Responsibilities include: • Regular review and update of the portfolio risk register and issue register. • Regular review of program risk registers and issue registers. • Regular review of system development and major contracts project risk registers and issue registers. • Escalation of risks and issues to the Enterprise Risk Review Board as appropriate. 000370 1/17/2018 35 2020 Census Risk & Issue Management – Reporting Dasher Report Monthly Status Report (MSR) • Monthly report to ORMPE, Associate Director for Decennial Census Programs, Director, Deputy Director, Department of Commerce • Top Risks (Red and Yellow), Portfolio Risk Inventory, Mitigation Treatment Plans • Monthly • Table of all risks, Risk Matrix, and list of updates E300 • Monthly delivery to the Department of Commerce and OMB • Portfolio Risk Register, full information on all Red risks, and a Quad Chart with Top Risks and Top Issue 2020 PMGB • Quarterly review of Red risks, as well as issues. Escalated risks brought to PMGB as necessary. • Top Risks (Red and Yellow) 000371 1/17/2018 36 2020 Census Program Risk & Issue Management – Process and Governance • • • • Program risks and issues are defined as risks that could jeopardize the success of an individual program/operation. They relate to achieving program-specific objectives and specifically address potential impacts to program elements: cost, schedule, technical, customer expectations, and public trust. Program/operations own and manage these risks and issues. Each of the 35 operations supporting the 2020 Census, plus each census test, has their own risk register and issue log. Program risks and issues, which have potential to impact portfolio goals and objectives, may be identified for escalation to the portfolio level for increased visibility and analysis. The Risk & Issue Management Process at the program and project levels is nearly identical to the process at the portfolio level, but governed and managed within the program or project. The Portfolio Level Risk and Issue Process Manager regularly reviews for quality and completeness. 000372 1/17/2018 37 2020 Census Program Risk & Issue Management – Red Risks Risk ID LC-039 LC-041 Title Description Public Perception of Ability to Safeguard Response Data The accuracy and usefulness of the data collected for the 2020 Census are dependent upon the ability to obtain information from the public, which is influenced partly by the public’s perception of how well their privacy and confidentiality concerns are being addressed. The public's perception of the Census Bureau's ability to safeguard their response data may be affected by security breaches or the mishandling of data at other government agencies or in the private sector. IF a substantial segment of the public is not convinced that the Census Bureau can safeguard their response data against data breaches and unauthorized use, THEN response rates may be lower than projected, leading to an increase in cases for follow-up and cost increases. Cybersecurity Incidents Cybersecurity incidents (e.g., breach, denial of service attack) could happen to the Census Bureau’s authorized IT systems, such as the Internet selfresponse instrument, mobile devices used for fieldwork, and data processing and storage systems. IT security controls will be put in place to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the IT systems and data. IF a cybersecurity incident occurs to the systems supporting the 2020 Census, THEN additional technological efforts will be required to repair or replace the systems affected in order to maintain secure services and data. Exposure Level and Color High - Red High - Red Probability 3 3 Impact Mitigation Plan 5 1. Develop a strategy to build and maintain the public’s confidence in the Census Bureau’s ability to keep their data safe. (Ongoing) 2. Research other Census Bureau divisions, other government agencies, other countries, and the public sector to gain insight into how they have effectively mitigated the issue of public trust and IT security. (Ongoing) 3. Continually monitor the public’s confidence in data security in order to gauge their probable acceptance of the Census Bureau’s methods for enumeration. (Ongoing) 5 1. Monitor system development efforts to ensure the proper Census Bureau IT security guidelines are followed during the system development phase. (Ongoing) 2. Research other Census Bureau programs, other government agencies, other countries, and the private sector to understand how they effectively mitigate cybersecurity incidents. (Ongoing) 3. Audit systems and check logs to help in detecting and tracing an outside infiltration. (Ongoing) 4. Perform threat and vulnerability analysis through testing. (Ongoing) 5. Prepare for rapid response to address any detected cybersecurity incidents. (Ongoing) 000373 1/17/2018 38 2020 Census Program Risk & Issue Management – Medium-Yellow Risks Risk ID Title Description Major disasters (e.g., earthquake, flood, tornado, epidemic, and terrorist attack) can affect the populations of a geographic area (e.g., town, county, state) and prevent people from self-responding to the 2020 Census or being contacted by field staff. Major disasters can disrupt operations at key facilities (e.g., Headquarters, National Processing Center, Regional Census Centers, and Area Census Offices) and supporting infrastructure (e.g., Post Offices and telecommunications). IF a major disaster occurs during the final preparations for or the implementation of the 2020 Census (October 2017 – September 2023), THEN operations may not be able to be executed as planned, leading to increased costs, LC-045 Major Disasters schedule delays, and lower quality data. Enterprise IT LC-010 Solutions The Census Bureau, wherever feasible, will leverage crossprogram IT solutions and has begun the work necessary to ensure this is achieved. However, enterprise solutions (i.e., CEDCaP, CEDSCI, and C-SHaRPS) may not address all of the 2020 Census Program requirements. In these cases, impacts must be identified and proper actions taken to resolve the situation. IF enterprise IT solutions cannot meet the 2020 Census Program requirements, THEN existing systems may require substantial modifications or entirely new systems may have to be developed, adding complexity and increasing risk for a timely and successful 2020 Census. Exposure Level and Color Probability Impact Mitigation Plan Medium Yellow Medium Yellow 4 3 3 1. Plan for a rapid response team to access the disaster and recommend a course of action to senior managers. (Ongoing) 2. Where feasible, the Census Bureau will develop secondary operations facilities, implement regular backup of automated systems and data, and provide uninterruptible power. (Ongoing) 3. Develop Continuity of Operations (COOP) plans for all key facilities (HQ, NPC, RCCs, ACOs, etc.). (Ongoing) 4. Develop Continuity of Operations (COOP) plans for all operations. (Ongoing) 5. Ensure there is contingency funding in the budget to cover Continuity of Operations (COOP) plans. (Ongoing) 6. Consult with other government agencies on best ways to continue operations in areas affected by a major disaster. (Ongoing) 4 1. Engage with enterprise efforts to ensure that solutions architectures align and provide continued support for 2020 Census requirements development and management. (Ongoing) 2. Participate in agency-wide solution development (i.e., avoid custom solutions where enterprise or off-the-shelf solutions will suffice) and ensure that contingencies (i.e., off-ramps) are developed early and exercised when necessary. (Ongoing) 3. Determine the extent existing systems from the 2010 Census can be modified and reused if necessary. (Complete) 4. Design IT solutions that are flexible enough to incorporate design changes. (Ongoing) 5. Establish a change control management process to assess impacts of change requests to facilitate decision-making. (Complete) 6. Prepare for rapid response to implement change based on the results of the change control process. (Ongoing) 000374 1/17/2018 39 2020 Census Program Risk & Issue Management – Medium-Yellow Risks Risk ID Title Exposure Level and Color Probability Impact Mitigation Plan Description The Census Bureau is planning the use of administrative records and third-party data to reduce the need to followup with nonrespondents through the identification of vacant and deleted housing units (those that do not meet the Census Bureau's definition of a housing unit), the enumeration of nonresponding housing units, and the improvement of the quality of imputation for demographic characteristics that are missing for person and housing unit records. Administrative records will also be used to update the Master Address File, predict the best times to contact nonresponding households, and verify the information provided by respondents and enumerators. IF external factors or policies prevent the Census Bureau from utilizing administrative records and third-party data as planned, Administrative THEN the Census Bureau may not be able to fully meet the Records and strategic goal of containing the overall cost of the 2020 Census or Third-Party Data - to fully utilize the data quality benefits of using administrative Medium LC-033 External Factors records in characteristic imputation. Yellow 3 4 Due to the critical timing of census operations and the potential impact of systems not being ready to support them, the 2020 Census Program must have an accurate gauge of the progress made towards integrating the various operations and systems that support the program, including enterprise solutions (i.e., CEDCaP, CEDSCI, and C-SHaRPS). The monitoring of the progress towards integration must take place throughout the planning, development, and testing stages of the operations and systems. IF the 2020 Census Program does not monitor the various operations and systems to ensure that integration is successful prior to implementation, THEN the strategic goals and objectives Medium of the program may not be met. Yellow 3 4 Operations and Systems LC-036 Integration 1. Identify external stakeholders that have an interest in Census Bureau policies regarding administrative records and third-party data usage. (Ongoing) 2. Develop a stakeholder communication plan for identified external stakeholders. (Ongoing) 3. Regularly communicate to and seek feedback from identified external stakeholders on design decisions and research and testing results related to the use of administrative records and third-party data for the 2020 Census. (Ongoing) 4. Assess impacts of any changes to the design based on feedback from external stakeholders and update plans accordingly. (Ongoing) 5. Monitor external factors and policies that may impact the Census Bureau’s planned use of administrative records and third-party data for the 2020 Census. (Ongoing) 1. Leverage DITD’s Systems Engineering and Integration (SE&I) System Development Life Cycle system readiness/phase gate review process, the SE&I program metrics dashboard, and various 2020 Census Program’s governance forums to provide a current sense of where all solutions providers are in the system development process and to raise issues quickly for corrective action. (Ongoing) 2. Conduct regularly scheduled reviews of the 2020 Census operations. (Complete) 3. Ensure all operational areas and their associated IPTs have adequate resources assigned to integration efforts and required project artifacts are developed and approved. (Ongoing) 4. Ensure each planned census test has an approved GOSC (Goals, Objectives, and Success Criteria), adequate resources to plan and conduct are identified and assigned, a detailed test plan is developed and approved (including key milestones and roles and responsibilities), and deadlines are being met through a regular management review with the test team. (Ongoing) 5. Ensure adequate technical review sessions are planned and conducted in conjunction with Systems Engineering and Integration staff (including the systems engineers responsible for developing the solutions). (Ongoing) 6. Create an operational integration design team to support the 2020 Census through creation and distribution of artifacts, which depict integration between the operations. (Complete) 000375 1/17/2018 40 2020 Census Program Risk & Issue Management – Medium-Yellow Risks Risk ID Title Description Most 2020 Census field operations include quality control procedures to ensure that the collected data meet the acceptable levels of quality. However, the field quality control procedures have gone through only limited testing as of 2016 due to reassessment and prioritization within the 2020 Census Program. IF the 2020 Census field operations do not adequately test their respective quality control procedures prior to Testing of Field implementation, THEN the quality control methods may Operations not be effective, requiring additional funding and effort to Quality Control meet the established levels of quality for the 2020 Census LC-038 Procedures data. After key planning and development milestones are completed, stakeholders may disagree with the planned innovations behind the 2020 Census and decide to modify the design, resulting in late operational design changes. IF operational design changes are required following the completion of key planning and development milestones, THEN the 2020 Census Program may have to implement Late Operational costly design changes, increasing the risk for a timely and LC-042 Design Changes successful 2020 Census. Exposure Level and Color Probability Impact Mitigation Plan Medium Yellow Medium Yellow 3 3 4 1. Communicate the necessity of testing and implementing quality control procedures as part of the field operations and tests. (Ongoing) 2. Document the quality control procedures for each field operation supporting the 2020 Census Program. (Ongoing) 3. Devise alternate testing plans for QC procedures. (Complete) 4 1. Identify internal and external stakeholders that have an interest in the 2020 Census operational design. (Ongoing) 2. Develop a stakeholder communications plan for identified internal and external stakeholders. (Ongoing) 3. Regularly communicate with and seek feedback from identified external stakeholders on design decisions and research and testing results. (Ongoing) 4. Monitor external factors and policies that may impact the Census Bureau’s planned innovations for the 2020 Census operational design. (Ongoing) 5. Establish a change control management process to assess impacts of change requests to facilitate decision-making. (Complete) 6. Prepare for rapid response to address potential changes and make decisions based on the results of the change control process. (Ongoing) 000376 1/17/2018 41 2020 Census Program Risk & Issue Management – Medium-Yellow Risks Risk ID Title Description The 2020 Census Program consists of a portfolio of projects that requires subject matter skillsets to complete the work. The potential of not having the necessary staffing levels and staff with the appropriate competencies to satisfy program objectives is a current reality. This is a result of both hiring freezes and the budgetary constraints experienced by the 2020 Census Program. In addition, with increasing numbers of staff eligible for retirement before 2020, there is also the potential of losing valuable institutional knowledge, as employees in key positions may not be accessible to share their knowledge and participate in succession planning. IF the 2020 Census Program does not hire and retain staff Insufficient with the necessary subject matter skillsets at the levels Levels of Staff required by the projects, THEN the 2020 Census Program with Subject will face staffing shortages, making it difficult to meet the LC-046 Matter Skillsets goals and objectives of the program. Many of the operations supporting the 2020 Census require contracts to assist them with system development, testing, and production activities. The acquisition process requires lead time and involves review and approval milestones, both at the agency and department levels. Once awarded, the implementation of the contract may be delayed for a number of reasons, including protests or lack of funding. Any delay with the awarding or implementation of these contracts means the operations may have to shorten the timeframe for some activities or possibly cancel certain activities. IF there are difficulties in the awarding or implementation of the contracts that are supporting the 2020 Census, THEN delays may occur in the system development, testing, or production stages, which may force the operations 2020 Census supporting the 2020 Census to shorten the timeframe for LC-050 Contract Support completing some activities or cancel certain activities. Exposure Level and Color Probability Impact Mitigation Plan Medium Yellow 3 4 1. Identify high priority competencies and staffing positions needed for the work of the 2020 Census. (Ongoing) 2. DDSSO will continue to collaborate with managers and the Human Resources Division (HRD) to facilitate hiring. (Ongoing) 3. Employ various strategies to facilitate staff retention. (Ongoing) Medium Yellow 3 4 In development. 000377 1/17/2018 42 2020 Census Program Risk & Issue Management – Medium-Yellow Risks Risk ID Title Description Some systems supporting the 2020 Census Program plan to mitigate the surging demand on the systems by utilizing the Cloud as part of the architecture. IF the Cloud, and the migration to it, is not evaluated, designed, and tested thoroughly, THEN any implementation Cloud of the Cloud may introduce system failures or process gaps LC-043 Implementation with downstream implications. Systems LC-044 Scalability All systems supporting the 2020 Census Program must be able to handle the large, dynamic demands of the operations and support the system of systems. IF systems are not properly designed, tested, and implemented with the ability to scale, THEN critical issues may arise when the need to scale up (or down) any system in the environment occurs, potentially eliminating the ability to scale during the production window of operations, and thereby limiting the capacity to support the operations or leading to failure of the system. Exposure Level and Color Probability Impact Mitigation Plan Medium Yellow Medium Yellow 3 3 3 1. Develop plans for alternate deployments of each 2020 Census system that is targeted to be hosted on the Cloud. (Ongoing) 2. Assign 2020 Census Technical Integrator to develop a physical architecture for the 2020 Census System of Systems, including the assessment and design of a cloud architecture for the 2020 Census. (Ongoing) 3. Assign the 2020 Census Technical Integrator to assess every system of the 2020 Census System of Systems, including the systems suitability for the Cloud and the migration strategy if the system is determined to be suitable for the Cloud. (Ongoing) 3 1. Under direction of SE&I Chief Architect, conduct scalability assessment with the Technical Integrator (TI) team. (Ongoing) 2. Provide accurate demand models to the systems to ensure proper system of systems design. (Ongoing) 000378 1/17/2018 43 2020 Census Program Risk & Issue Management – Medium-Yellow Risks Risk ID Title Description Internet, telephony, and paper demand models are developed based on historical and test data. Development teams use those data to make predictions regarding system scalability. Changes to operations can have impacts to these models, and if changes continue to occur, the accuracy of the models will be reduced pending updates. IF operational changes occur that affect the workloads, THEN all systems could be adversely impacted if the Demand Model updates are not made in time to inform the system LC-047 Accuracy developers of the proper demand. Exposure Level and Color Probability Impact Mitigation Plan Medium Yellow 3 3 1) Results from the 2018 End-to-End Census Test will be used to refine the external demand model, in order to improve its accuracy. (Ongoing) 2) Compare model output with census data from other countries. (Ongoing) 3) Incorporate operational changes as soon as possible. (Ongoing) 4) Include impacts of advertising campaigns and partnership events on demand models. (Ongoing) 5) Include maximum system capacity on models to readily identify system constraints. (Ongoing) 6) Include sixth mailing in demand models (as a what-if scenario). (Ongoing) 000379 1/17/2018 44 2020 Census Update Oversight Committee Meeting Briefing for Secretary Wilbur Ross February 26, 2018 Albert E. Fontenot, Jr., Associate Director Decennial Census Programs Directorate 000380 Agenda • Hot Topics – Albert E. Fontenot, Jr. • Budget – Ben Taylor • Major Contracts – Luis J. Cano • Cybersecurity – Kevin Smith • Systems Readiness – Atri Kalluri • Stakeholders and Oversight – Albert E. Fontenot, Jr. • Risks – James B. Treat • • Critical Path – James B. Treat Periodic Performance Management Reports – James B. Treat 000381 2 2020 Census Hot Topics for DOC Awareness: February 21, 2018 2020 Census Printing and Mailing Contract • On October 16, 2017, the U.S. Government Publishing Office (GPO) awarded contract to Cenveo, Inc. on Census’ behalf. • On February 2, Cenveo, Inc., and its affiliates, filed for Reorganization in the Southern District of New York under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Cenveo notified GPO and Census of its filing that day. • Production printing for the 2018 End-to-End Census Test began on February 14. They have completed printing of the questionnaires, letters, inserts and envelopes. All that remains is the postcards. • Attorneys from DOC, the Government Publishing Office, and the US Attorney’s Office are coordinating efforts to seek additional information and assurances of future performance from Cenveo and intend to take all appropriate steps consistent with the contract and applicable law to protect the government’s interests. • The USAO will send a letter to Cenveo’s bankruptcy counsel in order to gather information geared towards determining whether Cenveo will have the financial ability to perform the contract. Based upon the terms of the Restructuring Support Agreement, the debtors' bankruptcy is on a "fast-track" with a plan to be filed by early April and for confirmation and consummation of that plan to be complete before the end of July. Residence Criteria • A Federal Register Notice published on February 8 outlined the final Residence Criteria for the 2020 Census. • Press activity and Congressional inquiries have been minimal. 2018 End-to-End Test Readiness • We have 2,566 qualified candidates (as of February 15) for the Nonresponse Followup operation. Our goal for entering training is 1,166 so that we can have about 1,049 trained entering NRFU. • The Census Bureau will continue to aggressively recruit candidates and remains concerned about recruiting for the 2020 Census. • Due to legal obstacles identified by attorneys at the USPS and the Department of Commerce we have decided not to pursue the pilot test of Postal Carriers as Census Enumerators. 2020 Census Operational Readiness • 12 of the 40 Wave 1 area census offices have a lease award/signed occupancy agreement, as of February 15. Space has been identified for 20 of the 208 Wave 2 area census offices, as of February 15. • We have concerns, which the General Services Administration (GSA) shares, that the leasing process is not moving forward as quickly as it needs to in some areas. GSA is bringing in their national team to address this • Space for five of the six regional census centers has been accepted as of February 13. 2020 Census Questionnaire • Systems have been adjusted to handle the 2 question format for the Race/Ethnicity Question. • We are prepared to deliver the questions to Congress by March 31 pending resolution of the Department of Justice’s request for the addition of a question on citizenship to the 2020 Census Short Form. Integrated Partnership and Communications • The mail out of questionnaires for the Census Barriers, Attitudes and Motivators Survey (CBAMS) for the qualitative survey is scheduled for February 20, with the focus planned for March 14 to April 19. The focus groups will provide critical data on small population groups and 000382 people who speak languages other than English. 3 Refer to Budget and Contract Slides U.S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration 000383 U.S. CENSUS BUREAU censusgov (Uniteds States? Bureau Cybersecurity U.S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration 000384 U.S. CENSUS BUREAU census.gov (United States? Bureau 2020 Census Further Detail Follows Cybersecurity – Summary The Census Cybersecurity effort is to resolve these risks: External Risks • Compromising User Devices (Public) • Compromising External Network Access • Impersonating the Census • Inserting Invalid Responses Internal Risks • Disrupting the Internet Self Service Website • Data Breaches • Compromising User Devices (Census) The Census Bureau are taking actions to mitigate these risks through coordination with Federal partners by: Creating a Scalable Secure Network for 2020 Census Respondents: Working with OMB, DHS, and Cloud Provider to develop scalable and secure network connection in the cloud. • Federal Working Group with Cloud Provider (OMB, DHS, Cloud Provider, Network Providers) • Current Solution is Network Provider Based; Future Solution will be Cloud Provider Based • Federal CIO formalized approval for our approach for Future Solution* (working towards using during 2018 End-to-End Census Test) Strengthening Our Incident Response Capabilities (DHS FIRE): Advance ability to continually Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, and Recover from possible cyber threats. • Moving forward with creating Insider Threat capability plan with outside expertise • Started Federal Monitoring “Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation” (DHS CDM) Implementation with DOC • Improving visibility of cybersecurity issues by implementing tools from private industry and federal government Improving Our Cybersecurity Posture: Improve knowledge, processes, procedures, and/or technology. • Increasing knowledge resources • Collaboration with NIST Cybersecurity Center of Excellence (NCCoE) in Feb ‘18 • Regular Cybersecurity briefings with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) • Cybersecurity Unified Coordination Group (Federal Intelligence Community) simulation for major incident in Summer ’18 (table top) • Testing Technology • Authorities to Operate (ATOs) for 2020 Systems are 75% Done for FY 18 End to End Test and On Schedule. Many Actions Remain. • Internet Self Response system security tested by Private Industry (Done Jan ’18), Federal DHS (Done in Feb ’18; report in Mar ‘18) • Engaging “Red Teams” from Industry and Federal (DHS) to conduct “slow and under the radar” cybersecurity attacks The Census Bureau is working on a scalable secure network and improving their ability to 000385 actively see, secure, and resolve cybersecurity risks for the 2020 census. 6 2020 Census Cybersecurity – Scalable Secure Network for 2020 Census Respondents Working with OMB, DHS, and Cloud Provider to develop scalable and secure network connection in the cloud to improve the User Experience for 2020 Respondents for Internet Self Response. Background Federal Government entities must use Federal Secure Network Connectivity provided by Industry with Department of Homeland Security visibility • Secure Federal Network Connectivity through Trusted Internet Connection (TIC) * Amazon Web Services (AWS) Respondent • DHS Einstein (Classified Monitoring of Network), Other Technologies/Configurations • Current Implementations through Internet Service Provider to Federal Locations • Census has 2 TICs (1 Suitland, MD Office; 1 Bowie, MD Data Center) Problem Current Federal Secure Network Connection will be slower internet respondents. • Current Solution is Network Provider Based (AT&T, Verizon, CenturyLink, ..) (RED) • Current Solution makes all respondents travel through Washington DC • Census has all current network through Metro DC • Cloud for Data Collection in Washington State (AWS) AWS* Faster Similar Slow Census Slow Respondent • Internet Self Response website slower based on some users with multiple coast to coast trips • User Experience depends on System & Network Latency (time) • The more Latency (time) adds up to the dramatically worse it gets at peak loads Proposed Resolution Create scalable and secure network connection in the cloud that reduces unnecessary “travel times” • Future Solution will be Cloud Provider Based (Amazon Web Services, Microsoft, …) (BLUE & GREEN) • Reduce “travel time” to website by connecting directly to West Coast cloud. No cross country layovers • Initiated, Established, and Working with Federal/Industry Partners (OMB, DHS, Cloud Provider, Network Providers) • Federal CIO (OMB) formalized support in February ’18 for Census to “continue outside of existing TIC policies” Network (Speed of Light) and Distance DC – Seattle, WA = 2,700 miles DC – Ecuador = 2,700 miles DC – Moscow, Russia = 4,900 miles DC – Buenos Aires, Argentina = 5,300 miles San Francisco to Bejing, China = 5,900 miles The Census is “continuing outside of existing TIC policies” in support of validating 000386 approaches and informing OMB, DHS, and others on the Executive Order to “Strengthen the Cybersecurity of Federal Networks and Critical Infrastructure”. 7 2020 Census Cybersecurity – Authority to Operate (ATO) Status 2018 End to End Test – 44 Systems 2020 Census – 52 Systems No Level of Effort (75%) (Green) • 73% have obtained ATOs (done) • 2% (1 system) does not require an ATO (NA) No Level of Effort (88%) (Green) • 86% will have obtained ATOs from the FY18 End to End Test (done) • These systems will be maintained annually Small Level of Effort (18%) (Grey) • 16% have ATOs and are moving to 2020 Infrastructure. These systems are moving from servers in the Census data center to the technical integrator • 2% have ATOs and are being modified. These systems are already housed in the infrastructure and are developing additional capabilities. • 2% (1 system) does not require an ATO (NA) High Level of Effort (TBD) (Blue) • 12% are new; • Post Enumeration Survey • Customer Relationship Management and Experience • Decennial Device as a Service High Level of Effort (7%) (Blue) • 7% are new; Getting ATO before FY18 Test Since Jan 18 Done +21% (+9) New -2% (-1) Modified -5% (-2) Moving -14% (-6) The Authority to Operate (ATO) process is quality control for Cybersecurity done for all 000387 systems to continually reduce information technology security risks to an acceptable level. 8 2020 Census Cybersecurity – Actions Remain- Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&Ms) After ATOs are Granted, POA&Ms are recorded and continuously managed for the life of the system. Continually identifying and tracking POA&Ms are healthy in Cybersecurity. Not fixing them as planned is unhealthy Census has completed a large number of new ATOs for 2020 which naturally have POA&Ms recorded. Census chooses to have more POA&Ms being tracked at a detailed level to show progress and increased visibility for ourselves and oversight (Our “Punch List” is 10+ times more than other Federal entities; 1,000’s instead of 100’s) Focus on the progress to reduce POA&Ms. The number of POA&Ms themselves is the Census’ choice for visibility. Summarize – Subjectively Record Issue with No Occurrences  Majority of Federal Government uses this level  Process - Evaluate security controls at the Top Level  Oversight – Continually asks questions for more data  Example  Technology: “Is Accesses Controlled?” “Yes; the infrastructure is protected”  House: “Is your house insulated?” “Yes; the house is insulated”  Gaps – Subjective Risk Acceptance; Hard to Show Progress Detail – Objectively Record Issues and Occurrences  Census Bureau built to this level based on numerous recommendations of Oversight (GAO, OIG)  Process - Evaluate security controls within the Top Level; document all the parts  Oversight – Has the data they need to understand risks more fully  Example  Technology: “Where is Accesses Controlled?” “Many different areas with different controls”  House: “Where is your house insulated?” “In exterior walls, front door has weather stripping, less inside”  Gaps – Objective Risk Acceptance; Able to Show Progress; “Punch List” to be done and/or accepted 000388 9 Refer to Systems Readiness Document U.S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration 000389 U.S. CENSUS BUREAU censusgov United States? Census Bureau 2020 Census Stakeholders and Oversight OIG • 2020 Census Area Census Office (ACO) Locations Audit • Formal exit meeting will be held on February 23 to learn about preliminary findings and draft report expected date. • The audit included a close look at the delineation criteria and model, as well as the Life Cycle Cost Estimate associated with field infrastructure innovation. • Background Check Audit • Census comments on draft report received on Background Check Audit were delivered to OIG on February 5. Final report is expected by late February. • These are the tentative findings, which OIG discussed during an exit conference: o Escalating costs and inadequate quality assurance practices pose risks to 2020 Census background check activities. o The Census Bureau is not adequately monitoring contractor activities. o Program officials are not always allocating background check costs to the correct fund. • The Census Bureau is developing a response and will provide comments by late January. • CEDCaP Audit • The objectives are to determine whether (1) the Census Bureau is prepared to test its 2020 Census Security Architecture during the 2018 End-to-End Census Test; and (2) there are cost issues that will affect the readiness of the security architecture, or any other relevant systems. GAO • Life Cycle Cost Estimate (LCCE) Audit • The LCCE audit continues. • Their questions and topics of interest are based on their examining of the revised Basis of Estimation documentation submitted to them on December 11. • Systems Readiness Audit • Informed by GAO on February 5 that the Systems Readiness Audit will not have a formal report issued but that GAO would continue regular briefings with congressional oversight and release congressional testimony as appropriate. • Plans for Hard-to-Count Populations Audit • GAO is beginning this work after receiving a request from the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. • The entrance meeting with GAO was held on December 6. • Research Questions and Scope: o What socio-demographic groups are considered “hard to count” and why? o What is the status of the Census Bureau’s efforts to enumerate the “hard to count” in 2020? o To what extent is the Bureau’s current plans for enumerating the “hard to count” in 2020 addressing the nation’s changing demographics and key design changes introduced for the 2020 Census; and leveraging earlier lessons learned (e.g., prior recommendations from GAO, NAS, DOC advisory committees, the Census Bureau’s own evaluations and experiments, and others)? • GAO is conducting meetings with various Census Bureau experts and documents are being provided to GAO, as requested. 000390 11 2020 Census OIG Recommendations Topics Total Recs Closed Recs Open Recs Recs with Action Plan Due Date in Future Documents Submitted: Awaiting OIG Decision to Close Address Canvassing Test 6 1 5 1 4 Administrative Records 4 2 2 1 1 Life Cycle Cost Estimate 5 1 4 3 1 2015 Test Design 4 3 1 1 2020 Census Planning 35 33 2 2 Master Address List 7 6 1 1 TOTAL 61 46 15 5 10 000391 12 2020 Census GAO Recommendations Topics Total Recommendations Closed Recommendations Open Recommendations Recommendations with Action Plan Due Date in Future Documents Submitted: Awaiting GAO Decision to Close Life Cycle Cost Estimate 14 10 4 - 4 Schedule 12 5 7 - 7 IT & IT Security 23 16 7 - 7 Field Training, Workforce & Recruitment/ Integrated Partnership and Communications 18 5 13 4 8 Other* 17 14 3 1** 3 TOTAL 84 51 33 5 28 *Other includes the following topics: Project Management, Oversight, United States Postal Service, Nonresponse Follow-up, Address Canvassing, and Census Coverage Measurement. **This recommendation, related to Address Canvassing, is for 2030. GAO has made 84 recommendations since 2007 about the 2020 Census. Action plans are in place for all recommendations. 51 Have been closed by GAO. 5 Have due dates in the future (4 in 2018 and 1 for the 2030 Census). 14 Relate to ongoing audits on the Lifecycle Cost Estimate, the Schedule and our efforts to enumerate Hard-to-Count populations. GAO will not close these until the ongoing audits are complete. 11 Artifacts have been provided to GAO, and we are working with GAO to identify the additional documentation they need to close these out. We expect progress on these in the near future. 3 These are recommendations that GAO is likely to close as “Not Fully Implemented” because, while artifacts have been provided, discussions with GAO clearly indicate our efforts to date, or planned, will not fulfil the recommendation. 000392 13 Risk Management U.S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration 000393 U.S. CENSUS BUREAU census.gov (United States? Bureau 2020 Census Risk Management – Structure 28 The risk and issue management process is conducted at all levels of the 2020 Census Portfolio Portfolio Risks Program Risks (i.e. SE&I, NRFU, ADCAN, etc) 267 Project Risks (i.e CEDCaP, 2020 Solutions) Sub-Projects Systems (CEDSCI, PEARSIS, ECaSE-ISR) and Major Contracts (i.e. Pega, Technical Integrator) 2020 Census Portfolio Risk Management Process 000394 15 2020 Census Quadrant Total Risks % RED 3 10.7% YELLOW 24 85.7% GREEN 1 3.6% TOTAL 28 100% Probability Portfolio Risk and Issue Management – Risk Register 5 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 3 7 3 2 0 0 1 8 4 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 3 4 5 The selected risks that follow represent the major concerns that could affect the design or the successful implementation of the 2020 Census. • • • Impact Cost Impacts of Late Changes (Probability 3, Impact 5) RED Public Perception of ability to Safeguard Response Data (Probability 3, Impact 5) RED Cybersecurity Incidents (Probability 3, Impact 5) RED Yellow risks with Probability and Impact equal to or great than 3, see background slides 000395 16 Critical Path Report U.S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration 000396 U.S. CENSUS BUREAU census.gov (United States? Bureau 2020 Census Critical Path Report – 2020 Integrated Master Schedule • Schedule contains • Over 25,000 activities • Over 42,000 interdependencies • 35 Operations and 52 Systems • Baselined the schedule on December 14, 2017 • Started reporting status weekly on December 15, 2017 • Conducting a chronological review for integration of activities • Operations for Releases 1 & 2 – Completed January 26, 2018 • Systems for Releases 1 & 2 – In process, planned finish on March 16, 2018 • Early Data Collection Operations for Release 3 – Planned finish on April 20, 2018 • Remaining Data Collection Operations for Release 3 – Planned finish on June 1, 2018 • Remaining Operations, Release 4 – Planned finish on July 13, 2018 Refer to Handout 000397 18 Status Reporting Periodic Performance Management Reports U.S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration 000398 U.S. CENSUS BUREAU censusgov (Uniteds States? ensus Bureau Periodic Performance Management Reports Complete Listing of Reports Status Slide Number Report Title Area Census Office Lease Status – Wave 1 18 Area Census Office Lease Status – Wave 2 19 Regional Census Center Space Acceptance & Opening Status 20 2020 Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) 21 Recruiting for 2018 Peak Operations 22 Legend On Track Management Focus Requires Attention 000399 20 Periodic Performance Management Reports Area Census Office Lease Status – Wave 1 Wave 1 Area Census Office (ACO) Lease Status Status: Management Focus Data current as of: February 15, 2018 Completion Date: March 31, 2018 Wave 1 Area Census Office (ACO) Lease Status ACO Space Not Identified 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 8 ACO Space Identified (Pending Lease Award/ Occupancy Agreement [OA]) 20 Lease Award/OA Signed Concord, NH Bronx South, NY Caguas, PR Baton Rouge, LA Denver, CO Houston West, TX San Antonio East, TX Oakland, CA 12 0 10 20 30 40 Source: Weekly Field Division Report, February 15, 2018 000400 21 Periodic Performance Management Reports Area Census Office Lease Status – Wave 2 Wave 2 Area Census Office (ACO) Lease Status Status: On Track Data current as of: February 15, 2018 Completion Date: September 30, 2018 Wave 2 Area Census Office (ACO) Lease Status ACO Space Not Identified 188 ACO Space Identified (Pending Lease Award/ Occupancy Agreement [OA]) 20 Lease Award/OA Signed 0 26 52 78 104 130 156 182 208 Source: Weekly Field Division Report, February 15, 2018 000401 22 Periodic Performance Management Reports Regional Census Center Space Acceptance & Opening Status Regional Census Center (RCC) Status Status: On Track Data current as of: February 13, 2018 Upcoming RCC Space Acceptance Dates: Atlanta RCC, accepted February 12, 2018 New York RCC, projected March 23, 2018 RCC Open Dates: April 1, 2018 (New York RCC to open April 27, 2018) Buildout/ Space Accepted Furniture/ Supplies/ IT Equipment Deployed RCC Open Philadelphia RCC Chicago RCC Dallas RCC Atlanta RCC Los Angeles RCC New York RCC Legend Not Started Completed On Track Management Focus Requires Attention Source: Reported via John Donnelly email February 13, 2018 000402 23 Periodic Performance Management Reports 2020 Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) 2020 Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) Status: On Track Data current as of: February 15, 2018 Completion Date: January 31, 2018 Notes: • Extended the registration deadline for natural disaster areas until January 31, 2018 • 45 States are registered to participate, up from 28 states in 2010 LUCA Registration 11,560 Governments Registered or In-Process to Register Coverage Measures 98.0% Of the population covered 97.9% Of the housing covered Source: Daily LUCA E-mailed Report, February 15, 2018 000403 24 Periodic Performance Management Reports Recruiting for 2018 Peak Operations Recruiting for 2018 Peak Operations Status: Management Focus Recruiting for 2018 Peak Operations 3,000 2773 2566 2,500 Data current as of: February 15, 2018 2,000 Completion Date: March 5, 2018 1,500 Goal for Entering Training: 1,166 Notes: 1,000 Goal for Trained Enumerators needed for NRFU : 1,049 500 Number of Core Enumerators needed for NRFU : 900 • We plan to hire 5 Census Field Managers and 45 Census Field Supervisors. 0 Total Recruited Total Qualified Source: Regional Disposition Summary (D-424F) Report, February 15, 2018 000404 25 Background on Risk Management United States? U.S. Department of Commerce ce 5 Economics and Statistics Administration 000405 U.S. CENSUS BUREAU Bureau censusgov 2020 Census Portfolio Risk & Issue Management – Red Risks Risk ID Title Description LC-003 Cost Impacts of Late Changes The budget process requires the 2020 Census Portfolio to produce estimates for out-year budgets before the cost of the final design has been identified and estimated. IF later in the 2020 Census life cycle, it is discovered that certain cost projections cannot be met, THEN the design will have to be changed, potentially impacting quality, forcing the implementation of an inadequately tested design, and having to request additional funds which might put the 2020 Census over the cost goal. LC-039 The accuracy and usefulness of the data collected for the 2020 Census are dependent upon the ability to obtain information from the public, which is influenced partly by the public’s perception of how well their privacy and confidentiality concerns are being addressed. The public's perception of the Census Bureau's ability to safeguard their response data may be affected by security breaches or the mishandling of data at other government agencies or in the private sector. IF a substantial segment of the public is not convinced that the Census Bureau Public Perception of can safeguard their response data against data breaches and unauthorized Ability to Safeguard use, THEN response rates may be lower than projected, leading to an increase Response Data in cases for follow-up and cost increases. LC-041 Cybersecurity incidents (e.g., breach, denial of service attack) could happen to the Census Bureau’s authorized IT systems, such as the Internet selfresponse instrument, mobile devices used for fieldwork, and data processing and storage systems. IT security controls will be put in place to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the IT systems and data. IF a cybersecurity incident occurs to the systems supporting the 2020 Census, THEN additional technological efforts will be required to repair or replace the systems affected in order to maintain secure services and data. Cybersecurity Incidents Exposure Level and Color High - Red High - Red High - Red Probability 3 3 3 Impact Mitigation Plan 5 1. Develop strong budget justifications that show negative impact of insufficient funds. (Ongoing) 2. Develop a strong communications package for stakeholders to use in defense of 2020 Census budget requests. (Ongoing) 3. Perform continuous reviews of the cost assumptions and the feasibility in meeting the targeted goals. (Ongoing) 4. Ensure there is sufficient contingency funding to address late changes. (Ongoing) 5 1. Develop a strategy to build and maintain the public’s confidence in the Census Bureau’s ability to keep their data safe. (Ongoing) 2. Research other Census Bureau divisions, other government agencies, other countries, and the public sector to gain insight into how they have effectively mitigated the issue of public trust and IT security. (Ongoing) 3. Continually monitor the public’s confidence in data security in order to gauge their probable acceptance of the Census Bureau’s methods for enumeration. (Ongoing) 5 1. Monitor system development efforts to ensure the proper Census Bureau IT security guidelines are followed during the system development phase. (Ongoing) 2. Research other Census Bureau programs, other government agencies, other countries, and the private sector to understand how they effectively mitigate cybersecurity incidents. (Ongoing) 3. Audit systems and check logs to help in detecting and tracing an outside infiltration. (Ongoing) 4. Perform threat and vulnerability analysis through testing. (Ongoing) 5. Prepare for rapid response to address any detected cybersecurity incidents. (Ongoing) 000406 27 2020 Census Portfolio Risk & Issue Management – Medium-Yellow Risks Risk ID Title Description Major disasters (e.g., earthquake, flood, tornado, epidemic, and terrorist attack) can affect the populations of a geographic area (e.g., town, county, state) and prevent people from self-responding to the 2020 Census or being contacted by field staff. Major disasters can disrupt operations at key facilities (e.g., Headquarters, National Processing Center, Regional Census Centers, and Area Census Offices) and supporting infrastructure (e.g., Post Offices and telecommunications). IF a major disaster occurs during the final preparations for or the implementation of the 2020 Census (October 2017 – September 2023), THEN operations may not be able to be executed as planned, leading to increased costs, LC-045 Major Disasters schedule delays, and lower quality data. Enterprise IT LC-010 Solutions The Census Bureau, wherever feasible, will leverage crossprogram IT solutions and has begun the work necessary to ensure this is achieved. However, enterprise solutions (i.e., CEDCaP, CEDSCI, and C-SHaRPS) may not address all of the 2020 Census Portfolio requirements. In these cases, impacts must be identified and proper actions taken to resolve the situation. IF enterprise IT solutions cannot meet the 2020 Census Portfolio requirements, THEN existing systems may require substantial modifications or entirely new systems may have to be developed, adding complexity and increasing risk for a timely and successful 2020 Census. Exposure Level and Color Probability Impact Mitigation Plan Medium Yellow Medium Yellow 4 3 3 1. Plan for a rapid response team to access the disaster and recommend a course of action to senior managers. (Ongoing) 2. Where feasible, the Census Bureau will develop secondary operations facilities, implement regular backup of automated systems and data, and provide uninterruptible power. (Ongoing) 3. Develop Continuity of Operations (COOP) plans for all key facilities (HQ, NPC, RCCs, ACOs, etc.). (Ongoing) 4. Develop Continuity of Operations (COOP) plans for all operations. (Ongoing) 5. Ensure there is contingency funding in the budget to cover Continuity of Operations (COOP) plans. (Ongoing) 6. Consult with other government agencies on best ways to continue operations in areas affected by a major disaster. (Ongoing) 4 1. Engage with enterprise efforts to ensure that solutions architectures align and provide continued support for 2020 Census requirements development and management. (Ongoing) 2. Participate in agency-wide solution development (i.e., avoid custom solutions where enterprise or off-the-shelf solutions will suffice) and ensure that contingencies (i.e., off-ramps) are developed early and exercised when necessary. (Ongoing) 3. Determine the extent existing systems from the 2010 Census can be modified and reused if necessary. (Complete) 4. Design IT solutions that are flexible enough to incorporate design changes. (Ongoing) 5. Establish a change control management process to assess impacts of change requests to facilitate decision-making. (Complete) 6. Prepare for rapid response to implement change based on the results of the change control process. (Ongoing) 000407 28 2020 Census Program Risk & Issue Management – Medium-Yellow Risks Risk ID Title Exposure Level and Color Probability Impact Mitigation Plan Description The Census Bureau is planning the use of administrative records and third-party data to reduce the need to followup with nonrespondents through the identification of vacant and deleted housing units (those that do not meet the Census Bureau's definition of a housing unit), the enumeration of nonresponding housing units, and the improvement of the quality of imputation for demographic characteristics that are missing for person and housing unit records. Administrative records will also be used to update the Master Address File, predict the best times to contact nonresponding households, and verify the information provided by respondents and enumerators. IF external factors or policies prevent the Census Bureau from utilizing administrative records and third-party data as planned, Administrative THEN the Census Bureau may not be able to fully meet the Records and strategic goal of containing the overall cost of the 2020 Census or Third-Party Data - to fully utilize the data quality benefits of using administrative Medium LC-033 External Factors records in characteristic imputation. Yellow 3 4 Due to the critical timing of census operations and the potential impact of systems not being ready to support them, managers must have an accurate gauge of the progress made towards integrating the various operations and systems that support the 2020 Census, including enterprise solutions (i.e., CEDCaP, CEDSCI, and C-SHaRPS). The monitoring of the progress towards integration must take place throughout the planning, development, and testing stages of the operations and systems. IF the various operations and systems are not monitored properly to ensure that integration is successful prior to implementation, THEN the strategic goals and objectives of the 2020 Census may Medium not be met. Yellow 3 4 Operations and Systems LC-036 Integration 1. Identify external stakeholders that have an interest in Census Bureau policies regarding administrative records and third-party data usage. (Ongoing) 2. Develop a stakeholder communication plan for identified external stakeholders. (Ongoing) 3. Regularly communicate to and seek feedback from identified external stakeholders on design decisions and research and testing results related to the use of administrative records and third-party data for the 2020 Census. (Ongoing) 4. Assess impacts of any changes to the design based on feedback from external stakeholders and update plans accordingly. (Ongoing) 5. Monitor external factors and policies that may impact the Census Bureau’s planned use of administrative records and third-party data for the 2020 Census. (Ongoing) 1. Leverage DITD’s Systems Engineering and Integration (SE&I) System Development Life Cycle system readiness/phase gate review process, the SE&I program metrics dashboard, and various 2020 Census Program’s governance forums to provide a current sense of where all solutions providers are in the system development process and to raise issues quickly for corrective action. (Ongoing) 2. Conduct regularly scheduled reviews of the 2020 Census operations. (Complete) 3. Ensure all operational areas and their associated IPTs have adequate resources assigned to integration efforts and required project artifacts are developed and approved. (Ongoing) 4. Ensure each planned census test has an approved GOSC (Goals, Objectives, and Success Criteria), adequate resources to plan and conduct are identified and assigned, a detailed test plan is developed and approved (including key milestones and roles and responsibilities), and deadlines are being met through a regular management review with the test team. (Ongoing) 5. Ensure adequate technical review sessions are planned and conducted in conjunction with Systems Engineering and Integration staff (including the systems engineers responsible for developing the solutions). (Ongoing) 6. Create an operational integration design team to support the 2020 Census through creation and distribution of artifacts, which depict integration between the operations. (Complete) 000408 29 2020 Census Program Risk & Issue Management – Medium-Yellow Risks Risk ID Title Description Most 2020 Census field operations include quality control procedures to ensure that the collected data meet the acceptable levels of quality. However, the field quality control procedures have gone through only limited testing since 2016 due to reassessment and prioritization within the 2020 Census Portfolio. IF the 2020 Census field operations do not adequately test their respective quality control procedures prior to Testing of Field implementation, THEN the quality control methods may Operations not be effective, requiring additional funding and effort to Quality Control meet the established levels of quality for the 2020 Census LC-038 Procedures data. After key planning and development milestones are completed, stakeholders may disagree with the planned innovations behind the 2020 Census and decide to modify the design, resulting in late operational design changes. IF operational design changes are required following the completion of key planning and development milestones, Late Operational THEN costly design changes may have to be implemented, LC-042 Design Changes increasing the risk for a timely and successful 2020 Census. Exposure Level and Color Probability Impact Mitigation Plan Medium Yellow Medium Yellow 3 3 4 1. Communicate the necessity of testing and implementing quality control procedures as part of the field operations and tests. (Ongoing) 2. Document the quality control procedures for each field operation supporting the 2020 Census. (Ongoing) 3. Devise alternate testing plans for QC procedures. (Complete) 4 1. Identify internal and external stakeholders that have an interest in the 2020 Census operational design. (Ongoing) 2. Develop a stakeholder communications plan for identified internal and external stakeholders. (Ongoing) 3. Regularly communicate with and seek feedback from identified external stakeholders on design decisions and research and testing results. (Ongoing) 4. Monitor external factors and policies that may impact the Census Bureau’s planned innovations for the 2020 Census operational design. (Ongoing) 5. Establish a change control management process to assess impacts of change requests to facilitate decision-making. (Complete) 6. Prepare for rapid response to address potential changes and make decisions based on the results of the change control process. (Ongoing) 000409 30 2020 Census Program Risk & Issue Management – Medium-Yellow Risks Risk ID Title Description The 2020 Census Portfolio consists of programs and projects that requires subject matter skillsets to complete the work. The potential of not having the necessary staffing levels and staff with the appropriate competencies to satisfy portfolio objectives is a current reality. This is a result of both hiring freezes and the budgetary constraints experienced by the 2020 Census Portfolio. In addition, with increasing numbers of staff eligible for retirement before 2020, there is also the potential of losing valuable institutional knowledge, as employees in key positions may not be accessible to share their knowledge and participate in succession planning. Insufficient IF the 2020 Census Portfolio does not hire and retain staff Levels of Staff with the necessary subject matter skillsets at the levels with Subject required, THEN the staffing shortages may occur, making it LC-046 Matter Skillsets difficult to meet the goals and objectives of the portfolio. Many of the operations supporting the 2020 Census require contracts to assist them with system development, testing, and production activities. The acquisition process requires lead time and involves review and approval milestones, both at the agency and department levels. Once awarded, the implementation of the contract may be delayed for a number of reasons, including protests or lack of funding. Any delay with the awarding or implementation of these contracts means the operations may have to shorten the timeframe for some activities or possibly cancel certain activities. IF there are difficulties in the awarding or implementation of the contracts that are supporting the 2020 Census, THEN delays may occur in the system development, testing, or production stages, which may force the operations 2020 Census supporting the 2020 Census to shorten the timeframe for LC-050 Contract Support completing some activities or cancel certain activities. Exposure Level and Color Probability Impact Mitigation Plan Medium Yellow 3 4 1. Identify high priority competencies and staffing positions needed for the work of the 2020 Census. (Ongoing) 2. DDSSO will continue to collaborate with managers and the Human Resources Division (HRD) to facilitate hiring. (Ongoing) 3. Employ various strategies to facilitate staff retention. (Ongoing) Medium Yellow 3 4 In development. 000410 31 2020 Census Program Risk & Issue Management – Medium-Yellow Risks Risk ID Title Description Some systems supporting the 2020 Census plan to mitigate the surging demand on the systems by utilizing the Cloud as part of the architecture. IF the Cloud, and the migration to it, is not evaluated, designed, and tested thoroughly, THEN any implementation Cloud of the Cloud may introduce system failures or process gaps LC-043 Implementation with downstream implications. Systems LC-044 Scalability All systems supporting the 2020 Census must be able to handle the large, dynamic demands of the operations and support the system of systems. IF systems are not properly designed, tested, and implemented with the ability to scale, THEN critical issues may arise when the need to scale up (or down) any system in the environment occurs, potentially eliminating the ability to scale during the production window of operations, and thereby limiting the capacity to support the operations or leading to failure of the system. Exposure Level and Color Probability Impact Mitigation Plan Medium Yellow Medium Yellow 3 3 3 1. Develop plans for alternate deployments of each 2020 Census system that is targeted to be hosted on the Cloud. (Ongoing) 2. Assign 2020 Census Technical Integrator to develop a physical architecture for the 2020 Census System of Systems, including the assessment and design of a cloud architecture for the 2020 Census. (Ongoing) 3. Assign the 2020 Census Technical Integrator to assess every system of the 2020 Census System of Systems, including the systems suitability for the Cloud and the migration strategy if the system is determined to be suitable for the Cloud. (Ongoing) 3 1. Under direction of SE&I Chief Architect, conduct scalability assessment with the Technical Integrator (TI) team. (Ongoing) 2. Provide accurate demand models to the systems to ensure proper system of systems design. (Ongoing) 000411 32 2020 Census Program Risk & Issue Management – Medium-Yellow Risks Risk ID Title Description Internet, telephony, and paper demand models are developed based on historical and test data. Development teams use those data to make predictions regarding system scalability. Changes to operations can have impacts to these models, and if changes continue to occur, the accuracy of the models will be reduced pending updates. IF operational changes occur that affect the workloads, THEN all systems could be adversely impacted if the Demand Model updates are not made in time to inform the system LC-047 Accuracy developers of the proper demand. Exposure Level and Color Probability Impact Mitigation Plan Medium Yellow 3 3 1) Results from the 2018 End-to-End Census Test will be used to refine the external demand model, in order to improve its accuracy. (Ongoing) 2) Compare model output with census data from other countries. (Ongoing) 3) Incorporate operational changes as soon as possible. (Ongoing) 4) Include impacts of advertising campaigns and partnership events on demand models. (Ongoing) 5) Include maximum system capacity on models to readily identify system constraints. (Ongoing) 6) Include sixth mailing in demand models (as a what-if scenario). (Ongoing) 000412 33 PRE-DECISIONAL Submission of the 2020 Census and American Community Survey Questions to Congress Briefing for the Department of Commerce March 5, 2018 000413 1 PRE-DECISIONAL 2020 Census and American Community Survey Subjects and Questions Requirements • Section 141(f) of the Census Act requires that the subjects included in the next census be submitted to Congress no later than 3 years before the census date.  This document was issued on March 28, 2017. • The Census Act also requires that the questions included in the next census be submitted to Congress no later than 2 years before the census date.  A document that meets this requirement for the 2020 Census and the ACS will be submitted to Congress by March 31, 2018. 000414 2 PRE-DECISIONAL How a Question Becomes Part of the Census (short form) Steps in the Process Authority • The discretionary authority for defining the questions on the Decennial Census Short Form resides with the Secretary of Commerce. Review of Request • Requests undergo legal, technical, and policy review to determine whether the question should be included on the short form. Notification • Upon determining a new question is warranted, the Census Bureau must notify Congress of its intent to add the question. • The Census Bureau will publish a Federal Register Notice. Testing • If the question is not currently used in an ongoing survey, the Census Bureau must test the wording of the new question. Operational Adjustments • The Census Bureau must make operational adjustments to all data collection and processing systems to include the approved, new question. 000415 3 PRE-DECISIONAL How a Question Becomes Part of the American Community Survey Steps in the Process Proposal Testing Evaluation Decision • A federal agency proposes a new or changed question. • Request specifies frequency, geographic precision needed, and consideration of other sources. • OMB and Census Bureau decide whether the change has merit. • Wording options are created and tested. • Question performance is evaluated in a field test. • Test results are reviewed by the Census Bureau and requesting federal agency. • The Census Bureau solicits public comment through a Federal Register Notice. • A final decision is made in consultation with the OMB and Interagency Council on Statistical Policy Subcommittee on the ACS. • If approved, the Census Bureau implements the change. 000416 4 PRE-DECISIONAL Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census As submitted in March 2017 • No changes to the 2020 Census subjects • • Same subjects included on the 2010 Census and Census 2000 short form 2020 Subjects • Operational (number of people) – asked since 1790 • Age – asked since 1790 • Gender – asked since 1790 • Hispanic origin – asked since 1970 • Race – asked since 1790 • Relationship – asked since 1880 • Tenure (owner/renter) – asked since 1890 Note: The 2020 Census short form will be administered in the 50 000417 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. 5 PRE-DECISIONAL Subjects Planned for the 2020 American Community Survey As submitted in March 2017 No changes to the ACS subjects. 2020 Subjects Operational Age Gender Race/Ethnicity Relationship Tenure Social Subjects Ancestry (1980) Disability (1830) Fertility (1890) Grandparent Caregivers (2000) Language Spoken at Home (1890) Marital Status (1880) Marital History (1850) Migration/Residence One Year Ago (Year first asked in the Decennial Census Program) Economic Subjects Journey to Work/Commuting (1960) Health Insurance (2008) Income (1940) Industry of Worker (1820) Occupation of Worker (1850) Class of Worker (1910) Labor Force Status (1890) Work Status Last Year (1880) Housing Subjects Acreage & Agricultural Sales (1960) Computer & Internet Use (2013) Home Heating Fuel (1940) Home Value & Rent (1940) Plumbing Facilities (1940) Kitchen Facilities (1940) Telephone Service (1960) Selected Monthly Owner Costs (1940-1990) (1930) Utilities, mortgage, etc. Place of Birth (1850) SNAP (2005) Food Stamps Citizenship (1820) Year of Entry (1890) School Enrollment (1850) Educational Attainment (1940) Undergraduate Field of Degree (2009) Veteran Status (1890) Veteran Period of Service and VA Service-Connected Disability (2008) Units in Structure (1940) Rooms (1940) Bedrooms (1960) Vehicles Available (1960) Year Built (1940) Year Moved In (1960) Note: The 2020 ACS (formerly the long form) will be administered 000418 in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. 6 Subjects Planned for the 2020 Island Areas Censuses PRE-DECISIONAL As submitted in March 2017 2020 Subjects Operational Age Gender Race/Ethnicity Social Subjects Ancestry Disability Fertility Grandparent Caregivers Economic Subjects Commuting Health Insurance Income Industry, Occupation, & Class of Worker Labor Force Status Housing Subjects Acreage & Agricultural Sales Computer & Internet Use Home Heating Fuel Home Value & Rent Plumbing Facilities, Kitchen Facilities, & Telephone Service** Tenure Marital Status & Marital History* Work Status Last Year Selected Monthly Owner Costs Migration/Residence Five Years Ago Sewage Disposal Parent's Place of Birth SNAP* Place of Birth, Citizenship, & Year of Entry Source of Water Reason for Migration Units in Structure, Rooms, & Bedrooms School Enrollment, Vehicles Available Educational Attainment & Undergraduate Field of Degree*** Veteran Status, Period of Service, Year Built & Year Moved In & VA Service-Connected Disability Rating *New for Island Areas Censuses, but an established subject in the ACS. **Propose including flush toilet availability. ***Propose including completion of a vocational program, which was a subject for the 2010 Census. Island Areas Censuses Only Relationship Language Spoken at Home Note: The 2020 Island Areas Censuses will be administered in American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana000419 Islands, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 7 Questions Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey PRE-DECISIONAL Document Outline Contents: • Introduction • Questions Planned for the 2020 Census • Questions Planned for the ACS • Year First Included in a Decennial Census or on the ACS Structure: • Question image (paper form) • Statement about why the question is asked (relationship to published data) • Paragraph summarizing federal government use of data derived from the question • Select summaries of types of community-level uses 000420 8 PRE-DECISIONAL Questions Planned for the 2020 Census Question Images • • • • • • • Age Gender Hispanic origin Race Relationship Tenure (owner/renter) Operational (number of people) 000421 9 PRE-DECISIONAL Age Asked since 1790 Answers to the age and date of birth question provide the data that help us understand the size of different age groups and how other characteristics may vary by age. 000422 10 PRE-DECISIONAL Gender Asked since 1790 A question about the gender of each person is used to create statistics about males and females and to present other data by gender. 000423 11 PRE-DECISIONAL Hispanic Origin* Asked since 1970 A question about whether a person is of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin is used to create statistics about this ethnic group. * This Hispanic origin question will be implemented on the ACS in 2020. Note: Hispanic origin and race are asked separately in accordance with the 1997 OMB standards on race and ethnicity. 000424 12 PRE-DECISIONAL Race* Asked since 1790 A question about a person's race to create statistics about race and to present other estimates by race groups. * This race question will be implemented on the ACS in 2020. Note: Hispanic origin and race are asked separately in accordance with the 1997 OMB standards on race and ethnicity. 000425 13 PRE-DECISIONAL Relationship* Asked since 1880 A question about the relationship of each person in a household to one central person is used to create estimates about families, households, and other groups, and to present other data at a household level. *This relationship question will be implemented 000426 on the ACS in 2019. 14 PRE-DECISIONAL Tenure (owner/renter) Asked since 1890 A question about whether a home is owned or rented is used to create data about tenure, renters, and home ownership. 000427 15 PRE-DECISIONAL Operational (number of people) Asked since 1790 Some operational questions are asked to better administer the data collection process and to ensure greater accuracy of the data collected. Contact information is not part of published estimates and is carefully protected, as mandated by federal law, to respect the personal information of respondents. 000428 16 PRE-DECISIONAL Questions Planned for the 2020 American Community Survey • Based on results of the 2016 ACS Content Test, changes to the questions about the following topics are planned for implementation on the 2019 ACS (and will be carried forward to the 2020 ACS): • • • • • • • • Telephone service Journey to work Weeks worked Class of worker Industry and Occupation Retirement income Relationship Health insurance premiums and subsidies (new question) • The ACS will implement the version of the race and Hispanic origin questions used on the 2020 Census on the 2020 ACS. 000429 17 Preparing the Questions Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey PRE-DECISIONAL Planned Timeline Activity Timeline  Federal agencies provide updates to Federal use documentation March – June 2016  Incorporate feedback into draft Planned Subjects document May – September 2016  Provide updates and conduct briefings January – March 2017  Planned Subjects document delivered* No later than March 31, 2017  Draft Planned Questions document September 2017 – January 2018 Provide updates and conduct briefings January – March 2018 Planned Questions document delivered* No later than March 31, 2018 American Community Survey Federal Register Notices (public comment period) December 2017 – February 2018, March – April 2018 2020 Census Federal Register Notices (public comment period) May – July 2018, August – September 2018 *2020 Island Areas Censuses Subjects and Questions are submitted via letter in the same period. 000430 18 PRE-DECISIONAL Outstanding Item • On December 12, 2017, the Department of Justice requested that citizenship be added to the 2020 Census short form, stating: • These “data are critical to the Department’s enforcement of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and its important protections against racial discrimination in voting. To fully enforce those requirements, the Department needs a reliable calculation of the citizen voting-age population in localities where voting rights violations are alleged or suspected.” • This request is currently under evaluation by the Department of Commerce. 000431 19 20 Questions? PRE-DECISIONAL 2020 Census and ACS Questions Document Development 2020 Census and ACS Subjects 2020 Census and ACS Questions 000433 21 PRE-DECISIONAL Subjects and Questions Planned for the 2020 Census and ACS Decennial Census Content Determination Process Content Reviews Following ACS Implementation: Program Review OMB Request (Sunstein Memo) ACS Program Review Periodic Reviews of Existing Content ACS implementation ACS Cognitive and Field Testing Census Cognitive and Field Testing 2000 Census 2010 Census 2020 Census Subjects Planned Questions Planned 1990 Questions Planned for 2000 Census New: Grandparents as Caregivers Removed: Sewage Disposal, Source of Water 2000 2010 Questions Planned for 2010 Census and ACS New: Health Insurance Coverage, VA Service-Connected Disability Rating Removed: Years of Military Service 2020 Questions Planned for 2020 Census and ACS New: Computer and Internet Use Removed: Business on Property, Flush Toilets 000434 22 PRE-DECISIONAL Submission of the 2020 Census and American Community Survey Questions to Congress Briefing for the Department of Commerce March 6, 2018 000435 1 PRE-DECISIONAL 2020 Census and American Community Survey Subjects and Questions Requirements • Section 141(f) of the Census Act requires that the subjects included in the next census be submitted to Congress no later than 3 years before the census date.  This document was issued on March 28, 2017. • The Census Act also requires that the questions included in the next census be submitted to Congress no later than 2 years before the census date.  A document that meets this requirement for the 2020 Census and the ACS will be submitted to Congress by March 31, 2018. 000436 2 PRE-DECISIONAL How a Question Becomes Part of the Census or American Community Survey Standard Considerations • The determination of content for the Decennial Census Program rests with the Secretary of Commerce. • Requests undergo legal, technical, and policy review to determine whether the question should be included. • If the question is not currently used in an ongoing survey, it is the Census Bureau standard develop and test the wording of the new question. • The Census Bureau must submit to Congress the planned questions for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey by March 31, 2018. • In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Census Bureau will publish a Federal Register Notice. 000437 3 PRE-DECISIONAL Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census As submitted in March 2017 • No changes to the 2020 Census subjects • • Same subjects included on the 2010 Census and Census 2000 short form 2020 Subjects • Age – asked since 1790 • Gender – asked since 1790 • Hispanic origin – asked since 1970 • Race – asked since 1790 • Relationship – asked since 1880 • Tenure (owner/renter) – asked since 1890 • Operational (e.g., name) – asked since 1790 Note: The 2020 Census short form will be administered in the 50 000438 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. 4 PRE-DECISIONAL Outstanding Item • On December 12, 2017, the Department of Justice requested that citizenship be added to the 2020 Census short form, stating: • These “data are critical to the Department’s enforcement of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and its important protections against racial discrimination in voting. To fully enforce those requirements, the Department needs a reliable calculation of the citizen voting-age population in localities where voting rights violations are alleged or suspected.” • This request is currently under evaluation by the Department of Commerce. 000439 5 Prepare and Deliver the Questions Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey PRE-DECISIONAL Planned Schedule Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Mar-4 Mar-5 Mar-6 Mar-7 Mar-8 Mar-9 Mar-10 Mar-11 Mar-12 Mar-13 Mar-14 Mar-15 Mar-16 Mar-17 Need decisions Mar-18 Mar-19 Mar-20 Mar-21 Mar-22 Mar-23 Mar-24 Mar-25 Mar-26 Mar-27 Mar-28 Mar-29 Mar-30 Document Good is Delivered Friday Mar-31 Final document layout takes 2-3 days. Printing takes 3 days. 000440 6 Finalize and Deliver the Questions Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey PRE-DECISIONAL Planned Timeline Activity Timeline ⚠ Finalize draft of the Planned Questions document March 1, 2018  Present at the 2020 Program Management Review January 26, 2018  Brief Census Executive Staff February 13, 2018  Brief the Office of Management and Budget February 22, 2018  Brief the Department of Commerce March 6, 2018 Brief the Interagency Council on Statistical Policy Subcommittee on the ACS March 14, 2018 Brief the Census Scientific Advisory Committee March 29, 2018 Brief the National Advisory Committee March-April 2018 Brief House and Senate Staffers April 2018 Planned Questions document delivered* No later than March 29, 2018 *2020 Island Areas Censuses Subjects and Questions are submitted via letter in the same period. 000441 7 Questions Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey PRE-DECISIONAL Document Outline Contents: • Introduction • Questions Planned for the 2020 Census • Questions Planned for the ACS • Year First Included in a Decennial Census or on the ACS Structure: • Question image (paper form) • Statement about why the question is asked (relationship to published data) • Paragraph summarizing federal government use of data derived from the question • Select summaries of types of community-level uses 000442 8 PRE-DECISIONAL Questions Planned for the 2020 Census Question Images • • • • • • • Age Gender Hispanic origin Race Relationship Tenure (owner/renter) Operational (number of people) 000443 9 PRE-DECISIONAL Age Asked since 1790 Answers to the age and date of birth question provide the data that help us understand the size of different age groups and how other characteristics may vary by age. 000444 10 PRE-DECISIONAL Gender Asked since 1790 A question about the gender of each person is used to create statistics about males and females and to present other data by gender. 000445 11 PRE-DECISIONAL Hispanic Origin* Asked since 1970 A question about whether a person is of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin is used to create statistics about this ethnic group. * This Hispanic origin question will be implemented on the ACS in 2020. Note: Hispanic origin and race are asked separately in accordance with the 1997 OMB standards on race and ethnicity. 000446 12 PRE-DECISIONAL Race* Asked since 1790 A question about a person's race to create statistics about race and to present other estimates by race groups. * This race question will be implemented on the ACS in 2020. Note: Hispanic origin and race are asked separately in accordance with the 1997 OMB standards on race and ethnicity. 000447 13 PRE-DECISIONAL Relationship* Asked since 1880 A question about the relationship of each person in a household to one central person is used to create estimates about families, households, and other groups, and to present other data at a household level. *This relationship question will be implemented 000448 on the ACS in 2019. 14 PRE-DECISIONAL Tenure (owner/renter) Asked since 1890 A question about whether a home is owned or rented is used to create data about tenure, renters, and home ownership. 000449 15 PRE-DECISIONAL Operational Asked since 1790 Some operational questions are asked to better administer the data collection process and to ensure greater accuracy of the data collected. Contact information is not part of published estimates and is carefully protected, as mandated by federal law, to respect the personal information of respondents. 000450 16 PRE-DECISIONAL Subjects Planned for the 2020 American Community Survey As submitted in March 2017 No changes to the ACS subjects. 2020 Subjects Operational Age Gender Race/Ethnicity Relationship Tenure Social Subjects Ancestry (1980) Disability (1830) Fertility (1890) Grandparent Caregivers (2000) Language Spoken at Home (1890) Marital Status (1880) Marital History (1850) Migration/Residence One Year Ago (Year first asked in the Decennial Census Program) Economic Subjects Journey to Work/Commuting (1960) Health Insurance (2008) Income (1940) Industry of Worker (1820) Occupation of Worker (1850) Class of Worker (1910) Labor Force Status (1890) Work Status Last Year (1880) Housing Subjects Acreage & Agricultural Sales (1960) Computer & Internet Use (2013) Home Heating Fuel (1940) Home Value & Rent (1940) Plumbing Facilities (1940) Kitchen Facilities (1940) Telephone Service (1960) Selected Monthly Owner Costs (1940-1990) (1930) Utilities, mortgage, etc. Place of Birth (1850) SNAP (2005) Food Stamps Citizenship (1820) Year of Entry (1890) School Enrollment (1850) Educational Attainment (1940) Undergraduate Field of Degree (2009) Veteran Status (1890) Veteran Period of Service and VA Service-Connected Disability (2008) Units in Structure (1940) Rooms (1940) Bedrooms (1960) Vehicles Available (1960) Year Built (1940) Year Moved In (1960) Note: The 2020 ACS (formerly the long form) will be administered in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The 2020 Island Areas 000451 Censuses will use the 2020 ACS as a base, which will be modified to better meet the needs of the Island Areas. 17 PRE-DECISIONAL Questions Planned for the 2020 American Community Survey • Based on results of the 2016 ACS Content Test, changes to the questions about the following topics are planned for implementation on the 2019 ACS (and will be carried forward to the 2020 ACS): • • • • • • • • Telephone service Journey to work Weeks worked Class of worker Industry and Occupation Retirement income Relationship Health insurance premiums and subsidies (new question) • The ACS will implement the version of the race and Hispanic origin questions used on the 2020 Census on the 2020 ACS. 000452 18 19 Questions? PRE-DECISIONAL 2020 Census and ACS Questions Document Development 2020 Census and ACS Subjects 2020 Census and ACS Questions 000454 20 PRE-DECISIONAL Subjects and Questions Planned for the 2020 Census and ACS Decennial Census Content Determination Process Content Reviews Following ACS Implementation: Program Review OMB Request (Sunstein Memo) ACS Program Review Periodic Reviews of Existing Content ACS implementation ACS Cognitive and Field Testing Census Cognitive and Field Testing 2000 Census 2010 Census 2020 Census Subjects Planned Questions Planned 1990 Questions Planned for 2000 Census New: Grandparents as Caregivers Removed: Sewage Disposal, Source of Water 2000 2010 Questions Planned for 2010 Census and ACS New: Health Insurance Coverage, VA Service-Connected Disability Rating Removed: Years of Military Service 2020 Questions Planned for 2020 Census and ACS New: Computer and Internet Use Removed: Business on Property, Flush Toilets 000455 21 Comparison of 2010 ACS and 2010 Decennial Census Response Rates by 2010 Numident Citizenship Status Self-response rate (%) Difference Row Percent Numident Status Census ACS Citizen 79.9 66.1 13.8 94.1 0.04 0.05 Non-citizen 71.5 52.6 18.9 5.9 0.19 0.21 Sources: 2010 ACS 1-year file and 2010 Decennial Census Unedited File (CUF), first mailout responses only. Notes: Unweighted percentages. The sample size is 929,000 households. Standard errors below response rates. DRB clearance CBDRB-2017-CDAR-001. Difference in difference is -5.1 with a standard error of 0.26 (N=929,000). 000456 2016 Internet Breakoff Rates (from Internet Paradata,weighted with base weight) Non Hispanic White Non Hispanic Non White Hispanic last_screen Percent* SE MOE Percent* SE MOE Percent* SE notbreakoff 90.52 0.0400 0.0658 85.93 0.1091 0.1795 82.41 0.1445 2ndmortgage 0.0707 0.0036 0.0059 0.0998 0.0114 0.0188 0.1590 0.0163 2ndmortgageamt 0.0223 0.0020 0.0033 0.0267 0.0054 0.0089 0.0233 0.0056 acres 0.0249 0.0021 0.0035 0.0533 0.0076 0.0125 0.0790 0.0121 activelookforwork 0.0124 0.0015 0.0025 0.0168 0.0036 0.0059 0.0306 0.0068 add_1 0.0000 0.0012 0.0012 0.0020 address 0.0034 0.0007 0.0012 0.0066 0.0023 0.0038 0.0012 0.0012 addresslastyear 0.0716 0.0038 0.0063 0.1049 0.0089 0.0146 0.1383 0.0146 agrsales 0.0125 0.0013 0.0021 0.0095 0.0029 0.0048 0.0242 0.0062 ancestry 0.1274 0.0049 0.0081 0.0840 0.0092 0.0151 0.1568 0.0138 another_home 0.0000 0.0000 another_home_who 0.0000 0.0000 anywork 0.0144 0.0018 0.0030 0.0337 0.0054 0.0089 0.0352 0.0060 attendschool 0.0828 0.0036 0.0059 0.1757 0.0132 0.0217 0.1846 0.0164 away_now 0.0003 0.0002 0.0003 0.0000 birth 0.0071 0.0010 0.0016 0.0152 0.0037 0.0061 0.0157 0.0048 blind 0.0461 0.0027 0.0044 0.0825 0.0089 0.0146 0.0826 0.0113 business 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002 0.0000 businessclass 0.0376 0.0027 0.0044 0.0543 0.0073 0.0120 0.0878 0.0120 citizenship 0.0352 0.0025 0.0041 0.2678 0.0159 0.0262 0.3628 0.0256 compuse 0.0257 0.0018 0.0030 0.0451 0.0071 0.0117 0.0433 0.0080 condo 0.0132 0.0014 0.0023 0.0222 0.0044 0.0072 0.0397 0.0085 condofee 0.0016 0.0008 0.0013 0.0011 0.0008 0.0013 0.0044 0.0025 condofeeamt 0.0031 0.0007 0.0012 0.0014 0.0012 0.0020 0.0043 0.0021 couldwork 0.0057 0.0009 0.0015 0.0091 0.0030 0.0049 0.0204 0.0048 dateofbirth 0.0108 0.0015 0.0025 0.0174 0.0037 0.0061 0.0224 0.0063 deaf 0.0303 0.0022 0.0036 0.0303 0.0049 0.0081 0.0611 0.0091 difficultyconcent 0.037 0.0029 0.0048 0.0663 0.0085 0.0140 0.0418 0.0062 difficultydress 0.0579 0.0031 0.0051 0.0563 0.0067 0.0110 0.1020 0.0123 difficultyerrand 0.0458 0.0029 0.0048 0.0563 0.0069 0.0114 0.0764 0.0120 difficultywalk 0.0351 0.0025 0.0041 0.0380 0.0069 0.0114 0.0510 0.0079 MOE 0.2377 0.0268 0.0092 0.0199 0.0112 0.0000 0.0020 0.0240 0.0102 0.0227 0.0000 0.0000 0.0099 0.0270 0.0000 0.0079 0.0186 0.0000 0.0197 0.0421 0.0132 0.0140 0.0041 0.0035 0.0079 0.0104 0.0150 0.0102 0.0202 0.0197 0.0130 Missing Data Percent* SE 17.06 0.4003 0.0358 0.0161 0.0725 0.0240 0.0241 0.0125 0.0411 0.0213 0.2677 0.0326 0.0192 0.0481 0.0280 0.0043 0.0077 0.0620 0.0209 0.0077 0.0121 0.0423 0.0149 0.0140 0.0239 0.0168 0.0043 0.0077 0.0235 0.0153 0.0077 0.0089 0.0202 0.0465 0.0273 0.0208 0.0150 0.0262 0.0152 0.0152 0.0243 40.6823 0.0390 0.0077 0.0209 0.0679 0.0492 0.0156 0.4465 0.0154 0.0077 0.0153 0.0238 0.0253 000457 disabilityrate divorce duties elecamt elecinc elecpay employeetype employer englishprof estincome facilities fieldofdegree fiftymoreweeks finalize finishedperson foodstamps gasamt gasinc gaspay gasuse grandchildrenhome grandparentsresp heatingfuel highestlevel hispanic hoursworked hunitstatus insurance interest interestamt language lastworked layoff lengthofresp 0.0062 0.0161 0.1432 0.0931 0.0056 0.0434 0.2209 0.092 0.0034 0.0644 0.0239 0.0686 0.0576 0 0.2479 0.0135 0.0181 0.0055 0.0208 0.0061 0.0122 0.0011 0.0168 0.1666 0.0043 0.1017 0.0017 0.1875 0.2086 0.1234 0.0294 0.0484 0.0086 0.0006 0.0009 0.0016 0.0046 0.0036 0.0009 0.0028 0.0070 0.0045 0.0007 0.0035 0.0018 0.0038 0.0029 0.0000 0.0056 0.0015 0.0017 0.0011 0.0017 0.0009 0.0014 0.0003 0.0019 0.0051 0.0008 0.0034 0.0006 0.0062 0.0060 0.0052 0.0019 0.0031 0.0012 0.0003 0.0015 0.0026 0.0076 0.0059 0.0015 0.0046 0.0115 0.0074 0.0012 0.0058 0.0030 0.0063 0.0048 0.0000 0.0092 0.0025 0.0028 0.0018 0.0028 0.0015 0.0023 0.0005 0.0031 0.0084 0.0013 0.0056 0.0010 0.0102 0.0099 0.0086 0.0031 0.0051 0.0020 0.0005 0.0098 0.0282 0.2228 0.1465 0.0063 0.0684 0.3665 0.1440 0.0195 0.0813 0.0461 0.0730 0.0948 0.0007 0.4049 0.0391 0.0221 0.0079 0.0277 0.0092 0.0158 0.0007 0.0338 0.2567 0.0091 0.1802 0.0020 0.3305 0.1788 0.0769 0.0502 0.0685 0.0151 0.0008 0.0033 0.0057 0.0145 0.0112 0.0023 0.0087 0.0184 0.0125 0.0050 0.0085 0.0064 0.0085 0.0096 0.0007 0.0210 0.0053 0.0049 0.0026 0.0061 0.0028 0.0038 0.0007 0.0052 0.0151 0.0028 0.0127 0.0014 0.0155 0.0129 0.0079 0.0079 0.0085 0.0040 0.0007 0.0054 0.0094 0.0239 0.0184 0.0038 0.0143 0.0303 0.0206 0.0082 0.0140 0.0105 0.0140 0.0158 0.0012 0.0345 0.0087 0.0081 0.0043 0.0100 0.0046 0.0063 0.0012 0.0086 0.0248 0.0046 0.0209 0.0023 0.0255 0.0212 0.0130 0.0130 0.0140 0.0066 0.0012 0.0065 0.0302 0.2657 0.1620 0.0098 0.1109 0.3990 0.1855 0.0359 0.1528 0.0529 0.0525 0.1123 0.0006 0.5694 0.0292 0.0292 0.0064 0.0350 0.0115 0.0207 0.0067 0.0327 0.2981 0.0065 0.1953 0.0018 0.3364 0.2418 0.0616 0.0542 0.0995 0.0153 0.0032 0.0061 0.0199 0.0145 0.0030 0.0127 0.0253 0.0159 0.0065 0.0129 0.0088 0.0096 0.0130 0.0006 0.0241 0.0069 0.0065 0.0029 0.0072 0.0038 0.0053 0.0026 0.0074 0.0190 0.0026 0.0173 0.0018 0.0195 0.0203 0.0107 0.0093 0.0145 0.0052 0.0053 0.0100 0.0327 0.0239 0.0049 0.0209 0.0416 0.0262 0.0107 0.0212 0.0145 0.0158 0.0214 0.0010 0.0396 0.0114 0.0107 0.0048 0.0118 0.0063 0.0087 0.0043 0.0122 0.0313 0.0043 0.0285 0.0030 0.0321 0.0334 0.0176 0.0153 0.0239 0.0086 0.0000 0.0286 0.0232 0.0195 0.0071 0.0154 0.0988 0.0175 0.0171 0.0134 0.0129 0.0071 0.0109 0.0311 0.0108 0.0043 0.0280 0.0043 0.0168 0.0373 0.0200 0.1358 0.0273 0.0131 0.0077 0.0043 0.0461 0.0269 0.0357 0.0138 0.0131 0.0077 0.0043 0.0220 0.0160 0.0263 0.2119 3.0989 0.0280 0.0047 0.1200 0.0612 0.0198 0.0031 0.0409 0.0164 0.0157 0.0474 0.1696 0.0169 0.0047 0.0272 0.0236 0.0144 0.0022 0.0197 0.0128 000458 live liveu marriedstatus meals militaryemployer mintowork mobilehometax monthrent mortgage mortgageamt mortgageinsurance mortgagetax netaccess netsub numberofmarriages numberofriders ofuelamt ofuelinc ofuelpay ofueluse otherincome otherincomeamt periodofservice pin placeofbirth pmarried propinsurance propvalue pselect publicasst publicasstamt race recalltowork recovery 0.0002 0.001 0.0103 0.0253 0.0002 0.0399 0.0068 0.0116 0.0516 0.0602 0.0111 0.0174 0.022 0.0419 0.0391 0.0534 0.0035 0.0014 0.0038 0.0139 0.0607 0.0104 0.0073 0.0011 0.4475 0.0131 0.1275 0.0744 1.3214 0.0389 0.0042 0.0308 0.0026 0.0003 0.0001 0.0005 0.0015 0.0020 0.0002 0.0026 0.0009 0.0015 0.0026 0.0033 0.0012 0.0019 0.0021 0.0023 0.0029 0.0029 0.0007 0.0005 0.0007 0.0013 0.0028 0.0012 0.0012 0.0004 0.0091 0.0014 0.0044 0.0033 0.0156 0.0026 0.0008 0.0020 0.0007 0.0002 0.0002 0.0008 0.0025 0.0033 0.0003 0.0043 0.0015 0.0025 0.0043 0.0054 0.0020 0.0031 0.0035 0.0038 0.0048 0.0048 0.0012 0.0008 0.0012 0.0021 0.0046 0.0020 0.0020 0.0007 0.0150 0.0023 0.0072 0.0054 0.0257 0.0043 0.0013 0.0033 0.0012 0.0003 0.0264 0.0702 0.0012 0.0516 0.0071 0.0299 0.0671 0.0648 0.0199 0.0206 0.0464 0.0602 0.0416 0.0588 0.0001 0.0005 0.0015 0.0330 0.0831 0.0184 0.0136 0.0033 0.7656 0.0266 0.1150 0.0883 2.0959 0.0496 0.0096 0.0791 0.0016 0.0050 0.0075 0.0012 0.0071 0.0027 0.0052 0.0080 0.0078 0.0044 0.0052 0.0057 0.0084 0.0049 0.0063 0.0001 0.0005 0.0011 0.0051 0.0093 0.0039 0.0037 0.0019 0.0255 0.0053 0.0107 0.0082 0.0419 0.0065 0.0028 0.0101 0.0009 0.0000 0.0000 0.0082 0.0123 0.0020 0.0117 0.0044 0.0086 0.0132 0.0128 0.0072 0.0086 0.0094 0.0138 0.0081 0.0104 0.0002 0.0008 0.0018 0.0084 0.0153 0.0064 0.0061 0.0031 0.0419 0.0087 0.0176 0.0135 0.0689 0.0107 0.0046 0.0166 0.0015 0.0000 0.0012 0.0362 0.0947 0.0018 0.0561 0.0129 0.0209 0.0999 0.0540 0.0242 0.0203 0.0512 0.0683 0.0994 0.0935 0.0012 0.0062 0.0108 0.0018 0.0078 0.0042 0.0050 0.0124 0.0096 0.0059 0.0070 0.0095 0.0100 0.0113 0.0109 0.0011 0.0040 0.0226 0.1161 0.0208 0.0129 0.0011 0.0028 0.0058 0.0139 0.0061 0.0038 0.9614 0.0246 0.1530 0.1286 2.5070 0.0787 0.0171 0.1030 0.0012 0.0388 0.0065 0.0150 0.0154 0.0656 0.0106 0.0041 0.0105 0.0012 0.0000 0.0020 0.0102 0.0178 0.0030 0.0128 0.0069 0.0082 0.0204 0.0158 0.0097 0.0115 0.0156 0.0165 0.0186 0.0179 0.0000 0.0018 0.0046 0.0095 0.0229 0.0100 0.0063 0.0000 0.0638 0.0107 0.0247 0.0253 0.1079 0.0174 0.0067 0.0173 0.0020 0.0000 0.0504 0.0077 0.0257 0.0238 0.0077 0.0149 0.0319 0.0071 0.0252 0.0521 0.0131 0.0077 0.0187 0.0071 0.0158 0.0204 0.0131 0.0077 0.0195 0.0071 0.0098 0.0132 0.0115 0.0071 0.0076 0.0132 0.0019 0.0235 0.0280 0.0019 0.0155 0.0169 0.0131 0.0192 0.2188 0.0350 0.0509 0.0178 0.4710 0.0226 0.0131 0.0099 0.0418 0.0255 0.0242 0.0140 0.0848 0.0131 2.7677 0.0201 0.0301 0.1553 0.0119 0.0167 000459 ref_per relationship remove_one residencelastyear resp_name retirement retirementamt rooms roster_a roster_b roster_c roster_check security selfemp selfempamt sex socialsecurity socialsecurityamt ssi ssiamt taxes tempabsent tenure thankyoubusiness timeleftforwork totalincome transporttowork typeofbusiness typeofunit typeofwork vadisability vehicles veteranstat vrfyincome 0.1361 0.048 0.0044 0.0028 0.1039 0.004 0.049 0.0207 0.0659 0.0011 0.0005 0.0002 0.0229 0.0095 0.0906 0.0396 0.0111 0.0824 0.0972 0.0425 0.0057 0.1637 0.0085 0.0401 0.0007 0.124 0.1081 0.0368 0.0506 0.0352 0.076 0.009 0.0184 0.0399 0.1983 0.0044 0.0009 0.0030 0.0017 0.0031 0.0004 0.0002 0.0002 0.0021 0.0010 0.0033 0.0027 0.0012 0.0039 0.0036 0.0030 0.0008 0.0055 0.0013 0.0021 0.0004 0.0047 0.0040 0.0026 0.0030 0.0021 0.0039 0.0011 0.0018 0.0026 0.0064 0.0072 0.0046 0.0000 0.0072 0.0015 0.0049 0.0028 0.0051 0.0007 0.0003 0.0003 0.0035 0.0016 0.0054 0.0044 0.0020 0.0064 0.0059 0.0049 0.0013 0.0090 0.0021 0.0035 0.0007 0.0077 0.0066 0.0043 0.0049 0.0035 0.0064 0.0018 0.0030 0.0043 0.0105 0.1797 0.0756 0.0133 0.0083 0.1822 0.0023 0.0493 0.0359 0.1091 0.0029 0.0010 0.0004 0.0227 0.0109 0.0990 0.0339 0.0174 0.0945 0.0808 0.0568 0.0125 0.1824 0.0207 0.0581 0.0139 0.0017 0.0078 0.0052 0.0097 0.0018 0.0008 0.0004 0.0041 0.0031 0.0093 0.0066 0.0035 0.0087 0.0101 0.0063 0.0037 0.0140 0.0045 0.0070 0.1701 0.1161 0.0507 0.0937 0.0634 0.0866 0.0125 0.0272 0.0638 0.2625 0.0133 0.0111 0.0079 0.0100 0.0072 0.0083 0.0036 0.0048 0.0076 0.0159 0.0219 0.0137 0.0000 0.0229 0.0028 0.0128 0.0086 0.0160 0.0030 0.0013 0.0007 0.0067 0.0051 0.0153 0.0109 0.0058 0.0143 0.0166 0.0104 0.0061 0.0230 0.0074 0.0115 0.0000 0.0219 0.0183 0.0130 0.0165 0.0118 0.0137 0.0059 0.0079 0.0125 0.0262 0.2258 0.1053 0.0196 0.0109 0.2321 0.0006 0.0700 0.0166 0.1456 0.0163 0.0006 0.0104 0.0048 0.0129 0.0018 0.0013 0.0377 0.0224 0.1663 0.0255 0.0277 0.1405 0.0843 0.0629 0.0076 0.2593 0.0096 0.0967 0.0073 0.0055 0.0165 0.0056 0.0083 0.0142 0.0105 0.0088 0.0029 0.0194 0.0032 0.0117 0.1899 0.1408 0.0653 0.0805 0.0843 0.1322 0.0042 0.0337 0.0676 0.3678 0.0151 0.0139 0.0092 0.0108 0.0099 0.0161 0.0025 0.0081 0.0098 0.0213 0.0322 0.0179 0.0000 0.0268 0.0010 0.0171 0.0079 0.0212 0.0000 0.0021 0.0000 0.0120 0.0090 0.0271 0.0092 0.0137 0.0234 0.0173 0.0145 0.0048 0.0319 0.0053 0.0192 0.0000 0.0248 0.0229 0.0151 0.0178 0.0163 0.0265 0.0041 0.0133 0.0161 0.0350 10.5385 6.9910 0.0035 0.0572 0.0359 0.0377 0.0132 0.0959 0.0377 0.0270 0.0263 2.6231 0.1912 0.0175 0.0121 10.5951 0.0542 0.0154 0.0370 0.2792 0.2275 0.0034 0.0226 0.0176 0.0200 0.0132 0.0319 0.0205 0.0161 0.0186 0.1678 0.0466 0.0139 0.0121 0.2981 0.0225 0.0109 0.0180 0.0181 0.0417 0.0564 0.0113 0.0264 0.0208 0.0227 0.1488 0.0153 0.0311 0.0830 0.0090 0.0174 0.0168 0.0716 0.0395 0.0287 0.0078 0.0138 0.0100 0.0274 0.0241 000460 wages wagesamt wateramt waterinc waterpay weeksworked welcomeback whatgrade whatlanguage whenmovedin widow worklastweek worklocal yearbuilt yearofentry yearofmarriage 0.3651 0.5887 0.0672 0.0056 0.0377 0.0405 0.0281 0.0126 0.0052 0.0868 0.0147 0.2567 0.6416 0.0554 0.0219 0.0559 0.0092 0.0101 0.0031 0.0010 0.0023 0.0027 0.0021 0.0016 0.0009 0.0039 0.0016 0.0060 0.0108 0.0029 0.0019 0.0029 0.0151 0.0166 0.0051 0.0016 0.0038 0.0044 0.0035 0.0026 0.0015 0.0064 0.0026 0.0099 0.0178 0.0048 0.0031 0.0048 0.4589 0.6908 0.0821 0.0144 0.0538 0.0561 0.0269 0.0319 0.0111 0.1689 0.0188 0.4066 1.0446 0.1233 0.1193 0.1044 0.0197 0.0286 0.0088 0.0036 0.0063 0.0072 0.0047 0.0054 0.0034 0.0132 0.0037 0.0162 0.0322 0.0105 0.0092 0.0094 0.0324 0.0470 0.0145 0.0059 0.0104 0.0118 0.0077 0.0089 0.0056 0.0217 0.0061 0.0266 0.0530 0.0173 0.0151 0.0155 0.5903 0.7509 0.0797 0.0048 0.0681 0.0735 0.0702 0.0366 0.0361 0.1996 0.0244 0.5969 1.2457 0.1591 0.2599 0.1082 0.0277 0.0315 0.0108 0.0026 0.0080 0.0098 0.0107 0.0069 0.0092 0.0163 0.0065 0.0244 0.0379 0.0159 0.0207 0.0116 0.0456 0.0518 0.0178 0.0043 0.0132 0.0161 0.0176 0.0114 0.0151 0.0268 0.0107 0.0401 0.0623 0.0262 0.0341 0.0191 0.0569 0.0396 0.0150 0.0330 0.0019 0.0334 0.6223 0.0220 0.0210 0.0132 0.0194 0.0019 0.0235 0.0791 0.0203 0.0825 0.0043 0.0573 0.1133 0.0330 0.0202 0.0150 0.0289 0.0043 0.0233 0.0372 0.0174 0.0119 cit/pob/yoe combine 0.5045 0.0097 0.0160 1.1526 0.0330 0.0543 1.5841 0.0480 0.0790 0.2855 0.0484 * The numerator is the breakoff at each questions and the denominator is the total of times that question was reached. 000461 a MOE 0.6585 0.0265 0.0395 0.0206 0.0350 0.0000 0.0696 0.0245 0.0230 0.0393 0.0276 0.0071 0.0127 0.0387 0.0252 0.0127 0.0146 0.0000 0.0247 0.0431 0.0250 0.0250 0.0000 0.0000 0.0257 0.7345 0.0253 0.0127 0.0252 0.0392 0.0416 000462 0.0000 0.0281 0.0220 0.0212 0.0117 0.0179 0.0512 0.0178 0.0000 0.0071 0.0276 0.0000 0.0329 0.0000 0.0587 0.0227 0.0215 0.0127 0.0071 0.0362 0.0263 0.0000 0.0258 0.0780 0.2790 0.0278 0.0077 0.0447 0.0388 0.0237 0.0036 0.0324 0.0211 0.0000 000463 0.0000 0.0392 0.0127 0.0245 0.0000 0.0308 0.0117 0.0260 0.0336 0.0215 0.0127 0.0000 0.0189 0.0117 0.0125 0.0217 0.0000 0.0000 0.0031 0.0255 0.0278 0.0000 0.0215 0.0163 0.0688 0.0419 0.0398 0.0230 0.1395 0.0215 0.0000 0.2555 0.0196 0.0275 000464 0.4593 0.3742 0.0056 0.0372 0.0290 0.0329 0.0217 0.0525 0.0337 0.0265 0.0306 0.2760 0.0767 0.0229 0.0199 0.4904 0.0370 0.0179 0.0296 0.0000 0.0186 0.0434 0.0342 0.0000 0.0252 0.0512 0.0000 0.0000 0.0472 0.0128 0.0227 0.0165 0.0451 0.0396 000465 0.0362 0.0345 0.0217 0.0319 0.0031 0.0387 0.1301 0.0000 0.0247 0.0475 0.0071 0.0383 0.0612 0.0286 0.0196 0.0000 0.0796 000466 ACS Item Allocation Rates for United States: 2016, Title Overall housing allocation rate occupied and vacant housing units Overall person allocation rate total population Vacancy status vacant housing units Tenure occupied housing units Units in structure occupied and vacant housing units Year moved in occupied housing units Month moved in occupied housing units into which households move in the last two years Year built occupied and vacant housing units Lot size occupied and vacant single family and mobile homes Agricultural sales occupied and vacant single family and mobile homes with lot size greater than or equal to 1 acre Business on property occupied and vacant single family and mobile homes Number of rooms occupied and vacant housing units Number of bedrooms occupied and vacant housing units Running water occupied and vacant housing units Flush toilet occupied and vacant housing units Bathtub or shower occupied and vacant housing units Sink with a faucet occupied and vacant housing units Stove or range occupied and vacant housing units Refrigerator occupied and vacant housing units Telephone 2016 4.9 9.5 3.9 1.2 1.5 3 0.7 18.2 3.9 4 ** 5 5.5 2.4 ** 2.6 2.6 3.1 3.2 000467 occupied housing units Number of vehicles occupied housing units Heating fuel occupied housing units Monthly electricity cost occupied housing units Monthly gas cost occupied housing units Yearly water and sewer cost occupied housing units Yearly other fuel cost occupied housing units Yearly food stamp recipiency - household occupied housing units Yearly real estate taxes owner-occupied housing units Yearly property insurance owner-occupied housing units Mortgage status owner-occupied housing units Monthly mortgage payment owner-occupied housing units with a mortgage Mortgage payment incl. real estate taxes owner-occupied housing units with a mortgage Mortgage payment incl. insurance owner-occupied housing units with a mortgage Second mortgage owner-occupied housing units Home equity loan owner-occupied housing units Other monthly mortgage payment(s) 1.5 1.2 3.4 8.1 9.6 8.5 7.3 1.7 16.7 23.9 2.2 10.5 6.2 6.8 3.2 3.7 owner-occupied housing units with second mortgage or home equity loan Property value owner-occupied housing units and vacant housing units for sale Yearly mobile home costs occupied mobile homes and other units Monthly condominium fee owner-occupied housing units Monthly rent 23.3 occupied housing units rented for cash rent and vacant housing units for rent Meals included in rent 10.5 11.6 21.7 0.8 000468 occupied housing units rented for cash rent and vacant housing units for rent Desktop/laptop/notebook computer occupied housing units Handheld computer/smart mobile phone occupied housing units Tablet or other portable wireless computer occupied housing units Smartphone occupied housing units Other computer occupied housing units Household has internet access occupied housing units Dial-up internet service occupied housing units with internet access DSL internet service occupied housing units with internet access Cable modem internet service occupied housing units with internet access Fiber-optic internet service occupied housing units with internet access Cellular data plan (formerly mobile broadband) occupied housing units with internet access Satellite internet service occupied housing units with internet access High speed internet service occupied housing units with internet accesss Some other internet service occupied housing units with internet access Race total population Hispanic origin total population Sex total population Age total population Relationship total household population Marital status total population 15 years and over Married past 12 months total population 15 years and over, except those never married 2.1 1.3 ** 1.6 1.6 1.7 3.3 3.8 ** ** ** 7.6 3.8 3.8 3.8 1.5 1.8 0.1 1.7 1.2 5.3 6.9 000469 Widowed past 12 months total population 15 years and over, except those never married Divorced past 12 months total population 15 years and over, except those never married Times married total population 15 years and over, except those never married Year last married total population 15 years and over, except those never married Place of birth total population Citizenship total population Year of naturalization total population naturalized citizens Year of entry total population not born in US Speaks another language at home total population 5 years and over Language spoken 7.4 7.4 8.1 13.5 9.1 6 22.5 14.8 6.8 total population 5 years and over who speak another language at home English ability 8.3 total population 5 years and over who speak another language at home School enrollment total population 3 years and over Grade level attending total population 3 years and over enrolled Educational attainment total population 3 years and over Field of degree 7.1 total population 25 years and over with a bachelor's degree or higher Mobility status total population 1 years and over Migration state/foreign county total population 1 years and over movers Migration county total population 1 years and over movers within US Migration minor civil division total population 1 years and over movers within US Migration place total population 1 years and over movers within US Health insurance thru employer/union 6.7 10.2 8.5 13.5 7.2 13.2 14.6 14.2 15 000470 total population Health insurance purchased directly total population Health insurance through Medicare total population Health insurance through Medicaid total population Health insurance through TRICARE total population Health insurance through VA total population Health ins. thru Indian Health Service total population Visual difficulty  total population Hearing difficulty  total population Physical difficulty  total population 5 years and over Difficulty remembering  total population 5 years and over Difficulty dressing  total population 5 years and over Difficulty going out  total population 16 years and over Grandchildren living in home noninstitutionalized population 30 years and over Responsibility for grandchildren noninstitutionalized population 30 years and over who are grandparents with grandchildren in the home Months responsible for grandchildren noninstitutionalized population 30 years and over who are grandparents with grandchildren in the home that have responsibility Fertility status female total population 15-50 Veteran status total population 17 years and over Periods of military service total population 17 years and over on active duty now or previously Service-connected disability rating total population 17 years and over, except those who never served in the Armed Forces Service-connected disability rating value 10.7 11.3 9.5 12.2 12.5 12.3 12.8 7.1 6.8 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.3 1.1 17.7 17.2 7.8 7.3 9.7 6.8 000471 total population 17 years and over with a service-connected disability Employment status recode noninstitutionalized population 16 years and over When last worked noninstitutionalized population 16 years and over Weeks worked in the past 12 months noninstitutionalized population 16 years and over who worked in the past 12 months Hours worked per week noninstitutionalized population 16 years and over who worked in the past 12 months Place of work state/foreign county 0.2 8.7 9.6 10.6 11.9 noninstitutionalized population 16 years and over at work last week Place of work county 11.8 noninstitutionalized population 16 years and over at work last week Place of work minor civil division 12.5 noninstitutionalized population 16 years and over at work last week Place of work place 3.6 noninstitutionalized population 16 years and over at work last week Transportation to work 13.1 noninstitutionalized population 16 years and over at work last week Carpool size noninstitutionalized population 16 years and over at work last week who drive to work Time of departure noninstitutionalized population 16 years and over at work last week who don't work at home Commuting time noninstitutionalized population 16 years and over at work last week who don't work at home Class of worker total population 16 years and over who worked in the last 5 years Industry total population 16 years and over who worked in the last 5 years Occupation total population 16 years and over who worked in the last 5 years Wages/salary income total population 15 years and over 9.6 10.9 20.2 14.5 11.7 12.7 13.4 19.1 000472 Self-employment income total population 15 years and over Interest, dividends, etc. income total population 15 years and over Social security or railroad retirement total population 15 years and over Supplemental security income total population 15 years and over Public assistance total population 15 years and over Retirement income total population 15 years and over Other income total population 15 years and over Some or all income allocated total population 15 years and over 10.5 15.2 14.5 12.7 13.2 13.6 13.2 28.4 Source: ACS 1-year data. See following links for more information: https://www.census.gov/acs/www/methodology/sample-size-and-data-quality/item-allocation-rat https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/methodology/sample-size-and-data-quality/item-a Note: ** X0AT This item was not asked in this year. 000473 , 2013, 2010 2013 2010 5.6 5.2 8.4 5.8 3.5 2.9 1.3 1.2 1.5 1.5 3 3.4 0.7 0.7 17.1 16.2 3.9 4.2 4.2 4.4 2.4 3 5.5 5.2 4.6 4.3 2.1 2 2.2 2 2.2 2 2.2 2 2.8 2.5 2.9 2.7 000474 1.2 1.1 1.4 1.3 3.4 3.3 8.2 7.3 9.9 9.8 8.8 8.1 8.3 10.6 1.7 1.3 18.5 16.3 25.6 23.2 2.5 2.1 12.4 10.7 6.9 (X) 7.4 (X) 3.7 3.4 4.3 4.2 21.7 17.9 12.9 12.3 21.5 19.9 0.8 0.7 9.8 9.3 000475 2.1 2 3.2 ** 3.3 ** ** ** ** ** 3.7 ** 4.4 ** 5.7 ** 5.7 ** 5.7 ** 5.7 ** 26.7 ** 5.7 ** ** ** 5.7 ** 1.6 1.5 2.1 1.8 0.1 0.1 1.6 1.3 1.1 1.2 4.8 3 6.6 4.7 000476 7 4.5 7 4.5 7.8 5.1 13.3 11.4 8.6 6.5 5.2 2.7 22.5 16.6 13.2 10.3 5.9 3.4 7 5.7 5.9 4 6 3.7 8.9 6 8 5.6 12.4 9.8 6.5 4 11.3 7.1 12.5 8.3 12.1 8.4 12.9 8.8 000477 9 6.2 9.7 6.9 8.1 5.2 10.5 7.9 10.8 8.1 10.7 8.1 11.1 8.5 6.1 3.4 5.9 3.2 6.7 3.5 6.7 3.5 6.7 3.5 6.5 3.4 1 0.9 15.7 12 16.1 14.9 6.7 3.7 6.8 3.8 9.3 6.3 6.6 3.9 000478 0.2 0.7 8.1 5.1 9.1 5.7 9.7 6.9 10.8 7.7 10.4 6.3 11 7 3.3 2.1 11.6 7.6 8.8 5.7 9.9 6.8 18.5 12.8 13.3 9.7 10.7 7.2 11.4 7.8 11.8 8.1 19 16 000479 9.3 5.9 12.6 8.8 12.3 8.9 10.3 6.7 10.5 6.8 11.1 7.5 10.8 7.4 25.3 22.4 es/ allocation-rates-definitions.html 000480 Percent of ACS Response by Mode: 2010-2017 42.3 7.9 49.8 2010 43.5 8 48.8 2011 43 43 43.6 42.8 42.3 42.3 7.3 6.1 5.1 4.5 3.9 2.6 20.7 19.7 CAPI CATI 18.6 Mail Internet 22.7 21.6 29.7 31.9 34.2 36.5 28.3 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017* 49.7 2012 * 2017 data are preliminary 000481 1 Response Rates and Rea Year 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 Housing Unit Response Rate Refusal 94.7 95.8 96.7 89.9 97.3 97.6 97.5 98 97.9 97.7 97.5 97.3 93.1 96.7 97.7 96.7 95.1 Unable to Locate 2.1 2 1.6 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 0.8 0.8 0.9 1 1 1 1.7 1 1.3 1.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0 0 0 Response Rates and Rea Year 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 Group Quarters (Person) Response GQ Person Refusal Rate 95.7 1.2 95.3 1.3 95.9 1.2 95.2 1.1 95.1 0.9 96.9 0.8 97.6 0.9 98 0.9 98 0.5 97.8 0.4 97.4 0.8 Unable to Locate GQ Person 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 Note: As a result of the 2013 government shutdown, the ACS did not have a second mailing States, paper questionnaire in Puerto Rico) contribute to the overall response for this pane housing unit response rate rises to 97.1%. Similarly, due to a reduction in funding in 2004, t response rate. 000482 asons for Noninterviews (in percent) - Housing Units - United Response Rates and Reasons for Noninterviews No One Home Temporarily Absent 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.7 1.1 Language Problem 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 Insufficient Data 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.7 1 sons for Noninterviews (in percent) - Group Quarters - Unite Response Rates and Reasons for Noninterviews Resident Temporarily Absent 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Language Problem Insufficient Data 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0 0.1 GQ Person Other 0.9 1.5 1 1.6 2.2 0.7 0.4 0.4 1 1.2 0.6 g, a telephone followup, or a person followup operation for the October 2013 housing unit panel. On el. This caused a drop in the annual housing unit response rate of about 7 percentage points. If we ex the telephone and personal visit followup operations for the January 2004 panel were dropped, whic 000483 d States Maximum Contact Attempts Reached Other 1.1 0.7 0.8 0.6 7.9 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 4.7 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ed States Whole GQ Refusal Whole GQ Other 1 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.3 0 0 0.2 nly respondents from the first mailing (Internet in the United clude the October panel from the calculation, the annual ch resulted in a comparable effect on the overall 2004 000484 usnag-gs} Community SURVEY People are our most important resource. This Census Bureau survey collects information about education, employment. income. and housing?information your plan and fund programs_ Your This form asks for three types of information: 0 basic information about the people who are living or staying at the address on the mailing abel above response IS a specific information about this house. apartment. or mobile - home Important. and we 0 more detailed information about each person living or staying here keep your answers What is your name? Please PRINT the name of the person who is ?lling out this form. Include the telephone number so we can contact you if there is a question. and today's date. Last Name confidential. First Name MI If you need help or have questions Area Code Number about completing this form, please call 1-800-354-7271. The telephone call is free. Telephone Device for the Deaf Call 1-800-582-8330. The telephone call is free. ENECESITA 5" usted habla ESPBFIOI How many people are living or staying at this address? necesita ayuda para completar su cuestionario, Ilame sin cargo alguno al 1?800-354?7271. Number Of Date (Monthmanyear) For more information about the American site at. 0 Please turn to the next page to continue. rum OMB No. 0607-0310 300?] Approval Expires lOi'31f2002 000485 List of Residents READ THESE INSTRUCTIONS FIRST Please out form as soon as possible alter receiving it in the mail. . LIST everyone who is or sta Ing here for more than months. LIST anyone else staying here who does not have another usual place to stay. DO NOT anyone who is living somewhere else for more than 2 months. such as a College student away. If lace is a vacat on home or a temporary residence where no one in this household stays for more than 2 months. do not list any names In the of Residents. Complete onl pages 4. 5. and an return the form. IF YOU ARE NOT SURE WHOM TO LIST. CALL 1-800-354-727l. If there are more than five people. list them here. We may call for more informat on about them. 0 After you've created the List of Residents. answer the questions across the top of the page for the first five people on the list. ?that What is this person's How is this resort related Is this date of birth and what to Person person's is this person's age? Print numbers in boxes. Last Name {Please print) Month Day Year of birth Person 1 (Person 1 is the person living or staying 0 Male here in whose name this house or Female apartment is owned, being bought, or First Name MI Age (in years) rented. it there is no such person, start with the name of any adult living or staying here.) Relationship of Person 2 to Person 1. Last Name (Please print) Day Year 0" birth 0 Husband or wife 0 ?oomer. board" 0 Son or daughter Housemate. 0 Ma" Brother or sister [3 Female Father or mother nmarr partner First Name MI Grandchild In- law Other nonrelative Other relative Relationship of Person 3 to Person 1. Last Name [Please print} Month Day Year of birth 0 Husband or wife 0 Boomer, boarder 0 Son or daughter Housemate. 0 Male Brother or sister Loomml?; - Female Father or mother nmarr partner F:rst Name MI Age {In years} Grandchild Foster aw Other nonrelalive Other relat've Relationship of Person 4 to Person 1. Last Name {Please print) Month Day rear of birth 0 Husband or wife 0 ?oomer. boarder Son or daughter Housemate. 8 Male Brother or sister momma; Unmarr partner Female . Father or mother First Name MI Age (In Willi Grand ch' I Foster child aw Other nonrelati-ve Other relative Relationship of Person 5 to Person 1. Last Name {Please print) Month Day Of birth Husband or wife 0 ?oomer. boarder Son or daughter Housemate. a Brother or sister momma; Female partner - . Father or mother Name MI Age (In years} Grandch'ld Foster In-law Other nonre?et'rve Other relative Last Name (Please print}I Last Name Last Name First Name First Name First Name MI 000486 What is this person's marital NOTE: Please answer BOTH Questions 5 and 6. is this on Spanish! status? 0 Now married Widowed Divorced Separated Never married a Hispan ciLatino? Mark the ?No? box if not Spanishii-iispanidlatino. No. not SpanishiHlspanidLatino Yes. Mexican. Mexican Am.. Chicano Ci Yes. Puerto Rican Yes. Cuban other 5 nishiHis nici Lasti?no - Pr?iat group '27! person consi ers himsei?herseif to be. 0 What is this erson's race? Mark one or more races to indicate what this White 0 Asian Indian Native Hawaiian 0 Black. African Am.. or Negro Chinese Guamanian or Chamorro American Indian or Alaska Filipino Samoan of ?'me Japanese Other Pacific Islander Print race beiowz Korean Some other race Print race beiow 3? Vietnamese Other Asian - Print race i?L? . 4'2 Now married [3 No. not SpanishiI-iispaniciLatino White 0 Asian Indian 0 Native Hawaiian Widowed Yes. Mexican. Mexican Am.. Black. African Am.. or Negro Chinese Guantanian or Chamorro Divorced 01'3? American Indian or Alaska Filipino Samoan Separated Puerto Rican Efgfi??ggn?gm' Japanese Other Pacific islander Print race beiow Never married Cuban shii-I 3' Korean Some other race Print race below 7 {7 Yes. other 5 ni is nic! Latino nt group :a Vietnamese Other Asian -- Print race Novv married 0 No. not Spanishn-Iispanicilatino White Asian Indian 0 Native Hawaiian Widowed Yes. Mexican. Mexican Am.. 0 Black. African Am.. or Negro Chinese Guaman Ian or Chamorro Divorced Chicano American Indian or Alaska Filipino Samoan Separated Yes. Puerto Rican lollatpi?vielc?igjn?ggm; of mm!? Japanese Other Pacific Islander Print race below - Never married Yes. Cuban Korean Some other race . Print race beiciw 7 a7 Yes. other 5 nishiHIspanic! Vietnamese Lati Pr i no it group 7 Other Asian - Print race?I- 0 Now married 0 No. not White 0 Asian Indian Native Hawaiian Widowed Yes. Mexican. Mexican Am.. Black. African Am.. or Negro Chinese Guamanian or Chamorro Divorced am? American Indian or Alaska Filipino Samoan Separated Yes. Puerto Rican Ef?zagjn?gm? ofenroiied Japanese Other Pacific Islander Print race beiow Never married Yes. shiHis 2 Korean Some other race Print race beiow 3? 7 Yes. er 5 ni nici Latino group 2" Vietnamese Other Asian - Pn?nt race?n+- Cl Now married No. not White Asian indian Native Hawaiian WidoWed Yes. Mexican. Mexican Am.. Black. African Am.. or Negro Chinese Guamanian or Chamorro Divorced Chicano American Indian or Alaska Filipino Samoan Separated Puerto Rican gratpirie??gn?gme "fenmmd Japanese Other Pacific Islander Print race beiow Never married Yes. Cuban 7 Korean Some other race Print race below 2 7 Yes. other 5 nisthispanid Vietnamese Lati of? no group 7 Other Asian .. Print race?Person 9 Person 10 Person 1 1 Person 12 Last Name Last Name Last Name Last Name First Name MI First Name MI First Name pm First Name MI 9 When you are finished. turn the page and continue with the Housing section. 3 .-s. - - -. - 000487 Hou?ng 0 Please answer the following questions about the house. apartment. or mobile home at the address on the mailing label. which best describes this building? include ail apartments. ?ats, etc. even if vacant. A mobile home A one-family house detached from any other house A one-family house attached to one or more houses A building with 2 apartments 0 A building with 3 or 4 apartments 0 A building with 5 to 9 apartments A building with 10 to 19 apartments 0 A building with 20 to 49 apartments 0 A building with 50 or more apartments 0 Boat. RV. van. etc. About when was this building first built? 0 1999 or later 1995 to 1993 1990 to 1994 1990 to 1999 C) 1970 to 1979 C) 1960 to 1969 1950 to 1959 C) 1940 to 1949 1939 or earlier When did PERSON 1 (listed in the List of Residents on page 2) move into this house. apartment. or mobile home? Month Year hub Answer questions 4-6 ONLY if this is a one-family house or a mobile home; otherwise, SKIP to question 7. How many acres is this house or mobile home on? Less than 1 acre -9 to question 6 1 to 9.9 acres 10 or more acres IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS. what were the actual sales of all agricultural products from this property? None C) 51 to 5999 Ci $1,000 to $2.499 Cl 52. 500 to $4.999 55.000 to $9.999 $10,090 or more is there a business (such as a store or barber shop) or a medical office on this property? Ci Yes How many rooms are in this house. apartment. or mobile home? Do NOT count bathrooms. porches, balconies, foyers. haiis. or half-rooms. 1 room 2 rooms 3 rooms 4 rooms 5 rooms 6 rooms 7 rooms 0 8 rooms 9 or more rooms ii Housing information helps your community plan for police and fire protection. How many bedrooms are in this house. apartment. or mobile home: that is. how many bedrooms would you list if this house. apartment. or mobile home were on the market for sale or rent? 0 No bedroom 0 1 bedroom 0 2 bedrooms 0 3 bedrooms 0 4 bedrooms Ci 5 or more bedrooms Does this house. apartment. or mobile home have COMPLETE plumbing facilities: that is. 1) hot and cold piped water. 2) a ?ush toilet. and 3) a bathtub or shower? Yes. has all three facilities No Does this house. apartment. or mobile home have COMPLETE kitchen facilities; that is. 1) a sinlt with piped water. 2) a stove or range. and 3) a refrigerator? Yes. has all three facilities No Is there telephone service available in this house. apartment. or mobile home from you can both malte and reoeive ca s? Yes Ci No How many automobiles. vans. and trucks of one-ton capacity or less are kept at home for use by members of this household? None 1 000488 Housing (continued) Which FUEL is used MOST for heating this house. apartment. or mobile home? DGaszfro unde round i servin the neighbo'nmod pas 0 Gas: bottled. tank. or LP Electricity 0 Fuel oil. kerosene. etc. Coal or coke Wood Solar energy Other fuel No fuel used a. LASTMONTH. whatwasthe costof electricity for this house. apartment. or mobile home? Last month?s cost Dollars 's OH included In rent or condominium fee 0 No charge or electricity not used 13. LAST MONTH. what was the cost of gas for this house. apartment. or mobile home? Last month's cost Dollars OR 0 included In rent or condominium fee included in electricity payment entered above 0 No charge or gas not used c. IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS. what was the cost of water and sewer for this house. apartment. or mobile home? if you have lived here less than 12 months. estimate the cost. Past 12 months' cost - Dollars ?l Included in rent or condominium fee No charge cl. IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS. what was the Is this house. apartment. or mobile cost of oil. coal. kerosene. wood. etc. for this house. apartment. or mobile home? lfyou have lived here les than 12 months. estimate the cost. Past 12 months' cost Dollars OR [3 Included in rent or condomlnlum fee 0 No charge or these fuels not used At any time DURING THE PAST 12 MONTHS. were you or any member of . this household enrolled in or receiving benefits from: a. free or reduced-price meals at school a through the National School Lunch Program or the School Breakfast Program? Yes No b. the Federal home heating and cooling assistance program? UYes UNI: At any time DURING THE PAST 12 MONTHS. did anyone in this household receive Food Stamps? 0 Yes What was the value of the Stamps? Past 12 months' value Dollars Is this house. apartment, or mobile home part of a condominium? Yes -) What is the condominium fee? For renters, answer only if you pay the condominium fee in addition to your rent: otherwise. mark the ?None? box. amount Dollars 0 None No home - Owned by you or someone In this household with a mortgage or loan? 0 Owned by ou or someone In this household ree and clear (without a mortgage or loan)? 0 Rented for cash rent? Occupied without payment of cash rent? Skip to question 21 Answer questions lite-21 you PAY RENT for this house. apartment. or mobile home. Otherwise, to question 22. a. What is the rent for this house. apartment. or mobile home? amount - Dollars g. b. Does the rent include any meals? DYes a. Is the rent on this house. apartment. or mobile home reduced because the Federal. state. or local government is paying part of the cost? DYes No w) Skip to question 21 b. What government program provides this reduced rent? 0 The 'Sectlon 8' program 0 Some other government program Not sure is this house. apartment. or mobile home in a public housing project; that is. is it part of a government housing project for persons with low income? DYes ONO 000489 Housing (continued) Answer questions 22?26 ONLY 0? you or someone else in this household OWNS or l5 this house, apartment, or mobile home. Otherwise, to What is the value of this property; that is, how much do you think this house and lot. apartment. or mobile home and lot. would sell for if it were for sale? Less than $10,000 [1310000 to $14,999 to $19,999 Cl $20,000 to $24,999 Cl $25,000 to $29,999 Cl $30,000 to $34,999 $35,000 to $39,999 $40,000 to $49,999 0 $50,000 to $59,999 C) $60,000 to $69,999 C3 $70,000 to 579,999 $00,000 to 589,999 $90,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $124,999 $125,000 to $149,999 $150,000 to $174,999 $175,000 to $199,999 $200,000 to $249,999 $250,000 or more - Specify 7 What are the annual real estate taxes on THIS property? Annual amount Dollars [3 None What is the annual payment for fire, hazard. and flood insurance on THIS Annual amount Dollar: None 9 a. Do you or any member of this household have a mortgage. deed of trust. contract to purchase, or similar debt on THIS property? Yes, mortgage. deed of trust, or similar debt Yes, contract to purchase 0 No -l to question 25.: b. How much is the regular mortgage payment on Tl-llS property? Include payments only on FIRST mortgage or contract to purchase. amount Dollars on No regular gayment required to question 2 c. Does the regular mortgage payment include payments for real estate taxes on THIS property? Yes, taxes included in mortgage payment No, taxes paid separately or taxes not requrred d. Does the regular mortgage pay- ment include payments for fire, hazard, or flood insurance on THIS property? Yes, insurance included in mortgage payment No, insurance paid separately or no insurance a. Do you or any member of this household have a second mortgage or a home equity loan on THIS property? Yes. home equity loan Yes. second mortgage Yes. second mortgage and home equity loan b. How much is the regular payment on all second orjunior mortgages and all home equity loans on THIS property? amount -- Dollars on No regular payment required Answer questions 27a and is ONLY lF this is a HOME. Otherwise, to a. Do you or any member of this household have an installment loan or contract on THIS mobile home? Yes b. What are the total annual costs for installment loan payments, personal property taxes, site rent. registration fees. and license fees on THIS mobile home and its site? Exclude real estate taxes. Annual costs Dollars Answer questions 28a-c ONLY lF yorr listed at least one person on page 2. Otherwise, SKIP to page 24 for the mailing instructions. a. Do all of the persons listed on pages 2 and 3 live at this address year round? 0 Yes to the questions for Person 1 on the next page No b. 0f the persons listed on pages 2 and 3, how many live somewhere else part of the year? 0 All persons listed Some persons How many? 2 Personls) 45le to the questions for person i on the next page. c. Do you consider this house. apartment. or mobile home, that uses the address on the front cover. your- 0 Primary residence? Vacation home? School residence? Work residence? Other Specify Continue with the questions about PERSON 1 on the next page. 000490 Person 1 Please cop the name of Person 1 from the List of lies dents on page 2. then oontinue answering questions below. Last Name First Name Ml Where was this person born? 0 in the United States - Print name oi'stare. Cl Outside the United States Print name ur foreign country. or Puerto Rico. Guam. etc. Is this person a CITIZEN of the United States? Yes. born in the United States 4- Slrip to ma Yes. born in Puerto Rico. Guam. the U5. Virgin islands. or Northern Marianas Yes. born abroad of American parent or parents Yes. U.S. citizen by naturalization No. not a citizen of the United States 1When did this person come to live in the United States? Print numbers in boxes. Year a. At any time IN THE LAST 3 MONTHS. has this person attended regular school or college? include only nursery or preschool. kinde rten, elementary school, and schooling which eads to a high school diploma ora college degree. 0 No. has not attended in the last 3 months to question it Yes. public school. public college Yes. private school. private college Is. 1Inlhat grade or level was this person attending? Marl: ONE box. 0 Nursery school. preschool Cl Kindergarten Grade 1 to grade 4 Grade 5 to grade Grade 9 to grade 12 College undergraduate years (freshman to senior) 0 Graduate or professional school {for example: medical. dental. or law school} i I'nl" What is the highest degree or level of school this person has Mark ONE box. if currently enrolled. marl: the pretrial us grade or highest degree received. 0 No schooling completed 0 Nursery school to 4th grade 0 5th grade or 6th grade 7th grade or 8th grade 9th grade 10th grade 11th grade 12th grade NO DIPLOMA HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE high school DIPLOMA or the equivalent (for example: GED) 0 Some college credit. but less than 1 year 1 or more years of college. no degree 0 Associate degree (for example: AA. AS) Bachelor's degree {for example: BA. AB. 85) Master's degree (for example: MA. MS. MEng. MSW. MM) Professional degree {for example: MD. DDS. DVM. LLB. Doctorate degree (for example: r-1 What is this person?s ancestry or ethnic origin? [For example. italian. Jamaican. African Am- Cambodian. Cape Verdean. Norwegian. Dominican. French Canadian. Haitian. Korean. Lebanese. Polish. Nigerian. Mexican. faiwanese. Ukrainian. andso on.) a. Did this person live In this house or apartment 1 year ago? Person is under 1 year old 45le to the questions for Person 2 on page to. Yes. this house -s to in the next column No. outside the United States Print name of foreign country. or Pu?to illco. Guam. etc. below.- then to in next column. 0 No. different house in the United States is. Where did this person live 1 year ago? Name of city. town. or post office ri- Your answers are important! Every person in the American Community Survey counts. c. Did this person live limits ofthe city ortown? Yes No. outside the cityitown limits Name of county Home of state ZIP Code if this person is UNDER 5 years of age. to the questions for PERSON 2 on page to. Otherwise, continue with question 14. a. Does this erson speak a language other than at home? DYes No our to question 15 b. Iliihat Is this language? For example: Korean. ltalian. Spanish. Vietnamese c. How well does this person spealc English? 0 Very well 0 Not well Well Not at all Does this person have any of the following long-lasting conditions: Yes No a. Blindness. deafness. or a severe vision or hearing impairment? b. A condition that substantially limits one or more basic physical activities such as walking. climbi stairs. reaching. lifting. or carry ng? DC) Because of a physical. mental. or emotional condition lasting 6 months or more. does this person have an difficulty In doing any of the following actl ties: Yes a. Leamlng. remembering. or concentrating? b.Dressin .bathi .or around inside chemo?? getting c. (Answer if this person is 16 YEARS OLD Oil OVER.) Going outside the home alone to shop or visit a doctor's office? d. (Answer if this person is 16 YEARS OLD OR OVER.) Working at a job or business? DD [305 Cl 000491 Person 1 (continued) 0 If this person Is UNDER 15 years of age. to the questions for PEBSON 2 on page 10. Otherwise. continue with Answer question i7 if this person is female and 15?50 years old. Otherwise. to question t?a lies this person given birth to any children in the past 12 months? 0 Yes Clive a. Does this person have any of hislher own grandchildren under the age of ?18 living in this house or apartment? Yes N0 to question 19 b. Is this grandparent currentiy responsible for most of the basic needs of any rrandchildiren) under the age of 13 who iveis) In this house or apartment? 0 Yes No -i to question l9 c. How lanthas this grandparent been responsi le tor thelsa) grandchildireni? ii the grandparent is ?nancially responsible for more than one grandchild. answer question for the grandchild for whom the grandparent has been responsible for the iongestperiod of me. 0 Less than 6 months Cl 5 to 11 months i or 2 years 3 or 4 years 5 or more years Has this person ever served on active duty in the 0.5. Armad Forces. military Reserves. or National Guard? Active duty does not include training for the Reserves or National Guard. but DOES include activation. for example. for the Persian Gulf War. 0 Yes. now on active duty Yes. on active duty in past. but not now No. training for Reserves or National Guard only to question 22 No. never sewed in the military to question 22 a When did this lperson serve on active duty in 9 the 0.5. Arme Forces? Marl: (X) a box for EACH period in which this person served. 0 April 1995 or later August 1990 to March 1995 {including Persian Gulf Wari September 1980 to July 1990 May 1975 to August 1950 Vietnam era (August 1964 to April 1975} February 1955 to July 1554 Korean War (June 1950 to January 1955} World War it {September 1940 to July 1947) Some other time In total. how many years of active-duty military service has this person had? 0 Less than 2 years 2 years or more LAST WEK. did this person do ANY worlr for either pay or profit? Mark the 'i'es' box even if the person worked only 1 hour. or helped without pay in a family business or farm for 15 hours or more. or was on active duty in the Armed Forcesquestion 23 At what location did this person work LAST if this person worked at more than on:I location. print where he or she worked most iast weeir. a. Address {Number and street name} If the exact address is not lrnown. give a description of the iocation such as the building name or the or intersection. h. Name of city. town. or post office c. Is the worit location inside the limits of that city or town? DYes No. outside the cityltown limits d. Name of county e. Illame of 11.5. state or foreign country i. ZIP Code 6 How did this person usually get to work LAST if this person usuaii used more than one method of transportation urin the nip. mark the box of the one used for most 0 the distance. Car. truck. or van Bus or trolley bus Bicycle Streetcar or trolley car 0 Walked 0 Subway or elevated 0 Worked at home -r 0 Railroad SKll? to question 32 Ferryboat Other method Taxicab Answer question ZS ONLY iF you marked 'Car. truck. or van in question 24. Otherwise. to question 26. How many people. including this person. usually rode to worit in the car. truck. or van LAST Personis} What time did this person usually leave home to go to worir LAST WEE pm. How many minutes did it usually taire this person to get from home to wed: LAST Minutes Hour Minute Answer questions 28-31 ONLY iF this person did NOT work last week. Otherwise. to question 32. a. LAST WEEK. was this person on layoff from a job? Yes -9 5er to question 28c No b. LAST WEEK. was this absent from a job or Yes, on vacation. temporary illness, labor dispute. etc. to question 31 No ?a to question 29 c. [in this person been lntonned that he or she will be recalled to Worlt within the next 6 months Oil been given a date to return to work? Yes 6 Sift? to question 30 No erson TEMPORARILY siness? 000492 Person 1 {continued} Has this person been looking for work during the last 4 weeks? DYes No our to question 3! WEEK. could this person have started is oh if offered one. or returned to work if recal Yes. could have gone to work No. because of own temporary illness No. because of all other reasons {in school. etc.) When did this person last work. even for a few clays? 0 Within the past 12 months 0 1 to 5 years ago to question 34 Over 5 years ago or never worked to question 40 During the PAST 12 MONTHS. how many Wilts did this rson work? Count paid vacation. paid leave. and military service. Weeks a During the PAST 12 MONTHS. In the WEEKS NORKED. how many hours did this person usually work each Usual hours worked each WEEK Answer questions 34?39 ONLY iF this person worked in the past 5 years. Otherwise. Still? to question 40. 34-3! CURRENT OR MOST RECENT JOB ACTIVITY. Describe clearly this person?s chlefiob activi or business last Week. if this person had more an one job. describe the one at which this person worked the most hours. lf this person had no job or business last week, give informa don for hisiher last job or business. 1ilias this person - Mark ONE box. an em loyee of a PRIVATE FOR PROFIT company or bus ness. or of an individual. for wages. salary. or commissions? an employee of a PRIVATE NOT FOR PROFIT. tax-exempt. or charitable organization? 0 a local GOVERNMENT employee lcity. county. etc)? Cl a state employee? Cl a Federal GOVERNMENT employee? 0 SELF-EMPLOYED in own NOT INCORPORATED business. professional practice. or farm? SELFEMPLOYED in own INCORPORATED business. professional practice. or farm? 0 working WITHOUT PAY in family business or farm? For whom did this person work? if now on active duty in the Armed Forces. mark {Xi this box -i and print the branch of the Armed Forces. Name of company. business. or other employer What kind of business or industry was this? Describe the activity at the location where employed. {For example: hospital, newspaper publishing. mail order house. auto engine manufacturing. bank} Is this mainly - Mark {Xi one box. 0 manufacturing? wholesale trade? 0 retail trade? other (agriculture. construction. service. government. etc)? What kind of work was this person doing? {For example: registered nurse. personnel manager. supervisor of order department secretary. accountant} were this rson's most Important activities or as? {For example: patient care. directing hiring policies. supervising order clerks. typing and ?ling. reconu'ling ?nancial records} INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS. Mark the 'Yes' box for each type of income this person received. best estimate of the TOTAL AMOUNT du ng PAST 1'2 MONTHS. (NOTE: The 'past 1'2 months' is the period from today's date one year ago up through today.) Mark the 'No' box to show types of income NOT received. if net income was a loss. mark the 'ioss' box to the right of the dollar amount. For income received jointly. report the appro rlate share for each person - or. if that?s not possi report the whole amount for only one person and mark the 'No' box for the other person. a. Wages. salary. commissions. bonuses. or tips from all jobs. Report amount before deductions for taxes. bonds. dues. or other items. Yes as Cl No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS b. Seifoemployment Income from own nonfarrn businesses or farm businesses. including proprietorships and partnerships. Report NET income after business expenses. 0 YES -ll I No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS DLoss c. interest. dividends, net rental income. royalty Income. or income from estates and trusts. Report even small amounts credited to an account. Yes ?l 0 Loss 0 No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS d. Social Security or Railroad Retirement. DYes?l No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS a. Supplemantal Security Income (SSII. Yes i No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS Any public assistance or welfare payments lrom the state or local welfare office. DYes No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS 9. Retirement. survivor. or disability pensions. Do NOT include Social Security. DYes-e No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS in. Any other sources of income received re ularly such as Veterans' pa merits. unem y- ment compensation. support or at many. Do NOT include lump sum payments such as money from an inheritance or the sale of a home. DYes?s 3 No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS what was this person's total Income durl the PAST 12 Add entries in questions 4 to 40h; subtract an losses. if net income was a loss. enter the amount an mark (X) the 'ioss' box next to the dollar amount. Loss 0 None 0R TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS Continue with the questions for Person 2 on the nest .Ifonlyt Res . SKIP to page 24 for mailing Instructions. 000493 0 Please copr the name of Person 2 from the List of lies dents on page 2. then continue answering questlons below. Last Name First Name MI Where was this person born? In the United States Print name of state. Outs'de the United States Print name of foreign country. or Puerto Rico. Guam. etc. Is this person a of the United States? 0 Yes. born In the Un'ted States -I skip to We Yes. born In Puerto R'co. Guam. the U.S. Virgin Islands. or Northern Marianas Yes. born abroad of American parent or parents Yes. US. citizen by naturalization No. not a citizen of the United States When did this person come to live in the United States? Print numbers .in boxes. Year a. At any time IN THE LAST 3 MONTHS. has this person attended regular school or college? include only nursery or preschool. lrinde arten. elementary school. and schooling which eads to a high school diploma or a college degree. 0 No. has not attended in the last 3 months to question it Yes. public school. public college Yes. private school. private college b. What grade or level was this person attending? Marl: ix) ONE box. Nursery school. preschool Kindergarten Grade 1 to grade 4 Grade 5 to grade Grade 9 to grade 12 College undergraduate years {freshman to senior) Graduate or professional school {for example' medical. dental. or law school} 10 What Is the highest degree or level of school this person has Mark ONE box. if currently enrolled. mark the previous grade or highest degree received. 0 No schooling completed Nursery schoo to 4th grade grade or 6th grade 71h grade or 81h grade 9th grade 10th grade 0 11?lh grade grade - no DIPLOMA HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE high school DIPLOMA or the equivalent [for example: GED) Some college credit. but less than 1 year or more years of college. no degree Associate degree {for example: AA. 0 Bachelor?s degree {for example: BA. AB. 35} Master?s degree {for example. MA, MS. MEng. MSW. MBA) Professional degree (for example: MD. DDS. DVM. LLB. JD) Doctorate degree (for example: PM). Ele a What is this person's ancestry or ethnic origin? For example: italian. Jamaican. African Am. Cambodian. Cape Verdean. Norwegian. Dominican. French Canadian. Haitian. Korean. lebanese. Polish. Nigerian. Mexican. Taiwanese. Ukrainian. and so on a. Did this person live in this house or apartment 1 year ago? Person is under 1 year old to the questions for Person 3 on page 13 Yes. this house to in the next column 0 No. outside the United States - Print name of foreign country. or Puerto Rico. Guam. etc. below. then SKIP to in next column. No. different house In the United States is. Where did this person live 1 year ago? Home of city. town. or post office a Survey information helps your community get financial assistance for roads. hospitals. schools. and more. 0 GB 9 c. Did this person live inside the limits of the city or town? Yes No. outside the cityltown limits Name of county Name of state ZIP Code If this person is UNDER 5 years of age. to the questions for PERSON 3 on page 13 Otherwise. continue with question 14 a. Does this person speak a language other than English at home? 0 Yes No 5er to question rs b. What is this language? For example: Korean. ltallan. Spanish. Vietnamese c. How well does this person spealc English? 0 Very wel. Not well 0 Well 0 Not at all Does this person have any of the following long-lasting conditions: Yes No CID a. BI 'ndness. deafness. or a severe vision or hearing impairment? b. A condit' on that substantially limits om;1 or mm]: acitivities suc as wa ing. ng sta rs. reaching. lifting. or carrying? 0 Because of a physical. mental. or emotional condition lasting 6 months or more. does this person have any dif?culty in doing any of the following activities: No Yes a. Learn'ng. remembering. or concentrating? b. Dress'ng. bathing. or getting around inside the home? c. (Answer if this person is 16 YEARS OLD OR OVER.) Going outside the home alone to shop or visit a doctor?s of?ce? d. [Answer If this person is 16 YEARS OLD OR OVER.) Working at a Job or business? DO DC) 000494 Person 2 (continued) If this person is UNDER 15 years of age. to the questions for PERSON 3 on page 1'3. Otherwise, Continue with Answer question l7 ONLY lF this person is female and 15?50 years old. Othenvise. to question 19a. Has this person given birth to any children in the past 12 months? DYes a. Does this person have any of own grandchildren under the age of 18 living In this house or apartment? 0 Yes No 5le to question rs b. Is this grandgarent currently responsible for most of the asic needs of any under the age of 11! who lvels} in this house or apartment? DYes No ?s SlilP to question 19 c. How Ionahas this grandparent been respons ie for theise) grandchildtren)? If the grandparent is financially responsible for more than one grandchild. answer the question for the grandchild for whom the grandparent gas been responsible for the longest period of me. Less than 6 months 6 to 11 months 1 or 2 years 3 or 4 years 5 or more years Has this person ever served on active duty In the 11.5. Armed Forces. military Reserves. or National Guard? Active duty does not include trainin for the Reserves or National Guard. but DOES nclude activation forexample. for the Persian Gulf War. Yes. now on active duty Yes. on active duty In past. but not now No. training Ior Reserves or National Guard only -i 5le to question 22 No. never served In the military -I 5le to question 22 0 GB When did this rson serve on active duty In the 11.9. Ann Forces? Mark (X) a box for EACH period in which this person served. 0 April 1995 or later August 1990 to March 1995 (including Persian Gulf War) September 1990 to July 1990 May 1915 to August 1980 Vietnam era {August 1964 to April 1915] 0 February 1955 to July 1964 0 Korean War {June 1950 to January 1955] World War II (September 1940 to July 194'!) Some other time In total. how many years of active-duty military senrlce has this person had? Less than 2 years 2 years or more MST WEEK. did this person do ANY work for either pay or profit? Mark the 'Yes' box even if the person worked only 1 hour. or helped with: at pay in a faml business or farm for 15 hours or more, or was on a re duty In the Armed Forces. DYes No -I SKIP to question 28 at what location did this person work LAST if this person worked at more than one location. print where he or she worked most last Week a. Address (Number and street name} if the exact address is not known. give a description of the location such as the building name or the nearest street or intersection- b. Name of city. town. or post office c. Is the worlr location inside the limits of that city or town? 0 Yes No. outside the limits d. Name of county e. Home of state or foreign country i. ZIP Code a How did this person usually get to wed: MST if this person usuall used more than one method of transportation urin the trip. marl: 00 the box of the one used for most the distance. Car. truck. or van 0 Bus or trolley bus 0 Bicycle Streetcar or trolley car 0 Walked Subway or elevated Cl Worked at home ?r Railroad to question 32 ?"be Other method 0 Taxicab Answer question 25 ONLY ll-' you marked ?Car. truck. or van in question 24. Othenvise. SKli? to question 26 How many people. including this person. usually rode to wort In the car. truck. or van LAST Personts) What time did this person usually leave home to go to work LAST Minute 0 a.m. p.m. Hour How many minutes did it usually take this person to get from home to work Minutes Answer questions 28?31 ONLY lF this person did NOT work last week. Otherwise. $le to question 32. e. WEEK. was this person on layoff from a job? Yes -s 5le to question 28c No b. WEEK. was this gerson TEMPORARILY absent from a job or usiness? Yes. on vacation. temporary illness. labor dispute. etc. Still? to question 31 No 4 to question 29 c. lies this person been Informed that he or she will be recalled to worlt within the next a on been given a date to returnto 0 Yes to question so No 11 000495 Person 2 (continued) Has this person been looking for work during the last 4 weeksquestion at LAST WEEK. could this person have started a oh if offered one. or returned to Work if recall Yes. could have gone to work No. because of own temporary illness No. because of all other reasons {in school. etc.) When did this person last work. even for a few days? 0 Within the past 12 months 1 to 5 years ago ?i SKIP to question 34 Over 5 years ago or never worked ?i to question 40 During the PMT 12 MONTHS. how many WEEKS did this person work? Count paid vacation. paid sic leave. and military service. During the PAST 12 MONTHS, in the WEEKS WORKED. how many hours did this person usually work each Usual hours worked each WEEK . Answer questions 34-39 ONLY iF this person worked in the past years. Othenvise. SKIP to question 40. 34-39 CURRENT OR MOST RECENT JOB ICTIVITY. Describe clearly this person's chief fob activi or business last week. if this person had more an one job. describe the one at which this person worked the most hours. if this person had no job or business last week. give information for hislher last job or business. Was this person - Mari: no ONE box. an em 'oyee of a PRIVATE FOR PROFIT company or bus ness. or of an individual, for wages. salary. or commissions? an empioyee of a PRNATE NOT FOR PROFIT. tax-exempt, or charitable organization? a local GOVERNMENT employee (city. county. etc)? 0 a state GOVERNMENT employee? a Federal GOVERNMENT employee? 0 SELF-EMPLOYED in own NOT INCORPORATED business. professional practice. or farm? SELF-EMPLOYED in own business. professional practice. or farm? 0 work WITHOUT PAY in family business or farm? 12 9 For whom did this person work? if new on active duty in the Armed Forces, mark {Xi this box ?i and print the branch of the Armed Forces. Name oi company. business. or other employer What kind of business or industry was this? Describe the activity at the location where employed. {For example: hospital, neWspaper publishing. mail order house, auto engine manufacturing. bank} is this mainly - Mark one box. 0 manufacturing? wholesale trade? retail trade? other (agriculture. construction. service. government, etc)? What kind of work was this person doing? {For example: registered nurse. personnel manager. supervisor of order department. secretary. accountant} What were this person's most important activities or duties? [For example; patient care. directing hiring policies, supervising order clerks. typing and filing. reconciling financial records} INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS. Mari: the 'Yes box for each type of income this person received. and give ur best estimate of the TOTAL AMOUNT during PAST l2 MONT HS. (NOTE: The ?past 12 months' is the period from today?s date one year ago up through today.) Marl: (X) the 'No box to show types of income NOT received. If net income was a loss, mark the 'ioss' box to the right of the dollar amount. For income received jointly. report the appropriate share for each person or. if that's not possible. report the whole amount for only one person and mark the ?No box for the other person. a. Wages. salary. commissions. bonuses. or tips from all iobs. Report amount before deductions for tars, bonds, dues. or other items. DYes?s DNO TOTAL AMOUNT for plan 12 MONTHS 0 b. Self-employment Income from own nenfarm businesses or farm businesses. including and partnerships. Report NET income after business expenses. DYes-i ?513 N0 TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS 0 Loss c. Interest. dividends. net rental income. royalty income. or income from estates and trusts. Report even small amounts credited to an account. DYes?s DLOSS No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS d. Social Security or Railroad Retirement. DYes?i No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS e. Supplemental Security Income Cl Na TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS f. Any public assistance or Welfare payments from the state or local welfare office. DYes-s No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS 9. Retirement. survivor. or disability pensions. Do NOT include Social Security. Cl Nu TOTAL AMOUNT gor past 12 MONTH h. Any other sources of income received regularly such as Veterans' WA) pa ants. unem loy- ment compensation. support or al many. Do NOT include lump sum payments such as money from an inheritance or the sale of a home. DYes?i No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS What was this person?s total Income during the PAST 12 Add entries in questions 40a to 40h; subtract any losses. if net income was a loss. enter the amount and mark (X) the 'toss' box next to the dollar amount. 0 Loss 0 None OR TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS Continue with the questions for Person 3 on the neat ge. If only 2 people are listed in the List of Resigns. SKIP to page 24 for mailing Instructions. 000496 0 Person 3 Please cop? the name of Person 3 from the list of hes? dents on page 1. then continue answering questions below. Last Name First Name Where was this person born? In the United States - Print name of state. Outside the United States - Print name or foreign country. or Puerto Rlco. Guam. etc. is this person a CITIZEN ot the United States? Yes. born In the United States did}: to to: Yes. born In Puerto Rico. Guam. the U5. Virgin Islands. or Northern Marianas Yes. born abroad of American parent or parents Yes. US. citizen by naturalization No. not a citizen of the United States When did this person come to litre in the United States? Print numbers in boxes. Year a. At any time THE MONTHS. has this person attended regular school or college? include only nursery or preschool. arten. elementary school. and schooling which eads to a high school diploma ora college degree No. has not attended in the last 3 months ?l 5le to question Yes. public school. public college 0 Yes. private school. private college b. What grade or level was this person attending? Marl: 00 ONE box. 0 Nursery school. preschool Kindergarten Grade I to grade 4 Grade 5 to grade Grade 9 to grade 12 Collagie undergraduate years (freshman to Graduate or professionalsch {for example. medical. dental. or law school) .., What Is the highest degree or level of school this person has Mari: ONE box. if currently enrolled. marl: the previous grade or highest degree received 0 No schooling completed 0 Nursery school to 4th grade 5th grade or 6th grade 7th grade or 8th grade 0 9th grade 0 10th grade 0 11th grade 12th grade no oIrLonIa HIGH SCHOOL high school DIPLOMA or the equivalent {for9 example. GED) 0 Some college credit. but less than 1 year 1 or more years of college. no degree 0 Associate degree {for example: AA. AS) 0 Bachelor's degree {for example: SA. All, 85) Master's degree {for example: MA. MS. MEng. Mild. MSW. Professional degree {for example: MO. DDS. DVM. 0 Doctorate degree {for example: PM). Edit!) What is this person's ancestry or ethnic origin? {For example: ltaiian. Jamaican. African Am. Cambodian. Cape Verdean. Nomegian. Dominican. French Canadian. Haitian. Korean. tebanese. Polish. Nigerian. Mexican. Taiwanese. Ukrainian. and so on.) a. Did this person litre in this house or apartment 1 year ago? [3 Person is under 1 year old -) 5le to the questions for Person 4 on page l6. Cl Yes, this house -s to in the next column 0 No. outside the United States - Print name of foreign country. or Pugrto Rico. Guam. etc. below; then to in next column. No. different house In the United States is. Where did this person live 1 year ago? Home of city. town. or post office Information about children helps your community plan for child care. education. and recreation. c. Did this person live inside the limits of the city or town? Yes No. outside the cityltown limits Name of county Name of state Coda - if this person is UNDER 5 years of age. to the questions for PERSON 4 on page l6. Othenuise. continue with question 14. a. Does this arson spealt a language other than at home? Cl Yes No to question is b. What is this language? For example: Korean. ltallan. Spanish. Vietnamese c. How well does this person speak English? Very well 0 Not well Well Not at all Does this person have any of the following long-lasting conditions: Yes No a. Blindness. deafness. or a severe vision or hearing impairment? b. A condition that substantially limits one or more basic physical activities such as walking. climbing stairs. reaching. lifting. or carrying? Because of a physical. mental. or emotional condition lasting 6 months or more. does this garson have an difficulty in doing any of the allowing actiu a Learning remembering or Yes No . concentr'ating'l b. Dressl . bathing. or getting around lnsideti?e home? 0 c. {Answer if this person is 16 YEARS OLD Oil OVER.) Going outside the home alone to shop or visit a doctor's office? 0 .. restroom .. business? 0 13 000497 Person 3 (continued) If this person is UNDER 15 years of age. SKii' to the questions for PERSON 4 on page 16. trrhenvise. continue with - .. -4 Answer question i 7 Hi this person is female and 15-50 years old. Othenuise. BMW to question i8a. Has this person given birth to any children in the past 12 months? DYes a. Does this person have any of hlsiher own grandchildren under the age of ?10 living In this house or apartment? DYes No ?r SKIP to question 19 is. Is this grandparent currently responsible for most of the basic needs of any under the age of 10 who iveis) in this house or apartment? OYes No -s Skip to question l9 c. How lonihu this grandparent been responsi Ie for theisel grandchildireni?i if the grandparent is ?nancially responsible for more than one grandchild. answer the question for the grandchild for whom the grandparent has been responsible for the longest period of are Less than 6 months 6 to 11 months 1 or 2 years 3 or 4 years 5 or more years Has this person ever served on active duty In the 1.1.5. Armed Forces. military Reserves. or National Guard? Active duty does not include training for the Reserves or National Guard. but DOES include activation, for example. for the Persian Gulf War. 0 Yes. now on active duty Yes. on active duty in past. but not now No. tra'ning for Reserves or National Guard only -r 5109 to question 22 No. never served in the military -r to question 22 1d a when did serve on active duty In 0 the 0.5. Arme Forces? Mark (X) a box for EACH period in which this person served. 0 April 1995 or later 0 August 1990 to March 1995 {including Persian Gull War] September 1930 to July 1990 May 1915 to August 1980 Vietnam era [August 19640: April 1975) February 1955 to July 1954 Korean War {lune 1950 to January 1955) World War II (September 1940 to July 194?) Some other time In total. how many years of activeduty military service has this person had? Less than 2 years 2 years or more WEEK. did this person do ANY work for either pay or profit? Mark (X) the ?Yes? box even if the person worked only 1 hour. or helped without pay in a iamil business or farm for is hours or more. or was on act duty in the Armed Forces. UYes No -r Skip to question 28 At what location did this person work LAST if this person worked at more than one location. print where he or she worked most last week. a. Address [Number and street name) if the exact address is not known. give a description of the location such as the building name or the nearest street or intersection. is. Name of city. town. or post office c. Is the work location inside the limits of that city or town? Yes No. outside the cityltown limits d. Name of county a. Name of 1.1.5. state or foreign country i. ZIP Code i ii i How did this person usually get to work LAST if this person usuail used more than one method of transportation urin the trip. marl: the box of the one used for most the distance. Car. truck. orvan 0 Bus or trolley bus Bicycle Streetcar or trolley car Walked Subway or elevated Worked at home ?9 Railroad SitiP to question 32 Ferryboat Other method Taxicab Answer question 25 ONLY lF you marked 'Car. truck. or van' in question 24. Otherwise, SKIP to question 26. ltow many people. including this person. usually rode to work in the car. truck. or van LASI Personisl What time did this person usually leave home to go to Work LAST Dam. pm. Hour Minute How many minutes did it usually take this person to get from home to work Minutes Answer questions 28-31 GM. iF this person did NOT work last week. Otherwise. to question 32. a. LAST was this person on layoff from a job? Yes Hill? to question 28: No LAST WEEK. was this arson TEMPORARILY absent from a job or usiness'i Yes. on vacation. temporary illness. labor dispute. etc. ?r $le to question 31 N0 to question 29 c. Has this person been informed that he or she will he recalled to work within the next a months or been given a date to return to work? 0 Yes SKIP to question 30 No 000498 Parson 3 {continued} Has this person been looking for woric during the last 4 woelts? DYes No -a 5er to question at LAST WEEK. could this person have started :Joh if offered one. or returned to work if recall ?i Yes. could have gone to work No. because of own temporary illness No. because of all other reasons (in school. etc.) When did this person last work. even for a few days? 0 Within the past 12 months 1 to 5 years ago -i to question 34 Over 5 years ago or never worked Sitii? to question 40 During the PAST 12 MONTHS. how many WEEKS did work? Count paid vacation. paid ieave. and military service. Weeks During the PAST 12 MONTHS. in the WEEKS WORKED. how many hours did this person usually warts and: Usual hours worked each WEEK Answer questions 34-39 ONLY iF this person worked in the pasts years. Otherwise. SKIP to question 40. 34?39 CORNET Oil MOST RECENT JOB ACTIVITY. Describe clearly this person's chief job activi or business last neck. if this person had more an one job. describe the one at which this person worked the most hours. if this person had no job or business last Week. give information for hisiher iastjob or business. Was this person - Mari: ONE box. an employee of a PRIVATE FOR PROFIT company or bu ness. or of an individual. for wages. salary. or commissions? an employee of a PRIVATE NOT FOR PROFIT. tas-esempt. or charitable organization? a local GOVERNMENT empioyee (city. county. eth? a state GOVERNMENT employee? 0 a Federai GOVERNMENT employee? SELF-EMPLOYED in own NOT INCORPORATED business. professional practice. or farm? SELF-EMPLOYED in own INCORPORATED business. professional practice. or farm? working WITHOUT PAY in family business or farm? ?3 a For whom did this person work? if new on active duty in the Armed Forces, mark {Xi this boar?i and print the branch of the Armed Forces. Name of company. business. or other employer What ltind of business or industry was this? Describe the activity at the location where employed. [For example: hospital. newspaper publishing. mail order house. auto engine manufacturing. bank) Is this mainly - Mark {it} one box. 0 manufacturing? whoiesaie trade? retall trade? 0 other (agriculture. construction service. government. etc]? What kind of work was this person doing? (For example: registered nurse. personnel manager. supervisor of order department. secretary. accountant] What were this rson's most important activities or dut as? {For example: patient care. directing hiring policies. supervising order clerks. typing and filing. reconciling financial records) INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS. Mark the 'Yes' box for each type of income this person received. and ive ur best estimate oithe TOTAL AMOUNT du ng PAST t2 MONTHS. (NOTE: The 'past 12 months? is the period from today's date one year ago up through today.) Mari: the ?No box to show types of income NOT received. if net income was a ioss. mark the 'toss' box to the right of the dollar amount. For income received jointly. report the appro riate share for each person - or. ifthat?s notpossi ie, report the whole amount for oniy one person and mark the 'No' box for the other person. a. Wages. salary. commissions. bonuses. or tips from all jobs. Report amount before deductions for taxes. bonds. dues. or other items. No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS b. Self-employment income from own nonfarm businesses or farm businesses. Including . proprietorships and partnerships. Report NET - income after business expensesTOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS DLoss c. Interest. dividends. net rental income. royalty income. or Income from estates and trusts. Report even small amounts credited to an account DYes?s No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS Social Security or Railroad Retirement. DYes-i No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS 0. Supplemental Security Income Yes No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS Any public assistance or welfare payments from the state or local welfare office. Yes -i No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS g. Retirement. survivor. or disabiilty pensions. Do NOT include Social Security. DYes-r No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS h. An other sources of income received ularly as Veterans' (VA) pa ants. unem - ment compensation. chil support or al mony. Do NOT indude iump sum payments such as Money from an inheritance or the sale of a homeTOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS What was this person's total income during the PAST 12 Add entries in questions 40a to 40h.- subtract an losses. if net income was a loss. enter . the amount a mark {it} the 'toss' box next to the doiiaramount. 0 None OR . 0 Loss TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS Continue with the questions for Person 4 on the nest e. If only 3 people are listed in the list of liesl 5le to page 24 for mailing instructions. 15 000499 Person 4 Please co the name of Person 4 from the List of lies dents on page 2. then continue answering questions below. Last Name First Name MI where was this person born? In the United States Print name of state. Outside the United States Print name of foreign country. or Puerto Rico. Guam. etc. Is this person a CITIZEN of the United States? Yes. born in the United States - Skip to 10a 0 Yes. born in Puerto Rico. Guam. the US. Virgin Islands. or Northern Marianas Yes. born abroad of American parent or parents Yes. US citizen by naturalization No. not a citizen of the United States When did this person come to live in the United States? Print numbers in boxes. Year (D a. At any time THE LAST 3 MONTHS. has this person attended regular school or college? include only nursery or preschool. kinde rten. elementary school. and schooling which eads to a high school diploma ora college degree. No. has not attended in the last 3 months to question ii 0 Yes. public school. public college Yes. private school. privete college is. What grade or level was this person attending? Mark (it) ONE box. Cl Nursery school. preschool Ci Kindergarten Grade 1 to grade 4 Grade 5 to grade Grade 9 to grade 12 College undergraduate years [freshman to senior) Graduate or professional school [for example: medical. dental. or law school) 16 0 what is the highest degree or level of school this person has Marl: 00 ONE box. if currently enrolled. mark the previous grade or highest degree received. 0 No schooling completed Nursery school to 4th grade 0 5th grade or 6th grade 'lth grade or 8th grade 0 9th grade 0 10th grade 0 11th grade C) 121:: grade no DIPLOMA HIGH SCHOOL GRADIMTE high school or the equivalent {for example: GED) 0 Some college credit. but less than 1 year i or more years of college. no degree Associate degree {for example: AA. 0 Bachelor's degree {for example: BA. AB. ES) Master?s degree {for example: MA, MS. ?Eng. MI cl. MSW. 0 Professional degree [for example: MD. DDS. DVM. till. JD) 0 Doctorate degree {for example: (5le lilihat is this person's ancestry or ethnic origin? 6 (For example: itaiian. Jamaican. African Am. Cambodian. Cape Verdean. Nomegian. Dominican. French Canadian, Haitian. Korean. iebanese. Polish. Nigerian. Mexican. Taiwanese. Ukrainian. and so on.) a. Did this person live in this house or apartment 1 year ago? 0 Person is under 1 year old -9 Sitli' to the questions for Person 5 on page i9. Yes. this house a $er to f? in the next column No. outside the United States - Print name of foreign country. or Pugh} Rico. Guam. etc. below: then to in next column. 0 No. different house in the United States b. ?Iilihere did this person live 1 year ago? ?ame of city. town. or post office -- 1. Knowing about age. race. and sex helps your community better meet the needs of everyone. 9 c. Did this person live inside the limits of the city or town? DYes No. outside the citvltown limits Name of county Name of state ZIP Code If this person is UNDER 5 years of age. mm to the questions for PERSON 5 on page Otherwise. continue with question 14. a. Does this erson speak a language other than Engl sh at home? 0 Yes No $er to question rs ls. 1Itlhat Is this language? For example: Korean. ltalian. Spanish. Vietnamese c. How well does this person speak English? Cl very well [3 Not well Cl Well 0 Not at all Does this person have any of the following long-lasting conditions: Yes No a. B'indness. deafness. or a severe vision or hearing impairment? b. A condition that substantiallyr limits one or more basic physical activities such as walking. climbing stairs. reaching. lifting. or carrying? CID Because of a physical. mental. or emotional condition lasting 6 months or more. does this person have any dif?culty In doing any of the following actlv ties: Yes No a. Learning. remembering. or concentrating? Cl b. Dressi . bathing. or getting around inside ri?e home? c. {Answer if this person is 16 YEARS OLD OR OVER.) Going outside the home alone to shop or visit a doctor's office? d. {Answer if is 16 YEJAES OLD OR OVERbusiness? 0 0 000500 69 Person 4 (continued) If this person ls UNDER 15 years of age. to the questions for 5 on page is. Otherwise, continue with Answer question 1? ONLY lF this person is female and 15?50 years old. Otherwise. SKIP to question 18a. Has this person given birth to any children in the past 12 months? 0 Yes No a. Does this person have any of hislher own grandchildren under the age of 18 living In this house or apartmentquestion is b. Is this grandglalrent currently responsible for most of the la needs of any rrandchildh'en) under the age of 1 II who ivels} in this house or apartment? DYes No ?r 5le to question is c. How ion has this grandparent been for theise) grandchildireni'i if the grandparent is financially responsible for more than one grandchild, answer the question for the grandchild for whom the grandparent been responsible for the longest period of me. Less than 6 months 0 6 to 11 months 1 or 2 years 3 or 4 years 5 or more years Has this person ever served on active duty in the us. Armed Forces. military Reserves. or National Guard? Active duty does not include training for the Reserves or National Guard, but DOES include activation for example. for the Persian Gulf War. 0 Yes. now on active duty Yes. on active duty in past. but not now No. training for Reserves or National Guard only ?r to question 22 No. never served In the military Hill? to question 22 9 9 When did this rson serve on active duty in the 0.5. Arme Forces? Mark a box for EACH period in which this person served. 0 April 1995 or later August 1590 to March 1595 (including Fenian Gulf War} 0 September 1980 to July 1990 May 1975 to August 1980 Vietnam era {August 1564 to April 1975} 0 February 1955 to July 1964 Korean War (June 1550 to January 1955} world War ii (September 1940 to July 194?) Some other time In totai, how many years of active-duty military service has this person had? 0 Less than 2 years 2 years or more LAST WEEK, did this person do ANY work for either pay or profit? Mark the 'Yes' box even if the person worked only 1 hour, or helped without pay in a famlir business or farm for 15 hours or more. or was on act ve duty in the Armed Forcesquestion 23 At what location did this person worlt LAST if this person worked at more than one location. print where he or she worked most last week. a. Address [Number and street name) if the exact address is not known. give a description of the location such as the building name or the nearest street or intersection. b. Name of city. town. or post office c. Is the work location inside the limits of that city or town? Yes El No. outside the cityltown IEmits d. Name of county a. Name of state or foreign country f. Code How did this person usually get to work LAST if this person usuall used more than one method of transportation ruin the trip. marl: (X) the box of the one used for most the distance. Car. truck. or van 0 Bus or trolley bus Bicycle Streetcar or trolley car Walked 0 Subway or elevated 0 Worked at home 0 Railroad to question 32 Ferryboat Other method 0 Taxicab Answer question 25 ONLY iF you marked 'Car. truck. or van? in question 24. Otherwise. to question 26. How many people. Including this person. usually rode to wed: in the car. truck. or van LAST Person(s) iilihat time did this person usually leave home to go to work LAST Minute 0 a Hour How many minutes did it usually talre this person to get trom home to work wEEIt'i Minutes Answer questions 28-3i ONLY lF this person did NOT work last week. Otherwise, to question 32. a. LAST WEN. was this person on layoff from a job? 0 Yes Slur to question 28c No Is. LAST WEEK. was this arson TEMPORARILY absent from a job or minus? 0 Yes, on vacation. temporary illness. labor dispute. etc. to qustlon 3i Cl No a SKIP to question 29 c. Has this person been informed that he or she will be recaiied to wed: within the next Sun?ths Oitbeengivenadatetoreturnto we 0 Yes -r 5MP to question 30 Duo 1? 000501 Person 4 (continued) Has this person been looking for worlr during the last 4 weeks? DYes No 5le to question 31 LAST WEEK. could this person have started a oh if offered one. or returned to work it recalla Yes. could have gone to work No. because of own temporary Illness No. because of all other reasons {in schoolI etc.) When did this person last work. even for a few days? Within the past 12 months 0 i to 5 years ago to question 34 Over 5 years ago or never worked ?r to question 40 During the PAST 12 MONTHS. how many WEEKS did this person work? Count paid vacation. paid sick ieave. and military service. Weeks During the PAST 12 MONTHS. in the WEEKS WORKED. how many hours did this person usually worlt each Usual hours worked each WEEK Answer questions 34-39 ONLY iF this person worked in the past 5 years. Othenlvise. SKIP to question 40. 34-39 CURRENT MOST RECENT JOB ACTIVITY. Describe cieariy this person's chief job activi or business last week. if this person had more an one job. describe the one at which this person worked the most hours. if this person had no job or business iast Week. give information for hisiher last job or business. Was this person - Mark {Xi ONE box. 0 an em loyee of a PRIVATE FOR PROFIT company or bus ness. or of an individual. for wages. salary. or commissions? an employee of a PRIVATE NOT FOR PROFIT. tax-exempt. or charitab'e organization? a local GOVERNMENT employee (city. county. etc)? a state GOVERNMENT employee? a Federal GOVERNMENT employee? 0 SELF-EMPLOYED in own NOT INCORPORATED business. professional practice. or iarm? SELFEMPLOYED in own INCORPORATED business. professional practice. or farm? 0 working WITHOUT PAY in family business or iarm'i TE For whom did this person worlt? it now on active duty in the Armed Forces. mark {it} this box ?1 and print the branch of the Armed Forces. Name of company. business. or other employer What kind of business or industry was this? Describe the activity at the iocation where employed. {For example: hospital. newspaper publishing. mail order house. auto en gine manufacturing. bank) Is this mainly - Mark (X) one box. manufacturing? wholesale trade? retail trade? other (agriculture. construction. service. government. etc]? What of worlt was this person doing? {For exampie: registered nurse. personnel manager. supervisor of order department. secretary. accountant] What were this erson's most important activities or dust as? {For example: patient care. directing hiring poiicies. supervising order clerics. typing and ?ling, reconciling financial records} INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS. Mark the 'Yes? box for each type of income this person received. and give or best estimate of the TOTAL AMOUNT during PAST I2 MONT H5. (NOTE: The 'past 12 months' is the period from today?s date one year ago up through today.) Mark the 'No' box to show types of income NOT received. if net income was a loss. mark the 'toss' box to the right of the dollar amount. For income received jointly. report the appro date share for each person .. or. if that?s not post ie. report the whoie amount for only one person and marl: the 'No' box for the other person. a. Wages. salary. commissions. bonuses. or tips from all jobs. Report amount before deductions for taxes. bonds. dues. or other items. Yes No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS b. Self-employment income from own nontarm businesses or farm businesses. Including proprietorships and partnerships. Report NET income after businea expenses. 0 Yes T. ND TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS c. Interest. dividends. net rental income. royalty income. or income from estates and trusts. Report even smaii amounts credited to an account. 0 YES -5- LOSS No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS d. Social Security or Railroad Retirement. No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS e. Supplemental Security Income Yes No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS f. Any public assistance or welfare payments from the state or local welfare office. i? No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS g. Retirement. survivor. or disability pensions. Do NOT inciude Sociai Security. DYes?i No TOTAL AMOUNT ior past 12 MONTHS h. Any other sources of Income received regularty such as Veterans? pa ants. unerrl loy- ment oompensation. chil support or al mony. Do NOT include lump sum payments such as morle_lr from an inheritance or the sale of a home. DYes?r No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS What was this person's total lnMe during the PAST 12 Add entries in questions 40a to 40h.- subtract my losses. ir' net income was a loss, enter the amount a mark (X) the 'toss' box next to the dollar amount. 0 None OR 0 loss TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS Continue with the questions for Person 5 on the next go. It only a people are listed In the List of ties! nts. SKIP to page 24 for mailing instructions. 000502 0 Person 5 Please copy the name of Person 5 from the List of lies dents on page 2. then continue answoring questions below. Last Name First Name MI where was this person born? In the United States .. Print name of rta it. 0 Outside the United States name of foreign country. or Puerto Rico. Guam. etc. Is this person a CITIZEN of the United States? Yes. born in the United States Skip to 10a 0 Yes. born in Puerto Rico. Guam. the U5. Virgin Islands. or Northern Marianas Yes. born abroad of American parent or parents Yes. U.S. citizen by naturalization No. not a citizen of the United States When did this person come to live In the United States? Print numbers in boxes. Year a. At any time IN THE ?151' 3 has this person attended regular school or college? include only nursery or preschool. kinde arren. and schooling which reads to a high school diploma ora coilege degree. 0 No. has not attended in the last 3 months Sill? to question it Yes. public school. public college Yes. private school. private college I). What rode or level was this person attending? Marl: {Xi ONE box. 0 Nursery school. preschool 0 Kindergarten Grade 1 to grade 4 Grade 5 to grade Grade 9 to grade 12 College undergraduate years (freshman to senior) Graduate or professional school (for example: medical. dental. or law school) or ?I?lhat is the highest degree or leuel of school this person has courtesan? Marl: (X) ONE box. if currently enrolled. marl: the previous grade or highest degree received. No schooling completed Nursery school to 4th grade 5th grade or 6th grade 7th grade or grade 9th grade 10th grade 11th grade 0 IZth grade - no olrtoma HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE school DIPLOMA or the equivalent {for example: GED) 0 Some college credit. but less than 1 year 1 or more years of college. no degree 0 Associate degree {for example: AA. AS) 0 Bachelor?s degree {for example: an, AB, 85) Master's degree (for example: MA, MS. MEng. MSW. MBA) Professional degree [for example: MD. our. own. JD Doctorate degree (for example: ?dD) What is this person?s ancestry or ethnic origin? {For example: ltaiian. Jamaican. African Am. Cambodian, Cape Verdean. Norwegian. Dominican. French Canadian. Haitian. Korean. Lebanese. Polish. Nigerian. Mexican. Taiwanese. Ukrainian. and so on] a. Did this person live in this house or apartment 1 year ago? Person is under 1 year old -l to the mailing instructions on page 24. Yes. this house -r $le to in the next column No. outside the United States - Print name of foreign country. Rico. Guam. etc. below: then SKIP to r? in next column. No. different house in the United States it. where did this person live 1 year ago? Name of city. town. or post office Your answers help your community plan for the future. Did this person live Inside the limits of the city or town? 0 Yes No. outside the cityitown limits Name of county Name of state ZIP Code if this person is UNDER 5 years of age, I to the the mailing instructions on page 24. a. Does this rson speak a language other than at home? DYes No 5er to question 15 Is. what Is this language? For exampie: Korean. ltallan. Spanish. Vietnamese c. llow well does this person spell: English? 0 Very well 0 Not well Well 0 Not at all Does this person have any of the following long-lasting conditions: Yes No a. Blindness. deafness. or a severe vision or hearing impairment? h. A condition that substantially limits one or more basic ph ical activities such as walking. clim ing stairs. reaching. lifting. or carrying? 0 Because of a physical. mental. or emotional condition lasting 6 months or more. does this person have an difficulty in doing any of the allowing actlv es: a Learning remembering or Yes No I . concentr'ating? b. Dressl . bathing. or getting around insidet home? 0 c. {Answer if this person is 16 YEARS OLD Oil OVER.) Going outside the home alone to shop or visit a doctor's office? 0 rotationalbusiness? 1 9 000503 Person 5 (continued) 09 it this person is UNDER 15 years of age. SKIP to the mailing instructigns on page 24. Eirhenvr'se, continue with .. I ?73- Answer question i? ONLY iF this person is female and i5? 50 years old. Othenvise, to question 18a. lies this person given birth to any children in the past 12 months? DYes a. Does this person have any of hislher own grandchildren under the age of 18 living in this house or apartment? DYes No error to 19 is. Is this grandparent currently responsible for most of the basic needs of any frandchiidiren) under the age of 13 who iveiI) In this house or apartmentHow Iongbhas this grandparent been responsl le for theise) grendchildireni'l if the grandparent is ?nancially responsible for more than one grandchild, answer the question for the grandch id for whom the grandparent hi? been responsible for the longest period of me. 0 Less than 6 months 6 to 11 month 1 or 2 years 3 or 4 years 5 or more years lies this person ever served on active duty in the 0.5. Armed Forces. military Reserves. or National Guard? Active duty does not include training for the Reserves or National Guard, but DOES include activation. for example. for the Persian Gulf War Yes. now on active duty 0 Yes. on active duty in past. but not now No. training for Reserves or National GUul?d only -i to question 22 No, never served in the military SKIP to question 22 20 9 0 When did this rson serve on active-duty in the U.5. Arme Forces? Marl: (Xi a box for EACH period in which this person served. April 1995 or later August 1990 to March 1995 {including Persian Gulf War) 0 September 1980 to July 1990 May 1975 to August 1980 0 Vietnam era (August 1964 to April 19'i5) 0 February 1955 to July 1964 Korean War {June 1950 to January 1955) World War II {September 19401: July 1947} Some other t:'rne In total. how many years of active-duty military service has this person had? 0 Less than 2 years 2 years or more WEEK. did this person do ANY work for either pay or profit? Mark (X) the 'Yes' has even .If the person worked only 1 hour, or helped without pay in a famli business or farm for 15 hours or more. or was on a ve duty in the Armed Forces. 0 Yes No ?r to question 28 At what location did this person work LAST if this person worked at more than one location, print where he or she worked most last week a. Address [Number and street name} if the exact address is not known. give a description oi' the location such as the building name or the nearest street or intersection. is. Name of city. town. or post office c. Is the work location inside the limits of that city or town? Yes No. outside the cityitown Iim its d. ?ame of county e. ?ame of 0.5. state or foreign country f. 20 Code How did this person usually get to work LAST if this person usuall used more than one method of transportation urin the trip, marl: the box of the one used for most the distance. Car. truck. or van 0 Bus or trolley bus 0 Bicycle Streetcar or trolley car 0 Walked 0 Subway or e'evated Worked at home -i liailroad to question 32 Other method Taxicab Answer question 25 ONLY iF you marked ?Car. truck. or van in question 24. Othenvise, SiclP to question 26. I How many people. including this person. usually rode to work in the car. truck. or van LAST Personls) What time did this person usually leave home to go to work Cl am. pm. Hour Minute How many minutes did it usually take this person to get from home to work LAST Will Minutes Answer questions 28-31 ONLY it? this person did NOT work last week. Otherwise. to question 32. a. LAST WEEK. was this person on layoff tron: a job? Yes ?r to question 29c No b. lAS'l' WEEK. was this rson TEMPORARILY absent from a job or siness'l Yes. on vacation. temporary iI Iness. labor dispute. etc. ?i Still? to question 31 No -s SKll' to question 29 c. Has this person been Infon'ned that he or she will he recalled to worir within the next 5 manths Oil been given a date to return 000504 Person 5 {continued} lies this person been looking for work during the last 4 Weeks? DYes No ?r 5ch to question 31 LAST WEEK. could this person have started a oh if offered one. or returned to Work. it recall 7 Yes. could have gone to work No. because of own temporary illness No. because of all other reasons {in school. etc.) When did this person lest work. even for a few days? 0 Within the past 12 months 1 to 5 years ago -s to question 34 Over 5 years ago or never worked SKIP to question 40 During the PAST 12 MONTHS. how many WEEKS did this person work? Count paid vacation. paid slcir leave. and military service. Weeks During the PAST 12 MONTHS. in the WEEKS WORKED. how many hours did this person usually worir each Usual hours worked each WEEK Answer questions 34-39 ONLY lF this person worked in the past 5 years. Otherwise. to question 40. 34?39 CURRENT OR MOST RECENT JOB ACTIVITY. Describe clearly this person's chietjab acting or business last week. if this person had more an one job. describe the one at which this person worked the most hours. if this person had no job or business last week. give information for hisiher last job or business. Was this person - Marl: ONE box. 0 an employee of a PRIVATE FOR PROFIT company or bu ness. or of an individual. for wages. salary. or commissions? an employee of a PRIVATE NOT FOR PROFIT. tax-exempt. or charltabie organization? a local GOVERNMENT employee {clty. county. etc)? 0 a state GOVERNMENT employee? a Federal GOVERNMENT employee? 0 SELF-EMPLOYED in own NOT INCORPORATED business. professional practice. or farm? 0 SELF-EMPLOYED in own INCORPORATED business. professional practlce. or farm? working PAY 'In famlly business or farm? For whom did this person work? ifnow on active duty in the Armed raises. marl: no this box and print the branch of the Armed Forces. Name of company. business. or other employer What kind of business or industry was this? Describe the activi at the location where employed. [For example: hosp cal. newspaper publishing. mail order house. auto engine manufacturing. bank} is this mainly - Mark one box. manufacturing? wholesale trade? retail trade? 0 other (agriculture. construction. service. government. etc)? What kind of work was this person delng't {For example: registered nurse. personnel manager. supervisor of order department. secretary. accountant} What were this person's most Important activities or dut es? {For example.- patient care. directing hiring policies, supervising order clerics, typing and filing. reconciling financial records) INCOME IN THE FIST 12 MONTNS. Mari: the 'Ya' box for each type of income this person received. and give ur best estimate of the TOTAL AMOUNT during PAST 12 MONTHS. (NOTE: The 'past 12 months? is the period from today?s date one yearago up through today.) Mari: (K) the 'No box to show types of income NOT received. if net income was a loss. marl: the 'Loss" box to the right of the dollar amount. For income received jointly. report the appro riate share for each person - or. if that?s not post le. report the whole amount for only one person and marl: the 'No? box for the other person. a. Wages. salary. commissions. bonuses. ortips from all jobs. Report amount before deductions for taxes, bonds. dues. or other items. CiYes?r No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS b. Self-employment Income from own nonfarm businesses or farrn businesses. Including proprietorships and partnerships. Report NET income after business expenses. 0 Yes ?1 No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS DLo-ss c. Interest. dividends. net rental income. royalty income. or income from estates and trusts. Report even small amounts credited to an account. Yes 4 Ln? No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS d. Social Security or Railroad Retirement i Yes ?1 . No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS e. Supplemental Scarcity Income [5511. Yes ?1 r? T- No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS Any public assistance or welfare payments from the state or local welfare office. 0 Yes ?r No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS 9. Retirement. survivor. or disability pensions. Do NOT include Social Security. 0 Yes ?1 .- Ill" No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS h. Any other sources of income received ularly such as ?lieterans' (VA) pa ents. unemlr oy- ment compensation. chil support or al mony. Do NOT include lump sum payments such as money from an inheritance or the sale of a home. . Yes -i "i No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS What was this person's total income during the PAST 12 Add entries in questions We to 40h; subtract an losses If net income was a loss. enter the amount a marl: the 'toss? box next to the dollar amount. 0 None 011 0 Loss TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 MONTHS Now continue with the mailing instructions on page 24 21 000505 Pages 22 and 23 are intentionally left blank 22 000506 23 000507 Mailing Instructions 0 Please make sure you have.. - put all names on the List of Residents and answered the questions across the top of the page .- - answered all Housing questions - answered all Person questions for each person on the 5? List of Residents. 0 - put the completed questionnaire into the postage-paid return envelope. (It is addressed to the Bureau of the Census Processing Center in Je?ersonville, lndiana) - make sure the barcode above your address shows in the window of the return envelope. Thank you for participating in the American Community Survey. POP PHONE 11 ED CLERK TELEPHONE CLERK :3 Ill The Census Bureau that. [or the .J'n'r'dgll household. Form talre .13 minutes to complete, Including the tor rev ewrng the Instructions and answers Comments about thr- est:male should be drrecled to the Assooate for Administration. Census Bureau. Room 3104. F3 3, Washington. DC 20233. Altn 0607-0810 Please DO NOT RETURN your questiornarre to this address Use the enclosed preaddressed envelope to return your completed qrestlonna re Respondents are wot required to respond to any Iniormatron collection unless it a valid approva number from the ol Management and Budget. This B-dtgil number appears ?1 the bottom 'elt on the [rent cover of this iorm Form ACS-HZDODJ (9-1 2000) 000508 13190012 Ah THE American Community Survey This booklet shows the content of the American Community Survey questionnaire. Please complete this form and return it as soon as possible after receiving it in the mail. This form asks for information about . . . Hi. Please print the name and telephone number of the person who is the people who are or staying at ?lling out this form. We may contact you if there is a question. the address on the mailing label an 511 ?swam" about the house, apartment, or -. home located at the address i? ?Mame M, mailing label. i Area Code Number If you need help or have questions [El about completing this form. please call 1-800-354-7271. The telephone call is free. How many people are living or staying at this address? - INCLUDE everyone who is living or staying here for more than 2 months- the Deaf INCLUDE yourself if you are living here for more than 2 months. Call 1'300'532?3330' The telephone call is "99' . INCLUDE isfimone sis: staying here ?the dloes not have another place to . - stay. even ey are are or mont or assliving somewhere else for more than llama sin cargo alguno al 1-877-833-5825. 2 months, suc as a col ego student living away or someone In the .. Armed Forces on deployment. Ustecl tamblen puede pednr un cuestlonsrlo en Number of espa?ol completar su entrevista por tel?iono con un entrevistador que hsbla espar'rol. For more information about the American . . . . . e, Fill out pages 2. 3. and 4 for no. including oursalf. who is Community Survey. our web at. living or staying at this address more than 2 nlel'ltl'lB. Then complete the rest of the fan-n. 0MB A ll 000509 i 3 1 90020 (Person 1 is the person living or staying herein whose name this house or apartment is owned. being bought. or rented. If there is no such person. start with the name of any adult living or staying here.) What is Person ?I'a name? Last Name (Please print) First Name How is this person related to Person 1 Person 1 What is Person 1 's sex? Marl: ONE box. El Male El Female What is Person 1 age and what is Person 1 'a date of birth? Please report babies as age 0 when the child is less than 1 year old. Print numbers in boxes. Age {in years] Month Day Year of birth -) NOTE: Please answer BOTH Question 5 about His anic origin and is Person 1 of Hispanic. Latino. or Spanish origin? 1 No. not of Hispanic. Latino. or Spanish origin 6 Yes. Mexican. Mexican Am .. l[thicano Yes. Puerto Rican Yes. another His nic. Latino. or Spanish origin - Print ample. Argentinean. Co omblen. Dominican. Nicaraguan. Salve . nlard. and so on. 3 Yes. Cuban I -. a What is Person 1's race? Marl: (X) one Wares. x3 Black. African Am. or Negro American Indian or Alaska Native -- Print name of enrolled or principal tribe? Asian Indian '3 Japanese Native Hawaiian Chinese '3 Korean El Guamanian or Chamorro Filipino El Vietnamese El Samoan El Other Asian - Print race. Ci Other Paci?c islander - Print race. for example. Fijian. Tongan. and so on. 7 for exam ls. Hmong. Laotian. al. Pakistani. Cambodian. and so on. if El Some other race - Print race. What is Parson 2's name? MI Last Name (Please print) First Name a How is this person related to Person 1 Mark (Xi ONE box. Question 6 about race. For this survey. Hispanic gins are not races. ii Ci Husband or wife Son-in-iaw or daughter-in-iaw Biological son or daughter El Other relative Adopted son or daughter l] Boomer or boarder Stepson or stepdaughter Housemate or roommate [3 Brother or sister El Unmarried partner El Father or mother El Foster child Grandchiid Other nonrelative El Parent-ln-lew What is Parson 2's earmark {Xi ONE box. El Male .. What is Parso and what is Person To date of birth? Please report age 0 when the child is less than 1 year old. if} . Print numbers in boxes. Age {in yearle: Month Day Year oi birth - Please answer BOTH Question 5 about His anic origin and on 6 about race. For this survey. Hispanic gins are not races. arson 2 of Hispanic. Latino. or Spanish origin? No. not of Hispanic. Latino. or Spanish origin Yes. Mexican. Mexican Am.. Chicano Yes. Puerto Rican Yes. Cuban DUDE Yes. another His anic. Latino. or Spanish origin - Print origin. for example. Argentinean. Co ombian. Dominican. Nicaraguan. Salvadoran. Spaniard. and so on. i' What is Person 2?s race? Mark {Xi one or more boxes. El Black. African Am.. or Negro American Indian or Alaska Native -- Print name of enrolled or principal tribe-.3- El Asian Indian El Japanese El Native Hawaiian El l.?.hinese Cl Korean Guamanian or Chemorro El Filipino Vietnamese El Samoan Other Asian - Print race. Other Paci?c Islander- l'or exam le. Hmong. Print race. for example. Laotian. hai. Pakistani. Fijian. Tongan. and Cambodian. and so on. 3? so on. Some other race - Print race. 000510 13190038 What is Person 3's name? Last Name {Please print} MI I First Name a How is this person related to Person 1? Mark {Xi ONE box. El Husband or wile Son-in-Iaw or daughter-in-Iaw El Biological son or daughter Other relative El Adapted son or daughter Boomer or boarder El Stepaon or stepdaughter Housemate or roommate El Brother or sister Unmarried partner Father or mother I: Foster child Grandchild Other nonrelative Parent-in-Iaw What is Person 3's sex? Merit ONE box. Male Female What is Person 3's age and what is Person 3?s date of birth? Please report babies as age 0 when the child is less than 1 year old. Print numbers in boxes. Age [in years} Month Day Year of birth -) NOTE: Please answer BOTH Question 5 about His nic origin and Question 8 about race. For this survey. Hispanic gins are not races. Is Person 3 of Hispanic. Latino. or Spanish origin? Black, Airlcan Ant, or Negro American Indian or Alaska Native - Print name of enrolled or principal tribe? El Cl Asian Indian El Japanese Native Hawaiian Chinese Korean Guamanisn or Chamorro Filipino Vietnamese Samoan Other Asian - Print race. Other Paci?c Islander - for exam e. Hmong, Print race. for example. Laotian. at. Pakistani, Ellen, Tongan. and CambodianSome other race .. Print race. 7 No, not of Hispanic. Latino. or Spanish origin . Yes. Mexican. Mexican Arm. Chicano Yes. Puerto Hican Yes. Cuban r? Yes. another Hi snic. Latino. or Spanish origin- Print Wes-ample. Argentinean, Co ombian. Dominican. Nicaraguan. Saiv paniard, and so on. 3? ,5 <45? What is Person 3's race? Merit (X) one Wires. El White a; 2: What is Person 4's name? Last Name (Please print} First Name I How is this person related to Person 1 7 Mark {x1 ONE box. El Husband or wile Son-in~lavv or daughter-in-law El Biologic-Ii son or daughter El Other relative Adopted son or daughter El Boomer or boarder Stepson or stepdaughter Housemate or roommate Brother or sister El Unmarried partner El Father or mother Foster child El Grandchiid CI Other nonreietive Parent-in-law What is Person 4's sea? Mark ONE box. El Male What is and what is Person 4's date of birth? Please report his as age 0 when the child' rs less than 1 year old. Print numbers in boxes. Age {in wait Month Day Year at birth '5 Please answer Question 5 about His nic origin and on 6 about race. For this survey, Hispanic gins are not races. Person 4 of Hispanic. Latino. or Spanish origin? No. not oi Hispanic. Latino. or Spanish origin Yes. Mexican. Mexican Ana. Chicano Yes. Puarto Bican Yes. Cuban Yes. another Hioranic. Latino. or Spanish origin- -Print origin. for arts rdple. Argentinean, mbian, Dominican. Nicaraguan. Salvadoran, Spania and so on. What is Person 4's race? Merit (X) one or more boxes. White Ci Black. African Am.. or Negro El American Indian or Alaska Native Print name of enrolled or principal tribe? El Asian Indian El Japanese El Native Hawaiian CI Chinese El Korean El Guamanian or Chamorro El Filipino Vietnamese El Samoan Other Asian- Print race, El Other Paci?c Islander - for exam eHm orig Print race. for example, Laotian. 01 Pakistani Fijian. Tongan. and CambodianSome other race - Print race. 3? 00051 1 13 190046 If there are more than five people living or staying here. print their names in the spaces for Person 6 through Person 12. What is Person 5's name? We may caii you for more information about them. 7 Lou Name [Please print]I ?rst Name MI I Last Name (Please print) First Name How is this person related to Person 1? Mark rx; ONE box. I Husband or wiie I: Son-irrlaw or daunhter-in-law Biological son or daughter Other relative CI Adopted son or daughter Roomer or boarder Ben Male Female Age [in year-Ii Stepson or stepdaughter [3 Housemate or roommate r1 [3 Brother or sister Unmarried partner Lu! Name (Please print} First Name MI Father or mother Foster child I I CI Grandchild Other nonreietive El Parent-in-Iaw . What is Parson 5?s salt? Mari: (x1 ONE box. Sal Male El Ee?e mm [3 Male Fama?a 1' Person ?558: What is Person 5's age and what is Person 5's date of birth? Piease report babies as age 0 when the chiid is fess than 1 year aid ?at Name {Pleat-Fm Hm ?ame Print numbers in boxes. 3E5 I Age {in veers} Month Day- Year oi birth life a? I II ale Female 4 NOTE: Please answer BOTH Question 5 about His nic origin and Ag. {in Question 6 about race. For this survey. Hispanic gins are not races. Is Person 5 of Hispanic. Latino, or Spanish origin? A [5 5! Name iPiease print} ?rst Name an No. not of Hispanic, Latino. or Spanish origin .x I Yes, Mexican, Mexican Am. Chlceno Yes. Puerto ?ican Cuban "in? Seat [3 Fannie Age [in years! Yes, another His anic. Latino. or Spanish origin - Print ample, Argentinean. Co ambian, Dominican. Nicaraguan, Salve lard, an $0 on. Last Name {Please print) First Name MI ?an? I . .- 0 What is Person 5?s race? Mark one 0 Wires. [3 White \ip Black. African Am. or Negro Ben His El Flu? has [In years} American Indian or Alaska Native - Print name ofenroiied or principal tribeLast Name {Please print) First Name HI '3 Asian Indian Japanese '3 Native Hawaiian Chinese Korean Guemanien or Chamono Filipino Vietnamese Samoan s? El hm.? [In "In! Either Asiafn -hPrint race, Padlii'c Islander-l; or exam a, mo nt race, or exa . Laotian, . ai, Pakig?rn? Fijian, Tongan, any person 1 :1 CambodianLast Name {Piease prim) First Name I Some other race Print race. 7 I an Hait- lj Pamela "n 000512 Please anmer the following questions about the house. apartment. or mobile home at the address on the mailing label. Which best describes this building? include sii apartments. flats, etc. even if vacant. A mobile home A one-famin house detached from any other house A one-family house attached to one or more houses A building with 2 apartments A building with 3 or 4 apartments A building with 5 to 9 apartments A building with 10 to 19 apartments A building with 20 to 49 apartments A building with 50 or more apartments Boat. RV, van. etc. CIDEICIEJCICI CI Ell] About when was this building first built? El 2000 or later- SW 1990 to 1999 1980 to 1989 1970 to 1979 1960 to 1969 1950 to 1999 1940 to 1949 1939 or earlier [313131313131] When did PERSON 1 (listed on page 21 move into this house, apartment. or mobile home? Month Year 1 3 1 90053 6 . . ?6 a; . Answer questions 4 - 6 if this is a HOUSE OR A otherm?se. Still? to quastion 7a. How many acres is this house or mobile home on? El Less than 1 acre -) to question 6 1:1 1 to 9.9 acres 111 or more acres IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS, what were the actual sales of all agricultural.- products from this property? None 51 to $999 $1,000 to $2.499 52.500 to 54.999 $5.0001n $9.999 $10,000 or motel I: . ah {such as a store or a medical of?ce on a. How many separate rooms are in this house. apartment. or mobile home? Rooms must be separated by buiit-r'n archweys or weiis that extend out at ieest 5 inches and go from ?oor to ceiling. - bedrooms, kitchens. etc. - EXCLUDE bathrooms, porches. balconies. foyer-s. belts. or un?nished basements. Number of rooms b. How many of these rooms are bedrooms? Count as bedrooms those rooms you would list if this house. apartment, or mobiie home were for sale or rent. if this is an ef?ciency/studio apartment, print Number of bedrooms a Does this house. apartment, or mobile home have - Yes a. hot and cold running water? b. a flush toilet? o. a bathtub or shower? d. a sink with a faucet? e. a stove or range? DUDUDCI f. a refrigerator? telephone service from make A anc receive calls include cell phones. El How many automobiles. vans. and trucks of one-ton capacity or less are kept at home for use by members of this household? None more Which FUEL is used MOST for hosting this house. apartment. or mobile home? El Gas: from underground i as serving the neighborhood Gas: bottled. tank. or LP Electricity Fuel oil. kerosene. etc. Coal or coke Wood Solar energy Other fuel No fuel used 000513 Housing (continued) 1 1 a. LAST MONTH. what was the cost of electricity for this house. apartment. or mobile home? Last month?s cost Dollars on El Included in rent or condominium fee El Nun charge or electricity not used h. LAST MONTH. what was the cost of gas for this house. apartment. or mobile home? List month's cost Dollars OR included in rent or condominium fee El included in electricity payment entered above No charge or gas not used 0. IN 11-IE PAST 12 MONTHS. what was the cost of water and sewer for this house. apartment. or mobile home? if you have lived here less than 12 months. estimate the cost. Past 12 months' cost - Dollars on El Included in rent or condominium fee CI No charge cost of oil. coal. kerosene. wood, for this house. apartment. or mobile home? if you have lived here less than 12 months, estimate the cost. Past 12 months? cost - Dollars OR El Included in rent or condominium fee No charge or these iuels not used a. IN THE PAST 12 mourns. whet mm .2 13190061 IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS. did anyone in this household receive Food Stamps or a Food Stamp bene?t card? lnclude government bene?ts ham the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Do ND'l'include or the National School Lunch Program. Yes No Is this house, apartment. or mobile home part of a condominium? Cl Yes What is the condominium fee? For renters. answer only if you pay the condominium fee in addition to ?None? boxNone No it i Is this house. or mobile home - Mark ONE .- ?5 lb or someone in this with a mortgage or do home equity loans. by you or someone in this hold free and clear [without a rtgaga or loani? . I .E . 2? Rented? (I if El Occupied without payment of rent? -) to Answer questions t5a and if this house, apartment. or mobile home is RENTED. Dthamise. to question lb?. 6 a. What is the rent for this house. apartment. or mobile home? amount - Dollars It. Does the rent include any meals? El Yes El No your rent; otherwise. mark the amount Dollars jl't _i Answer questions 18 20 if you or someone else in this household OWNS or is this house. apartment, or mobile home. Otherwise, to on the next page. About how much do you think this house and lot. apartment. or mobile home {and lot. if owned] would sell for if it were for sale? Amount Dollars i HE. What are the annual real estate taxes on THIS property? Annual amount -- Dollars on El None is the annual payment for fire. hazard. and ?ood insurance on THIS property? Annual amount Dollars 4? on El None 1 ?ll ll ll 000514 Housing (continued) 19 a. Do you or any member of this household have a mortgage. deed of trust, contract to purchase. or similar debt on THIS property? Yes. contract to purchase CI No 9 to question 20a b. How much is the regular mortgage payment on THIS property? lnclude payment only on mortgage or contract to purchase. amount - Dollars OR Nor goes on 2 c. Does the regular mortgage payment Include payments for real estate taxes on THIS property? [1 Yes, taxes incl udad in mortgage payment No, taxes paid separately or taxes not required d. Does the regular mortgage payment include payments for fire. hazard. or ?ood insurance on THIS Prop-m? CI Yes, insurance Included in mortgage. payment insurance [3 gets. mortgage. deed of trust, or similar El 6 i ulardgayment required -) SKIP to No, insurance paid separately WK a. Do you or any member of this household have a second mortgage or a home equity loan on THIS Fromm? Yes, home equity loan Yes, second mortgage El Yes, second mortgage and home equity loan El No -) to b. How much is the regular payment on all second or junior mortgages and all home equity loans on THIS property? amount - Dollars on El No regular payment required Answer question 21 HOME. Otherwise. . n. 3' What lemma! annual costs for - - - - rtytases.site rent. ?fnual costs - Dollars rt. 5' 311.1. 'Ll h. 13190079 Answer questions about PERSON i on the next page if you listed at least one person on page 2. Otherwise. to page 28 for the mailing instructions. Ill lliil II Illi ll ill 000515 then cont Last Name nuo answering questions below. ?rst Name 0 Where was this person born? In the United States - Print name oistata. 13150087 Please copy the name of Person from page 2. Outside the United States- Print name of foreign country. or Puerto Rico. Guam. etc. a is this person a citizen of the United States? Yes. born in the United States -) to tile Yes. born in Puerto Rico. Guam the U. 8. Virgin Islands. or Northern Marianas Yes. born abroad of U.5. citizen parent or parents Yes. U. S. citizen by naturalization- Print year of naturalization 7 No. not 3 us. citizen When did this rson come to litre in the United States Print numbers in boxes Year person att school or college? include only nursery orpreschool. ergarten. which leads to a high school diploma or a degree. El No. has not attended in the last 3 months -) to question i 1 El Yes. public school. public college Yes. private school. private college. home school Mark ONE box. Nursery school. preschool Kindergarten Grade 1 through 12 Speci?r gra a? Colliegf undergraduate years iireshman to El Graduate ur professionai school bachelor's degree (for example. program. or medics! or law school} a. At any time 111E LAST 3 MONTHS. has this (v {1 elementary school. home school. and achooll? - b. What {?ute or level was this person attending? a or 6 What is the highest degree or level of school this person has Marl: 00 ONE box. if currently enrolled. mark the previous grade or highest degree received NO SCHOOLING COMPLETED No schooling completed NURSERY OR PRESCHOOL THROUGH GRADE 12 Nursery school Kindergarten CI Grade 1 through 11 - Specify grade el- 12m grade? no DIPLOMA urea amounts El Regular high ciploma GED or alternative credential censors on some COLLEGE f- 1 or more years of college credit. no Associate?s degree (for example; AA. Ali}- Bachelor's degree (for exam) AFTER 3 BEGREECJ: Jim: 3 Ms mMSij?llegM 9 Professional a bachelor?s degree {for axe . DVM. LLB. Doctoramrdirffor example: Eda} DUDE estion 12 if this person has a r's degree or higher. Otherwise. to question 13. This question focuses on this person' DEGREE. Please emaont below the i?c Ina rial of any EACH R's DEGREES is person received. {For example: chemical engineering. elementary teacher education. organizational I. . ll i What is this person's ancestry or ethnic origin? (For example: ltalian. Jamaican. African Am. .. Cambodian. Cape Verdean. No Jan. Dominican. French Canadian. Haitian. Kore roan. abanesa. Polish. Nigerian. Mexican. Taiwanese. Ukrainian. and so on. a. Does this person speak a language other than English at hornsquestion 15a It. What is this language? i? For example: Korean. ltallan. Spanish, Vietnamese c. at well does this person speak English? a. Did this person live in this house or apartment 1 year ago? Person ls under 1 year old -t to question 16 Yes. this house to question 16 No. outside the United States and Pua rtoFl ico- Print name of foreign country. or U..S Vi in lslanp?s. Guam. etc. below: then question 16 Very well Well Not well Not at an No. different house in the United States or Puerto Firco Where did this person live 1 year ago? Address {Number and street name} Name of city. town. or post office Name of county or municipio in Puerto Rico Name of 1.1.5. state or Puerto Rico ZIP Code mm 000516 13190095 Person 1 {continued} I Answer question 19 if this person is Hm" hasthis randperent 59?" . unponslle?m1 se randch? run? 15 mm aid or oven Otherw'se' SKIP ifrhe grandparent is ?na'ngieiiy for 16 WW or gre rw om gran paren coverage plans? Mark "Yes? or ?No' for EACH type been responsibie for rhe longest period of time. ofcoveregernitemse?h. Becauseofaphysical,mentel, or emotional condition, does this person have dif?culty ?3 an 5 3- o: ??nf??mis doing errands alone such as visiting a doctor's l] 5 to 11 months office or shopping? 1). Insurance rchesed direct from an compan?ibvt is El Yes 3 0M years person or another family member} El No 5 or more years c. Medicare, for people 65 and older. 111111 at . 0" W9 With 93'1?" di?b?i?? I. this "no" marital mu?? Has this person ever served on active in the . - US. Armed Forces. military Reserves, or onel d' New Guard? Active duty does not include training for the plan f0, those with low incomes Widowed Reserves or Netionei Guard. but DOES include or a disability activation, for example, for the Persian Gulf War. a. names or other military health care Separated 13' 0'1 ?We ?in? r. Ega?rgrhad?i [gang Wham 33%} CI El Never married -) 5109 to HP 2:13:13; gaging-533g gagigt I non acti i th but name We a I: 1 '3 an nucleation? - No traini for Reserves or National Guard or a. Married? oniv 9 to question 28a #7 b. Widowed? No. in the military -) SKIP to question I c. Divorced? q- . 4" a. Is this person deaf or does helehe have How many times h? this? been married? in which this person sari/02$ evean iijuati'or pert?ofrho serious difficulty hosting? Once if period. Two times September 2001 or later Au ust199mo net 2001 includin No Parisian Gulf War?? I ?1 grog-gm? ?gy?ugmgn?hf In what WWII person last get married? El September 1930 to July 1990 glasses? May 1975 to August 1980 Yes El Vietnam emiAugust1964 to April 1975:: No March 1951 to Juiy1964 ii A i if h' i iriswer question 24 if this person is Februaryab'j Fe maryJ1961 newer quest on 18.11 .. t. rs person female and 15_ 50 years old. Otherwise. Korean or! y1950to anusry19551 5 years aid or over. Otherwrse, to :5 . .. SKIP to question 25% January 1947 to June 1950 the questions for Person 2 on page 12. *1 El World War Ii [December 1941 to December 1946} Has this on irran birth to on children in a a. llamas of a mental. or eTio?onel the past monghs? El November 19?" or earlier on.rlurs spersonllarase Doesthis non have VA nri onnected difficul concentrating. rememberingmungtiuurons? I: No Yes Yes isunhas??iia, 10%. .100?? rsonhavaanyofhis?rerown El 951:: No run under interns of 18 living in 1" qu on 293 house or rtrne ?1 this have serious dif?culty b. What is this person's service-connected Yes El No SKIP to question 26 Cl 0 percent hls?ds nmtcunen?y No rnost o? the is needs of soy ndchildireni 10 or 20 percent Does this person have dif?culty dressing or underthe age of 18 who liveisl this house or Cl 30 or 40 percent I ?mm? a" Cl SDorliDpercent 70 percent or higher No No -) to question 26 1 [ll ll Ilil 000517 13150103 Person 1 {continued} 29 e. LASTWEEK. did thisrersonworkfor pay at a job [or business} El Yes a SKIP to question 30 El No Did not work {or retired} h. LASTWEEK. did this person do ANY work for pay, even for as little as one hour? i] Yes No SKIP to question 35a At what location did this person work LAST If this person worked at more than one location, print where he or she worked most last week. a. Address {Number and street name) if the exact address is not known. give a description of the Iocetion such as the building name or the nearest street or intersection. city or town El Yes No. outside the cityl?town limits Name of county a. Name of 0.3. state or foreign country f. ZIP Code How did this person usually get to work LAST if this person usualiy used more than one method of transportation during the trip, mark {Xi tha- box of the one used for most of the distance. Camruck, orvan in Bus or trolley bus Ci Bicycle Streetcarortrolleycar Cl Walked El Subway or elevated CI Worked at a intone Ferryboat Other method Taxicab a What time did this person usually leave home a How many minutes did it usually take this - c. is the work l7ocation inside the limits of that Answer questions 35 a. LAST emotive this person on layoff from [If Na - Pb. the? WEEK, was this person rem-emu . absent from a lob or business? Answer question 32 if you worked 'Can tmck, or van? in question 31. Othemise, SKIP to question 33. How many people. including this person. usually rode to work in the car. truck, or van LAST Parsonisi togotoworkLAST Hour Minute em. Ci p.m. person to net trum home to work LAST 5 Minutes ll: ?person did NOT work first wink. rwise, SKIP to question ?ak-t A, I 4.. 537 large-3? SKIP to question 35c Yes, on vacation.tempora illness. maternity leave, other familigirsonel reasons, bad weather. etc. IP to question 38 No -i SKIP to question 36 Has this person been Informed that he or she will be recalled to work within the next 8 most!? Ol'l been given a date to return to wet Ci Yes -) SKIP to question 37 i: No Durin the hesthis person been ACTI LY looking for work? Yes El No -i SKIP to question 38 LAST went, could this person have started a job if offered one, or returned recalled? toworkif Yes, could have gone to work Ci No. because of own temporary illness Cl No. because of all other reasons {in school. etol When did this person last work. even for a few days? Within the past 12 months 1 to 5 years ago -) SKIP to Otter 5 years ago or nevm worked -) SKIP to question 47 a. During the PAST 12 MONTHS {52 weeks}. did this person work 50 or more weeks? Count paid time off as work. Ci Yes -) SKIP to question 40 Ci No b. How ma weeks DID this person work. even for a few rs. includi paid vacation. paid sick leave. and ry service? 50m52weeks 48m49weeks 40totli'weeks 2?to39weeks 14to2l3weeks 13weeksorless DDUUDU Durin the PAST 12 MONTHS. in the WEEKS W0 D, how many hours did this person usually work each Usual hours worked each WEEK 1:1 ill Hill ll ii liilli 000518 Person 1 (continued) Answer questions 41 - 46 if this person worked in the past 5 years. Otherwise, Still? to question 47. 41 - 48 CURRENT 0R MOST RECENT JOB ACTIVITY. Describe clearly this person?s chief lob activity or business last week. if this person had more than onejob, describe the one at which this person worked the most hours. if this person had no Job or business last week. give information for his/her iastjob or business. Was this race - Mark NE box. an employee ofa PRIVATE ton-9mm company or business. or of an individual. for wages. salary. or commissions? tax-exempt. or charitable organization? a local GOVERNMENT em I (city. county. etc}? was a state GOVERNMENT employee? a Federal GOVERNMENT employee? business. professional practice. or farm? SELF-EMPLOYED in own INCORPORATED business. professional practice. or farm? workinq?WlTHOUT PAY in family business or farm For whom did this person work? linowonectivedutyin theAnnedForcesrmarkinthisbox El and print the branch of the Armed Forces. Name of company, business. or other employer What kind of business or industry was this? (For exam ie: has tai. new-spa ubiishin . mail order houfe, autoangine mnugm?dm. but?? Is this mainly- Mari: ONEbox. on employee of PRIVATE NDT-FOR-PROFIT. SELF-EMPLOYED in own NOT INCORPORATED i? . a Self-employment income from own nonfann Describe the activity at the location where employed. 13190111 {For example: istered nurse. personnel manager. supervisor etc or department. secretary. accountant) What were mmrson's most important activities or 7 {For example: patient care. directing hiring policies. supervisingaorder clerks, typing and ?ling, reconciling ?nanc irecordsi a INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS Mark (X) the ?Yes? box for each type of income this rson received. and ive yourbest estimate of the AL ng the PAST12 . The 'past 12 months? is the period from today?s date one year ago up through today.) Mari: no the "No? box to show types ofincor?e NOT received r' if net income ms a loss. merit the 'Loss?hi'l'o the right of the dollar amount. 3- For income received jointly. ppro riate share for each or not pose . report the amou ne person and mark the 'No'boxfori .. person. . a. We eala ions. bonuses. or psfro Reportamount before deducti . bonds. dues. or other items. 3 ?1 Ethiopia? 1 it?" TOTAL AMOUNT for past lEr? 1 . 12 months :1 I . 4 businesses orfarm businesses. including ri' rshi sand rtnerships. Re incomes expenses. CI Yes -) TOTAL AMOUNT for past 1-033 12 months c. Interest. dividends. net rental income. royalty income. or income from estates and trusts. Report even small amounts credited Hi} No d. Social Security or Railroad Retirement. EIYes-t Elsa TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 months a. Supplemental Security income Yes-) No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 months Any public assistance or welfare payments from the state or local welfare ca. DYes-) TOTAL AMOUNT for 12 months 985* 9. Retirement. survivor. or disability pensions. Do NOT include Social Security. Yes-) No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 months h. Any other sourcesof income received regularly such as Veterans' (VA) :ayments. unemployment co sation. lid support or alimony. Do NOT ude lump sum payments such as money from an inheritance orthe sale of a me. El Yes-3 No TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 months What was this person's total income during the PAST 1 2 Add entries in questions 47a to 47h: subtract any losses. if net income was a loss. enter the amount and mark {Xi the ?Loss? box next to the dollar amount. NonoO? TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 months CI manufacturing? to an amount. wholesale trade? Yes CI retail trade? El No Loss TOTAL AMOUNT for st service, 12 months pa 0 u?th tlhe?lquestloni:I 2 onz'the no page. on rson on go SKIP to page 28?orpnoiailing induction?; Hill ll ll I ll 11 000519 131 90129 The balance of the questionnaire has questions for Person 2, Person 3, Person 4, and Person 5. The questions are the same as the questions for Person 000520 1 31 90277 1V 23' ?x "i I "ill II I II 000521 27 13150285 Mailing Instructions 0 Please make sure you I listed all names and answered the questions on pages 2, 3, and 4 answered all Housing questions I answered all Person questions for each person. 0 . put the completed questionnaire into the postage-paid . return envelope. if the envelope has been misplaced, {if please mail the questionnaire to: U.S. Census Bureau P.O. Box 5240 Jeffersonville, IN 47199-5240 in the window of the return enveIOpe. Thank you for participating in the American Community Survey. {0441: ?1 For Census Bureau Use PUP JIC1 EDIT CLERK TELEPHONE CLERK JIC3 The Census Bureau estimates that. for the average household, this form will talte 33 minutes to complete. including the time for reviewing the instructions and answers. Send comments regarding this burden astimat or any other aspect of this collection of information. including suggestions for reducing this bu rden, to: Paperwork Project 0607-0810, 5. Census Bureau, 4600 Silver Hill Road, AMSD - 3K138. Washington. D.C. 20233. You may e-mail comments to Paperwork Censusgov: use ?Paperwork Proiect 0607-0310' as the subject Please DO NOT RETURN your questionnaire to this address. Use the enclosed preaddressed envelope to return your completed questionnaire. Respondents are not required to respond to any information collection unless it displays a valid approval number from the Of?ce of Management and Budget. This 8?digit number appears in the bottom right on the front cover of this form. Form {05-14-2009} so II I II l I 000522   American Community Survey (ACS) Why We Ask: Place of Birth, Citizenship and Year of Entry We ask about place of birth, citizenship, and year of entry to provide statistics about citizens and the foreign-born population. These statistics are essential for agencies and policy makers setting and evaluating immigration policies and laws, understanding how different immigrant groups are assimilated, and monitoring against discrimination.           The questions as they appear on the 2014 ACS paper questionnaire. A question about “foreigners not naturalized” was first included in the Census of 1820, while a question on place of birth originated in 1850, and a year of entry question originated in 1890. These questions were transferred to the ACS when it replaced the Decennial Census long-form in 2005. Examples of Federal Uses  Required in the enforcement responsibilities under the Voting Rights Act's bilingual requirements to determine eligible voting populations for analysis and for presentation in federal litigation.  Required to enforce against discrimination in education, employment, voting, financial assistance, and housing.  Used in many reporting and research tasks to investigate whether there are differences for citizens and foreign-born individuals in education, employment, home ownership, health, income and many other areas of interest to policymakers. Examples of Other Uses State and local agencies use these statistics to understand the needs of all the groups in their communities over time. Some social, economic, or housing trends may have different impacts for different groups; understanding these changes may highlight future social and economic challenges. Advocacy groups use statistics about specific groups to understand current and future challenges and to advocate for policies that benefit their groups. 000523 Census Bureau Administrative Data Inventory Data access varies by source and requires opprovoifrom doto ownders ccnruuov AeencverProsmm-Twe mum's-r more .fearsAiollibie Federal CNCS Corporation for National and Community Service AlumnilAmeriCorps. VISTA. etc.} 2005-2010-2013 Federal Department of Commerce US. Patent and Trademark Office' Patent Applications? 1893-2014 Federal Department of Homeland Security Federal Emergency Management Agency National Flood Insurance Program 2006 - 2015 Federal Department of Veteran's Affairs Department of Veteran's Affairs US Vetera n's Data 2013 Federal Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families Child Care and Development Fund 2004 - 2014 Federal Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families Temparary Assistance for Needy Families 2000 - 2014 Federal Health and Human Services Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems 2014 Federal Health and Human Scrvices Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Medicaid Statistical Information System fy2000 - fy2016q4 Federal Health and Human Services Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Medicare Enrollment Database 1999 - 2017 Federal Health and Human Services Health and Human Services National Institute of General Medical Sciences 1990-201? Federal Health and Human Services Indian Health Service Patient Registration 1999 - 2017 Federal Health and Human Services National Center for Health Statistics National Death Index linked to Current Population Survey 1973-2011 Federal Housing and Urban Development Housing and Urban Development Computerized Homes Undenivritlng Management System 2000-2010 Federal Housing and Urban Development Housing and Urban Development Federal Housing Authority Integrated Data Base 2010-2016 . Federal Housing and Urban Development Housing and Urban Development Public Indian Housing Information Center 2000 - 2016 Federal Housing and Urban Development Housing and Urban Development Tenant Rental Assistance Certification Center 1999 - 2016 Federal Office of Personnel Management Office of Personnel Management Central Personnel Data File 1990 - 201S Federal Selective Service System Selective Service System Registration File 1999 - 2017 Federal Social Security Administration Social Security Administration Death Master File 2000-2016 Federal Social Security Administration Social Security Administration Master Bene?ciary Record 2015 Federal Social Security Administration Social Security Administration Numident Cumulative from 1998 Federal Social Security Administration Social Security Administration SSA Administrative Records Linked to Current Population Survey 1991-2001 - 1991-2013 Federal Social Security Administration Social Security Administration 55? ?minimal? Records "mkea 5" we? of '"mm and Program 1984-1996 - 1984-2014w1-3 Participation Federal Social Security Administration Social Security Administration Supplemental Security Income 2010 - 2015 Federal Treasury Internal Revenue Service Business Master Entity Information {current} Federal Treasury Internal Revenue Service Form 1040 Returns ty1969 - ty2016 Federal Treasury Internal Revenue Service Form 1040. 1040 Schedules C. CIEZ. SE. E. Form 1040-55. Form 1040-PR {current} Federal Treasury Internal Revenue Service Form 1041. 1065 ty2007 - ty2016 Federal Treasury Internal Revenue Service Form 1099 Returns {Information Returns} ty2003 - ty2016 Federal Treasury Internal Revenue Service Form 1099-R Returns {Information Returns} ty1995 - ty2016 Federal Treasury Internal Revenue Service Form 55-4 for Employer Identification Number {current} Federal Treasury Internal Revenue Service Form ty2005 - ty2016 Forms 1120, 1120F. 1120L. 1120-PC. 1120-RIC. 1120-REIT. 990-R {formerly Federal Treasury Internal Revenue Service 990}. 990-RZ {formerly 990-PF. 1120-C {formerly 990-0. 6765. 851. {current} 1096. 990-N Federal Treasury Internal Revenue Service Forms 941. 941PR. 94155. 943. 943PR. 944. 944-SP. 944-PR. 944-55 {current} Federal United States Postal Service USPS National Change of Address 2010 - 2017 Other Homeless Management Information Localities Houston. TX. Los Angeles. CA Houston. TX 2004 - 2015. Los Angeles. CA Governmental System 2004 - 2014 Other Puerto Rico Puerto Rico Tax Data ty2008 - ty2010 Governmental State Low Income Energy Assistance Low Income Energy Assistance Program C0 C0 2009-2010 - 2013-2014 000524 State State State State State State State Third Party Third Party Third Party Third Party Third Party Third Party Third Party Third Party Third Party Third Party Third Party Third Party Third Party Permanent Fund Data Special Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for Women. Infants and Children Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Child Care Services Unemployment Insurance Third Party Third Party Third Party Third Party Third Party Third Party Third Party Third Party Third Party Third Party Third Party Third Party Third Party Permanent Fund Data Special Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for Women. Infants and Children Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Child Care Services Unemployment Insurance Commercial Real Estate Information IREIS) Corelogic DAR Partners Experian First American Data Tree InfoGroup Market Data Retrieval DIVISION of Dun Bradstreet} Melissa Data National Exchange Carrier Association INECAI Targus United Way 211 Data VSGI A2. C0. HI. IL. IN. MD. MI. NY. 00.11All States. DC and Commercial-to-residential zoning changes Property Tax. Deeds. MLS, Foreclosures Household Member and Telephone Data Credit Bureau Header Data Property Data Household Member Data Education Data Household Member Data Company Code Assignment Foreclosures Household Member and Telephone Data Greater Cleveland. OH Household Member and Telephone Data 2015 AL 2014 - 2016. AZ 2014 - 2017. C0 2011 - 2016. ID 2012 - 2015. NV 2006-2014. OR 2008 - 2016. UT 2014 - 2016. WA 2004 - 2016. WI 2015 - 2016 AZ 2009 2015. CO 2012 - 2013. HI 2013 - 2015. IL 2008 - 2016. IN 2004 - 2016. M0 2009 - 2015. MI 2010 - 2016. NY 2007 - 2012. OR 2009 - 2014. TX 2008 - 2009. VA 2009-2013 ID 2010 - 2016. KY 2014 - 2015. MS 2017. NO 2004 - 2016. NJ 2006 - 2018. NY 2013 2016. TN 2004 - 2016. UT 2012 - 2016 AZ 2009 - 2015. IN 2004 - 2016. MD 2009 - 2015. MI 2010 - 2016 WI 2008-2009 2009 - 2017 2014 2005-2016 - 2017 2015 - 2017 2010 - 2011 2016 - 2017 2010 - 2011 2011-2012 - 2016-2017 2010 - 2011 2013-2015 2005 - 2011 2010 - 2015 2011-2015 2010 - 2017 000525 Evenwel v. Abbott, 2015 WL 5675832 (2015) 2015 WL 5675832 (U.S.) (Appellate Brief) Supreme Court of the United States. Sue EVENWEL, et al., Appellants, v. Greg ABBOTT, In His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Texas, et al., Appellees. No. 14-940. September 25, 2015. On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas Brief of Former Directors of the U.S. Census Bureau as Amici Curiae in Support of Appellees J. Gerald Hebert, Trevor Potter, Campaign Legal Center, 1411 K St. NW, Suite 1400, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 736-2200. Anita S. Earls, Southern Coalition for Social Justice, 1415 W. Highway 54, Suite 101, Durham, NC 27707, (919) 794-4198. Paul M. Smith, Jessica Ring Amunson, Mark P. Gaber, Jenner & Block LLP, 1099 New York Ave. NW, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20001, (202) 639-6000, jamunson@jenner.com, for amici curiae. *i TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................ TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................................................................................... INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE ............................................................................................. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................................................................................. ARGUMENT .............................................................................................................................. I. States Redistrict Based Upon Decennial Census Data that Counts the “Whole Number of Persons” in Each State and There Is No Count of “Citizens” by the Decennial Census ................ A. Legal Framework and History of the Census. ......................................................................... B. States Rely on Census Data to Redistrict. ............................................................................... II. Serious Practical Concerns Counsel Against Constitutionally Requiring States to Draw Districts with Equal Numbers of Voting Age Citizens. ................................................................ A. ACS Citizenship Estimates Cannot Provide the Basis For a Constitutional Equal Protection Rule .............................................................................................................................................. 1. The ACS Estimates Do Not Align with the Timing of Redistricting ........................................ 2. ACS Estimates Are Not Available at the Smallest Geographic Levels, and Some Data is Suppressed to Protect Privacy ...................................................................................................... 3. As a Statistical Sample, ACS Estimates Are Subject to Error That Makes their Use for LineDrawing Difficult ......................................................................................................................... *ii B. Asking Citizenship Status of Every Household Would Lead to Reduced Response Rates and Inaccurate Responses, While Multiplying Privacy and Government Intrusion Fears ............. III. Voter Registration Data Would Be an Inappropriate Measure Upon Which to Require Districts To Be Drawn ................................................................................................................. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ i iii 1 4 6 7 7 11 13 13 14 17 19 23 26 28 *iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Board of Estimate of City of New York v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688 (1989) ....... Brown v. Thomson, 462 U.S. 835 (1983) ..................................................... Burns v. Richardson, 384 U.S. 73 (1966) .................................................... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 11 17 27 000526 1 Evenwel v. Abbott, 2015 WL 5675832 (2015) Department of Commerce v. United States House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316 (1999) .......................................................................................... Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461 (2003), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, 135 S. Ct. 1257 (2015). ......................................................................................... Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983) .................................................... League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006) .... Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) ....................................................... Valdespino v. Alamo Heights Indpendent School District, 168 F.3d 848 (5th Cir. 1999) ................................................................................................... Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964) ..................................................... Constitutional Provisions and Statutes U.S. Const. art. II, § 1 ............................................................................... U.S. Const. art. I, § 2 ................................................................................ U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 2 ..................................................................... 13 U.S.C. § 9(a)(1) ..................................................................................... *iv 13 U.S.C. § 9(a)(2) ............................................................................. 13 U.S.C. § 141(a) ..................................................................................... 13 U.S.C. § 141(b) ..................................................................................... 13 U.S.C. § 141(c) ...................................................................................... 13 U.S.C. § 195 .......................................................................................... Act of Aug. 31, 1964, Pub. L. No. 88-530, 78 Stat. 737 ............................. Act of Mar. 1, 1790, § 1, 1 Stat. 101 .......................................................... Act of Mar. 26, 1810, § 1, 2 Stat. 565-66 ................................................... Ga. Const. art. 3, § 2 ................................................................................. Ill. Const., art. 4, § 3(b) ............................................................................. N.J. Const. art. IV, § 2, ¶ 1 ....................................................................... Pa. Const. art. 2, § 17(a) ............................................................................ Fla. Stat. § 11.031(1) .................................................................................. Ill. Comp. Stat., Chapter 55, § 2-3001c ...................................................... Legislative Materials Counting the Vote: Should Only U.S. Citizens be Included in Apportioning Our Elected Representatives?: Hearing Before Subcomm. on Federalism and the Census of the H. Comm. on Gov't Reform, 109th Cong. (2005) (Statement of Kenneth Prewitt). ................................................................ *v Other Authorities Sandra L. Colby & Jennifer M. Ortman, U.S. Census Bureau, Projections of the Size and Composition of the U.S. Population: 2014 to 2016 (Mar. 2015), https:// www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/ library/ publications/2015/demo/ p25-1143.pdf ....................................................... Andy Greenberg, Census Paranoia Fueled Distrust in Government Privacy More than NSA Wiretapping, Forbes, June 30, 2010, http://www.forbes.com/sites/ firewall/2010/06/30/census-paranoia-fueleddistrust-in-government-privacy-more- than-nsa-wiretapping/ .................... Letter from Postmaster General Timothy Pickering to Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, Dec. 26, 1793, http://founders.archives.gov/documents/ Jefferson/ 01-27-02-0557 ............................................................................ Catherine McCully, U.S. Census Bureau, Designing P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data for the Year 2020 Census (Dec. 2014), http:// www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/ library/publications/2014/ rdo/pl94-171.pdf ......................................................................................... Nathaniel Persily, The Law of the Census: How to Count, What to Count, Whom to Count, and Where to Count Them, 32 Cardozo L. Rev. 755 (2011) ......................................................................................................... *vi Pew Charitable Trust, Inaccurate, Costly, and Inefficient: Evidence that America's Voter Registration System Needs an Upgrade (Feb. 2012), http:// www.pewtrusts.org/°/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/ pcs_ assets/2012/ PewUpgradingVoterRegistrationpdf.pdf ................................................... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 8, 9, 13 14, 15 12, 17, 22 15 11 22 11 25 7 7, 8, 25 18 18 8 8 12 8 8 8 8 12 12 11 11 12 12 24, 25 16 23 7 17 16, 17 27 000527 2 Evenwel v. Abbott, 2015 WL 5675832 (2015) Kenneth Prewitt, What if We Give a Census and No One Comes?, 304 Sci. Mag. 1452 (June 4, 2004) .......................................................................... Prerana Swami, Rep. Bachmann Refuses to Fill out 2010 Census, CBS News (June 18, 2009), http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ rep-bachmannrefuses-to-fill-out-2010-census/ ................................................................... U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Geographic Terms and Concepts, https:// www.census.gov/ geo/reference/terms.html (last visited Sept. 23, 2015) ...... U.S. Census Bureau, A Compass for Understanding and Using American Community Survey Data (Oct. 2008), https://www.census.gov/content/ dam/Census/ library/publications/2008/acs/ACSGeneralHandbook.pdf .... U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey: Data Suppression (Nov. 15, 2013), http://www2.census.gov/programssurveys/ acs/tech_docs/ data_ suppression/ACSO_Data_Suppression.pdf ...................................... *vii U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Design and Methodology (January 2014) - Chapter 15: Improving Data Quality by Reducing Non-Sampling Error (Jan. 30, 2014), http://www2.census.gov/ programssurveys/acs/methodology/design _and_methodology/acs_design_methodology_ ch15_2014.pdf ................... U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Information Guide, http:// www.census.gov/acs/www/about_the_survey/ acs_information_guide/flipbook/ ............................................................... U.S. Census Bureau, Census Instructions, https:// www.census.gov/ history/www/through_the_decades/census_instructions/ (last visited Sept. 23, 2015) .................................................................................................... U.S. Census Bureau, Glossary: Confidence interval (American Community Survey, https://www.census.gov/glossary/ #term_ ConfidenceintervalAmericanCommunitySurve (last visited Sept. 23, 2015) .................................................................................................................... U.S. Census Bureau, Index of Questions, https://www.census.gov/history/ www/ through_the_decades/index_of_questions/ (last visited Sept. 23, 2015) .......................................................................................................... *viii U.S. Census Bureau, Redistricting Data, Voting Age Population by Citizen and Race (CVAP), 2009-2013 American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates, https://www.census.gov/rdo/data/ voting_age_population_by_citizenship_and_race_ cvap.html (last visited Sept. 23, 2015) ........................................................................................... U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 3: 2000 Census of Population & Housing - Chapter 8: Accuracy of the Data 8-3 (July 2007), https:// www.census.gov/prod/ cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf ............................................... 23 24 11 10, 11 18 19 10 7 19 9 22 9 *1 INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE 1 Amici curiae are former directors of the U.S. Census Bureau. As former directors responsible for administering the U.S. Census, amici have a unique and valuable perspective on the practical implications of the rule proposed by Appellants and the limitations of the data on which such a rule would necessarily rely. In amici's view, serious practical concerns counsel against adopting Appellants' proposals to require states to draw districts with equal numbers of either voting age citizens or registered voters. Amicus curiae Dr. Kenneth Prewitt was the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau from 1998 to 2001. In that capacity, he oversaw the execution of the 2000 decennial Census and development of the American Community Survey. Currently, Dr. Prewitt serves as the Carnegie Professor of Public Affairs and Special Advisor to the President at Columbia University, where he teaches and writes on issues related to the intersection of the Census, politics, and statistics. Prior to serving as Director of the Census, Dr. Prewitt served as Director of the National Opinion Research Center, President of the Social Science Research Council, and Senior Vice President of the Rockefeller Foundation. Dr. Prewitt has © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000528 3 Evenwel v. Abbott, 2015 WL 5675832 (2015) considerable knowledge and experience with the use and limitations of Census data and their effect on the political system. *2 Amicus curiae Dr. Robert Groves was the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau from 2009 to 2012. During his tenure, he oversaw the 2010 decennial Census and implementation of the American Community Survey. Currently, Dr. Groves is the Executive Vice President and Provost of Georgetown University, where he also serves as a professor in the Math and Statistics Department as well as the Sociology Department. Prior to serving as Director of the Census Bureau, Dr. Groves was a professor at the University of Michigan and Director of its Survey Research Center, and before that a research professor at the University of Maryland's Joint Program in Survey Methodology. Dr. Groves has written extensively on the mode of data collection and its effect on responses, the social and political influences on survey participation, and the effect of privacy concerns on Census data collection. He has significant knowledge and experience related to the use and limitations of Census data and their effect on the political system. Amicus curiae Dr. Martha Farnsworth Riche was the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau from 1994 to 1998. In that capacity, she oversaw the design of the 2000 decennial Census, as well as the new American Community Survey. Currently, Dr. Riche is affiliated with the Cornell Population Center at Cornell University, and participates in research projects with various Washington-based organizations, most recently on issues of demographic concern to the U.S. military. Prior to serving as Director of the Census Bureau, Dr. Riche directed policy studies for the Population Reference Bureau, and was a founding editor of American Demographics magazine. Dr. Riche has *3 considerable knowledge and experience with the use and limitations of Census data across the public, private, for profit, and not-for-profit sectors. Amicus curiae Vincent P. Barabba was the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau from 1973 to 1976 and from 1979 to 1980 - the only director to be appointed by presidents of both political parties. After serving as Director of the Census Bureau, Dr. Barabba was appointed by Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush to be the U.S. Representative to the Population Commission of the United Nations. He has also served on the board of directors for the Marketing Science Institute, the American Institutes for Research, and the National Opinion Research Center of the University of Chicago. In recognition of his performance in the private and public sectors he has received: An Honorary Doctorate of Laws degree from the Trustees of the California State University, been Inducted into the Market Research Council Hall of Fame, and was awarded The Certificate of Distinguished Service for Contribution to the Federal Statistical System from the Office of Management and Budget. Currently, Dr. Barabba is a member of the California Citizens Redistricting Commission. He has a demonstrated interest in both accurate population statistics and redistricting. *4 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT In order to comply with the equal protection principle of one-person, one-vote, nearly all states and jurisdictions redistrict using total population data based on counts from the most recent decennial U.S. Census. Appellants urge the Court to overthrow this long-settled practice and replace it with one of the two voter-based measures of population they propose - citizen voting age population or registered voters. Beyond the legal and policy flaws with Appellants' argument, serious practical concerns counsel against adopting either of their proposed metrics as a constitutionally mandated means of complying with the one-person, one-vote principle. As an initial matter, there is no actual count of the number of voting age citizens. In keeping with the manner the Constitution provides for apportioning seats in the U.S. House of Representatives among the states, the Census Bureau counts the number of persons in each state. The Census Bureau does not count the number of citizens. The only voting age citizen data that exists are estimates based on a continual sampling conducted as part of the American Community Survey (“ACS”) by the Census Bureau. But ACS was not designed with redistricting in mind. The timing of ACS estimates does not align with the timing of redistricting and ACS estimates are not reported at the small geographic levels redistricters normally use to build districts. Moreover, the geographic areas at which such estimates are available carry large error © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000529 4 Evenwel v. Abbott, 2015 WL 5675832 (2015) margins because of the small sample sizes. These factors make the ACS an inappropriate *5 source of data to support a constitutional rule requiring states to create districts with equal numbers of voting age citizens. Nor is it possible to accurately obtain a count of voting age citizens by inquiring about citizenship status as part of the Census count. Recent experience demonstrates lowered participation in the Census and increased suspicion of government collection of information in general. Particular anxiety exists among non-citizens. There would be little incentive for non-citizens to offer to the government their actual status; the result would be a reduced rate of response overall and an increase in inaccurate responses. Both would frustrate the actual express obligation the Constitution imposes on the U.S. Census Bureau to obtain a count of the whole number of persons in order to apportion House of Representatives seats among the states. Finally, Appellants' suggestion that voter registration data be used to draw districts is even more flawed. Studies show that the country's voter registration data is often inaccurate and outdated. And its inaccuracy aside, voter registration is, as this Court has already recognized, a fluctuating and political measure, making it generally a poor candidate for protecting a right to equal representation guaranteed by the Constitution. Adequate data to support Appellants' positions simply do not exist. The district court's judgment should be affirmed. *6 ARGUMENT A theory of how to determine equal protection for purposes of the one-person, one-vote principle is only as good as the data upon which it is built. Appellants urge the Court to adopt a constitutional rule that would require states to draw districts that have equal numbers of eligible voters rather than equal numbers of people. But the available data to implement such a requirement simply cannot bear the weight the Constitution requires. Indeed, such a requirement would in practice lead to serious equal protection violations because of the inherent uncertainty and fluctuation currently present in the various measures proposed by Appellants to tally eligible voters. 2 Moreover, there is strong reason to doubt sufficiently precise data could be obtained to ensure Appellants' theory of equal protection would ever be equal in practice. An overview of the history and legal framework regarding population data aids in understanding the practical difficulties posed by Appellants' position. *7 I. States Redistrict Based Upon Decennial Census Data that Counts the “Whole Number of Persons” in Each State and There Is No Count of “Citizens” by the Decennial Census. A. Legal Framework and History of the Census. The Constitution contains only one explicit requirement regarding the enumeration of population: to properly apportion the number of seats in the House of Representatives among the states, “the whole number of persons in each State,” U.S. Const, amend XIV, § 2, must be enumerated “every … ten years, in such Manner as [Congress] shall by Law direct,” id. art. I, § 2. 3 Since the original decennial Census in 1790, Congress has passed a number of laws regarding the Census. 4 The discretion afforded the Census Bureau to determine the content and methodology of the Census has grown over time. Originally, U.S. Marshals conducting the Census took an oath to obtain “a just *8 and perfect enumeration,” see Act of Mar. 1, 1790, § 1, 1 Stat. 101. Congress amended this provision in 1810 to require “an actual inquiry at every dwelling-house.” Act of Mar. 26, 1810, § 1, 2 Stat. 565-66. The current Census Act, enacted in 1954, also required data be collected by personal visit until it was modified first to permit some non-apportionment data to be obtained through statistical sampling, see © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000530 5 Evenwel v. Abbott, 2015 WL 5675832 (2015) 13 U.S.C. § 195, and then to repeal the requirement that Census data be obtained through personal visits, and thus permit the Census Bureau to obtain responses through the mail, see Act of Aug. 31, 1964, Pub. L. No. 88-530, 78 Stat. 737. Currently, the only statutorily required data point the Census Bureau must obtain is a “tabulation of total population by States,” 13 U.S.C. § 141(b), which is necessary to fulfill the constitutional mandate to apportion based on the “whole numbers of persons,” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 2; see Dep't of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316, 341 (1999) (holding that Census Act requires actual enumeration data, not sample-based counts, to be used for apportionment purposes). Beyond that, the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the Census Bureau and its directors, is granted wide latitude to conduct the Census “in such form and content as he [or she] may determine, including the use of sampling procedures and special surveys. In connection with any such census, the Secretary is authorized to obtain such other census information as necessary.” 13 U.S.C. § 141(a). Exercising the discretion afforded by Congress (and, in turn, conferred upon Congress by the *9 Constitution), the Census Bureau has, in every Census since 1970, asked only a limited number of questions (known as the “short form”) as part of the actual enumeration of every person. These “short form” questions are generally limited to information such as name, age, sex, and race. 5 From 1970 to 2000, the Census Bureau also sent a “long form” to approximately one in every six households. 6 This “long form” was used to collect answers to a wider array of questions, including demographic, economic, social, and housing questions, as well as inquiring about citizenship status. 7 The data gathered through the “long form” sampling was used by local, state, and federal agencies to administer a wide range of government programs. See Dep't of Commerce, 525 U.S. at 341 (characterizing the Census as the “linchpin of the federal statistical system” (quotation marks omitted)). *10 Following the 2000 Census, the decennial “long form” was discontinued and was replaced by a continual sampling program called the American Community Survey (“ACS”). ACS collects the same type of information that was included on the long form, but does so on a continuous basis throughout the decade. 8 Each month, about 295,000 addresses are mailed the ACS questionnaire, for a total of 3.5 million households a year, or roughly one in thirty-eight households. 9 The ACS data is then used to generate three sets of estimates, according to the size of the jurisdictions covered: a yearly report for cities and states with over 65,000 people, a three-year report for jurisdictions with over 20,000 people, and a five-year report for all jurisdictions. 10 This practice reflects the small size of the ACS sample compared to the prior decennial long form, and the resultant larger sampling errors. A new version of each report is published every year, with the most recent year's data replacing the oldest year's data in the three- and five-year versions. 11 The smallest geographic unit for which ACS estimates are available *11 is the Census block group level in the five-year report. Unlike short form counts, ACS estimates are never available at the individual Census block level. 12 B. States Rely on Census Data to Redistrict. Understandably, states and municipalities do not generally fulfill their requirement to redistrict congressional, state legislative, and other local districts by conducting their own, separate population counts. Rather, they largely rely on Census data to perform their redistricting obligations. See Bd. of Estimate of City of New York v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688 (1989); Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964); Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964). Indeed, the constitutions and laws of a number of states expressly require that decennial Census data be used to redistrict. See, e.g., N.J. Const. art. IV, § 2, ¶ 1 (requiring state senate seats to be apportioned “as nearly as may be according to the number of their inhabitants as reported in the last preceding decennial census of the United States” (emphasis added)); Pa. Const. art. 2, § 17(a) (requiring redistricting to occur “each year following the Federal *12 decennial census”); Ga. Const. art. 3, § 2 (same); Ill. Const, art. 4, § 3(b) (same); Fla. Stat. § 11.031(1) (“All acts of the Florida Legislature based upon population and all constitutional apportionments shall be based upon the last federal decennial statewide census”); Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 55, § 2-3001c (defining “[p]opulation” for county board redistricting as “the number of inhabitants as determined © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000531 6 Evenwel v. Abbott, 2015 WL 5675832 (2015) by the last preceding federal decennial census”); see also Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725, 738 (1983) (approving the use of decennial Census counts for congressional redistricting, noting that because “the census count represents the best population data available, it is the only basis for good-faith attempts to achieve population equality” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). States and municipalities do, however, generally use their own geographic units - called voter precincts - for purposes of conducting elections in their respective jurisdictions. Each voter precinct is comprised of a number of Census blocks. Congress has facilitated states' reliance on Census data for redistricting by providing that states may submit to the Census Bureau, three years prior to the decennial Census, the geographic boundaries for which they would like Census data to aid them in making redistricting decisions. See 13 U.S.C. § 141(c). Thus, states generally provide the Census with voter precinct information, and the Census in turn provides the states with data files that are organized by voter precincts. 13 *13 II. Serious Practical Concerns Counsel Against Constitutionally Requiring States to Draw Districts with Equal Numbers of Voting Age Citizens. A constitutional requirement mandating that states draw legislative districts with equal numbers of voting age citizens would be impossible to accurately implement with currently available data. Moreover, for several reasons, it would be difficult to obtain an accurate actual count, even were one attempted. A. ACS Citizenship Estimates Cannot Provide the Basis For a Constitutional Equal Protection Rule. The actual number of voting age citizens in each state is unknown. The only information in existence is ACS's statistical sample-based estimates. In some circumstances, statistical sampling can be preferable to an actual count. See Dep't of Commerce, 525 U.S. at 322-23 (“Some identifiable groups - including certain minorities, children, and renters - have historically had substantially higher undercount rates than the population as a whole.”); id. at 354 (“[U]nadjusted headcounts are also subject to error or bias - the very fact that creates the need for a statistical supplement”) (Breyer, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part). But *14 the ACS was not designed to provide data to support a constitutional right to districts with equal numbers of voting age citizens. 1. The ACS Estimates Do Not Align with the Timing of Redistricting. As an initial matter, the ACS estimates do not align with the timing of congressional apportionment or traditional legislative apportionment. States traditionally redistrict their state legislative districts at, the same time as their congressional districts, using the same decennial Census count that triggered the congressional reapportionment. States thus use the Census count to create population equality among and within the states measured by a single, consistent snapshot in time that persists for the decade. As this Court explained in Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461 (2003), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, 135 S. Ct. 1257 (2015): When the decennial census numbers are released, States must account for any changes or shifts in population. But before the new census, States operate under the legal fiction that even 10 years later, the plans are constitutionally apportioned. After the new enumeration, no districting plan is likely to be legally enforceable if challenged, given the shifts and changes in a population over 10 years. And if the State has not redistricted in response to the new census figures, a federal court will ensure that the districts comply with the one-person, one-vote mandate before the next election. © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000532 7 Evenwel v. Abbott, 2015 WL 5675832 (2015) *15 Id. at 488 n.2. This “legal fiction” is “necessary to avoid constant redistricting, with accompanying costs and instability.” League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399, 421 (2006) (opinion of Kennedy, J., joined by Souter, J., and Ginsburg, J.). Using the ACS voting age citizen estimates would unsettle this system. To begin, only the five-year information could be used because the one- and three-year reports are not statistically reliable at the small geographic units used to draw district boundaries. See supra Part I. This poses several problems that seriously undermine the ACS's utility for redistricting. First, with respect to the ACS five-year survey, eighty percent of the data is already between two and five years old at the time of redistricting. In contrast, redistricting occurs as soon as the population counts currently used by states is released by the Census Bureau. To illustrate, if ACS estimates were used instead of the total population count, a state redistricting in 2021 would be using aggregated estimates spanning from 2015 to 2020. Because the map drawn in 2021 would govern elections through the decade, by 2030, forty percent of the underlying aggregated estimates will be from questionnaires answered fourteen or fifteen years prior. The ACS estimates are therefore a more stale source of information than the total population count currently relied upon by the states. Second, because the ACS estimates contain five years of sampling, and the age information is not adjusted each year to reflect the passage of a year, many respondents who were between the ages of *16 thirteen and seventeen when their responses were recorded will continue to be excluded from the voting age citizen count at the time the estimates are used to draw district lines, despite the fact that they are in fact eighteen or older at that time. See Nathaniel Persily, The Law of the Census: How to Count, What to Count, Whom to Count, and Where to Count Them, 32 Cardozo L. Rev. 755, 777 (2011). This problem is exacerbated, as discussed above, by the fact that district lines remain in place for a decade, meaning that at the end of the redistricting cycle, a thirty-two-year-old person is not “counted” as a voting age person in their district if she was seventeen when first surveyed. Third, the share of minorities among people under the age of eighteen greatly exceeds their share of the total population. 14 As a result, areas with larger minority populations will be disproportionately affected by the use of ACS estimates that are not annually updated to reflect the actual age of respondents at the time the report is released, thus undercounting “eligible voters” among minority communities and therefore overpopulating minority legislative districts. Together, these issues would result in outdated information governing district lines and entrenched undercounting of young voters, disproportionately affecting minority populations. For these reasons, the *17 use of five-year-old ACS estimates cannot support the constitutional one-person, one-vote requirement. 2. ACS Estimates Are Not Available at the Smallest Geographic Levels, and Some Data is Suppressed to Protect Privacy. An additional problem is that ACS estimates are not available at the smallest geographical level that is actually used for purposes of redistricting - the Census block. The smallest geographic level at which ACS estimates can accurately be utilized is the block group level. See Persily, 32 Cardozo L. Rev. at 777. This would pose significant problem for states seeking to evenly populate districts. “In order to achieve the lowest possible levels of deviation within state legislative and congressional plans, state technicians have repeatedly advised the Census Bureau that they need decennial counts by small-area geography such as voting districts and census blocks.” 15 States need data at granular levels in order to make a good-faith effort to equalize population to the extent possible among districts. See Karcher, 462 U.S. at 730 (requiring that, for congressional redistricting, states “make a good-faith effort to achieve precise mathematical equality” (quotation marks omitted)); Brown v. Thomson, 462 U.S. 835, 842 (1983) (noting that the Court has permitted “minor deviations from mathematical equality among state legislative districts” (quotation marks omitted)). Without the granular Census block *18 data typically used to balance population between and among districts, states relying © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000533 8 Evenwel v. Abbott, 2015 WL 5675832 (2015) upon ACS voting age citizen estimates likely will be unable to satisfy the standard this Court requires for legislative redistricting. Moreover, even at the block group level, there are a number of geographical areas where there are too few people to permit the Census Bureau to even release estimates without jeopardizing privacy. Congress has mandated that Census data may only be used for “the statistical purpose for which it is supplied,” 13 U.S.C. § 9(a)(1), and that the Census Bureau may not “make any publication whereby the data furnished by any particular … individual … can be identified,” id. § 9(a)(2). As a result, the Census Bureau suppresses certain estimates that could be linked to identifiable persons in light of the small geographic size of the reporting area. 16 States depend upon population counts being reported at small geographic units to permit districts to be built that meet the constitutional requirement for equal distribution of population. In addition, having decennial Census counts available at small geographic units makes it easier to follow voter precinct lines or other political subdivision lines, such as city boundaries, particularly where those lines have recently changed by annexations or precinct splits. The ACS voting age citizen estimates are not reported - and in some cases *19 are statutorily prohibited from being reported - at the Census block level. The ACS estimates thus cannot meet the needs of states for redistricting purposes. 3. As a Statistical Sample, ACS Estimates Are Subject to Error That Makes their Use for Line-Drawing Difficult. As with any survey, the ACS estimates are subject to non-sampling errors (e.g., errors in data coding) and sampling errors (e.g., the chosen sample is non-representative of the actual community). 17 The ACS reports margins of error at the ninety percent confidence level. 18 For example, if the ACS estimates reported that a county had 10,000 citizens over the age of eighteen, with a five percent relative error, nine times out of ten (ninety percent of the time) one could be confident that the actual citizen voting age population of the county was between 9,500 and 10,500. The margin of error grows as the sample size decreases, so the smaller the area, the higher the possibility of error. This could become a significant issue because redistricting decisions are often made on the margins, using very small geographic units to *20 surgically move populations in and out of districts to satisfy the one-person, one-vote requirement. And, as discussed above, the smallest unit - the Census block - is not available with ACS estimates because of sample size limitations. Take for example Titus County, Texas, where Appellant Sue Evenwel resides. See Br. of Appellants at 10. Titus County has eight Census tracts, each with between two and four Census block groups, for a total of twenty-two block groups - the smallest level of geography reported by the ACS. The relative error for the ACS's estimates of voting age citizens for the Titus County block groups range from a low of 14.1 percent to a high of 36.6 percent. Figure 1 below shows the estimates by block group for Titus County. Figure 1: Titus County, Texas CVAP Estimates with Absolute and Relative Error by Block Group (2009-2013) Block Group   9501: #1   9501: #2   Est. CVAP with Absolute and Relative Error   1,045 ±213 (20.4%)   485 ±148 (30.5%)   Block Group   9505: #1   9505: #2   Est. CVAP with Absolute and Relative Error   640 ±153 (23.9%)   560 ±149 (26.6%)   © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000534 9 Evenwel v. Abbott, 2015 WL 5675832 (2015) 9502: #1   9502: #2   9503: #1   9503: #2   9503: #3   9503: #4   9504: #1   9504: #2   9504: #3   895 ±162 (18.1%)   9506: #1   9506: #2   9506: #3   9507: #1   9507: #2   9508: #1   9508: #2   9508: #3   9508: #4   680 ±116 (17.1%)   1,445 ±236 (16.3%)   905 ±204 (22.5%)   1,870 ±263 (14.1%)   540 ±177 (32.8%)   1,360 ±264 (19.4%)   2,020 ±301 (14.9%)   850 ±210 (24.7%)   750 ±197 (26.3%)   825 ±192 (23.3%)   615 ±154 (25.0%)   325 ±90 (27.7%)   315 ±114 (36.2%)   655 ±240 (36.6%)   575 ±178 (31.0%)   815 ±193 (23.7%)   330 ±111 (33.6%)   As Figure 1 shows, even if redistricters could conceivably rely upon block groups to move areas *21 among districts to properly draw boundaries, they would contend with relatively large error margins. For example, if an adjoining district needed to be increased by 330 voting age citizens, Block Group 4 of Census Tract 9508 would be considered. But the most that can be said is that nine times out of ten, one could be confident that there were between 219 and 441 voting age citizens in that area - a 33.6 percent relative error. The error margins are still relatively high at the next largest geographic unit, the Census tract, as illustrated by Figure 2 below. Figure 2: Titus County, Texas CVAP Estimates and Error Margins by Census Tract Census Tract Est. Absolute Error 90% Confidence Range Relative Error   CVAP         9501 1,530 ±210 1,320 - 1,740 13.7%           9502 1,570 ±180 1,390 - 1,750 11.5%           9503 4,755 ±297 4,458 - 5,052 6.2%           9504 4,230 ±297 3,933 - 4,527 7.0%           9505 1,200 ±182 1,018 - 1,382 15.2%           9506 2,190 ±217 1,973-2,407 9.9%           © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000535 10 Evenwel v. Abbott, 2015 WL 5675832 (2015) 9507 635 ±123 512 - 758 19.4%           9508 2,375 ±237 2,138 - 2,612 10.0%           The relative error ranges from 6.2 to 19.4 percent for the Titus County Census tracts. So, if redistricters needed to move 635 people to a neighboring district, tract 9507 would be an obvious candidate, but using ACS estimates, the most they could know is that nine *22 times out of ten, it would contain between 512 and 758 citizens of voting age. 19 All of these issues together - the timing issues, the unavailability of estimates at the block level typically used by redistricters, the unavailability of certain estimates because of privacy concerns, and the error margins combine to make the ACS voting age citizen estimates an inappropriate source to support the constitutional one-person, one-vote right. This is not to say the ACS estimates are inappropriate for other uses. Because it is the only citizenship information that exists, where courts require citizenship information to support legal claims, as some have for cases under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, see, e.g., Valdespino v. Alamo Heights Independent School District, 168 F.3d 848, 853 (5th Cir,. 1999), it is the “best population data available,” Karcher, 462 U.S. at 738 (quotation marks omitted). It is one thing to use less than perfect data when it is the only data available to meet a statutory evidentiary burden; it is quite another to create and impose a new constitutional rule that must necessarily be built upon that data. *23 B. Asking Citizenship Status of Every Household Would Lead to Reduced Response Rates and Inaccurate Responses, While Multiplying Privacy and Government Intrusion Fears. Directly inquiring about citizenship status as part of the short form Census is not a solution to the data problem posed by Appellants' legal theory. Doing so would likely exacerbate privacy concerns and lead to inaccurate responses from non-citizens worried about a government record of their immigration status. During the past two decades, the Census Bureau has had to contend with significantly increased distrust, based on concerns about government intrusion and privacy. When the 2000 Census was taken, controversy erupted over the Census questions, with congressional leaders and others calling on people to disregard questions they found intrusive. 20 In one survey, 71 percent of respondents said that intrusive questions should go unanswered. 21 This problem continued with the 2010 Census - between 2009 and 2010, one survey showed the Census Bureau dropped in its “trust” rating from 75 percent to 39 percent. 22 One *24 Congresswoman publicly proclaimed that her family “will only be indicating the number of people in the household, because ‘the Constitution doesn't require any information beyond that.’ ” 23 A mandatory inquiry into citizenship status is all the more likely to engender privacy concerns, particularly among noncitizens. “The nuanced reasons for the question … will of course be lost to millions upon millions of Americans. The question will be viewed with suspicion.” 24 “[I]t is foolish to expect that census-taking is immune from anxieties that surround such issues as undocumented aliens, immigration enforcement, terrorism prevention, national identity cards, total information awareness, and sharp increases in surveillance generally.” 25 In addition to both citizens and non-citizens simply not responding, “[n]on-citizens, mistrustful of the government's promise that their answers to a census question can never be used against them, will misrepresent themselves on the census form.” 26 *25 The sum effect would be bad Census data. And any effort to correct for the data would be futile. © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000536 11 Evenwel v. Abbott, 2015 WL 5675832 (2015) The Census Bureau cannot become a quasi-investigatory agency and still perform its basic responsibilities as a statistical agency. Responses to a citizenship question cannot be validated on a case-by-case basis. Although the bureau may devise ways to estimate the magnitude of misrepresentation in responses to a citizenship question at the national level, such an estimate would not likely be robust enough to be used in state-level counts - let alone at the smaller levels of geography relevant to congressional districting, state legislatures, and local government. 27 Finally, because a one-by-one citizenship inquiry would invariably lead to a lower response rate to the Census in general, such an inquiry would seriously frustrate the the Census Bureau's ability to conduct the only count the Constitution expressly requires: determining the whole number of persons in each state in order to apportion House seats among the states. See U.S. Const, art. II, § 1; id. amend XIV, § 2. 28 Neither existing data estimates nor a potential actual count can reliably permit states to draw districts *26 with equal numbers of voting age citizens. As a result, voting age citizen data cannot plausibly serve as a constitutionally-mandated metric for defining the one-person, one-vote principle. III. Voter Registration Data Would Be an Inappropriate Measure Upon Which to Require Districts To Be Drawn. Appellants' alternative measure - voter registration data - is also an inappropriate measure by which to require states to draw districts. The data is often inaccurate and unreliable, it is prone to dramatic changes, and it is generally available only at the voting precinct level, not at the smaller Census block level at which states generally draw districts. Although this Court has before permitted a state to draw districts based on voter registration data, it did so only for an interim districting plan with assurances that the data in the particular case did not vary from other population measures. In so doing, the Court expressed considerable doubts about the use of this data, stating: Use of a registered voter or actual voter basis … depends … upon the extent of political activity of those eligible to register and vote. Each is thus susceptible to improper influences by which those in political power might be able to perpetuate underrepresentation of groups constitutionally entitled to participate in the electoral process, or perpetuate a ghost of prior malapportionment. Moreover, fluctuations in the number of registered voters in a given election may be sudden and substantial, caused by such fortuitous factors as a peculiarly *27 controversial election issue, a particularly popular candidate, or even weather conditions. Burns v. Richardson, 384 U.S. 73, 92-93 (1966) (internal quotation marks omitted) (footnotes omitted). These problems have not changed since 1966 when Burns was decided. A 2012 study by the Pew Charitable Trust found that approximately 24 million voter registration records in the United States - 1 in 8 - are invalid or inaccurate, including 12 million with incorrect addresses, suggesting voters had moved or the addresses were otherwise incorrect. 29 The study also found 1.8 million deceased still registered, and 2.75 million voters registered in more than one state. 30 Beyond the inaccuracy of voter registration data, state registration data simply is not available at the Census block level. Rather, the smallest geographic unit at which voter registration data is available is the voter precinct level. Thus, redistricters would not be able to move particular Census blocks from district to district and would instead be limited © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000537 12 Evenwel v. Abbott, 2015 WL 5675832 (2015) to moving precincts. These geographic areas are generally too large to accurately draw districts with substantially equal populations. *28 In light of the serious flaws in voter registration data, it would in most instances be a violation of equal protection for this metric to be used, contrary to Appellants' argument that the Constitution actually should require it. 31 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court should affirm the decision of the district court. Footnotes Pursuant to Rule 37.6, amici affirm that no counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part and that no person other 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 than amici and their counsel made a monetary contribution to its preparation or submission. The parties' letters of consent to the filing of amicus briefs are on file with the Clerk's office. Indeed, as Appellants' own brief demonstrates, there is considerable fluctuation and uncertainty even among the multiple measures Appellant proposes as potential constitutional requirements. See Br. of Appellants at 9,11-12. As historical documents show, this was from the start understood to be a “Census of Inhabitants,” without regard to citizenship. See, e.g., Letter from Postmaster General Timothy Pickering to Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, Dec. 26, 1793, http:// founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-27-02-0557 (last visited Sept. 23, 2015) (referring to the “Census of Inhabitants”). See generally U.S. Census Bureau, Census Instructions, https:// www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/ census_instructions/ (last visited September 23, 2015) (providing description of congressional authorizations and instructions provided to U.S. Marshals, enumerators, and inhabitants from 1790 to 2010). See U.S. Census Bureau, Index of Questions, https:// www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/ index_of_questions/ (last visited Sept. 23, 2015). See, e.g., U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 3: 2000 Census of Population & Housing - Chapter 8: Accuracy of the Data 8-3 (July 2007), https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf. Although the total sample size was one in six households, it was not evenly distributed: a greater percentage of households in rural areas were sampled to increase the reliability of the data estimates in such areas. Id. See U.S. Census Bureau, Index of Questions, https:// www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/ index_of_questions/ (listing long form questions for 1970 to 2000) (last visited Sept. 23, 2015). See U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Information Guide, http://www.census.gov/acs/www/ about_the_survey/acs_information_ guide/flipbook/. Id. at 6, 8. See U.S. Census Bureau, A Compass for Understanding and Using American Community Survey Data at 9 (Oct. 2008), https:// www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2008/ acs/ACSGeneralHandbook.pdf; see id. Appendix 1 at A-1A-2. See id. at 13. For example, if one five-year report aggregates information from 2008 to 2013; the next report will cover 2009 to 2014. Id., Appendix 1 at A-2. The Census Bureau has developed different levels of “statistical geography” to report information. The largest is the Census tract; typically each county will contain several tracts, with each tract having an ideal population of 4,000 (ranging from 1,200 to 8,000). See U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Geographic Terms and Concepts, https:// www.census.gov/ geo/reference/terms.html (last visited Sept. 23, 2015). Block groups are clusters of blocks within a tract, and contain between 600 and 3,000 people. Id. The lowest level of geography is the individual Census block, which follows physical features (such as the streets bounding a city block) or non-physical features (such as property lines). Id. If the Court holds that the Constitution requires states and local governments to use voting age citizens as the measure for the one-person, one-vote principle, nothing in the Constitution or in the current Census Act would require the Census Bureau to provide this information to states and local governments. Rather, the Court would be requiring states and local governments to obtain this information on their own, in the process abrogating the many state constitutional and statutory provisions linking the state process to the federal Census data. © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000538 13 Evenwel v. Abbott, 2015 WL 5675832 (2015) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 See Sandra L. Colby & Jennifer M. Ortman, U.S. Census Bureau, Projections of the Size and Composition of the U.S.. Population: 2014 to 2016 10-11 (Mar. 2015), https:// www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/ p25-1143.pdf. Catherine McCully, U.S. Census Bureau, Designing P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data for the Year 2020 Census 7-8 (Dec. 2014), http:// www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2014/rdo/pl94-171.pdf. See U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey: Data Suppression 2, 7 (Nov. 15, 2013), http://www2.census.gov/ programs-surveys/acs/tech_ docs/data_suppression/ACSO_Data_Suppression.pdf. See U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Design and Methodology (January 2014) - Chapter 15: Improving Data Quality by Reducing Non-Sampling Error, at 1 (Jan. 30, 2014), http://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/methodology/ design_and_methodology/acs_design_methodology_ ch15_2014.pdf. U.S. Census Bureau, Glossary: Confidence interval (American Community Survey, https://www.census.gov/glossary /#term_ ConfidenceintervalAmericanCommunitySurve (last visited Sept. 23, 2015). Data for both Figures 1 and 2 is taken from U.S. Census Bureau, Redisricting Data, Voting Age Population by Citizen and Race (CVAP), 2009-2013 American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates, https:// www.census.gov/rdo/data/ voting_age_population_by_citizenship_and_race_ cvap.html (last visited Sept. 23, 2015). Kenneth Prewitt, What if We Give a Census and No One Comes?, 304 Sci. Mag. 1452 (June 4, 2004). Id. Andy Greenberg, Census Paranoia Fueled Distrust in Government Privacy More than NSA Wiretapping, Forbes, June 30,2010, http:// www.forbes.com/sites/firewall/2010/06/30/ census-paranoia-fueled-distrust-in-government-privacymore-than-nsa-wiretapping/. Prerana Swami, Rep. Bachmann Refuses to Fill out 2010 Census, CBS News (June 18, 2009), http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ rep-bachmann-refuses-to-fill-out-2010-census/. Counting the Vote: Should Only U.S. Citizens be Included in Apportioning Our Elected Representatives?: Hearing Before Subcomm. on Federalism and the Census of the H. Comm. on Gov't Reform, 109th Cong. 77 (2005) (Statement of Kenneth Prewitt). Id. at 78. Id. Id. Appellants offer no explanation for how it could be that the Fourteenth Amendment forbids Texas from apportioning seats within the state in the same manner the Fourteenth Amendment requires seats to be apportioned among the states. Pew Charitable Trust, Inaccurate, Costly, and Inefficient: Evidence that America's Voter Registration System Needs an Upgrade 3-4 (Feb. 2012), http://www.pewtrusts.Org/°/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/ pcs_ assets/2012/ PewUpgradingVoterRegistrationpdf.pdf. Id. at 4. The “Non-Suspense Voter Registration” metric offered by Appellants is equally flawed - it adds additional potential error related to mailing of notices. See Br. of Appellants at 9. End of Document © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000539 14 Census 2000 Evaluation B.5 September 24, 2003 Census 2000 Content Reinterview Survey: Accuracy of Data for Selected Population and Housing Characteristics as Measured by Reinterview FINAL REPORT This evaluation reports the results of research and analysis undertaken by the US. Census Bureau. It is part of a broad program, the Census 2000 Testing, Experimentation, and Evaluation (TXE) Program, designed to assess Census 2000 and to inform 2010 Census planning. Findings from the Census 2000 TXE Program reports are integrated into topic reports 'that provide context and background for broader interpretation of results. Singer and Sharon R. Ennis Demographic Statistical Methods Division USCENSUSBUREAU Helping You Make Informed Decisions 000540 000541 respondents changed answers during the reinterview. It is not surprising that this question displayed high inconsistency. Opinion questions often show high levels of inconsistency because the reSpondent may change opinions or perceptions between the two interviews. When evaluating such questions, we cannot determine if the results show response error or if they show changes in opinion. The signi?cant net difference rate suggests that one or both of the model assumptions (independence and replication) have not been met for the ?Very well,? ?Well," and ?Not at all? categories. The inconsistency level for the English-speaking ability question was high in both 2000 and 1990, but their indexes were not signi?cantly different (2 -0.3). Table 22 below provides the inconsistency level and aggregate index of inconsistency for this question by decade. Table 22. Aggregate response variance measures for English-speaking ability by decade 2000 1990 Index of inconsistency Index of inconsistency 90-pereent 90-pereent con?dence Inconsistency level Estimate con?dence interval Inconsistency level Estimate interval High 59.5 56.8 to 62.5 High 60.3 57.4 to 63.4 Households with non-Hispanic sample persons showed less inconsistency than households with Hispanic sample persons, although both were high. Households with foreign?born sample persons showed less inconsistency than households with native sample persons, although both were high. Place of birth (CRS 16, Census 13) Some changes have been made to this question since 1990. Response check boxes were added to distinguish between born in the United States and born outside the United States. Also, separate write-in lines were provided for state of birth and place of birth outside the United States. In 1990, only one write-in line was provided. The place of birth question requested the CRS respondent to indicate whether the sample person was born inside or outside of the United States. Respondents reported very consistently. The index of inconsistency was 2.7 (2.2 to 3.3) and 0.5 percent (0.4 to 0.5) of respondents changed answers when reinterviewed. Households with male sample persons showed less inconsistency than households with female sample persons, although both were low. Households with native sample persons showed less inconsistency (low) than households with foreign-born sample persons (high). Respondents who reported on mailback forms showed less inconsistency than respondents who reported to enumerators, although both were low. 31 000542 If the sample person was born in the United States, then the question requested that the respondent report the name of the state in which the sample person was born. If the sample person was born outside of the United States, then the respondent was asked to report the name of the country where the sample person was born. These responses were grouped into 68 categories which are shown in Appendixes and E. The categories included the 50 states, the District of Columbia, United States territories, and other countries and regions. The aggregate index was 3.2 (3.0 to 3.5) and approximately 3 percent (2.9 to 3.4) of CRS reSpondents changed answers during the CRS. There was some evidence that one or more of the model assumptions were not met for 12 categories. All subgroups showed low inconsistency. Households with male sample persons showed less inconsistency than households with female sample persons. Households with I-IiSpanic sample persons showed less inconsistency than households with non- Hispanic sample persons. Respondents who reported on mailback forms showed less inconsistency than respondents who reported to enumerators. We then collapsed the states into four regions of the United States (Northeast, North Central, South, and West), grouping responses into 21 categories. The aggregate index was even lower at 2.3 (2.1 to 2.5). Approximately 1.8 percent (1.6 to 2.0) of CRS re3pondents changed answers in the reinterview. The net difference rate was signi?cantly different from zero for the ?Northeast," state not reported,? and ?Asia? categories suggesting that one or more of the model assumptions were not met. Citizenshi CRS 17 Census 14 As in the previous CRS, these data were reported very consistently in 2000. The data were signi?cantly less inconsistent in 2000 than in 1990 (z Table 23 shows the inconsistency level and aggregate index for both decades. Table 23. Aggregate response variance measures for citizenship by decade 2000 1990 Index of inconsistency Index of inconsistency 90-pereent 90-percent hiconsistency level Estimate con?dence interval Inconsistency level Estimate con?dence interval Low 9.8 9.0 to IO.8 Low 10.9 10.0 to 12.0 In 2000, the aggregate index was 9.8 (9.0 to 10.8) and 1.8 percent (1.7 to 2.0) of CRS respondents changed answers in the reinterview. The categories ?Yes, born in Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, or Northern Marianas" and ?Yes, born abroad of American parent or parents" were rare. The net difference rates weresigni?cantly different from zero for the ?Yes, U.S. citizen by naturalization" and ?No, not a citizen of the United States.? This suggests that the model assumptions of independence and replication may not have been met by the reinterview. The CRS found more respondents reported ?Yes, U.S. citizen by naturalization? and fewer respondents reported ?No, not a citizen of the United States? than on the census. 32 000543 All subgroups showed low inconsistency. Households with non-Hispanic sample persons showed less inconsistency than households with Hispanic sample persons. Respondents who reported on mailback forms showed less inconsistency than respondents who reported to enumerators. Year of eng to the US (CRS 18, Census 15 I If the sample person was not born in the United States, then the respondent was asked what year the sample person came to live in the United States. This question has been modi?ed since 1990. For 2000, this was a write?in question, whereas in 1990 ten response intervals were provided. As shown in Table 24, the question from Census 2000 showed less inconsistency than the question from the 1990 census (2 -2.S). Table 24. Aggregate response variance measures for year of entry by decade 2000 1990 Index of inconsistency Index of inconsistency 90hpereent 90hpereent Inconsistency level Estimate con?dence interval inconsistency level Estimate confidence interval [cw 18.9 17.2 to 20.8 Moderate 23.0 21.1 to 25.2 We grouped the responses to this question into ten categories which are shown in Appendixes and B. These data were reported with low inconsistency. The aggregate index was 18.9 (17.2 to 20.8) and 16.4 percent (14.9 to 18.0) of respondents changed answers between the census and the CRS. The net difference rates were statistically signi?cant for the ?1970 to 1974," ?1960 to 1964,? and ?Before 1950? categories suggesting that the reinterview was not an independent replication of the census. Households with female sample persons showed less inconsistency (low) than households with male sample persons (moderate). Households with non-Hispanic sample persons showed less inconsistency (low) than households with Hispanic sample persons (moderate). Re3pondents who reported on mailback forms showed less inconsistency (low) than respondents who reported to enumerators (moderate). Miggtion (CRS 19; 19b, Census 16a; 16b) The CRS asked two migration questions. These questions ask about place of residence on April 1, 1995. Both questions have been modi?ed since 1990. - Live at current residence on April 1, 1995 (CRS 19; Census 16a) This question asked if the sample person lived at their current residence on April 1, 1995. For 2000, a separate write-in line was added for places outside the United States, whereas in 1990 this was combined with the United States write-in line. 33 000544 Respondents answered this question with moderate inconsistency. The aggregate index of inconsistency was 22.2 (21.4 to 22.9). The index was low for the ?Person is under 5 years old? category and moderate for the ?Yes, this house,? ?No, outside the United States,? and ?No, different house in the United States" categories. The rare category ?No, outside th United States? had the highest index, at 40.2 (36.7 to 44.0). Approximately 12 percent (1 1.7 to 12.5) of CR3 respondents changed answers. Among the respondents that changed answers when reinterviewed, approximately 70 percent (67.9 to 71.2) changed between ?Yes, this house? and ?No, different house in the United States.? The net difference rate was statistically different from zero for the ?Yes, this house" and ?No, different house in the United States? categories. The signi?cant net difference rates show us that one or both of the model assumptions, independence and replication, were not met. Households with non?Hispanic sample persons showed less inconsistency than households with Hispanic sample persons, although both were moderate. Households with native sample persons showed less inconsistency than households with foreign-born sample persons, although both were moderate. Respondents who reported on mailback forms showed less inconsistency than respondents who reported to enumerators, although both were moderate. Where lived in US. on April 1. 1995 (CRS 19b. Census 1611) If the sample person was reported as living in a different house in the United States on April 1, 1995, then the respondent was asked where the sample person lived. Some changes have been made to this question. The respondent was asked for the zip code and the sequence of city, county, and state write-in lines were reordered for 2000. After the respondent reported the city, town, or post of?ce of where the sample person lived on April 1, 1995, they were then asked if the samwe person lived inside the limits of that city or town. Respondents answered this question with high inconsistency. The index of inconsistency was 52.1 (49.4 to 55.1) and 16.1 percent (15.2 to 17.0) of respondents changed answers when reinterviewed. Approximately 56 percent (53.1 to 59.1) of the respondents that changed answers switched from ?No? in the census to ?Yes? in the CRS. The net difference rate was statistically signi?cant for this question suggesting that at least one of the model assumptions was not met. The reinterview found more ?Yes? responses. Households with non-HiSpanic sample persons showed less inconsistency than households with Hispanic sample persons, although both were high. Households with native sample persons showed less inconsistency than households with foreign-bom sample persons, although both were high. 34 000545 Place of residence on April I, 1995 If the sample person did not live at their current residence on April I, 1995, then the respondent was asked to report the state or country where the sample person lived. These responses were grouped into the 68 categories shown in Appendixes and B. These data were reported very consistently. The categories included the 50 states, the District of Columbia, United States territories, and other countries and regions. The aggregate index of inconsistency was 4.4 (3.9 to 4.9) and approximately 4 percent (3.7 to 4.7) of CR8 respondents changed answers. The net difference rate for the ?Arizona,? ?Colorado,? and ?Tennessee" categories were signi?cantly different from zero suggesting that the reinterview was not independent and/or did not replicate the census conditions very well. All subgroups showed low inconsistency. Households with Hispanic sample persons showed less inconsistency than households with non-HiSpanic sample persons. We then collapsed the states into four regions of the United States (Northeast, North Central, South, and West), grouping responses into 21 categories. The aggregate index was even lower at 3.0 (2.5 to 3.5). Approximately 2 percent (1.9 to 2.6) of reapondents changed answers in the reinterview. Disabilim (CRS 20; 20b, 21a, 21b, 21c, 21d, Census 17; 17b, 18;, 18b, 18c, 18d] On the census and the CRS there were two disability questions with subparts, which resulted in a total of six disability items. The 2000 questions changed signi?cantly from the 1990 questions. New 2000 questions covered the major life activities of seeing and hearing and the ability to perform physical and mental tasks. Unless otherwise stated, these questions collected data on the disability of children ?ve years and over as well as adults. The 1990 questions collected data only for persons 15 years and over. Sensogy impairment (CRS 20g, Census 17a! This question asked the respondent if the sample person had any blindness, deafness, or a severe vision or hearing impairment. These data were reported with moderate inconsistency between the census and the reinterview. The aggregate index of inconsistency was 47.2 (44.2 to 50.5) and 3.7 percent (3.5 to 4.0) of respondents changed answers when reinterviewed. Of the respondents that changed answers, approximately 63 percent (59.4 to 65.8) switched from ?No? to ?Yes.? The net difference rate for the ?Yes" category was statistically different from zero. This shows us that one or both of the model assumptions were not met. There were more ?Yes? reSponses given during the CRS than the census. Households with non-Hispanic sample persons showed less inconsistency (moderate) than households with Hispanic sample persons (high). Respondents who reported on mailback forms showed less inconsistency (moderate) than resPondents who reported to enumerators (high). 35 000546 000547 Census 2000 Evaluation A.7.a January 30, 2003 Census 2000 Mail Response Rates FINAL REPORT This evaluation reports the results of research and analysis undertaken by the US. Census Bureau. It is part of a broad program, the Census 2000 Testing, Experimentation, and Evaluation (TXE) Program, designed to assess Census 2000 and to inform 2010 Census planning. Findings from the Census 2000 TXE Program reports are integrated into topic reports that provide context and background for broader interpretation of results. Herbert F. Stackhouse and Sarah Brady Decennial Statistical Studies Division USCENSUSBUREAU Helping You Make informed Decisions 000548 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iv 1. BACKGROUND - 1.1 Previous Censuses 1.2 Census 2000 Dress Rehearsal . 2 Census 2000 3 2. METHODOLOGY 5 2.1 Decennial Master Address File (DMAF) 5 2.2 Dccennial Response File Stage 2 (DRF-2) 2.3 Calculation oFthe Mail Response Rate 6 2.4 Calculation of the Final Response Rate 7 2.5 Calculation of the Daily Response Rates 7 2.6 Application of Quality Assurance Procedures 8 3. LIMITATIONS 8 Missing Check-in Dates for Some Mail Returns 8 3.2 No Precise Cut-off Date for Nonresponse Followup Universe . 8 3.3 Housing Units in Denominator Not in Mailout 9 3.4 Issues with Comparison of Results to Previous Censuses 9 3.5 Form Type of Mail Returns Based on Form Type in 9 4. RESULTS 9 4.1 What were the Response Rates for the Nation? 9 i 000549 4.2 What were the Daily Response Rates? 13 4.3 How much did the Response Rates Differ from Census 2000 Return Rates? 16 REFERENCES 19 Appendix A: Decennial Master Address File (DMAF) Variable De?nitions 21 Appendix B: Decennial Response File Stage 2 (DRF-2) Variable De?nitions 23 Appendix C: Nineteen Response Categories of Housing Units in the Response Rate 25 Appendix D: Response Rate Numerators and Denominators 26 Appendix E: Four Figures Illustrating the Mail Response Rates as of April 18, 2000 and the Final Mail Response Rates as of December 2000 by Day and Form Type and Daily Percentage Increase in Response Rates by Day and Form Type 27 Appendix F: Mail Response Numerators and Rates by Day 31 Appendix G-l: Mail Response Numerators and Rates for Short Forms 40 Appendix G-2: Mail Response Numerators and Rates for Long Forms 49 ii 000550 Table I. Table 2. Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. Table 8. LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Dress Rehearsal Mail Response Rates 3 National Mai] Response Rates as of April 18, 2000 by Form Type and Type of Enumeration Area for the Fifty States and the District of Columbia . . . 10 National Final ReSponse Rates as of December 31, 2000 by Form Type and Type of Enumeration Area for the Fifty States and the District of Columbia . . . 1i Comparison of Mail Response Rates as of April 18, 2000 and Final Response Rates as of December 3 1, 2000 by Type of Enumeration Area for the Fifty States and the District of Columbia 12 Comparison of Mail Response Rates as of April 18, 2000 and Final Response Rates as of December 31, 2000 for Short Forms by Type of Enumeration Area for the Fifty States and the District of Columbia 12 Comparison of Mail Response Rates as of April 18, 2000 and Final Response Rates as of December 31, 2000 for Long Forms by Type of Enumeration Area for the Fi?y States and the District of Columbia 13 Mail Response and Mail Return Rates as of April 18, 2000 by Form Type and Type of Enumeration for the Fifty States and the District of Columbia 17 Final ReSponse and Final Return Rates as of December 31, 2000 by Fotm Type and Type of Enumeration for the Fifty States and the District of Columbia 18 000551 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The response rate is a measure that represents the percentage of addresses eligible for Nonresponse Followup that returned questionnaires prior to the designation of the Nonresponse Followup universe. Response rates are the result of a combination of the level of respondent cooperation in Census 2000, the housing unit vacancy rate, and the quality of the Decennial Master Address File. Preliminary analysis indicates that self-enumerated returns have a lower imputation rate than enumerator returns.l Due to the higher level of data quality and the lower cost associated with self-enumerated responses relative to enumerator-collected responses, it is important for response rates to be as high as possible. The mail response rate is de?ned as the number of mail returns received prior to the cut date for the Nonresponse Followup universe divided by the total number of housing units in mailback areas that were eligible for Nonresponse Followup. The ?nal reSponse rate is similar but includes all mail returns through the end of the year. Mail returns included in the response rates are actual paper questionnaires, interviews during the Telephone Questionnaire Assistance program, lntemet data captures, Be Counted forms, and Coverage Edit Followup returns. The mail response rate is different from the mail return rate. The mail return rate is essentially a measure of the percentage of occupied housing units that returned their questionnaires by April 18, 2000. It is a more useful rate for determining respondent cooperation and not as good as the reSponse rate for measuring the Nonresponse Followup workload. The denominator of the mail return rate is calculated from the Hundred percent Census Edited File with the reinstated housing units. It includes all occupied housing units in mailback type of enumeration areas that were added to the address ?le prior to NonreSponse Followup and had addresses that were delivered by the United States Postal Service or during the Census Bureau delivery operation. The response rate denominator is larger than the return rate denominator, largely because the response rate denominator includes vacant housing units, Undeliverable As Addressed addresses, some addresses deleted in Update/Leave and Urban Update/Leave delivery, and deleted in either Nonresponse Followup or Coverage Improvement Followup. 1US. Bureau of the Census, 2001b, Study Plan for 8.1: Evaluation of the Analysis oft/1e Imputation Process for 100 Percent Household Population Items, Decennial Statistical Studies Division Census 2000 Procedures and Operations Memorandum Series October 1, 2001. 000552 What were the National Mail Response Rates? The mail response rate as of April 18. 2000 was 64.3 percent, which was lower than the 1990 mail response rate of 65.0 percent.1 This rate represents 75,608,035 mail returns that were received by April 18, 2000 out of a response rate denominator of 1 17,661,748 households. Another 3,703,140 questionnaires were returned after April 18, resulting in a ?nal response rate of 67.4 percent, as of December 31, 2000. Re?ecting the higher response burden of the long form questionnaire, the short form mail response rate of 66.4 percent was 12.5 percentage points higher than the long form mail response rate of 53.9 percent. In 1990, the mail response rate for short forms and long forms were 65.9 percent and 60.6 percent, respectively.3 Approximately 14.3 percent of mail returns were long forms, a substantially lower percentage than the overall 17.1 percent sampling rate. However, many residents with long forms held onto them and returned them after April 18. After that date, a larger proportion of long forms were returned than short forms. The ?nal response rate was 69.1 percent for short forms and 59.4 percent for long forms. Mailout/Mailback areas had a mail response rate of 65.4 percent, which is higher than either the Update/Leave areas mail response rate of 59.3 percent or the Urban Update/Leave areas mail response rate of 50.5 percent Final response rates by type of enumeration area were 68.5 percent for Mailout/Mailback, 62.6 percent for Update/Leave, and 54.8 percent for Urban Update/Leave. Most questionnaires were returned in the period between March 15, when questionnaires in Mailout/Mailback areas were mailed, and March 28. There were slight surges in the number of mail returns corresponding to the delivery of reminder postcards beginning on March 20 and on Census Day (April 1). These two surges in response were more pronounced for long forms than short forms. Between the initial cut for the Nonresponse Followup universe on April 10 and the ?nal cut on April 18, 2,535,382 questionnaires (2.2 percent) were received. Had the ?nal Nonresponse Followup cut been on April 10, the Nonresponse Followup workload would have increased by this number of housing units. 2U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1991, 1990 Census Mailback Questionnaire Check?in Rates, Decennial Planning Division, March 14, 1991. 3US. Bureau of the Census, 1991, 1990 Census Mailbar'k Questionnaire Check?in Rates, Decennial Planning Division, March 14, 1991. 000553 The cut for the Nonresponse Followup universe was as of April 18; an additional 1,052,712 returns were received between April 18 and April 25, representing 28.4 percent of the mail returns checked in after April 18. These returns represent a potential decrease in the Nonresponse Followup workload of 2.5 percent, resulting in a potential cost savings of over $28.4 million. Therefore, work needs to be done to determine what is the optimal date for determining the Nonresponse Followup universe, by considering the cost bene?ts versus the operational challenges to other operations. In addition, research should be conducted to determine a more ef?cient way of updating the NonreSponse Followup lists. After April 18, the number of mail returns declined until very few forms were being received by May 6. For the total return rate, 3,703,140 mail returns were checked in after April 18. This was an increase in the return rate of 3.1 percentage points. The last date on which questionnaires were checked in was October 19, 2000. The last date on which enough forms were received that resulted in an increase in the rate was June 15 for short forms and June 29 for long forms. The mail response rate was compared with the mail return rate. The mail return rate as of April 18, was 74.1 percent, 9.9 percentage points higher than the mail response rate. The difference between the two rates is greater for short forms than long forms and greater for Urban Update/Leave and Update/Leave areas than for Mailout/Mailback areas. The ?nal response rate was compared to the ?nal return rate. The ?nal return rate is similar to the mail return rate but includes all mail returns through the end of the year 2000. The total ?nal return rate was 78.4 percent, 1 1.0 percentage points higher than the ?nal response rate of 67.4 percent. This is a greater difference than the difference in the mail response and return rates. The difference between the ?nal return and the ?nal response rates for long forms is about the same as the difference for short forms. However, the difference between the final return rate and the ?nal response rate is greater in Urban Update/Leave and Update/Leave areas than in Mailout/Mailback areas. vi 000554 1. BACKGROUND This evaluation provides the response rates for Census 2000 and an analysis of the rates at the national level. The mail response rate is a measure of the Nonresponse Followup (NRFU) workload that identi?es the percentage of Census 2000 addresses on the address ?le for mailback areas that were eligible for NRFU and returned their questionnaires by April 18, 2000. The ?nal response rate is similar but also includes mail returns through the end of the year. This report also examines response rate differentials for long and short forms and for different types of enumeration areas. 1.1 Previous Censuses Mail response rates were ?rst measured for the 1970 Census. In 1970, the mail response rate was 78.3 percent. The mail response rate by form type is not available for the 1970 Census. In 1980, the mail response rate was 75.0 percent, which is a decrease from the [970 mail return rate. Similar to I970, the mail response rate by form type is not available for the I980 Census. The decrease in return rate from 1970 to 1980 was the beginning of a trend of decline in respondent cooperation, as a decrease in response rates also occurred between the 1980 and the 1990 censuses. 1n the 1990 Census, the United States Postal Service (USPS) was the primary vehicle for delivering census questionnaires. Based on a master address list, the Census Bureau mailed questionnaires to about 86.2 million housing units in areas designated as being Mailout/Mailback Occupants were asked to complete the forms and mail them back in the provided postage paid enve10pe. In areas designated as Update/Leave enumerators visited approximately 10.3 million housing units, veri?ed addresses, and left questionnaires for occupants to complete and mail back in the provided postage paid envelope (US. Bureau of the Census, 1999a). in the 1990 Census, both a questionnaire and a mail reminder card were delivered to all housing units in the Mailout/Mailbaek universe. The reminder card was delivered on March 30, approximately seven days a?er the questionnaire mailout. Census Day was of?cially April 1. The mail response rate was de?ned as the ratio of the number of housing units returning a census questionnaire by mail to the total number of housing units that were on the address ?le to receive a census questionnaire delivered by mail or by a census enumerator. The date for the mail return rate varied by District Of?ce (DO) type (Type 1, 2, 2A, and 3). District Of?ces are similar to Local Census Of?ces in 2000. There were 449 stateside DOS in 1990. Of these, 103 were Type 1 DOS, which were located in urban areas. Type 2 DOs were located in small cities, suburbs, and rural areas, accounting for 276 of the 449 DOs. Seventy-nine of these were Type 2A, which handled the Update/Leave operation in addition to 000555 the Mailout/Mailback Questionnaires. Most of the 70 Type 3 DOS were located in rural, sparsely settled areas, and few were located in small cities. The date for the mail return rates in 1990 was April 19 for Type 1 DOs and April 28 for Type 2, 2A, and 3 (US. Bureau of the Census, 1991). For the 1990 Census the overall mail response rate was approximately 65.0 percent (US Bureau of the Census, 1991). The mail response rate was 65.9 percent for short forms and 60.6 percent for long forms, resulting in a difference of 5.3 percentage points between form types (US. Bureau of the Census, 1991). 1.2 Census 2000 Dress Rehearsal The Census 2000 Dress Rehearsal was conducted in three areas: Sacramento, California; Columbia, South Carolina, and 11 surrounding counties; and Menominee County, Wisconsin, including the Menominee American Indian Reservation. Each site was selected because of its demographic and geographic characteristics to provide experience with some of the expected Census 2000 environments. The Sacramento site was entirely Mailout/Mailback, South Carolina site was a mixture of Mailout/Mailback and Update/Leave addresses, and the Menominee site was entirely Update/Leave. There were four components of the Mailout/Mailback delivery: an advance letter, an initial questionnaire, a reminder card, and a ?blanket? replacement questionnaire (mailed to all addresses). These items used ?rst-class postage and were distributed by the USPS as part of the regular postal routes. The advance letter was mailed to each address between March 24 and 27, 1998. The initial questionnaire was mailed between March 28 and 31. The reminder card was sent to housing units between April 3 and 6. Replacement questionnaires were mailed between April 15 and 17. Census Day was of?cially April 18. The Update/Leave methodology involved Census Bureau cnumcrators delivering questionnaires at the same time they updated maps and the list of addresses. The Update/Leave delivery of questionnaires took place between March 14 and April 10, 1998. In ZIP codes that consisted entirely of Update/Leave housing units, the USPS delivered an advance letter to ?postal patrons? using third-class postage. Under both methodologies, respondents were asked to mail back their questionnaires in provided postage paid envelopes. Short and long form questionnaires were included in both delivery methodologies. Every housing unit received either a short or a long form. The long form sampling rate for the dress rehearsal varied within site. Response rate was de?ned to include in its numerator the number of housing units in the mailback universe that renu?ned a questionnaire that was not blank. The response rate denominator included the number of housing units in the mailback universe that were either 000556 mailed a questionnaire or - in UpdatefLeave areas - received one delivered by a census enumerator. Housing units with an undeliverable status were included in these denominators. Table 1 contains the mail response rates for the three Dress Rehearsal test sites by form type (short versus long). Dress Rehearsal response rates are typically lower than those for the census. This is due to the fact that the dress rehearsal does not have a ?census environment.? A ?census environment" allows for a higher response rate due to the publicity surrounding the census. Table 1. Dress Rehearsal Mail Response Rates Form Type Site Total Short Long Sacramento 53.0 55.4 40.7 South Carolina 53.4 55.4 ?It: 43.7 ?fa Menominee 39.4 40.6 ?rt; 32.4 ?Kn 1.3 Census 2000 In Census 2000, the questionnaire Mailout/Mailback system was the primary means of census taking. Cities, towns, and suburban areas with city-style addresses (house number and street name) as well as rural areas where city-style addresses are used for mail delivery comprised the Mailout/Mailback areas. Updatei Leave areas consisted of addresses that are predominantly not city-style. Census enumerators delivered addressed questionnaires to UpdatefLeave housing units. Update/Leave enumerators also made any necessary corrections or additions to census maps and address lists as they delivered the questionnaires. In both delivery methodologies, the housing units were provided with ?rst-ciass postage paid envelopes for returning their questionnaires. Types QfMailback Questionnaires Census 2000 included two types of questionnaires for mailback: - A short form was delivered to approximately 83 percent of all housing units. This form allowed the respondent to list up to 12 household members. It provided space for reporting the basic population and housing data name, relationship, age, sex, race, Hispanic origin, and tenure) for up to six household members and the housing unit. - A long form was delivered to a sample approximately 17 percent of all housing units. This form allowed the respondent to list up to [2 household members. it included all the questions on the short form, as well as additional housing unit questions and additional person questions for up to six household members. 3 000557 There is one difference between the Mailout/Mailback questionnaire and the Update-"Leave questionnaire. The Update/Leave questionnaire gave the respondent the opportunity to correct address information. 1.3.2 Multiple Mailing Strategy The Census Bureau used a mail strategy consisting of multiple contacts for Census 2000 in Mailout/Mailback areas. These contacts were: an advance notice letter to every mailout address that alerted households that the census form would be sent to them soon, - a questionnaire to every mailout address, and - a postcard to every mailout address that served as a thank you for respondents who had mailed back their questionnaire or as a reminder to those who had not. This multiple mailing strategy used ?rst?class postage for all mailing pieces in Mailout/Mailback areas. The volume for Mailout/Mailback areas was approximately 100 million pieces for each mailing. There was also a mailout strategy used in Update-"Leave areas for advance notice letters and reminder postcards. Advance notice letters were mailed to Update/Leave housing units that had ?good" addresses using first-class mail. Reminder cards were sent to housing units in ZIP codes that consist entirely of Update/Leave housing units. The reminder postcards were addressed to ?Residential Customer" and delivered using third-class postage. Consequently, some housing units received the advance notice letter and not the reminder card, some received the reminder card and not the advance notice letter, some received both, and some received neither. The expected volume for Update/Leave areas was about 22 million questionnaires (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2001a). 1.3.3 Key Dates in Mailback Schedule Mailout/Mailback Enumeration Areas: Event Advance notice letter delivered March 6 - March 8 Mailout of Questionnaire March 13 - March 15 Delivery of Reminder Cards March 20 - March 22 Census Day April I Cut for Nonresponse Followup (NRFU) April 1 1 Late Cut for NRFU April 18 4 000558 Update/Leave Enumeration Areas: Event Delivery of Advance Notice Letters March I - March 3 Delivery of Questionnaires March 3 - March 30 Delivery of Reminder Cards March 27 - March 29 Census Day April 1 Initial Cut for NRFU April 11 Late Cut for NRFU April 18 1.3.4 Delivery of Questionnaires in Other Languages The Census Bureau mailed census forms in ?ve other languages (Chinese, Korean, Spanish, Tagalog, and Vietnamese) to housing units that requested them. The advance notice letter provided the respondent with the opportunity to make this request. 2. METHODOLOGY The data ?les used to calculate the mail response rates are: - Decennial Master Address File (DMAF) - Decennial Response Fiic - Stage 2 2.1 Decennial Master Address File (DMF) The primary ?le used to calculate the mail response rates was the DMAF. We used this ?ie to identify the housing units to include in the response rates. The DMAF contained variables that were used to limit the response rate denominator to housing units in mailback areas which were NRFU eligible. The MAILD variable from the DMAF identi?es the date on which a mail return questionnaire was checked into the Data Capture Centers (DCCs). The DMAF also contains information on which form type (short versus long) was designated for each address. The de?nitions of the DMAF variables can be found in Appendix A. 2.2 Decennial Response File Stage 2 (DRE-2) The is the ?le representing the capture of questionnaire data from Census 2000 and was used to determine which housing units had a valid mail return. We created a variable called ?om the RSOURCE variable on the DRF-Z to identify those addresses with a mail return. The variable was created based on all returns for an address on the DRF-E. This variable was merged onto the Decennial Statistical Studies Division?s version of the DMAF in order to calculate the response rates. For information on how this variable was 000559 de?ned, see Appendix B. The de?nitions of the DRE-2 variables used in calculating response rates can also be found in Appendix B. 2.3 Calculation of the Mail Response Rate The mail response rate denominator included housing units in mailback areas that were eligible for NRFU. The mail response rate numerator included housing units in the denominator that had a valid mail return and a mail return check-in date of April 18, 2000 (the date of the cut for the NRF universe) or earlier (variable MAILD, values of ?0101 through ?0418?, inclusive). Addresses with a valid mail return but no MAILD date (MAILD values of ?0000?, ?0099?, and ?2000') were included in the mail response rate numerator if they did not have a NRFU or Coverage Improvement Followup data capture as determined using the DRF-2. The mail response rate was calculated for the geographic levels of tract, county, and state by summing the housing units up to each geographic level, dividing the numerator by the denominator, and rounding to the nearest tenth of a percentage point. The national mail response rate was created by summing the state numerators and denominators to the national level. Mail Response Rate Denominator Several criteria were used to identify addresses on the DMAF for the mail response rate denominator. Only housing units 0 or 3) in mailback areas (Type of Enumeration Area (TEA) variable, values were included in the denominator. Additionally, only addresses that were not pre-identi?ed as having inadequate addresses for the mailout were included in the denominator (UAA variableatS). One of the DMAF variables, NRFU Universe (NRU variable, values of 1, 2, 3, or 4) was used to eliminate addresses not eligible for NRF from the response rate denominator. The de?nitions of these DMAF variables can be found in Appendix A. Separate mail response rate denominators were created for each of the three TEAS, for each of the two form types (short versus long), and for each TEA by form type. The three TEAs are Mailout/Mailback (TEA variable value of or 6), Update/Leave (value of 2 or 9) and Urban Update Leave (value of 7). Questionnaire form type was determined using the ASAM variable (value of for short form and 6 for long forms). 2.3.2 Mai! Response Rate Numerator For a housing unit to be in the mail response rate numerator, it had to be a mail return that was in the response rate denominator. Mail retums were determined using the variable from the DRF-Z. An address had a valid mail return if this variable indicated that it had a data capture in the form of a paper mail return, an Internet return, a Be Counted form, a Telephone Questionnaire Assistance (TQA) return, or a Coverage Edit Followup (CEFU) return. 000560 The MAJLD variable ?om the DMAF was used to determine the date of a mail return?s check-in. If the MAILD variable indicated that a return for the housing unit was received on or before April 18, 2000 (?0101 ?04] then the address also was in the mail response rate numerator. There were some addresses with mail returns according to but no MAILD date (values of ?0000?, ?0099?, or ?2000?). These addresses were assigned to the mail response rate numerator based on whether or not they had data captures in the NRFU or CIFU operations variable digits 6 or 7). Only addresses with no mail returns on April 18, 2000 were supposed to be included in those two followup operations. Therefore, addresses with neither a NRFU nor a CIFU data capture were assigned to the mail response rate numerator. 2.4 Calculation of the Final Response Rate Like the mail response rate, the ?nal response rate is a measure of respondent participation in Census 2000. The difference is that the ?nal response rate is not restricted to mail returns received before the cut for the NRFU universe. As with the mail response rates, the ?nal response rates were calculated by dividing the numerator by the denominator and rounding to the nearest tenth of a percentage point. Final Response Rate Denominator The ?nal response rates have the same denominators calculated from the DMAF as the mail response rates (see Section 2.3.1). 2.4.2 Emil Response Rate Numerator The ?nal response rate numerator was calculated by including all valid mail returns as determined by the variable from the that were in the response rate denominator. Most of these mail returns had MAILD check-in dates between January 1 and October 19, 2000 (October 19 was the last day we received a mail return). Mail returns with no MAILD date which the variable showed with NRFU or CIFU data captures were assigned to the ?nal response rate and not the mail response rate. 2.5 Calculation of the Daily Response Rates The daily response rates were calculated in a manner similar to the mail and ?nal response rates. For the cumulative daily response rates, the denominators were the same for all rates. The numerators for each date of the year 2000 were calculated by limiting the numerators to addresses with mail return check?in dates on or before the particular date. For instance, the daily cumulative response rate numerator for May 5 was limited to addresses with a MAILD value less than or equal to ?0505?. As previously stated, the ?nal date on which questionnaires with a MAILD date were received was October 19 To determine the daily increase 000561 in the response rate, the numerators were calculated by limiting the numerators to addresses with mail return check-in dates on a particular date. For those mail returns in the denominator that did not have a valid MAILD date on the DMAF, we assigned a date of either April 18 or December 31 based on the existence of a NRFU or data capture. if these mail returns had neither a NRF nor a CIFU data capture, then they were assigned a date of April 18. Those mail returns with either a NRFU or a CIFU data capture were assigned to the December 31 response rate. 2.6 Application of Quality Assurance Procedures Quality Assurance procedures were applied to the design, implementation, analysis, and preparation of this report. A description of the procedures used is provided in the ?Census 2000 Evaluation Program Quality Assurance Process." 3. LIMITATIONS Missing Check-in Dates for Some Mail Returns Appendix shows a table with nineteen categories into which all addresses in the response rate denominator can be grouped based on their values for the DRF-2 variable and the DMAF variable MAILD. The rows of data in the table depend on the values of the variable from the DRE-2. The columns in the table are the values of MAILD on the DMAF. There were 418,845 valid mail returns (0.4 percent of the response rate denominator) for which the DMAF variable MAILD did not indicate a check-in date (cells 1A, 13, 2A, 213the table). These returns were assigned to either the mail response rate or the ?nal response rate based on whether or not their addresses also had a NRFU and CIFU return. Housing units with a valid mail return, no check-in date, and no data capture for NRFU or CIFU were assigned a date of April 18 and included in the mail response rate. These 11,188 mail returns are shown in cells 1A, 2A, 6A, and 7A of the table. Mail returns without a valid MAILD value and with a data capture for NRFU or CIFU were assigned a date of December 31 and only included in the ?nal reSponse rate. These 407,657 housing units are shown in cells 13, 2B, 6B, and 7B of the table. The other problem with the MAILD variable is that it only re?ects the date of check-in at the DCC, not the date on which a questionnaire was completed, mailed, or even the date on which the form was received by the DCC. 3.2 No Precise Cut-off Date for Nonresponse Followup Universe A housing unit was counted toward the mail response rate numerator if MAILD indicated at check-in date prior to the late cut for NRFU. That date was set at April 18, 2000 but users of the rates should keep in mind that there was some noise in the data with respect to the date since the NRFU universe was generated on a ?ow basis. That is, the NRFU universe of all housing units 000562 was not set instantaneously at midnight of April 18. The actual cut might have fallen on either side of that date for some housing units. 3.3 Housing Units in Denominator Not in Mailout Some housing units on the DMAF from Mailout/Mailback and Update/Leave areas were added a?er the mailback universe was set. Hence, they are being counted toward the response rate denominator but did not have a chance to respond by mailback means prior to the late cut for NRFU. 3.4 Issues with Comparison of Results to Previous Censuses The de?nition of mail response rate for Census 2000 is not exactly the same as that from previous censuses. These differences are the following: - The TEAS in previous censuses were de?ned di??erentiy than those in 2000 and included different parts of the country. - The timing of the mailout and the cut for NRFU were different for each of the I970, 1980, 1990, and 2000 censuses. Speci?cally for comparing 2000 to 1990: - Like the 2000 ?nal response rates, 1990 mail response rates at the state, county, and tract levels in 1990 were calculated based on all returns during the year. The 1990 national response rate was calculated with returns through the cut for NRFU. 3.5 Form Type of Mail Returns Based on Form Type in Mailout Since this report does not analyze item non?response on 1.ralid maii returns, it is possible that some long forms that were returned did not contain complete data. The response rate analysis by form type was done based on which form the addresses were sent by the Census Bureau. 4. RESULTS What were the Response Rates for the Nation? The results presented in this report are for the ?fty states and the District of Columbia. They do not include the response rate for Puerto Rico. There were 1 27,661,743 housing units in mailbaci: areas in Census 2000 that were eligible for HRFU and to which the USPS or the Census Bureau attempted to deliver questionnaires. This number is the national response rate denominator. Of this number, 20,082,777 housing units or 17.] percent of the housing units received a long form 000563 questionnaire. Thus, the sampling rate for the long forms was above one in six or 16.7 percent. Table 2 shows the total mail response rates and these rates by form type based on mail returns received on or before April 18, 2000. The data presented in the table are grouped into three TEAS - (TEAS and 6), (TEAS 2 and 9), and (TEA 7). The national mail response rate was 64.3 percent, meaning that 75,608,035 housing units returned their questionnaires in time to avoid the necessity of enumeration in Nonresponse Followup. This mail response rate is less than one percentage point below the mail response rate of 65.0 percent in the 1990 Census (US. Bureau of the Census, 1991). The numerators and denominators for the mail response rates by TEA can be found in Appendix D. The table shows that 66.4 percent or 64,792,554 housing units who received short forms returned them by April 18, 2000. In contrast, only about 53.9 percent of housing units who were delivered long forms returned them by that date. This 12.5 percentage point discrepancy means that a higher proportion of the data was collected by Census Bureau interviewers in NRFU on long forms than was the case for short form households. For information about the quality of data collected during NRFU for long forms and short forms, see Census 2000 Evaluation B.l: Analysis of the Imputation Process for 100 Percent Household Population Item (US. Bureau of the Census, 2001b). Approximately 14.3 percent of mail returns were long forms, a substantially lower percentage than the overall 17.1 percent sampling rate. Table 2. National Mail Response Rates as of April 18, 2000 by Form Type and Type of Enumeration Area for the Fifty States and the District of Columbia Form Type Total Short Long Difference TOTAL 64.3% 66.4% 53.9% 12.5% Mailout/Mailback 65.4% 67.3% 54.6% 12.7% Update/Leave 59.3% 61.9% 51 10.0% Urban Update/Leave 50.5% 52.2% 41.2% 11.0% Source: DMAF and DRF-Z. The difference in response rates by form type is not surprising, given the difference in response burden between the Short form and the long form. The short form only included seven questions. Person one was asked for name, age, sex, race, Hispanic ethnicity, and tenure. In addition to name, age, sex, race, and Hispanic ethnicity, persons two through six were also asked relationship to person one. In comparison, the long form had a total of 53 questions on a variety of topics including income, utilities, ancestry, and occupation. This gap between short form mail response rates and long form mail response rates varies by TEA, with households having the greatest difference in response rates by form type and households in areas having the smallest gap. ll] 000564 Another noticeable variation in response rates is that housing units in MOIMB areas returned a much greater proportion (65.4 percent) of their forms than those in UIL (59.3 percent) and, especially, (50.5 percent) areas. One explanation for this difference is that areas are generally more prosperous and have greater exposure to media advertising the census than more sparsely populated areas and inner-city areas. Another potential explanation is the delivery schedule for and UUI areas is longer than the schedule for MOI MB (March 3-30 vs. March 13?15). Residents in UL and areas that received their questionnaires at the end of the delivery schedule had less time to ?ll them out then residents in areas that received their questionnaires at the end of the MOIMB schedule. Additionally, there are often problems with postal delivery in and UL areas and those households were less likely to receive the advance notice and reminder postcard. As a result of this discrepancy, a smaller proportion of residents of UL and areas were self?enumerated than residents of primarily urban and suburban MOIMB areas with city-style addresses. For the mail response rates by form type for each of the ?fty states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, see US. Bureau of the Census, 2002b. Table 3 shows the ?nal response rates as of December 31, 2000 by TEA and form type. The number of households in mailback areas that returned their questionnaires after April 18, 2000 was 3,703,140, increasing the ?nal response rate by 3.1 percentage points over the mail response rate. The ?nal reSponse rate of 67.4 percent indicates the percentage of addresses in mailback areas that returned their questionnaires by the end of the year. Note the last form which was received and processed was October 19, 2000. Table 3. National Final Mail Response Rates as of December 31, 2000 by Form Type and Type of Enumeration Area for the Fifty States and the District of Columbia Form Type Type of Enumeration Total Short Long Difference TOTAL 67.4% 69.1% 59.4% 9.6% Mailout/Mailback 68.5% 70.0% 60.4% 9.6% Update/Leave 62.6% 64.6% 57.0% 7.6% Urban Update/Leave 54.8% 56.1% 47.5% 8.7% Source: DMAF and DRF-Z. Most of the patterns in the response rates revealed in Table 3 are similar to those in Table 2, though ?nal response rates for all groups are, of course, higher. Short form ?nal reSponse rates (69.1 percent) are higher than long form ?nal response rates (59.4 percent) and this difference is greatest in areas. The areas have the highest ?nal response rate (68.5 percent) among TEAS and areas have the lowest (54.8 percent). One noteworthy difference between ?nal and mail response rates is that the discrepancy between short form response rates and long form response rates is substantially lower for ?nal response rates (9.6 percent) than for mail response rates (12.5 percenl). Many households with long forms returned those forms at a ll 000565 later date than households who received short forms. The form type gap decline in the ?nal response rates was true for all TEAs. Table 4 compares the mail response rates and the ?nal response rates for the national total and for each of the three TEAS. The data reveal that there was a greater increase in and areas between April 18 and the end of the year than in areas. Thus, the gap among the TEAS that is evident in the mail response rates is not as great for the ?nal response rates. The mail response rate is 6.1 percentage points higher than the UL mail response rate, while the ?nal response rate is about 5.9 percentage points higher than the ?nal response rate. Table 4. Comparison of Mail Response Rates as of April 18, 2000 and Final Response Rates as of December 31, 2000 by Type of Enumeration Area for the Fifty States and the District of Columbia As of: Type of Enumeration 4/18/2000 12/31/2000 Difference TOTAL 64.3% 67.4% 3.1% Mailout/Mailback 65.4% 68.5% 3.1% Update/Leave 59.3% 62.6% 3.3% Urban Update/Leave 50.5% 54.8% 4.3% Source: DMAF and DRE-2. In Table 5, we compare mail response rates and ?nal response rates by TEA for short forms. The patterns of these data are similar to those observed in Table 4, although the increase from mail response rates to ?nal response rates (2.7 percent) is smaller for short forms than for the overall response rates (3.1 percent). Table 5. Comparison of Mail Response Rates as of April 18, 2000 and Final Response Rates as of December 31, 2000 for Short Forms by Type of Enumeration Area for the Fifty States and the District of Columbia As of: 4/18/2000 12/31/2000 Difference TOTAL 66.4% 69. 1% 2.7% Mailout/Mailback 67.3% 70.0% 2.7% Update/Leave 61.9% 64.6% 2.6% Urban Update/Leave 52.2% 56.1% 4.0% Source: DMAF and DRF-Z. Table 6 shows the same rates as Tables 4 and 5, but for long forms. It is clear that a particularly large proportion of long form households in all areas returned mailback questionnaires after April 18, as compared to the short forms (Table 5). 12 000566 Table 6. Comparison of Mail Response Rates as of April 18, 2000 and Final Response Rates as of December 31, 2000 for Long Forms by Type of Enumeration Area for the Fifty States and the District of Columbia As of: 4/ 18/2000 12/31/2000 Difference TOTAL 53.9% 59.4% 5.6% Mailout/Mailback 54.6% 60.4% 5.7% Update/Leave 51 57.0% 5. 1% Urban Update/Leave 41.2% 47.5% 6.3% Source: DMAF and 4.2 What were the Daily Response Rates? Figure 1, as shown in Appendix B, shows the cumulative mail response rates by form type for each day from March 3 until April 18, 2000. These dates correspond to the start of questionnaire delivery by Census Bureau staff in areas and the cut for the NRFU universe, respectively. Addresses for which mail returns were received after April 18 were still visited by enumeratorf in NRFU. The x-axis on the ?gure shows the date and the y-axis shows the cumulative response rate for each date. The light-shaded line indicates the response rates for long forms, the medium-shaded line for short forms, and the thickest and darkest line is the total cumulative daily response rate. The data for Figures 1- 4 can be found in Appendices and G. Appendix shows the daily increase and cumulative mail returns for both the response rate numerator and the response rate, as well as key census dates. Appendix 0?1 shows the same data for short forms and Appendix G-2 for long forms. As indicated by Figure l, the response rates gradually increased after the beginning of delivery until about March On that date, the mailout of questionnaires (March 13 through 15) in MOIMB areas caused a surge in the r05ponse rates as a large majority of households received their questionnaires and many began to return them. Due to the time required for the USPS to deliver mail, there is approximately a two day lag between the date that householders mailed their forms and their check-in at the DCCs. As expected, based on the lower overall response rates for long forms, the line indicating long form response rates increases more gradually than the lines for total and short form response rates. Within a week of the mailout of questionnaires, a substantial gap is evident between long form response rates and the higher short form and total response rates. Since most questionnaires are short forms, it is not surprising that the pattern of returns for short forms is parailel but higher than that for the total response rate. Aside from the initial surge in mail returns beginning March 15, the general pattern evidenced in Figure 1 is one in which the response rate increased rapidly for a few weeks and then began to level off. A second period of accelerated returns after the March 15 to 17 period occurred around March 20 with declines in the slope of the lines after March 23 and March 28000567 NRF universe on April 18, the increase in the response rates has become gradual, indicating that most households who are likely to return their forms had done so on that date. Figure 2 (see Appendix E) better reveals some of the patterns mentioned above. This ?gure shows the daily increase of the response rates rather than the cumulative rates for each date from March 3 through April 18, 2000. As in Figure 1, different lines indicate the mail returns for the total and for each form type. This ?gure reveals certain interesting patterns in the daily return of questionnaires. As described before, a higher proportion of short form mail returns were received at earlier dates. Due to the greater amount of time and effort in ?lling out the long form, many long form households took longer to return their questionnaires. The initial peak period of returns after the mailout was much greater for short forms than long forms and occurred on earlier days. On March 15, 2.8 percent of short forms were returned and 1.0 percent of long forms were checked in. Two days later, on March 17, 4.6 percent of short forms were checked in and 1.9 percent of long forms were received. As Figures 1 and 2 show, most short form mail returns came in between March 15 and March 28. Long forms were returned in the greatest numbers between March 20 and April I. In fact, contrary to the short form pattern, the March 27/28 spike in returns was relatively much greater for long forms than the March 16/17 spike. For most of the period after March 28, long forms were actually being returned at a higher rate than short forms and the gap between the cumulative response rates for the two form types decreased. This is clear in Figure 2 which shows the line for long forms to be higher than that for short forms for almost every date after March 28. This indicates that a late cut for NRFU (April 18) resulted in a lower long form workload for NRFU, as compared to an April 10 date, and resulted in reducing the respondent burden. However, the rate of returns for both form types was well below one percent for every date after April 10. The data indicate an increase in mail returns after the reminder postcards were mailed between March 20 and March 22. For both long forms and short forms, the greatest increase in mail response rates occurred on these dates and the days immediately following. The DCCs received short form returns at an especially high rate from March 20 through 23, with a peak daily increase of 5.2 percentage points on March 22, 2000. For long forms, this peak occurred from March 21 through 24 with the greatest daily increase of 4.2 percentage points on March 23 and 24. Figure 2 also indicates that households, particularly those with long forms, exhibited some tendency to hold their questionnaires until Census Day (April 1, 2000). Figure 2 shows a major spike in long form returns and a smaller increase in short form returns on April 3 and 4, two days after Census Day. Between the initial cut for NRFU on April 10 and the ?nal cut on April 18, households continued to send in mail returns at a substantial, though relatively low and dwindling, rate. During that period, 626,467 long forms or 3.1 percent of long forms were returned and 1,908,9l5 short forms or 2.0 percent of short forms were checked in. Without a ?nal NRFU universe cut on April 18, the NRFU workload would have been increased by this number of housing units. 14 000568 Figure 3 (see Appendix B) shows the increase in response rates by form type for the entire year of 2000. The left side of this ?gure is the same as Figure l, but Figure 3 extends the timeline of cumulative mail returns from April 18 to December 31. The ?gure reveals that the response rates ieveled off after April 18 with a gradually ?attening slope for all three lines. The pattern was similar for the different form types although the gap in rates between long and short forms graduaily narrowed as time passed. For the total response rate, 3,703,140 mail returns were checked in after April 18. These forms resulted in an increase in the response rate of 3.1 percentage points. Between April 18 and the end of the year, the short form response rate increased by 2.6 percentage points (2,588,285 housing units) and the long form increased by 5.6 percentage points (1,1 14,855 housing units). For nearly every single date after March 28, the daily percentage increase in response rate was greater for long forms than for short forms. As Appendices and show, the last con?rmed date on which questionnaires were checked in was October 19, 2000, when three short forms were received. Prior to that day, 50 short forms and I3 long forms were checked in to the DCCs on September 15. The last date for which we have check-ins which resulted in a rate increase was June 15 for short forms when the short form response rate reached 68.7 percent. For long forms, this date was June 29 when the long form response rate leveled off at 58.9 percent. Figure 4, as shown in Appendix E, is an extension of Figure 2 through the end of 2000. It shows the daily increase in the response rates by form type for the entire year. After April 18, the number of mail returns continued to decline until very few forms were being received by May 6. As noted above, a relatively higher increase was observed for long forms than short forms for these mail returns in late April, May, and June. The ?gure shows several small weekly peaks on Fridays in May when a substantial number of forms were checked in to the DCCs. It appears that shipments of mail returns may have arrived at the DCCs on Fridays or that the DCC staff may have held mail returns during the week to check in on Friday. The largest single-day receipt of mail returns after April 18 was on June 15 when 95,721 long forms and 146,022 short forms were checked in. The ?nal increase in the response rates that appears on Figure 4 is on December 31, 2000. Those 407,657 questionnaires are the mail returns for which no mail return check-in date was recorded and for which there was a NRFU or CIFU data capture in addition to a mail return data capture. Since only mail returns received after April 18 could be in the NRFU or workloads, we determined that these mail returns came in a?er that date. We assigned a check-in date of December 31 to these mail returns and they were included in the ?nal response rate. Mail returns without a check-in date that were not in the NRFU and CIFU universe were assigned a date of April 18 and included in the mail response rate. The data presented in Figure 4 and in Appendices and show the potential effect on the NRFU workload of using a later cut date for the NRFU universe. In between April 19 and April 25, 1,052,712 mail returns were checked in, representing 28.4 percent of the returns received after April 18. If the ?nai NRFU out had occurred one week later, around April 25 instead of April 18, then the NRFU workload would have been reduced by 1,052,712 housing 15 000569 units, or about 2.5 percent of the NRF workload. This reduction in the workload would have saved close to $28.4 million, given that the cost of enumerating one housing unit in NRFU is just under $27 (see U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2002c). Since mail returns that were received after April 18 were disproportionately long forms, the savings were potentially even greater. 1f the cut for the NRFU universe had been delayed one more week until May 2, then the NRFU workload would have been reduced by approximately 598,000 additional housing units. However, a later start of the NRFU operation, despite a lower workload, could result in greater scheduling challenges. Some of the daily ?uctuation of mail returns observed in Figures 2 and 4 can be explained by the effect of the day of the week. More questionnaires were checked in on Thursdays (17.7 percent of all mail returns during the year), Fridays (16.4 percent), and Wednesdays (16.3 percent) than on other days of the week. Relatively few questionnaires came in on Sundays (9.3 percent) and Saturdays (1 1.0 percent). The dearth of check-ins on Sunday is probably the result of the fact that the USPS does not normally deliver mail on Sunday and that the DCCs worked fewer hours on weekends and thus checked in fewer forms on those days. Also, if respondents held their questionnaires until the beginning of a work week (Monday) to mail, then their forms would likely have arrived Wednesday or Thursday at the DCCs, explaining the increase in check-ins on those days. 4.3 How much did the Response Rates Differ from Census 2000 Return Rates? Table 7 compares the mail response rates for Census 2000 to the mail return rates. Mail return rate is essentially a measure of the percentage of occupied housing units that returned their questionnaires by April 18, 2000. It is a more useful rate for determining respondent cooperation and not as good as the response rate for measuring the NRFU workload. The denominator of the mail return rate is calculated from the Hundred percent Census Edited File with the reinstated housing units It includes all occupied housing units in mailback TEAS that were added to the address ?le prior to NRFU and had addresses that were delivered by the USPS or during the Census Bureau delivery operation. The March 2001 MAF extract provided information on which addresses were added prior to NRFU. The response rate denominator (117,661,748 housing units) is larger than the return rate denominator (101,398,131), largely because the response rate denominator includes vacant housing units, Undeliverable As Addressed (UAA) addresses, some addresses deleted in and delivery, and deleted in either NRFU or CIFU. The return rate numerator (75,163,020 housing units) is calculated similarly to the response rate numerator (75,608,035 housing units). For more information on mail return rates and their calculation see U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2002b. The ?rst column of data in Table 7 shows the mail response rates broken down by total, form type, TEA, and form type and TEA. The next column shows the equivalent mail return rates and the last column shows the difference between the two rates. The total national mail return rate was 74.1 percent, 9.9 percentage points higher than the mail response rate. The difference 16 000570 between the two rates is greater for short forms than long forms and greater for and URL than for MOIMB areas. Table 7. Mail Response and Mail Return Rates as of April 18, 2000 by Form Type and Type of Enumeration for the Fifty States and the District of Columbia Rate Response Return Difference TOTAL 64.3% 74. 1% 9.9% Form Type Short 66.4% 76.4% 10.0% Long 53.9% 63.0% 9.2% Type of Mailout/Mailback 65.4% 75.1% 9.7% Enumeration Update/Leave 59.3% 69.6% 10.3% Urban Update/Leave 50.5% 63.7% 13.1% Form Type Short and Type of Mailout/Mailback 67.3% 77.2% 9.9% Enumeration Update/Leave 61.9% 72.3% 10.4% Urban Updater?Leave 52.2% 65.7% 13.5% Long Mailout/Mailback 54.6% 63.4% 8.8% Update/Leave 51.9% 61.9% 10.0% Urban UpdatefLeave 41.2% 52.3% 11.1% Source: DMAF, DRF-Z, and March 2001 MAF Extract. Table 8 compares the ?nal return and ?nal response rates by form type and TEA. The ?nal return rate is similar to the mail return rate but includes all mail returns through the end of the year 2000. The total ?nal return rate was 78.4 percent (79,530,100 housing units), 11.0 percentage points higher than the 67.4 percent (79,31 1,175) ?nal response rate. This is a greater difference than the difference in the mail response and return rates. The differences between ?nal return and response rates are about the same for both form types and are greater in and areas than in MOMS areas. 000571 Table 8. Final Response and Final Return Rates as of December 31, 2000 by Form Type and Type of Enumeration for the Fifty States and the District of Columbia Rate Response Return Difference TOTAL 67.4% 78.4% 1 1.0% Form Type Short 69.1% 80.1% 11.0% Long 59.4% 70.5% 1 1.1% Type of Mailout/Mailback 68.5% 78.6% 10.1% Enumeration Update/Leave 62.6% 77.9% 15.3% Urban Update/Leave 54.8% 70.8% 16.0% Form Type Short and Type of Mailout/Mailback 70.0%. 80.1% 10.1% Enumeration Update/Leave 64.6% 79.9% 15.4% Urban Update/Leave 56.1% 72.3% 16.2% Long Mailout/Mailback 60.4% 69.9% 9.5% Update/Leave 57.0% 72.1% 15.1% Urban Update/Leave 47.5% 62.5% 15.0% Source: DMAF, DRF-2, and March 2001 MAF Extract. 18 000572 REFERENCES US. Bureau of the Census, 1991, 1990 Census Mailbaclc Questionnaire Check-in Rates, Decennial Planning Division, March 14, 1991. U.S. Bureau of the Census, l9923, Mail Response/Return Rates by Type of Form - I970, 1980, and 1990, Year 2000 Research and Development Staff, May 29, 1992. US. Bureau of the Census, 199921, Documentation of 1990 Response and Return Rates, Decennial Statistical Studies Division Census 2000 Procedures and Operations Memorandum Series December 6, 1999. U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1999b, Evaluation of Census 2000 Dress Rehearsal Mail Return Rates, Decennial Statistical Studies Division Census 2000 Procedures and Operations Memorandum Series December 7, 1999. U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000a, Decennial Master Address File Layout, Decennial Systems and Contracts Management Of?ce, August 4, 2000. U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000b, Speci?cation for Updating the Decennial Master Address File on August 15. 2000, DSSD Census 2000 Procedures and Operations Memorandum Series September 5, 2000. U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000c. 2000 Decennial Census Documentation Decennial Response File-Stage 2 (DRFZ), Decennial Systems and Contracts Management Of?ce, October 3, 2000. U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000d, Specification for Census 2000 Initial Response Rate Calculation, Decennial Statistical Studies Division Census 2000 Procedures and Operations Memorandum Series October 31, 2000. U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000c, Specification for Census 2000 Final Response Rate for the '90 Plus Five Project, Decennial Statistical Studies Division Census 2000 Procedures and Operations Memorandum Series October 2000. U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000f, 2000 Decennial Census Documentation Hundred percent Census Edit File with the reinstated housing units Decennial Systems and Contract Management Of?ce, December 15, 2000. U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2001a, Study Plan for A 7a: Census 2000 Mail Response Rates, Decennial Statistical Studies Division Census 2000 Procedures and Operations Memorandum Series June 20, 2001. 19 000573 US. Bureau of the Census, 2001b, Study Plan for B. 1: Evaluation oft/1e Analysis oft/1e Imputatt'on Process for 100 Percent Household Population Items, Decennial Statistical Studies Division Census 2000 Procedures and Operations Memorandum Series October 1, 2001. US. Bureau of the Census, 2002a, Requested Files of Census 2000 Mail Return Rates and inal Mail Return Rates art/1e Collection Tract and County Levels, Decennial Statistical Studies Division Census 2000 Procedures and Operations Memorandum Series January IS, 2002. US. Bureau of the Census, 2002b,Census 2000 Response and Return Rates - National and State by Form Type, Decennial Statistical Studies Division Census 2000 Procedures and Operations Memorandum Series February 12, 2002. US. Bureau of the Census 2002c, Nonresponse Followup for Census 2000, Census 2000 Evaluation Memorandum 1-15, July 25, 2002. 20 000574 Appendix A: Decennial Master Address File (DMAF) Variable De?nitions ST Collection State Code COU Collection FIPS County Code TRACT Collection Census Tract MAFID MAF and DMAF ID characters t?Z state code when the MAP ID was assigned characters 3-5 county code when the MAP ID was assigned characters 6-!2 control TEA Type of Enumeration Area 1 Mailout Mailback 2 Update Leave 3 List Enumeratc 4 Remote List Enumerate 5 Rural Update Enumerate 6 Military in Update Leave Area 7 - Urban Update Leave 8 Urban Update Enumeralc 9 Update Leave (converted from TEA l) Group Quarters Housing Unit Flag 0 Housing Unit 1 Special Place 2 Group Quarters 3 GQ Embedded Housing Unit ASAM A Priori Sample I Short Form 6 Long Form NRU Nonresponse Followup Universe 0 Universe not set 1 Not in data received (This indicates that a form was checked in; it does not guarantee that the form has any data.) 2 Not in but NRD, NRS, NRC and NRPOP will be set by Update/Enumerate or List/Enumerate 3 [n NRFU, Nonresponse 4 [n NRFU, Too late for mailout 2} 000575 Source of Data Capture? 0 None 1 Some Data Capture The types of data capture for housing units are - MAILD UAA (1) Mail Return (RSOURCE: I, 4 - 10) (2) Telephone Questionnaire Assistance (TQA) (RSOURCE: (3) Internet (RSOURCE: 30) (4) Be Counted Form (BCF) (RSOURCE: I I. 12) (5) CEFU Data Capture (RSOURCE: 34 36) (6) NRFU Data Capture (RSOURCE: 17 - 21) (7) CIFU Data Capture (RSOURCE: 22 - 24) (8) (RSOURCE: 3, 32, 33) (9) List Enumerate/Update Enumerate (RSOURCE: 13 - 16) (10) Group Quarters (RSOURCE: 25 - 29) (l 1) Orphans (RSOURCE: 37) (12) Other (RSOURCE: -1) Mail Return Check-in Month and Day 0000 No Mail Return Check-in 0099 Reverse Check-in 0101 - 1231 Check-in Day of]" Return 2000 2 Check-in, Date Unknown Undeliverable As Addressed (UAA) 0 No UAA check-in UAA check-in in NPC only 2 UAA check-in in in LCO check-in; no LCO check-out 3 UAA check-in in no LCO cheek-in; in LCD check-out 4 UAA cheek?in in in LCO check-in; in LCO check-out 5 No UAA check-in in in LCO check-in; no LCO check-out 6 No UAA check-in in no LCO check-in; in LCO check-out 7 No UAA check-in in in LCD check-in; in LCO check?out 8 Not enough Address information - Excluded from the Mailout 4This is a DRF2 variable and is based on the RSOURCE variable from the DRF-2. It was appended to the DMAF SAS dataset produced by the DSSD. 22 000576 Appendix B: Decennial Response File Stage 2 Variable De?nitions RST Collection IPS State Code RUID Unit ID Number (DMAF) characters l-2 state (when MAF ID was assigned) characters 3-5 county characters 6-12 sequence ID RSOURCE Source of Return -1 Not Computed 1 Paper mail back questionnaire from mail out 2 Paper mail back questionnaire from TQA mail out WITH ID 3 Paper mail back questionnaire from TQA mail out with NO 4 Paper mail back questionnaire from Update Leave 5 Paper mail back questionnaire from Update Leave ADD 6 Paper mail back questionnaire from Update Leave SUBSTITUTE 7 Paper mail back questionnaire from Urban Update Leave 8 Paper mail back questionnaire from Urban Update Leave ADD 9 Paper mail back questionnaire from Urban Update Leave SUBSTITUTE 10 Paper mail back questionnaire from Request for Foreign Language 1 1 Paper mail back questionnaire ?om BCF marked as whole household 12 Paper mail back questionnaire from BCF partial household NOT marked as whole household) 13 Paper enumerator questionnaire from List Enumerate 14 - Paper enumerator questionnaire from Update Enumeratc 15 Paper enumerator questionnaire from Update Enumerate ADD 16 Paper enumerator questionnaire from Update Enumerate SUBSTITUTE 17 Paper enumerator questionnaire from Followup (NRF U) 18 Paper enumerator questionnaire from NRFU ADD 19 Paper enumerator questionnaire from NRFU SUBSTITUTE 20 Paper enumerator questionnaire from NRFU Whole Household Usual Home Elsewhere (WHUHE) 21 Paper enumerator questionnaire from NRFU Iii-mover 22 Paper enumerator questionnaire from Coverage Improvement Followup (CIFU) 23 Paper enumerator questionnaire from CIFU ADD 24 Paper enumerator questionnaire from CIFU SUBSTITUTE 25 Paper enumerator questionnaire from T-Night 26 Paper questionnaire for UHE from Service-based Enumeration (SBE) (Individual Census Questionnaire 27 Paper questionnaire for UHE from Group Quarters (GQ) enumeration (Individual Census Questionnaire 28 Paper questionnaire for UHE from Military GQ enumeration (Military Census Report 29 Paper questionnaire for UHE from Shipboard GQ enumeration (Shipboard Census Report 23 000577 30 Electronic short form from IDC 31 Electronic TQA reverse-CAT] short form 32 Electronic TQA reverse-CATI BCF for whole household 33 Electronic TQA reverse-CAT] BCF for partial household 34 Electronic Coverage Edit Followup (CEFU) from long or short form 35 Electronic CEFU from BCF for whole household 36 Electronic CEFU from IDC 37 Paper enumerator continuation form - unlinked ?orphan? Source of Data Capture 0 None 1 Some Data Capture The types of data capture for housing units are - (1) Mail Return (RSOURCE: 1, 4 10) (2) Telephone Questionnaire Assistance (TQA) (RSOURCE: (3) Internet (RSOURCE: 30) (4) Be Counted Form (BCF) (RSOURCE: I I, 12) (5) CEFU Data Capture (RSOURCE: 34 - 36) (6) NRFU Data Capture (RSOURCE: 1 7 - (7) CIF Data Capture (RSOURCE: 22 - 24) (8) (RSOURCE: 3, 32, 33) (9) List Enumerate/Update Enumerate (RSOURCE: 13 - 16) (10) Group Quarters (RSOURCE: 25 29) (1 l) Orphans (RSOURCE: 37) (12) Other (RSOURCE: 24 000578 000579 Appendix C: Nineteen Response Categories of Housing Units in the Response Rate Denominator Mail Check in Date (MAILD) Data Capture Flags from DRF-2) No Mail Check in (0000 or 2000) Reverse Check in (0099) Mail Returns Jan 1 - Apr 10 (0101 - 0410) Late Mail Returns Apr 11 Apr 18 (0411-0418) Late Late Mail Returns Apr 19 - Dec 31 (0419 - 1231) Total Mail Returns 13* 23* Paper Mail Return or TQA or Internet or Be Counted or Counted 1,939 401,666 8,657 2,646 71,943,511 2,460,317 3,247,472 78,066,208 8 9 10 CEFU 13 2,592 579 753 1,129,142 63,877 48,011 1,244,967 Nou- Mail Returns 11 l3 l4 15 NRFU or CIFU or No Data Capture or Other Data Capture 28,270,977 987,902 122,671 6,020 8,963,003 38,350,573 Total 28,677,187 1,000,537 73,195,324 2,530,214 12,258,486 117,661,748 A - Neither NRFU nor CIFU data capture 25 B-Either NRFU or CIFU data capture 000580 Appendix D: Response Rate Numerators and Denominators Numerator?April 18, 2000 Numerator?December 31, 2000 Denominator Form Type Form Type Form Type State Total Short Long Total Short Long Total Short Long TOTAL 75,608,035 64,792,55410,815,481 79,311,175 67,380,839 11,930,336 117,661,748 97,578,971 20,082,777 Mailout/ Mailback 62,890,520 54,955,537 7,934,983 65,887,892 57,119,451 8,768,441 96,184,164 81,658,117 14,526,047 Type of Update! Enumeration Leave Urban Update/ 126,428 1 10,794 15,634 137,203 1 19,196 18,007 250,245 212,31 1 37,934 Leave Source: DMAF and DRF-2 Note: National totals do not include Puerto Rico. 12,591,087 9,726,223 2,864,864 13,286,080 10,142,192 3,143,888 21,227,339 15,708,543 5,518,796 26 000581 Appendix E: Four Figures Illustrating the Mail Response Rates as of April 18, 2000 and the Final Mail Response Rates as of December 31, 2000 by Day and Form Type and Daily Percentage Increase in Response Rates by Day and Form Type 0sz asuodsau 100.0% 90.0% 00.0% 70-0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% U1L 08111181? begins Figure 1. Mail Response Rates by Date by Form Type Advance nollce :ensus Day initial NRFU cut :uestlonnalre u1 _ 1: 0111181]? Late mall l?BtUl?l?l NRFL Reminder rar?c cul 31212000 31112000 _31612000 31012000 311012000 311212000 1 312012000 312612000 312412000 312212000 312012000 . 311012000 . 311512000 311412000 Date 313012000 41912000 41712000 41512000 41312000 41112000 I?Response Rale "Elan Form Rate 27 Long Form Rate 1 -. n. 411512000 411312000 411112000 411112000 411912000 Figurez Daily Percanagelncreaseln Mall Response Rate: by Form Type Late mail retum lritial delivety ends reminder cards L'JJestionnaire Traileut 41'170000 . 410540000 - 4f1$2000 - 4f110000 - 43940000 . 4100000 .. 415.0000 - 400000 4f 10000 - $000000 3030000 . 3.060000 3.040000 - 3020000 - $200000 $100000 - $160000 . $140000 - $120000 - $100000 - $00000 $60000 $40000 $20000 a? a? q- no IN emu quau ul aseajouI . 5391,..31: ?d'a?'me 5.0% 1 0% 0.0% - Date ?Responee $13 ?Short ForrnRate Long FormRate 28 000582 Figure 3. Response Rates by Date by Form Type 0 uestlonnalre mallou?hRFU begins MRFU complete 1212112000 121112000 1112312000 111912000 1012612000 1011212000 912812000 - 911412000 - 313112000 811712000 :31312000 - 712012000 . 71612000 . 612212000 - 51012000 - 512512000 - 511112000 ensus Day A Final NRFU cut - 412112000 - 411312000 313012000 . 311612000 00.0% 70.0% 60.0% =2 0 In was asuodseu 20.0% 10.0% 31212000 0.0% ate Short Form Rate 'Long Form Rate I 8500058 R318 29 000583 complete 12010000 12770000 11030000 1100000 10060000 La5:f0rm received - 107120000 - 0000000 0714:2000 6.010000 67170000 6730000 7000000 7760000 Figure 4. Dally Percentage Increase in Response Rates by Form Wpe NRFU begins NFU cut Lam mail ?ies?onnaire Tam 6020000 6760000 5.050000 57110000 4070000 47130000 3.000000 Date Long Form Rate ?Resp0nse Rate "??Short Fon'n Rate 30 - 300000 ama asuodsou u! ascuom 000584 000585 Appendix F: Mail Resgonse Numerators and Rates by Dayr Day Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Date 03/02/2000 03/03/2000 03/04/2000 03/05/2000 03/06/2000 03/07/2000 03/08/2000 03/09/2000 03/10/2000 03/1 1/2000 03/12/2000 03/13/2000 03/ 14/2000 03/15/2000 03/16/2000 03/17/2000 03/18/2000 03/19/2000 03/20/2000 03/21/2000 03/22/2000 03/23/2000 03/24/2000 03/25/2000 03/26/2000 03/27/2000 Daily Increase I- 1,397 65 52 149,634 62,469 176,971 235,918 422,723 180,427 217,372 756,539 550,444 2,915,464 4,269,016 4,851,766 3,454,841 2,923,374 5,262,381 5,326,760 5,791,069 5,250,239 3,627,566 2,420,556 2,5 1 1,970 2,993,679 Mail Response Numerator Cumulative 0 1,397 1,462 1,514 151,148 213,617 390,588 626,506 1,049,229 1,229,656 1,447,028 2,203 .567 2,754,011 5,669,475 9,938,491 14,790,257 18,245,098 21,168,472 26,430,853 31,757,613 37,548,682 42,798,921 48,847,043 51,359,013 54,352,692 31 Mail Response Rate Daily Increase 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.4% 0.2% 0.2% 0.6% 0.5% 2.5% 3.6% 4.1% 2.9% 2.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.9% 4.5% 3.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.5% Cumulative 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.5% 0.9% 1.0% 1.2% 1.9% 2.3% 4.8% 8.4% 12.6% 15.5% 18.0% 22.5% 27.0% 31.9% 36.4% 39.5% 41.5% 43.7% 46.2% Keyr dates delivery begins Advance notice delivery begins Advance notice delivery ends Questionnaire mailout delivery begins Questionnaire mailout delivery ends Reminder card delivery begins Reminder card delivery ends 000586 Appendix F: Mail Response Numerators and Rates by Day Mail Response Numerator Day Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Date 03/28/2000 03/29/2000 03/30/2000 03/31/2000 04/01/2000 04/02/2000 04/03/2000 04/04/2000 04/05/2000 04/06/2000 04/07/2000 04/08/2000 04/09/2000 04/10/2000 04/1 1/2000 04/12/2000 04/13/2000 04/ 14/2000 04/15/2000 04/16/2000 04/17/2000 04/18/2000 04/19/2000 04/20/2000 04/21/2000 04/22/2000 Daily Increase 3,141,074 1,939,206 1,829,908 1,744,944 1,365,370 943,350 1,490,946 1,320,770 1,034,302 1,233,153 800,075 765,257 419,715 691,891 342,541 41 1,695 302, 1 8 1 523,441 305,789 167,706 352,030 129,999 210,358 209,63 1 215,905 68,345 Cumulative 57,493,766 59,432,972 61,262,880 63,007,824 64,373,194 65,316,544 66,807,490 68,128,260 69,162,562 70,395,715 71 ,195 ,790 71,961 ,047 72,3 80,762 73,072,653 73,415,194 73,826,889 74,129,070 74,652,51 1 74,958,300 75,126,006 75,478,036 75,608,035 75,818,393 76,028,024 76,243,929 76,312,274 32 Mail Response Rate Daily Increase 2.7% 1.6% 1.6% 1.5% 1.2% 0.8% 1.3% 1.1% 0.9% 1.0% 0.7% 0.6% 0.4% 0.6% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0.3% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% Cumulative 48.9% 50.5% 52.1% 53.6% 54.7% 55.5% 56.8% 57.9% 58.8% 59.8% 60.5% 61.2% 61.5% 62.1% 62.4% 62.7% 63.0% 63.4% 63.7% 63.8% 64.1% 64.3% 64.4% 64.6% 64.8% 64.9% Key dates delivery ends Census Day Initial NRFU cut Late mail return NRFU cut 000587 A?endix F: Mail Response Numerators and Rates by Day Day Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Date 04/23/2000 04/24/2000 04/25/2000 04/26/2000 04/27/2000 04/28/2000 04/29/2000 04/30/2000 05/01/2000 05/02/2000 05/03/2000 05/04/2000 05/05/2000 05/06/2000 05/07/2000 05/08/2000 05/09/2000 05/10/2000 05/1 1/2000 05/12/2000 05/13/2000 05/ 14/2000 05/15/2000 05/16/2000 05/17/2000 05/18/2000 Daily Increase 81,653 175,577 91,243 207,548 108,341 90,307 28,058 1,157 139,21 1 23,404 76,067 92,806 126,560 29,679 1,912 24,577 9,107 15,482 40,721 190,053 4,321 8,041 3,937 1 1,945 17,286 34,993 Mail Response Numerator Cumulative 76,393,927 76,569,504 76,660,747 76,868,295 76,976,636 77,066,943 77,095,001 77,096,158 77,235,369 77,258,773 77,334,840 77,427,646 77,554,206 77,583,885 77,585,797 77,610,374 77,619,481 77,634,963 77,675,684 77,865,737 77,870,058 77,878,099 77,882,036 77,893,981 77,911,267 77,946,260 33 Mail Response Rate Daily Increase 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0-0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Cumulative 64.9% 65.1% 65.2% 65.3% 65.4% 65.5% 65.5% 65.5% 65.6% 65.7% 65.7% 65.8% 65 65.9% 65.9% 66.0% 66.0% 66-0% 66.0% 66.2% 66.2% 66.2% 66.2% 66.2% 66.2% 66.2% Key dates NRFU begins 000588 Appendix F: Mail Response Numerators and Rates by Day Mail Response Numerator Day Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Date 05/19/2000 05/20/2000 05/21/2000 05/22/2000 05/23/2000 05/24/2000 05/25/2000 05/26/2000 05/27/2000 05/28/2000 05/29/2000 05/30/2000 05/31/2000 06/01/2000 06/02/2000 06/03/2000 06/04/2000 06/05/2000 06/06/2000 06/07/2000 06/08/2000 06/09/2000 06/10/2000 06/1 1/2000 06/ 12/2000 06/13/2000 Daily Increase 134,413 28,279 6,373 9,765 8,310 18,270 33,353 98,298 13,414 6,801 1,057 7,864 7,935 17,131 67,302 14,539 6,880 9,015 9,931 24,731 32,955 17,698 8,450 5,937 20,851 10,689 Cumulative 78,080,673 78,108,952 78,115,325 78,125,090 78,133,400 78,151,670 78,185,023 78,283,321 78,296,735 78,303,536 78,304,593 78,312,457 78,320,392 78,33 7,523 78,404,825 78,419,364 78,426,244 78,435,259 78,445,190 78,469,921 78,502,876 78,520,574 78,529,024 78,534,961 78,555,812 78,566,501 34 Mail Response Rate Daily Increase 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Cumulative 66.4% 66.4% 66.4% 66.4% 66.4% 66.4% 66.4% 66.5% 66.5% 66.6% 66.6% 66.6% 66.6% 66.6% 66.6% 66.6% 66.7% 66.7% 66.7% 66.7% 66.7% 66.7% 66.7% 66.7% 66.8% 66.8% Key dates 000589 Appendix F: Mail Response Numerators and Rates by Day Mail Response Numerator Dag.r Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Date 06/ 14/2000 06/15/2000 06/ 6/2000 06/17/2000 06/18/2000 06/19/2000 06/20/2000 06/21/2000 06/22/2000 06/23/2000 06/24/2000 06/25/2000 06/26/2000 06/27/2000 06/28/2000 06/29/2000 06/30/2000 07/01/2000 07/02/2000 07/03/2000 07/04/2000 07/05/2000 07/06/2000 07/07/2000 07/08/2000 07/09/2000 Daily; Increase 11,928 241,743 9,857 3,672 3,127 4,632 3,883 3,705 3,425 2,496 1,067 493 2,612 1,953 2,239 24,147 1,580 765 127 Cumulative 78,578,429 78,820,172 78,830,029 78,833,701 78,836,828 78,841,460 78,845,343 78,849,048 78,852,473 78,854,969 78,856,036 78,856,529 78,859,141 78,861,094 78,863,333 78,887,480 78,889,060 78,889,825 78,889,952 78,889,952 78,889,952 78,889,952 78,889,952 78,889,952 78,889,952 78,889,952 35 Mail Response Rate Daily Increase 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0-0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0. 0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Cumulative 66.8% 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% 67.0% Kc}.r dates NRFU complete 000590 Appendix F: Mail Response Numerators and Rates by Day Mail Response Numerator Day Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Date 07/10/2000 07/ 1 1/2000 07/12/2000 07/13/2000 07/ 14/2000 07/15/2000 07/16/2000 07/17/2000 07/18/2000 07/19/2000 07/20/2000 07/21/2000 07/22/2000 07/23/2000 07/24/2000 07/25/2000 07/26/2000 07/27/2000 07/28/2000 07/29/2000 07/30/2000 07/3 1/2000 08/01/2000 08/02/2000 08/03/2000 08/04/2000 Daily Increase 2,146 Cumulative 78,892,098 78,892,098 78,892,098 78,892,447 78,892,447 78,892,447 78,892,447 78,892,447 78,892,447 78,892,447 78,892,447 78,892,447 78,898,999 78,900,106 78,900,106 78,900,106 78,900,106 78,900,106 78,900,607 78,900,607 78,900,607 78,900,740 78,900,740 78,900,740 78,900,740 78,900,740 36 Mail Response Rate Daily Increase Cumulative 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% Key dates 000591 Appendix F: Mail Regionse Numerators and Rates by Day Mail Resnonse Numerator Day Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Date 08/05/2000 08/06/2000 08/07/2000 08/08/2000 08/09/2000 08/ 0/2000 08/1 1/2000 08/ 12/2000 08/13/2000 08/ 14/2000 08/15/2000 08/16/2000 08/17/2000 08/18/2000 08/19/2000 08/20/2000 08/21/2000 08/22/2000 08/23/2000 08/24/2000 08/25/2000 08/26/2000 08/27/2000 08/28/2000 08/29/2000 08/ 3 0/2000 Daily Increase Cumulative 78,900,740 78,900,740 78,900,740 78,900,740 78,901,342 78,901,342 78,901,342 78,901,342 78,901,342 78,901,342 78,901,342 78,901,631 78,901,631 78,902,346 78,903,303 78,903,303 78,903,303 78,903,303 78,903,303 78,903,303 78,903,311 78,903 ,3 1 1 78,903,311 78,903,311 78,903,311 78,903,311 37 Mail Response Rate Daily Increase Cumulative 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67-1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 000592 Appendix F: Mail Response Numerators and Rates by Day Mail Response Numerator Day Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Date 08/31/2000 09/01/2000 09/02/2000 09/03/2000 09/04/2000 09/05/2000 09/06/2000 09/07/2000 09/08/2000 09/09/2000 09/10/2000 09/1 1/2000 09/ 12/2000 09/13/2000 09/ 14/2000 09/15/2000 09/16/2000 09/ 17/2000 09/18/2000 09/19/2000 09/20/2000 09/21/2000 09/22/2000 09/23/2000 09/24/2000 09/25/2000 Daily Increase Cumulative 78,903,31 78,903,31 1 78,903,452 78,903 ,452 78,903,452 78,903,452 78,903,452 78,903,452 78,903,452 78,903,452 78,903,452 78,903,452 78,903,452 78,903,452 78,903,452 78,903,5 15 78,9035 15 78,903,515 78,903,515 78,903,5 15 78,903,515 78,903,515 78,903,515 78,903,515 78,903,515 78,903,5 15 38 Mail Response Rate Daily Increase 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Cumulative 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% Key dates 000593 Appendix F: Mail Response Numerators and Rates by Day Dair Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Sundayr Date 09/26/2000 09/27/2000 09/28/2000 09/29/2000 09/30/2000 10/01/2000 10/02/2000 10/03/2000 10/04/2000 10/05/2000 10/06/2000 10/07/2000 10/08/2000 10/09/2000 10/10/2000 10/1 1/2000 10/12/2000 10/13/2000 10/ 14/2000 10/ 15/2000 10/ 16/2000 10/1 7/2000 1 0/1 8/2000 10/1 9/2000 12/3 1/2000 Source: DMAF and Note: Rates are based on a response rate denominator of 117,661,748 housing units. Note: No forms with a valid check-in date were received after October 19 Mail Res onse Numerator Dailv Increase 3 407,657 Cumulative 78,903,515 78,903,515 78,903,515 78,903,515 78,903,515 78,903,515 78,903,515 78,903,515 78,903,515 78,903,515 78,903,515 78,903,515 78,903,515 78,903,515 78,903,515 78,903,515 78,903,515 78,903 ,5 1 5 78,903,515 78,903,515 78,903,515 78,903,515 78,903,515 78,903,518 79,311,175 Mail Response Rate Daily Increase Cumulative 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0-0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% NRFU or CIFU with no check-in date were assigned a date of December 31, 2000. Note: Rates do not include Puerto Rice. 39 67-1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67-1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67-1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.1% 67.4% Keg.r dates Last mail return with check-in date received 2000. Mail returns from addresses which also were enumerated in 000594 Appendix G-l: Mail Response Numerators and Rates for Short Forms Mail Response Numerator Day Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday hdonday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Date 03/02/2000 03/03/2000 03/04/2000 03/05/2000 03/06/2000 03/07/2000 03/08/2000 03/09/2000 03/10/2000 03/1 1/2000 03/12/2000 03/13/2000 03/ 14/2000 03/15/2000 03/16/2000 03/17/2000 03/1 8/2000 03/19/2000 03/20/2000 03/21/2000 03/22/2000 03/23/2000 03/24/2000 03/25/2000 03/26/2000 03/27/2000 Daily Increase 1,392 65 52 132,094 54,85 1 157,425 207,263 365,553 156,9 1 1 187,1 1 1 642,139 477,701 2,7 1 7,701 3,929,051 4,462,221 3,226,454 2,710,376 4,825,753 4,785 ,3 96 5,107,438 4,412,890 2,790,988 2,080,348 2,200,925 2,553,064 Cumulative 1,392 1,457 1,509 133,603 188,454 345,879 553,142 918,695 1,075,606 1,262,717 1,904,856 2,382,557 5,100,258 9,029,309 13,491,530 16,717,984 19,428,360 24,254,113 29,039,509 34,146,947 38,559,837 41,350,825 43,431,173 45,632,098 48,185,162 40 Response Rate Daily Increase 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.4% 0.2% 0.2% 0.7% 0.5% 2.8% 4.0% 4.6% 3.3% 2.8% 4.9% 4.9% 5.2% 4.5% 2.9% 2.1% 2.3% 2.6% Cumulative 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 0.9% 1.1% 1.3% 2.0% 2.4% 5.2% 9.3% 13.8% 17.1% 19.9% 24.9% 29.8% 35.0% 39.5% 42.4% 44.5% 46.8% 49.4% Key dates delivery begins Advance notice delivery begins Advance notice delivery ends Questionnaire mailout delivery begins Questionnaire mailout delivery ends Reminder card delivery begins Reminder card delivery ends 000595 Appendix G-l: Mail Response Numerators and Rates for Short Forms Day Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday,r Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Date 03/28/2000 03/29/2000 03/30/2000 03/31/2000 04/01/2000 04/02/2000 04/03/2000 04/04/2000 04/05/2000 04/06/2000 04/07/2000 04/08/2000 04/09/2000 04/10/2000 04/1 1/2000 04/12/2000 04/13/2000 04/14/2000 04/15/2000 04/16/2000 04/17/2000 04/1 8/2000 04/19/2000 04/20/2000 04/21/2000 04/22/2000 Daily Increase 2,616,985 1,586,934 1,446,048 1,398,330 1,049,] 15 735,306 1,1 13,753 994,482 271,809 945,438 607,170 593,514 314,340 525,253 273,694 312,637 216,264 392,869 223,567 140,207 255,300 94,377 159,543 152,556 153,237 54,291 Mail Response Numerator Cumulative 50,802,147 52,389,081 53,835,129 55,233,459 56,282,574 57,017,880 58,131,633 59,126,] 15 59,897,924 60,843,362 61 ,450.532 62,044,046 62,358,386 62,883.639 63,157,333 63,469,970 63,686,234 64.079.103 64,302,670 4,442,877 64,698,177 64,792,554 64,952,097 65,104,653 65,257,890 65,312,181 Response Rate Daily Increase Cumulative 41 2.7% 1.6% 1.5% 1.4% 1.1% 0.8% 1.1% 1.0% 0.8% 1.0% 0.6% 0.6% 0.3% 0.5% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.4% 0.2% 0.1% 0-3% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 52.1% 53.7% 55.2% 56.6% 57.7% 58.4% 59.6% 60.6% 61.4% 62.4% 63.0% 63.6% 63.9% 64.4% 64.7% 65.0% 65.3% 65.7% 65.9% 66.0% 66.3% 66.4% 66.6% 66.7% 66.9% 66.9% Key dates delivery ends Census Day Initial NRFU cut Late mail return NRFU cut 000596 Appendix G?l: Mail Response Numerators and Rates for Short Forms Mail Response Numerator Day Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Date 04/23/2000 04/24/2000 04/25/2000 04/26/2000 04/27/2000 04/28/2000 04/29/2000 04/30/2000 05/01/2000 05/02/2000 05/03/2000 05/04/2000 05/05/2000 05/06/2000 05/07/2000 05/08/2000 05/09/2000 05/10/2000 05/1 1/2000 05/12/2000 05/13/2000 05/ 14/2000 05/15/2000 05/16/2000 05/17/2000 05/18/2000 Daily Increase 61,795 1 1 1,230 75,580 157,419 78,608 62,802 27,293 932 109,058 20,264 62,649 75,532 61,303 24,327 1,246 13,180 7,161 13,167 26,125 146,001 2,697 3,434 2,699 8,423 1 1,631 21,719 Cumulative 65,3 73,976 65,485,206 65,560,786 65,718,205 65,796,813 65,859,615 65,886,908 65,887,840 65,996,898 66,017, 162 66,079,8l 1 66,155,343 66,216,646 66,240,973 66,242,219 66,255,399 66,262,560 66,275 ,727 66,301,852 66,447,853 66,450,550 66,453,984 66,456,683 66,465,106 66,476,737 66,498,456 42 Response Rate Daily Increase Cumulative 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 67.0% 67.1% 67.2% 67.3% 67.4% 67.5% 67.5% 67.5% 67.6% 67.7% 67.7% 67.8% 67.9% 67.9% 67.9% 67.9% 67.9% 67.9% 67.9% 68.1% 68.1% 68. 1% 68.1% 68.1% 68.1% 68.1% Key dates NRFU begins 000597 Appendix G-l: Mail Response Numerators and Rates for Short Forms Mail Res onse Numerator Day Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Date 05/19/2000 05/20/2000 05/21/2000 05/22/2000 05/23/2000 05/24/2000 05/25/2000 05/26/2000 05/27/2000 05/28/2000 05/29/2000 05/30/2000 05/31/2000 06/01/2000 06/02/2000 06/03/2000 06/04/2000 06/05/2000 06/06/2000 06/07/2000 06/08/2000 06/09/2000 06/10/2000 06/1 1/2000 06/12/2000 06/13/2000 Daily Increase 91,378 14,615 3,953 5,180 4,344 11,828 22,708 59,220 8,691 3,811 755 4,966 4,865 9,096 39,681 6,885 4,099 5,358 6,827 14,982 16,036 8,888 4,308 2,981 13,022 5,597 Cumulative 66,589,834 66,604,449 66,608,402 66,613,582 66,617,926 66,629,754 66,652,462 66,7 1 ,682 66,720,373 66,724,184 66,724,939 66,729.905 66,734,770 66,743,866 66,783,547 66,790,432 66,794,53 1 66,799,889 66,806,716 66,821 ,698 66,837,734 66,846,622 66,850,930 66,853,91 1 66,866,933 66,872,530 4 Daily Increase 3 0- 1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0-0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Res onse Rate Cumulative 68.2% 68.3% 68.3% 68.3% 68.3% 68.3% 68.3% 68.4% 68.4% 68.4% 68.4% 68.4% 68.4% 68.4% 68.4% 68.4% 68.5% 68.5% 68.5% 68.5% 68.5% 68.5% 68.5% 68.5% 68.5% 68.5% Key dates 000598 Appendix G-l: Mail Response Numerators and Rates for Short Forms Day Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Date 06/ 14/2000 06/ 1 5/2000 06/16/2000 06/17/2000 06/18/2000 06/19/2000 06/20/2000 06/21/2000 06/22/2000 06/23/2000 06/24/2000 06/25/2000 06/26/2000 06/27/2000 06/28/2000 06/29/2000 06/30/2000 07/01/2000 07/02/2000 07/03/2000 07/04/2000 07/05/2000 07/06/2000 07/07/2000 07/08/2000 07/09/2000 Daily Increase 7,890 146,022 4,348 2,280 1,281 1,531 2,168 2,270 2,300 1,388 687 269 1,695 1,217 1,557 11,067 980 620 67 Mail Response Numerator Cumulative 66,880,420 67,026,442 67,03 0,790 67,033,070 67,034,351 67,035,882 67,038,050 67,040,320 67,042,620 67,044,008 67,044,695 67,044,964 67,046,659 67,047,876 67,049,433 67,060,500 67,061,480 67,062,100 67,062,167 67,062, 167 67,062,167 67,062,167 67,062,167 67,062,167 67,062,167 67,062, I 67 Response Rate Daily Increase 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Cumulative 68.5% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% Key dates NRFU complete 000599 Appendix G?l: Mail Response Numerators and Rates for Short Forms Mail Response Numerator Dav:r Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Date 07/10/2000 07? 1/2000 07/ 1 2/2000 07/13/2000 07/ 14/2000 07/15/2000 07/16/2000 07/17/2000 0711 8/2000 07/19/2000 07/20/2000 07/21/2000 07/22/2000 07/23/2000 07/24/2000 07/25/2000 07/26/2000 07/27/2000 07/28/2000 07/29/2000 07/30/2000 07/31/2000 08/01/2000 08/02/2000 08/03/2000 08/04/2000 Dailyr Increase 1,886 Cumulative 67,064,053 67,064,053 67,064,053 67,064,285 67,064,285 67,064,285 67,064,285 67,064,285 67,064,285 67,064,285 67,064,285 67,064,285 67,068,945 67,069,699 67,069,699 67,069,699 67,069,699 67,069,699 67,070,015 67,070,015 67,070,015 67,070,097 67,070,097 67,070,097 67,070,097 67,070,097 45 Response Rate Daily Increase 00% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Cumulative 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 000600 Appendix G-l: Mail Response Numerators and Rates for Short Forms Mail Response Numerator Day Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Date 08/05/2000 08/06/2000 08/07/2000 08/08/2000 08/09/2000 08/10/2000 08/1 1/2000 08/12/2000 08/13/2000 08/ 14/2000 08/15/2000 08/16/2000 08/17/2000 08/1 8/2000 08/19/2000 008/20/2000 08/21/2000 08/22/2000 08/23/2000 08/24/2000 08/25/2000 08/26/2000 08/27/2000 08/28/2000 08/29/2000 08/30/2000 Daily Increase Cumulative 67,070,097 67,070,097 67,070,097 67,070,097 67,070,447 67,070,447 67,070,447 67,070,447 67,070,447 67,070,447 67,070,447 67,070,656 67,070,656 67,071 ,1 75 67,071,723 67,071,723 67,071,723 67,071,723 67,071,723 67,071,723 67,071,728 67,071,728 67,071,728 67,071,728 67,071,728 67,071,728 46 Response Rate Daily Increase 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Cumulative 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% Key dates 000601 Appendix G?l: Mail Response Numerators and Rates for Short Forms Mail Res onse Numerator Dajr Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday ?day Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Date 08/3 1/2000 09/01/2000 09/02/2000 09/03/2000 09/04/2000 09/05/2000 09/06/2000 09/07/2000 09/08/2000 09/09/2000 09/10/2000 09/1 1/2000 09/ 12/2000 09/13/2000 09/ 14/2000 09/15/2000 09/16/2000 09/17/2000 09/18/2000 09/19/2000 09/20/2000 09/21/2000 09/ 22/2000 09/23/2000 09/24/2000 09/25/2000 Daily Increase 104 Cumulative 67,071,728 67,071,728 67,071,832 67,071,832 67,071,832 67,071,832 67,071,832 67,071,832 67,071,832 67,071,832 67,071,832 67,071,832 67,071,832 67,071,832 67,071,832 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071.882 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071,882 4 Daily Increase 7 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Res onse Rate Cumulative 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% Key dates 000602 Appendix G-l: Mail Response Numerators and Rates for Short Forms Mail Response Numerator Day Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday hdonday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Sunday Date 09/26/2000 09/27/2000 09/28/2000 09/29/2000 09/30/2000 10/01/2000 10/02/2000 10/03/2000 10/04/2000 10/05/2000 10/06/2000 10/07/2000 10/08/2000 10/09/2000 10/10/2000 10/1 1/2000 10/ 12/2000 10/13/2000 10/ 14/2000 1 0/ 5/2000 10/16/2000 10/17/2000 1 0/ 8/2000 10/19/2000 12/31/2000 Source: DMAF and DRF-2. Note: Short form return rates are based on a denominator of 97,578,971. Daily Increase 3 308,954 Cumulative 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071,882 67,071,885 67,380,839 Response Rate Daily Increase 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% Cumulative 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 68.7% 69.1% Key dates Last mail return with check-in date received Note: No forms with a valid check-in date were received after October 19, 2000. Mail returns from addresses which also were enumerated in NRFU or CIFU with no check-in date were assigned a date of December 31, 2000. Note: Rates do not include Puerto Rico. 000603 Appendix G-2: Mail Response Numerators and Rates for Long Forms Da}r Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Date 03/02/2000 03/03/2000 03/04/2000 03/05/2000 03/06/2000 03/07/2000 03/08/2000 03/09/2000 03/10/2000 03/1 1/2000 03/12/2000 03/13/2000 03/ 14/2000 03/15/2000 03/16/2000 03/17/2000 03/1 8/2000 03/19/2000 03/20/2000 03/21/2000 03/22/2000 03/23/2000 03/24/2000 03/25/2000 03/26/2000 03/27/2000 03/28/2000 03/29/2000 03/30/2000 03/31/2000 Daily Increase 5 17,540 7,618 19,546 28,655 57,170 23,516 30,261 114,400 72,743 197,763 339,965 389,545 228,387 212,998 436,628 541,364 683,631 837,349 836,578 340,208 31 1,045 440,615 524,089 352,272 383,860 346,614 Mail Response Numerator Cumulative 5 5 5 17,545 25,163 44,709 73,364 130,534 154,050 184,31 1 298,711 371,454 569,217 909,182 1,298,727 1.527,] 14 1,740,] 12 2,176,740 2,718,104 3,401,735 4,239,084 5,075,662 5,415,870 5,726,915 6,167,530 6,691,619 7,043,891 7,427,751 7,774,365 Response Rate Daily Increase 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.2% 0.6% 0.4% 1.0% 1.7% 1.9% 1.1% 1.1% 2.2% 2.7% 3.4% 4.2% 4.2% 1.7% 1.5% 2.2% 2.6% 1.8% 1.9% 1.7% 49 Cumulative 0.0% 0-0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 0.8% 0.9% 1.5% 1.8% 2.8% 4.5% 6.5% 7.6% 8.7% 10.8% 13.5% 16.9% 21.1% 25.3% 27.0% 28.5% 30.7% 33.3% 35.1% 37.0% 38.7% Key dates delivery begins Advance notice delivery begins Advance notice delivery ends Questionnaire mailout delivery begins Questionnaire mailout delivery ends Reminder card delivery begins Reminder card delivery ends Ur'f. delivery ends 000604 Appendix Mail Response Numerators and Rates for Long Forms Mail Response Numerator Day Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Date 04/01/2000 04/02/2000 04/03/2000 04/04/2000 04/05/2000 04/06/2000 04/07/2000 04/08/2000 04/09/2000 04/10/2000 04/1 1/2000 04/ 12/2000 04/13/2000 04/14/2000 04/15/2000 04/16/2000 04/17/2000 04/18/2000 04/19/2000 04/20/2000 04/21/2000 04/22/2000 04/23/2000 04/24/2000 04/25/2000 04/26/2000 04/27/2000 04/28/2000 04/29/2000 04/30/2000 Daily Increase 3 16,255 208,044 377,193 326,288 262,493 287,715 192,905 1 71 ,743 105,375 166,638 68,847 99,058 85,917 130,572 82,222 27,499 96,730 35,622 50,815 57,075 62,668 14,054 19,858 64,347 15,663 50,129 29,733 27,505 765 225 Cumulative 8,090,620 8,298,664 8,675,857 9,002,145 9,264,638 9,552,353 9,745,258 9,91 7,001 10,022,376 1 0, 1 89,0 14 10,257,861 10,3 56,919 10,442,836 10,573,408 10,655,630 10,683,129 10,779,859 10,8 15,48 1 10,866,296 10,923,371 10,986,039 1 1,000,093 1 1 ,019,95 1 1 1,084,298 1 1,099,96 1 1 1 1 50,090 1 1 1 79,823 1 1,207,328 1 1,208,093 1 1,208,318 Daily Increase Cumulative 50 1.6% 1.0% 1.9% 1.6% 1.3% 1.4% 1.0% 0.9% 0.5% 0.8% 0.3% 0.5% 0.4% 0.7% 0.4% 0.1% 0.5% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% Response Rate 40.3% 41.3% 43.2% 44.8% 46.1% 47.6% 48.5% 49.4% 49.9% 50.7% 51.1% 51.6% 52.0% 52.6% 53.1% 53.2% 53.7% 53.9% 54.1% 54.4% 54.7% 54.8% 54.9% 55.2% 55.3% 55.5% 55.7% 55.8% 55.8% 55.8% Key dates Census Day Initial NRFU cut Late mail return NRFU cut NRFU begins 000605 Appendix Mail Response Numerators and Rates for Long Forms Da}r Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Date 05/01/2000 05/02/2000 05/03/2000 05/04/2000 05/05/2000 05/06/2000 05/07/2000 05/08/2000 05/09/2000 05/10/2000 05/ 1 1/2000 05/12/2000 05/13/2000 05/14/2000 05/15/2000 05/16/2000 05/17/2000 05/18/2000 05/19/2000 05/20/2000 05/21/2000 05/22/2000 05/23/2000 05/24/2000 05/25/2000 05/26/2000 05/27/2000 05/28/2000 05/29/2000 05/30/2000 Daily Increase 30,153 3,140 13,418 17,274 65,257 5,352 666 1 1,397 1,946 2,315 14,596 44,052 1,624 4,607 1,238 3,522 5,655 13,274 43,035 13,664 2,420 4,585 3,966 6,442 10,645 39,078 4,723 2,990 302 2,898 Mail Res onse Numerator Cumulative 11,238,471 1 1,241,61 1 11,255,029 11,272,303 11,337,560 1 1,342,912 11,343,578 11,354,975 11,356.921 1 1,359,236 11,373,832 11,417,884 1 1,419,508 1 1,424,] 15 11,425,353 11,428,875 11,434,530 11,447,804 11,490,839 1 1,504,503 11,506,923 1 1,51 1,508 1 1,515,474 1 1,521,916 1 1,532,561 1 1,571,639 11,576,362 11,579,352 11,579,654 11,582,552 Daily Res onse Rate Increase Cumulative 51 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0-0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 56-0% 56.0% 56.0% 56.1% 56.5% 56.5% 56.5% 56.5% 56.6% 56.6% 56.6% 56.9% 56.9% 56.9% 56.9% 56.9% 56.9% 57.0% 57.2% 57.3% 57.3% 57.3% 57.3% 57.4% 57.4% 57.6% 57.6% 57.7% 57.7% 57.7% Keyr dates 000606 Appendix G-2: Mail Response Numerators and Rates for Long Forms Mail Response Numerator Day Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday hAonday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Date 05/31/2000 06/01/2000 06/02/2000 06/03/2000 06/04/2000 06/05/2000 06/06/2000 06/07/2000 06/08/2000 06/09/2000 06/10/2000 06/1 1/2000 06/12/2000 06/13/2000 06/ 14/2000 06/15/2000 06/16/2000 06/17/2000 06/1 8/2000 06/19/2000 06/20/2000 06/21/2000 06/22/2000 06/23/2000 06724/2000 06/25/2000 06/26/2000 06/27/2000 06/28/2000 06/29/2000 Daily Increase 3,070 8,035 27,621 7,654 2,781 3,657 3,104 9,749 16,919 8,810 4,142 2,956 7,829 5,092 4,038 95,721 5,509 1,392 1,846 3,101 1,715 1,435 1,125 1,108 380 224 917 736 682 13,080 Cumulative 11,585,622 11,593,657 11,621,278 11,628,932 1 1,631,713 11,635,370 11,638,474 11,648,223 11,665,142 11,673,952 11,678,094 11,681,050 11,688,879 1 1,693,971 11,698,009 11,793,730 11,799,239 1 1,800,631 11,802,477 11,805,578 11,807,293 11,808,728 11,809,853 11,810,961 1 1,81 1,341 1 1,81 1,565 1 1,812,482 1 1,813,218 1 1,813,900 11,826,980 Response Rate Daily Increase 52 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% Cumulative 57.7% 57.7% 57.9% 57.9% 57.9% 57.9% 58.0% 58.0% 58.1% 58.1% 58.2% 58.2% 58.2% 58.2% 58.2% 58.7% 58.8% 58.8% 58.8% 58.8% 58.8% 58.8% 58.8% 58.8% 58.8% 58.8% 58.8% 58.8% 58.8% 58.9% Key dates NRFU complete 000607 Mendix Mail Response Numerators and Rates for Long Forms Dar Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Date 06/30/2000 07/01/2000 07/02/2000 07/03/2000 07/04/2000 07/05/2000 07/06/2000 07/07/2000 07/08/2000 07/09/2000 07/10/2000 07/1 1/2000 07/12/2000 07/13/2000 07/ 14/2000 07/15/2000 07/16/2000 07/17/2000 07/18/2000 07/19/2000 07/20/2000 07/21/2000 07/22/2000 07/23/2000 07/24/2000 07/25/2000 07/26/2000 07/27/2000 07/28/2000 07/29/2000 Dailj Increase 600 145 60 Mail Res onse Numerator Cumulative 11,827,580 11,827,725 11,827,785 11,827,785 11,827,785 11,827,785 11,827,785 1 1,827,785 11,827,785 11,827,785 11,828,045 11,828,045 11,828,045 1 1,828,162 11,828,162 1 1,828,162 1 1,828,162 11,828,162 1 1,828,162 1 1,828,162 1 1,828,162 1 1,828,162 11,830,054 11,830,407 11,830,407 11,830,407 11,830,407 11,830,407 11,830,592 11,830,592 Daily Increase 53 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0-0% 0.0% Res onse Rate Cumulative 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58,9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58,9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% Ke'.r dates 000608 Appendix G-2: Mail Response Numerators and Rates for Long Forms Day Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Date 07/30/2000 07/3 1/2000 08/01/2000 08/02/2000 08/03/2000 08/04/2000 08/05/2000 08/06/2000 08/07/2000 08/08/2000 08/09/2000 08/10/2000 08/1 1/2000 08/12/2000 08/13/2000 08/ 14/2000 08/15/2000 08/16/2000 08/17/2000 08/1 8/2000 08/19/2000 08/20/2000 08/21/2000 08/22/2000 08/23/2000 08/24/2000 08/25/2000 08/26/2000 08/27/2000 08/28/2000 Mail Response Numerator Daily Increase 5 1 Cumulative 11,830,592 11,830,643 11,830,643 11,830,643 11,830,643 11,830,643 11,830,643 11,830,643 11,830,643 11,830,643 11,830,895 11,830,895 11,830,895 11,830,895 11,830,895 11,830,895 11,830,895 11,830,975 11,830,975 1 1,831,171 11,831,580 1 1,831,580 1 1,831,580 11,831,580 1 1,831,580 11,831,580 11,831,583 11,831,583 1 1,831,583 11,831,583 54 Response Rate Daily Increase 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Cumulative 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% Key dates 000609 Appendix G-Z: Mail Response Numerators and Rates for Long Forms Dar; Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Date 08/29/2000 08/30/2000 08/31/2000 09/01/2000 09/02/2000 09/03/2000 09/04/2000 09/05/2000 09/06/2000 09/07/2000 09/08/2000 09/09/2000 09/10/2000 09/1 1/2000 09/12/2000 09/13/2000 09/14/2000 09/15/2000 09/16/2000 09/17/2000 09/18/2000 09/19/2000 09/20/2000 09/21/2000 09/22/2000 09/23/2000 09/24/2000 09/25/2000 09/26/2000 09/27/2000 Mail Response Numerator Dail}r Increase Cumulative 1 1,831,583 1 1,831,583 1 1,831,583 1 1,83 [,583 1 1,831,620 11,831,620 11,831,620 1 1,831,620 11,831,620 1 1,831,620 1 1,831,620 11,831,620 1 1,831,620 1 1,831,620 11,831,620 1 1,831,620 1 1,831,620 11,831,633 1 1,831,633 1 1,831,633 1 1,831,633 1 1,831,633 1 1,831,633 1 1,831,633 1 1,831,633 1 1,831,633 11,831,633 11,831,633 1 1,831,633 11,831,633 55 Response Rate Daily Increase 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Cumulative 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 589% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% Key dates 000610 Appendix Mail Response Numerators and Rates for Long Forms Mail Response Numerator Day Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Sunday Source: DMAF and DRE-2. Date 09/28/2000 09/29/2000 09/30/2000 10/01/2000 10/02/2000 10/03/2000 10/04/2000 10/05/2000 10/06/2000 10/07/2000 10/08/2000 10/09/2000 10/10/2000 10/ 1/2000 10/ 12/2000 10/ 13/2000 10/ 14/2000 10/ 15/2000 10/16/2000 1 0/ 1 7/2000 10/1 8/2000 10/19/2000 1 2/3 1 .12000 Daily Increase 98,703 Cumulative 1 1,831,633 1 1,831,633 1 1,831,633 1 1,831,633 1 1,831,633 1 1,831,633 1 1,831,633 1 1,831,633 11,831,633 1 1,831,633 1 1,831,633 11,831,633 11,831,633 1 1,831,633 11,831,633 11,831,633 1 1,831,633 11,831,633 1 1,831,633 1 1,831,633 11,831,633 11,831,633 11,930,336 Note: Long form return rates have a denominator of 20,082,777. Note: No forms with a valid check-in date were received a?er October 19, 2000. Mail returns from addresses which also were enumerated in NRFU or CIFU with no check?in date were assigned a date of December 31, 2000. Note: Rates do not include Puerto Rico. Response Rate Daily Increase Cumulative 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% SEI 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 58.9% 59.4% Key dates Last mail return with check-in date received 00061 1 TUE 12:29 PM CENSUS HON BD-CONG FHX N0. 301 457 5081 P. 02/05 _ll - .. .2. _o Honda; July 2 1991 Part Department of Commerce O?lce ol the Secretary Adjustment of the 1990 Census for Overcounts and linden-counts of Population and Houalng; Notice 01? Final Doolslon 000612 HER-024999 TUE 12:30 PM CENSUS HON BD-CONG N0. 301 457 5081 33582 Federal Register 1 Vol. 56. No. 140 I Monday. july 22. 1991 I Notices RTHE COMMERCE 1990 tmvoLos no. Daledtluly 15.1901. A 9061)} The! wdre intended to pit-wide Robert A-Masbacbsr. Office at the Secretary the ?dmc?dorkbmi: af?ict Sci-stator ofCommem. canal are on a century or! [Docket No. 01202-1101} relevant to the decision. mall STATEIIEHT Decision oi the Secretary of The census sdjus unset decision Statement 0? 30mm 3059? A- Gommorce on Whether a Statistical Adjustment of the 1090 Census of Populetlon and Housing Should Be Made for Coverage Deficiencies Resulting In so Overcount or Undercount ot the Population U.5. Department of Commerce. carton: Nation at final decision. SUMMARY: This is a notice of the final decision of the Secretary of Commerce on the issue of adjusting the 1990 census to correct for oval-counts or undercounts of the population in the 1990 Decennisl Census. The purpose of this notice is to inform the public of the decision and to explain the basis for the decision. DATE: The decision is effective on july 15. 1991. FOR FURTHER OOHTICT: Michael R. Darby. Under Secretary for Economic Affairs and Administrator. Economics and Statistics Administration. Room 4MB Herbert 0. Hoover Buildin .United States Department of ommerce. Washington. DC 20230. Telephone [202] arm-8727. ausneueurm The Secretary of Commerce is required. pmsusnt to '13 USS. 141. to conduct a decennial census of the population of the United States. The population totals derived from the census provide the basis for the apportionment of seats in the United States House of Re resentatives. for state legislative re islricting. for determining district boundaries for county and city elections. and for the allocation of federal lands to state and local governments. in 1937. the Secretary of Contract-cs decided not to plan for tr statistical adjustment of the 1990 census. As a result. a lawsuit was ?led by the city of New York and other parties sooldng to compel the Department to plan for such an adjustment. Pursuant to an agreement between the parties in City of New York. at v. Department of Commerce. at Min-8474 the Department undertook a do novo review at the adjustment Issue in order to make a decision no later than july 15. 1991. on whether to adjust the 1990 census. The purpose of this notice is to inform the public about the Secretary's decision and the basis for the decision. Final guidelines which aided the Secretary in his decision were published in the Federal Register on March 15. process was divided into seve distinct phases. The ?rst phase was the actual enumeration of the population. The second phase was the conduct of a post-enumeration survey. based on a probability sample of housing units.?t?his sample provided data for twa proposes: estimation oi the net overcount or undercount at basic enumeration subgroups using capture-recapture methodology. and application of factors for the adjustment of the enumerate counts. The third phase of ibuprocess was a determination of the adequacy of the post-enumeration survey as an evaluation and adjustment tool. The [earth and final phase of the precast was a decision on the adjustment question by the Score tat-y based on the published guidelines. in melting his decision. the Secretary relied on the advice at senior the Economics and Statistics Administration. which includes the Census Bureau. as well as other senior advisers. The Secretary also relied on the individual recommendations at the eight members of the Special Advisory Panel appointed to provide independent advice to the Secretary on the sdjushneut question. In addition. the Secretary considered the public: comments submitted to the Department pursuant to a Federal Register notice dated May 24. 1991. seeking coma-tents on the question of whether the 1990 Census should be ad'usted. The Department receive public cements. These conunents. as well as the appendices referred to inthe followin explana tion of the decision. are- ave ble tor public inspection is the . US. Department of Commerce Geno-cl Reference and Records inspection Facility. room 6020 Herbert 0. Hoover Building. 1411: Street and Constitution Avenue. NW.. Washington. DC 20210. Following is a detailed discussion of the adjustment decision and the basis for the decision. The discussion is in tour sections: a summary statement. on analysis of the guidelines. an evaluation of the recommendations of the Special Advisory Panel and). statement of the decennial census procedures. I tit-opened guidelines Were published i?a- the Federal Register on December 11. months mart has previously considered and rejected a-dtallcnae 13:: ll!? ggideiinsr. Stretggofmw Yet-kg; Uncut cl pot-tines mores, 3'09 . ?it (unlit. 1999]: Hosbacber on Adjustment of the 1900 Census Reaching a decision on the adjustment a! the ?1990 census has been among the most dif?cult decisions 1 have ever made. There are strong equity ants both for and against adjustment. But most importantly. the census counts are the basis for the political representation of every American. in every state. county. city. and block across the country. if we change the counts by a colnputerized. statistical process. we abandon a two hundred year tradition of how we actually count people. Before we take a step of that magnitude. we must be certain that it would make the omens better and the distribution of the population more accurate. After a thorough review. 1 ?nd the evidence in support at an adjustment to be htconclusive and unconvincing. That-elem. I have decided that the 1990 census counts should not be changed by a. statistical sdjus intent. The 1990 census is one oi? the two best censuses ever taken in this country. We located about 98 percent of all the people living in the United States as well as US. military personnel living overseas. which is an extraordinary icat given the size. diversity and mobility of ourpopuiation. But 1 am sad to report that despite the most aggressive outreach program in our nation's history. census participation and coverage was lower than average among certain segments of our pants tion. Based on our estimates. his appear to have been undercoonted in the 1990 census by Hispanics by Asian- Psctiic Islanders by and American indians by while non-Blacks war to have been undercounlcd by ?l . I am deeply troubled by this problem of di?'ercntial participation and undercount of minorities. and i regret that an adjustment does not address this phenomenon without adversely affecting the Integrity oi the census. Ultimately. i had to make the decision which was [street for all Americans. The 1090 census is not the vehicle to address the equity concerns raised by the undercount. Nonetheless. I am today requesting that the Census Bureau loom-parole. as appropriate. information gleaned from the Pogt-Enumergtign Sndv?y laid jailhouse! estimates of 000613 TUE 12:30 PM CENSUS HON BD-OONG Federal Register I 56. No. 140 I Monday. july '22.:1991 .I Notices FHX N0. 301 457 5081 33533 the population. We should also seek other avenues for the Bush Administration and Congress to Work together and address the im act of the ditferentiel underceunt of critics on federal programs. In reaching the decision not to adjust the census. 1 have bene?ited from frank and open of the full range of issues with my staff. with senior groi'assicaals from the Economics and tstistics and the Census Bureau. with my Inspector General. and with statisticians and other experts. out these discussions. there was a wide range of professional opinion and honest disagreement. The Department has tried to matte the process leading to this decision as open as In that spirit. we will provi the full record of the basis for our decision as soon as it is available. In reaching the decision. I looked to statistical science for the evidence on whether the adjusted estimates were more accurate than the certsus count. As are not a statistician. relied on the advice of the Director of the Census Bureau. the Associate Director for the Document Census and other career Bureau of?cials. and the Under Secretary for Economic Affairs and Administrator of the Economics and Statistics Administration. 1 was also fortunate to have the independent counsel of the eight members of my Special Advisory Panel. These eig experts and their dedicated staffs gave generously of their time and expertise. and i am grateful to them. There was a diversity of opinion among my advisers. The Special Advisory Panel split evenly as to whether there was convincing evidence that the adiueted counts were more accurate. There was also disagreement among the protesslonhls in the Commerce Depot-truest. which includes the Economics and Statistics Administration and the casein; Bureau. This compounded the difficulty of the decision for rue. Ultimately. I was compelled to conclude thatwe cannot proceed on unstable grotrnd in such an important matter of public policy. The experts have raised some fundamental questions about an adjushnent. The Poat-Ehtuhteratian Survey. which Wes dc ed to allow us to ?nd people we had seed. also missed important segments of the population. The models used to inter populations across the nation depeddsd heavily on serum tions. and the results changed in in: ways when the assumptions aged. These problems don't disqualify the adjustment automatically?they mean we won't get a perfect count from on ad t. The question is whether we get better estimates of the population. But what does better mean? First. we have to tool: at various levels of geography?whether the counts are better at national. state. local. and block levels. Secondly. we have to determine both whether the actual count is better and whether the share of states and cities within the total population is better. The paradox is that in attempting to melts the schist count more accurate by an adjustment. we might be making the shares less accurate. The shares are very important because they determine how many congt'eesional seats each state gals. how olitical representation is allocated wit states. and how large a ?slice of the pic" of federal funds goes to each city and state. Any upward adjustment of one share necessarily means a downward adjusunent of conduct. Because there is a laser for every winner. we need solid grotmd to stand on in meldug any changes. I do not ?nd solid enough ground to proceed with an adjustment. To make comparisons between the accuracy of the census and the adjusted numbers. various types of statistical tests are used.?l?here is general agreement that at the national level. the ed'usted counts are better. though in ependent analysis shows that adjusted counts. too. suffer from serious flaws. Below the national lave]. however. the experts disagree with respect to the accuracy of the shares measured from an adjustment. The classical statisticaLtests of whether accuracy is improved by an adjustment at state and local levels show mixed results and depend critically on assessments of the amount of statistical variation in the way. Some question the validity chillers tests. and many believe more work is necessary before we are sure of the conclusions. Based on the measurements so for completed. the Census Bunsen estimated that the proportional share oi about 20 states would he made more accurate and about 21 states would be made less accurate by adjustment. Looking at cities. the certsus appears more accurate in 11 of the it! metropolitan areas with 500.000 or more persons: Phoenix. Washington. DC. jeeksonvilla. Chicago. Baltimore. New York City. Memphis. Dallas. El Peso. Houston and San Antonio.ltisny large cities would it appear to be less accurately treated under an ad ushnent. While these analyses in cats that more c people live in Jurisdictions where the It lasted counts appear more accurate. one ihi of the population lives in areas where the census appears more accurate. Al the population units get smaller. including small and medium sized cities. . the adjusted figures become increasingly unreliable. When the Census Bureau made allowances for plausible estimates effectors not yet measured. these comparisons shifted toward favoring the accuracy of the census entnnerution. Using this test. 2.0 or 20 states were estimated to he made less accurate it the adjustment were to be used. What all these tests show. and no one disputes. is that the adjusted ?gures for some localities will be an improvement and for others the census counts will better. While we know that some will [are better and some will fare worse under an adjustment. we don't really lotow how muchbetter or how much worse. if the scientists cannot agree on these issues. how can we expect the losing cities and states as well as the American public to accept this change? The evidence also raises questions about the stability of adjustment procedures. To calculate a nationwide adjustment from the survey. a series of statistical models are used which depend on assumptions. Changes in these assumptions result in different population estimates. Consider the results at two possible adjustment methods that were released by the Census Bureau on june 13. 1991. The technical differences are small. but the differences in results are signi?cant. The apportionment of the House of Representatives under the selected scheme moved two seats relative to the apportionment implied by the census. whereas the modi?ed method moved only one seat. One expert found that among ?ve reasonable alternative methods of calculating adjustments. none of the resulting spporliouments of the House were the same. and eleven diil'erent states either lost or gained a seat in at least one of the ?ve methods. I recognise that the formulas for apportioning the House are responsive to small changes and some sensitivity should he expected. What is unsettling. however. is that the choice of the adjustment method selected by Bureau of?cials canmake a difference in apportionment, and the political outcome of that choice can be known in advance. I am confident that political considerations played no role in the Census Bureau's choice of an adjustment model for the 1990 semi am deeply con horsever. that ad ulhnen?l would open the door to po ltical tampering with the census in the future. The outcome of the enumeration process cannot be directly affected in such a way. P. 04/05 000614 TUE 12:31 PM CENSUS HON BD-CONG FHX N0. 301 457 5001 P. 05/05 385M .Federah aegistcr. I Not. 50'. Not-140. I Monday. My concerns about adjustment are compounded by the problems on ad'glustrosnt might cause in the re stricting process. which is contentious and litigious enough without an adjustment. An adjusted set of numbers will certainly disrupt the political process and may create paralysis in the states that are working on radish-lo or have mmpleted it. Somalis-opts also that they will be dents their rightful political representation without an adjustment. Those claims assume that the distribution of the population is improved by an adjustment. This conclusion is not warranted based on the evidence sysiloble. i also have serious concerns about the silent on adjusterent might have on future censuses. I am worried that on adiuetment would remove the incentive of states and localities to loin in the ct?iort to get a full and complete count. The Census Bureau relies heavily on the active support at state and local leaders to encourage census participation In their communities. Because census counts are the basis for political and federal funding allocations. communities have a vital interest in achievinglhe highest possible nriiclpation rates. iicivic leaders and coal of?cials believe that an adjustment will rectify the failures in the census. they will be hard pressed to [notify putting census outreach programs above the many other needs clamoring for their limited resources. Without the partnership of states and cities in creating public avvareness and a sense of involvement in the census. the result is likely to be a further decline in participation. In looking at- ihe record of public comment on this issue. I am stuck by the fact that many civic leaders are under the mistaken impression that an adjustment will list a particular problem they have identi?ed?for example. . speci?c housing units or weep usrters that they believe we missedrecount. What an sdiustment Would do is add over it million unidenti?ed people to the census by duplicating the records of people sires counted in the census while . subtracting over 000.000 people who were actually identi?ed and counted. The decisions about which places gain people and which lose people are based on statistical conclusions drawn from the sample survey. The additions and deletions in any particular community are often based largely on data gathered from communities in other states. The procedures that would be used to adjust the census are at the forefront of Juneau mu! thletlc?es statistical methodology. Such research deserves and requires care professional scrutiny before it is used to affect the allocation at political representation. Since the results at the evolumlcu studies oi the survey were made available. several mistakes have been found which altered the certainty of some oi the conclusions drawn by my advisors.?1?be ans sis continues. and new ?ndings are sly. i am concerned that if an adjustment were made. it Would be made on the basis of research conclusions that may well be reversed in the next several months. it is important that research on this problem continue.-We will also continue the open discussion at the quality of the census and the survey and will release additional data so that independent experts can analyze it. We must also look [Ward to the next curious. Planning for the year 2000 has begun. A public advisory casualties on the next census has been established and by early fall I will announce the membership oi that committee. I have instructed the Census Bureau's Year 2000 test: lorce to consider all options [or the next census. including methods for achieving sound ediuetrneat . techniques. I give my heartfelt thanks to the many people who have devoted so much time and energy to this enterprise. The staff at the Census Bureau have demonstrated their prefesslonelism at every tum through the last two difficult years. They executed a line censm and an excellent survey and then condensed a challenging research program into a few short months. i are deeply grateful for their help. Let me reiterate my sincere thanks to the Special Advisory Panel for their substantial contribution. ,The stall at the especially those in the Economics and Statistics Administration. also deserve raise. With this dif?cult decision ehlnd ua. we will conunlt ourselves anew to ?nding sound. {air and acceptable ways to condom to improve the census process. We welcome the leadership of Congress and other public community groups. and technical experts in maximizing the'eiiectivencss and the dif?culties at the year 2000 census. luly 15. 1991. SECTION HNALYSIS OF THE GUIDEUNI Analysis of the Guidelines Introduction The 1000 census counts should not be changed by a statistical adluatment. This section explains my evaluation of the evidence relevant to shah oi the eight guidelines that 1 considered in reaching my decision. Each section begins with a statement of the guideline and a reiteration of the explanation of the guideline contained in the March 15. 1990. Federal Register notice. A discussion of the guideline follows. The final scction states my conclusions. Summaries oi my conclusions on each gt {he eight guidelines are set forth cw. Guideline One Guideline One requires that convincing evidence he offered that the adjusted estimates of the population are more accurate than the census at the national. State. and local levels. in the absence oi such evidence. the census counts are concluded to be the most accurate. At the national level. it is likely that the PES-adlus ted estimates re?ect more accurately the total population and the racial an ethnic populations of the country. it appears equally clear. however. that the PES omitted large numbers of certain groups-notably black males. We have no htiormation on the location utilises persons. In addition. the PBS and demographic anal sis lead to sharply different so unions about the accuracy of the census for several groups at the national level. Although these are not de?nillVa disquali?ers at the national level. the do raise some question as to whether i ediusted ?gures are more accurate than the census count even at the national level. The Constitution requires a census every 10 years not lost to count the total number of people in the United States but to locate them so that political representation can be allocated to the states and the people in them in preportlon to their numbers! conclude that the primary criterion for accuracy should be dis tributivc accuracy?that is. getting moat nearly correct the moportions of people in different areas. proved numeric accuracy. although to itself desirable. cannot compensate for {realm-lg states and individuals less a y. At the State and local level the correct statistical analysis for both distributive . and numeric accuracy simply has not been completed. The total error model indicates that the adjusted tend to be too high but cost in numeric terms to a true po alien than the census counts whi tend to be too low. However. there is not uncertainty about the true variance of the adjusted ?gures that even numeric accuracy has not been de?nitiyeiy 000615 2020 Census Crosswalk from Life Cycle Cost Estimate to FY 2019 President's Budget Request (dollars in thousands) FY 2019 3,451,788 Life Cycle Cost Estimate (Executive Summary v. 1.0 December 2017) $ Reduction for Secretarial Contingency Reduction for Wage Rate Variability Contingency Reduction for OIG Transfer Pricing Differences between the Life Cycle Cost Estimate and FY 19 Budget Request $ $ $ $ (314,000) (22,000) (3,556) (2,976) CEDCaP Transfer to EDCaDS 1 $ (59,512) $ (34,600) CEDSCI Transfer to EDCaDS 1 FY 2019 President's Budget Request $ 3,015,144 1 The Life Cycle Cost Estimate assumes CEDCaP and CEDSCI are funded withing the 2020 Census PPA. The FY 2019 Budget Request proposes to transfer the programs to EDCaDS PPA. 000616 Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S.Ct. 1120 (2016) 194 L.Ed.2d 291, 84 USLW 4175, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3547... 1 Cases that cite this headnote KeyCite Yellow Flag - Negative Treatment Declined to Extend by Semple v. Williams, D.Colo., February 14, 2018  136 S.Ct. 1120 Supreme Court of the United States [2] Constitutional Law Power and duty to redistrict and reapportion Sue EVENWEL et al., Appellants v. Greg ABBOTT, Governor of Texas, et al. Under the one person, one vote principle of the Equal Protection Clause, states must design both congressional and state legislative districts with equal populations, and must regularly reapportion districts to prevent malapportionment. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14. No. 14–940. Argued Dec. 8, 2015. Decided April 4, 2016. Synopsis Background: Voters brought action against Texas Governor and Secretary of State, seeking permanent injunction barring use of existing state Senate map in favor of map equalizing voter population in each district. A three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, 2014 WL 5780507, granted state's motion to dismiss. Probable jurisdiction was noted. [Holding:] The Supreme Court, Justice Ginsburg, held that state and local jurisdictions plainly could measure equalization by total population of state and local legislative districts. Constitutional Law Electoral Districts 6 Cases that cite this headnote [3] Constitutional Law Population deviation Under the one person, one vote principle of the Equal Protection Clause, states must draw congressional districts with populations as close to perfect equality as possible. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14. 5 Cases that cite this headnote [4] Constitutional Law Population deviation Under the one person, one vote principle of the Equal Protection Clause, when drawing state and local legislative districts, states may deviate somewhat from perfect population equality to accommodate traditional districting objectives, such as preserving the integrity of political subdivisions, maintaining communities of interest, and creating geographic compactness. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14. Affirmed. Justice Thomas concurred in judgment and filed opinion. Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joined in part, concurred in judgment and filed opinion. West Headnotes (8) 5 Cases that cite this headnote [1] Constitutional Law Electoral Districts Malapportionment claims are justiciable under the Equal Protection Clause. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14. [5] Constitutional Law Population deviation “Maximum population deviation,” i.e., the sum of the percentage deviations from © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000617 1 Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S.Ct. 1120 (2016) 194 L.Ed.2d 291, 84 USLW 4175, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3547... perfect population equality of the mostand least-populated districts, of more than 10% represents presumptively impermissible apportionment under the one person, one vote principle of the Equal Protection Clause. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14. 4 Cases that cite this headnote [6] Constitutional Law Equality of representation; discrimination Election Law Population as basis and deviation therefrom Under one person, one vote principle of Equal Protection Clause, state and local jurisdictions plainly could measure equalization by total population of state and local legislative districts; at founding, basis of representation in House of Representatives was to include all inhabitants, to make equal representation for equal numbers of people, and this idea was reinforced during debates over what became Fourteenth Amendment and in Supreme Court cases holding that districting based on total population serves both states' interests in preventing vote dilution and states' interests in ensuring equality of representation, and adopting voter-eligible apportionment as constitutional command would upset wellfunctioning approach utilized by all 50 states and countless local jurisdictions for decades, even centuries. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 1, § 2, cl. 3; U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14. 6 Cases that cite this headnote [7] Constitutional Law Equality of Voting Power (One Person, One Vote) By ensuring that each representative is subject to the requests and suggestions from the same number of constituents, total-population apportionment promotes equitable and effective representation, consistent with the one person, one vote principle of the Equal Protection Clause. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14. 3 Cases that cite this headnote [8] Constitutional Law Equality of representation; discrimination Under the one person, one vote principle of the Equal Protection Clause, states have an interest in taking reasonable, nondiscriminatory steps to facilitate access for all its residents to their elected representatives. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14. Cases that cite this headnote *1121 Syllabus * Under the one-person, one-vote principle, jurisdictions must design legislative districts with equal populations. See Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 7–8, 84 S.Ct. 526, 11 L.Ed.2d 481, Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 568, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506. In the context of state and local legislative districting, States may deviate somewhat from perfect population equality to accommodate traditional districting objectives. Where the maximum population deviation between the largest and smallest district is less than 10%, a state or local legislative map presumptively complies with the one-person, one-vote rule. Texas, like all other States, uses total-population numbers from the decennial census when drawing legislative districts. After the 2010 census, Texas adopted a State Senate map that has a maximum total-population deviation of 8.04%, safely within the presumptively permissible 10% range. However, measured by a voterpopulation baseline—eligible voters or registered voters —the map's maximum population deviation exceeds 40%. Appellants, who live in Texas Senate districts with particularly large eligible- and registered-voter populations, filed suit against the Texas Governor and Secretary of State. Basing apportionment on total population, appellants contended, dilutes their votes in relation to voters in other Senate districts, in violation of the one-person, one-vote principle of the Equal Protection © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000618 2 Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S.Ct. 1120 (2016) 194 L.Ed.2d 291, 84 USLW 4175, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3547... Clause. Appellants sought an injunction barring use of the existing Senate map in favor of a map that would equalize the voter population in each district. A threejudge District Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. Held: As constitutional history, precedent, and practice demonstrate, a State or locality may draw its legislative districts based on total population. Pp. 1126 – 1133. (a) Constitutional history shows that, at the time of the founding, the Framers endorsed allocating House seats to States based on total population. Debating what would become the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress reconsidered the proper basis for apportioning House seats. Retaining the total-population rule, Congress rejected proposals to allocate House seats to States on the basis of voter population. See U.S. Const., Amdt. 14, § 2. The Framers *1122 recognized that use of a total-population baseline served the principle of representational equality. Appellants' voter-population rule is inconsistent with the “theory of the Constitution,” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 2766 – 2767, this Court recognized in Wesberry as underlying not just the method of allocating House seats to States but also the method of apportioning legislative seats within States. Pp. 1126 – 1131. (b) This Court's past decisions reinforce the conclusion that States and localities may comply with the one-person, one-vote principle by designing districts with equal total populations. Appellants assert that language in this Court's precedent supports their view that States should equalize the voter-eligible population of districts. But for every sentence appellants quote, one could respond with a line casting the one-person, one-vote guarantee in terms of equality of representation. See, e.g., Reynolds, 377 U.S., at 560–561, 84 S.Ct. 1362. Moreover, from Reynolds on, the Court has consistently looked to total-population figures when evaluating whether districting maps violate the Equal Protection Clause by deviating impermissibly from perfect population equality. Pp. 1130 – 1132. (c) Settled practice confirms what constitutional history and prior decisions strongly suggest. Adopting votereligible apportionment as constitutional command would upset a well-functioning approach to districting that all 50 States and countless local jurisdictions have long followed. As the Framers of the Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment comprehended, representatives serve all residents, not just those eligible to vote. Nonvoters have an important stake in many policy debates and in receiving constituent services. By ensuring that each representative is subject to requests and suggestions from the same number of constituents, total-population apportionment promotes equitable and effective representation. Pp. 1132 – 1133. (d) Because constitutional history, precedent, and practice reveal the infirmity of appellants' claim, this Court need not resolve whether, as Texas now argues, States may draw districts to equalize voter-eligible population rather than total population. Pp. 1132 – 1133. Affirmed. GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C.J., and KENNEDY, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. ALITO, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which THOMAS, J., joined except as to Part III–B. Attorneys and Law Firms William S. Consovoy, Arlingotn, VA, for Appellants. Scott A. Keller, Solicitor General, for Appellees. Ian H. Gershengorn for the United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of the Court, supporting the Appellees. Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas, Charles E. Roy, First Assistant, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, P.O., Austin, TX, Scott A. Keller, Solicitor General, Matthew H. Frederick, Deputy Solicitor General, Lisa Bennett, Assistant Solicitor General, for Appellees. Meredith B. Parenti, Parenti Law PLLC, Houston, TX, William S. Consovoy, Thomas R. McCarthy, J. Michael Connolly, Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC, Arlington, VA, for Appellants. Opinion *1123 Justice GINSBURG delivered the opinion of the Court. © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000619 3 Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S.Ct. 1120 (2016) 194 L.Ed.2d 291, 84 USLW 4175, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3547... Texas, like all other States, draws its legislative districts on the basis of total population. Plaintiffs-appellants are Texas voters; they challenge this uniform method of districting on the ground that it produces unequal districts when measured by voter-eligible population. Voter-eligible population, not total population, they urge, must be used to ensure that their votes will not be devalued in relation to citizens' votes in other districts. We hold, based on constitutional history, this Court's decisions, and longstanding practice, that a State may draw its legislative districts based on total population. I A This Court long resisted any role in overseeing the process by which States draw legislative districts. “The remedy for unfairness in districting,” the Court once held, “is to secure State legislatures that will apportion properly, or to invoke the ample powers of Congress.” Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549, 556, 66 S.Ct. 1198, 90 L.Ed. 1432 (1946). “Courts ought not to enter this political thicket,” as Justice Frankfurter put it. Ibid. Judicial abstention left pervasive malapportionment unchecked. In the opening half of the 20th century, there was a massive population shift away from rural areas and toward suburban and urban communities. Nevertheless, many States ran elections into the early 1960's based on maps drawn to equalize each district's population as it was composed around 1900. Other States used maps allocating a certain number of legislators to each county regardless of its population. These schemes left many rural districts significantly underpopulated in comparison with urban and suburban districts. But rural legislators who benefited from malapportionment had scant incentive to adopt new maps that might put them out of office. [1] The Court confronted this ingrained structural inequality in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 191–192, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962). That case presented an equal protection challenge to a Tennessee state-legislative map that had not been redrawn since 1901. See also id., at 192, 82 S.Ct. 691 (observing that, in the meantime, there had been “substantial growth and redistribution” of the State's population). Rather than steering clear of the political thicket yet again, the Court held for the first time that malapportionment claims are justiciable. Id., at 237, 82 S.Ct. 691 (“We conclude that the complaint's allegations of a denial of equal protection present a justiciable constitutional cause of action upon which appellants are entitled to a trial and a decision.”). [2] Although the Court in Baker did not reach the merits of the equal protection claim, Baker 's justiciability ruling set the stage for what came to be known as the oneperson, one-vote principle. Just two years after Baker, in Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 7–8, 84 S.Ct. 526, 11 L.Ed.2d 481 (1964), the Court invalidated Georgia's malapportioned congressional map, under which the population of one congressional district was “two to three times” larger than the population of the others. Relying on Article I, § 2, of the Constitution, the Court required that congressional districts be drawn with equal populations. Id., at 7, 18, 84 S.Ct. 526. Later that same Term, in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 568, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964), the Court upheld an equal protection challenge to Alabama's malapportioned state-legislative maps. “[T]he Equal Protection Clause,” the Court concluded, “requires that the seats *1124 in both houses of a bicameral state legislature must be apportioned on a population basis.” Ibid. Wesberry and Reynolds together instructed that jurisdictions must design both congressional and state-legislative districts with equal populations, and must regularly reapportion districts to prevent malapportionment. 1 [3] [4] [5] Over the ensuing decades, the Court has several times elaborated on the scope of the one-person, one-vote rule. States must draw congressional districts with populations as close to perfect equality as possible. See Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 394 U.S. 526, 530–531, 89 S.Ct. 1225, 22 L.Ed.2d 519 (1969). But, when drawing state and local legislative districts, jurisdictions are permitted to deviate somewhat from perfect population equality to accommodate traditional districting objectives, among them, preserving the integrity of political subdivisions, maintaining communities of interest, and creating geographic compactness. See Brown v. Thomson, 462 U.S. 835, 842–843, 103 S.Ct. 2690, 77 L.Ed.2d 214 (1983). Where the maximum population deviation between the largest and smallest district is less than 10%, the Court has held, a state or local legislative map presumptively complies with the one-person, onevote rule. Ibid. 2 Maximum deviations above 10% are presumptively impermissible. Ibid. See also Mahan v. © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000620 4 Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S.Ct. 1120 (2016) 194 L.Ed.2d 291, 84 USLW 4175, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3547... Howell, 410 U.S. 315, 329, 93 S.Ct. 979, 35 L.Ed.2d 320 (1973) (approving a state-legislative map with maximum population deviation of 16% to accommodate the State's interest in “maintaining the integrity of political subdivision lines,” but cautioning that this deviation “may well approach tolerable limits”). In contrast to repeated disputes over the permissibility of deviating from perfect population equality, little controversy has centered on the population base jurisdictions must equalize. On rare occasions, jurisdictions have relied on the registered-voter or votereligible populations of districts. See Burns v. Richardson, 384 U.S. 73, 93–94, 86 S.Ct. 1286, 16 L.Ed.2d 376 (1966) (holding Hawaii could use a registered-voter population base because of “Hawaii's special population problems”—in particular, its substantial temporary military population). But, in the overwhelming majority of cases, jurisdictions have equalized total population, as measured by the decennial census. Today, all States use total-population numbers from the census when designing congressional and state-legislative districts, and only seven States adjust those census numbers in any meaningful way. 3 *1125 B Appellants challenge that consensus. After the 2010 census, Texas redrew its State Senate districts using a total-population baseline. At the time, Texas was subject to the preclearance requirements of § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 52 U.S.C. § 10304 (requiring jurisdictions to receive approval from the U.S. Department of Justice or the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia before implementing certain voting changes). Once it became clear that the new Senate map, S148, would not receive preclearance in advance of the 2012 elections, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas drew an interim Senate map, S164, which also equalized the total population of each district. See Davis v. Perry, No. SA–11–CV–788, 2011 WL 6207134 (Nov. 23, 2011). 4 On direct appeal, this Court observed that the District Court had failed to “take guidance from the State's recently enacted plan in drafting an interim plan,” and therefore vacated the District Court's map. Perry v. Perez, 565 U.S. ––––, ––––, –––– – ––––, 132 S.Ct. 934, 940–942, 943–944, 181 L.Ed.2d 900 (2012) (per curiam ). The District Court, on remand, again used census data to draw districts so that each included roughly the same size total population. Texas used this new interim map, S172, in the 2012 elections, and, in 2013, the Texas Legislature adopted S172 as the permanent Senate map. See App. to Brief for Texas Senate Hispanic Caucus et al. as Amici Curiae 5 (reproducing the current Senate map). The permanent map's maximum total-population deviation is 8.04%, safely within the presumptively permissible 10% range. But measured by a voter-population baseline— eligible voters or registered voters—the map's maximum population deviation exceeds 40%. Appellants Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger live in Texas Senate districts (one and four, respectively) with particularly large eligible- and registered-voter populations. Contending that basing apportionment on total population dilutes their votes in relation to voters in other Senate districts, in violation of the one-person, onevote principle of the Equal Protection Clause, 5 appellants filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. They named as defendants the Governor and Secretary of State of Texas, and sought a permanent injunction barring use of the existing Senate map in favor of a map that would equalize the voter population in each district. The case was referred to a three-judge District Court for hearing and decision. See 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a); Shapiro v. McManus, *1126 577 U.S. ––––, –––– – ––––, 136 S.Ct. 450, 454–456, 193 L.Ed.2d 279 (2015). That court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. Appellants, the District Court explained, “rel[y] upon a theory never before accepted by the Supreme Court or any circuit court: that the metric of apportionment employed by Texas (total population) results in an unconstitutional apportionment because it does not achieve equality as measured by Plaintiffs' chosen metric—voter population.” App. to Juris. Statement 9a. Decisions of this Court, the District Court concluded, permit jurisdictions to use any neutral, nondiscriminatory population baseline, including total population, when drawing state and local legislative districts. Id., at 13a–14a. 6 We noted probable jurisdiction, 575 U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 381, 193 L.Ed.2d 288 (2015), and now affirm. © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000621 5 Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S.Ct. 1120 (2016) 194 L.Ed.2d 291, 84 USLW 4175, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3547... II [6] The parties and the United States advance different positions in this case. As they did before the District Court, appellants insist that the Equal Protection Clause requires jurisdictions to draw state and local legislative districts with equal voter-eligible populations, thus protecting “voter equality,” i.e., “the right of eligible voters to an equal vote.” Brief for Appellants 14. 7 To comply with their proposed rule, appellants suggest, jurisdictions should design districts based on citizen-voting-age-population (CVAP) data from the Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS), an annual statistical sample of the U.S. population. Texas responds that jurisdictions may, consistent with the Equal Protection Clause, design districts using any population baseline—including total population and voter-eligible population—so long as the choice is rational and not invidiously discriminatory. Although its use of total-population data from the census was permissible, Texas therefore argues, it could have used ACS CVAP data instead. Sharing Texas' position that the Equal Protection Clause does not mandate use of voter-eligible population, the United States urges us not to address Texas' separate assertion that the Constitution allows States to use alternative population baselines, including voter-eligible population. Equalizing total population, the United States maintains, vindicates the principle of representational equality by “ensur[ing] that the voters in each district have the power to elect a representative who represents the same number of constituents as all other representatives.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 5. In agreement with Texas and the United States, we reject appellants' attempt to locate a voter-equality mandate in the Equal Protection Clause. As history, precedent, and practice demonstrate, it is plainly permissible for jurisdictions to *1127 measure equalization by the total population of state and local legislative districts. A We begin with constitutional history. At the time of the founding, the Framers confronted a question analogous to the one at issue here: On what basis should congressional districts be allocated to States? The Framers' solution, now known as the Great Compromise, was to provide each State the same number of seats in the Senate, and to allocate House seats based on States' total populations. “Representatives and direct Taxes,” they wrote, “shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers.” U.S. Const., Art. I, § 2, cl. 3 (emphasis added). “It is a fundamental principle of the proposed constitution,” James Madison explained in the Federalist Papers, “that as the aggregate number of representatives allotted to the several states, is to be ... founded on the aggregate number of inhabitants; so, the right of choosing this allotted number in each state, is to be exercised by such part of the inhabitants, as the state itself may designate.” The Federalist No. 54, p. 284 (G. Carey & J. McClellan eds. 2001). In other words, the basis of representation in the House was to include all inhabitants—although slaves were counted as only three-fifths of a person— even though States remained free to deny many of those inhabitants the right to participate in the selection of their representatives. 8 Endorsing apportionment based on total population, Alexander Hamilton declared: “There can be no truer principle than this—that every individual of the community at large has an equal right to the protection of government.” 1 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 473 (M. Farrand ed. 1911). 9 When debating what is now the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress reconsidered the proper basis for apportioning House seats. Concerned that Southern States would not willingly enfranchise freed slaves, and aware that “a slave's freedom could swell his state's population for purposes of representation in the House by one person, rather than only three-fifths,” the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment considered at length the possibility of allocating House seats to States on the basis of voter population. J. *1128 Sneed, Footprints on the Rocks of the Mountain: An Account of the Enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment 28 (1997). See also id., at 35 (“[T]he apportionment issue consumed more time in the Fourteenth Amendment debates than did any other topic.”). In December 1865, Thaddeus Stevens, a leader of the Radical Republicans, introduced a constitutional amendment that would have allocated House seats to States “according to their respective legal voters”; in addition, the proposed amendment mandated that “[a] true census of the legal voters shall be taken at the © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000622 6 Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S.Ct. 1120 (2016) 194 L.Ed.2d 291, 84 USLW 4175, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3547... same time with the regular census.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 10 (1866). Supporters of apportionment based on voter population employed the same voterequality reasoning that appellants now echo. See, e.g., id., at 380 (remarks of Rep. Orth) (“[T]he true principle of representation in Congress is that voters alone should form the basis, and that each voter should have equal political weight in our Government....”); id., at 404 (remarks of Rep. Lawrence) (use of total population “disregards the fundamental idea of all just representation, that every voter should be equal in political power all over the Union”). Voter-based apportionment proponents encountered fierce resistance from proponents of total-population apportionment. Much of the opposition was grounded in the principle of representational equality. “As an abstract proposition,” argued Representative James G. Blaine, a leading critic of allocating House seats based on voter population, “no one will deny that population is the true basis of representation; for women, children, and other non-voting classes may have as vital an interest in the legislation of the country as those who actually deposit the ballot.” Id., at 141. See also id., at 358 (remarks of Rep. Conkling) (arguing that use of a voter-population basis “would shut out four fifths of the citizens of the country —women and children, who are citizens, who are taxed, and who are, and always have been, represented”); id., at 434 (remarks of Rep. Ward) (“[W]hat becomes of that large class of non-voting tax-payers that are found in every section? Are they in no matter to be represented? They certainly should be enumerated in making up the whole number of those entitled to a representative.”). The product of these debates was § 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which retained total population as the congressional apportionment base. See U.S. Const., Amdt. 14, § 2 (“Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.”). Introducing the final version of the Amendment on the Senate floor, Senator Jacob Howard explained: “[The] basis of representation is numbers ...; that is, the whole population except untaxed Indians and persons excluded by the State laws for rebellion or other crime.... The committee adopted numbers as the most just and satisfactory basis, and this is the principle upon which the Constitution itself was originally framed, that the basis of representation should depend upon numbers; and such, I think, after all, is the safest and most secure principle upon which the Government can rest. Numbers, not voters; numbers, not property; this is the theory of the Constitution.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 2766–2767 (1866). Appellants ask us to find in the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause a rule inconsistent with this “theory of the Constitution.” But, as the Court recognized in Wesberry, this theory underlies *1129 not just the method of allocating House seats to States; it applies as well to the method of apportioning legislative seats within States. “The debates at the [Constitutional] Convention,” the Court explained, “make at least one fact abundantly clear: that when the delegates agreed that the House should represent ‘people,’ they intended that in allocating Congressmen the number assigned to each state should be determined solely by the number of inhabitants.” 376 U.S., at 13, 84 S.Ct. 526. “While it may not be possible to draw congressional districts with mathematical precision,” the Court acknowledged, “that is no excuse for ignoring our Constitution's plain objective of making equal representation for equal numbers of people the fundamental goal for the House of Representatives.” Id., at 18, 84 S.Ct. 526 (emphasis added). It cannot be that the Fourteenth Amendment calls for the apportionment of congressional districts based on total population, but simultaneously prohibits States from apportioning their own legislative districts on the same basis. Cordoning off the constitutional history of congressional districting, appellants stress two points. 10 First, they draw a distinction between allocating seats to States, and apportioning seats within States. The Framers selected total population for the former, appellants and their amici argue, because of federalism concerns inapposite to intrastate districting. These concerns included the perceived risk that a voter-population base might encourage States to expand the franchise unwisely, and the hope that a total-population base might counter States' incentive to undercount their populations, thereby reducing their share of direct taxes. Wesberry, however, rejected the distinction appellants now press. See supra, at 1128 – 1129. Even without the weight of Wesberry, we would find appellants' distinction unconvincing. One can accept that federalism—or, as Justice ALITO emphasizes, partisan and regional political advantage, see post, at 1145 – 1149—figured in the Framers' selection of total © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000623 7 Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S.Ct. 1120 (2016) 194 L.Ed.2d 291, 84 USLW 4175, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3547... population as the basis for allocating congressional seats. Even so, it remains beyond doubt that the principle of representational equality figured prominently in the decision to count people, whether or not they qualify as voters. 11 Second, appellants and Justice ALITO urge, see post, at 1144 – 1145, the Court has typically refused to analogize to features of the federal electoral system— *1130 here, the constitutional scheme governing congressional apportionment—when considering challenges to state and local election laws. True, in Reynolds, the Court rejected Alabama's argument that it had permissibly modeled its State Senate apportionment scheme—one Senator for each county—on the United States Senate. “[T]he federal analogy,” the Court explained, “[is] inapposite and irrelevant to state legislative districting schemes” because “[t]he system of representation in the two Houses of the Federal Congress” arose “from unique historical circumstances.” 377 U.S., at 573–574, 84 S.Ct. 1362. Likewise, in Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 371–372, 378, 83 S.Ct. 801, 9 L.Ed.2d 821 (1963), Georgia unsuccessfully attempted to defend, by analogy to the electoral college, its scheme of assigning a certain number of “units” to the winner of each county in statewide elections. Reynolds and Gray, however, involved features of the federal electoral system that contravene the principles of both voter and representational equality to favor interests that have no relevance outside the federal context. Senate seats were allocated to States on an equal basis to respect state sovereignty and increase the odds that the smaller States would ratify the Constitution. See Wesberry, 376 U.S., at 9–13, 84 S.Ct. 526 (describing the history of the Great Compromise). See also Reynolds, 377 U.S., at 575, 84 S.Ct. 1362 (“Political subdivisions of States—counties, cities, or whatever—never were and never have been considered as sovereign entities.... The relationship of the States to the Federal Government could hardly be less analogous.”). “The [Electoral] College was created to permit the most knowledgeable members of the community to choose the executive of a nation whose continental dimensions were thought to preclude an informed choice by the citizenry at large.” Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 43–44, 89 S.Ct. 5, 21 L.Ed.2d 24 (1968) (Harlan, J., concurring in result). See also Gray, 372 U.S., at 378, 83 S.Ct. 801 (“The inclusion of the electoral college in the Constitution, as the result of specific historical concerns, validated the collegiate principle despite its inherent numerical inequality.” (footnote omitted)). By contrast, as earlier developed, the constitutional scheme for congressional apportionment rests in part on the same representational concerns that exist regarding state and local legislative districting. The Framers' answer to the apportionment question in the congressional context therefore undermines appellants' contention that districts must be based on voter population. B Consistent with constitutional history, this Court's past decisions reinforce the conclusion that States and localities may comply with the one-person, one-vote principle by designing districts with equal total populations. Quoting language from those decisions that, in appellants' view, supports the principle of equal voting power— and emphasizing the phrase “one-person, one-vote”— appellants contend that the Court had in mind, and constantly meant, that States should equalize the votereligible population of districts. See Reynolds, 377 U.S., at 568, 84 S.Ct. 1362 (“[A]n individual's right to vote for State legislators is unconstitutionally impaired when its weight is in a substantial fashion diluted when compared with votes of citizens living on other parts of the State.”); Gray, 372 U.S., at 379–380, 83 S.Ct. 801 (“The concept of ‘we the people’ under the Constitution visualizes no preferred class of voters but equality among those who meet the basic qualifications.”). See also *1131 Hadley v. Junior College Dist. of Metropolitan Kansas City, 397 U.S. 50, 56, 90 S.Ct. 791, 25 L.Ed.2d 45 (1970) ( “[W]hen members of an elected body are chosen from separate districts, each district must be established on a basis that will insure, as far as is practicable, that equal numbers of voters can vote for proportionally equal numbers of officials.”). Appellants, however, extract far too much from selectively chosen language and the “one-person, one-vote” slogan. For every sentence appellants quote from the Court's opinions, one could respond with a line casting the one-person, one-vote guarantee in terms of equality of representation, not voter equality. In Reynolds, for instance, the Court described “the fundamental principle of representative government in this country” as “one of equal representation for equal numbers of people.” 377 U.S., at 560–561, 84 S.Ct. 1362. See also Davis v. © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000624 8 Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S.Ct. 1120 (2016) 194 L.Ed.2d 291, 84 USLW 4175, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3547... Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109, 123, 106 S.Ct. 2797, 92 L.Ed.2d 85 (1986) (“[I]n formulating the one person, one vote formula, the Court characterized the question posed by election districts of disparate size as an issue of fair representation.”); Reynolds, 377 U.S., at 563, 84 S.Ct. 1362 (rejecting state districting schemes that “give the same number of representatives to unequal numbers of constituents”). And the Court has suggested, repeatedly, that districting based on total population serves both the State's interest in preventing vote dilution and its interest in ensuring equality of representation. See Board of Estimate of City of New York v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688, 693– 694, 109 S.Ct. 1433, 103 L.Ed.2d 717 (1989) (“If districts of widely unequal population elect an equal number of representatives, the voting power of each citizen in the larger constituencies is debased and the citizens in those districts have a smaller share of representation than do those in the smaller districts.”). See also Kirkpatrick, 394 U.S., at 531, 89 S.Ct. 1225 (recognizing in a congressionaldistricting case that “[e]qual representation for equal numbers of people is a principle designed to prevent debasement of voting power and diminution of access to elected representatives”). 12 Moreover, from Reynolds on, the Court has consistently looked to total-population figures when evaluating whether districting maps violate the Equal Protection Clause by deviating impermissibly from perfect population equality. See Brief for Appellees 29–31 (collecting cases brought under the Equal Protection Clause). See also id., at 31, n. 9 (collecting congressionaldistricting cases). Appellants point to no instance in which the Court has determined the permissibility of deviation based on eligible- or registered-voter data. It would hardly make sense for the Court to have mandated voter equality sub silentio and then used a total-population baseline to evaluate compliance with that rule. More likely, we think, the Court has always assumed the permissibility of drawing districts to equalize total population. “In the 1960s,” appellants counter, “the distribution of the voting population generally did not deviate from the distribution of total population to the degree necessary to raise this issue.” Brief for Appellants 27. To support this assertion, appellants cite only a District Court decision, which found no significant deviation in the distribution of voter and total population in “densely populated areas of New York State.” *1132 WMCA, Inc. v. Lomenzo, 238 F.Supp. 916, 925 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 382 U.S. 4, 86 S.Ct. 24, 15 L.Ed.2d 2 (1965) (per curiam ). Had this Court assumed such equivalence on a national scale, it likely would have said as much. 13 Instead, in Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735, 746–747, 93 S.Ct. 2321, 37 L.Ed.2d 298 (1973), the Court acknowledged that voters may be distributed unevenly within jurisdictions. “[I]f it is the weight of a person's vote that matters,” the Court observed, then “total population—even if stable and accurately taken—may not actually reflect that body of voters whose votes must be counted and weighed for the purposes of reapportionment, because ‘census persons' are not voters.” Id., at 746, 93 S.Ct. 2321. Nonetheless, the Court in Gaffney recognized that the one-person, one-vote rule is designed to facilitate “[f]air and effective representation,” id., at 748, 93 S.Ct. 2321, and evaluated compliance with the rule based on total population alone, id., at 750, 93 S.Ct. 2321. C [7] [8] What constitutional history and our prior decisions strongly suggest, settled practice confirms. Adopting voter-eligible apportionment as constitutional command would upset a well-functioning approach to districting that all 50 States and countless local jurisdictions have followed for decades, even centuries. Appellants have shown no reason for the Court to disturb this longstanding use of total population. See Walz v. Tax Comm'n of City of New York, 397 U.S. 664, 678, 90 S.Ct. 1409, 25 L.Ed.2d 697 (1970) (“unbroken practice” followed “openly and by affirmative state action, not covertly or by state inaction, is not something to be lightly cast aside”). See also Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191, 203–206, 112 S.Ct. 1846, 119 L.Ed.2d 5 (1992) (plurality opinion) (upholding a law limiting campaigning in areas around polling places in part because all 50 States maintain such laws, so there is a “widespread and time-tested consensus” that legislation of this order serves important state interests). As the Framers of the Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment comprehended, representatives serve all residents, not just those eligible or registered to vote. See supra, at 1126 – 1129. Nonvoters have an important stake in many policy debates—children, their parents, even their grandparents, for example, have a stake in a strong publiceducation system—and in receiving constituent services, such as help navigating public-benefits bureaucracies. By ensuring that each representative is subject to requests © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000625 9 Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S.Ct. 1120 (2016) 194 L.Ed.2d 291, 84 USLW 4175, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3547... and suggestions from the same number of constituents, total-population apportionment promotes equitable and effective representation. See McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257, 272, 111 S.Ct. 1807, 114 L.Ed.2d 307 (1991) (“Serving constituents and supporting legislation that will benefit the district and individuals and groups therein is the everyday business of a legislator.”). 14 In sum, the rule appellants urge has no mooring in the Equal Protection Clause. The Texas Senate map, we therefore conclude, complies with the requirements of the one-person, one-vote principle. 15 Because *1133 history, precedent, and practice suffice to reveal the infirmity of appellants' claims, we need not and do not resolve whether, as Texas now argues, States may draw districts to equalize voter-eligible population rather than total population. For the reasons stated, the judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas is Affirmed. Justice THOMAS, concurring in the judgment. This case concerns whether Texas violated the Equal Protection Clause—as interpreted by the Court's oneperson, one-vote cases—by creating legislative districts that contain approximately equal total population but vary widely in the number of eligible voters in each district. I agree with the majority that our precedents do not require a State to equalize the total number of voters in each district. States may opt to equalize total population. I therefore concur in the majority's judgment that appellants' challenge fails. I write separately because this Court has never provided a sound basis for the one-person, one-vote principle. For 50 years, the Court has struggled to define what right that principle protects. Many of our precedents suggest that it protects the right of eligible voters to cast votes that receive equal weight. Despite that frequent explanation, our precedents often conclude that the Equal Protection Clause is satisfied when all individuals within a district— voters or not—have an equal share of representation. The majority today concedes that our cases have not produced a clear answer on this point. See ante, at 1131. In my view, the majority has failed to provide a sound basis for the one-person, one-vote principle because no such basis exists. The Constitution does not prescribe any one basis for apportionment within States. It instead leaves States significant leeway in apportioning their own districts to equalize total population, to equalize eligible voters, or to promote any other principle consistent with a republican form of government. The majority should recognize the futility of choosing only one of these options. The Constitution leaves the choice to the people alone—not to this Court. I In the 1960's, this Court decided that the Equal Protection Clause requires States to draw legislative districts based on a “one-person, one-vote” rule. * But this Court's decisions have never coalesced around a single theory about what States must equalize. *1134 The Equal Protection Clause prohibits a State from “deny[ing] to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Amdt. 14, § 1. For nearly a century after its ratification, this Court interpreted the Clause as having no application to the politically charged issue of how States should apportion their populations in political districts. See, e.g., Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549, 556, 66 S.Ct. 1198, 90 L.Ed. 1432 (1946) (plurality opinion). Instead, the Court left the drawing of States' political boundaries to the States, so long as a State did not deprive people of the right to vote for reasons prohibited by the Constitution. See id., at 552, 556, 66 S.Ct. 1198; Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339, 341, 347–348, 81 S.Ct. 125, 5 L.Ed.2d 110 (1960) (finding justiciable a claim that a city boundary was redrawn from a square shape to “a strangely irregular twenty-eight-sided figure” to remove nearly all black voters from the city). This meant that a State's refusal to allocate voters within districts based on population changes was a matter for States—not federal courts—to decide. And these cases were part of a larger jurisprudence holding that the question whether a state government had a “proper” republican form rested with Congress. Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Oregon, 223 U.S. 118, 149–150, 32 S.Ct. 224, 56 L.Ed. 377 (1912). This Court changed course in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962), by locating in © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000626 10 Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S.Ct. 1120 (2016) 194 L.Ed.2d 291, 84 USLW 4175, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3547... the Equal Protection Clause a right of citizens not to have a “ ‘debasement of their votes.’ ” Id., at 194, and n. 15, 200, 82 S.Ct. 691. Expanding on that decision, this Court later held that “the Equal Protection Clause requires that the seats in both houses of a bicameral state legislature must be apportioned on a population basis.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 568, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964). The Court created an analogous requirement for congressional redistricting rooted in Article I, § 2's requirement that “Representatives be chosen ‘by the People of the several States.’ ” Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 7–9, 84 S.Ct. 526, 11 L.Ed.2d 481 (1964). The rules established by these cases have come to be known as “one person, one vote.” Since Baker empowered the federal courts to resolve redistricting disputes, this Court has struggled to explain whether the one-person, one-vote principle ensures equality among eligible voters or instead protects some broader right of every citizen to equal representation. The Court's lack of clarity on this point, in turn, has left unclear whether States must equalize the number of eligible voters across districts or only total population. In a number of cases, this Court has said that States must protect the right of eligible voters to have their votes receive equal weight. On this view, there is only one way for States to comply with the one-person, onevote principle: they must draw districts that contain a substantially equal number of eligible voters per district. The Court's seminal decision in Baker exemplifies this view. Decided in 1962, Baker involved the failure of the Tennessee Legislature to reapportion its districts for 60 years. 369 U.S., at 191, 82 S.Ct. 691. Since Tennessee's last apportionment, the State's population had grown by about 1.5 million residents, from about 2 to more than 3.5 million. And the number of voters in each district had changed significantly over time, producing widely varying voting populations in each district. Id., at 192, 82 S.Ct. 691. Under these facts, the Court held that reapportionment claims were justiciable because the plaintiffs—who all claimed to be eligible voters—had alleged a “debasement of their votes.” *1135 Id., at 194, and n. 15, 204, 82 S.Ct. 691 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court similarly emphasized equal treatment of eligible voters in Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 83 S.Ct. 801, 9 L.Ed.2d 821 (1963). That case involved a challenge to Georgia's “county unit” system of voting. Id., at 370, 83 S.Ct. 801. This system, used by the State's Democratic Party to nominate candidates in its primary, gave each county two votes for every representative that the county had in the lower House of its General Assembly. Voting was then done by county, with the winner in each county taking all of that county's votes. The Democratic Party nominee was the candidate who had won the most county-unit votes, not the person who had won the most individual votes. Id., at 370–371, 83 S.Ct. 801. The effect of this system was to give heavier weight to rural ballots than to urban ones. The Court held that the system violated the one-person, one-vote principle. Id., at 379–381, and n. 12, 83 S.Ct. 801. In so holding, the Court emphasized that the right at issue belongs to “all qualified voters” and is the right to have one's vote “counted once” and protected against dilution. Id., at 380, 83 S.Ct. 801. In applying the one-person, one-vote principle to state legislative districts, the Court has also emphasized vote dilution, which also supports the notion that the oneperson, one-vote principle ensures equality among eligible voters. It did so most notably in Reynolds. In that case, Alabama had failed to reapportion its state legislature for decades, resulting in population-variance ratios of up to about 41 to 1 in the State Senate and up to about 16 to 1 in the House. 377 U.S., at 545, 84 S.Ct. 1362. In explaining why Alabama's failure to reapportion violated the Equal Protection Clause, this Court stated that “an individual's right to vote for state legislators is unconstitutionally impaired when its weight is in a substantial fashion diluted when compared with votes of citizens living in other parts of the State.” Id., at 568, 84 S.Ct. 1362. This Court's post-Reynolds decisions likewise define the one-person, one-vote principle in terms of eligible voters, and thus imply that States should be allocating districts with eligible voters in mind. The Court suggested as much in Hadley v. Junior College Dist. of Metropolitan Kansas City, 397 U.S. 50, 90 S.Ct. 791, 25 L.Ed.2d 45 (1970). That case involved Missouri's system permitting separate school districts to establish a joint junior college district. Six trustees were to oversee the joint district, and they were apportioned on the basis of the relative numbers of school-aged children in each subsidiary district. Id., at 51, 90 S.Ct. 791. The Court held that this plan violated the Equal Protection Clause because “the trustees of this junior college district [must] be apportioned in a manner © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000627 11 Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S.Ct. 1120 (2016) 194 L.Ed.2d 291, 84 USLW 4175, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3547... that does not deprive any voter of his right to have his own vote given as much weight, as far as is practicable, as that of any other voter in the junior college district.” Id., at 52, 90 S.Ct. 791. In so holding, the Court emphasized that Reynolds had “called attention to prior cases indicating that a qualified voter has a constitutional right to vote in elections without having his vote wrongfully denied, debased, or diluted.” Hadley, 397 U.S., at 52, 90 S.Ct. 791; see id., at 52–53, 90 S.Ct. 791. In contrast to this oft-stated aspiration of giving equal treatment to eligible voters, the Court has also expressed a different understanding of the one-person, one-vote principle. In several cases, the Court has suggested that one-person, one-vote protects the interests of all individuals in a district, whether they are eligible voters or not. In Reynolds, for example, the Court *1136 said that “the fundamental principle of representative government in this country is one of equal representation for equal numbers of people.” 377 U.S., at 560–561, 84 S.Ct. 1362; see also ante, at 1131 (collecting cases). Under this view, States cannot comply with the Equal Protection Clause by equalizing the number of eligible voters in each district. They must instead equalize the total population per district. In line with this view, the Court has generally focused on total population, not the total number of voters, when determining a State's compliance with the oneperson, one-vote requirement. In Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735, 750–751, 93 S.Ct. 2321, 37 L.Ed.2d 298 (1973), for example, the Court upheld state legislative districts that had a maximum deviation of 7.83% when measured on a total-population basis. In contrast, in Chapman v. Meier, 420 U.S. 1, 21–22, 26–27, 95 S.Ct. 751, 42 L.Ed.2d 766 (1975), the Court struck down a court-ordered reapportionment that had a total deviation of 20.14% based on total population. This plan, in the Court's view, failed to “achieve the goal of population equality with little more than de minimis variation.” Id., at 27, 95 S.Ct. 751. This lack of clarity in our redistricting cases has left States with little guidance about how their political institutions must be structured. Although this Court has required that state legislative districts “be apportioned on a population basis,” Reynolds, supra, at 568, 84 S.Ct. 1362, it has yet to tell the States whether they are limited in choosing “the relevant population that [they] must equally distribute.” Chen v. Houston, 532 U.S. 1046, 1047, 121 S.Ct. 2020, 149 L.Ed.2d 1017 (2001) (THOMAS, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because the Court has not provided a firm account of what States must do when districting, States are left to guess how much flexibility (if any) they have to use different methods of apportionment. II This inconsistency (if not opacity) is not merely a consequence of the Court's equivocal statements on one person, one vote. The problem is more fundamental. There is simply no way to make a principled choice between interpreting one person, one vote as protecting eligible voters or as protecting total inhabitants within a State. That is because, though those theories are noble, the Constitution does not make either of them the exclusive means of apportionment for state and local representatives. In guaranteeing to the States a “Republican Form of Government,” Art. IV, § 4, the Constitution did not resolve whether the ultimate basis of representation is the right of citizens to cast an equal ballot or the right of all inhabitants to have equal representation. The Constitution instead reserves these matters to the people. The majority's attempt today to divine a single “ ‘theory of the Constitution’ ”—apportionment based on representation, ante, at 1128 – 1129 (quoting Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 2766–2767 (1866))—rests on a flawed reading of history and wrongly picks one side of a debate that the Framers did not resolve in the Constitution. A The Constitution lacks a single, comprehensive theory of representation. The Framers understood the tension between majority rule and protecting fundamental rights from majorities. This understanding led to a “mixed” constitutional structure that did not embrace any single theory of representation but instead struck a compromise between those who sought an equitable system of representation and *1137 those who were concerned that the majority would abuse plenary control over public policy. As Madison wrote, “A dependence on the people is no doubt the primary controul on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000628 12 Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S.Ct. 1120 (2016) 194 L.Ed.2d 291, 84 USLW 4175, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3547... precautions.” The Federalist No. 51, p. 349 (J. Cooke ed. 1961). This was the theory of the Constitution. The Framers therefore made difficult compromises on the apportionment of federal representation, and they did not prescribe any one theory of how States had to divide their legislatures. 1 Because, in the view of the Framers, ultimate political power derives from citizens who were “created equal,” The Declaration of Independence ¶ 2, beliefs in equality of representation—and by extension, majority rule— influenced the constitutional structure. In the years between the Revolution and the framing, the Framers experimented with different ways of securing the political system against improper influence. Of all the “electoral safeguards for the representational system,” the most critical was “equality of representation.” G. Wood, The Creation of the American Republic 1776–1787, p. 170 (1998) (Wood). The Framers' preference for apportionment by representation (and majority rule) was driven partially by the belief that all citizens were inherently equal. In a system where citizens were equal, a legislature should have “equal representation” so that “equal interests among the people should have equal interests in [the assembly].” Thoughts on Government, in 4 Works of John Adams 195 (C. Adams ed. 1851). The British Parliament fell short of this goal. In addition to having hereditary nobility, more than half of the members of the democratic House of Commons were elected from sparsely populated districts —so-called “rotten boroughs.” Wood 171; Baker, 369 U.S., at 302–303, 82 S.Ct. 691 (Frankfurter, J., dissenting). The Framers' preference for majority rule also was a reaction to the shortcomings of the Articles of Confederation. Under the Articles, each State could cast one vote regardless of population and Congress could act only with the assent of nine States. Articles of Confederation, Art. IX, cl. 6; id., Art. X; id., Art. XI. This system proved undesirable because a few small States had the ability to paralyze the National Legislature. See The Federalist No. 22, at 140–141 (Hamilton). advocated proportional representation throughout the National Legislature. 1 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, pp. 471–473 (M. Farrand ed. 1911). Alexander Hamilton voiced concerns about the unfairness of allowing a minority to rule over a majority. In explaining at the Convention why he opposed giving States an equal vote in the National Legislature, Hamilton asked rhetorically, “If ... three states contain a majority of the inhabitants of America, ought they to be governed by a minority?” Id., at 473; see also The Federalist No. 22, at 141 (Hamilton) (objecting to supermajoritarian voting requirements because they allow an entrenched minority to “controul the opinion of a majority respecting the best mode of conducting [the public business]”). James Madison, too, opined that the general Government needed a direct mandate from the people. If federal “power [were] not immediately derived from the people, in proportion to their numbers,” according to Madison, the Federal Government would be as weak as Congress under the Articles of Confederation. 1 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 472. *1138 In many ways, the Constitution reflects this preference for majority rule. To pass Congress, ordinary legislation requires a simple majority of present members to vote in favor. And some features of the apportionment for the House of Representatives reflected the idea that States should wield political power in approximate proportion to their number of inhabitants. Ante, at 1126 – 1129. Thus, “equal representation for equal numbers of people,” ante, at 1129 (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted), features prominently in how representatives are apportioned among the States. These features of the Constitution reflect the preference of some members of the founding generation for equality of representation. But, as explained below, this is not the single “theory of the Constitution.” 2 The Framers also understood that unchecked majorities could lead to tyranny of the majority. As a result, many viewed antidemocratic checks as indispensable to republican government. And included among the antidemocratic checks were legislatures that deviated from perfect equality of representation. Consequently, when the topic of dividing representation came up at the Constitutional Convention, some Framers © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000629 13 Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S.Ct. 1120 (2016) 194 L.Ed.2d 291, 84 USLW 4175, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3547... The Framers believed that a proper government promoted the common good. They conceived this good as objective and not inherently coextensive with majoritarian preferences. See, e.g., The Federalist No. 1, at 4 (Hamilton) (defining the common good or “public good” as the “true interests” of the community); id., No. 10, at 57 (Madison) (“the permanent and aggregate interests of the community”). For government to promote the common good, it had to do more than simply obey the will of the majority. See, e.g., ibid. (discussing majoritarian factions). Government must also protect fundamental rights. See The Declaration of Independence ¶ 2; 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *124 (“[T]he principal aim of society is to protect individuals in the enjoyment of those absolute rights, which are vested in them by the immutable laws of nature”). Of particular concern for the Framers was the majority of people violating the property rights of the minority. Madison observed that “the most common and durable source of factions, has been the various and unequal distribution of property.” The Federalist No. 10, at 59. A poignant example occurred in Massachusetts. In what became known as Shays' Rebellion, armed debtors attempted to block legal actions by creditors to recover debts. Although that rebellion was ultimately put down, debtors sought relief from state legislatures “under the auspices of Constitutional forms.” Letter from James Madison to Thomas Jefferson (Apr. 23, 1787), in 11 The Papers of Thomas Jefferson 307 (J. Boyd ed. 1955); see Wood 412–413. With no structural political checks on democratic lawmaking, creditors found their rights jeopardized by state laws relieving debtors of their obligation to pay and authorizing forms of payment that devalued the contracts. McConnell, Contract Rights and Property Rights: A Case Study in the Relationship Between Individual Liberties and Constitutional Structures, 76 Cal. L. Rev. 267, 280–281 (1988); see also Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 137–138, 3 L.Ed. 162 (1810) (Marshall, C.J.) (explaining that the Contract Clause came from the Framers' desire to “shield themselves and their property from the effects of those sudden and strong passions to which men are exposed”). Because of the Framers' concerns about placing unchecked power in political majorities, the Constitution's majoritarian provisions were only part of a complex republican structure. The Framers also placed several antidemocratic provisions in the Constitution. The original Constitution *1139 permitted only the direct election of representatives. Art. I, § 2, cl. 1. Senators and the President were selected indirectly. See Art. I, § 3, cl. 1; Art. II, § 1, cls. 2–3. And the “Great Compromise” guaranteed large and small States voting equality in the Senate. By malapportioning the Senate, the Framers prevented large States from outvoting small States to adopt policies that would advance the large States' interests at the expense of the small States. See The Federalist No. 62, at 417 (Madison). These countermajoritarian measures reflect the Framers' aspirations of promoting competing goals. Rejecting a hereditary class system, they thought political power resided with the people. At the same time, they sought to check majority rule to promote the common good and mitigate threats to fundamental rights. B As the Framers understood, designing a government to fulfill the conflicting tasks of respecting the fundamental equality of persons while promoting the common good requires making incommensurable tradeoffs. For this reason, they did not attempt to restrict the States to one form of government. Instead, the Constitution broadly required that the States maintain a “Republican Form of Government.” Art. IV, § 4. But the Framers otherwise left it to States to make tradeoffs and reconcile the competing goals. Republican governments promote the common good by placing power in the hands of the people, while curtailing the majority's ability to invade the minority's fundamental rights. The Framers recognized that there is no universal formula for accomplishing these goals. At the framing, many state legislatures were bicameral, often reflecting multiple theories of representation. Only “[s]ix of the original thirteen states based representation in both houses of their state legislatures on population.” Hayden, The False Promise of One Person, One Vote, 102 Mich. L. Rev. 213, 218 (2003). In most States, it was common to base representation, at least in part, on the State's political subdivisions, even if those subdivisions varied heavily in their populations. Wood 171; Baker, 369 U.S., at 307–308, 82 S.Ct. 691 (Frankfurter, J., dissenting). © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000630 14 Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S.Ct. 1120 (2016) 194 L.Ed.2d 291, 84 USLW 4175, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3547... Reflecting this history, the Constitution continued to afford States significant leeway in structuring their “Republican” governments. At the framing, “republican” referred to “[p]lacing the government in the people,” and a “republick” was a “state in which the power is lodged in more than one.” S. Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language (7th ed. 1785); see also The Federalist No. 39, at 251 (Madison) (“[W]e may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people; and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behaviour”). By requiring the States to have republican governments, the Constitution prohibited them from having monarchies and aristocracies. See id., No. 43, at 291. Some would argue that the Constitution also prohibited States from adopting direct democracies. Compare Wood 222–226 (“For most constitution-makers in 1776, republicanism was not equated with democracy”) with A. Amar, America's Constitution: A Biography 276–281 (2005) (arguing that the provision prohibited monarchies and aristocracies but not direct democracy); see also The Federalist No. 10, at 62 (Madison) (distinguishing a “democracy” and a “republic”); id., No. 14, at 83–84 (same). *1140 Beyond that, however, the Constitution left matters open for the people of the States to decide. The Constitution says nothing about what type of republican government the States must follow. When the Framers wanted to deny powers to state governments, they did so explicitly. See, e.g., Art. I, § 10, cl. 1 (“No State shall ... pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts”). None of the Reconstruction Amendments changed the original understanding of republican government. Those Amendments brought blacks within the existing American political community. The Fourteenth Amendment pressured States to adopt universal male suffrage by reducing a noncomplying State's representation in Congress. Amdt. 14, § 2. And the Fifteenth Amendment prohibited restricting the right of suffrage based on race. Amdt. 15, § 1. That is as far as those Amendments went. As Justice Harlan explained in Reynolds, neither Amendment provides a theory of how much “weight” a vote must receive, nor do they require a State to apportion both Houses of their legislature solely on a population basis. See 377 U.S., at 595–608, 84 S.Ct. 1362 (dissenting opinion). And Justice ALITO quite convincingly demonstrates why the majority errs by reading a theory of equal representation into the apportionment provision in § 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment. See post, at 1146 – 1149 (opinion concurring in judgment). C The Court's attempt to impose its political theory upon the States has produced a morass of problems. These problems are antithetical to the values that the Framers embraced in the Constitution. These problems confirm that the Court has been wrong to entangle itself with the political process. First, in embracing one person, one vote, the Court has arrogated to the Judiciary important value judgments that the Constitution reserves to the people. In Reynolds, for example, the Court proclaimed that “[l]egislators represent people, not trees or acres”; that “[l]egislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests”; and that, accordingly, electoral districts must have roughly equal population. 377 U.S., at 562–563, 84 S.Ct. 1362. As I have explained, the Constitution permits, but does not impose, this view. Beyond that, Reynolds' assertions are driven by the belief that there is a single, correct answer to the question of how much voting strength an individual citizen should have. These assertions overlook that, to control factions that would legislate against the common good, individual voting strength must sometimes yield to countermajoritarian checks. And this principle has no less force within States than it has for the federal system. See The Federalist No. 10, at 63–65 (Madison) (recognizing that smaller republics, such as the individual States, are more prone to capture by special interests). Instead of large States versus small States, those interests may pit urban areas versus rural, manufacturing versus agriculture, or those with property versus those without. Cf. Reynolds, supra, at 622–623, 84 S.Ct. 1362 (Harlan, J., dissenting). There is no single method of reconciling these competing interests. And it is not the role of this Court to calibrate democracy in the vain search for an optimum solution. The Government argues that apportioning legislators by any metric other than total population “risks © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000631 15 Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S.Ct. 1120 (2016) 194 L.Ed.2d 291, 84 USLW 4175, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3547... rendering residents of this country who are ineligible, unwilling, or unable to vote as invisible or irrelevant to our system of representative democracy.” *1141 Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 27. But that argument rests on the faulty premise that “our system of representative democracy” requires specific groups to have representation in a specific manner. As I have explained, the Constitution does not impose that requirement. See Parts II–A, II–B, supra. And as the Court recently reminded us, States are free to serve as “ ‘laboratories' ” of democracy. Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm'n, 576 U.S. ––––, ––––, 135 S.Ct. 2652, 2673, 192 L.Ed.2d 704 (2015). That “laboratory” extends to experimenting about the nature of democracy itself. Second, the Court's efforts to monitor the political process have failed to provide any consistent guidance for the States. Even if it were justifiable for this Court to enforce some principle of majority rule, it has been unable to do so in a principled manner. Our precedents do not address the myriad other ways that minorities (or fleeting majorities) entrench themselves in the political system. States can place policy choices in their constitutions or have supermajoritarian voting rules in a legislative assembly. See, e.g., N.Y. Const., Art. V, § 7 (constitutionalizing public employee pensions); Ill. Const., Art. VII, § 6(g) (requiring a three-fifths vote of the General Assembly to preempt certain local ordinances). In theory, of course, it does not seem to make a difference if a state legislature is unresponsive to the majority of residents because the state assembly requires a 60% vote to pass a bill or because 40% of the population elects 51% of the representatives. So far as the Constitution is concerned, there is no single “correct” way to design a republican government. Any republic will have to reconcile giving power to the people with diminishing the influence of special interests. The wisdom of the Framers was that they recognized this dilemma and left it to the people to resolve. In trying to impose its own theory of democracy, the Court is hopelessly adrift amid political theory and interest-group politics with no guiding legal principles. III This case illustrates the confusion that our cases have wrought. The parties and the Government offer three positions on what this Court's one-person, one-vote cases require States to equalize. Under appellants' view, the Fourteenth Amendment protects the right to an equal vote. Brief for Appellants 26. Appellees, in contrast, argue that the Fourteenth Amendment protects against invidious discrimination; in their view, no such discrimination occurs when States have a rational basis for the population base that they select, even if that base leaves eligible voters malapportioned. Brief for Appellees 16–17. And, the Solicitor General suggests that reapportionment by total population is the only permissible standard because Reynolds recognized a right of “equal representation for equal numbers of people.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 17. Although the majority does not choose among these theories, it necessarily denies that the Equal Protection Clause protects the right to cast an equally weighted ballot. To prevail, appellants do not have to deny the importance of equal representation. Because States can equalize both total population and total voting power within the districts, they have to show only that the right to cast an equally weighted vote is part of the one-person, one-vote right that we have recognized. But the majority declines to find such a right in the Equal Protection Clause. Ante, at 1132 – 1133. Rather, the majority acknowledges that “[f]or every sentence appellants *1142 quote from the Court's opinions [establishing a right to an equal vote], one could respond with a line casting the one-person, one-vote guarantee in terms of equality of representation, not voter equality.” Ante, at 1131. Because our precedents are not consistent with appellants' position —that the only constitutionally available choice for States is to allocate districts to equalize eligible voters—the majority concludes that appellants' challenge fails. Ante, at 1130 – 1133. I agree with the majority's ultimate disposition of this case. As far as the original understanding of the Constitution is concerned, a State has wide latitude in selecting its population base for apportionment. See Part II–B, supra. It can use total population, eligible voters, or any other nondiscriminatory voter base. Ibid. And States with a bicameral legislature can have some mixture of these theories, such as one population base for its lower house and another for its upper chamber. Ibid. Our precedents do not compel a contrary conclusion. Appellants are correct that this Court's precedents have © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000632 16 Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S.Ct. 1120 (2016) 194 L.Ed.2d 291, 84 USLW 4175, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3547... primarily based its one-person, one-vote jurisprudence on the theory that eligible voters have a right against vote dilution. E.g., Hadley, 397 U.S., at 52–53, 90 S.Ct. 791; Reynolds, 377 U.S., at 568, 84 S.Ct. 1362. But this Court's jurisprudence has vacillated too much for me to conclude that the Court's precedents preclude States from allocating districts based on total population instead. See Burns, 384 U.S., at 92, 86 S.Ct. 1286 (recognizing that States may choose other nondiscriminatory population bases). Under these circumstances, the choice is best left for the people of the States to decide for themselves how they should apportion their legislature. *** than statistics concerning eligible voters. Since Reynolds, States have almost uniformly used total population in attempting to create legislative districts that are equal in size. And with one notable exception, Burns v. Richardson, 384 U.S. 73, 86 S.Ct. 1286, 16 L.Ed.2d 376 (1966), this Court's post-Reynolds cases have likewise *1143 looked to total population. Moreover, much of the time, creating districts that are equal in total population also results in the creation of districts that are at least roughly equal in eligible voters. I therefore agree that States are permitted to use total population in redistricting plans. II There is no single “correct” method of apportioning state legislatures. And the Constitution did not make this Court “a centralized politburo appointed for life to dictate to the provinces the ‘correct’ theories of democratic representation, [or] the ‘best’ electoral systems for securing truly ‘representative’ government.” Holder v. Hall, 512 U.S. 874, 913, 114 S.Ct. 2581, 129 L.Ed.2d 687 (1994) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment). Because the majority continues that misguided search, I concur only in the judgment. Justice ALITO, with whom Justice THOMAS joins except as to Part III–B, concurring in the judgment. The question that the Court must decide in this case is whether Texas violated the “one-person, one-vote” principle established in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964), by adopting a legislative redistricting plan that provides for districts that are roughly equal in total population. Appellants contend that Texas was required to create districts that are equal in the number of eligible voters, but I agree with the Court that Texas' use of total population did not violate the oneperson, one-vote rule. Although this conclusion is sufficient to decide the case before us, Texas asks us to go further and to hold that States, while generally free to use total population statistics, are not barred from using eligible voter statistics. Texas points to Burns, in which this Court held that Hawaii did not violate the one-person, one-vote principle by adopting a plan that sought to equalize the number of registered voters in each district. Disagreeing with Texas, the Solicitor General dismisses Burns as an anomaly and argues that the use of total population is constitutionally required. The Solicitor General contends that the one-person, one-vote rule means that all persons, whether or not they are eligible to vote, are entitled to equal representation in the legislature. Accordingly, he argues, legislative districts must be equal in total population even if that results in districts that are grossly unequal in the number of eligible voters, a situation that is most likely to arise where aliens are disproportionately concentrated in some parts of a State. This argument, like that advanced by appellants, implicates very difficult theoretical and empirical questions about the nature of representation. For centuries, political theorists have debated the proper role I of representatives, 1 and political scientists have studied the conduct of legislators and the interests that they Both practical considerations and precedent support the conclusion that the use of total population is consistent with the one-person, one-vote rule. The decennial census required by the Constitution tallies total population. Art. I, § 2, cl. 3; Amdt. 14, § 2. These statistics are more reliable and less subject to manipulation and dispute actually advance. 2 We have no need to wade into these waters in this case, and I would not do so. Whether a State is permitted to *1144 use some measure other than total population is an important and sensitive question that we can consider if and when we have before us a state districting plan that, unlike the current Texas plan, © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000633 17 Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S.Ct. 1120 (2016) 194 L.Ed.2d 291, 84 USLW 4175, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3547... uses something other than total population as the basis for equalizing the size of districts. III A The Court does not purport to decide whether a State may base a districting plan on something other than total population, but the Court, picking up a key component of the Solicitor General's argument, suggests that the use of total population is supported by the Constitution's formula for allocating seats in the House of Representatives among the States. Because House seats are allocated based on total population, the Solicitor General argues, the one-person, one-vote principle requires districts that are equal in total population. I write separately primarily because I cannot endorse this meretricious argument. First, the allocation of congressional representation sheds little light on the question presented by the Solicitor General's argument because that allocation plainly violates one person, one vote. 3 This is obviously true with respect to the Senate: Although all States have equal representation in the Senate, the most populous State (California) has 66 times as many people as the least populous (Wyoming). See United States Census 2010, Resident Population Data, http://www.census.gov/2010census/ data/apportionment-pop-text.php. And even the allocation of House seats does not comport with one person, one vote. Every State is entitled to at least one seat in the House, even if the State's population is lower than the average population of House districts nationwide. U.S. Const., Art. I, § 2, cl. 3. Today, North Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming all fall into that category. See United States Census 2010, Apportionment Data, http:// www.census.gov/2010census/data/apportionment-datatext.php. If one person, one vote applied to allocation of House seats among States, I very much doubt the Court would uphold a plan where one Representative represents fewer than 570,000 people in Wyoming but nearly a million people next door in Montana. 4 Second, Reynolds v. Sims squarely rejected the argument that the Constitution's allocation of congressional representation establishes the test for the constitutionality of a state legislative districting plan. Under one Alabama districting plan before the Court in that case, seats in the State Senate were allocated by county, much as seats in the United States Senate are allocated by State. (At that time, the upper houses *1145 in most state legislatures were similar in this respect.) The Reynolds Court noted that “[t]he system of representation in the two Houses of the Federal Congress” was “conceived out of compromise and concession indispensable to the establishment of our federal republic.” 377 U.S., at 574, 84 S.Ct. 1362. Rejecting Alabama's argument that this system supported the constitutionality of the State's apportionment of senate seats, the Court concluded that “the Founding Fathers clearly had no intention of establishing a pattern or model for the apportionment of seats in state legislatures when the system of representation in the Federal Congress was adopted.” Id., at 573, 84 S.Ct. 1362; see also Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 378, 83 S.Ct. 801, 9 L.Ed.2d 821 (1963). Third, as the Reynolds Court recognized, reliance on the Constitution's allocation of congressional representation is profoundly ahistorical. When the formula for allocating House seats was first devised in 1787 and reconsidered at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, the overwhelming concern was far removed from any abstract theory about the nature of representation. Instead, the dominant consideration was the distribution of political power among the States. The original Constitution's allocation of House seats involved what the Reynolds Court rather delicately termed “compromise and concession.” 377 U.S., at 574, 84 S.Ct. 1362. Seats were apportioned among the States “according to their respective Numbers,” and these “Numbers” were “determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons ... three fifths of all other Persons.” Art. I, § 2, cl. 3. The phrase “all other Persons” was a euphemism for slaves. Delegates to the Constitutional Convention from the slave States insisted on this infamous clause as a condition of their support for the Constitution, and the clause gave the slave States more power in the House and in the electoral college than they would have enjoyed if only free persons had been counted. 5 These slave-state delegates did not demand slave representation based on some philosophical notion that “representatives serve all residents, not just those eligible or registered to vote.” Ante, at 1132. 6 © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000634 18 Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S.Ct. 1120 (2016) 194 L.Ed.2d 291, 84 USLW 4175, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3547... C B The Court's account of the original Constitution's allocation also plucks out of context Alexander Hamilton's statement on apportionment. The Court characterizes Hamilton's words (more precisely, Robert Yates's summary of his fellow New Yorker's *1146 words) as endorsing apportionment by total population, and positions those words as if Hamilton were talking about apportionment in the House. Ante, at 1127. Neither is entirely accurate. The “quote” comes from the controversy over Senate apportionment, where the debate turned on whether to apportion by population at all. See generally 1 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, pp. 470–474 (M. Farrand ed. 1911). Hamilton argued in favor of allocating Senate seats by population: “The question, after all is, is it our interest in modifying this general government to sacrifice individual rights to the preservation of the rights of an artificial being, called states? There can be no truer principle than this— that every individual of the community at large has an equal right to the protection of government. If therefore three states contain a majority of the inhabitants of America, ought they to be governed by a minority? Would the inhabitants of the great states ever submit to this? If the smaller states maintain this principle, through a love of power, will not the larger, from the same motives, be equally tenacious to preserve their power?” Id., at 473. As is clear from the passage just quoted, Hamilton (according to Yates) thought the fight over apportionment was about naked power, not some lofty ideal about the nature of representation. That interpretation is confirmed by James Madison's summary of the same statement by Hamilton: “The truth is it [meaning the debate over apportionment] is a contest for power, not for liberty.... The State of Delaware having 40,000 souls will lose power, if she has 1 /10 only of the votes allowed to Pa. having 400,000.” Id., at 466. Far from “[e]ndorsing apportionment based on total population,” ante, at 1127, Hamilton was merely acknowledging the obvious: that apportionment in the new National Government would be the outcome of a contest over raw political power, not abstract political theory. After the Civil War, when the Fourteenth Amendment was being drafted, the question of the apportionment formula arose again. Thaddeus Stevens, a leader of the socalled radical Republicans, unsuccessfully proposed that apportionment be based on eligible voters, rather than total population. The opinion of the Court suggests that the rejection of Stevens' proposal signified the adoption of the theory that representatives are properly understood to represent all of the residents of their districts, whether or not they are eligible to vote. Ante, at 1127 – 1129. As was the case in 1787, however, it was power politics, not democratic theory, that carried the day. In making his proposal, Stevens candidly explained that the proposal's primary aim was to perpetuate the dominance of the Republican Party and the Northern States. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 74 (1865); Van Alstyne, The Fourteenth Amendment, The “Right” to Vote, and the Understanding of the Thirty–Ninth Congress, 1965 S. Ct. Rev. 33, 45–47 (Van Alstyne). As Stevens spelled out, if House seats were based on total population, the power of the former slave States would be magnified. Prior to the Civil War, a slave had counted for only three-fifths of a person for purposes of the apportionment of House seats. As a result of the Emancipation Proclamation and the Thirteenth Amendment, the former slaves would now be fully counted even if they were not permitted to vote. By Stevens' calculation, this would give the South 13 additional votes in both the House and the electoral college. Cong. Globe, 39th *1147 Cong., 1st Sess., 74 (1865); Van Alstyne 46. Stevens' proposal met with opposition in the Joint Committee on Reconstruction, including from, as the majority notes, James Blaine. Ante, at 1128. Yet, as it does with Hamilton's, the majority plucks Blaine's words out of context: “[W]e have had several propositions to amend the Federal Constitution with respect to the basis of representation in Congress. These propositions ... give to the States in future a representation proportioned to their voters instead of their inhabitants. “The effect contemplated and intended by this change is perfectly well understood, and on all hands frankly © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000635 19 Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S.Ct. 1120 (2016) 194 L.Ed.2d 291, 84 USLW 4175, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3547... avowed. It is to deprive the lately rebellious States of the unfair advantage of a large representation in this House, based on their colored population, so long as that population shall be denied political rights by the legislation of those States.... “The direct object thus aimed at, as it respects the rebellious States, has been so generally approved that little thought seems to have been given to the incidental evils which the proposed constitutional amendment would inflict on a large portion of the loyal States— evils, in my judgment, so serious and alarming as to lead me to oppose the amendment in any form in which it has yet been presented. As an abstract proposition no one will deny that population is the true basis of representation; for women, children, and other nonvoting classes may have as vital an interest in the legislation of the country as those who actually deposit the ballot.... “If voters instead of population shall be made the basis of representation certain results will follow, not fully appreciated perhaps by some who are now urgent for the change.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 141 (1865). The “not fully appreciated” and “incidental evi[l]” was, in Blaine's view, the disruption to loyal States' representation in Congress. Blaine described how the varying suffrage requirements in loyal States could lead to, for instance, California's being entitled to eight seats in the House and Vermont's being entitled only to three, despite their having similar populations. Ibid.; see also 2 B. Ackerman, We the People: Transformations 164, 455, n. 5 (1998); Van Alstyne 47, 70. This mattered to Blaine because both States were loyal and so neither deserved to suffer a loss of relative political power. Blaine therefore proposed to apportion representatives by the “whole number of persons except those to whom civil or political rights or privileges are denied or abridged by the constitution or laws of any State on account of race or color.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 142. “This is a very simple and very direct way, it seems to me, of reaching the result aimed at without embarrassment to any other question or interest. It leaves population as heretofore the basis of representation, does not disturb in any manner the harmonious relations of the loyal States, and it conclusively deprives the southern States of all representation in Congress on account of the colored population so long as those States may choose to abridge or deny to that population the political rights and privileges accorded to others.” Ibid. As should be obvious from these lengthy passages, Blaine recognized that the “generally approved” “result aimed at” was to deprive southern States of political power; far from quibbling with that aim, he sought to achieve it while limiting the collateral damage to the loyal northern States. See Van Alstyne 47. *1148 Roscoe Conkling, whom the majority also quotes, ante, at 1128, seemed to be as concerned with voter-based apportionment's “narrow[ing] the basis of taxation, and in some States seriously,” as he was with abstract notions of representational equality. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 358; id., at 359 (“representation should go with taxation”); ibid. (apportionment by citizenship “would narrow the basis of taxation and cause considerable inequalities in this respect, because the number of aliens in some States is very large, and growing larger now, when emigrants reach our shores at the rate of more than a State a year”). And Hamilton Ward, also quoted by the majority, ante, at 1128, was primarily disturbed by “[t]he fact that one South Carolinian, whose hands are red with the blood of fallen patriots, and whose skirts are reeking with the odors of Columbia and Andersonville, will have a voice as potential in these Halls as two and a half Vermont soldiers who have come back from the grandest battle-fields in history maimed and scarred in the contest with South Carolina traitors in their efforts to destroy this Government”—and only secondarily worried about the prospect of “taxation without representation.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 434. Even Jacob Howard, he of the “theory of the Constitution” language, ante, at 1128 – 1129, bemoaned the fact that basing representation on total population would allow southern States “to obtain an advantage which they did not possess before the rebellion and emancipation.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 2766. “I object to this. I think they cannot very consistently call upon us to grant them an additional number of Representatives simply because in consequence of their own misconduct they have lost the property [meaning slaves, whom slaveholders considered to be property] which they once possessed, and which served as a basis in great part of their representation.” Ibid. The list could go on. The bottom line is that in the leadup to the Fourteenth © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000636 20 Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S.Ct. 1120 (2016) 194 L.Ed.2d 291, 84 USLW 4175, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3547... Amendment, claims about representational equality were invoked, if at all, only in service of the real goal: preventing southern States from acquiring too much power in the National Government. After much debate, Congress eventually settled on the compromise that now appears in § 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Under that provision, House seats are apportioned based on total population, but if a State wrongfully denies the right to vote to a certain percentage of its population, its representation is supposed to be reduced proportionally. 7 Enforcement of this remedy, however, is dependent on action by Congress, and— regrettably—the *1149 remedy was never used during the long period when voting rights were widely abridged. Amar 399. In light of the history of Article I, § 2, of the original Constitution and § 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is clear that the apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives was based in substantial part on the distribution of political power among the States and not merely on some theory regarding the proper nature of representation. It is impossible to draw any clear constitutional command from this complex history. *** For these reasons, I would hold only that Texas permissibly used total population in drawing the challenged legislative districts. I therefore concur in the judgment of the Court. All Citations 136 S.Ct. 1120, 194 L.Ed.2d 291, 84 USLW 4175, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3547, 2016 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3189, 26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 61 Footnotes * 1 2 3 4 5 The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337, 26 S.Ct. 282, 50 L.Ed. 499. In Avery v. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474, 485–486, 88 S.Ct. 1114, 20 L.Ed.2d 45 (1968), the Court applied the oneperson, one-vote rule to legislative apportionment at the local level. Maximum population deviation is the sum of the percentage deviations from perfect population equality of the most- and least-populated districts. See Chapman v. Meier, 420 U.S. 1, 22, 95 S.Ct. 751, 42 L.Ed.2d 766 (1975). For example, if the largest district is 4.5% overpopulated, and the smallest district is 2.3% underpopulated, the map's maximum population deviation is 6.8%. The Constitutions and statutes of ten States—California, Delaware, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, and Washington—authorize the removal of certain groups from the total-population apportionment base. See App. to Brief for Appellees 1a–46a (listing relevant state constitutional and statutory provisions). Hawaii, Kansas, and Washington exclude certain non-permanent residents, including nonresident members of the military. Haw. Const., Art. IV, § 4; Kan. Const., Art. 10, § 1(a); Wash. Const., Art. II, § 43(5). See also N.H. Const., pt. 2, Art. 9–a (authorizing the state legislature to make “suitable adjustments to the general census ... on account of non-residents temporarily residing in this state”). California, Delaware, Maryland, and New York exclude inmates who were domiciled out-of-state prior to incarceration. Cal. Elec.Code Ann. § 21003(5) (2016 West Cum. Supp.); Del.Code Ann., Tit. 29, § 804A (Supp.2014); Md. State Govt.Code Ann. § 2–2A–01 (2014); N.Y. Legis. Law Ann. § 83–m(b) (2015 West Cum. Supp.). The Constitutions of Maine and Nebraska authorize the exclusion of noncitizen immigrants, Me. Const., Art. IV, pt. 1, § 2; Neb. Const., Art. III, § 5, but neither provision is “operational as written,” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 12, n. 3. Various plaintiffs had challenged Texas' State House, State Senate, and congressional maps under, inter alia, § 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. They sought and received an injunction barring Texas' use of the new maps until those maps received § 5 preclearance. See Allen v. State Bd. of Elections, 393 U.S. 544, 561, 89 S.Ct. 817, 22 L.Ed.2d 1 (1969) (“[A]n individual may bring a suit for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, claiming that a state requirement is covered by § 5, but has not been subjected to the required federal scrutiny.”). Apart from objecting to the baseline, appellants do not challenge the Senate map's 8.04% total-population deviation. Nor do they challenge the use of a total-population baseline in congressional districting. © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000637 21 Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S.Ct. 1120 (2016) 194 L.Ed.2d 291, 84 USLW 4175, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3547... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 As the District Court noted, the Ninth Circuit has likewise rejected appellants' theory, i.e., that voter population must be roughly equalized. See Garza v. County of L. A., 918 F.2d 763, 773–776 (C.A.9 1990). Also declining to mandate votereligible apportionment, the Fourth and Fifth Circuits have suggested that the choice of apportionment base may present a nonjusticiable political question. See Chen v. Houston, 206 F.3d 502, 528 (C.A.5 2000) (“[T]his eminently political question has been left to the political process.”); Daly v. Hunt, 93 F.3d 1212, 1227 (C.A.4 1996) (“This is quintessentially a decision that should be made by the state, not the federal courts, in the inherently political and legislative process of apportionment.”). In the District Court, appellants suggested that districting bodies could also comply with the one-person, one-vote rule by equalizing the registered-voter populations of districts, but appellants have not repeated that argument before this Court. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 22–23. As the United States observes, the “choice of constitutional language reflects the historical fact that when the Constitution was drafted and later amended, the right to vote was not closely correlated with citizenship.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 18. Restrictions on the franchise left large groups of citizens, including women and many males who did not own land, unable to cast ballots, yet the Framers understood that these citizens were nonetheless entitled to representation in government. Justice ALITO observes that Hamilton stated this principle while opposing allocation of an equal number of Senate seats to each State. Post, at 1136 – 1137 (opinion concurring in judgment). That context, however, does not diminish Hamilton's principled argument for allocating seats to protect the representational rights of “every individual of the community at large.” 1 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 473 (M. Farrand ed. 1911). Justice ALITO goes on to quote James Madison for the proposition that Hamilton was concerned, simply and only, with “the outcome of a contest over raw political power.” Post, at 1146. Notably, in the statement Justice ALITO quotes, Madison was not attributing that motive to Hamilton; instead, according to Madison, Hamilton was attributing that motive to the advocates of equal representation for States. Farrand, supra, at 466. One need not gainsay that Hamilton's backdrop was the political controversies of his day. That reality, however, has not deterred this Court's past reliance on his statements of principle. See, e.g., Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 910–924, 117 S.Ct. 2365, 138 L.Ed.2d 914 (1997). Justice ALITO adds a third, claiming “the allocation of congressional representation sheds little light” on the meaning of the one-person, one-vote rule “because that allocation plainly violates one person, one vote.” Post, at 1144. For this proposition, Justice ALITO notes the constitutional guarantee of two Senate seats and at least one House seat to each State, regardless of its population. But these guarantees bear no kinship to the separate question that dominated the Fourteenth Amendment's ratification debates: After each State has received its guaranteed House seat, on what basis should additional seats be allocated? Justice ALITO asserts that we have taken the statements of the Fourteenth Amendment's Framers “out of context.” Post, at 1148. See also post, at 1148 (“[C]laims about representational equality were invoked, if at all, only in service of the real goal: preventing southern States from acquiring too much power in the national government.”). Like Alexander Hamilton, see supra, at 1127, n. 9, the Fourteenth Amendment's Framers doubtless made arguments rooted in practical political realities as well as in principle. That politics played a part, however, does not warrant rejecting principled argument. In any event, motivations aside, the Framers' ultimate choice of total population rather than voter population is surely relevant to whether, as appellants now argue, the Equal Protection Clause mandates use of voter population rather than total population. Appellants also observe that standing in one-person, one-vote cases has rested on plaintiffs' status as voters whose votes were diluted. But the Court has not considered the standing of nonvoters to challenge a map malapportioned on a total-population basis. This issue, moreover, is unlikely ever to arise given the ease of finding voters willing to serve as plaintiffs in malapportionment cases. In contrast to the insubstantial evidence marshaled by appellants, the United States cites several studies documenting the uneven distribution of immigrants throughout the country during the 1960's. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 16. Appellants point out that constituents have no constitutional right to equal access to their elected representatives. But a State certainly has an interest in taking reasonable, nondiscriminatory steps to facilitate access for all its residents. Insofar as appellants suggest that Texas could have roughly equalized both total population and eligible-voter population, this Court has never required jurisdictions to use multiple population baselines. In any event, appellants have never presented a map that manages to equalize both measures, perhaps because such a map does not exist, or because such a map would necessarily ignore other traditional redistricting principles, including maintaining communities of interest and respecting municipal boundaries. © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000638 22 Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S.Ct. 1120 (2016) 194 L.Ed.2d 291, 84 USLW 4175, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3547... * 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 *** The Court's opinions have used “one person, one vote” and “one man, one vote” interchangeably. Compare, e.g., Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 381, 83 S.Ct. 801, 9 L.Ed.2d 821 (1963) (“one person, one vote”), with Hadley v. Junior College Dist. of Metropolitan Kansas City, 397 U.S. 50, 51, 90 S.Ct. 791, 25 L.Ed.2d 45 (1970) (“one man, one vote” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Gray used “one person, one vote” after noting the expansion of political equality over our history—including adoption of the Nineteenth Amendment, which guaranteed women the right to vote. 372 U.S., at 381, 83 S.Ct. 801. See, e.g., H. Pitkin, The Concept of Representation 4 (1967) ( “[D]iscussions of representation are marked by long-standing, persistent controversies which seem to defy solution”); ibid. (“Another vexing and seemingly endless controversy concerns the proper relation between representative and constituents”); Political Representation i (I. Shapiro, S. Stokes, E. Wood, & A. Kirshner eds. 2009) (“[R]elations between the democratic ideal and the everyday practice of political representation have never been well defined and remain the subject of vigorous debate among historians, political theorists, lawyers, and citizens”); id., at 12 (“[W]e need a better understanding of these complex relations in their multifarious parts before aspiring to develop any general theory of representation”); S. Dovi, Political Representation, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (E. Zalta ed. Spring 2014) (“[O]ur common understanding of political representation is one that contains different, and conflicting, conceptions of how political representatives should represent and so holds representatives to standards that are mutually incompatible”), online at http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/ political-representation (all Internet materials as last visited Mar. 31, 2016); ibid. (“[W]hat exactly representatives do has been a hotly contested issue”). See, e.g., Andeweg, Roles in Legislatures, in The Oxford Handbook of Legislative Studies 268 (S. Martin, T. Saalfeld, & K. Strom eds. 2014) (explaining that the social sciences have not “succeeded in distilling [an] unambiguous concept[ion]” of the “role” of a legislator); Introduction, id., at 11 (“Like political science in general, scholars of legislatures approach the topic from different and, at least partially, competing theoretical perspectives”); Diermeier, Formal Models of Legislatures, id., at 50 (“While the formal study of legislative politics has come a long way, much remains to be done”); Best & Vogel, The Sociology of Legislators and Legislatures, id., at 75–76 (“Stable representative democracies are ... institutional frameworks and informal arrangements which achieve an equilibrium between the competing demands [of constituents and political opponents]. How this situation affects the daily interactions of legislators is largely unknown”). As Justice THOMAS notes, ante, at 1137 – 1138 (opinion concurring in judgment), the plan for the House of Representatives was based in large part on the view that there should be “equality of representation,” but that does not answer the question whether it is eligible voters (as appellants urge), all citizens, or all residents who should be equally represented. The Constitution allocates House seats based on total inhabitants, but as I explain, the dominant, if not exclusive, reason for that choice was the allocation of political power among the States. The Court brushes off the original Constitution's allocation of congressional representation by narrowing in on the Fourteenth Amendment's ratification debates. Ante, at 1129, n. 10. But those debates were held in the shadow of that original allocation. And what Congress decided to do after those debates was to retain the original apportionment formula —minus the infamous three-fifths clause—and attach a penalty to the disenfranchisement of eligible voters. In short, the Fourteenth Amendment made no structural changes to apportionment that bear on the one-person, one-vote rule. See A. Amar, America's Constitution: A Biography 87–98 (2005) (Amar); id., at 94 (“The best justification for the threefifths clause sounded in neither republican principle nor Revolutionary ideology, but raw politics”); see also id., at 88–89 (explaining that the “protective coloring” camouflaging the slave States' power grab “would have been wasted had the Constitution pegged apportionment to the number of voters, with a glaringly inconsistent add-on for nonvoting slaves”); cf. G. Van Cleve, A Slaveholders' Union 126 (2010) (“[T]he slave states saw slave representation as a direct political protection for wealth consisting of slave property against possible Northern attacks on slavery, and told the Convention unequivocally that they needed such protection in order to obtain ratification of the Constitution”); id., at 133–134 (“The compromise on representation awarded disproportionate shares of representative influence to certain vested politicaleconomy interests, one of which was the slave labor economies”). See Amar 92 (“But masters did not as a rule claim to virtually represent the best interests of their slaves. Masters, after all, claimed the right to maim and sell slaves at will, and to doom their yet unborn posterity to perpetual bondage. If this could count as virtual representation, anything could”). Section 2 provides: “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000639 23 Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S.Ct. 1120 (2016) 194 L.Ed.2d 291, 84 USLW 4175, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3547... of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.” Needless to say, the reference in this provision to “male inhabitants ... being twenty-one years of age” has been superseded by the Nineteenth and Twenty-sixth Amendments. But notably the reduction in representation is pegged to the proportion of (then) eligible voters denied suffrage. Section 2's representation-reduction provision makes no appearance in the Court's structural analysis. End of Document © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 000640 24 Historical Information: The U.S. Census Currently, the Census Bureau does ask citizenship on its American Community Survey (ACS) and the Current Population Survey. The ACS is a survey conducted nationwide every year among 3.5 million addresses. The Current Population Survey is a monthly survey that is the primary source of labor force statistics for the population of the United States. However, while it has asked about citizenship status, the Census Bureau has never asked about the legal status of respondents. The Census Bureau first asked a citizenship question in 1820 when the census separately counted “foreigners not naturalized.” The question was asked this way until 1850 when officials asked place of birth, a question that also appeared on the 1860 census. The 1870 census asked the same questions on nativity, as well as questions on the nativity of each individual’s parents. The 1870 census also had questions on citizenship for males over the age of 21. The 1880 census kept questions on individual and parental nativity, but removed questions on citizenship. The 1890 census also asked individual and parental nativity, but included additional questions on naturalization and tenure in the United States for foreign-born men over the age of 21. The questions for 1900 and 1910, although slightly different, followed the same general outline as those of 1890. In 1920 and 1930, all foreign-born respondents, regardless of age and sex, received questions on naturalization status. In 1940, while the questions about individual nativity and naturalization remained, questions about parental nativity moved to the supplemental questions, which were only asked of 5% of respondents. In 1950, that sampling size grew to 20%. In 1960, although questions about individual and parental nativity remained for all, there were no questions about citizenship or naturalization. Starting with 1970, the census moved to a mailout/mailback format. Questions about nativity appeared on the “long form” census form sent to 20% of households and only foreign-born were asked to answer questions about citizenship status and time period of arrival to the United States. From 1980-2000 the long form asked citizenship status of all sample respondents, not just foreign-born. Foreign born were asked for a time range or year that they arrived in the United States. In 2005, the ACS replaced the long-form decennial census questionnaire. As we move through this formal evaluation process, we will keep the public updated as we look forward to delivering the planned questions for the 2020 Census and the ACS to Congress by March 31, 2018. Our goal is to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 Census. The Census Bureau remains committed to reflecting the information needs of our changing society as we continue to examine the effectiveness of decennial census questions to collect accurate data on America’s people, places, and economy. All historical census questionnaires can be found at: https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/index_of_questions/1820_1.html 000641 Historical Information: The U.S. Census Currently, the Census Bureau does ask citizenship on its American Community Survey (ACS) and the Current Population Survey. • The ACS is an annual, nationwide survey conducted among 3.5 million addresses. • The Current Population Survey is a monthly survey that is the primary source of labor force statistics for the population of the United States. • The Census Bureau has never asked about the legal status of respondents. 1820: citizenship question first asked when the census separately counted “foreigners not naturalized.” 1850, 1960: census asked place of birth. 1870: census asked about nativity and the nativity of each individual’s parents. Also had questions on citizenship for males over the age of 21. 1880: census kept questions on individual and parental nativity, but removed citizenship question. 1890: census asked individual and parental nativity, but also included additional questions on naturalization and tenure in the United States for foreign-born men over the age of 21. 1900, 1910: although slightly different, questions followed the same general outline as 1890. 1920, 1930: all foreign-born respondents, regardless of age and sex, received questions on naturalization status. 1940: while the questions about individual nativity and naturalization remained, questions about parental nativity moved to the supplemental questions, which were only asked of 5% of respondents. 1950: sampling size grew to 20%. 1960: although questions about individual and parental nativity remained for all, there were no questions about citizenship or naturalization. 1970: census moved to a mailout/mailback format. Questions about nativity appeared on the “long form” census form sent to 20% of households and only foreign-born were asked to answer questions about citizenship status and time period of arrival to the United States. 1980-2000: the long form asked citizenship status of all sample respondents, not just foreignborn. Foreign born were asked for a time range or year that they arrived in the United States. 2005: the ACS replaced the long-form decennial census questionnaire. 000642 As we move through this formal evaluation process, we will keep the public updated as we look forward to delivering the planned questions for the 2020 Census and the ACS to Congress by March 31, 2018. Our goal is to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 Census. The Census Bureau remains committed to reflecting the information needs of our changing society as we continue to examine the effectiveness of decennial census questions to collect accurate data on America’s people, places, and economy. All historical census questionnaires can be found at: https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/index_of_questions/1820_1.html 000643 1 WARD CHI-ILLS KIHEIHMUN un?t-15ml: U5 Hume-Em i Drw?blrm mhohaluId-uULCeruus?md-u. i ram-dd th?md dieCm?lr hudlir?nuluu??ylhh-mlq, 'l'ndn?s- hun'ng haw an Hui ?ll-dbl: ml MN lhu dun-mum Ila-Id mu. Flu-Fm nl 4W1. all whim-laud d?lnrm Indium: Lin ?Inning- Hakim-ring? miu?'?rqun?rn blul inn.?? m1 1hr partial haw-Jun DI I'll-1mm: ?rma?wrmanmm 1115m- Lam-ll nu: alien?: duh-d 1.11va ll madm?mu?y mr?a? nun-Id quill-Emilia wmhn?-Llj. lit-.3: Mugged-alum ml Iudllm mel dunk-u 1-1th WW. m1. In gm. I'iv?lrll rm all immuv?m warn Int-Mm? 1H4 rill?rd. lhrIInu-u: Add Immh??d ?the Mls?lhemrll mmu?l In. Mire-r ?min-rind mu I'i'qllirld uu-uhmmh uni-n awn-hum": lull- MW Midi-In l-rnhm.? Hum-r. Inh?uu lam-?mm 5am I'm-ml Madam by In} WWI WWII-I In. I iI ll'u' hmdiirnnl Ill- ['l'nlln Bun-l'l MI tumu- rut. [hinting rrajr ham. Ila-In; Il'l Unlt'd Hiram: tramp-cal ?sperm and pmn?lbn {u In H1: mm. The Census Bum-u Mum-Ill. ?mama-LII}- madam pin-m ind-dun ml m?yi?u?mMMH?ll-??. h?lrm ?ning-um rial. Wants. alt-1:11. 'th- n?mhlp 'nuucis In If! Cam hum 'I'n Ink-I nah diminution-h Fur-Faun lulu-Huh 51ml] nun mly nqaln ?Iuwiolhr dad-mill me-d I: awhttuln Inna-Ill.- hhm?ilrn WW tiny-I hm Ill Wi- 000644 14-4 Malawi-In?uhunuLULE-uhlu- Hullgl-elI-u-c In MWunl'udtr-Ihn null hcr?u I-n- lM-H-rr an hp! Willi? mr?mu?? mania-.1 land-Inm?nn-f haul-flunk! bl Wm. mint Intilwm Wh- Wampum ?ohms yum pl and Whilst-Mull Hum-d: dun-mum; Ind-r-I "mil? 1an cmp-uum dmhmi In. Muf?n. hurl?; [mm am My. Wild. and pun?mt!" will in nl'lluw ware-d1 madman-MINE?! Imam "pm-mu. TII-ll'ill mt?-J?l?m?ump?ul?kmw mum! and fun 1W mum-Emu? mum-L In {mu-pm hldunnfh'?m ultimatum wtllul Winn-II ?Hm. Hui ?hill-h- Indium pun-1M Fur Ii! path-{mam mum-mm Wtht?nim?w?n-hm m?m?r?l?fnmn m?lyhm?la :hun?hm?rmnusm li??in?vh?lp?l hpir?r??y dln'l {'1'an mun-I'dud I'll 11351 L-vd [film Ila?1n. inbuilt-Id mm HIM mrdi-I ??ung-under?! Ml? a! hr Mild-nut Inhnuimnumumlswutuig mutual kin. lh?l mil-gunman?. Em LIE. lung-h m?amm?MI ci?mn?p. lam mild Wm um pub-Ii: map-rm. WJWIEIHW hear-ism cam? ?imm?nu?. Lian Inmmimmurmm. awn Wan-d (?lm Catlin-Inn Minn unwind In Amt-lulu! Hutu-llama. Sanctum-urn. manila-:14 Int Ihl: why. an! lhuwdm?hm?hl?mmrw nil Il?p ?fawn imich-n?ihi-r. Inuit! 000645 Measuring America: The Decennial Censuses issued Anrit 2cm 2 I: Hcipl'ng You Make Informed Decisions - I902 2002 5' ?mus ?um? 000646 000647 I Population Items on Principal Census Questionnaires: 1790 to 1890 includes identification items. screening QUestions. and other information collected. but not intended for tabulation) Demographic Characteristics 1790 1800 1810 1 820 1 830 1840 1850 1 850 1870 1880 1 890 Age 1X Sex Color or Place Origin Ii American Indian, proportions of Indian or other blood II American lndian, name of Tribe Relationship to head of family or household Married in the past year Marital status Number of years married Age at or date at tirst marriage Married more than once Ii remarried. was ?rst marriage terminated by death? Number of years widowed. divorced. or separated Social Characteristics Tree or slave 'er slave owner. number oi fugitives Per slave owner. number of manumitted Physical and mental handicaps and infirmities: Deal or deal mules Blind Insane How supported (insane and idiotic 0m?) Feeble-minded (idiotic) X1: X1 or disabled Xi Duration of disability X?l? Paupers . 2x 2X - Convicts . 2x 2x - Xi Homeless children Xi Education: Literacy 1x 2x 2x School attendance - 2X 2X Educational attainment Public or private school Measuring America 0.5. Census Bureau 000648 IIB I.-.- Population items on Principal Census Questionnaires: 1790 to (Excludes identification items. screening questions. and other information collected. but not intended for tabulation) Social Characteristics 1 790 1800 1818 860 1870 1880 1m Vocational trahing - - - - . . . .. - - - Place of birth - - - - - - 21K 2X it Place of birth of parents - - - - - . . . 5x 3: Citizenship - - - . . . 6x - 3; Year of naturalization - - - - - . . . . - - Eligibility to vote - - - - - - - - 5x . II foreign born. year of h'nmigration - - - - . . .. - - Language - - - - . . . - . - Language oi parents - - - - . . . - - - ., Spanish origin or descent - - - - - . . - - - . Number of children living - - - - . . . - - - y; Number of children ever born to mother - - - - - - .. . . - y: For Grandparents' households Are grandchildren under 18 living within the householdAre grandparents responsible for Grandchild's basic needsLength of responsibility oI grandchild - - - - - - . . - - Veteran status - - - - - . . .. - 3.11 Length of service - - - - - . . . - In service date - - - - - - . . .. - Whether wife or widow oi veteran - - - - . . . - - - :11 It child of veteran. is father deadFarm residence - - - - - - . . .. - 3; Farm residence in a previous year - - - - - - . . . - . Place 01 residence a previous year - - - - - - . . . - Year moved to present residence - - - - - - . . . - Economic Characteristics Industry - - - - . - - - . Occupation - - - - - - 2X 2X ill Class of worker - - - - - . . - - - . Private or public nonemetgency work. or public emergency work - - - - - . . - - - . Employment status - - - - - . . - - - Duration of unemployment - - - - - . . - - 3.: Year last worked - - - - - - - . . - . Weeks worked in preceding year - - - - - - - . . . . Hours worked in preceding week - - - - - . . - - . ill] Measuring America LLS. Census Bureau 000649 Population Items on Principal Census Questionnaires: 1790 to 1890?Con. includes identification items. screening questions. and other information collected. but not intended for tabulation) Economic Characteristics 1 790 1000 1310 1 020 1030 1 840 1 050 1860 1070 1880 ?l 090 Activity 5 years ago - - - - - . - - . . . Industry 5 years ago - - - - - . . - . . . Occupation 5 years ago - - - - - . . . - - - Class at worker 5 years ago - - - - - . . . - - - Value at real estate - - - - - - 2x 2x - - Value of personal property - - - - - . . 2x . . . Income - - - - . . - - . . . Social SecurityRegistered - - - - . . . . - - Deductions from all or part of wages or salary - - . - - - . . - - - Place of work - - - - - - - . . - - Means of transportation to work - - - - - - . . . - - Available on supplemental questionnaires at the National Archives and Records Administration. 5 Sample question. (1) Free White persons only. (2) Question only asked of tree inhabitants. (3) Question was whether insane or idiotic. (4) In 1960. place of birth was asked on a sample basis generally, but on a 100-percent basis .in New York and Puerto Flico. Citizenship was asked only in New York and Puerto Rico. where it was a too-percent item. (5) Question was only whether parents were foreign born. (6) For males 21 years of age or over. (7) Whether person could speak English. In 1900. this was the only question: in 1920 and 1930 this question was in addition to request for mother tongue. (8) Asked only outside cities. (9) On housing portion oi questionnaire- Measuring America IEI U.S. Census Bureau 000650 Population Items on The General Schedules: 1900 to 2000 Demographic Characteristics 1 900 1 910 1920 970 1980 1 990 2000!. Age Sex Color or Ftace AncestryiEthnic Origin - - - - - - - - X5 X5 X5 - It American Indian. proportions of Indian or other blood American Indian. name of Tribe 1- ?r - - 1 - Relationship to head of family or househoid Married in the past year Marital status XE XX XX Number of years married I I Age at or date oi first marriage Xs - Xs X3 X5 - Married more than once - - - - remarried. was ?rst marriage terminated by deathNumber of years widowed. divorced. or separated - - - - - X5 . . - - . Social Characteristics Free or slave - - - - - . . . - - . Per slave owner. number oi slaves - - - - - - - . - - Phx' Per slave owner. number of fugitives - - - - - - - - - Per slave owner. number of manumitted - - - - - - - . . - . Physicalimental handicaps and intirmities: Deal or deaf mute 1' X'Blind Insane - How supported (insane and idiotic Univ) - Feeble-minded (idiotic) - or disabled - Duration 0! disability - Paupers - Convicts 1? I I I I I Homeless children . Education: Literacy - - - . . - . School attendance X3 X5 X5 X5 X5 i? Educational attainment - - - - X3 X5 X5 X5 X5 I22 Measuring America U5. Census Bureau 000651 0" Population Items on The General Schedules: 1900 to Social Characteristics 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1900 1990 2000 Public or private school - - - - - - X5 X5 - - Vocational training - - - - - - - Xs - - - Place oi birth Xs(4) X5 X5 X5 X5 Place 01 birth oi parents Citizenship X5 X5 X5 X5 Year of naturalization - - - - - - - Eligibility to vote - - - - . . . - Ii ioreign born. year at immigration - - - X5 X5 X5 X5 Language Language of parents - - - - - - Spanish origin or descent - - - - - - - X5 X5 X5 X5 Number of children living - - - - - - - Number oi children ever born to mother - - For Grandparent households: Are grandchildren under 19 living within the householdAre grandparents Responsible for a Grandchild's basic needs'eteran status - - length of service - - - - - . - - X5 X5 Whether wile or widow of veteran - - - - child of veteran. is lather deadservice date - - - - - - - - X5 X5 X5 Farm residence Xs(8.9) . - - Farm residence in a previous year - - - - X5 - - - - - Place oi residence in a previous year - - - X5 X5 X5 X5 X5 X5 Year moved to present residence - - - - - - X5 X5 X59 X59 X59 industry - X5 X5 X5 X5 X5 Occupation X5 X5 X5 X5 X5 Class ol worker - X5 X5 X5 X5 X5 Private or public nonemergency work, or public emergency work - - - - - - - - - - Employment status - - - X?r X5 X5 X5 X5 X5 Duration of unemployment - Year last worked - - - - - - X5 X5 X5 X5 X5 Economic Characteristics Weeks worked in preceding year - - - X5 X5 X5 X5 X5 X5 Hours worked in preceding week - - - X5 X5 X5 X5 X5 Activity 5 years ago - - - - - - Xs - - - Measuring America 1 23 05. Census Bureau 000652 Population Items on The General Schedules: 1900 to Economic Characteristics 1900 950 1960 1 970 1 980 1 9911 200d- Industry 5 years ago - - - - - - - . . - x3 Occupation 5 years ago - - - - . . - x5 . . .. Class oI worker 5 years ago - - - - - . .. x5 - . .. Value of real estate - - - . . . . - xs(9) x5(g) x5(g) Value at personal property - - - . - . . . - - . . Income - - - - Xs Xs Xe Xs Xs Xs Social Security: Registered - - - - Deductions irom a] or part of wages or salary - - . . x5 . - - . - Place 01 work - - - - - - X5 X5 Ks Xe Xs Means oi transportation to work - - - - - - Xs Xs X5 X5 X3 See also supplemental questionnaires. 5 Sample question. (1) Free White persons only. (2) Question only asked of free inhabitants. (3) Question was whether insane or idiotic. (4) in 1960. place of birth was asked on a sample basis generally. but on a 100-percent basis in New York and Puerto Flico. Citizenship was asked only in New York and Puerto Rico. where it was a 1D0-percent item. (5) Question was only whether parents were foreign born. (6) For males 21 years at age or over. (7) Whether person could speak English. In 1900. this was the only question: in 1920 and 1930 this question was in addition to request ior mother tongue. (8) Asked only outside cities. (9) On housrng portion at questionnaire. 124 Measuring America U.S. Census Bureau 000653 2000 QUESTIONNAIRE Census 2000 used two questionnaires?a long-form (sample) and a short-form (100 percent) questionnaire. The short-form questionnaire consisted of 7 questions that could be answered by up to 6 persons within a house- hold (see questions 1-6 and 33 on long-form questionnaire reproduced here). Space was provided to identify 6 addi- tional members of the household. The U5. Census Bureau would collect data on persons 7-12 by telephone inter- view. Measuring America U.S. Census Bureau The long-form questionnaire (pictured here), sent to a sample of households throughout the United States and territories. contained 29 inquiries in addition to the 3 questions asked on the short-form questionnaire. These additional quesitons. as in the past. collected information on the population, housing. economic. and social charac- teristics of the Nation?s households. 000654 000655 Memoranda of Understanding(MOU) Updates: State Administrative Records Data 3-19-2018 Summary The Census Bureau has contacted every state and several tribal governments seeking administrative records data for the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), which are federal programs that are administered by the states, as well as other assistance program data the states may be willing to share. These data could potentially support the 2020 Census program, providing additional information to supplement federal administrative records information. A ?nal determination is expected late in 2018 as to the quality and coverage of these data to support the 2020 Census program. The Census Bureau has received the data for 34 programs administered by the states, and is waiting to receive the data for several more programs. State Contacted Type of Data Responded] Active Agreement Agreement Signed Data as Declined Acknowledgement Discussions in Draft Submitted Agreement Transferred participation of Contact Review for Signature Alabama - SNAP Alabama - TANF in: Alabama WIC 11.8.16 Alaska Perm Fund Div. 1.11.16 Alaska - SNAP Si TANF 3? Alaska - WIC 8 Arizona SNAP TANF 2.9.17 Arizona WIC I 6.30.15 Arizona, Inter Tribal Council TANF Arizona, inter Tribal Council -- WIC Arkansas SNAP Arkansas - WIC California LA HMIS 6.7.16 California - LA County SNAP and (accepted as LEADER) California SNAP TANF 4.12.17 3: California - SNAP 8: TANF - California -SNAP 8i TANF - Southern California Tribal Chairman?s Association - TANF Colorado SNAP (2009-2014) 8.16.13 Colorado - (2009-2016) 3.18.14 (Leap only) Colorado - WIC (10/2011-2016) 3.17.15 Connecticut SNAP TANF Connecticut - WIC 000658 State Contacted of Data at Declined participation Elaware - 3MP Delaware - WIC District of Columbia - SNAP District of Columbia - WIC Florida - SNAP 8: TANF Florida WIC Georgia - SNAP 81 TANF Hawaii - SNAP Hawaii TANF Hawaii - WIC Idaho - SNAP TANF Idaho WIC Illinois - SNAP (2007-2016) Illinois SNAP 12017-2023), and TANF (2004-2023), and WIC {2004-2023) Indiana - SNAP TANF lndiana WIC Iowa - SNAP TANF Iowa WIC Kansas SNAP 81 TANF Kansas WIC Kentucky - SNAP TANF Louisiana - SNAP TANF Louisiana WIC Maine SNAP TANF Maine WIC Maryland SNAP TANF (2004- 2016) Massachusetts - SNAP TANF Massachusetts WIC Michigan SNAP 81 TANF Michigan - WIC Minnesota 81 TANF Minnesota - WIC Mississippi Choctaw - Mississippi SNAP 8: TANF Mississippi WIC Missouri SNAP TANF Missouri WIC Montana - SNAP TANF Montana WIC United States Bureau State Contact Status Responded] Acknowledgement of Contact 2/22/18 Active Agreement Agreement Signed Date Discussions in Draft Submitted Agreement Transferred Review for Slinature I I I 3.23.16 I 8.5.15 I 12.2.16 1.6.17 I .I 12.23.14 1 I I I .1 6.30.16 I I I v/ 3.28.16 3.4.15 I I I 11.28.16 1.19.12.1.16 1 I I v/ I 000654 State Contact Status 2/22/18 State Contacted Type of Data Responded] Active Agreement Agreement Signed Data at Oeclin ed Acknowiedgement Discussions In Draft Submitted Agreement Transferred participation Of Contact Review for Signature Nesraska - 5035 Nevada - Energy Nevada SNAP (2004.2016) Nevada - TANF (2004-2016) Nevada - WIC (20044016) New Hampshire - SNAP TANF New Hampshire - WIC New Jersey - SNAP TANF New Jersey - WIC New Mexico - SNAP New Mexico - TANF New Mexico - WIC New Mexico, Zuni Pueblo - WIC New York - NYC HMIS New York - SNAP 8: TANF (2007- 2012) New York - SNAP TANF (2013- 2020) New York - WIC North Carolina - SNAP 8: TANF North Carolina WIC North Dakota - SNAP TANF North Dakota - WIC North Dakota/South Dakota, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Enrollment data North Da kota/South Dakota, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe - WIC Ohio 211 Ohio - SNAP TANF Ohio W1C Oklahoma -SNAP TANF Oklahoma WIC Oklahoma, Chickasaw Nation - WIC Oklahoma, Citizen Potawatomi Nation - WIC Oklahoma, Muscogee (Creek) Nation WIC Oregon SNAP (2004-2014) Oregon - SNAP TANF (2015-2021) Oregon - WIC (JSP) - Driver?s License SNAP TANF WIC Puerto Rico SNAP TANF 10.13.16 12.15.14 2.10.15 11.25.14 'x 10.1.15 12.8.11 10.5.16 11.15.16 'x 8 'x I (2.23.16) 5.5.14 10.17.16 1.12.17 'x 'x 2.1.17 CUnited States Bureau 000658 State Contacted Type of Data 1? Declined participation State Contact Status Responded/ Acknowledgement of Contact Active Discussions Rhode island SNAP WIC Rhode Island - TANF South Carolina -SNAP 8i. TANF South Carolina - WIC South Dakota - SNAP 8: TANF South Dakota, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe - WIC Tennessee SNAP TANF Tennessee - WIC Texas Houston HMIS Texas SNAP TANF Texas - WIC Utah - SNAP 8t TANF Utah - WIC Vermont - SNAP 8t TANF Vermont WIC Virginia - SNAP (2009-2016) Virginia Virginia - WIC Washington Confederated Tribes of the Coivilie Reservation - Enrollment Data Washington SNAP 8: TANF Washington - WIC West Virginia SNAP TANF West Virginia - WIC Wisconsin - SNAP Wisconsin - TANF Wisconsin WIC Wisconsin Care Subsidy (200&2009) Wyoming - SNAP Wyoming-TANF Wyoming - WIC CUnited States \8 Agreement in Draft Review Agreement for Signature I 2/22/18 Signed Agreement 3.2.16 3.31.16 4.17.17 11.22.16 2.23.15 10.24.16 6.5.17 5.19.14 Data Transferred 000656 DRAFF- DO NOT DISTRIBUTE -- DRAFT Memoranda of UnderstandingUVlOU) Updates: Citizenship Data 3-19-2018 Summary The Census Bureau needs to acquire citizenship data from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the State Department to augment the information on the "Numident" file from the Social Security Administration (SSA). These data can potentially be used to supplement information provided by respondents on the 2020 Census or, alternatively, to produce block level data on citizenship. The Census Bureau is currently in discussion with USCIS to obtain data on naturalizations and the State Department to obtain data on visas and passports. USCIS is currently reviewing a draft agreement and has sent over national summary level data for the years 2014- 2017 indicating the number ofapplications (naturalizations) with Security Numbers (SSN). The Census Bureau sent a formal request describing its need for the passport and visa data, with the expectation that further discussions will occur once the State Department has reviewed the request. The Census Bureau?s current agreement with SSA will expire this year, so as part of the renegotiation process the Census Bureau reached out to its partners at SSA to describe the potential use of the Numident, as a primary source of estimates on citizenship for the 2020 Census. SSA is Currently reviewing this Information. _Federal Agency Update Status 7 USCIS U.S. Citizenship Pending USCIS review of and immigration USCIS provided Services Summary data for number of applications. State U.S. State Department Sent request letter to Deputy Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, explaining need for passport data and completing Dos MOU Update 000660 DRAFT- DO NOT DISTRIBUTE - DRAFT questionnaire; awaiting response. SSA Social Security Administration Pending SSA reaction and response, expected end of next week. MOU Update 000668 01212345 67ÿ9 ÿ 67 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ"#$%&$'ÿ(#' ÿ)%*'ÿ&$ÿ ++ "ÿ#$ÿ,-.&)ÿ4/ÿ2345 ÿ0 ÿ671 23 9 45,6 78ÿ9:;<<7=>7>ÿ,=?ÿ67=,@ A7> >BC45,6 78ÿA:;<ÿ,=?ÿ7D6@;E77> FG Hÿ0 G ÿ I 67Jÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ K%LÿM(# N ./ÿO &$Pÿ%$ÿ#++&" .ÿ#.ÿ Q-)#R ÿ. + .. Sÿ#ÿ&$ÿ'TO"(%- .ÿAAÿ#+ÿ"(%- .ÿ4ÿ#+ÿ(&'ÿ&) /ÿ*&))+T))Rÿ%$SÿU$#*&$P)R '* %.'ÿ#.ÿ%++&.Q'ÿ+%)' )Rÿ%'ÿ#ÿ( ÿ.T(ÿ#+ÿ%$Rÿ'% Q $ÿ. VT&. Sÿ#ÿO ÿQ%S ÿ#.ÿ'TO'".&O SÿORÿ(&QÿT$S .ÿ#%(ÿORÿ#. T$S .ÿ%T(#.&Rÿ#+ÿ(&'ÿ&) /ÿ'(%))ÿO ÿPT&)Rÿ#+ÿ- .WT.R/ÿ%$Sÿ'(%))ÿO ÿ+&$ Sÿ$#ÿQ#. ÿ(%$ÿX2/333ÿ#.ÿ&Q-.&'#$ Sÿ$#ÿQ#. (%$ÿ+&N ÿR %.'/ÿ#.ÿO#(Y KOLÿM(# N ./ÿO &$Pÿ%$ÿ#++&" .ÿ#.ÿ Q-)#R ÿ. + .. Sÿ#ÿ&$ÿ'TO"(%- .ÿAAÿ#+ÿ"(%- .ÿ4ÿ#+ÿ(&'ÿ&) : K4Lÿ*&))+T))Rÿ%$SÿU$#*&$P)RÿQ%U 'ÿ%ÿ+%)' ÿ" .&+&"% ÿ#.ÿ+&"&&#T'ÿ. T.$Zÿ#. K2LÿU$#*&$P)Rÿ#.ÿ*&))+T))Rÿ+T.$&'( 'ÿ#.ÿ"%T' 'ÿ#ÿO ÿ+T.$&'( S/ÿ#./ÿ(%N&$PÿO $ÿ'T"(ÿ%$ÿ#++&" .ÿ#.ÿ Q-)#R / U$#*&$P)Rÿ#.ÿ*&))+T))Rÿ+T.$&'( Sÿ#.ÿ"%T' Sÿ#ÿO ÿ+T.$&'( S/ÿS&. ")Rÿ#.ÿ&$S&. ")R/ÿ#ÿ( ÿ> ". %.Rÿ#.ÿ#ÿ%$Rÿ#( .ÿ#++&" . #.ÿ Q-)#R ÿ#+ÿ( ÿ? -%.Q $ÿ#+ÿ4#QQ ." ÿ#.ÿOT. %Tÿ#.ÿ%P $"Rÿ( . #+/ÿ%$Rÿ+%)' ÿ'% Q $ÿ#.ÿ+%)' ÿ&$+#.Q%&#$ *&(ÿ. + . $" ÿ#ÿ%$Rÿ&$VT&.Rÿ+#.ÿ*(&"(ÿ( ÿ*%'ÿ%T(#.&[ Sÿ%$Sÿ. VT&. Sÿ#ÿ"#)) "ÿ&$+#.Q%&#$ÿ-.#N&S Sÿ+#.ÿ&$ÿ(&'ÿ&) : ÿ '(%))ÿO ÿ+&$ Sÿ$#ÿQ#. ÿ(%$ÿX2/333ÿ#.ÿ&Q-.&'#$ Sÿ$#ÿQ#. ÿ(%$ÿ+&N ÿR %.'/ÿ#.ÿO#(Y K,TPYÿ\4/ÿ4]^0/ÿ"(Yÿ44^5/ÿ_5ÿ>%Yÿ4322ÿYL `a 0bca deÿd3fÿc2ga ab3ÿ3b02 C%' Sÿ#$ÿ&) ÿ4\/ÿBY>Y4Y/ÿ4]^2ÿ SY/ÿhh422/ÿ235/ÿ2^2/ÿ%$Sÿ' "&#$ÿ4002ÿ#+ÿ&) ÿ02/ÿBY>Y4Y/ÿ4]^2ÿ SY/ÿ ( 6TO)&"ÿ5 %)(ÿ%$SÿM )+%. ÿKiT$ ÿ45/ÿ4]2]/ÿ"(Yÿ25/ÿh5/ÿ0_ÿ>%Yÿ2\ÿZÿiT$ ÿ4]/ÿ4]05/ÿ"(Yÿ^32/ÿh2/ÿ_2ÿ>%Yÿ09] ZÿiT)Rÿ4^/ÿ4]0]/ÿ"(Yÿ\\5/ÿ&) ÿjA/ÿh_39/ÿ_\ÿ>%Yÿ004ÿZÿ> -Yÿ9/ÿ4]^3/ÿ"(Yÿ]43/ÿh2/ÿ_0ÿ>%Yÿ950ÿLY > "&#$ÿ"#$'#)&S% 'ÿ-%.ÿ#+ÿ' "&#$ÿ235ÿ#+ÿ&) ÿ4\/ÿBY>Y4Y/ÿ4]^2ÿ SY/ÿ*&(ÿ(%ÿ-%.ÿ#+ÿ' "&#$ÿ422ÿ#+ÿ'T"( &) ÿ*(&"(ÿQ%S ÿ'T"(ÿ' "&#$ÿ235ÿ%--)&"%O) ÿ#ÿ( ÿVT&$VT $$&%)ÿ" $'T' 'ÿ#+ÿQ%$T+%"T. .'/ÿ( ÿQ&$ .%) &$ST'.& '/ÿ%$Sÿ#( .ÿOT'&$ '' 'ÿK' ÿ'TO"(%- .ÿAÿ#+ÿ"(%- .ÿ^ÿ#+ÿ(&'ÿ. N&' Sÿ&) L/ÿ(%ÿ-%.ÿ#+ÿ' "&#$ 2^2ÿ#+ÿ'T"(ÿ&) ÿ*(&"(ÿQ%S ÿ'T"(ÿ' "&#$ÿ235ÿ%--)&"%O) ÿ#ÿ( ÿVT&$VT $$&%)ÿ" $'T' 'ÿ#+ÿP#N .$Q $' K' ÿ'TO"(%- .ÿAAAÿ#+ÿ"(%- .ÿ^ÿ#+ÿ(&'ÿ. N&' Sÿ&) L/ÿ%$Sÿ(%ÿ-%.ÿ#+ÿ'TO' "&#$ÿKOLÿ#+ÿ' "&#$ÿ4002ÿ#+ÿ&) ÿ02/ BY>Y4Y/ÿ4]^2ÿ SY/ÿ*(&"(ÿQ%S ÿ'T"(ÿ' "&#$ÿ235ÿ%--)&"%O) ÿ#ÿ( ÿS " $$&%)ÿ" $'T' 'ÿ#+ÿ(#T'&$PÿK' 'TO"(%- .ÿAAÿ#+ÿ"(%- .ÿ^ÿ#+ÿ(&'ÿ. N&' Sÿ&) LYÿ<#.ÿ. Q%&$S .ÿ#+ÿ' "&#$'ÿ422/ÿ235/ÿ%$Sÿ2^2ÿ#+ÿ&) ÿ4\/ÿBY>Y4Y/ 4]^2ÿ SY/ÿ%$Sÿ#+ÿ' "&#$ÿ4002ÿ#+ÿ&) ÿ02/ÿBY>Y4Y/ÿ4]^2ÿ SYÿK*(&"(ÿ' "&#$ÿ(%'ÿO $ÿ.%$'+ .. Sÿ&$ÿ&'ÿ $&. R #ÿ(&'ÿ. N&' Sÿ&) L/ÿ' ÿ?&'.&OT&#$ÿ %O) Y ,'ÿ' ÿ#Tÿ&$ÿ(&'ÿ. N&' Sÿ' "&#$/ÿ( ÿ-.#N&'&#$'ÿ. )% ÿ#ÿ%))ÿ&$N '&P%&#$'/ÿ'T.N R'/ÿ"#)) "&#$'ÿ#+ '%&'&"'/ÿ%$Sÿ" $'T' 'ÿ-.#N&S Sÿ+#.ÿ&$ÿ(&'ÿ&) /ÿ%$Sÿ#ÿ#++&" .'ÿ%'ÿ* ))ÿ%'ÿ Q-)#R '/ÿ*(&"(ÿ*%' -.#O%O)Rÿ( ÿ#.&P&$%)ÿ) P&')%&N ÿ&$ $Y 8 + . $" 'ÿ#ÿ( ÿ#++ $' 'ÿS '".&O Sÿ&$ÿ'TO' "&#$ÿKOLÿ#+ÿ(&'ÿ. N&' Sÿ' "&#$ÿ%'ÿO &$Pÿ+ )#$& '/ÿ* . #Q& Sÿ%'ÿ"#N . SÿORÿ' "&#$ÿ4ÿ#+ÿ&) ÿ45/ÿBY>Y4Y/ÿ4]^2ÿ SY/ÿ4.&Q 'ÿ%$Sÿ4.&Q&$%)ÿ6.#" ST. /ÿ")%''&+R&$P #++ $' 'Zÿ%$Sÿ*#.S'ÿkT-#$ÿ"#$N&"&#$ÿ( . #+kÿ%$SÿkT-#$ÿ"#$N&"&#$ÿ#+kÿ* . ÿ#Q& Sÿ%'ÿ'T.-)T'%P Y 4(%$P 'ÿ* . ÿQ%S ÿ&$ÿ-(.%' #)#PRÿ%$Sÿ%..%$P Q $Y 000662 414 •. .v..,: ' "" . 'DEC-14-2017 17:51 U.S. Department of Justice ( Justice Management Division Office ofGeneral Counsel Waahtngtorr. D.C. 20$30 DEC 12 t017 VIA CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT 7014 2120 0000 8064 4964 Dr.RonJarmin Performing the Non-Exclusive Functions and Duties of the Director U.S. Census Bureau United States Department of Commerce Washington, D.C. 2023~-0001 Re: Request To Reinstate Citizenship Question On 2020 Census Questionnaire Dear Dr. Jannin: The Department of Justice is committed to robust and evenhanded enforcement of the Nation's civil rights laws and to free and fair elections for all Americans. In furtherance of that commitment. I write on behalf of the Department to fonnally request that the Census Bureau reinstate on the 2020 Census questionnaire a question regarding citizenship, fonnerly included in the so-called "long form'' census. This data is critical to the Department's enforcement of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and its important protections against racial discrimination in voting. To fully enforce those requirements, the Department needs a reliable calculation of the citizen voting-age population in localities where voting rights violations are alleged or suspected. As demonstrated below, the decennial census questionnaire is the most appropriate vehicle for collecting that data, and reinstating a question on citizenship will best enable the Department to protect all American citizens' voting rights under Section 2. The Supreme Court has held that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits ''vote dilution" by state and local jurisdictions engaged in redistricting, which can occur when a racial group is improperly deprived of a single-member district in which it could form a majority. See Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 50 (1986). Multiple federal courts of appeals have held that, where citizenship rates are at issue in a vote--dilution case, citizen voting~age population is the proper metric for detennining whether a racial group could constitute a majority in a singlemember district. See, e.g., Reyes v. City ofFarmers Branch, 586 F.3d 1019, 1023-24 (5th Cir. 2009); Barnett v. City ofChicago, 141 F.3d 699, 704 (7th Cir. 1998); Negrn v. City ofMiami Beach, 113 F.3d 1563, 15 67-69 (11th Cir. 1997); Romero v. City ofPomona, 883 F.2d 1418, 1426 (9th Cir. 1989), overruled in part on other grounds by Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp., 914 F.2d 1136, 1141 (9th Cir. 1990}; see also LULAC v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399, 423-442 (2006) (analyzing vote-dilution claim by reference to citizen voting-age population). 000663 'DEC-14-2017 p. 03/ 04 ,, .. ;;.r'._ 17:52 . -' The purpose of Section 2's vote-dilution prohibition "is to facilitate participation ... in our political process" by preventing unlawful dilution of the vote on the basis of race. Campos v. City ofHouston, 113 F.3d 544, 548 (5th Cir. 1997). Importantly, "[t]he plain language of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act makes clear that its protections apply to United States citizens." ld Indeed, courts have reasoned that ''[t]he right to vote is one of the badges of citizenship" and that "[t]he dignity and very concept of citizenship are diluted if noncitizens are allowed to vote." Barnett, 141 F.3d at 704. Thus, it would be the wrong result for a legislature or a court to draw a single-member district in which a numerical racial minority group in a jurisdiction was a majority of the total voting-age population in that district but "continued to be defeated at the polls" because it was not a majority of the citizen voting-age population. Campos, 113 F.3d at 548. These cases make clear that, in order to assess and enforce compliance with Section 2's protection against discrimination in votin~ the Department needs to be able to obtain citizen voting-age population data for census blocks, block groups, counties, towns, and other locations where potential Section 2 violations are alleged or suspected. From 1970 to 2000, the Census Bureau included a citizenship question on the so-called "long form" questionnaire that it sent to approximately one in every six households during each decennial census. See, e.g., U.S. Census Bureau, Summary File 3:2000 Census ofPopulation & Housing-Appendix Bat B-7 (July 2007), available at https://www.census.gov/prodlcen2000/doc/sf3.pdf (last visited Nov. 22, 2017); U.S. Census Bureau, Index of Questions, available at https://www.census.gov/history/ www/through_the~decades!index_of_questions/ (last visited Nov. 22, 2017). For years, the Department used the data collected in response to that question in assessing compliance .with Section 2 and in litigation to enforce Section 2's protections against racial discrimination in voting. • • In the 2010 Census, however, no census questionnaire included a question regarding citizenship. Rather, following the 2000 Census, the Census Bureau discontinued the "long form" questionnaire and replaced it with the American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS is a sampling survey that is sent to only around one in every thirty·eight households each year and asks a variety of questions regarding demographic information, including citizenship. See U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Information Guide at 6, available at https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/programs"surveys/acs/about!ACS Information Guide.pdf Oast visited Nov. 22~ 2017). The ACS is currently the Census Bureau's only survey that collects information regarding citizenship and estimates citizen voting-age population. The 2010 redistricting cycle was the first cycle in which the ACS estimates provided the Census Bureau's only citizen voting-age population data. The Department and state and local jurisdictions therefore have used those ACS estimates for this redistricting cycle. The ACS, howevert does not yield the ideal data for such purposes for several reasons: • Jurisdictions conducting redistricting, and the Department in enforcing Section 2, already use the total population data from the census to determine compliance with the Constitution's one-person, one-vote requirement, see Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S. Ct. 1120 (Apr. 4, 2016). As a result. using the ACS citizenship estimates means relying on two different data sets, the scope and level of detail of which vary quite significantly. 2 000664 • .. _; ,~ • : DEC-14-2017 17:52 P. 04/04 .....~ ( • Because the ACS estimates are rolling and aggregated into one~year, three-year, and fiveyear estimates, they do not align in time with the decennial census data. Citizenship data from the decennial census, by contrast, would align in time with the total and voting-age population data from the census that jurisdictions already use in redistricting. • The ACS estimates are reported at a ninety percent confidence level, and the margin of error increases as the sample size-and, thus, the geographic area-decreases. See U.S. Census Bureau, Glossary: Confidence interval (American Community Survey). available at https://www.census.gov/glossary/#term_ConfidenceintervalA.mericanCommunity Survey (last visited November 22, 2017). By contrast; decennial census data is a full count of the population. • Census data is reported to the census block level, while the smallest unit reported in the ACS estimates is the census block group. See American Community Survey Data 3, 5, 10. Accordingly, redistricting jurisdictions and the Department are required to perform further estimates and to interject further uncertainty in order to approximate citizen voting~age population at the level of a census block, which is the fundamental building block of a redistricting plan. Having all of the relevant population and citizenship data available in one data set at the census block level would greatly assist the redistricting process. For all of these reasons, the Department believes that deeermial census questionnaire data regarding citizenship, if available, would be more appropriate for use in redistricting and in Section 2 litigation than the ACS citizenship estimates. ( Accordingly. the Department formally requests that the Census Bureau reinstate into the 2020 Census a question regarding citizenship. We also request that the Census Bureau release this new data regarding citiZenship at the same time as it releases the other redistricting data, by April 1 following the 2020 Census. At the same time, the Department requests that the Bureau also maintain the citizenship question on the ACS, since such question is necessary, inter alia, to yield information for the periodic determinations made by the Bureau under Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act. 52 U.S.C. § 10503. Please let me know if you have any questions about this letter or wish to discuss this request. I can be reached at (202) 514-3452; or at Arthur.Gary@usdoj.gov. Sincerely yours. ~f-~ 0 Arthur E. Gary . "-~ General Counsel Justice Management Division ( 3 TOTAL P.04 000665 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline Underfunding, Canceled Tests Raise Fears About First‐Ever Online  3/19/2018 Census Asking about citizenship in the 2020 census is "unconstitutional,"  2/13/2018 according to 19 Democrats Opinion   Census Sabotage 2/9/2018 2020 Census will ask white people about origins but leave out  questions about Hispanic and Middle Eastern identities 2/1/2018 How a citizenship question on the 2020 Census could diminish  1/25/2018 Miami's political clout Potential citizenship question in census could shift power; GOP  1/25/2018 likely would gain; Democrats doubt accuracy 1/21/2018 Census 2020: High stakes for Illinois 1/15/2018 The Census Should Ask About Citizenship Census doesn't need citizenship question 1/9/2018 Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question 1/8/2018 Don't imperil the U.S. census 1/4/2018 This month, the Department of Justice requested to include a  12/30/2017 citizenship question on the 2020 Census 3/20/2018 2/16/2018 2/15/2018 2/5/2018 1/29/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 Trump's reelection campaign calls for adding citizenship question  to 2020 census amid criticism that he is politicizing the count Citizenship Question Would Convert Census Into a GOP Voter  Suppression Tool Census Question May Be Bad for Health Groups raise concerns about move to ask about citizenship on the  Census Census Change to Race, Ethnicity Questions Shelved by Trump  Administration Delay High stakes for Illinois Why Asking About Citizenship Could Make the Census Less  Accurate 1 Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census U.S. News & World Report 200 Newsweek Online New York Times Online, The 200 200 Newsweek Online 200 Miami Herald Online, The 200 Houston Chronicle Chicago Tribune Wall Street Journal Online, The USA Today USA Today Online Los Angeles Times 200 200 200 200 200 200 Newsweek Online 200 Washington Post Online, The 160 Daily Beast, The New York Times, The 160 160 USA Today Online 160 Wall Street Journal Online, The Chicago Tribune Online 160 160 New York Times Online, The 160 000666 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census 3/15/2018 3/11/2018 Why the census shouldn't try to count undocumented immigrants Los Angeles Times Online Groups oppose potential question on citizenship in next census Houston Chronicle Online/chron.com Hostility to this Census question is overblown USA Today Hostility to Census question is overblown USA Today Online The GOP sabotage of the census Washington Post, The Critics Say Questions About Citizenship Could Wreck Chances for an  Accurate Census New York Times Online, The Alarm at Proposal to Ask About Citizenship Status in Census New York Times Online, The The wrong question to ask Washington Post, The Request to Check Citizenship Stirs Fears for Census New York Times, The The question that could sabotage the census CNN Online Eyewitness Newsmakers KABC‐TV Fearing a Trump population undercount, Brown wants more  money for state census effort Sacramento Bee Online, The No citizen question on the census San Antonio Express‐News Online 3/6/2018 3/5/2018 Census respondents may be asked citizenship status in 2020 survey FOX News Channel Online We can't count on the Census Bureau New York Daily News Online 150 150 3/4/2018 2/19/2018 2/18/2018 2/18/2018 2/18/2018 2/17/2018 Rural Deep South at most risk of being overlooked in 2020 census States oppose census citizenship query All Mississippi residents need to be counted in census Census count vital to state Will the 2020 Census find you? Why citizenship could be a question on the 2020 Census Public‐health officials pan Justice Dept. bid to add citizenship  question to census Citizenship question on 2020 Census jeopardizes Florida's political  clout N.J. flags Census citizen question More than a dozen states object  to proposal, fearing immigrants won't respond Richmond Times‐Dispatch San Diego Union‐Tribune, The Clarion‐Ledger Online, The Clarion‐Ledger, The Los Angeles Daily News Orange County Register Online, The 150 150 150 150 150 150 Seattle Times Online, The 150 Orlando Sentinel Online 150 Star‐Ledger, The 150 1/11/2018 1/10/2018 1/9/2018 1/8/2018 1/5/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/2/2018 3/18/2018 2/15/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 160 150 150 150 000667 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 2/12/2018 2/8/2018 2/6/2018 1/30/2018 1/30/2018 1/26/2018 1/26/2018 1/26/2018 1/25/2018 1/25/2018 1/22/2018 1/21/2018 1/10/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/8/2018 1/7/2018 1/5/2018 1/4/2018 Dem AGs press Trump officials not to include citizenship question  in census Mayors to Census: Don't Blow This Citizenship question drives uncertainty over 2020 census California must stop Trump from sabotaging the census Opinion: California must stop Trump from sabotaging the census Commentary: A flawed Census could hurt Utah's rural areas and  marginalized communities Why 2020 Census should not ask about citizenship Commentary A flawed Census could hurt Utah’s rural areas and  marginalized communities Legislation Tries to Block Census from Adding Citizenship Question  as DOJ Requested Trump administration's census citizenship question could help rig  redistricting for Republicans Trump officials want 2020 census to ask about citizenship Trump officials want 2020 Census to ask about citizenship Trump Administration's Push For Citizenship Question On Census  Alarms Critics Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question GOP Weaponizing the Census for Voter Suppression Congress must guard accuracy of census GOP sabotaging census Census citizenship question sought EDITORIAL: Quick way to undermine the U.S. Census? Ask about  citizenship 3 Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census Hill Online, The CityLab Hill Online, The Mercury News Online, The Mercury News, The 150 150 150 150 150 Salt Lake Tribune Online Mercury News Online, The 150 150 Salt Lake Tribune, The 150 Pajamas Media 150 Daily Kos Washington Times, The Washington Times Online 150 150 150 KUHF‐FM ‐ Online Commercial Appeal Online News Journal Online, The Arizona Republic Online Journal News Online, The Des Moines Register Online Detroit Free Press Online Cincinnati Enquirer Online, The Daily Kos Star Tribune Asbury Park Press Dayton Daily News 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 Chicago Sun‐Times 150 000668 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline Outlet Name Should 2020 census ask Californians about their citizenship? Trump Justice Department Pushes For Citizenship Question On  12/31/2017 Census, Alarming Experts Trump Justice Department Pushes for Citizenship Question on  12/30/2017 Census, Alarming Experts 3/22/2018 Immigrants hiding from Trump imperil accuracy of US Census 3/20/2018 President Trump is sabotaging census, CA elections chief says 3/19/2018 U.S. census shouldn't ask about citizenship San Diego Union‐Tribune Online Media Impact Score ‐  Census 150 National Memo 150 HuffPost Miami Herald Online, The KABC‐TV Online South Florida Sun Sentinel Online 150 120 120 120 Dems push DOJ for answers on Census citizenship question request Peter Kirsanow, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights member, asks  about citizenship on census forms Civil rights commissioner enters raging debate by requesting  citizenship question on census Letters: Don't add unneeded questions to census Department of Justice seeking to add citizenship status question in  2020 census Census' citizenship question raises concern Why Asking About U.S. Citizenship Imperils the Census Hill Online, The 120 Washington Times, The 120 Washington Times Online Newsday Online 120 120 WTTG‐TV Online Newsday Online CityLab 120 120 120 Rural Deep South at most risk of being overlooked in 2020 Census Extra Doorbells, Satellite Dishes: How Cities Search for People the  Census May Miss Extra Doorbells, Satellite Dishes:  How Cities Search for People the  Census May Miss Yes: U.S. deserves accurate count of citizens, noncitizens US wants to add citizenship query to census, but group of states  and DC protest State fights Trump over citizenship question on census Census ‘citizenship' question sets off new California vs. Trump  immigration argument Upcoming 2020 Census sparks fears of citizenship question Miami Herald Online, The 120 New York Times, The 120 New York Times Online, The Orlando Sentinel 120 120 San Francisco Chronicle Online Los Angeles Daily News 120 120 Orange County Register Online, The Mercury News Online, The 120 120 1/3/2018 3/16/2018 3/16/2018 3/15/2018 3/13/2018 3/13/2018 3/1/2018 2/27/2018 2/26/2018 2/23/2018 2/22/2018 2/20/2018 2/19/2018 2/18/2018 2/17/2018 2/16/2018 4 000669 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 2/16/2018 2/15/2018 2/14/2018 The Census, Politicized Opinion   The Census, Politicized Latino Groups Push Back on Citizenship Question for Census New York Times, The New York Times Online, The Public News Service Media Impact Score ‐  Census 120 120 120 2/14/2018 2/14/2018 New York Times Online, The Star Tribune 120 120 2/13/2018 A Citizenship Question on the Census May Be Bad for Your Health Frey opposes U.S. Census question on citizenship Minneapolis mayor joins opposition to citizenship question in  Census Star Tribune Online 120 2/13/2018 Trump's pick to run the 2020 Census withdraws from consideration ThinkProgress 120 2/13/2018 California AG pushes back on proposal to ask citizenship in census Maine attorney general joins peers opposing citizenship question  in census State attorneys general: No citizenship question on census AG joins census question opposition States fight plan to ask of citizenship in census L.A. City Council Opposes Citizenship Question on Federal Census  Form Analysis   There's a big problem with how the census measures  race U.S. Census won't include Middle Eastern‐North African ethnic  category in 2020 survey Census citizenship question under review How a citizenship question on the 2020 Census could diminish  Miami's political clout Potential citizenship question for 2020 Census could shift power to  rural America Citizenship, Census and Congressional Seats Trump's illegally trying to put a notorious gerrymanderer in charge  of the 2020 census States are taking action to prevent census undercounting San Diego Union‐Tribune Online 120 Portland Press Herald Online Vancouver Sun Online, The Portland Press Herald San Diego Union‐Tribune, The 120 120 120 120 KEIB‐AM Online 120 Washington Post Online, The 120 WDIV‐TV Online CNN Online 120 120 Naked Politics ‐ The Miami Herald 120 Denver Post, The Wall Street Journal Online, The 120 120 Daily Kos Star Tribune Online 120 120 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/7/2018 2/6/2018 2/1/2018 1/26/2018 1/25/2018 1/25/2018 1/22/2018 1/20/2018 1/13/2018 Outlet Name 5 000670 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census HuffPost 120 1/10/2018 Census Uncertainty Spurs State Action To Prevent Undercounting Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn WBGO‐FM Online 120 1/10/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/8/2018 The Controversial Question DOJ Wants to Add to the U.S. Census The question that could sabotage the census The question that could sabotage the census GOP is sabotaging the census ‐‐ and ignoring the Constitution Atlantic Online, The Billings Gazette Online St. Louis Post‐Dispatch Online Denver Post, The 120 120 120 120 Los Angeles Times Online 120 Yahoo News WGCL‐TV Online 120 120 Daily Kos Crain's New York Business Online 120 100 Mother Jones Online 100 Mother Jones Online Idaho Business Review Online, The 100 100 Summit Daily News Online Hattiesburg American 100 100 Republican Online/MassLive.com, The 100 Washington Examiner Online Valley Times‐News, The Citizen Tribune Online Monitor Online 100 100 100 100 1/11/2018 Why the census shouldn't try to count undocumented immigrants The DOJ Wants A Citizenship Question On The Census. That Could  Blow Up The Whole Survey 1/3/2018 The question that could sabotage the census 1/3/2018 DoJ is pressing the Census Bureau to put a citizenship question on  12/30/2017 the 2020 short form. 3/20/2018 Why NYC will get screwed by the census‐again Trump Is Fundraising Off a Question That Would Scare Immigrants  3/19/2018 Away From the Census We Now Know Who's Behind the Trump Administration's Push to  Suppress Immigrant Participation in the Census 3/8/2018 Idaho Census 2020 planning underway 3/6/2018 Proposed question about citizenship status in the 2020 Census  2/28/2018 concerns immigrant rights advocates 2/18/2018 Residents must all be counted in census Massachusetts AG Maura Healey opposes Trump administration  2/13/2018 effort to add citizenship question to US census Census citizenship question gets pushback from 19 state attorneys  2/12/2018 general A Census for dummies 2/8/2018 1/24/2018 Asking citizenship question on census not a viable idea 1/21/2018 Can 2020 Census be saved? 1/4/2018 6 000671 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/21/2018 1/16/2018 Don't mix immigration with 2020 Census Michael Barone: Against new questions for the 2020 Census Monitor Online Washington Examiner Online Media Impact Score ‐  Census 100 100 1/16/2018 1/16/2018 1/14/2018 1/13/2018 1/11/2018 L.A. County Fights Plan to Add Citizenship Question to 2020 Census Michael Barone: Against new questions for the 2020 Census Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need to add citizenship question Undermining Census 2020 Trump Administration's Push For Citizenship Question On Census  Alarms Critics Census doesn't need citizenship question Census doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question City News Service, Inc. Washington Examiner Evening Sun, The Newark Advocate, The Public Opinion 100 100 100 100 100 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 Outlet Name 7 KUT‐FM ‐ Online 100 Evansville Courier & Press, The 100 Visalia Times‐Delta 100 Fort Collins Coloradoan Online 100 100 Statesman Journal Online Public Opinion Online 100 Stevens Point Journal Online 100 Herald Times Reporter Online 100 Kitsap Sun Online 100 Daily Journal Online, The 100 Tallahassee Democrat Online 100 Spectrum Online 100 Las Cruces Sun‐News Online 100 Marion Star Online 100 Ithaca Journal Online 100 Daily News Journal Online, The 100 Lansing State Journal Online 100 News‐Press Online, The 100 El Paso Times Online 100 Post‐Crescent Online 100 Press & Sun‐Bulletin Online 100 WBIR‐TV Online 100 Observer & Eccentric Newspapers ‐ Onlin100 000672 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline Outlet Name 1/4/2018 Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Battle Creek Enquirer Online Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Iowa City Press‐Citizen Online It's time for the Census Bureau to stop dividing America Bulletin Online Trump administration pushes for a change that could derail the  census Enterprise, The T he American people are dangerously divided, but one event  looming on the horizon has the potential to put us on a path  toward unity: the U.S. census.[CR‐LF][CR‐LF]If President Donald  Trump makes no changes, the U.S. Census B Bulletin, The Why the next census shouldn't try to count unauthorized  immigrants Times, The Wrongheaded question could derail 2020 census   Opinion    Journal Gazette Journal Gazette Online, The The Trump administration pushes for a change that could derail the  census Herald‐News Online, The 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 3/15/2018 3/10/2018 3/9/2018 3/4/2018 3/3/2018 2/25/2018 2/20/2018 2/20/2018 2/19/2018 2/16/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 EDITORIAL Other views ‐ A change that could derail the next census Census may be derailed Census may be derailed It's Common Sense To Everybody Except The Progressive Left Another view ; Count all people, as Constitution requires Count all the people, just as the Constitution says Rural South at risk of being undercounted in 2020 POLITICS Census rushes to respond to request to add citizenship question Why the 2020 census shouldn't ask about your citizenship status No: Question will jeopardize Florida and its political clout Should census ask about citizenship? Citizenship query proposed Should census ask about your citizenship? Don't ask about citizenship on census, California tells Trump State AGs gripe over citizenship question on 2020 census 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/6/2018 1/4/2018 8 Corpus Christi Caller‐Times Morning Sentinel Kennebec Journal WMAL‐AM Online San Antonio Express‐News San Antonio Express‐News Online Mobile Press‐Register Salon Salon Orlando Sentinel Orlando Sentinel San Francisco Chronicle Orlando Sentinel Online Sacramento Bee Online, The New York Daily News Online Media Impact Score ‐  Census 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 96 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 000673 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline Iowa joins a coalition of state attorneys general in opposing a  2/12/2018 citizenship question on the 2020 census The California impact if 2020 Census includes question about  citizenship status 2/8/2018 Where are you really from? 2/6/2018 1/31/2018 KQED Forum with Michael Krasny 1/27/2018 Smerconish 1/27/2018 Census citizenship question under legal review Will California lose a seat in Congress after the next census? You  1/25/2018 can bet Trump hopes so Why Democrats should be worried about the Census requesting  1/24/2018 citizenship info Could Trump's crackdown on immigration cost California a  1/17/2018 congressional seat? 1/15/2018 Playing politics with 2020 Census might backfire on Trump 1/14/2018 missing mississippians Mississippi's rural black, Hispanic communities risk  1/13/2018 underrepresentation in 2020 census Catherine Rampbell: The GOP is sabotaging this sacred mandate 1/7/2018 It's time to stop dividing America 1/6/2018 Catherine Rampell: The GOP is sabotaging this sacred mandate 1/5/2018 Trump Justice Department pushes for citizenship question on  census, alarming experts 1/3/2018 12/30/2017 DOJ pushing for citizenship question on census forms: report 3/22/2018 Omnibus boosts Census funding 3/20/2018 Trump campaign taps census question as a fund‐raising tool 3/19/2018 Do you want the next census to include citizenship question? 3/12/2018 Trump is Reshaping the Census to Reflect His Vision of America The Next Census Will Shape Children's Lives. Let's Make Sure We  Count Right 3/6/2018 2/27/2018 Trump Can Help Overcome Identity Politics 2/22/2018 Why the 2020 census shouldn't ask about your citizenship status 9 Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census Des Moines Register Online 90 KPCC‐FM Online Arkansas Democrat‐Gazette Online Forum ‐ KQED‐FM Smerconish ‐ CNN WDIV‐TV Online 90 90 90 90 90 San Diego Union‐Tribune Online 90 Fix ‐ The Washington Post, The 90 San Diego Union‐Tribune Online Plain Dealer, The Clarion‐Ledger, The 90 90 90 Clarion‐Ledger Online, The New Hampshire Union Leader Online Post‐Standard, The Salt Lake Tribune Online 90 90 90 90 Salon Hill Online, The Federal Computer Week Online Federal Computer Week Online USA Today Online Mother Jones Online 90 90 80 80 80 80 Education Week Online Wall Street Journal Online, The Rapid City Journal Online 80 80 80 000674 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 2/20/2018 2/19/2018 2/19/2018 2/18/2018 2/18/2018 2/14/2018 2/14/2018 2/13/2018 2/11/2018 2/10/2018 2/10/2018 2/9/2018 2/9/2018 2/7/2018 2/7/2018 2/6/2018 2/6/2018 2/6/2018 1/30/2018 1/27/2018 1/26/2018 1/26/2018 1/25/2018 1/25/2018 Outlet Name Can the Trump Administration Rig the Census? New Republic Online State fights on census question Inland Valley Daily Bulletin California battles Trump on census Long Beach Press‐Telegram Group of states protest bid to add citizenship query to census ::  WRAL.com WRAL‐TV Online N.J. opposes census citizenship question  More than a dozen states  object to proposal, fearing immigrants won't respond South Jersey Times A Citizenship Question on the Census May Be Bad for Your Health ::  WRAL.com WRAL‐TV Online Where are you really from? No, really? Miami Herald Online, The Hawaii joins states opposed to census citizenship question Honolulu Star‐Advertiser Online Census deciding whether to ask about citizenship Town Talk, The Galvin fears Trump is 'sabotaging' 2020 census Telegram & Gazette Online Galvin fears Trump is ‘sabotaging' 2020 census Telegram & Gazette Groups raise concerns about move to ask about citizenship on the  Census Town Talk Online Citizen status on the Census? Montgomery Advertiser Massachusetts official warns of possible census undercount Miami Herald Online, The Trump trying to ‘sabotage' 2020 census, Galvin says Republican, The Massachusetts' Galvin worried Trump administration 'sabotaging'  2020 census Telegram & Gazette Online Secretary of State worried Trump administration is 'sabotaging'  2020 census Metro New York Online President Donald Trump wants to 'sabotage' 2020 census Republican Online/MassLive.com, The Ensure the Census Counts Everyone U.S. News & World Report Critical Census test to start on schedule, as long as the government  doesn't shut down ‐‐ FCW Federal Computer Week Online Census Bureau changes course on key 2020 question Federal Computer Week Online DACA outline in line of fire Chicago Tribune If Trump's citizenship question is on census, Illinois could lose a  seat in Congress Chicago Tribune Online Why we need to count citizens in the 2020 census Washington Examiner Online 10 Media Impact Score ‐  Census 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 000675 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/25/2018 1/24/2018 1/19/2018 1/18/2018 1/14/2018 1/13/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 Outlet Name CAPITOL JOURNAL America will have no racial majority by 2042 Why Asking About Citizenship Could Make the Census Less  Accurate :: WRAL.com It's time for the Census Bureau to stop dividing America, say Ward  Connerly and Mike Gonzalez VOICE OF THE PEOPLE Hostility to Census question is overblown Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn The question that could sabotage the census The question that could sabotage the census The question that could sabotage the census The question that could sabotage the census The question that could sabotage the census The question that could sabotage the census The question that could sabotage the census The question that could sabotage the census The question that could sabotage the census The question that could sabotage the census The question that could sabotage the census The question that could sabotage the census The question that could sabotage the census The question that could sabotage the census The question that could sabotage the census The question that could sabotage the census The question that could sabotage the census Hostility to Census question is overblown Hostility to Census question is overblown Hostility to Census question is overblown 11 Los Angeles Times Chicago Tribune Online Media Impact Score ‐  Census 80 80 WRAL‐TV Online 80 Press of Atlantic City Online Chicago Tribune Newark Advocate, The 80 80 80 Wisconsin Public Radio ‐ Online 80 WVXU‐FM ‐ Online Santa Maria Times Online Arizona Daily Star Online World Online Casper Star‐Tribune Online Lincoln Journal Star Online Montana Standard Online Times & Democrat Online, The Southern Illinoisan Online Pantagraph Online Fremont Tribune Online Quad‐City Times Online Journal Times Online Post‐Star Online Winona Daily News Online Corvallis Gazette‐Times Online Daily News Online, The Bismarck Tribune Online Fort Collins Coloradoan Online Kitsap Sun Online Daily Journal Online, The 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 000676 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/9/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/7/2018 1/6/2018 1/6/2018 Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census Marion Star Online 80 Post‐Crescent Online 80 Press & Sun‐Bulletin Online 80 WBIR‐TV Online 80 Observer & Eccentric Newspapers ‐ Onlin80 Battle Creek Enquirer Online 80 Iowa City Press‐Citizen Online 80 Milford Daily News, The 80 Register‐Guard Online, The 80 Tri‐City Herald Online 80 Akron Beacon Journal Online 80 Hostility to Census question is overblown Hostility to Census question is overblown Hostility to Census question is overblown Hostility to Census question is overblown Hostility to Census question is overblown Hostility to Census question is overblown Hostility to Census question is overblown OUR VIEW Political maneuvers sabotaging the census It's time for the Census Bureau to stop dividing America Catherine Rampell: Will the census count everyone? Not because of cavalier threats about nuclear apocalypse and  attempted erosion of First Amendment rights (OK, maybe those  things, too). Because our federal government is failing to execute  one of its most basic constitutional duties: the decennial census. Milford Daily News, The 1/6/2018 It's time for the Census Bureau to stop dividing America 1/5/2018 Spokesman‐Review Online, The House Democrats push back against DOJ adding citizenship  question to 2020 Census 1/5/2018 Washington Examiner Online Census questions only divide us 1/5/2018 Spokesman‐Review, The I've been a census enumerator. Asking about citizenship is a  terrible idea. 1/4/2018 Washington Post Online, The House Democrats push back against DOJ adding citizenship  question to 2020 Census 1/4/2018 Washington Examiner Alarm at proposal to ask about citizenship status in census 1/3/2018 Honolulu Star‐Advertiser Online The question that could sabotage the census 1/3/2018 WSMV‐TV Online The question that could sabotage the census 1/3/2018 KMOV‐TV Online The question that could sabotage the census 1/3/2018 WFSB‐TV Online The question that could sabotage the census 1/3/2018 KPTV‐TV Online The Trump administration pushes for a change that could derail the  census 1/3/2018 Washington Post Online, The 12/30/2017 DOJ Trying to Add Citizenship Question to Census: Report Daily Beast, The 12 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 000677 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline Outlet Name C‐SPAN Washington Journal ‐ C‐SPAN C‐SPAN3 KCRA 3 Reports at 6 ‐ KCRA‐TV Media Impact Score ‐  Census 72 72 64 64 Stars and Stripes Online National Journal Bakersfield Californian Online Texarkana Gazette Online Spectrum News Buffalo 60 60 60 60 60 Monitor Online 60 2/22/2018 2/15/2018 2/15/2018 2/14/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/12/2018 2/8/2018 2/7/2018 2/7/2018 2/7/2018 Public Affairs Events Washington Journal Politics and Public Policy Today KCRA 3 Reports at 6PM Trump's reelection campaign calls for adding citizenship question  to 2020 census A Sense of the Census Numbers Count ‐ and in Kern County, they count a lot Rural Deep South  at most risk of being overlooked in census Capital Tonight Fearing census undercount, local efforts combat limited resources,  ‘anti‐Latino environment' Extra Doorbells, Satellite Dishes: How Cities Search for People the  Census May Miss :: WRAL.com We're No. 2! (And No. 13) Olympic notebook: Alaska is No. 2! (And No. 13) L.A. City Council Opposes Citizenship Question on Census State attorneys general: No citizenship question on censu State AGs opposed to citizenship question on census KGO Noon News Madeleine Brand Show Spectrum News All Morning at 10:30 Morning Edition KUHF‐FM WRAL‐TV Online 60 Alaska Dispatch News Online 60 Anchorage Daily News 60 City News Service, Inc. 60 WHIO‐TV Online 60 Chico Enterprise‐Record 60 KGO Noon News ‐ KGO‐AM 60 60 Take Two ‐ KPCC‐FM Spectrum News Albany 60 Morning Edition ‐ NPR/National Public Ra60 KUHF‐FM 60 2/7/2018 2/7/2018 2/6/2018 2/6/2018 LOS ANGELES (CNS) ‐ A Los Angeles City Council committee today  opposed a proposal to include a citizenship question on the 2020  Census over concerns it could lead to inaccurate counts and an  unfair allocation of federal funding by discouraging immigrants STATE BRIEFS White Americans: Where are you really from? White Americans: Tell us where you are really from City News Service, Inc. Enterprise, The South Florida Sun Sentinel Online Corpus Christi Caller‐Times 2/1/2018 2/1/2018 3/22/2018 1/17/2018 3/21/2018 3/20/2018 3/10/2018 3/4/2018 2/26/2018 2/25/2018 13 60 60 60 60 000678 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline California Secretary of State Concerned Trump Administration is  1/31/2018 Sabotaging the Census Big questions unanswered about the 2020 census. Big money  1/29/2018 depends on the answers 1/29/2018 WAVY News 10 at 4pm The Republican assault on knowledge has a new possible target:  1/28/2018 the Census 1/27/2018 KYW‐AM 1/27/2018 Immigration's vexing issues 1/26/2018 Headlines 1/25/2018 KUHF‐FM 1/23/2018 Numbers game 1/16/2018 Trump's revenge on California: The Census 1/16/2018 Morning Edition 1/14/2018 Census change may be costly Mississippi's rural black, Hispanic communities risk  1/13/2018 underrepresentation in 2020 census The question that could sabotage the census 1/9/2018 Rampell: The GOP is sabotaging this sacred mandate 1/8/2018 Editorial: Snapshots from the nation's press 1/8/2018 RAMPELL: A sacred mandate sacrificed 1/8/2018 GOP is sabotaging this sacred mandate 1/8/2018 The GOP is sabotaging this sacred mandate 1/7/2018 The GOP is sabotaging this sacred mandate 1/7/2018 On the Media 1/6/2018 KUHF‐FM 1/6/2018 On Being 1/6/2018 The GOP is sabotaging this sacred mandate 1/5/2018 DOJ calling for citizenship question to be put in 2020 Census:  12/30/2017 Report New York risks undercount in upcoming 2020 census, city's chief  3/23/2018 demographer says 14 Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census KQED‐FM Online 60 Yakima Herald‐Republic Online WAVY News 10 at 4 PM ‐ WAVY‐TV 60 60 Daily Kos 60 KYW‐AM 60 Newsday Online 60 WBBM‐AM 60 KUHF‐FM 60 Brownsville Herald Online, The 60 POLITICO Online 60 Morning Edition ‐ NPR/National Public Ra60 Monitor Online 60 Hattiesburg American Online La Crosse Tribune Online Casper Star‐Tribune Online Daily Camera Online Rapid City Journal Daytona Beach News‐Journal, The Burlington Free Press New Hampshire Union Leader, The On the Media ‐ WNYC‐AM KUHF‐FM On Being with Krista Tippett News & Observer Online, The 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 Washington Examiner Online 60 POLITICO States 50 000679 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 3/23/2018 3/22/2018 3/20/2018 3/20/2018 3/16/2018 3/16/2018 3/7/2018 3/1/2018 2/28/2018 2/27/2018 2/26/2018 2/24/2018 2/22/2018 2/19/2018 2/16/2018 2/16/2018 2/16/2018 2/16/2018 2/16/2018 Adding citizenship question to 2020 Census is untimely,  unnecessary and unwise Sens. Menendez, Booker, Hirono Introduce Bill to Prevent Trump  Administration From Politicizing Census With Citizenship Question Judiciary Democrats demand answers from DOJ on potential 2020  Census citizenship question   Orange County Breeze Rep. Meng Presses Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross on Census  Citizenship Question During House Hearing Divisive Census Question Could Harm California's Communities Judiciary Democrats Demand Answers from DOJ on Potential  Census Citizenship Question Fearing undercount, Santa Clara County will spend $1M now on a  census 2 years away Census Has No Place Asking About Immigration Status Liberals Voice Opposition to Trump Admin Attempts to Include  Citizenship Questions in Census Why It Is Critical to Make the 2020 Census Count Census rushes to respond to request to add citizenship question Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census Sampan ‐ Online 50 Targeted News Service 50 Orange County Breeze Online 50 Targeted News Service U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein 50 50 U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein 50 Silicon Valley Business Journal City on a Hill Press ‐ Online 50 50 Washington Free Beacon Reform Judaism Online TucsonSentinel.com 50 50 50 Census Rushes to Respond to Request to Add Citizenship Question ProPublica Labor, community activists push back against U.S. Census  citizenship question New York Amsterdam News Online AG Frosh on Citizenship Question on 2020 Census Calvert Beacon Debate heats up about citizenship question in next Census Constitution Daily Stats for Stories: Chinese New Year Targeted News Service After Budget Deal, Policymakers Should Boost 2018 Funding for the  2020 Census Targeted News Service Jewish Groups Send Letter to Department of Commerce on  Addition of Citizenship Question to 2020 Census Targeted News Service Jewish Organizations Send Letter to Department of Commerce on  Addition of Citizenship Question to 2020 Census Targeted News Service 15 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 000680 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 2/15/2018 2/14/2018 2/14/2018 2/14/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/12/2018 2/12/2018 2/12/2018 2/12/2018 2/12/2018 2/12/2018 2/12/2018 Schneiderman leads coalition of 19 AGs opposing citizenship  question on 2020 census Thomas Knapp: The census for dummies, including Justice  Department Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census Madison County Courier ‐ Online 50 Pahrump Valley Times ‐ Online 50 The census for dummies (including the U.S. Department of Justice) Montgomery Herald ‐ Online, The NJ Attorney General: We don't need a citizenship question on the  census » The Lakewood Scoop » The heartbeat of the lakewood  community Lakewood Scoop ‐ Online, The The Census for Dummies (Including the US Department of Justice) Citizenship Question On 2020 Census Would Be Unconstitutional Hawai‘i Joins Coalition Opposing Citizenship Question on 2020  Census Are you a citizen? N.J. says Census should not ask the question A.G. Schneiderman Leads Coalition Of 19 AGs Opposing Citizenship  Question On 2020 Census AG Healey warns adding citizenship question would jeopardize  accuracy of 2020 Census and undercount Massachusetts  population NY AG Leads Coalition of 19 AGs Opposing Citizenship Question on  2020 Census Citizenship question raises fears about census ATTORNEY GENERAL GREWAL JOINS NATIONAL COALITION OF  ATTORNEYS GENERAL OPPOSING CITIZENSHIP QUESTION ON 2020  U.S. CENSUS Hawaii Joins Coalition of 19 AGS Opposing Citizenship Question on  2020 Census AG Grewal Joins National Coalition of Attorneys General Opposing  Citizenship Question on 2020 U.S. Census 16 50 50 Vernal Express ‐ Online Sierra Sun ‐ Online 50 50 Big Island Now NJ.com 50 50 LongIsland.com 50 Sampan ‐ Online 50 Independent View, The Daily News Online, The 50 50 US Fed News 50 Targeted News Service 50 Targeted News Service 50 000681 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census 2/12/2018 ATTORNEY GENERAL BECERRA TO TRUMP ADMINISTRATION:  CITIZENSHIP QUESTION ON 2020 CENSUS WOULD BE  UNCONSTITUTIONAL US Fed News 50 2/9/2018 Census Map Reveals Low Response Rate among Valley Residents KRGV‐TV ‐ Online 50 2/8/2018 2/8/2018 Trump Admin Sneakily Trying to ‘Sabotage' Census for Blue States Channel 5 News at 6pm Law & Crime 50 Newschannel 5 at 6 Saturday ‐ KRGV‐TV 50 2/8/2018 The census for dummies (including the U.S. Department of Justice) Fayette Tribune ‐ Online The Census for Dummies (Including the US Department of Justice)    Citizens Journal Citizens Journal Letter: The Census for dummies (including the US Department of  Justice) Daily Lobo, University of New Mexico L.A. City Council Committee Opposes Including Citizenship  Question On 2020 Census SFV Media Mayors alarmed by 'unprecedented challenges' ahead of 2020  census StateScoop Galvin worried Trump admin is ‘sabotaging' 2020 Census Herald News, The Galvin worried Trump is 'sabotaging' 2020 census Patriot Ledger, The The census for dummies (including the US Department of Justice) –  Editorial by Thomas L. Knapp Herald‐Chronicle ‐ Online The Census for Dummies Lebanon Reporter Online Why 2020 Census should not ask about citizenship Lake County Record‐Bee Online TEXAS VIEW: Don't dilute the Census Odessa American Online Census Bureau to keep guidelines on race/ethnicity from 2010 New York Amsterdam News Online Trump Administration Census Changes Endanger Accurate View of  US Diversity Nonprofit Quarterly, The ‐ Online Tara Bahrampour ‐ Illegals won't be hired as census‐takers in 2020,  staff is told Jewish World Review Justice Department Asks Census Bureau to Include Question About  Citizenship; Critics Say it Will Undermine Accurate Count India‐West ‐ Online 2/8/2018 2/8/2018 2/7/2018 2/7/2018 2/7/2018 2/7/2018 2/6/2018 2/6/2018 2/1/2018 2/1/2018 2/1/2018 1/31/2018 1/31/2018 1/26/2018 17 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 000682 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/26/2018 1/26/2018 1/24/2018 1/24/2018 1/23/2018 1/21/2018 1/21/2018 1/20/2018 1/19/2018 1/18/2018 1/18/2018 1/17/2018 1/17/2018 1/17/2018 1/17/2018 1/14/2018 1/14/2018 1/12/2018 1/12/2018 1/11/2018 1/10/2018 Outlet Name Opinion: Why 2020 Census should not ask about citizenship Arab American Institute Issues Statement on 2020 Census Census Will Discount Minorities   www.qgazette.com Census Will Discount Minorities Other Voices: Don't mix immigration with the 2020 census EDITORIAL: Don't mix immigration with 2020 Census COMMENTARY: Can 2020 Census be saved? Unlike Obama, Trump Actually Wants to Count the Number of Real  US Citizens in the Census Board rejects ‘citizenship' question on 2020 census East Bay Times Targeted News Service Western Queens Gazette ‐ Online Queens Gazette Longview News‐Journal (TX) Monitor, The (McAllen, TX) Monitor, The (McAllen, TX) Media Impact Score ‐  Census 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 USA Radio Network Our Weekly Online 50 50 L.A. County Fights Plan to Add Citizenship Question to 2020 Census Eastern Group Publications Inc. ‐ Online 50 Trump's 2020 Census May Cost California Congressional Seat by  Counting Citizens InformationLiberation 50 2020 vision: California Democrats fire back at DOJ proposal to ask  about citizenship on census CalWatchDog 50 L.A. County fights plan to add citizenship question to 2020 census Reps. Jayapal, Chu, Grijalva, Richmond Call on Secretary Ross to  Reject Citizenship Questions on 2020 Census Rep. Soto Leads Hispanic Caucus Letter Opposing Citizenship  Question in 2020 Census PERRYMAN: Accurate census count essential to government,  businesses Citizenship should not be in Census DOJ Request for Census Citizenship Question is Unnecessary and  Harmful Census Bureau Must Stop Dividing America Rep. Gonzalez Urges Attorney General Sessions to Reconsider  Changes to U.S. Census Questionnaire Civil and Human Rights Coalition Calls on Secretary Ross to Reject  DOJ Request to Undermine 2020 Census 18 AV Times, The 50 Targeted News Service 50 Targeted News Service 50 Odessa American Online Current‐Argus 50 50 People for the American Way News India Times 50 50 Targeted News Service 50 NW Facts Newspaper Online, The 50 000683 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/10/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/7/2018 1/7/2018 1/6/2018 1/5/2018 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 Citizenship question could cloud census; Former officials, civil  rights advocates fear query will threaten accurate count in 2020 Republicans sabotaging the U.S. census Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Counting undocumented immigrants in the census Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Sen. Carper, Colleagues to Trump Administration: Reject Census  Citizenship Question Sen. Cortez Masto, Senators Urge Commerce Secretary to Reject  DOJ Request to Include Citizenship Question in 2020 Census Trump Justice Department pushes for citizenship question on  Census Dianne Feinstein Joins Senators in Letter to Trump Administration:  Reject Census Citizenship Question Guest editorial ‐ Why census shouldn't count undocumented Census Bureau Must Stop Dividing America ‐ News India Times Senators to Trump Administration: Reject Census Citizenship  Question Quick way to undermine the U.S. Census? Ask about citizenship Trump administration pushes for a change that could derail the  census Another view: The Trump administration pushes for a change that  could derail the census Support the Census A change that could derail the census 19 Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census The Houston Chronicle ExpressNews Times Recorder Online Bucyrus Telegraph‐Forum ‐ Online Wisconsin State Farmer ‐ Online Times Record News Online Holland Sentinel, The Port Clinton News Herald Online News Leader Online Alamogordo Daily News Online Marshfield News‐Herald Online 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Targeted News Service 50 Targeted News Service 50 Louisiana Weekly, The 50 Sierra Sun ‐ Online Times Record News News India‐Times ‐ Online 50 50 50 U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein Sun Times Online, The 50 50 Central Maine Today Media 50 Northwest Herald Online EconoSpeak Corpus Christi Caller‐Times Online 50 50 50 000684 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 1/2/2018 1/2/2018 12/30/2017 12/30/2017 12/30/2017 12/30/2017 12/30/2017 2/13/2018 2/7/2018 1/10/2018 3/23/2018 3/23/2018 3/22/2018 3/21/2018 Letter to Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross: Reject a New  Citizenship Question on the 2020 Census Reps. Serrano, Meng Send Letter to Commerce Secretary Wilber  Ross on Justice Department Proposal to Include Citizenship  Question in 2020 Census Justice Dept. pushes for citizenship question on U.S. Census Democrats Challenge Proposed Citizenship Question on 2020  Census Citizenship question on Census alarming experts Trump Justice Department Request For Citizenship Question Could  Sabotage 2020 Census, Experts Say ‐ California Political Review Trump Justice Department Pushes for Citizenship Question on  Census, Alarming Experts BREAKING: Trump Makes Alarming New Move Targeting Every  Immigrant In The U.S. Trump Justice Department Pushes for Citizenship Question on  Census, Alarming Experts Trump Justice Department Pushes for Citizenship Question on  Census, Alarming Experts Trump Justice Department Pushes for Citizenship Question on  Census, Alarming Experts Fox 45 Morning News Spectrum News All Day at 1:30 ABC 10 News at 6 As a lawyer, he worked for immigrants. As a lawmaker, he works  against them. [BC‐MCT‐INTERNATIONAL‐BJT] Clark County outpaces Multnomah County for new residents The Daily 202: Illinois primary results show angry bases in both  parties demanding more purity 20 Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census Targeted News Service 50 Targeted News Service Boston Banner, The 50 50 Government Executive NJToday.net ‐ Online 50 50 California Political News & Views 50 Blacklisted News 50 If You Only News 50 Boise Weekly Online 50 ProPublica 50 MSN News US (en) Fox 45 Morning News ‐ WBFF‐TV Spectrum News Albany News 10 at 6 ‐ KXTV‐TV 50 48 48 48 Washington Post Online, The Post‐Bulletin Online Columbian Online, The 40 40 40 Washington Post Online, The 40 000685 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 3/20/2018 3/19/2018 3/19/2018 3/18/2018 3/16/2018 3/16/2018 3/16/2018 3/15/2018 3/14/2018 3/13/2018 3/12/2018 3/12/2018 3/11/2018 3/8/2018 3/8/2018 3/8/2018 3/8/2018 3/8/2018 3/7/2018 3/7/2018 Outlet Name The Daily 202: Trump's increasingly confrontational approach to  Mueller enabled by congressional GOP timidity Washington Post Online, The Trump campaign: Do you want the next Census to include  citizenship question? WBIR‐TV Online Quick Takes on the News: A Sense of the Census National Journal Daily Extra AM GOP rivals for Senate clash at Va. forum Washington Post, The Australia looks into resettling white South African farmers who say  they are persecuted Washington Post Online, The ‘I had no idea' of facts for Trudeau meeting Waterbury Republican‐American Online Puerto Ricans are still dying in Maria's wake CNN Online Trump owns up to making things up Gazette Online, The We're Off the same boat Washington Post, The She saw anti‐immigration politicians as hypocrites. So she launched  ‘resistance genealogy.' Washington Post Online, The The appointee behind the move to add ‘citizenship' to the Census Louisiana Weekly Online Reshaping the Census A Day in the Life of the Universe The Trump appointee behind the move to add a citizenship  question to the census ‐ The CT Mirror Connecticut Mirror, The The Trump Appointee Reshaping the Census Has a Long History of  Voter Suppression AlterNet Online The Trump Appointee Behind the Move to Add a Citizenship  Question to the Census MSN News US (en) John Gore Behind DOJ Letter Urging Census Department to Add  Citizenship Question to Census Survey Election Law From the census to gerrymandering, citizens must demand honesty  if we want America to thrive Pacific Northwest Inlander ‐ Online The Trump Appointee Behind the Move to Add a Citizenship  Question to the Census ProPublica Sylvia Garcia looks to make history in 29th Congressional District Houston Chronicle Online/chron.com Exodus from Puerto Rico grows as island struggles to rebound from  Hurricane Maria Washington Post Online, The 21 Media Impact Score ‐  Census 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 000686 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 3/7/2018 3/7/2018 3/7/2018 3/6/2018 3/6/2018 3/6/2018 3/6/2018 3/4/2018 3/4/2018 3/2/2018 3/2/2018 2/28/2018 2/28/2018 2/27/2018 2/27/2018 2/27/2018 2/27/2018 2/26/2018 2/24/2018 Outlet Name Leaving their hearts behind in Puerto Rico Washington Post, The ELECTION 2018; History in the making; Garcia poised to become  first Houston Latina in Congress Houston Chronicle Immigrants Abandon Public Nutrition Services New York Times, The U.S. Census Shouldn't Ask About Citizenship Bloomberg News Online Spooked by Trump Proposals, Immigrants Abandon Public Nutrition  Services New York Times Online, The Joseph Salvo is responsible for making sure the census counts  every New Yorker am New York ‐ Online O'Rourke facing two challengers in Democratic primary for U.S.  Senate KVIA‐TV Online 11 battle to replace Democrat Gene Green in Congress Houston Chronicle Online/chron.com Rural Deep South at most risk of being overlooked in census Tuscaloosa News Online, The The Department of Justice Pushes for Citizenship Question on 2020  Census Pacific Standard Online TODAY IN HISTORY; EDITORIAL; Desperate acts or strategic moves  for county judge candidates down the stretch?; LETTERS TO THE  EDITOR; Good judgment comes from experience, bad judgment CA Could Lose Political Clout: Climate of Fear Could Lead to Huge  California Census Undercount Would‐be citizens get a boost in Arlington Honduran teen makes last bid in Chicago immigration court to stay  in U.S. CA Could Lose Political Clout: Climate of Fear Could Lead to Huge  California Census Undercount Ex‐Census Director: Citizenship Question Is 'a Tremendous Risk' Honduran girl makes last bid to stay in U.S. Censuis efforts aim to achieve full count U.S. Citizenship And Immigration Services Omit 'Nation Of  Immigrants' From Mission Statement 22 Media Impact Score ‐  Census 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Houston Chronicle 40 California Political News & Views Washington Post, The 40 40 Chicago Tribune Online 40 CityWatch Atlantic Cities Chicago Tribune Brownsville Herald Online, The 40 40 40 40 NPR/National Public Radio Online 40 000687 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 2/19/2018 2/18/2018 2/15/2018 2/15/2018 2/15/2018 2/15/2018 2/14/2018 2/14/2018 2/14/2018 2/14/2018 2/14/2018 2/14/2018 2/14/2018 2/14/2018 2/14/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/12/2018 2/12/2018 2/12/2018 2/9/2018 Outlet Name FDR orders Japanese‐Americans to be interned in camps, Feb. 19,  1942 POLITICO Online Chain migration Washington Post, The California AG Threatens to Sue if Trump Administration Places  Citizenship Question on Census ‐ California Political Review California Political News & Views LA City Council unanimously votes to oppose citizenship question  on U.S. census ‐ MyNewsLA.com MyNewsLA.com Public‐health officials pan Justice Dept. bid to add citizenship  question to census – ADC Voice ADC Voice Letter to Secretary Ross: Census Citizenship Question 'Threatens to  Undermine Your Constitutional Duty' Targeted News Service Democrats.org Democratic Party, The Texas again ranks among the nation's least politically engaged  states Houston Chronicle Online/chron.com California AG concerned about U.S. Census undercount of illegal  aliens Spero News Five myths about chain migration Washington Post Online, The Our view: Census is not a citizenship detector Salem News Online Trump won't stop trying to keep America white Washington Post Online, The EDITORIAL: Census is not a citizenship detector Salem News Senate Indian Affairs Committee Issues Testimony From National  Congress of American Indians Targeted News Service Trump's effort to keep America white Washington Post, The No citizenship question on census Colorado Politics Hawaii News Now: Sunrise at 5:00 Hawaii News Now: Sunrise ‐ KGMB‐TV Budget increase for 2020 census falls short, say advocates Science Online No Citizenship Question on Census New York Times Online, The The Daily 202: Freewheeling immigration debate in Senate will test  power of conservative outside groups Washington Post Online, The G.O.P. Visions of Tectonic Realignment New York Times Online, The How a potential Census question could shift political power in  America Washington Post Online, The 23 Media Impact Score ‐  Census 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 000688 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 2/9/2018 2/8/2018 2/8/2018 2/8/2018 2/7/2018 2/7/2018 2/7/2018 2/7/2018 2/7/2018 2/6/2018 2/6/2018 2/4/2018 2/3/2018 2/2/2018 2/1/2018 2/1/2018 1/31/2018 1/31/2018 1/30/2018 1/29/2018 1/29/2018 1/29/2018 Outlet Name White Americans: Where are you really from? Enterprise, The Dwindling reserves and deficit will challenge new mayor in  Syracuse, N.Y. Bond Buyer Online, The Don't dare ask about your citizenship on 2020 Census: LA Council  panel says it's unfair ‐ MyNewsLA.com MyNewsLA.com Concerns Over Census 2020 Loom for Latinos El Semanario ‐ California LA City Council committee opposes proposal to include citizenship  question in 2020 Census ‐ MyNewsLA.com MyNewsLA.com Los Angeles City Council Opposed Proposal to Include Citizenship  on 2020 Census Beverly Hills Courier Online Trump administration 'sabotaging' 2020 census Daily News Online, The Galvin:  Trump Administration 'Sabotaging' Massachusetts Through  Are‐You‐A‐Citizen Query in Census NewBostonPost Trump immigration plan could keep whites in majority for up to 5  more years Chicago Tribune Online Trump immigration plan could keep whites in U.S. majority for up  to five more years Washington Post Online, The There's a big problem with how the census measures race Washington Post Online, The Hundreds from India join forces over visas Washington Post, The High‐skilled Indian workers rally for Trump's merit‐based  immigration plan Washington Post Online, The Mobile Mexican Consulate comes to Longview Daily News Online, The Views on the News: Census Justice ‐ Online, The BBC World Service BBC World Service ‐ WUNC‐FM The Daily 202: State of the Union underscores why Trump is his  own worst enemy Washington Post Online, The Del. Norton Introduces Ensuring Full Participation in Census Act Targeted News Service Immigration backlash is coming from places least touched by  immigration CNN Online FOX8 News at 6:00P Fox8 News at 6:00 PM ‐ WGHP‐TV CNN.com ‐ Transcripts CNN Online Will new forms ask about citizenship? Yakima Herald‐Republic Online 24 Media Impact Score ‐  Census 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 000689 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census Los Angeles Times Online 40 Daily Collegian, University of Massachuse40 Yakima Herald‐Republic 40 Los Angeles Times 40 Los Angeles Times Online 40 1/29/2018 1/29/2018 1/29/2018 1/28/2018 1/26/2018 A State of the Union preview Keep the 2020 census accurate Calculating the questions A bad deal for 'Dreamers' This isn't an immigration plan, it's a ransom note 1/25/2018 Why `Dreamers' Still Hold the Key in Budget Talks: QuickTake Q&A Washington Post Online, The The Daily 202: Public opinion is protecting Mueller's investigation ‐  for now Washington Post Online, The Potential citizenship question in 2020 Census could shift power to  rural America Washington Post Online, The 40 Why `Dreamers' Still Hold the Key in Budget Talks: QuickTake Q&A Why 'Dreamers' May Hold Key in Budget Talks: QuickTake Q&A Why Asking About Citizenship Could Make the Census Less  Accurate Miami Haitians See Opportunity in an Insult California Democrats fear losing congressional seat over census  proposal to only count Americans In Florida, Haitians See Trump Slight As Battle Cry Washington Post Online, The Washington Post Online, The 40 40 New York Times Online, The New York Times Online, The 40 40 BizPac Review New York Times, The 40 40 New York Times Online, The 40 Washington Post Online, The KSTX‐FM Wall Street Journal, The Kirksville Daily Express Brownsville Herald, The (TX) Ledger Online, The 40 40 40 40 40 40 opb.org 40 1/24/2018 1/24/2018 1/22/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/18/2018 1/17/2018 1/16/2018 1/16/2018 1/15/2018 1/13/2018 1/11/2018 1/11/2018 Miami's Haitians, Used to Being Shunned, Rally After Trump Slight The Daily 202: Unexpected defeat in rural Wisconsin special  election sets off alarm bells for Republicans Title Unavailable THE CENSUS SHOULD ASK ABOUT CITIZENSHIP Census uncertainty spurs state action to prevent undercounting Census change may be costly Rampell: The GOP is sabotaging this sacred mandate Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn 25 40 40 000690 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/11/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 Will Including Citizenship Question be Recipe for "Flawed" 2020  Census? Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn 26 Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census Italian Voice, The 40 WRVO 40 Wxxi news 40 WSHU‐AM Online 40 South Dakota Public Broadcasting Netwo 40 WBAA 40 Jefferson Public Radio Network Online 40 WGVU News 40 Boise State Public Radio 40 WFIT 40 WYPR‐FM Online 40 On Politics (RI NPR) 40 Maine Public Broadcasting 40 KAWC 40 WVIK 40 WVIK 40 000691 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn   NPR News Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Leave Citizenship Out of the Census 27 Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census WMOT‐FM ‐ Online 40 KPBS‐TV Online 40 WKMS‐FM Online 40 WSDL 90.7 ‐ Online 40 Tristates Radio 40 Aspen Public Radio 40 A South Carolina Public Radio Podcast 40 KPCW‐FM Online 40 WDDE‐FM Online 40 kuar.org 40 KSMU‐FM Online 40 wlrh.org 40 KUOW‐FM Online 40 NPR/National Public Radio Online 40 WWNO‐FM ‐ Online National Journal 40 40 000692 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/7/2018 1/7/2018 1/7/2018 1/6/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census Trump Justice Department Pushes for Citizenship Question on  Census, Alarming Experts Madison365 40 Potential question on 2020 census is opposed; Feds pushing to ask  about citizenship San Antonio Express News 40 The question that could sabotage the census Daily Journal Online 40 The question that could sabotage the census Madison.com 40 The question that could sabotage the census Times of Northwest Indiana ‐ Online, The40 The question that could sabotage the census KTBS‐TV Online 40 The question that could sabotage the census Independent Record Online 40 The question that could sabotage the census Chippewa Herald Online 40 California Secretary of State in opposition to U.S. Census citizenship  question Lompoc Record Online, The 40 Hostility to Census question is overblown Wisconsin State Farmer ‐ Online 40 Hostility to Census question is overblown Port Clinton News Herald Online 40 Trump is ending protections for immigrants from El Salvador.  Here's what that means for Houston Houston Chronicle Online/chron.com 40 Press Releases ‐ Tom Carper, U.S. Senator for Delaware U.S. Senator ‐ Carper, Tom ‐ Delaware 40 A sacred mandate sacrificed Rapid City Journal Online 40 The Census Bureau already asks about citizenship ‐ for good  reasons Washington Post Online, The 40 Northwest Almanac: When Winston‐Salem was the state's largest  city 40 Winston‐Salem Journal Online The GOP is sabotaging this sacred mandate Statesman Journal Online 40 Census shouldn't try to count undocumented immigrants Times Record News Online 40 When Citizenship Is for Sale New York Times, The 40 Title Unavailable KJZZ‐TV 40 Mitch Albom Mitch Albom Show ‐ WJR‐AM, The 40 The question that could sabotage the census KPHO‐TV Online 40 Alarm at proposal to ask about citizenship status in census Santa Fe New Mexican 40 Alarm at Pr?p?sal t? Ask Ab?ut Citizenship Status in Census Latest News 7 40 The question that could sabotage the census KVVU‐TV Online 40 The question that could sabotage the census WSHM‐TV Online 40 28 000693 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline Outlet Name Alarm at Proposal to Ask About Citizenship Status in Census Sesame Street Title Unavailable Trump's true priorities revealed in these 10 actions taken during  the holidays 1/3/2018 The Question that Could Sabotage the 2020 Census 1/2/2018 The Daily 202: Trump's true priorities revealed in holiday news  dumps 1/2/2018 Trump's Pick to Run 2020 Census Has Defended Racial  Gerrymandering and Voter Suppression Laws 1/2/2018 Justice Dep't pushes for citizenship question on census, alarming  12/30/2017 experts 1/26/2018 Another way Illinois could lose two congressional districts 3/22/2018 [BC‐MCT‐NEWS‐BJT] Immigration terminology is based on a myth that needs to be  3/22/2018 challenged 3/22/2018 In Mideast, democracy struggles to strike root 3/21/2018 Immigrants Hiding From Trump Imperil Accuracy of U.S. Census A Million Children Didn't Show Up In The 2010 Census. How Many  3/19/2018 Will Be Missing In 2020? 3/16/2018 Trump admits he makes things up 3/16/2018 Concerns over citizenship question of 2020 U.S. Census Survey 3/13/2018 Newsday letters to the editor for Tuesday, March, 13, 2018 3/13/2018 UNCERTAIN FUTURE Puerto Rico's exodus growing as island struggles to rebound 3/7/2018 KTVU Mornings on 2 at 6am 3/7/2018 Morning Bits: Lawless Trump administration thinks voters don't  care 3/7/2018 US census shouldn't ask about citizenship ‐ AEI ‐ American  Enterprise Institute: Freedom, Opportunity, Enterprise 3/6/2018 Citizenship Question Would Convert Census Into a GOP Voter  Suppression Tool 3/5/2018 MSN News US (en) KOPB‐FM KSTX‐FM Media Impact Score ‐  Census 40 40 40 Washington Post, The Independent View, The 40 40 Washington Post Online, The 40 Mother Jones Online 40 TucsonSentinel.com Capitol Fax.com Omaha World‐Herald Online 40 32 30 Portland Press Herald Online WFED‐AM Online Bloomberg News Online 30 30 30 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 29 FiveThirtyEight 30 CBS News Online 30 KION‐TV Online 30 Newsday 30 Dayton Daily News 30 Seattle Times Online, The 30 KTVU Channel 2 Morning News at 6AM ‐ 30 Right Turn 30 AEI.org 30 Rumor bus 30 000694 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 3/1/2018 3/1/2018 3/1/2018 3/1/2018 3/1/2018 3/1/2018 3/1/2018 3/1/2018 3/1/2018 3/1/2018 2/25/2018 2/25/2018 2/23/2018 2/21/2018 2/21/2018 2/21/2018 2/21/2018 2/21/2018 2/20/2018 2/20/2018 Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census Immigrant advocates fight to keep off citizenship status question  off 2020 census ballot FiOS1 News ‐ Lower Hudson Valley Onlin 30 Meet The 'Experts' Kobach Is Using To Defend His Voter Fraud  Claims In Court Talking Points Memo 30 'It's Their Last Stand': Why Immigration Facts Sent a CPAC Panel Off  the Rails: 'BradCast' 2/28/2018 Daily Kos 30 Why Left Is Going Gonzo Over Asking For Citizenship On The  Census Federalist, The 30 Proposed Citizenship Question on Census Raises Concern Among  Immigrant Advocates Independent View, The 30 The three (obscure) things that could transform American politics The Teen‐Led Fight For Gun Reform Who Counts? The three (obscure) things that could transform U.S. politics Revisiting Rockwell: His "Four Freedoms" helped win World War II.  What do they mean today?(THE PAST IS prologue: AMERICAN  ICON)(Norman Rockwell) Myths about chain migration 'Chain migration' The Progressive Happy Hour: The Census is a Civil Rights Issue Fox 26 News at 9 Democrats' ‘Dirty Little Secret' Is Excluding Citizenship Question on  U.S. Census Kobach: Democrats' ‘Dirty Little Secret' Is Excluding Citizenship  Question on U.S. Census County Files Request To Find Out If 2020 Census Will Ask About  Citizenship THE UPDATE KGO Afternoon News Schatz's ignorance of our Anglo‐Saxon legal heritage illustrates  problem with government 30 San Diego Union‐Tribune Online CityLab New Republic, The San Diego Union‐Tribune, The 30 30 30 30 Smithsonian Arkansas Democrat‐Gazette Online Dayton Daily News People for the American Way FOX 26 News at 9 ‐ KRIV‐TV 30 30 30 30 30 Salisbury News 30 Salisbury News 30 SFGate Daily Post KGO Afternoon News ‐ KGO‐AM 30 30 30 Hill Online, The 30 000695 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 2/20/2018 2/19/2018 2/17/2018 2/16/2018 2/16/2018 2/16/2018 2/16/2018 2/14/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 Outlet Name Immigration activists slam DOJ for proposed census addition Kobach: Why the 2020 U.S. Census needs citizenship question Voting Rights Roundup: GOP plots to destroy Arizona's  independent redistricting commission yet again Citizenship question essential for accurate U.S. census Body‐in‐van case highlights longstanding issues of Hispanic crime  victims, Memphis police Immigration debate shunned nearly 100 proposals Body in van prompts activist complaints News 12 The Bronx ‐ Online FOX News Channel Online Media Impact Score ‐  Census 30 30 Daily Kos Orlando Sentinel Online 30 30 Commercial Appeal Online Washington Times Online Commercial Appeal, The 30 30 30 California rejects Trump proposal to ask citizenship in 2020 census Are Hispanics A Racial Group, Ethnicity Or Both? State Attorneys General Want No Citizenship Question On 2020  Census Vicky Moore/Dick Helton Asian Journal KPBS‐TV Online 30 30 K‐Love ‐ Online Morning News ‐ KNX‐AM 30 30 2/13/2018 What a Question About Citizenship on the U.S. Census Could Mean YES Magazine State attorneys general: No citizenship question on census   New  Country 923 WIL 92.3 Attorneys General Argue Citizenship Question Would Weaken  Census KOVR‐TV Online 30 2/13/2018 State attorneys general: No citizenship question on census ‐ SFGate SFGate 30 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/12/2018 State attorneys general: No citizenship question on census  :Washington state attorney joins coalition against U.S. Department  of Commerce, saying addition could lower immigrant participation Lewiston Tribune RPT ‐ Twenty US States Want US Citizenship Query Excluded From  2020 Census ‐ Attorney General Sputnik News Service NY, NJ push to stop citizenship question from being added to  census WPIX‐TV Online 31 30 30 30 30 30 000696 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 2/12/2018 2/12/2018 2/12/2018 2/12/2018 2/12/2018 2/9/2018 2/9/2018 2/6/2018 2/6/2018 2/6/2018 2/6/2018 2/4/2018 2/4/2018 2/3/2018 2/2/2018 2/2/2018 2/2/2018 1/31/2018 1/31/2018 1/31/2018 1/31/2018 1/30/2018 1/30/2018 Outlet Name CT Lawmaker's Fight Trump Proposal To Include Question On  ‘Citizenship” In U.S. Census The Takeaway Talk of the Nation Schneiderman Opposes Citizenship Question On 2020 Census Twenty US States Want US Citizenship Query Excluded From 2020  Census ‐ Attorney General Though The 7th District Is Minority‐Majority, Most Of Its Voters  Are White FOX NEWS FIRST: Government shutdown showdown over budget  deal; Top Dem offered contact with dossier author Title Unavailable 2020 census needs protection from ‘partisanship and ideology,’ de  Blasio says Trump immigration plan could keep whites in US majority for up to  five more years Trump immigration plan could keep whites in U.S. majority for up  to five more years Strong majority support a path to citizenship for undocumented  immigrants Poll finds most Iowans back path to citizenship America of tomorrow will be 'none of the above' Voters with disabilities face barriers to voting California will soon make voting easier. Here's how Voting to be easier for Californians Editorials from around New York Iowa Bill Would Require High School Students To Pass U.S.  Citizenship Test Before Graduating What Trump didn't say in his State of the Union address The truly broken state of our dis‐union COULD THE HQ2 TURN NEXT U.S. ELECTION? Trump's 'cuts in legal immigration are too great,' critic says 32 Media Impact Score ‐  Census ctlatinonews 30 Takeaway ‐ PRI/Public Radio Internationa30 Talk of the Nation ‐ NPR 30 State of Politics 30 Sputnik News Service 30 WBUR‐FM Online 30 FOX News Channel Online KERA‐FM 30 30 am New York ‐ Online 30 San Antonio Express‐News Online 30 Wonkblog ‐ The Washington Post 30 Des Moines Register Online Des Moines Register Billings Gazette Online Christian Science Monitor Daily, The San Diego Union‐Tribune Online San Diego Union‐Tribune, The Washington Times Online 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 WBEZ‐FM Online Hill Online, The Daily Kos Dayton Daily News Buffalo News, The 30 30 30 30 30 000697 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/30/2018 1/29/2018 1/28/2018 1/28/2018 1/27/2018 1/27/2018 1/27/2018 1/27/2018 1/26/2018 1/26/2018 1/26/2018 1/26/2018 1/26/2018 1/24/2018 1/24/2018 1/23/2018 1/22/2018 1/20/2018 1/19/2018 1/18/2018 Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census Buffalo News, The 30 Good Day Atlanta ‐ WAGA‐TV 30 Central Florida News 13 at 5AM ‐ Central 30 Central Florida News 13 at 12AM ‐ Centra30 News 13 Your Evening News at 11 ‐ News30 Central Florida News 13 at 6PM ‐ Central 30 News 13 Your Evening News at 5 ‐ News  30 Arizona Republic Online 30 Immigration plan could back re in Bu alo Good Day Atlanta 8:00am News 13 Your Morning News at 5 News 13 Your Overnight News News 13 Your Evening News at 11 News 13 Your Evening News at 6 News 13 Your Evening News at 5 How Donald Trump's first year in office has changed Arizona Census citizenship question under legal review Census citizenship  question under legal review Census citizenship question under  legal reviewMost Popular StoriesMost Popular StoriesMore>> By Gregory Wallace[CR‐LF]WASHINGTON (CNN) ‐‐ The Trump  administration on Friday announced that a request to add a  controversial question on citizenship status to the 2020 Census is  under legal review WTOP‐FM Jim Bohannon WFED‐AM Why Democrats should be very worried about the Census  requesting citizenship info Immigration piper will have to get paid Recent editorials from Texas newspapers What should prisoners read? Not Cosmo, Ohio says Could Amazon's new headquarters flip the presidential vote in a  swing state? Miami's Haitians, accustomed to being shunned, rally after Trump  slight Maloney, Serrano, Gutiérrez, 100+ Members Urge Sec. Ross to  Reject DOJ's Misguided Request to Add Citizenship Question to the  2020 Census 33 Crossroads Today 30 WENY‐TV ‐ Online 30 WTOP‐FM 30 Jim Bohannon Show ‐ WestwoodOne, Th 30 WFED‐AM 30 Fix ‐ The Washington Post, The 30 Atlanta Journal‐Constitution 30 Washington Times Online 30 Dayton Daily News Online/daytondailyne30 San Antonio Express‐News Online 30 Atlanta Journal‐Constitution Online 30 U.S. Representative ‐ New York 30 000698 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/18/2018 1/18/2018 1/18/2018 1/17/2018 1/17/2018 1/17/2018 1/16/2018 1/16/2018 1/15/2018 1/15/2018 1/13/2018 1/13/2018 1/11/2018 1/11/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/7/2018 1/6/2018 1/6/2018 1/6/2018 Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census California Socialist/Democrats/Guv Brown To Try to NULLIFY U.S.  Census in 2020 ‐ California Political Review California Political News & Views 30 Dreamers From Rep. Kevin McCarthy's District Call On the GOP To  Step Up KQED‐FM Online 30 Reps. Maloney, Serrano, Gutierrez, 100+ Members Urge Sec. Ross  to Reject DOJ's Misguided Request to Add Citizenship Question to  2020 Census Targeted News Service 30 Trump Immigration Stance Could Cause Calif. to Lose Money,  House Seat White House Dossier 30 Sean Hannity Sean Hannity Show, The 30 NO CITIZENSHIP QUESTION ON CENSUS? New York Real Estate Lawyers' Blog, The 30 Tim Conway Jr. Tim Conway, Jr. ‐ KFI‐AM 30 John and Ken KFI‐AM 30 The census should ask about citizenship ‐ AEI ‐ American Enterprise  Institute: Freedom, Opportunity, Enterprise AEI.org 30 Census change may be costly Valley Star.com 30 Census change may be costly 30 Brownsville Herald, The (TX) Census change may be costly Monitor, The (McAllen, TX) 30 Perryman: The Count Rio Grande Guardian 30 Census Uncertainty Spurs State Action to Prevent Undercounting Route Fifty 30 Here's How It Works Atlantic Online, The 30 Census should be able to ask citizenship status   Letter Express‐Times ‐‐ New Jersey Edition ‐ On 30 Protect the Census: Oppose DOJ Request to Add a Citizenship  Question to the 2020 Census Targeted News Service 30 Julián Castro says nearly all DACA recipients employed, in school or  serving in military Tampa Bay Times 30 Aging, undocumented and uninsured immigrants challenge cities  and states Boston Herald Online 30 Foreign aid, McShan Elementary, DACA, U.S. Census, Ken Tapscott,  John Foster Dulles, Puerto Rico, Ice Bowl Dallas Morning News ‐ Online 30 Trump's Vote Suppression Team Is Doing GOP's Dirty Work National Memo 30 Catherine Rampell: The GOP is sabotaging this sacred mandate Chippewa Herald Online 30 34 000699 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/6/2018 1/5/2018 1/5/2018 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/2/2018 1/2/2018 1/2/2018 1/2/2018 Outlet Name Catherine Rampell: The GOP is sabotaging this sacred mandate Dreamers Urge California Republicans To Save DACA Trump's odd view of states' rights + Why Trump must tweet +  What do about Petrovich's gas station Lucky Dragon temporarily shuts gaming, restaurant operations Chippewa Herald, The HuffPost Media Impact Score ‐  Census 30 30 Sacramento Bee Online, The Las Vegas Review‐Journal Online 30 30 Aging undocumented immigrants pose costly health care challenge Citizenship Questions in the Census? Trump's DOJ Has an  Audacious New Project to Suppress the Vote Rep. Maloney: Justice Department Request for Inclusion of  Citizenship Question in 2020 Census Threatens Accuracy of Count  of Our Nation Morning Edition NPR's Morning Edition Title Unavailable The question that could sabotage the census The question that could sabotage the census The question that could sabotage the census The question that could sabotage the census The question that could sabotage the census “Alarm at Proposal to Ask About Citizenship Status in Census” Trump's true priorities revealed in holiday news dumps CNNMoney 30 AlterNet Online 30 Congressman King seeks citizenship question on U.S. Census form The Daily 202: Trump's true priorities revealed in holiday news  dumps 1/2/2018 See percentage of senior citizens in your Michigan county 1/2/2018 Hillary Clinton received 800,000 votes from noncitizens, bolsters  Trump argument, study finds 1/1/2018 12/31/2017 High Impact Posts: December 30, 2017 12/30/2017 WCBS‐AM 3/23/2018 Public Affairs Events 1/2/2018 35 Targeted News Service 30 KQED‐FM 30 Morning Edition ‐ NPR/National Public Ra30 KERA‐FM 30 AZ Family 30 KXLF 30 KITV‐TV Online 30 WSEE‐TV Online 30 KAKE‐TV ‐ Online 30 Election Law 30 Hartford Courant Online 30 Radio Iowa ‐ Online 30 San Antonio Express‐News Online MLive 30 30 Washington Times Online Daily Kos WCBS‐AM C‐SPAN 30 30 30 24 000700 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline Outlet Name 3/16/2018 KCBA Mornings on 2 at 6am The administration has proposed an overhaul of SNAP benefits Politics and Public Policy Today Good anti‐crime news for the new year LETTERS: Good anti‐crime news for the new year Senadores demócratas presentan medida para prohibir pregunta  sobre ciudadanía en Censo EPIC FOIAs Commerce Department about Citizenship Question on  2020 Census The Census Clause and the Constitutional Obligation to Count All  Persons” Senadores demócratas presentan medida para prohibir pregunta  sobre ciudadanía en Censo UPDATE: Judicial Watch Lawsuit Against Los Angeles County and  the State of California   Citizens Journal Financial box scores for Yankees, Mets NBC Bay Area News at 11AM Decatur residents track down, celebrate their green roots ?? Trump admits dodging facts on U.S.‐Canada trade relations Wake up Kion 5/46 News Channel Trump owns up to being economical with the truth 'We are the forgotten people': It's been almost six months since  Hurricane Maria, and Puerto Ricans are still dying Trump admits untruths 'Everyone's Irish today': Decatur residents track down, celebrate  their green roots ?? 3/16/2018 3/15/2018 3/15/2018 3/15/2018 SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE DEMOCRATS DEMAND ANSWERS  FROM DOJ ON POTENTIAL CENSUS CITIZENSHIP QUESTION Trump admits making things up in meeting with Canada Trump owns up to making things up ‐ KTAR.com Trump owns up to making things up :: WRAL.com 3/7/2018 2/15/2018 2/1/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 3/23/2018 3/23/2018 3/22/2018 3/22/2018 3/21/2018 3/21/2018 3/20/2018 3/16/2018 3/16/2018 3/16/2018 3/16/2018 3/16/2018 3/16/2018 36 KCBA‐TV Daily WRAG, The C‐SPAN Sun Times Online, The Chicago Sun‐Times Media Impact Score ‐  Census 24 24 24 24 24 El Diario Nueva York Online 20 Electronic Privacy Information Center 20 Election Law 20 La Opinión 20 Citizens Journal 20 Crain's New York Business Online 20 NBC Bay Area News at 11AM ‐ KNTV (NBC20 Herald & Review Online 20 Pittsburgh Tribune‐Review ‐ Online 20 Wake up Kion 5/46 News Channel ‐ KION 20 Daily Hampshire Gazette Online 20 WZVN‐TV Online Charleston Gazette‐Mail, The 20 20 Herald & Review 20 US Fed News Akron Beacon Journal Online KTAR‐AM Online WRAL‐TV Online 20 20 20 20 000701 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 3/15/2018 3/15/2018 3/13/2018 3/12/2018 3/12/2018 3/7/2018 3/7/2018 3/6/2018 3/5/2018 3/2/2018 3/2/2018 3/1/2018 2/25/2018 2/24/2018 2/23/2018 2/22/2018 2/21/2018 2/20/2018 2/20/2018 Trump owns up to making things up     Depend On WOKV ‐  Jacksonville's News, Weather, and Traffic Trump owns up to making things up Trump owns up to making  things upNationalMore>> Trump owns up to making things  upNationalMore>>AP National News VideoMore>> Thomas: Disasters hit the most vulnerable hardest Long Beach City Council to vote on providing undocumented  immigrants with extra protections from federal authorities VOTING ON A HELPING HAND KTVU Mornings on 2 at 5am Can the Parkland Survivors Inspire a New Focus on Civics  Education? FOX8 10:00 News 10 policy issues to watch in omnibus spending bill Can the Parkland Survivors Inspire a New Focus on Civics  Education? With DACA in flux, 'Dreamers' from Trump country navigate a  college minefield The BRAD BLOG : 'It's Their Last Stand': Why Immigration Facts  Sent a CPAC Panel Off the Rails: 'BradCast' 2/28/2018 5 myths about chain migration 5th Annual Taste of the Valley Scholarship Fundraiser US Agency Changes ‘Nation of Immigrants' Mission Statement Attorney General Frosh Joins Coalition of Attorneys General  Opposing Citizenship Question on 2020 Census Attorney General Frosh Joins Coalition of Attorneys General  Opposing Citizenship Question on 2020 Census Non‐citizens can provide an "untapped" pool of military recruits,  experts say Signing of Executive Order 9066 forces thousands of Japanese  Americans into internment camps 37 Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census WHJX‐FM ‐ Online 20 KFMB‐AM (760 AM Talk Radio) ‐ Online 20 Tribune Online 20 Long Beach Press‐Telegram Online 20 Long Beach Press‐Telegram 20 KTVU Channel 2 Morning News at 5AM ‐ 20 Education Week Fox8 10:00 News ‐ WGHP‐TV Daily Republic Online 20 20 20 Education Week Online 20 Washington Examiner Online 20 Brad Blog Naples Daily News Beyond Borders Gazette Learning English 20 20 20 20 Salisbury News 20 Salisbury News 20 United Press International Online 20 KIRO‐TV Online 20 000702 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 2/16/2018 2/15/2018 2/14/2018 2/14/2018 2/14/2018 2/14/2018 2/14/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/12/2018 2/11/2018 2/10/2018 Mitt Romney is running for Senate; here are the Mormons  currently serving in Congress To Make America Safe Again, We Must End Sanctuary Cities and  Remove Criminal Aliens Texas Ranks 47th In Voter Participation, Better On Neighborliness,  Study Finds ORRALL is in – HERALD's new owners – Open seats in W. MASS Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census Deseret News Online 20 U.S. Department of Homeland Security 20 Texas Standard POLITICO Online 20 20 Here's how immigration, naturalization has changed in San Angelo San Angelo Standard‐Times ‐ Online 20 California fights Trump's efforts to add a citizenship question to the  2020 census ‐ California Political Review California Political News & Views 20 Report: Construction employing quarter of a million people in  NYC.(CONSTRUCTION + DESIGN) Real Estate Weekly 20 The DeMaio Report DeMaio Report ‐ KOGO‐AM, The 20 Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Lisa Brown split on the wall, refugees and  chain migration Spokesman‐Review Online, The 20 Blank Headline Marycontrary's Blog 20 POIZNER defects from GOP, will run as independent ‐‐ TRIPPI,  MASLIN start new super PAC ‐‐ BECERRA takes on TRUMP over  Census POLITICO Online 20 CLOCK STARTS ON SENATE IMMIGRATION DEBATE ‐‐ Trump's  budget written in red ink ‐‐ REPUBLICANS WORRY THEY COULD  LOSE CORKER'S SEAT ‐‐ Census pick withdraws POLITICO Online 20 Tom Haule/Linda Nunez Tom Haule/Linda Nunez ‐ KNX‐AM 20 Hawaii News Now: Sunrise Hawaii News Now: Sunrise at 5:00 ‐ KHNL20 Why do Republicans assume immigrants will vote Democratic? Daily Progress Online, The 20 Candidates split on immigration issues McMorris Rodgers, Brown  see border wall, refugees differently Spokesman‐Review, The 20 Diane Thompson, Jim Thornton, and Chris Sedens Diane Thompson, Jim Thornton, and Chri 20 Sam Ross Jr.   Korea not the only Olympic divide Tribune‐Democrat Online, The 20 Why do Republicans assume immigrants will vote Democratic? Roanoke Times Online, The 20 38 000703 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 2/10/2018 2/10/2018 2/9/2018 2/9/2018 2/7/2018 2/7/2018 2/7/2018 2/7/2018 2/7/2018 2/7/2018 2/7/2018 2/7/2018 2/7/2018 2/6/2018 2/6/2018 2/6/2018 2/4/2018 2/2/2018 2/2/2018 2/1/2018 2/1/2018 1/31/2018 1/31/2018 1/30/2018 1/30/2018 Outlet Name At a glance[CR‐LF][CR‐LF]With immigrants, Galvin said, the greatest  challenge is often making sure that people who have citizenship in  another country know that they should participate in the U.S.  Census.[CR‐LF][CR‐LF]”Given the rhetoric of the Trump admini Telegram & Gazette The Republicans of 2044 Roanoke Times, The Massachusetts official warns of possible census undercount OJornal Channel 5 News This Morning at 6am KRGV‐TV I am young, Black and undocumented in Trump's America TheGrio.com Spectrum News Live at Noon Spectrum News Albany Spectrum News Spectrum News Central New York Spectrum News All Morning at 9:30 Spectrum News Albany Spectrum News All Morning at 9 Spectrum News Albany News10 in the Morning News Center in the Morning ‐ WXXA‐TV Spectrum News All Morning at 6 Spectrum News Albany News10 in the Morning at 4:30am News10 in the Morning at 4:30am Massachusetts official warns of possible census undercount SFGate FOX8 News at 5:00P Fox8 News at 5:00 PM ‐ WGHP‐TV Mucho más que un sueño (Much more than a dream) Standard‐Examiner Online White Americans: Where do you really come from? Holland Sentinel, The Fallacy to block immigration Missoulian Online Don't mix immigration with the 2020 census OJornal Arab Americans undeterred despite failure to get MENA category  on 2020 Census Arab American News ‐ Online, The Make DACA the example Greenville News Online, The Why Democrats Really Don't Want To Reinstate The Citizenship  Question Federalist, The National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Guidry News Service ‐ Online Our Puerto Rican citizens Portsmouth Daily Times America Must be “Cleansed” of its “White Male Privilege” Burning Platform, The Michael Scherer ‐ Potential citizenship question in 2020 Census  could shift power to rural America Jewish World Review 39 Media Impact Score ‐  Census 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 000704 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/29/2018 1/26/2018 1/25/2018 1/25/2018 1/25/2018 1/22/2018 1/22/2018 1/22/2018 1/20/2018 1/20/2018 1/20/2018 1/20/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 Los Angeles Times Editorial: This isn't an immigration plan, it's a  ransom note Jeff Sessions Is Just Getting Started: 7 Things You May've Missed  Over the Holidays NPR All Things Considered Citizenship question would hurt results, critics caution Hall may not have choice on bilingual ballots Osterhout Free Library provides resources for immigrant  community Rep. Norton to Introduce Bill to Prohibit Question on Citizenship  Status on 2020 Census Questionnaire Osterhout Free Library provides resources for immigrant  community Could Amazon's new headquarters flip the presidential vote in a  swing state? Could Amazon's new headquarters flip the presidential vote in a  swing state? The BRAD BLOG : LIVE BLOGGING: BRAD BLOG Covers CSPAN  Coverage of Baker/Carter Election Reform Commission Hearing... California Dems fear state losing congressional seat if Census  counts only Americans ‐ Liberty Unyielding Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others 40 Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census Press Democrat Online, The 20 People for the American Way WUNC‐FM National Catholic Reporter Online Times Online, The 20 20 20 20 Citizens Voice Online, The 20 Targeted News Service 20 Citizens Voice, The 20 Pittsburgh Tribune‐Review ‐ Online 20 Standard‐Examiner Online 20 Brad Blog 20 Liberty Unyielding 20 WOLF‐TV ‐ Online 20 WSBT‐TV ‐ Online 20 KOKH‐TV Online 20 KTUL‐TV Online 20 WKEF‐TV ‐ Online 20 000705 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/18/2018 1/18/2018 1/18/2018 1/18/2018 1/17/2018 1/17/2018 1/17/2018 1/17/2018 1/17/2018 Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Corrections & Clarifications Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Miami's Haitians, Used to Being Shunned, Rally After Trump Slight  :: WRAL.com Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Trump's revenge on California: The Census ‐ California Political  Review RH Line calls printed Jan. 18, 2018 WTVN‐AM The KFBK Afternoon News AHA asks members to "Help Protect the Census" Sean Hannity The Schnitt Show 41 Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census WHP‐TV Online 20 WGME‐TV Online WBIR‐TV Online 20 20 WTVC‐TV Online 20 KABB‐TV Online 20 WSET‐TV Online 20 WTTE‐TV Online 20 WLOS‐TV Online 20 WRAL‐TV Online 20 KGAN‐TV ‐ Online 20 KEYE‐TV Online 20 WSYX‐TV Online 20 California Political News & Views 20 Daily Reporter‐Herald Online 20 WTVN‐AM 20 KFBK Afternoon News ‐ KFBK‐AM, The 20 History News Network 20 KOGO‐AM 20 Schnitt Show ‐ Compass Media Networks20 000706 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/17/2018 1/17/2018 1/16/2018 1/16/2018 1/14/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/8/2018 Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census the Census ‐‐ HILLARY ALUM jumps into state treasurer's race ‐‐  White House SCOTUS push to dismantle DACA ‐‐ Shutdown looms,  DREAMers deal? POLITICO Online 20 Californian Democrats Are Worried About Trump's Revised US  Census AllMediaNY 20 Title Unavailable KJZZ‐TV 20 Title Unavailable KOPB‐FM 20 Step up and do right by us Bakersfield Californian Online 20 Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn KVCR‐FM Online ‐ KVCR‐FM 20 Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn 91.5 KIOS‐FM 20 Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn WUOT 20 Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn WESA‐FM Online 20 Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Kmuw 20 Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn KNAU‐FM Online 20 Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn KTEP‐FM Online 20 Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn KERA 20 California Secretary of State Alex Padilla Releases Statement in  Opposition to Adding Citizenship Question to U.S. Census Sierra Sun ‐ Online 20 Mornings With Mark Caesar, Ed Clements & Sgt. Sam Cox Mornings With Mark Caesar, Ed Clement 20 The GOP is sabotaging this sacred mandate Alliance Review Online 20 California Secretary of State in opposition to U.S. Census citizenship  question Santa Ynez Valley News Online 20 Trump's Latest Immigration Move Could Affect Thousands of  Salvadoran Students Education Week Online 20 42 000707 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/8/2018 1/7/2018 1/6/2018 1/5/2018 1/4/2018 Outlet Name AFTER THE STROM: Puerto Rico was home to widespread poverty  and on the verge of bankruptcy. And that was before Hurricane  Maria. America Not because of cavalier threats about nuclear apocalypse and  attempted erosion of First Amendment rights (okay, maybe those  things, too). Because our federal government is failing to execute  one of its most basic constitutional duties: the decennial censu The People's Pharmacy Larger turnout expected in March Trump Kills Incompetent ‘Election Integrity' Commission, But His  Voter Fraud Conspiracy Theory Lives On Aging undocumented immigrants pose costly health care challenge Corrections & Clarifications What to expect in Texas' voting rights court fights in 2018 The question that could sabotage the censusMost Popular  StoriesMost Popular  StoriesMore>>NewsWeatherEntertainmentOnline Public File: [CR‐ LF]KCTV  KSMO 1/3/2018 Talk of the Nation 1/3/2018 BBC World Service 1/3/2018 The Brian Lehrer Show 1/3/2018 By Raul A. Reyes[CR‐LF]Editor's note: Raul A 1/3/2018 The Daily 202: Trump's true priorities revealed in holiday news  dumps 1/2/2018 Profile America: New Year's Day in History ‐ The Bronx Chronicle 1/2/2018 Trump DOJ proposes adding citizenship question to Census;  12/31/2017 'experts alarmed' ‐ Liberty Unyielding 12/30/2017 DOJ Trying to Add Citizenship Question to Census: Report Terrible Idea: U.S. Justice Dept. Proposing That Questions About  12/30/2017 Immigration Status Be Included In Census 1/4/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 43 Media Impact Score ‐  Census 20 Wellsville Daily Reporter WUNC‐FM Athens Daily Review Online 20 20 20 Reason Online 20 KMJ‐FM ‐ Online WBIR‐TV Online Lubbock Avalanche‐Journal Online 20 20 20 KCTV‐TV Online Talk of the Nation ‐ NPR BBC World Service ‐ KNOW‐FM Brian Lehrer Show ‐ WNYC‐FM, The WENY‐TV ‐ Online 20 20 20 20 20 Standard‐Examiner Online Bronx Chronicle 20 20 Liberty Unyielding Rumor bus 20 20 Larry Ferlazzo’s Websites of the Day… 20 000708 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline Outlet Name 3/16/2018 3/16/2018 3/16/2018 Good Day Atlanta 5:00am President Shirley M. Collado Co‐Edits Book on Latinx Students and  Professionals in Higher Ed ‐ IC News Spectrum News All Morning at 11:30 Spectrum News All Morning at 11 Spectrum News All Morning at 10 Everything you need to know about DACA in three minutes We are not a ‘nation of immigrants' Senadores demócratas presentan medida para prohibir pregunta  sobre ciudadanÃ‐a en Censo 10 Must Reads for the CRE Industry Today (March 22, 2018) Civics project may be required 'We are the forgotten people': It's been almost six months since  Hurricane Maria, and Puerto Ricans are still dying So many want to vote in Mexico's presidential election that the  Dallas consulate can't handle them all REP. JOHN CULBERSON How Many Illegal Immigrants Are in the US? This Week in Poverty: Chairman Ryan and the Real World (Most) Silver town councilors welcome signs Online News Gazette   Get On. Get What's Important Trump owns up to making things up ‐ ‐ WOW! Trump owns up to making things up ‐ Attorney General Hunter Sends Letter to US Commerce Secretary  Ross, Requesting ... Trump owns up to making things up   New Country 923 Trump owns up to making things up while in office 3/16/2018 Trump Admits to Making Things Up in Speech to Donors   BCNN1 1/29/2018 3/6/2018 2/7/2018 2/7/2018 2/7/2018 1/26/2018 3/23/2018 3/23/2018 3/22/2018 3/21/2018 3/21/2018 3/21/2018 3/21/2018 3/20/2018 3/20/2018 3/20/2018 3/17/2018 3/16/2018 3/16/2018 44 Good Day Atlanta ‐ WAGA‐TV Media Impact Score ‐  Census 18 Unity Coalition for Israel Spectrum News Albany Spectrum News Albany Spectrum News Albany NYC Epeak Central Maine Today Media 16 16 16 16 16 10 La Opinión de la Bahía Online National Real Estate Investor Online Salem News Online 10 10 10 News2read 10 Dallas Morning News Online Political/Congressional Transcript Wire FAIR via FAIR George Zornick Silver City Daily Press & Independent Online News Gazette Wow Way! Hawaiian Telecom 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 https://www.google.com/ WIL 92.3 Sauk Valley Newspapers Online 10 10 10 BCNN1 10 000709 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 3/16/2018 3/16/2018 3/16/2018 3/16/2018 3/16/2018 3/16/2018 3/15/2018 3/15/2018 3/15/2018 3/15/2018 3/15/2018 3/15/2018 3/14/2018 3/12/2018 3/12/2018 3/12/2018 3/9/2018 3/8/2018 3/8/2018 3/8/2018 3/7/2018 Outlet Name Trump owns up to making things up Trump owns up to making  things upTop VideoMore>> Trump owns up to making things  upTop VideoMore>>Most Popular Trump owns up to making  things upTop VideoMore>>Most PopularHeadlinesMore>> Erie News Now Kion 5/46 News Channel Kion 5/46 News Channel ‐ KION‐TV It's been almost six months since Hurricane Maria, and Puerto  Ricans are still dying KXLF Trump owns up to making things up during meeting with Canadian  PM Englewood Sun Online Story by John D. Sutter, CNNVideo by Leyla Santiago and Khushbu  Shah, CNNPhotographs by Erika P WENY‐TV ‐ Online Trump owns up to making things up, Page 0 ‐ TheTrucker.com Trucker Online, The Trump owns up to making things up ‐ Aurora Sentinel Aurora Sentinel ‐ Online Trump owns up to making things up ‐ news Hawaiian Telecom 'We are the forgotten people': It's been almost 6 months since  Hurricane Maria, Puerto Ricans are still dying WPIX‐TV Online Peter Kirsanow, US Commission on Civil Rights member, asks about  citizenship on census forms https://www.google.com/ America's census must drop the citizenship question https://www.google.com/ Gay German diplomat settles into SF bayareareporter.org Federal trial continues on Kansas restrictions on voter registration Non‐citizen voters discovered in Chicago suburb Fox 5 News at 6:30 Yes, manufacturing still provides a pay advantage, but staffing firm  outsourcing is eroding it U.S. to overtake Russia as world's biggest oil producer GEORGE SHEN: State doesn't need a racial registry We Now Know Who's Behind the Trump Administration's Push to  Suppress Immigrant Participation ... Smart Ideas: A Better Way to Draw Districts GEORGE SHEN: State doesn't need an Asian registry 45 Media Impact Score ‐  Census 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Wyandotte Daily News Spero News Fox 5 News @ 6:30 ‐ WTTG‐TV 10 10 10 EPI:  Economic Policy Institute Lisah C. Nease Wicked Local 10 10 10 https://www.google.com/ National Journal Daily Extra AM Wicked Local 10 10 10 000710 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 3/7/2018 3/7/2018 3/7/2018 3/6/2018 3/6/2018 3/5/2018 3/5/2018 3/4/2018 3/3/2018 3/2/2018 3/2/2018 3/2/2018 3/1/2018 2/28/2018 2/28/2018 2/28/2018 2/28/2018 2/28/2018 2/28/2018 2/28/2018 Outlet Name California Has Lessons for Integrating Immigrants, but Will the Feds  Undercut Them?   The Takeaway   Zócalo Public Square Zócalo Public Square Exodus from Puerto Rico grows as island struggles to rebound from  Hurricane Maria MSN News US (en) FOX8 News FOX8 News Repeat ‐ WGHP‐TV Exodus from Puerto Rico grows as island struggles to rebound from  Hurricane Maria ‐ SFGate SFGate Lexington Has A Youth Murder Problem? Page One 10 policy issues to watch in omnibus spending bill ‐ Personal  Liberty® Personal Liberty Digest Gun control, Immigration, Planned Parenthood and more Norwalk Reflector Online While Congress debates DACA reform, N.C. recipients go about  their lives Daily News, The (Jacksonville, NC) President's big list of things done gets bigger Lisah C. Nease New crackdown on immigrant workforce Industries Virginia Business Online DIVIDED AMERICA: Will Trump energize the Latino vote? Observer News Enterprise ‐ Online New crackdown on immigrant workforce Virginia Business Why The Left Is Going Gonzo Over Asking Citizenship Status On The  Census https://www.google.com/ Proposed citizenship question on census raises concern among  immigrant advocates Newsday Online Berkshire Immigration Center assists with citizenship and  integration processes Williams Record, The Trump's big list of things done gets bigger Lisah C. Nease Honduran teen makes last bid in Chicago immigration court to stay  in US Register Guard Projects, The MapLab: Snap by Snap, the Teen‐Led Fight For Gun Reform Atlantic Cities LATEST WINTHROP POLL COVERS TRUMP, ECONOMY, CLIMATE  CHANGE AND DRILLING US Fed News LATEST WINTHROP POLL COVERS TRUMP, STATE LEADERS AND  ECONOMY US Fed News 46 Media Impact Score ‐  Census 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 000711 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 2/27/2018 2/26/2018 2/26/2018 2/24/2018 2/22/2018 2/22/2018 2/21/2018 2/21/2018 2/21/2018 2/21/2018 2/20/2018 2/20/2018 2/19/2018 2/17/2018 2/16/2018 2/16/2018 2/16/2018 2/16/2018 2/16/2018 2/16/2018 2/15/2018 Why a retired federal worker is helping immigrants pay for the US  citizenship exam CONSERVATIVES AND A LIBERTARIAN ON IMMIGRATION Conservatives and a Libertarian on Immigration at CPAC 6 States Where Voters Could Push Democracy Forward in the  Midterms A 21st‐Century Reimagining of Norman Rockwell's "Four  Freedoms" City Of Los Angeles Department Of Airports Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights issues timeline  of Trump administration's rollbacks on civil and human rights Wednesday Morning News Roundup ‐ SFGate Immigration Uncertainty Can Spell Trouble For Cleaning Industry County files request to find out if 2020 census will ask about  citizenship CHN: Select Departmental FY19 Budget Requests Why the 2020 U.S. Census needs citizenship question Scandal and Tragedy: Look At News Daily  (Feb. 10‐16 /Day 22‐27)  Week 4   Citizens Journal Why won't media cover these Trump successes? Opinion News, Breaking Opinion News and More: Lake County  Record‐Bee Census 'citizenship' question sets off new California vs. Trump  immigration argument Citizenship question essential for accurate US census Undercompensation is likely a factor in Pennsylvania's growing  teacher shortage Debate heats up about citizenship question in next Census High‐skilled Indian Workers Rally For Trump's Merit‐based  Immigration Plan Trump Puts New Twist on Visa Misinformation 47 Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census https://www.google.com/ Venitism Cato Journal ‐ Online 10 10 10 YES Magazine 10 Smithsonian Online Boston Commons High Tech Network 10 10 Wisconsin Gazette ‐ Online SFGate CleanLink ‐ Online 10 10 10 Mountain View Voice ‐ Online Coalition on Human Needs KNSS‐AM Online 10 10 10 Citizens Journal Lisah C. Nease 10 10 Lake County Record‐Bee Online 10 https://www.google.com/ https://www.google.com/ 10 10 EPI:  Economic Policy Institute https://www.google.com/ 10 10 News India Times FactCheck.org 10 10 000712 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 2/15/2018 2/15/2018 2/15/2018 2/15/2018 2/14/2018 2/14/2018 2/14/2018 2/14/2018 2/14/2018 2/14/2018 2/14/2018 2/14/2018 2/14/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/13/2018 2/12/2018 Outlet Name Schumer‐Rounds‐Collins Destroys Ability of DHS to Enforce  Immigration Laws, Creating a Mass Amnesty For Over 10 Million  Illegal Aliens, Including Criminals Report: Texans lag in political participation SENATE INDIAN AFFAIRS, HEARING ON NATIVE AMERICANS AND  THE 2020 CENSUS Reviving a civic group Texas Ranks Near Bottom for Political Participation and Civic  Involvement Business Briefcase Nogelo inducted into National Association of Women Artists A Cemetery of Crows Urgent care clinic set to open Friday David Price wants to start fresh Molly Sliney visits Center School Chloe, a therapy dog at Beverly Hospital, does tricks before visiting  patients Video: Hoffman: 'Exactly the right time' for Baker, DeLeo to raise  concerns State Report: Minnesota Needs Immigrants to Fill Jobs, Maintain  Economic Growth Census is not a citizenship detector 20 States Fight Addition of Citizenship Question to Census Get More Smarter on Tuesday (February 13) State report: Minnesota needs immigrants to fill jobs and maintain  economic growth State Rep. Raoul Backs Citizen Challenges for Environmental  Permits Bronx Political Round Up: Sex Offenders Barred ‐ The Bronx  Chronicle Brian Ping Bill Polish 48 Media Impact Score ‐  Census U.S. Department of Homeland Security 10 San Marcos Daily Record Online 10 Political/Congressional Transcript Wire 10 Nassau Herald (Garden City, NY) 10 PressReleasePoint Gloucester Daily Times Online Gloucester Daily Times Online Gloucester Daily Times Online Gloucester Daily Times Online Gloucester Daily Times Online Gloucester Daily Times Online 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Gloucester Daily Times Online 10 Gloucester Daily Times Online 10 Twin Cities Business Eagle‐Tribune Online, The https://www.google.com/ Colorado Pols 10 10 10 10 MinnPost 10 Chicago Maroon, University of Chicago, T10 Bronx Chronicle Brian Ping ‐ KNX‐AM Bill Polish ‐ KNX‐AM 10 10 10 000713 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census KGO Evening News ‐ KGO‐AM (News Talk10 2/12/2018 KGO Evening News 2/12/2018 AG Madigan, coalition oppose citizenship question on 2020 census https://www.google.com/ AG Healey warns adding citizenship question would jeopardize  accuracy of 2020 Census and ... https://www.google.com/ Hawai'i Joins Coalition Opposing Citizenship Question on 2020  Census https://www.google.com/ 10 10 2/7/2018 What a Question About Citizenship on the US Census Could Mean https://www.google.com/ AG Becerra to Trump Administration: Citizenship Question On 2020  Census Would Be Unconstitutional YubaNet AG Schneiderman Leads Coalition Of 19 AGs Opposing Citizenship  Question On 2020 Census https://www.google.com/ Elder Ford Of Tampa Boston Commons High Tech Network APAP 2018 Overview. Challenges, Activists, and The Good in the  World's Performing Arts World Music Central City of San Gabriel withdraws from ICE partnership Asian Journal Opinion News, Breaking Opinion News and More: Lake County  Record‐Bee Lake County Record‐Bee Online Citizenship question raises fears about census https://www.google.com/ Threats to Government Data Are Threats to Democracy Government Executive THOMAS KNAPP COMMENTARY: The Census for dummies,  including the Department of Justice https://www.google.com/ IMMIGRATION Bennington Banner (VT) As It Happens As It Happens ‐ KNOW‐FM Trump's Chain‐Immigration Plan Takes Aim at Asia Bloomberg News Online Immigration plan could keep whites in U.S. a majority for 5 more  years Santa Fe New Mexican 2/7/2018 2/6/2018 Friday DACA Rally at SDSU to Feature Congressman Luis Gutiérrez Commonwealth Club 2/12/2018 2/12/2018 2/12/2018 2/12/2018 2/12/2018 2/11/2018 2/11/2018 2/10/2018 2/9/2018 2/9/2018 2/8/2018 2/8/2018 2/8/2018 2/7/2018 2/7/2018 49 San Diego Free Press Commonwealth Club 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 000714 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census MSN News US (en) 10 SFGate 10 Targeted News Service Valley News ‐ Online Daily Kos Diaries ‐ Teacher Ken 10 10 10 International Examiner ‐ Online Strategic Finance Online Long Island Tech News Tom Haule/Linda Nunez ‐ KNX‐AM https://www.google.com/ Betsy's Page ENR California ‐ Online https://www.google.com/ 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 https://www.google.com/ 10 https://www.google.com/ 10 Journal of Southern History 10 Journal of Southern History 10 Journal of Southern History History News Network ENR California ‐ Online 10 10 10 2/1/2018 1/31/2018 1/31/2018 Trump immigration plan could keep whites in U.S. majority for up  to five more years Trump immigration plan could keep whites in US majority for up to  five more years ‐ SFGate Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee Issues Testimony  From Gov. Torres Column: Preserving, Protecting and Defending White Hegemony Abbreviated Pundit Round‐up: The lapdog memo The International Examiner – Activists discuss healthcare,  environmental, criminal justice legislation affecting APIs Brexit: CFO Perspectives ‐ Strategic Finance Black History Month in the US Pt 3 Tom Haule/Linda Nunez Should the Census be Allowed to Ask About Citizenship? Cruising the Web Texas Is Front Line of Immigration Reform Debate Immigration Restrictionists Seek to Weaponize the Census Kobach Backs Citizenship Question, Targeting 'One Person, One  Vote' Why Democrats Really Don't Want To Reinstate The Citizenship  Question On The US Census Redefining Vagrancy: Policing Freedom and Disorder in  Reconstruction New Orleans, 1862‐1868.(Essay) Troubled Refuge: Struggling for Freedom in the Civil War.(Book  review) Coushatta Homesteading in Southwest Louisiana and the  Development of the Community at Bayou Blue.(Essay) Are Puerto Ricans White? Texas Is Front Line of DACA Immigration Reform Debate 1/30/2018 1/30/2018 Timeline of Trump administration's civil and human rights rollbacks Wisconsin Gazette ‐ Online Country For United States Boston Commons High Tech Network 2/6/2018 2/6/2018 2/6/2018 2/5/2018 2/4/2018 2/4/2018 2/4/2018 2/3/2018 2/2/2018 2/2/2018 2/2/2018 2/1/2018 2/1/2018 2/1/2018 2/1/2018 2/1/2018 2/1/2018 50 10 10 000715 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/30/2018 1/30/2018 1/30/2018 1/30/2018 1/30/2018 1/30/2018 1/30/2018 1/30/2018 1/30/2018 1/30/2018 1/29/2018 1/29/2018 1/29/2018 1/29/2018 1/29/2018 1/28/2018 1/27/2018 1/27/2018 1/26/2018 1/26/2018 Exclusive – Kobach: Bring the Citizenship Question Back to the  Census Big List of 178 Trump accomplishments in 376 days Identity Politics And Our Racialized Government . . . Immigration backlash is coming from places least touched by  immigration Analysis by Ronald Brownstein CNN[CR‐LF](CNN) ‐‐ The escalating  struggle between the parties over immigration rests on a paradox Identity Politics and Our Racialized Government Census Bureau  refuses to midwife yet another identity‐grievance scam.  Bruce  Thornton Ensure Everyone Is Counted Trump Immigration Plan – Making America Into California Economic Impact of Immigration by State BBC World Service Millions of Americans on the 'denial spectrum' when it comes to  President Trump Morning Read: Do more candidates for state superintendent mean  a more likely November runoff? (and 6 more must‐reads)   LA  School Report White House Releases A Dud Of An Immigration Plan WAVY News 10 at 7 on Fox 43 WAVY News 10 Today at 4:30am Letters to the Editor Donald Trump's Cooperation in the Mueller Investigation and the  Possibility of His Using His Fifth Amendment Right; Judge  Rosemarie Los Angeles Times criticizes Trump's immigration plan Sunburn – The morning read of what's hot in Florida politics –  1.26.18 Bay News 9 Your Midday News at 11 51 Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census https://www.google.com/ Lisah C. Nease Arra News Service 10 10 10 MSN News US (en) 10 WENY‐TV ‐ Online 10 RUTHFULLY YOURS https://www.google.com/ Tennessee Star, The Wallethub Articles & Studies BBC World Service ‐ WUNC‐FM 10 10 10 10 10 InfoTel 10 LA School Report 10 Arra News Service 10 WAVY News 10 at 7 on Fox 43 ‐ WVBT‐TV10 WAVY News 10 Today at 4:30am ‐ WVBT 10 Queens Gazette 10 Technology Wire CE Noticias Financieras English 10 10 Florida Politics Blog ‐ South Florida Sun Se10 Bay News 9 Your Midday News at 11 ‐ Ba10 000716 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/26/2018 1/25/2018 1/25/2018 1/25/2018 1/24/2018 1/24/2018 1/22/2018 1/22/2018 1/21/2018 1/20/2018 1/20/2018 1/20/2018 1/20/2018 1/20/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 Outlet Name A Few Fun Facts About 'Dreamers' Patt Morrison All Things Considered Census concerns: Citizenship question would hurt results, critics  caution Lake County agency accepting DACA renewals TEMPEST‐TOSSED Trump officers need 2020 census to ask about citizenship To Many Movers And Shakers, Where Amazon Puts It's New  Headquarters Is The Most Important Thing In The World Could Amazon's new headquarters flip the presidential vote in a  swing state? One year of Trump: The Fourth 100 Days (Trump Briefs:  Jan. 13‐ Jan. 19/Day 359‐365) Week 52   Citizens Journal The very American myth of 'exceptional immigrants' After 1 Year of[CR‐LF]Trump, America Is Losing Its Soul Could Amazon's new headquarters flip the presidential vote in a... Analysis   Could Amazon's new headquarters flip the presidential  vote in a swing state? Miami's Haitians, accustomed to being shunned, rally after Trump  slight Miami's Haitians, accustomed to being shunned, rally after Trump  slight Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others 52 snopes.com Patt Morrison ‐ KPCC‐FM All Things Considered ‐ KNOW‐FM Media Impact Score ‐  Census 10 10 10 https://www.google.com/ Chronicle Media Florida Weekly ‐ Fort Myers https://www.google.com/ 10 10 10 10 Down with Tyranny! 10 Keene Sentinel Online 10 Citizens Journal TravelWireNews Root, The 10 10 10 Wired Journal, The 10 Wonkblog 10 My Palm Beach Post 10 My Dayton Daily News 10 KFXL‐TV Online 10 KBAK‐TV Online 10 KMPH‐TV Online 10 KRNV‐TV Online 10 000717 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Why Asking About Citizenship Could Make the Census Less  Accurate Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Foreign Workers Make Up More Than Half Of Silicon Valley's Tech  Industry, Reports Say Get to know Guam: Mongmong, Toto, Maite Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Lawmakers Shouldn't Praise Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. While  Restricting Voting Rights Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others 53 Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census KBOI‐TV Online 10 KMEG‐TV Online 10 https://www.google.com/ 10 WTVR‐TV Online 10 WKRC‐TV Online 10 Yahoo Finance Stripes Guam 10 10 KRXI‐TV Online 10 KOMO‐TV Online 10 WBFF‐TV ‐ Online 10 Weekly Challenger Online, The 10 WSMH Fox66 News 10 My Fox Illinois 10 WJLA‐TV Online 10 WDKT‐TV ‐ Online 10 KFDM‐TV ‐ Online 10 000718 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/18/2018 1/18/2018 1/17/2018 1/17/2018 1/17/2018 1/16/2018 1/16/2018 1/16/2018 1/15/2018 1/15/2018 1/15/2018 1/15/2018 1/14/2018 1/14/2018 1/14/2018 1/14/2018 1/13/2018 1/11/2018 Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others America's Puerto Rican Citizens ICE Raids Trump's vision for border wall has evolved in some ways, but not  others 2020 Census Changes Could Change Size of House Delegation for  Calif. Dave Ramsey Activists discuss healthcare, environmental, criminal justice  legislation affecting APIs Trump's 2020 Census May Cost California Congressional Seat by  Counting Citizens Bill Polish Patt Morrison Citizenship question threatens US census, says former programme  chief It's a Fact: Supreme Court Errors Aren't Hard to Find The census should ask about citizenship The Real Bleep‐Hole Moment ‐ LewRockwell LewRockwell.com Democrats once again holding out hope that Latino voters will  make a difference David Stockman On The Real “Shithole” – $40 Trillion & Counting… $40 trillion and counting ‐‐ Sott.net Backlash builds over immigration, but it's unclear how much it'll  help Democrats I On Politics The Real Bleep‐Hole Moment‐–$40 Trillion And Counting Will the Court Kill the Gerrymander? 54 Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census WEYI‐TV Online 10 KEPR‐TV Online Pike County News Watchman, The News India Times 10 10 10 WJSU‐TV ‐ Online 10 https://www.google.com/ Dave Ramsey Show, The 10 10 International Examiner ‐ Online 10 https://www.google.com/ Bill Polish ‐ KNX‐AM Patt Morrison ‐ KPCC‐FM 10 10 10 https://www.google.com/ ProPublica https://www.google.com/ LRC Blog, The 10 10 10 10 ExpressNews 10 Peoples Trust Toronto Signs of the Times (us) 10 10 ExpressNews Queens Gazette Burning Platform, The New York Review of Books Online, The 10 10 10 10 000719 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline Outlet Name https://www.google.com/ Media Impact Score ‐  Census 10 https://www.google.com/ MyTownNEO 10 10 Personal Liberty Digest https://www.google.com/ 10 10 Watertown Daily Times Online 10 https://www.google.com/ https://www.google.com/ 10 10 https://www.google.com/ 10 Public I AlterNet Online 10 10 OpEdNews.com 10 https://www.google.com/ 10 1/4/2018 Perryman: The Count Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn The GOP is sabotaging this sacred mandate Aging, undocumented and uninsured immigrants challenge cities  and states ‐ Personal Liberty® Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Aging, undocumented and uninsured immigrants challenge cities  and states The Census Bureau already asks about citizenship — for good  reasons Experts Say Census Citizenship Question Would Stifle Response Potential census question on citizenship stirs fears of dampened  participation California Dreamers say 'We can't wait,' as they plead for  Congressional action Trump's Vote Suppression Team Is Doing GOP's Dirty Work Citizenship Questions in the Census? Trump's DOJ Has an  Audacious New Project to Suppress the Vote Democrats Challenge Proposed Citizenship Question on 2020  Census 1/4/2018 Aging undocumented immigrants pose costly health care challenge Sunny 103 1 10 1/4/2018 Aging undocumented immigrants pose costly health care challenge CNNMoney 10 1/4/2018 Aging undocumented immigrants pose costly health care challenge AZ Family 10 1/4/2018 Aging undocumented immigrants pose costly health care challenge WABC‐AM Online 10 1/11/2018 1/10/2018 1/9/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/7/2018 1/7/2018 1/5/2018 1/5/2018 1/5/2018 1/5/2018 1/4/2018 55 000720 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census 1/4/2018 Aging undocumented immigrants pose costly health care challenge  Aging undocumented immigrants pose costly health care challenge  Aging undocumented immigrants pose costly health care  challengeMost Popular StoriesMost Popular StoriesMore>> Crossroads Today 10 1/4/2018 Aging undocumented immigrants pose costly health care challenge Erie News Now 10 1/4/2018 Aging undocumented immigrants pose costly health care challenge KITV‐TV Online 10 1/4/2018 Aging undocumented immigrants pose costly health care challenge KRTV‐TV ‐ Online 10 1/4/2018 Why the census shouldn't try to count undocumented immigrants I've been a census enumerator. Asking about citizenship is a  terrible idea. Aging, Undocumented and Uninsured Immigrants Challenge Cities  and States The DOJ Wants A Citizenship Question On The Census. That Could  Blow Up The Whole Survey Social Science   Education World Citizenship question is crucial for a fair, updated 2020 Census Aging, Undocumented and Uninsured Immigrants Challenge Cities  and States What to expect in Texas' voting rights court fights in 2018 BBC World Service What to expect in Texas' voting rights court fights in 2018 BBC World Service Alarm at Proposal to Ask About Citizenship Status in Census “You all just got a lot richer:” Donald Trump's true priorities  revealed in holiday news dumps The question that could sabotage the census https://www.google.com/ 10 https://www.google.com/ 10 Route Fifty 10 https://www.google.com/ Education World https://www.google.com/ 10 10 10 Pew Charitable Trusts, The Texas Tribune, The BBC World Service ‐ WNYC‐FM Aggie Sports BBC World Service ‐ KQED‐FM https://www.google.com/ 10 10 10 10 10 10 Waterloo Region Record Online https://www.google.com/ 10 10 1/4/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/2/2018 1/2/2018 1/2/2018 56 000721 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census Leisure Guy 10 Kitchener Post Online 10 Waterloo Chronicle Online 10 Hamilton Spectator Online, The 10 New Hamburg Independent Online 10 1/2/2018 What Trump's wrecking crew is doing to the US government and  environment   Later On “You all just got a lot richer:” Donald Trump's true priorities  revealed in holiday news dumps “You all just got a lot richer:” Donald Trump's true priorities  revealed in holiday news dumps “You all just got a lot richer:” Donald Trump's true priorities  revealed in holiday news dumps “You all just got a lot richer:” Donald Trump's true priorities  revealed in holiday news dumps 1/2/2018 Furor greets request to add citizenship question to 2020 US census https://www.google.com/ 10 1/2/2018 Furor greets request to add citizenship question to 2020 US census Science Online 10 1/2/2018 Furor greets request to add citizenship question to 2020 US census The Daily 202: Trump's true priorities revealed in holiday news  dumps 2017: Last Year's Reading ‐ dooneyscafe.com Saving the Associate of Arts Degree: HOW AN A.A. DEGREE CAN  BECOME A BETTER PATH TO LABOR MARKET SUCCESS.(Essay) Efforts grow to help students evaluate what they see online Spread of fake news prompts literacy efforts in schools DOJ wants 2020 census to ask about citizenship status Census Bureau called to add citizenship question on forms Trump Justice Department Pushes for Citizenship Question on  Census, Alarming Experts Project Recruiting Prospective Voters President Shirley M. Collado Co‐Edits Book on Latinx Students,  Professionals in Higher Ed Channel 5 News This Morning at 5AM Channel 5 News at 4pm https://www.google.com/ 10 https://www.google.com/ Dooneyscafe 10 10 1/2/2018 1/2/2018 1/2/2018 1/2/2018 1/2/2018 1/1/2018 1/1/2018 12/31/2017 12/30/2017 12/30/2017 12/30/2017 12/29/2017 12/29/2017 3/6/2018 2/9/2018 2/8/2018 57 AEI Paper & Studies 10 KCBQ‐AM Online 10 1300 AM Wall Street Business Network K10 EnvironmentGuru 10 USA Shafaqna 10 https://www.google.com/ Tennssee Tribune 10 10 Targeted News Service 8 Newschannel 5 This Morning ‐ KRGV‐TV 8 8 Channel 5 News at 4 ‐ KRGV‐TV 000722 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 2/16/2018 1/27/2018 1/26/2018 1/26/2018 1/26/2018 1/26/2018 1/25/2018 1/24/2018 1/24/2018 1/20/2018 1/19/2018 1/19/2018 1/18/2018 1/17/2018 1/16/2018 1/15/2018 1/15/2018 1/15/2018 1/14/2018 1/14/2018 1/14/2018 1/13/2018 1/13/2018 1/13/2018 Outlet Name WMBC News News 13 Your Evening News at 9 Immigration crackdown could cost Illinois a congressional seat Potential citizenship question in 2020 Census could shift power to  rural America DOJ suggests adding citizenship question to 2020 census 1 query on census could shift power Concern over Census request North Carolina editorial roundup Why Democrats should be very worried about the Census  requesting citizenship info Could Amazon's new headquarters flip the presidential vote in a  swing state? Miami's Haitians, accustomed to being shunned, rally after Trump  slight Stats for Stories: National Spouses Day At least half of Silicon Valley's tech industry workers are foreign‐ born, many rely on H‐1B visas Brian Ping Michael Barone: Against new questions for the 2020 Census Across the Mideast, Palestinians Brace for Trump Aid Cuts Across the Mideast, Palestinians brace for Trump aid cuts Latino clout in election uncertain; Higher turnout might not  guarantee gains for Dems Trump is playing politics with the 2020 Census. It could backfire. Census change may be costly Latino; voters' course unclear; Dems seek gains after immigration  backlash, but GOP is confident Karen Grigsby Bates As long as inequality exists, the census needs to ask about race Adding Citizenship Question Risks ‘Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn ‐ California Political Review 58 Media Impact Score ‐  Census WMBC Local News ‐ WMBC‐TV 6 News 13 Your Evening News at 9 ‐ News  4 WLS‐AM Online 0 Bangor Daily News Online Bay News 9 Online Washington Post, The Boston Globe, The Fresno Bee Online, The 0 0 0 0 0 Fix ‐ The Washington Post, The 0 Washington Post Online, The 0 Austin American‐Statesman Online Targeted News Service 0 0 Newsweek Online Brian Ping ‐ KNX‐AM https://www.google.com/ New York Times Online, The WFED‐AM Online 0 0 0 0 0 San Antonio Express News Napa Valley Register Online Brownsville Herald Online, The 0 0 0 Houston Chronicle High Plains Public Radio Chicago Tribune Online 0 0 0 California Political News & Views 0 000723 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/13/2018 1/13/2018 1/13/2018 1/13/2018 1/13/2018 1/13/2018 1/13/2018 1/12/2018 1/12/2018 1/12/2018 1/12/2018 1/12/2018 1/12/2018 1/12/2018 1/12/2018 1/12/2018 1/12/2018 1/12/2018 1/12/2018 1/12/2018 1/12/2018 Outlet Name DOJ wants citizenship question added to U.S. Census KFSN‐TV ‐ Online DOJ needs citizenship query added to U.S. Census WDN The Indian‐American small business community is rattled as  immigration authorities target a slew of 7‐Eleven franchises around  the country ‐ News India Times News India‐Times ‐ Online Backlash builds over immigration, but it's unclear how much it'll  help Democrats Houston Chronicle Online/chron.com Fla. Republicans fear fallout in crucial elections Washington Post, The Citizenship should not be in Census Las Cruces Sun‐News Citizenship should not be in Census Alamogordo Daily News Immigrants with jobs, education worry that Trump will force them  into the shadows Fresno Bee Online, The Dreamers Urge California Republicans To Save DACA HuffPost Immigrants with jobs, education worry that Trump will force them  into the shadows McClatchy Newspapers Online Unchained migration National Affairs News Immigrants with jobs, education worry that Trump will force them  into the shadows Sacramento Bee Online, The Without 's‐‐ ‐hole countries,' there would be no you, me or  America USA Today Online A question of citizenship could sabotage 2020 census Milwaukee Independent Americans Must Be Able to Count on Census ImmigrationReform Leaked Memo: DACA Amnesty Is ‘Critical Component of  Democratic Party's Future Electoral Success' Steady Drip, The FEEDBACK[CR‐LF][CR‐LF]The Jan. 4 Washington Post editorial  concerning the census ("Change that could derail U.S. Census") was  typical left‐wing propaganda. The Census Bureau wants to add a  question to the form inquiring about your citi Express‐Times ‐‐ Bethlehem Edition, The Splintering of mass media promotes disunity Express‐Times ‐‐ Bethlehem Edition, The Why no progress on Bethlehem Theater? Express‐Times ‐‐ Bethlehem Edition, The Asking About Citizenship New York Times, The Census should ask citizenship status Express‐Times ‐‐ Bethlehem Edition, The 59 Media Impact Score ‐  Census 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000724 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/11/2018 1/11/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 Outlet Name Opinion   Asking About Citizenship Report: Non‐citizens' crime rate analyzed Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn NBC Bay Area News at 6 Citizenship and the Census Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn I On Politics   www.qgazette.com Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn 60 New York Times Online, The Spero News Media Impact Score ‐  Census 0 0 KUNM 0 WITH 0 WRKF‐FM Online 0 WVPE 0 NBC Bay Area News at 6 PM ‐ KNTV‐TV 0 New York Times Online, The 0 WEMU‐FM Online 0 KVNF Public Radio 0 wutc.org 0 WCBE‐FM ‐ Online 0 KUFM‐FM Online 0 KLCC‐FM ‐ Online Western Queens Gazette ‐ Online 0 0 KASU 0 WCQS‐FM (Western North Carolina Publi 0 WMRA 0 000725 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Hansi Lo Wang Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Trump Administration's Push For Citizenship Question On Census  Alarms Critics By Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn KUHF‐FM Title Unavailable Title Unavailable Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn 61 Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census kwgs.org 0 KDNK‐FM ‐ Online 0 WUWF ‐ Online 0 WESM 0 Capital Public Radio ‐ Online 0 kenw.org 0 KNKX‐FM Online 0 WNIJ‐FM ‐ Online 0 KALW HPPR 0 0 HPPR 0 Texas Standard 0 KNPR‐FM (Nevada Public Radio) ‐ Online 0 KUER‐FM Online KUHF‐FM KSTX‐FM KERA‐FM 0 0 0 0 WUNC‐FM ‐ Online 0 000726 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn 62 Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census wkyufm 0 KGOU Online 0 KCUR‐FM Online 0 Alabama Public Radio ‐ Online 0 WUKY‐FM ‐ Online 0 WVPB‐FM ‐ Online 0 KCBX‐FM ‐ KCBX‐FM online Bureau 0 KBIA‐FM ‐ Online 0 Texas Public Radio ‐ Online 0 WFAE‐FM ‐ Online 0 WEKF‐FM ‐ Online 0 Interlochen Public Radio 0 KRWG‐FM ‐ Online 0 Northeast Indiana Public Radio 0 WNPR News 0 WLRN‐FM Online 0 000727 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/10/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/9/2018 1/8/2018 Outlet Name Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn KUVO Online Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn WCAI Online Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn WAMC‐FM Online Adding Citizenship Question Risks 'Bad Count' For 2020 Census,  Experts Warn WYSO‐TV ‐ Online Republicans sabotaging the U.S. census Laredo Morning Times Online Republicans sabotaging the U.S. census San Antonio Express‐News Online The question that could sabotage the census Waterloo‐Cedar Falls Courier Online The question that could sabotage the census Sentinel Online The question that could sabotage the census Wiscnews.com The question that could sabotage the census Muscatine Journal Online The question that could sabotage the census Napa Valley Register Online The question that could sabotage the census Lebanon Express Online The question that could sabotage the census Rapid City Journal Online The question that could sabotage the census Herald & Review Online Will The “C” Question Destroy The Democratic Party? https://www.google.com/ Will The “C” Question Destroy The Democratic Party? Fox & Hounds Daily Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Current‐Argus Online Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Coshocton Tribune Online Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Ruidoso News Online Census 2020 doesn't need citizenship question Newnan Times‐Herald Online California Secretary of State in opposition to U.S. Census citizenship  question Santa Maria Times Online Smart Ideas: Leave Citizenship Out of the Census National Journal Daily Extra AM Sabotaging a sacred mandate Courier, The GOP sabotaging a sacred mandate Daily Record, The OUR VIEW: Census shouldn't try to count undocumented  immigrants Milford Daily News Online, The 63 Media Impact Score ‐  Census 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000728 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/8/2018 1/7/2018 1/7/2018 1/7/2018 1/7/2018 1/6/2018 Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census Tribune‐Herald Online Billings Gazette Online Times‐Tribune Online, The Daytona Beach News‐Journal Online Chicago Tribune Online Richmond.com 0 0 0 0 0 0 Route Fifty Star Tribune Online San Francisco Chronicle 0 0 0 Washington Post, The 0 Why the census shouldn't try to count undocumented immigrants Trump administration pushes for a change that could derail the  census How They See It Sabotage of a sacred mandate GOP sabotaging census to decrease participation It's time for the Census Bureau to stop dividing America When Winston‐Salem was N.C.'s largest city The GOP is sabotaging this sacred mandate Uninsured immigrants a challenge forcities, states Tribune‐Herald 0 Patriot Ledger, The Times Record Richmond Times‐Dispatch Courier‐Post Chicago Tribune Winston‐Salem Journal Star, The (Shelby, NC) Arizona Daily Star 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 The GOP is sabotaging the census — and ignoring the Constitution Aging, undocumented and uninsured immigrants challenge cities  and states Editorial: Snapshots from the nation's press The GOP is sabotaging this sacred mandate The Trump administration wants to make a major change to the  2020 US census Denver Post Online, The 0 Register Guard Projects, The Daily Camera New Hampshire Sunday News 0 0 0 Business Insider 0 Why the census shouldn't try to count undocumented immigrants Politics put America's 2020 Census at risk Count Founders as angry GOP is sabotaging this sacred mandate It's time for the Census Bureau to stop dividing America Sabotage of a sacred mandate Justice Department's Census Citizenship Question Increases  Undercounting Fears Congress must guard accuracy, use of census Census not about citizenship The Census Bureau already asks about citizenship ‐ for good  reasons 64 000729 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/6/2018 1/6/2018 1/6/2018 1/6/2018 1/6/2018 1/6/2018 1/6/2018 1/5/2018 1/5/2018 1/5/2018 1/5/2018 1/5/2018 1/5/2018 1/5/2018 1/5/2018 1/5/2018 1/5/2018 1/5/2018 1/5/2018 1/5/2018 1/5/2018 1/5/2018 1/4/2018 California Dreamers say 'We can't wait,' plead for congressional  action The GOP is sabotaging this sacred mandate The Trump administration's citizenship questions could wreck the  census BBC World Service Title Unavailable Protect the census The GOP is sabotaging census Sessions wants next census to include “citizenship status” 5 Dem senators ask administration not to include citizenship  question on census Experts Say Census Citizenship Question Would Stifle Response What to expect in Texas' voting rights court fights in 2018 Potential census question on citizenship stirs fears of dampened  participation GOP sabotaging sacred census mandate 5 Things You Need to Know About Federal News From the Past  Month ‐ GovLoop The GOP is sabotaging this sacred mandate Lucky Dragon temporarily shuts gaming, restaurant operations The GOP is sabotaging this sacred mandate Catherine Rampell The GOP is sabotaging this sacred mandate Trump administration pushed for a change that could derail the  census It's time the census bureau stops dividing America Trump administration pushed for a change that could derail the  census Senators to Trump Administration: Reject Census Citizenship  Question Feds plan to add citizenship question to U.S. Census 65 Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census Philly.com Day Online 0 0 San Francisco Chronicle Online BBC World Service ‐ KNOW‐FM KSTX‐FM San Diego Union‐Tribune, The Daily Review Atlas ExpressNews 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hill Online, The WFPL‐FM ‐ Online Community Impact 0 0 0 NBC News Online Asbury Park Press Online 0 0 GovLoop 0 Burlington Free Press Online 0 EB‐5 News Blog: Regional Centers in the  0 Plum Line, The 0 Salt Lake Tribune, The 0 New Britain Herald Siskiyou Daily News 0 0 Bristol Press, The 0 Targeted News Service 0 Dayton Daily News Online/daytondailyne0 000730 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline Outlet Name Media Impact Score ‐  Census U.S. Representative ‐ New York 0 Government Executive My Dayton Daily News WHIO‐TV Online Manhattan Mercury Online, The Springfield News‐Sun Online Journal‐News Online 0 0 0 0 0 0 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 Maloney: Justice Department Request for Inclusion of Citizenship  Question in 2020 Census Threatens Accuracy of the Count of Our  Nation Democrats Challenge Proposed Citizenship Question on 2020  Census Feds plan to add citizenship question to U.S. Census Feds plan to add citizenship question to U.S. Census Census change should be rejected Feds plan to add citizenship question to U.S. Census Feds plan to add citizenship question to U.S. Census 1/4/2018 Aging undocumented immigrants pose costly health care challenge 92qnashville.com 0 1/4/2018 Aging undocumented immigrants pose costly health care challenge KAKE‐TV ‐ Online 0 1/4/2018 WICC‐AM Online 0 OpEdNews.com https://www.google.com/ 0 0 1/4/2018 Aging undocumented immigrants pose costly health care challenge OpEdNews Citizenship Questions in the Census? Trump's DOJ Has  an Audacious New Project to Suppress the Vote Feds plan to add citizenship question to US Census Letter to Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross: Reject a new  citizenship question on the 2020 Census https://www.google.com/ 0 1/4/2018 Aging undocumented immigrants pose costly health care challenge WBBH‐TV Online 0 1/4/2018 Aging undocumented immigrants pose costly health care challenge Trump DOJ Could Effectively Be Reviving A Long‐Term Attack On  Voting Rights A question of citizenship Census 2020 part of Trump's plan to wreck America Department of Justice Requests Citizenship Questions Be Added to  Census What to expect in Texas' voting rights court fights in 2018 WSEE‐TV Online 0 https://www.google.com/ https://www.google.com/ Daily Kos 0 0 0 Pacific Standard Online KABB‐TV Online 0 0 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 66 000731 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 1/4/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 1/3/2018 Outlet Name Another view: The Trump administration pushes for a change that  could derail the census Northwest Herald Another view: The Trump administration pushes for a change that  could derail the census McHenry County Business Journal, The Change that could derail U.S. census Express‐Times ‐‐ Bethlehem Edition, The Trump administration pushes for change that could derail the  census Progress‐Index, The (Petersburg, VA) Trump changes could derail the census Daily Gazette, The Last‐minute question could derail census Daily Record, The Social Security pay increase is a slap in the face for Americans Patriot‐News Online/PennLive.com, The Men need to zip‐up and shut‐up Patriot‐News Online/PennLive.com, The A free and open internet should not be stifled by bureaucratic  whims Patriot‐News Online/PennLive.com, The Marc Scaringi's recent op‐ed should scare all Americans Patriot‐News Online/PennLive.com, The Critics Say Questions About Citizenship Could Wreck Chances for an  Accurate Census New York Times Online, The Trump Appointing Advocate of Racial Gerrymandering to Run Next  Census Independent Journal Review What to expect in Texas' voting rights court fights in 2018 Amarillo Globe‐News Online What To Expect In Texas' Voting Rights Court Fights In 2018 KUHF‐FM ‐ Online What to expect in Texas' voting rights court fights in 2018 KEYE‐TV Online Alarm at Proposal to Ask About Citizenship Status in Census Pacific Northwest Inlander ‐ Online The DOJ Wants A Citizenship Question On The Census. That Could  Blow Up The Whole Survey HuffPost Aging, Undocumented And Uninsured Immigrants Challenge Cities  And States HuffPost Trump Justice Department Pushes for Citizenship Question on  Census, Alarming Experts Madison365 Opinion   Say it again, Mitt Romney: Trump is unfit to serve Washington Post Online, The Congressman Steve King Seeks Citizenship Question On U.S. Census  Form You‐Blog.Club 67 Media Impact Score ‐  Census 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000732 Census Media Tracking on Requested Citizenship Question January 29, 2017 to March 23, 2018 News Date News Headline 1/3/2018 1/2/2018 1/2/2018 1/2/2018 1/11/2018 Outlet Name Critics Say Questions About Citizenship Could Wreck Chances for an  Accurate 2020 Census News Taco Trump DOJ Pushes For Citizenship Question On Census, Alarming  Experts Talking Points Memo Furor greets request to add citizenship question to 2020 U.S.  census Science Online Trump administration calls for citizenship question on census,  potentially chilling participation Daily Kos Corrections & Clarifications WBIR‐TV Online Media Impact Score ‐  Census 0 0 0 0 KEY **Media impact score is calculated by multiplying the prominence score of an article by the importance of the publication.  Prominence score analyses the text of a news article based on unique search terms to score each article.  Word Count=400+, Maximum Score=50 Word Count=300‐399, Maximum Score=40 Word Count=200‐299, Maximum Score=30 Word Count=101‐199, Maximum Score=20 Word Count=1‐100, Maximum Score=10 The importance of a media outlet is determined by a tier level assigned by their circulation.   Tier 1, Multiplier=4 Tier 2, Multiplier=3 Tier 3, Multiplier=2 Tier 4, Multiplier=1 The media impact score ranges from a high of 200 to a low of 0. 68 000733 U98. Immigrant Population Hits Record 43.? Page 1_ ofS PH re" I i US. immigrant Population Hits Record 437 Million An Inerease of 12:6 millionsinoe 2000 NEWS PROVIDEDBY Center for immigration-Studies. Oct 1's:40 ET 16,- 201? {PRNewswire-USNewswiref new analysis by the Center for immigration-Studies of recently released U.S. Census data ?nds that the nation's immigrant population (legal and illegal) hit-a record 43;? million in' 2016. The data also show more than 16.6. million minor children with an immigrant parent. Immigrants and theiryoung children thus now account'for'nearly. one in ?ve US. residents. 000734 :339k'201 8 US. Immigrant Population Hits Record 43.? Million Page 2'-of 5 Growth in the-immigrant pepulation was not the same forall countries. There were significant increases in-the total number of'immigran'ts from the Middie East,- Asia, Sub"- Saharan Africa, and Latin Americancountr?ie?s other than Mexico, while the number of those from Mexico, Europe, and Canada grew not at all or declined .- with the highest p?ementage growth from 2010 to 2016 were Saudi Arabia '(up 122- percent), Nepal (up '86 percent), Afghanistan (up ?4 percent), Burmatop 73 percent), and Syria (up .62 percent), The states experiencing, the largest percentage increases in the number of immigrants 20-10 to 2018 were. North Dakota (up-.48 percent), West Virginia (up 41 percent), South Dakota (up 39 percent), Delaware (up 24 percent), Nebraska-(Lip 20 20 percent). Dr. Steven Center?s director of research and coauthor of the report, said, ?The enormous number of immigrants already in the ?country-'coup'led with the Settlementof weii over a million newcomers each year has aprofound impact on American society, including on workers, schools, infrastructure, hospitals. and the environment. The nation needs a serious; debate about whether continuing this level of immigration View the report at: Among the-??ndings in the new data; 000735 http's :tfm'pmewswire. .. 319/20 113 U.s. Immigrant Population Hits Record 43.7 Million Pagc'? of 5- . The-nation'szimrnigrant population (legal and illegal) hit a record 433.? millicin in July 2016, an increaseiof half a million since-.2015, 3.8 million since 52010, and 12.6 million since 2000. - As a share of the US. population, immigrants (legal and illegal) comprised 1-3.5 percent, or- one. outof eight residents in 2016, the highest percentage. in 106 years. ,As. recently as 1980. lLIst? one cutof- 16- residents was'foreign-born; "Between-2010 and'_2016, 8.1 million new immigrants settled in the-United States.xNew arrivals-are offset roughly 300,000 immigrants who return home each year-and? annual natural. mortality. of about 300,000. among the existing foreignsborn population. As .a result, growth in the immigrant population was 3.8 million 2010102016. In addition to immigrants, there were m'ore'than 116.6 million, U..S..?born miner children with art-immigrant parent 'in? 520126, fora to?ta'i of'60.4 million'.immigrant's and their. children in'the Country. Immigrants and'theirmincr chiidrsn now account-for" nearly one in five US. residents. -- Mexican immigrants-(legaland illegal) were by- far the largest foreig n-born Population in'the country in12016. 'Mexico'is the top sending-country, with 1.1 million new immigrants arriving from Mexico between 2010 or'oneout of eight new animals. However, because natural mortality. the. overall Mexicansborn population has-not grown in the last six years. Thesending regions with the; largest numerical increases in the number cf?i'mmigr'ants- living in the United Statesf20'1-5 ?to 2016'were' the Caribbean (up 120,522), the Middle East (up. 109,113), Central-America (up Sub-Saharan Africa. South Asia (up and South America ([1061 .452); Longer. term, the regions with'th'e largest numerical increases 2010 to 2016 were East Asia (up. 892.209), south Asia ("up sass-rs), the Caribbean the Middle East (up 471,029), Sub-Saharan Africa (up 456,989), Central America (up 402,784), and South America (up 249,660). I The-sending countries withithe largest numeriCal increases. since 20-10were l_nd_ia (up 654,202), China (Up 550,022), the Dominican Republic El Salvador (up 11 72,973), Cuba (up Honduras ("up 128,478), I Vietnam (up "11 2,218), Venezuela (up 106,185), Guatemala (up 104,883), Nigeria (up 31565.), Pakistan (up 83,271), Haiti (up Bangladesh (up 80,949), Jamaica (Up 000736 3f9f2013 us. Lnn?grant Population Hits Record-43 a Million Page 4 of 5 Ethiopia Brazil (up 69,932), Colombia (up 68,032), had (up 61,787), BUrma (also-known as Myanmar, up 60,294), Nepal ("up 59,992), and Saudi Arabia (up The Sending? countries with the largest percentage increases lnithe number of immigrants tilting 'in the United States since 2010 were Saudi Arabia (up 122*percent), Nepal (88' percent), Afghanistan (up 74 7-3 percent), Syria (up 62 percent), Venezuela (up 58 pendent), Bangladesh (up153 percent), Kenya (up 46 percent), Ethiopia (up 41 percent), Nigeria (up 40 percent), Iraq (up 39 percent), Ghana (up-37 percent), India (up 37 percent), Egypt (up '32 percent), ?Pakistan (up 28. percent), and China (up 25 percent). ..- The states with the ?largest; numericat increases 'in the number of' immigrants from 2019 to 2016-w?re Florida (up 578,468), Californiattm 527,234), New York (up 238,503), New Jersey (up 171,504), Massachusetts (up 140.1318), Washington (up 134,132), (up 131,545), Virginia (up 1.20.050), Maryland (up 113,175). Georgia (up 95,353), Nevada-(Up 78,341), Arizona (up 73,220), Michigan (up T4532), Minnesotatup 73,953), and- North Carolina (up ?703501). - The. states with. the largest'perce'ntage increases 'in the number of immigrants 2010 to 20-16 were North Dakota (Lip-48-percent), West-Virginia (u'p 4'1 percent), South Dakota (H.939 percent), Delaware (up 24: percent), Nebraskatup 20'pe'rcen't), Minnesota (Up 29-percent), wyoming (up 19' percent), ?(up 18 (up 1.6 perCent), lndiana (up 16-per-cent), F?Iorida(up_ 1.6 percent), Nevada (up 15. percent), Washington (UP 1?5percent), .lowa (up .15 percent), Niary'l'and (Up 15 percent). 14 percent), Texas (up Utah (up 13 percent), Wl'siconsin (up 13' percent), and Virginia (up 1 3 percent). Contact: Marguerite Teiford 202-469-9185, _rnrt@cis.prg SOURCE Center for immigration Studies. . 000737 3919:2018 n. 1 - a. 43%? ?ee . re?t? ides What does-winning loci: like For year organization in the current? politicoi environment? Funding tro,nsiormotio? through. racial healing I JEAnmE'lsm 'Poy' it toward: A new We}: to' tund- grassroots - organizing in the Soi?h- En- Rev. James: BEACH-FERNA- A?messqge from-the President and CEO 2: Spotlight: 15 Philanthropy and the 2020 census: A once?in~ejeclececle chance- to get i The-13,35; Constitution requires a cen- sus, every 10- years, and getting.- it 'right- is: important to everyone. The census has-an enormcius- impact on the. nation?s- ability to ensure- that all Americans receive- equal treatment under-the law and?have equal access to? economic cpporttinities. Census- data prostide the basis for all demographic and socioeconomic." .info'rm'atiOH used by policymakers at all' levels of government, businesses, philanthropy, community leaders and research organizations. A good'census is. not a? partisan sue. The goal of the Census Bu- reau is {to' "?ce'unt everyone. once, only once, and in the But the census doesn?t count all groups equallyr we! which skews the mesa .in-taver of some communities over ethers'for the next 1-U'yea'rstelreadir, budget shortfalls are placing census operatiens, designed to reach groups that have been 'hiSto'ri~ tally underrepresented in the censusat risk,- threatening-fairness and accuraty, and ultimately, our-democracy. r: 9 hi The US. Census Bu'reau-'spends-bil- lions of'clollars on-the census. Howev- er, none of that money reaches the nonu profit organizations whose outreach .to' people of color, immigrantsand peepie with low income can help make the difference between a disastrous-under- count and an accurate count. By Vanita GUpta NOW NEVER Some oftlse largest foundations in the country have-started to fill alportien of this resource. gap, but more focus: and resourCes- are needed to Support-the ter- gantZations engaged-"in. critical census education and promotion; Here are four reasons why fundets. need to (continued on page 12) 000738 {continued from page prioritize achieving a fair and accurate; I2 02 0- census: I I.-ITHE ceases; To The outcome of'the census influences; -direct_ly or indirectly almostevery iSsue that DEL-focused philanthroples' support,'inclIuding political empowers rnent, social ju stiCe; educational oppor? tunity, employment, veterans.I services, rural development health care and in- frastructur'e in disadvantaged commu- .niIties. Philanthropy also relies on cen- sus data to guide and evaluate the Work of grantees. I Decennial census dataon state-popu-' latIionIs' determine the number of seats in Congress each state receives and how those districtsare drawn: Morethan $600 .billion annually is allocated through?ted- eral programs based, in whole or in part, on census; dataR-IAdditionallg state and local governments 'use census informa- tion-Ito distribute billions-more for essen- tial Services. Census 'data'are-also. used to monitor compliance with, and enforce? ment-of, civil rights-statutes. CoUnting'every' person in the United States is an'extraordinarily completion- deavor ?'it is the nation?s largest peace? time mobilization 'o'f'I personnel and resources. Even With careful planning. a perfect count lsIviIr-tually impossible: Some people are-missed, some are dou- and some do not respond iiIlly. But, because the accuracy. of. the census directly affects our nation .5 .abil- Iity to ensure equalI representation. and equal access to public. and private re- .Is'tthIrCES, 'achievingfa fair and accurate census must be regarded as one of the most significant-civil rights and-Social josticepriorities facing the country. 2020 CENSUS- ALREADY UNDERWAY. IWhile-t-he 2020. census mayseem far off, key decisions- are- being rn'acle new, and poor-Choices could lead'tosignifi- cant harm for-years to come, TheCen- sus- Bureau has spent an-entire decade planning upcoming'cen'sus, and, -by the eIn'd'of 201.3, the. CenSUs Bureau will have. finalized the. questi'OrIn'aire -ior.23020 and launched its program for sharing preliminary address lists with states and municipalities. Significant operations will go into effect. in 201 ijith'the End-to-Enc'l Cen? Test This pivotal ?dress rehearsal? had been scheduled to take- place. in three areas Pierce County, Washing- ton}. Providence County, Rhode Island; and. =Virginia.? but'dueto budget'shortfal Is, it will only be conducted in Etovidence. The dry run is the onlyr opportunity for a scomplete test of the?2020 uestionna ire and new technologies, including a new internet response option that the Gen- sus promoting asI-the primary response mode for the 202-0 censusIIand electronic devices for census takers to. collectinformation during personai as- its to unresponsive.households. in census Bureau v'vill ramp .upits outreach efforts, which include a partnership program. paid advertising. and a census in the schools program. Hundreds of millions question- naires will be. printed, and local of?ces acrossI-thecountry ivill begin recruiting more-:than a- miilioni'temporary census- .employees, -with plans 'to' hire] about 300,000 enumerators during peak erations. Census workers also will can- that have un? change .or that have. unstable houSingf conditidns, to update the master address file thatesItablishes- the universe forthe? 2020 count. I3. ENGAGING LATER MAY BE TOO LATE. HistOriCally, the census" has missed dis- proportionately high numbers of .peo- ple of color, low-income- households: in rural and urban areas. and young chiIldre_n.- The Census. Bureau also des?. 12 Notional Committee for EesponSive Philanthropy 'ignates "Ihardstoeco'unt? areas based on: additional characteristics, including" limited English proficiency. mobile'and single-parent households. This uneven accUracy has sigIn'iIficant'tiivil rights'im- plications. because .it could; deny the most vulnerable members of our sociII-. et'y equal representation and opportu? nity Efforts to address these challenges must be built into the- census protess: Inovv, before it is too late for them to- have an impact. 'E'ncoUraging' people to Complete: their census?Iquestionnaires, and elimi? nating undercounts' in at-risk nities?, will be in 2020. Encouraging .an online re- sponse might lead to concerns about Internet..privacy and data confidential;- ity, especially - given high-pro?le- news Stories about computer hacking affect- ing businesses. and government. and" some communities that may already feel besieged by the current: political climate may be concerned about new options for identifying Middle Eastern and North African ethnicity. immigrant and mixed? status households may be. especially fearful of providing. informa- tion to. the. federal government in 2-020. given Ithe heightened climate of --fear that anti?immigrant rhetoric and poli? Cies' have created. The. Census Bureau will attempt-to minimiZe undercountin'g With an ex.- tensive,; $400+ million communica? tions plan, but the bureau cannot be suCcessful 'on' its-own. The role. that na- tional and state advocacy groups" and" cemrnunity.?.bjased organizations play is-critical to afair'and'atcurate census. :gAccording-Ito former Census Bureau Director Kenneth Prewitt, ?Of the many. things necessary for a_ successful cen- sus, none rival trusted voices that reas- sure?mericans anxious about the gov? ern ment asking queStions,? The. Census Bureau knows that. trusted community? voices persuade .millions .or-Amer-icans' to join the once every Idecade..oppoIrtu.-. nitv that Is' truly of the people,- by the people 'for' the poople. We commend the philanthropic Community for identifying? an encorate 2010 consuls as an important goal and for committing significant'resourc'es to this work ?The Leadership Conference?s. 201.0 census _.education andpromotion Campaign,- collaborative with. Asian Americans Adventing-?Ju?sticerAAJC, the National Association of Latino Elected- ar'id Appointed Officials Educational Fund the NAACR and the National Congress of AmeriCan Indians Which served as a key bridge between the Cen- -_'sus Bureau and communities at greatest- risl: of an 'unde'r'co'unt nor have been Foundations: invested at- ieast million in "get out the count? "cam- paigns to increase the :accurac-vof' the 2010 census:4 But the flow-of funds to nonprofit organizations was uneven and unpredictable, and the levels of funding- were not commensurate with the importance of the-census and-the. wideyranging' and long-term conse- quences of underperformance,. Equally important is to consider that meaningful fender involvement did. not begin .until 2008, Which Was not early enough in the decade during-the last census-cycle Otir work for the 2020 census has been under. wavifor'y'ears, and some of the nation?s largest'foundation's have begun to shore up- funding- to. sup- port nonprofit c?om?munities. .Bt'It the resources and reach?to' date are inad- equate to meet the Immense challenge of- ensuring a fair and acciirate count. In the current _ciimate broadening the coalition. engaged in census work wili be that un- derstand- the importance of the census for their '-other'-'substantive areas of f0." cus must?find Ways of ensuring a_ swift investment in the work of community-.groiips. Responsive Philanthropy: 4-. F?OILlf-Ilir IMPROVEMENTS COULD F'A'i?r The 2020 census faces a severe threat that .Underfundingwili compromise its fairness and-accuracy. In order for the Census Bureau to-_prepare vvell 'an'd- carry-rout important tests of new tech- nologies and procedures it requires'a continuous ramp up 'in'stinding iev'els in the years ending in through f? Unfortunately, as the below graph shows for this cycle Congress allocated for lessthan-theCensus Bureau request? ed: in both 2016 and the 2017? funding level ._was-only modestiv higher than-the previous year To make matters worse the administrations funding re- quest of$i _5 billion for fiscal year 20] 8 is irresponsible and unrealistically low, falling at'least $300'million short-of-the level needed to ensure a cost?effective- decennial. cenSLIs in'20'20 This underinvestment has already! forced the Census Bureau to scale back" or eliminate some key 2020 census preparations. For example, 2017 field tests planned'for Puerto Rico and on two-America n?lndian reservations were educated. In additionr the opening" of three of six regional 2020 census of- fices has been delayed, and the com? munications campaign and coverage measurement components of the 2.018 dress rehearsal Were eliminated. Given the Trump Administrations; in'adequate'nbudget' request for 2018, the Census Bureau has been forced to entirely eliminate two of the three :dr'es's r-?el?iearsai sites, thus diminishing the opportuniw to fully-test all meth-I .ods and operations in a _censUs-Iike environment com- munitijes. The consequences of inadequate proparation and funding could be dev? astating, with vulnerable, communities taking the hardest hits; Educational outreacl?if to' both sides of the the need for sufficient government 'irive_Stme'nt in the. sound preparation and policy development to ensure a fair and accurate census, can help address this potential crisis, but Proposed Increase" In 2018 Census Bureau Funding For Less Then in Previous Decenniol Census Cycles Change inCensus Bureau. Budget relative to year 'each decade Census. 1890' (lenses 53.59} 2016 Census 2029:: end at Trump} House plan Year T- m-Year _8 Note: All years are fiseai- years Figures snow discretionary osidqet authority in each year of the decade relative. to that in the sixth year- not unionized For inflation Source: .EEPP based on once of Management and Eudora: enacted appropriations. and draft legislation from the House Appropriations Committee c- enters or ever-F's tote notice enroeiries 00740 Hummer 2'01? hit? itif- i" euro 13. philanthropic support is needed'for th'iS.? werk to. be successful. Census funding hasbeen traditional-- I95 viewed by philanthropy as a-oncIe-as decade undertaking; without a funding stream. Butfunding for organi-?- zations with a 'prov'en' track. record on censusissues, "asw'ell as for those- who can reach audiences. that will support and decide census, policy, can help- rnalce the-difference in_ bolstering efforts to educateand influencepolicvmakers; FUNDERS: BE TO YOUR PEERS. The census isa classic ?intersec?tional? is- sue. 'li-has a' directfimpact' efforts. criminal justice reiormg racial Jins- tice 'i"ssueIs,. educational access and much more. Thousands of commonly-groups across theIcountry' are hoping to player role in promoting the census to?ih'Ieir con- stituents, but they lack the resources to developand staff?rnajor" activities. Foundations that support the core Workof these-organizations should .ogn'ize th'at'an incluSive'ce'nSLis enables grantees to access the resources they. need toprovide betterservices. Wehope' that funders will be open .to. combining portfolios,- as manydid in 2010, to inbreasethe pot of available "funding. .Please talk to your Colleagues about'ItIhis critical "issue. When jit-corhes-to the census?,- there are no Clo-overs We have. only one chance this decade to get vanita Gupta is president and or The Leadership ConferEnce on Human Rights and former head of the Civil' Rights Division at the-'US. Dispari- .me'rir-ofjustice. ole-s . jenniier S'oindon ond Robeii Chestnut, "The-202C] census: A New Design for the 2i sl CenliJrv," Census Bureou. October 20 s, hilpsi-Z?X W. Follogov/li le-reposilorv/ councildlomeelings/EOi .crmeeli Jig,- proceed ing conie?rence/ 2 SOCCensusI-I2D2Ci?slldes/ . Andrew Recliner. ?Cowling ior. Dollars: The. Role. oi the D'ecenniol Census in the Geogrophic Distribution-oi Federol Funds. (3W loslilule cal-Public Polity. June 21 2m 7 hllp: JnFo/ pd 7 censu 57 Counting ForDollors? intro pdi. AIbrohom Lincoln The dress Novemberl9 l363. -. Kim CreWs "Philonlbropic Support icar 2010 Census Oulreo'ch: A list bi .Gronls Aworded Mo}! 2m blips. 7-7 funderscoiilmiltee; org7i iles/ D_-Census_Gronis_Spre-od- .pcli; See olso Kim Crews, ?Philonthropic Subporl For '20] 0 Census An Over; view oil-Grunts 'Avvorded," 201 l, org/ :liles/ ZHOIverview?LGrontsn?word? noi . poll. A. new-way to fund grassroots Organizing? iCootinueo? from page i I) needed. to be;.used by those Who-are most impactedJThereis a strategic rea- son as well: Creating legal and lived Equality in the south requires that-we do long-term organizing {in-every com? munity, not just-in. large metro areas. fonding grassroots work is a core strategy as; we build a nesv'rn'odel of Southern organizing. just like" direct -ser-' vices and litigation. We learn from and build with our grassroots partners. in the shared workand mutuality of these-inela- tionships, there is also great joy. 5% Rev; jasmine Be'achuFerrara- is the ex'ecu- tive director of'the Campaign for South'- ern which promote-Is LES-IQ equaiitjr? abr?os?s the-South. She 'is a min- in the United Church of Christ and a County- .Commisision'er in BunCombe County, North Carolina. Notes According to reseorch from Funders. for issves ioundolion ionding lo LG- BTG- groups in the South hos i'ncieosecl lion-J less than 5fpetcenl to 2-5 percent in recenl gronis primarily go: Eng lo lorge non-proiils in mel?ro oreos. .2. 'Cloudio Horwilz, "Out in-lhe-Soulh For! Tvvo: The Assets Funders For issues September-2014 hiip517 ,7 gw'mv. lgbtirinders. org 7 wp-contenr/ opioods72Ql ?/OS/Oulmi nulhe?oulh? I in the_ U. 3.. ?South Jodi. 3. Hurrion Rights Compoign "Violence AgbinSl the Tronsgender Community In .201 7-. h?p?/WWhmotg?esourc- liespensive'F'hilonthropvr 5; in the. SouJ-h endor- cornm'unliv-in-EO} 7. "Susan Reii. Donne So?ilev, Coroiyn IMcAIllIosler, Eleno Wilson .- in'lh?El US Deep. S'outh?i Center for Heolth' Policy ond lne'qud'iilies 'Reseorch, Duke Universilyq; /l1on.~ .qlle/ I .online2'. pdi. Movement Advoncernenl Project ?Sole School lows -"July 7 2017*; blip: 77 wmv.lgbquopoig7equolitvmops/ soie?'chooljovvs. Movemenl Advoncern ent .Proiecl, "Non-Discrimination lows,? July 7. 7. uolily- mopsfno? mdiscriminolionjovvs- Ph?iiohihropy 'Dt?eers Chair Judah biannual Women's-Fauna. Vice Chairs Jacuueline Pam Hatchet Congress 111 Meters indies; ThumasA. Saenz Mexican American Legal Defense and Edward-anal Fund__ Hilary sneer: Secretary in Ann ?Jenkins. Treasure- Le? A. Saunders . ?rmncari Federation 1115111115,- County a Muocipsi 511111019115 Bora?d of Diraclurs Helena Berger I American seamen-u Peoria 1111b msabiba?es Kimberly Churches. AAUW Kristen Clarice Em. For; CiiIrii Rigbis Under L311 L111 LIEskeisen Bans National Educaton-Associa?an Fatima Goes ?ares Morons! Worms Law Center Chad Grins . Human Right-1 Campaign 'I?Ii?e'cia Wigs-1 .i'ianis Leanne 'cfiir? onion Veins of Inc Urile? Slates Mary Kay Henry Senrice Enoicyees inremaicnai Union snonlyn Ira NAACP Logs] [intense and - Educallonal Fund. 1.11: can H.1I1cua Japanese American Citizens League Denick Joimsqn NAACP recast-i talisman 'PecpIo for me-Arnencan Way. Same: e. lthalal' ArneiicaIn?Arab ame- cinemas. cannon Marc sons Nsb'cnal Urban League - Jdnet Moguls UhidchS Debra Hess Na?cnaj FanneIship for I Women _&.Fe1niies Rabbi-3109.311 Passer Eeiigious?ct?ort Center 131? Reicnn Judaism An?mny Romeo: Morrison Civil leerbee Union. Shanna Smith Nsconai Fair Housing Alfonse . Richard L. Twinks AFL CID Toni Van Peat Ha??nn?al DIrgar?zaicn for Women Randi Weiriga'i?n Ann?cen Federation ofTeaci'lers Dennis '11" Game intema?cnai Uni on, UAW John $.1an A'sianAmaricans Admitting Justice] AME: 111111ch and Enforcement consumers: '_Michnei Unbanmn Anti?Defame'dnn League 'PrcsidentS'BED "I'cniiaGurta The leadership Conference cn-{Eisitanil Human Rights 162% 'LS?tteci, NW Suite nos Washington, DC 29035 291116113311 mire mamriviirighusrc The Leadership Conference STATEMENT or vanrra 131- (31110 THE LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE 111111 HUMAN RIGHTS- our-1113111211 House COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM October 12, 2917 Chairman-Gowdy, Ranking-Member Cummings, and Members-ohms Committee: I am Vanita Gupta-,2 president of The-Leadership Conference on Civil-and Human Rights, Thank you for the opportunity to testify about planning and preparations .for'th'e 2020.- Census. The Leadership Conference 1s a coalition charged by its diverse membership of more than 2 I10 national organizations to promote and protect the civil and human rights of all persons in the United States. Founded? 111 1950 by A. Philip Randolph, Arnold Aronson- and. Roy Wilkins, The Leadership Conference works .111 support of policics that further the goal of equality under law through legislative advocacy and public education. The Leadership Conference provides a powerful unified-voicefor the many cons?tu'encies of the coalitioni porsons-of color, women,_childrcu,. individuals with. disabilities, individuals, older Americans,- labor religious groups, civil libertarians, and human rights-I_organi_zations-. Given-the breadthofsour coalition, The Leadership Conference is ideallyl'position'ed to address manyiof the most pressing-I issues affecting thesuccessful' implementation-of CensusButcauprograms, initiatives. The. Leadership many-diverseorganization's allows for the-s'harmg: of different. pompoctivcs, as Well'as. the broader snat?g-ics thatoccur- within. I tho-purview cfany individual Organization. All. of our Work-draws on the expertiSc of the- cros'st'ectiou of national organizations, and oxammesth'ejimpact of on a broad range of constituencies. I .Ourc'oalition views an accurateand fair census, and the collection of' useful, objective data. about our nation?s people, housing, Economy, and Communities generally, to be among the most important civil. rights issues of .our day; We and the Leadership ConferenCe Census Task Force conchairs', Educational'Fund and Asian Americans Advancing Justice.? AAJ have a long record of first-hand capericnc'e working 1n support of previous censumses For the 20.10. Census, we undertook the most comprehensive and extensive effort by a stakeholder organization to promote participation in historically harde?tovcount communities and to mobilize local advocates In Support. of the census by highlighting the community 000742 October '12, 20-17 The Lgadar?hip Page 2 of 7 Conference benefits, eivii rights implications, and-constitutional imperative of an 'aCcurate c'ount._ We-are :no'w buildinguponlour previous workto help ensure that no one is left out ofthe 202.0 ?Census. Under the Constitution, congress hears responsibility for overseeing the census ands-b)? extension, for- ensu?ring-a fair and ascu'rate' count that supports'the 14th Amendment} guarantee "of equal representation. That is-Why this oversight. hearing is so important, and we commend'the'committe'e 'for focusingmuch? needed and welcome attention on preparations for-eurznation?s largest, most complex peacetime activity, The Leadership Conference-sharesthis committee?s interest in a modern. and, costseffective census'Those' are goals and-hnportant considerations ithhe design of the 2020 Census. Technology undoubtedly can ?facilitate easy and quick participation in the censUs for many Americans, and administratise data maintained by other government. agenciescan help streamlineand improee some census operations. But "the primary and'overarching. goal'of the cenSus isa fair and accurate'enumeration of all people lieingrin the United States. on Census Day. The'goal. Ufa-census that. is in all communities is non-negotiable. Thelmportance of the Census Article I, Section?2fof the United :States-ConstitutiOn piaees.'the'census at the entire of Our democratic system of . governance by calling-foracount of the nation's-populationevery ten'years; The census provides- 'inforrnation that is. the'co'rners'ton'e of knowledge about allpeople in the Un'ited'States. It is the basis forjvirtually all-demographic and socioeconomic information-used by'businesses, policy makers, research institutions, and nonpro?t organizations. Thedecennial'census. has first, decennial census data ?011: state populations determine the number of seats .in Congress each state receives and how these districts are drawn, through the reapportionment-and redistricting processes. S'ec'Ond, the census provides thefigures that determine the number of- electors; each state elections detennine-the allocation of hundreds-efhiniens of federal program dollarsfor important conununity services, such'as schools, programs-for veterans-and- seniors, modern transportation. systems, and rural economic development. are used to. and to determine- where disparitiesfexist and remediation is. 'reqtiired. Finally, the-private sector-uses census data to make? important decisions. about their.- businesses, includinginvestment strategies, hiring plans,- and location'of facilities; All of these ?irtatious-depend on a fair and accurate-census. for-all of'these reasons, getting the: census right is . important to es cryone. CensusAceureg and the Problem of the Undercom? Hoisever?, certain population group_s??referred .toz-as 't?hard-to-countiismare at a higher?risk of not being ?illy counted in the decennial differential undercount is a- disproportionate u'ndercounting of- these population groups,- mostnotab'ly people of color, youngchildi?en, and renters (a proXy for-low- 000743 Detober 1:2, 201? The Leadership Page 3 of 7 Conference income to non?Hispanic Whites, seniors, and homeowners. These groups have been historically underrepresented in the-decennial census-for decades; and for some-populationsm?t?or example; young children-under age ?vee?ethe u'ndei'c'ouut has been gettin'gpro'gressively worse. Now, however,. additional populations such as rural residentsand older Americans?may-experience new or increased vulnerability-.due-to major-changes inmethodology, such as relying on the I'nternetias the primary Way for households to respond 'to- the-2020 Others may be respond dueto concerns 'ab'o ut data con?dentiality. Being. hard-toec ount, can deprive people and- their-j communities of equal political representation and'their- fair share of vital public and private resources. Censustracts are considered hard-'to-count, according to Census-Bureau macarch, if they have certain popu'latiim and housing characteristics. associated with both. low likelihood of' being-missed. entirely; in the census. There are hard?to-count communities in every state-and hard-to- count population groupsin communities of large urban areas such as Denver, New York, and: Oniaha, to-sm'aller- cities such -'as.Virginia Beach and Little Rock. Theseexamples may be of particular interest-to members of the Committee: Nearly 10: percent-of census tracts .in South Carolina are hardatoscount. percent of-IBaltimoreis. population lives in tracts. Nearly 15' percent of Tennessee census'tracts are hard-to-count. One quarter of San Antonioi's residents live in hard-to-cou'nt census-trams; live in such areas; One'in three. Oklahomans (34.5 percent) live in neighborhoods or communities. that are considered more dif?cult to count. 'at greater risklof disproportionate undercounting. I. Reughly- One i'n'?ve Illinois census tracts are-considered harden?count. .- One-inten Michigancensus tracts face's'imilar CircumStances,With a staggering65 percent of Detroit residents living-in neighborhoodsthat are harderr'to count accurately. 'Hard-tovc'ou'nt communitiesare not con?ned 'to urban areas. {today be less 1Well known, but rural and remote communities, including- American-indict} tribal lands andreservations, are al,'so'vuinerableit'o disproportionate undercount'ing in the decennial census with lower income households especially at risk. Eighty-seven percent (87 percent) of the hardest?to-count counties in the 21110 Census were rural coiu'nties. According to the Census Bureau '5 own scienti?c measurements, the 2010 Census .underco'unt to areas connted using. a modi?ed method knonm .as UpdatefEnumerate, was nearly eight percent (7 3? percent). UpdatcfEnumerate operations .are deployed 1n. areas without city?style addressing or that do not receive mail through some addressing, such as those where people receive their- mail through a Post Of?ce Box; in communities affected by signi?cant 'fnatur'al disasters,- such as areas still recovering from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita? 1n the 20:10 CejnSus; are: especially inaccessible; or have-high seasonal Dr. William P10. Hare, President, 0 Here Data and Demographic Services, LLC, tabulation for upcoming issue brief for the Carsey Institute, University of New Hampshire. 000744 October 12-, 2017 I, The Leadership Page. 4.1117 yac ancy-rates, The" Census Bureau is'p'lanning. new-methods as part1 ofthe Updater'Enurnerate operation for-thei2020 Censns, yet 1'1 wasforced to cancel 1:111 pee-census testinguf UpdatefEnnmerare methods due. to luck of sa??icient?mding; The ?rst -'s1'1ch tests were Scheduled fer-earlier 'this year, on 114110 American Indian reservations and adjacent tribal lands on the North and South Dakota border and in Washington State 'as well as in Puerto Rico. But the uncertainty of adequate full year-- funding for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 led the Bureau to cancel all 2017 census site. tests. Similarly, the Census. Bureau has canceled two of three. dress- rehearsal sites in .2018 (the 2013 End-to-End Census Test) due to uncertainty about. timely ._.and suf?cient ?lnding. The two eliminated sites Pierce County,Wash111gto11,_and the Bluefi'eld- Beckley-Oak Hill area of West Virginia included the only opportunities to- test, in. a. real- time census like environment, special. counting methods for rural areas With'no testing opportunities onthe horizon, the Census Bureau changed its counting. plans for most rural areasoriginally- slated for UpdateiEnumerate operations. Instead, the bureau will .use an Updat'efLeaye method, Which-it will test in yery limitedway in 20 .1 but n'ot'in 'a rural area. The operational implications of this recent design modi?cation are, asgyet, unknown. While the bureau has used, Up'dateflseave methods in previous censuses, they have. not-addressed past problems of duplication, and: potential new challenges of an Internet-focused enumeration, for 'the'2020 Census. Failure to provide adequate resources before the? count will force the Census Bureau'to shortchange2020 Census to improne'a'ccuracy 'in historicallynudercounted communities. This would lead to a result that deprivespopulation groups of'equa'l political representation and access .to their fair?share' of public and priVate resources.- Equally important, failure to test all methods adequately. due to budgetshortfalls? puts-1111122020 Census at risk- of cost twerruns during'peak census operations. A Fair and Accurate Census is Af'Ri'sk The schedule for final census testing, preparations, and implementation over'the..next three years is unrelenting. At this point in the? decennial cycle, the CensusBureau requires a sufficient funding ramp ?up to keep 2020 Census. planning andpreparations on track. Funding-for the tie-cennial census is. cyclical and -traditionallyincreases ._significantly' in the years-ending in through .. Unfortunately, .the. delay in passing FY coupled with underfundin'g inthe ?nal ?omnibus? measure, ferced the Census Bureau to eliminate, streamline, or delay nital planning activities,- putting-a fair andac'c'ur'ate 2020 Census-in jeopardy. FudheMore, the Trump administration?s original FY. request for the Census Bureau was inadequate-und-unreaiisric. These current and anticipated budget 'eonstraints are-taking a' toll on rigorous 2020-Census pmpar-ations. In addition to the cancellation. of two of three -_p1anned sites for the 2018-End-to-End Test. mentioned ea111er- (a dry run of all census operations that integrates all operations and-1T systems for the ?rst time), the Census Bureau eliminated the advertising campaign and Partnership Program for the 2013 dress 000745 12320.17 The Leadership Page 5' of 7 Conference rehearsal. Development oIf?th'e full advertising campaign and. Partnership Program, which helps keep costs down by by targeting messages to historically hardsto-count is Well behind schedule. The original? 201.3 budget reques't'did- not-include any-funding for partnership-Specialists, whohelp state-and localIofficialsI-and trusted community leaders; support census operations-through. focused outreach andprom'otion'for theirlcons'tituencies. In addition, uncertainties about?mdinghave forced the-Ibureauito ?pause? planning for the Census Coverage Measurement-program? which produces-undercount and overcount estimates and. tells us how. accurate-the census is. The Census. Bureau will not test this operation, in the2018 dress rehearsal as originally planned. the Census Bureau'needs a-?stieadyramp-?up in ?mdi?ng?to support-a critical dress-rehearsal, deployment'oftheIH architecmre-and ?eld. infraStructure', and dl'evelo'pmem of carnpaign-that will encourage-people-to participate and, therefore; help keep-census costs in check. We support the proposal Carolyn Maloney?snew hill, reallocate roughly $19. billionfor tIhefCensus Bureau in FY2013. The additional funding Will-help-the bureau meet growing costs for the data collection. and-processing system; restore advertising and partnership activities to the 201-8-Bnd?to-End- Census I-Test'in Providence County, assess _and implement modified census plans-forjcommnnities in Texas, Florida andI'other'states-hit hard by Hurricanes- Harvey and. Irma?- as Well Ins-for Pnerto Rico and the ill-S. Virgin Islands; put development of the: Integrated- Partnership and Communications program back: possibly- test of census operations in rural communities in advance of the-2920 Census. Resp misc-and Technology As?fhi's committee knows? the Gansus Bureau will conduct the ?rst ?high?tech? census in 2020.. The Internet response option-could help keep censusicosts in check by increasing initial response rates, or-at. least holding them steady compared to 2010:; thereby saving resources that can be used. to'fin'd and. enumerate the hardest to count. Congress must. remember however that Internet response is not a silver bullet. The fact? is not everyone has the same connectivity; security; and comfort with the Internet. The Commerce. Department own analyses show that communities of color rural residents adults with low educational attainment, low." income individuals people with disabilities and older Americans lag behind younger,, affluent highly educated, urban; and Mite adults 1n both device and Internet penetration. An Internet response option while offering the promise of cost savings could lead to poor or uneven participation technological infrastructure failings: or both, thereby increasing- the- differential undercoun't. A lower-than-proj acted-'l'niernetre'siaouse rate could strain the Bureau?s alread'y limited resonates by increasingresponse by paper questionnaire or telephone or, more number of households- that require donate-door follow-up. Technologyalso brings'cybersecurity threats, real or perceived. The Census; IT systems-and personal census data is param?ountpand the'Census- Bureau and its federal and private sector partners must do everything possible to ensure that security. This means there. must he a comprehensive back-up plan to. address any potential breaches and their consequences for the census process in real time. At the same- time, the Census Bureau must have an effective communications plan to assure everyone in the United States that their personal information Is s-ecure - in other words; rebuild con?dence 1n ahigh- 000746 October 12, 2017 . The. Leadership Page 6 of 7 conference tech census station: when many people are wary. Lack of?con?dence. in data security could depress Internet?responSe rates (More so if a large business or another governm_ent-ageney-suffers a cyberhattack near-the time: of the-census); thus 'increasing. costs and enumeration-challenges considerably. It is still possible that'a streamlined 'state-o?the-art program could. produce a fair. and accurate senses, while simultaneously meeting? Congress? challenging budget'restrict-ions. HOWever, constitutional duty and ensure _.an accorate-an? fully. inclusive.- count, Congress, must-allocate- the "resources for comprehensive risk management andpreparations methods- and. operations. :To address these'and 'o'ther'concern's related to a high-tech census, we are pleased to offer for the record. a new report- from The Leadership ConferenCe Education Fund and the Georgetonm Center on Poverty and inequality, entitled Counting Evervone 1n the Digital Age; The report addresses how proposed Internet and. automation-technologies will: affect 2020 Census enumeration for groups at risk of hemg undercoonted,andsincludes actionable recommendations for .Congress, the community leaders. - Utilizing Administrative Records The Census'Bure'ao is-evaluatnig the use of administrative records to obtain-missing information about unresponsive households in lieu of in-person, door-toedoor- follow-11p visits-by Census enumeratcrs. However, the-implications of such a'methodolo'gy for data-quality'and eonSistency and census accuraey are not cleanfThere are a number of questions that the Census Bureau must address and resolve 'befOre stakeholders have confidence that a broad use-of these-datawill not compromisecensus aeeuracyor undennine- th'e goals of eliminating the differential undereoun't and collecting more accurate race and ethnicity-data for all communities. "The Bureau will. he hindered in resolving.outstanding-concerns about its potential use-of administrative records if it conducts. an End?to-Bnd Census Test that is far less comprehensive than originally planned.- 'We-offer for the record a new in the Census: Civil Rights-Considerations and Opportunities. which is the culmination of-a- project-urine Urban Ins?titdte, The Leadership Conference, and the Georgetotvn center.o_n_Pove_rty- and Inequality, to .eaamnie, from-the perspective of civil rights stakeholders, the- bene?ts and riisk'S-of utilizing. administrative data forfthe popuiationin general. and for speci?c vulnerable:subpopulations such as communities of color,- the impoverished, participating in government - assistance programs, and others, in the upcoming'eensus. Other-202i} Census Challenges Counting every'perstin residing in the United States" is: a' d'iffi'Cult endeavor. But. even with careful planning, several other. factors?many out of the Census Bureau-is control??pose signi?cant risks-to 'a fair- and accurate census, .,First proposals. to. add untested and unnecessary questions? including about immigration status to the Census; form at the hour couid. derail eight years worth of research and: testing and result in an expensive, yet ultimater failed, census. 000747 1?2: 2017 The Leadership Page Tof I Conference Second, the reluctance of many-individuals to provide-personal information voluntarily to the . government poses'an additional barrier to a full count. The Census'BUreau Will face-this chall'c'nge- in many parts of'the- country and. in many types-of communities. a leadership vacuum at the Bureau following the-unexpected resignation of the .Census-Direetor in June, as well as other igh-level vacanciesat the Commerce Department and the: Regrettably, we fear that-the "strict budget constraints Congress has imposed on the 2020 Census add to th?eSe formidable barriers. The Census Bureau to minimize undercounting, butwill be hampered by-a smaller footprint in'the ?eld. Budget's'ho'rtfalls have caused the-canoellation of the adveltising_- campai gn._ and Partnership Program for the Endsto?'End Census Test, and delays _inreSearching and developing a'full Communications campaign and Partnership Program. These activities-keepcosts down by 'andI-increa'se-acc'uracy by targeting messages to motivate respon'Se in historically hard-to- count. communities. .A robust Partnership Program is especially critical in light of the realignment of the Bureau ?eld of?ce structure following the 2010 Census including plans to employ, at most half the staffing Used for the 2.010 Census.- Conclusion Mjembers of Congress. arefullyawarethat has. political consequences?min fact, the Constitution ?says as much,- by'basing congressional apportionment-and equal representation on the population count. But .thejeonduct of the census must nonpartisan and must: strive to achieve an equally-accorate count in all communities; The Leadership Conference and- its member organizations look forward to working with all members of this committee to ensure a- cost-effective, seCute and above all, accurate and inclusive census _in every one of the nation communities When people your sonatitncn'rs are not counted in the census they remain invisible for the next ten years. And overcounts _.'that 1s counting people twice.- or including them by mistake do not bene?t anyone either because policymakers have a skewed picture of Whole to direct -h_ard- earned limited taxpayer dollars. There. are no {10- -overs with the census..The CensusBureau must get it time, and. all of us members of Congress, county officials 3'and'_mayors, school principals, veterans advocates, businesses large and SID-?lls .and;.indeed, everyperson in the United States must. live with the results for the nextten'yeats. 000748 000749 POLITICS Minamoto o1154pm Updated Jan o4 zeta' The .DoJ'WamSA-cnimsmp Question on That. Could Blow Up The. Who1,.. Page 1 of5 em?ou TF-fe DOJ Wants A Citizenship Question On The Census. That Could Blow Up The Whole Survey Experts atread'y concerned about census response rates would The-Department of Justice's reoentrequestto. add a qgestion about Citizenship to the 2026 census has sparked concerns thatsucha more would loner response rates within immigrant communities; An would: have severe consequences. Thesuwey'helps determine the allocation of nearly billion each'year in'f'edEral money. the number-sot re me so ntatiues each'etate "has. in the use and. how- other electoral districts are drawn. Even .hefore F'roPuhltca reported the De?partmentiofdtt'stioe request'to the Census Bureau for the citizenship alreadyr faoedsigni?cant challenges-in getting-people to respondsAn?Iong those is convincing-people. that'the Bureau, which is overseen by'__the' Commerce share-detach indiuidua?tstwith other government agencies, said Arturo director ofthe National Association of'Latino- Elected- and Appointedd?icials- Educational Fund. '"Whathas happened in'thelpast year or so, given the politics! enuironment, is that immigrants have become much more fearful" of contact with the 'fede'raljgouanrnent. Vargas tote HuffPost. are-notjust undocumentedimmigrants. They?re legai reemorwe Trump's Abstinence-Only Pamphlet l's Quite Ed Licational A Mae 5' Shooting Tore Their Litres Apart. A Bormption. Scandal Crushed Their Hopes For Jus?ce ProaTrun-Ip. Pastel-i Thou Strait Not Have Sex With APorn Star. Doesn?t 'IE'ir'rpljir Here A. Shelter. Call For Old ,Chairs Goes Viral And The Pets Couldn' Be Happier The Looming ToWer': One Story. Many Perspectives Smear-ed by not. LLB. Aliies Sign Landmark Trade Pact As'TrUmo 000750 .3f9f2018 The DQJ'Wants A-Cttizenst?p- Question. On The Census. That Could Blow Up The Whole. Page'2 of. 5 permanent residents; they're .haiietarnilyf-rne'mbers who are immigrants."l vargasi ,who also is a member of'theCen'sue Bureau's National Advisoryco'mmittee on-Racial. Ethnic. and Other Populations-{said part'of this fear arises fr'omthe policies .and thaw tone." of-theTrump administration toward immigrants.- "So adding the citizen'ship'question to [the censusj'is going to eXponentially increase that hurdle to convince everybody that nothing's going .to happen to'you if you answer this airmen-The said. Bureau-is evaluating the request from the U.S. Denartm?nt of Justice and will process; it in thesame way we have historically dealt with such requests; The ?nal list of'questions must be- submitted toC'ongressty March 3.1. 20-13. Secretary [Wilbur] Ross. will then maltea decision.- Our tonpriorityr is a. complete-and accurate'?02d Census.? the bureau said Thursday in a statement. The Justice Department-L in. its Dec. [12 letter to the Census Bureau. said it needs data .on non-citizens to-hetter enforce-Section? of the Voting Rights Act". That provision prohibits the drawing of electoralmaps in such a way to dilute the in?uence of minority votes. said the data on non-citizenswould ensure: districts aredrawn in a titanr that fairly represents minority "citizens. - voting rights lawyers question that rationale. ._noting that the. Census.:Boreau already asks people-if they' are citizens .throdgh the-American Community Suthey 'wnieh- event year?goes out to about-33 million households and extrapolate's information about the population. The Jostioe-Departrnent Said in? its letter the data Was insufficient for 1rioting rights enforoement and 'that.-the-citizenship question should be incltided on the formal census, something that has: not been done John president and executive director of Asian Americans Advancing Justice-i told Hu?Post that asking about citizenship ?on the-census wodld hinder the governrrient from -'collecting';aocurate data. ?Putting it'in the minds o'f'the immigrant, {they will have a-certain paranoia." he said. ?Even itithjey are acitiz?en- themselves, they will say, ?Well. does this-mean that-they are asking: me about mgr-relatives material here? How'Will'this-information be'used- againstmeJ'Just-by its nature, because this is something thatgoes-to the core 'of someone?s presence in the-United-States, they arejgoing' to be fearful.? 'He added that' among ihtniig'rants'who are not English pro?cient, the citizenship- question would "raise in them a whole host of questions of ?ldon't. want to lie. I don?t want to misstate? anything. so it?s easiest just not John Thompson, the former Ce?nsus Bureau directorwho resigned in Mam-said he. wouid not questi?n about citizenship because oensusof?oials hadn't had a-chance to measure how ?would affect the-reaponserate, 'tFron'I a'census point of view you don't do things uritil you understand the effect? heitoid HuffPost. Census of?cials 'don'tunderstand the effect {of' adding the citizenship question-.- Without being-able to" measure it and-trying to'understand-how. this would affect-the. censLIs, and the 'oensusenuironment. for me,.it would-tie hard to make that" recommendation.? same lawmakers tried to pass legislation requiring a citizenship question on the census. Rep. Clay:r Higgins {R?fLa.) last year" lineuocesstully sought to' ?withhold funding'forlthe Census Bureau unless it--a_ddod such 'a question. . .. . . . 000751 3f9f2013 The DOIWantsiA Citizenship Question-0n The. Census; That-Could Blow Up;The "Page '3 of-?S Rep. Steve King tR?lowa} said in December he wants the census in coont citizens separately from non-citizens andthenuse countot citizens to determine the apportionment of oongressionat seats. The Gonstitution requires congressional- seats to beapportioned-bassoon acountof all "persons," not just citizen's. Terri Ann Lowenthal, who worked asista? director 'of the- House census oversight said that-adding a questionabout-citizenship would produce inaccuracies that would have taraanging consequences. Asking about Citizenship ?wilt'depress- respons'e-rates'andjust'lead tci?a co'mptetety inaccurate census in many areas.? 'she same data must be used for redistricting, as well as the allocation of hundreds of billionsof dollars a-year for .federat funds for servicea as well-as state funds for community" purposes." Census researchers conducting tests in preparationtor?umalready have been raising. concerns about the impact'of harsh immigration rhetoric on response rates. in "September- memo? the researchers-said tietd _rei:iresentatives- and supervisors Were seeing an unprecedented amount- of. concern about'the con?dentiality otcensus data particularly among of?cials obserued 'nan'iesI dates of birth, and-other information on- hobsehold rosters." groups conducted in seweral languages to test messages for the census, respondents .-expresse_d concern about opening their door for-a census-taker out of fear ihey could bedeportett. "Spanish-?speakers brought up. immigration raids, fear-of government-and fear-of deportation, Respondents talked about having received? advice. not to open-the door if 'theyfear a 1irisit from immigration and customs.E'n'forcemenf'agents. the The researchers called the -responses ?eye-opening?? because man).I of the. teens no ants had '_pa_riici_pated in previouscensus-?related testing and not expressed? jsin'iitar- nervousness Zor hesitation about sharih g. information?. This article hasfbeen' updated with a statementfrom the: Census Bureau. RELATED COVERAGE- sAre Re ll Reail Won-i cutTheSt te' fThe 0 gens?us Do you have infarmation you want to sharewm HuffPost? Here?s how. ni-nru-Ar?r? 1rJ-Lgf n? {My} UV- 000752 '3f9f20'18 The Wants A Citize?shi?p'QuE'stiDn 011 The Census. That Could Blow Up The Wholri. Page 40f 5 Sobs?oribo- to the. Politics email..- How wiil you? addressge?ugr?piml Phatagijosomols Gallery $am'Lovlne .3: Reporter. ~?i99?5?E a I HuffRost correction MORE: its-News i (Raoismjfemmigra?on) '(Doroograohyj (Department?fdustioe) You Sponsored Unirohy?l?ahonia' SuitianiMar?anu: This Brilliant Company. is Bruce Quote; Suitland: This Meal Service is Ch?'ap?r Than Your Local Store. monomer My Husband and I-Tri?d Billie-Apron, Here's What?sippeiiod Illu?pm "We Call Email-our Education Lovelwith Dill},r ll} Questions- Dc?oitinm Chock Dirt The CiasSy Senior-Living Facilities Sailor Lh?Eu-g Bpomaond [lulu Cop Follows Panicko? Dogi'Call?'Ba'ckup When Hc?ecs Where He's Takingz?im- Llle ?im- MOST SHARE-D Disney?s Tromp'sTariffs'Could Teens" Lawsuit Battling Reportedly in Talks To people rated 4.8 out. of 5 Land Takes Shape in Make These Popular Climate Change Wins Make Showa For Not?ix two New Video Arid It's Products More Victory Door Justice ?ponsomoby?i'soover Cari: Huge Expensive. Depa rt'm'onii- 000753 319/2013 Census 2020: Research and Messaging January 22, 2018 Presented by Arturo Vargas Executive Director, NALEO Educational Fund 000754 Research and Messaging Goal • Key ideas to test and understand: interest/awareness of Census, empowerment/resistance, convenience/compliance, and community benefit • Identify concerns about Census participation across formats (in-person, online, etc) • Identify trusted messengers, especially on traditional media and social media platforms • Assess existing interest and determine which messages move people to action • Test behavioral outcomes, not just attitudes • Understand the Hard-to-Count Latino community • Complement research conducted by the Census and other groups/organizations 000755 Target Research Population National Poll • Nationally representative sample of the adult Latino population • Participants will also be assigned to treatment groups, or the control group to test most effective message(s) Focus Groups - Messages from the survey experiment (national poll) will be tested to evaluate what refinements are needed, given local and/or demographic nuances • Hispanic adults who reside in two target areas (Site options: Atlanta, Charlotte or Raleigh NC, Houston or Dallas) • Mix of gender, age, language preference and nativity • English group and one Spanish group • Two groups with women, two groups with men • Ensure Hard to Count populations are included 000756 2018 2019 - 2020 January to May Conduct national poll and focus groups May to June National poll and focus group analysis and report June - December Messaging development and deployment January to April/May Conduct national poll and focus groups to update/refresh messaging; emphasis on helping inform a ?Get Out the Count? program May to June National poll and focus group analysis and report May 2019 April 2020 Re?ne messaging and deploy, including a field, media, and social media campaign 000757 Thank you. Arturo Vargas Executive Director avargas@naleo.org Twitter: @ArturoNALEO www.naleo.org 000758 Opinion: 2020 Census will. be disaster for California Pagel of 3 BREAKING NEWS Bay area forfeoast: Will ray weekend eveni'get rained Gui?" Opinion Commentary Opinion 2020 Census will be a disaster for California without more money By ARTURO. VARGAS and ocean}: I PUBLISHED: December 201'? 3111:1111 am I UPDATED: Deeamber 2131? 1113:1315 pm Alarms about poor preparation for the 2020' Censuesare ringing across-theg-nation, but perhaps no where loude'rfhanin California. TheGolden State? with 311111151 3911111110171 residents; has-the largest stakein afajr ammo-mate census. The S. Constimtion requires a new count of ?the population every 10 years. It?s a massive undertalorrg, 1111101111113 more than a decade. of planning,_ elaborate teats of - 1r. utteach- to a. more diverse and. mobile population, Get gn??%?mmr?f?mw helf .11 1111111011 to contact those who fail to self-reamed. But 11.1 up, um: seven-1 preparations for 11116 2020 CEIISUS Already a Subscriber? Log 11-1 - . . . . 000759_ 319.3201 8 Opinioni'ZOQO Census wiil be disaster for California Page 2- of 3 The census isolate than head count. Thefrantetsintended- it to ensure theifair allocation of political power. Population data from the census aroused for-the seatsraudthe redistricting ofCalii?ornia?s state and. 'locai- government. political dish-tots. - Get top headlines in your inb?ox every afternoon. Get. the free Pitt Report-newsletter. SEGN ii? Census data also guide $37 billion annually in'federal' fluids to the Guides State. are for such vital needs as Medicaid and-Monicase (Part B). Head Start, school lunch pro grams, highways and transportation- and housing assistance. Ali depend on the census-count. Census dataase. used in citrii ?ghts and voting rights enforcement. The information is used to protest assess to the ballot; to monitor and to examine- economic equality; Today the Census Bureau?s annual budget sits staiieti attest-year's level because of a. continuing sesoiutionpassetiby- Congress and signed by President-Donald The administration and Congressiiave yet to act on more ?lnding. California is more than the is thelniost diverse For the Census Bureau;, misuse-job isto eount anti'pl'aee every resident of our- state. the challenge in Caiifornia maybe inthe nation.- Latinos are one .ofthefastest growing population groups in California ?illeg- represent about 40 percent of the population'and: increased by 9 percent since the last census. atinos' have one of the highest undereouuts of any'population group in the census. So, one of the largest, grouting- segnieuts of CaIiforniaisrpopnlation is going to he one ofthemosti di?icuit to count-inthe next census. the Census Bureau get serious sesousees into neighborhoods saith large i a. now threatened by iusu?'cient ?mtiing; GEE 9 ?7 million wpeople are in localities Bureau refers to as ?Hetero-Count" ttaets. Communitiesof color make up a. small: slime-15;: 351:3 38 African, AmenC?nE,3 4 post: em nit; 5 Elites: of Asians live in Hard-To-Cotmt areas, according to 111?- ?gs-niches BI?lrpuul ?uently a Subscriber? Log in . 000760 . eomf20 l'Ti'i 2f071?opi11ion?2020 3'19!le 1'58 Opi'Iiienz' 2020 Census. will be disaster for California A Page 3 0193 Get tech news in your in?ex weekday warnings. thefree Good Morning Silicon 'Ve?qr newslemr. Califemians cannot a??erdm wait anti] 2020 to protect our stake in the-national head count. The ?zzle lie-Send an 7113111110 Washingtom D11, is new. The admix?s?iratinn recently asked Congress to mereae'e ?elding fee; the Census Bureau in 20.13 by $13? million ?to. makeup for paet-underi?vesmzent. We believe closer to $400 millionto get ete?ed'in outreach, partnership and testing .ofnew. operaticns?thatpramise to ensure- a complete fair and accurate .eeunt. - We entemage readers to contact their US. Senators. and Co?gtessienal RepresenteIiVes new; before the ?nal 2018 'fimding billiis .censidered this menth. 0111?- state has too much at stake for the next decade to settle for anything less. 'Dr. John Defined is manager ofPefirfcef Voice, Advancement Project Cahfamia. civil righs organization. gimn'a Vargas is greenm'e director 'afrne National Assaciarfon-afLa?no Eiected and. Appointed (363::de WAEEO) Educational Fund, Tags: (tenses, ?emmeneary, Regime: Arturo-Vargas John D'oba'rd Suaee?lnw ea eenee: Get Unlimitee? aceeae far '3 ae ?ret month: SUBSCREBE Aiready a Subscriber? Leg in 000761 .1 71 1' 2f07fepini a?dis?eStte-fer?ealif. .. 3/945201'3 000762 From:Kris Kobach [mailto Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 2:43 PM To: Teramoto, Wendy (Federal) Cc: Alexander, Brooke (Federal) Hernandez, Israel (Federal) Subject: Re: Follow up on our phone call Yes. Sent from my iPhone On Jul 24, 2017, at 1:39 PM. Teramoto, Wendy (Federal) wrote: Kris can you do a call with the Secretary and Izzy tomorrow at 11 am? Thanks. Wendy From:Kris Kobach [mat?(W Sent: Monday, July 24, 20 To: Teramoto, Wendy (Federal) Subject: Re: Follow up on our phone call That works for me. What number should I call? Or would you like to call me? On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 9: 12 AM, Teramoto, Wendy (Federal) wrote: We can speak today at 230. Please let me know if that works. Sent from my iPhone On Jul 21, 2017, at 4:34 PM, Kris Kobach wrote: Wendy, Nice meeting you on the phone this afternoon. Below is the email that I sent to Secretary Ross. He and I had spoken brie?y on the phone about this issue. at the direction oi?Steve Bannon, a few months earlier. Let me know what time would work for you on Monday, if you would like to schedule a short call. The issue is pretty straightfonvard. and the text of the question to be added is in the email below. 000763 Thanks. Kn's Kobach Fonvarded messa re From: Kris Kobach Date: Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 9:12 AM Subject: Follow up on our phone call To: Secretary Ross, Kansas Secretaiy of State Kris Kobach here. I'm following up on our telephone discussion from a few months ago. As you may recall, we talked about the fact that the US census does not currently ask respondents their citizenship. This lack ofinfonnation impairs the federal ability to do a number of things accurately. It also leads to the problem that aliens who do not actually "reside" in the United States are still counted for congressional apportionment purposes. It is essential that one simple question be added to the upcoming 2020 census. That question already appears on the American Community Suwcy that is conducted by the Census Burear (question A slight variation of that question needs to be added to the census. It should read as follows: Is this person a citizen of the United States? IIlYes, born in the United States IZlYes. born in Puerto Rico. Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands. or Northern Marianas UYes, born abroad of U.S. citizen parent or parents DYes, U.S. citizen by naturalization Print year of naturalization not a U.S. citizen this person is a lawful permanent resident (green card holder) ElNo, not a U.S. citizen this person citizen of another country who is not a green card holder (for example holds a temporary visa or falls into another category of non-citizens) Please let me know if there is any assistance that 1 can provide to accomplish the addition of this question. You may reach me at this email address or on my cell phone at? Yours, 000764 lil?tx? niizt?cl: From: Gay E. Lasher Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2018 12:57 PM To: Ron S Jarmin (CENSUS/ADEP FED) Subject: Citizenship question on census survey Dear Mr. Jarmin, I am very concerned, after reading an article in today’s NY Times, about a request from the Justice Department to include a question about citizenship in the general census. This question has not been asked in a general census since 1960 and is very likely to result in an inaccurate count, disproportionally affecting people of color. In addition, such a late request (Dec.12, 2017) does not allow proper time to vet the writing of such a question or to really consider the negative effects. Please do NOT allow such a question to be added and thus affect the lives of many people by inaccurately tallying the number of persons in the U.S. for the purpose of equitable representation. Sincerely yours, Gay E. Lasher, Psy.D. 000765 ?sus Bureau Isus Bureau 1: 1 "3.19. We .21; your If 9020 gh 19? 1 0m nd updeteS that 18 000766 56/: 222?; 4 - j, 2 "7f ?7&0 2/24. 14/41, '11 l) L/ta [ly?/ZI/ .41 5/3/5677 1271': J. Wf? F: 1.7L A. ., 1 JOSE E. SERRANQ commune: 15TH New Yum: suuam?imsi 2354 a Raucous Demoeam. Smashes. mes unborn Justus. Selene: waa?l??ggr?fscjauzf?azls Enumeg?, at the waltzb ?tateg Menage. Mancini. Seances AND savanna. as 1202} 225-6091 guys at Esprn?entatlheg Mama, Emacs mo Watch 12.3? noun Washington, E6 20515?3215 Beau. CONGRESSIONAL snows, NY some HSSPANIC Caucus i718} EMQ Fax: ms: sac-MB Samoa Wm? The Honorable Secretary Wiibur Ross 05. Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Ave NW Washington, D.C. 20230 Dear Secretary Ross: We write in response to the US. Department of Justice?s proposal to add an additional untested subject to the upcoming decennial census. Adopting this question on citizenship and legal status will negatively affect response rates, jeopardize the accuracy of the collected surveys, and deter many people lirom participating. The 2020 Census already faces signi?cant planning and operational challenges, and we urge you to reject this misguided and problematic proposal. As you know, the Census Bureau is already in the ?nal stages of preparing the questions and format of the 2020 Census. Over the past several years, the Bureau has tested various question options, languages, and other important issues. To the best of our knowledge, at no point has the Census Bureau considered including a question on citizenship. in fact, the list of topics for the decennial census provided to Congress in March 2017 and available for public review does not include a question on citizenship. Given that the Bureau must submit its questions and form to Congress by March of this year, it is very unlikely that the Bureau would even be able to appropriately test the impact of such a question on response rates and other issues. There is also significant reason to question the need for including a question on citizenship on the 2020 Census fonn. This information is already collected via the American Community Survey, and despite intimations to the contrary, this information has been appropriately used in a variety of Voting Rights Act cases without concern. It is also noteworthy that the request for this potential change came from Justice Management Division, rather than the Civii Rights Division which actually enforces the Voting Rights Act. It is also important to recognize that the communities most affected by the Voting Rights Act have not requested this question for inclusion in the upcoming census. Nor has the Census Bureau?s National Advisory Committee on Racial, Ethnic and Other Populations WAC) requested this change. This lack of stakeholder support further undermines this request. 000768 Lastly, this is a potentially unwise change based on ongoing problems faced by the Bureau. Due to budgetary and time constraints, the Census Bureau is already facing serious challenges to its planned preparations for the 2020 Census. Last year, the Bureau was forced to cancel a ?eld?test of Spanish language surveys as well as the testing of non-traditional addresses located in Puerto Rico and on tribal reservations. Two locations were also removed from the Bureau?s end-to-end test of decennial census systems. Furthermore, the Bureau has delayed plans to open local census of?ces and conduct outreach campaigns in support of the 2020 Census. Given these serious concerns, the Census Bureau should refrain from adding further problems to this process. Since 1790, every census has included citizens and non?citizens alike. In fact, the Constitution of the United States mandates that the number of ?persons? be counted. That mission will be threatened if the Bureau aceedes to the Justice Department?s request. Disrupting preparations for the 2020 Census to add an additional untested subject, especially at this pivotal point, would undermine both the funding and years we have already spent on research and testing. Congress heavily relies on the census to allocate funding for vital federal grant programs and for the distribution of much-needed resumes to our communities; this remains especially true for decennial surveys, which also directly impact the redistricting process. It is our obligation to ensure that the Bureau receives accurate information about our population. We must also ensure that all of our communities are properly accounted for, and that each household is correctly counted the ?rst time. On behalf of our constituencies, we urge you to oppose this proposal. We thank you for your attention to this critical matter and look forward to ?rrther supporting the Bureau as it prepares for the decennial census. Sincerely, as naming Me. rof Congress 000769 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Jose E. Serrano U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Serrano: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate' 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. . We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, u~CL Wilbur Ross 000770 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Grace Meng U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Meng: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as.well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U~j,~, Wilbur Ross 000771 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economics and Statistics Administration US. Census Bureau Of?ce of the Director Washington. DC 20233-0001 FEB 20 2018 Dear Ms. Carpenter: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of ustice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. We appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The US. Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high- quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please contact our Of?ce of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs at 301-763-6100. Sincerely, 174/ Ron S. Jarmin Performing the Non-Exclusive Functions and Duties of the Director CUnited States" ENSUS Bureau The Leadership Conference mm Street, aw 202466.33? voice on Civil and Human Rights Suite 1100 202.466.3635 fax Washington, DC 20.036 ?re . I . =3 Wm January 4 2018 The Leade?Sh'p 33 Chair Conference madman National . 2.3 Honorable Wilbur L. Ross a Jeannine M: 2 Maternal Secretary of Commerce m??ih?mm - US. Department of Commerce ?30 IF . . 1401 Constitutlon Ave NW 23 NAACP pg Swarm Washington, DC 20230 .50 Ann Jenkins MRP na- ?0 lreasmzr . 2: Lfmm;mdm? Dear Secretary Ross: 5 Camry 8 llam'cbal Emptoyoes 1 mam?? I write as the president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, S??fmf a coalition charged by its diverse membership of more than 200 national organizations to promote and protect the civil and human rights of all persons in the United States. In this ?mif??mm capacity and on behalf of this broad coalition, I urge you to reject the request in the ?533333312? December 12, 2017 letter from the Department of Justice to Acting Census Director Ron ra??fg?kmm Jarmin, to add a new citizenship question on the 2020 Census. As you well know, adding a Na?onal Women?s law Conlu . . . . 0 cm new and untested question to the 2020 Census would disrupt preparations at a pIVOtal pomt Human Campaign . . . . . . In the decade, undermine years of costly, palnstakmg research and and Increase Lnagdemanotort uttho . . . . . um States census costs Signi?cantly at a time when Congress has directed a less expensrve May Kay Harry was Ewtlyees lannLilons! Union enumeration. All of these factors would threaten a fair and accurate decennial census. sway-nine NAACP Legal Oefensn and Educator-ml Fm Inc . . - Dandrum We apprecrate the commitment to a. full, fair, and accurate census that you and your semor Japanew Maureen Cit?zens League 0:3;th staff have recently expressed. The Leadership Conference views a fair and accurate census, big-$39? and the collection of useful, objective data about our nation?s people, housing, economy, and rue-neon $31 communities generally, to be among the most important ['lgl'ltS issues of our Common day. However, as discussed below, the Justice Department?s ill-advised proposal poses a Namiuwtwn signi?cant threat to our shared goal. JanotMu?gula UnidnsU3 Dalia . . "swim?? 1rst, as you noted during the House Committee on OverSIght and Government Reform 3 R333 ?33701: October 12, 2017 hearing on the 2020 Census (where we both testi?ed), requiring a new $ng topic this late in the preparations for the census is irresponsible because robust testing for new questions in a contemporary, censusolike environment is essential. This is especially whim?" true given the chilling effect of adding a citizenship question to the form: Census preparations are already behind schedule, the ?nal dress rehearsal lek off a month, and there simply is no time left to redesign the census form and rigorously test the proposed additional question. As we know from extensive research and testing in the survey ?eld, $3333; ?mum even small changes in question order and wording can significantly affect both the rate and accuracy of responses. Yet the Census Bureau has neither the time nor the resources to evaluate the consequences of such a major change in the questionnaire. Policy and Worcemenr (laminae WI Mcnael Liebannm Anli-DalauratvunLem Second, as I know from my prior experience as the chief government enforcer of the Voting Prestdenlb CEO Van-rem Rights Act, the Justice Department has never needed to add this new question to the decennial census to enforce the Voting Rights Act before, so there is no reason it would need 000773 7? January 4? 2018 The Leadership Page 2 of 3 Conference to do so now. Contrary to the Justice Department?s letter, the Census Bureau has n_ot included a citizenship question on the modern census ?short form,? sent to every household. In fact, no such question has appeared on the census ?short form" since enactment of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. Estimates of the citizen voting-age population derived from the ongoing American Community Survey, and the so- called census ?long" or sample form before that, have been and continue to be suitable for purposes of civil rights and Voting Rights Act enforcement. Whether utilizing such data for Section 2 enforcement actions, Section 203 determinations, or other voting rights enforcement efforts, courts and the Justice Department have accepted census data as currently collected since enactment of the Voting Rights Act. Civil rights groups, likewise, have never asserted a need for a ?100 percent? census citizenship question in order to effectively represent and ensure voting rights for minority communities. Given these plain facts, the entirejusti?cation for the request should be viewed skeptically as an attempt to throw a wrench into ?nal planning and preparations for an enumeration that already faces enormous challenges, including inadequate and delayed funding, cyber-security risks, and a climate of fear fanned by anti -immi grant rhetoric. Third, this new proposed question on the 2020 Census is unnecessarily intrusive and will raise concerns in all households native and foreign born, citizens and noncitizens about the con?dentiality of information provided to the government and how government authorities might use that information. Asking every household and every person in the country about their citizenship status in the current political environment when there is no legal basis or need for doingso will no doubt give many people pause about participating in the census altogether. In fact, new Census Bureau research already is raising alarm bells about the growing reluctance of immigrant households to participate fully and honestly in any Census Bureau surveys, due to their fear about how their responses will be used by government agencies. Adding this new question would also result in taxpayers spending signi?cantly more for a government undertaking that we know in advance would not be successful. Your recent oral testimony before Congress acknowledged that the Census Bureau will need billions of dollars more than originally estimated to conduct a modern, inclusive census. The Justice Department?s proposal to add a new citizenship question would increase census costs even further while decreasing accuracy, because self- response rates are certain to plummet, which in turn will require additional, costly door-to-door visits that still may not spur cooperation or result in accurate responses. Finally, this request coming almost a year a?er the Census Bureau has ?nalized topics for the 2020 Census, as required by law risks jeopardizing the accuracy of the 2020 Census in every state and every community by deterring many people from responding, making the data collected in this crucial once-a- decade operation less accurate and useful for all of us. As four former Census Directors, who served in both Republican and Democratic administrations, wrote in an amici curiae brief in the Supreme Court case Evenwel v. Abbott, asking about citizenship status in the decennial census ?would likely exacerbate privacy concerns and lead to inaccurate responses from non?citizens worried about a government record of their immigration status. . .The sum effect would be bad Census data.? I know you appreciate that the stakes of a fair and accurate census are high and everyone from Congress to governors, mayors, and school board o?icials, to business owners and nonpro?ts serving the most vulnerable in our communities will have to live with any ?awed results for the next 10 years. The 000774 . January 4? 2018 The Leadership Page 3 of 3 . Conference Leadership Conference and its member organizations look forward to working with you and your staff to ensure a oost~effective, secure, and above all, accurate and inclusive census in every one of the nation?s communities. If you have any questions, please contact me or Chris Harley, Census Campaign Director, at (202) 466-33] 1. Thank you for your consideration of our views. Sincerely, Vanita Gupta Cc: Acting Deputy Secretary and Under Secretary for Economic Affairs Karen Dunn Kelley Acting Census Director Ron Jannin 000775 Missouri Johnson, Marcellina (Federal) From: Ross, Wilbur (Federal) Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 1:14 PM To: DOCExecSec Subject FW: Leadership Conference Letter Regarding DOJ Request on Citizenship Question Attachments: 2018-01-04 Vanita Gupta Letter to Sec. Ross.pdf .. . . . .1. ?vv - . From: Vanita Gupta [mailtoz?rg] Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2018 4:15 PM To: Ross, Wilbur (Federal) ?Jarmin, Ron 5 Kelley, Karen (Federal) Burgess, Michael (Federal) ;Guido, John (Federal)? Cc: Kristine Lucius Chris Harley Subject: Leadership Conference Letter Regarding DOJ Request on Citizenship Question Dear Secretary Ross: 1 write as the president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition charged by its diverse membership of more than 200 national organizations to promote and protect the civil and human rights of all persons in the United States. In this capacity and on behalf of this broad coalition, I urge you to reject the request in the December 12, 2017 letter from the Department of Justice to Acting Census Director Ron Jarmin, to add a new citizenship question on the 2020 Census. As you well know, adding a new and untested question to the 2020 Census would disrupt preparations at a pivotal point in the decade, undermine years of costly, painstaking research and testing, and increase census costs signi?cantly at a time when Congress has directed a less expensive enumeration. All of these factors would threaten a fair and accurate decennial census. Please see the attached letter regarding this important issue. Sincerely, Vanita Gupta Vanita Gupta President and CEO The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights The leadership Conference Education Fund @Vaititagupiacr PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments may contain priviieged or confidential information and is/are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized use or disclosure of this communication is prohibited. If you believe that you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system. 000776 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT The Secretary of Commerce OF COMMERCE Washington, D.C. 20230 March 13,2018 Ms. Vanita Gupta President and Chief Executive Officer The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights 1620 L Street, NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20036 \ Dear Ms. Gupta: . Thank you for your recent letter regarding!pe Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. r The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by: March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. , Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that coUnts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I have conducted a rigorous review and produced a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate, and I have put into place the people, processes, arid programs necessary to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, \ Wilbur Ross 000777 From: Ron Jarmin FED) To: Kelleyl Karen {Federall Cc: WillardI Aaron {Federal l; Lamasl Enrigue Subject: Fwd: DOJ request to the Census Bureau Date: Friday, January 2018 8:08:22 AM Attachments: imagemIBpng Karen, Please see note from Aitlu?o to you and my response below. He got yom? email wrong. Also, I sent a couple emails yesterday I?d like make sm?e you see relevant to the DOJ request. Thanks from chilly philly. Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "Ron 5 Jannin Date: Januai 4, 2018 at 6:49:32 PM EST Cc: "Enrique Lamas Subject: Re: DOJ request to the Census Bureau Aitlu'o, Thanks for your note. We are reviewing the DOJ request as we do all such requests. This includes exploring options that don?t require adding questions to the census. We hope to expedite the process and come to a resolution soon. Regards Ron Sent from my iPhone On Jan 4, 2018, at 6:35 PM, Amu?o Vargas wrote: Dear Madam Secretary, I hope you were able to have a restful break over the holidays and that 2018 is off to a good start despite the particularly cold weather on the east coast. Thank you again for taking the time to meet with me last month to 000738 discuss our shared concerns with the 2020 Census. The public reports from last week that the Department of Justice has requested the Census Bureau to add a question on citizenship has raised yet additional concerns on my end. We discussed some of the challenges the Bureau will encounter in securing full public cooperation in the 2020 Census and this issue would complicate the situation. I would welcome the opportunity to speak with you about my concerns on this matter, some of which have been reported by the media, but I hope to share with you directly and also hear your perspective on the issue. I look forward to hearing from your office about a time when we may be able to connect by phone at your convenience. Best regards, Arturo Vargas Arturo Vargas Executive Director NALEO Educational Fund 1122 W. Washington Blvd., 3rd. Floor Los Angeles, CA 90015 @ArturoNALEO NALEO Educational Fund is the leading nonprofit, non-partisan organization that facilitates full Latino participation in the American political process, from citizenship to public service. 000779 000734 ?anittd games WASHINGTON, DC 20510 January 5,2018 The Honorable Wilbur Ross Secretary of Commerce U.S. Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Avenue NW Washington, DC 20230 Dear Secretary Ross: We write to express our serious concern about the recent Department of Justice (DOJ) request to add a question on citizenship to the 2020 Census and urge you to not add this question.1 The inclusion of a question on citizenship threatens to undermine the accuracy of the Census as a whole, and given this administration?s rhetoric and actions relating to immigrants and minority groups, the DOJ request is deeply troubling. Article 1, Section 2 ofthe .8. Constitution requires a census of all persons residing in the United States every ten years, as directed by Congress. As you know, the decennial census is the basis for critical aspects of our democracy, such as distributing the number of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and drawing congressional and state legislative district lines. Census data are used for allocating billions of dollars in federal funding and are important to every level of government, as well as to businesses and nonpro?ts. Despite its importance, the 2020 Census is in trouble. In February 2017, the GAO put the 2020 Census on its list of high?risk projects due to uncertainty about its budget and technology.2 The planning and preparations for the 2020 Census are significantly behind schedule and underfunded. Furthermore, since the previous director of the Census Bureauresigned in June of 2017, the Bureau has been left without a permanent director. New questions in the census must be field?tested and subject to a Of?ce of Management and Budget approval process. Introducing a question on citizenship so late in an already delayed timeline would not allow the Bureau to appropriately test its impact and effectiveness. The ?5 request to include a question on citizenship in the 2020 Census dramatically increases our concerns about the already troubled census.3 Such a question would likely depress participation in the 2020 Census from immigrants who fear the government could use the information to target them. It could also decrease response rates from U.S. citizens who live in mixed~status households, and who might fear putting immigrant family members at risk through The Department of Justice Letter to the U.S. Census Bureau, ?Request to Reinstate Citizenship Question on 2020 Census Questionnaire,? Dec. 12, 2017, available at: l_-_Text-of- Dec-20 I 7-DOJ -lctter-to-Census. 2 U.S. Government Accountability Of?ce, ?2017 High Risk Report: 2020 Decennial Census,? available at: decennial did study 3 Justin Elliott, ProPublz?ca, ?Trump Justice Department Pushes for Citizenship Question on Census, Alarming Experts,? Dec. 29, 2017, available at: 000780 providing information to the government. As you testified before Congress, the Census is already grappling with ?high levels of mistrust of the federal government.?4 The addition of a citizenship question would only further exacerbate an already severe obstacle facing an accurate count in 2020. This chilling effect could lead to broad inaccuracies across the board, from how congressional districts are drawn to how government funds are distributed. Rather than preserve civil rights, as the Justice Department claims, a question on citizenship in the decennial census would very likely hinder a full and accurate accounting of this nation?s population. On October 31, 2017, in testimony to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, you stressed the importance of an ?efficient 2020 Census that provides a full, fair, and accurate count of everyone living in this country.? We agree with you, and urge you to live up to this commitment by rejecting this harmful and misguided request for a question on citizenship in the 2020 Census. We look forward to your response. Sincerely yours, dujwFtp?,? 9., .. ml! Dianne Feinstein Thomas R. Carper United States Senator United States Senator I Brian Schatz Catherine Cortez Masto United States Senator United States Senator Arm - amala D. Harris United States Senator CC: Dr. Ron armin, Acting Director, U.S. Census Bureau CC: The Honorable Karen Dunn Kelley, Acting Deputy Commerce Secretary/Undersecretary for Economic Affairs, U.S. Department of Commerce 4 House Oversight and Government Reform Committee (2017, October 12), House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Holds Hearing on 2020 Census. Retrieved January 3, 2018 from 000781 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington. D.C. 20230 January 31, 2018 The Honorable Kamala D. Harris United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator Harris: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. .I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you I have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of~ your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000782 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 January 31, 2018 The Honorable Catherine Cortez Masto United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator Cortez Masto: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions toCongtess by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April!, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team.to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, ~t mplatt@doc.gov or (202)482-3663. Sincerely, GJ~.~ Wilbur Ross 000783 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 January 31, 2018 The Honorable Brian Schatz United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator Schatz: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, WJL-w,~ Wilbur Ross 000784 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 January 31, 2018 The Honorable Thomas R. Carper United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator Carper: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Pla~, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U~~ Wilbur Ross 000785 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 January 31, 2018 The Honorable Dianne Feinstein United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator Feinstein: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000786 AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION January 5,2018 Secretary Wilbur Ross Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Avenue NW Washington, DC 20230 Dear Secretary Ross: I write today on behalf of the 12,000 members of the American Sociological Association, the nation's largest professional association for teachers, scholars, and practitioners of sociology, to express deep concern about a request Ron Jarmin recently received from the Department of Justice to include a citizenship question on the 2020 Census. We strongly urge you to reject this proposal. Should such a proposal be favorably received, the integrity of the 2020 Census data will be fundamentally compromised. Including a citizenship question is likely to keep some people from responding to the questionnaire and others from responding truthfully, thereby undermining the accuracy of the data. In addition, there is no longer time to properly test a new question. As you know, creation of the questionnaire is a complex process that requires years of evaluation. With little time left before the 2020 launch, a new question could not be subject to standard rigorous testing, which would further undermine the quality of the data. . Secretary Ross, the import of an accurate census cannot be overstated. You sit in a position from which you 'can influence the state of our democracy. An accurate census allows policy-makers in public, private, and non-profit sectors to make evidence-based decisions. We implore you to ensure that every effort is made to undertake this process with integrity. Please do not include a citizenship question on the 2020 Census.:=;. ;! ' ,: , .,- c Thank you for-your thoughtful consider~tion of this matter. " N . t,.- •• I ". ,i : ." .. ,-. ,.' .' .- Sincerely, .-. C.. , " , Eduardo Bonilla-Silva President, American Sociological Association . "«;". ".: J.;';/ .•. Q;;' ,_., :",1 cc: Dr. Ron Jarmin 1430 K Street NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 383-9005 (202) 638.0882 lax (202) 638-0981 tdd executive.office@asanet.org www.asanet.org 000787 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 Mr. Eduardo Bonilla-Silva President, American Sociological Association 1430 K Street, NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20005 Dear Mr. Bonilla-Silva: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Thank you again for your letter. We appreciate your thoughtful input. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000788 2&7 January 5, 2018 Dr. Ron Jarmin US Census Bureau 4600 Silver Hill Rd. Washington DC 20233 Dear Dr. Jarmin, As plans are being made to conduct the 2020 Census, it has come to my attention that the Department of Justice is asking to include a question about citizenship status Several experts have expressed real concern that including such a question could depress census response rates, adding to the cost and accuracy of the census. Terri Ann Lowenthal, a leading expert on census issues, is quoted as saying can think of no action the administration could take that would be more damaging to the accuracy of the 2020 census than to add a question on citizenship." Representatives of the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund and the National Advisory Committee of the Census have both indicated that this seems to be a move to prevent the shifting of Congressional representation from non-Latino states to heavily Latino states. I trust you will work with Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross to ensure that this discriminatory and expensive attempt to sabotage the census will not be considered. you for your consideration, radis c: Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross 1401 Constitutional Ave NW, Washington DC 20230 Representative Katherine Clark 701 Concord Ave #101, Cambridge, MA 02138 7. 000789 ml EEG 0895295- January 7, 2018 . if? "a "alt .v Wilbur L. Ross, Secretary on U. S. Department of Commerce .1 12.7,; 1401 Constitution Ave NW 5; Washington, DC 20230 23 Dear Secretary Ross: The GOP is sabotaging this sacred mandate: decennial census. The Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves because our federal government is failing to execute one of its most basic constitutional duties: the decennial census. The decennial census is the country?s largest civilian mobilization. It determines where billions of federal dollars flow each year, and how many congressional and electoral college seats each state gets. The results have enormous in?uence over the decisions of businesses and local governments, too. It?s mandated by the U.S. Constitution, right there in Article 1, Section 2. Yet despite all the brandishing of pocket Constitutions on the right, the Trump White House and Republican lawmakers are sabotaging this sacred mandate. First they re?ised to suf?ciently fund it. Now they?re taking actions that would severely depress participation. This raises the prospect that those ?nal, critically important numbers will be to use one of Trump?s preferred adjectives WRONG. The census is a few years OH the enumeration itself doesn?t happen until 2020, planning begins years in advance. The Census Bureau must try out questions. It must test-drive technologies especially important this time around, because for the ?rst time, the questionnaire will be administered primarily online. The bureau must also ?gure out which community groups can help with public outreach and what kind of messaging will be most effective in getting people to stand up and be counted. This task is especially challenging in an era marked by record distrust of government. Already, funding shortfalls and administration disorganization have left these efforts woefully behind. A scheduled dress rehearsal for the 2020 count was whittled from three sites to one, in Providence County, Rhode Island. One goal of such tests is to ?nd ways to maximize participation of ?hard-to?coun populations, such as immigrants, the homeless and households below the poverty line. Because these are largely Democratic constituencies, Republicans may shrug at the setbacks they?ve created. But Trump Country is also at risk at being overlooked. That?s because funding uncertainty forced the Census Bureau to kill its ?only opportunities to test, in a real-time, census-like environment, special counting methods for rural areas,? as Vanita Gupta, president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, explained in recent congressional testimony. Apparently not content to shortchange funding, the administration is also taking steps that will actively decrease participation. As ProPublica ?rst reported, the Justice Department recently sent a letter to the Census Bureau asking it to add a new question to the 2020 form. Adding a question any question this late in the game is risky; there?s no time to ?eld-test how people will respond to it. 000790 This particular question is unusually hazardous: It?s about citizenship. The Justice Department claims it needs ?nely grained citizenship data to enforce the Voting Rights Act, a proposition that every census alumnus and civil rights expert has rejected. Whatever the administration?s motives, the main consequence of adding this question is clear: It would spook immigrants (legal or otherwise) and especially Hispanics anxious about how the government might use their data. In unrelated survey testing last year, respondents fretted about what would happen to information they gave to the Census Bureau. Unprompted, some mentioned the ?Muslim ban,? ?discomfort ?registering? other household members? and fears that immigration authorities would come after them. Some falsi?ed names and dates of birth. Those survey respondents were paid, too, suggesting they?d be more likely to cooperate than would the general population. The politics have changed everything. Recently,? one ?eld representative explained, according to a Census Bureau memo. In a statement, the bureau said it was still ?evaluating? the Justice Department request. Even if the Census Bureau ultimately leaves this question off the form, though, the reputational damage may already be done. Signi?cant undercounts could distort how dollars and congressional seats are divvied up. It is likely (and perhaps not coincidentally) to the advantage of Republicans and their constituencies. The Constitution requires the decennial census to count all people, not just all citizens. Your department oversees the census, seems to truly want to produce a full, accurate, nonpartisan count, not least because the business sector wants one. But in an era of data trutherism, Donald Trump?s lies, and political tribalism, Republican lawmakers and the rest of the administration appear to have other priorities. A full, accurate and non-partisan census is critical to the proper functioning of our republic so regardless of your party af?liation or having been appointed by Donald Trump, millions of Americans are counting on you and your department to put politics aside for this very important census. Sincerely, at Wm Peyton Collier-Kerr 000791 Peyton Collier?Kerr Wilbur L. Ross, Secretary U. S. Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Ave NW Washington, DC 20230 The GOP is sabotaging this sacred mandate: decennial census. Mail - boc.correspondence.quality.assurance@census.gov Page 1 of 1 Fwd: Process for vetting questions Mark G Dorsey (CENSUS/OCIA FED) Mon 1/8/2018 3:56 PM To:BOC Correspondence Quality Assurance (CENSUS) ; Please control Mark Dorsey, Congressional Liaison, Office of Congressional & Intergovernmental Affairs, U.S. Census Bureau Cell 202.779.1388 mark.g.dorsey@census.gov census.gov   Connect with us on Social Media Begin forwarded message: From: "Helling, Erin" Date: January 8, 2018 at 2:50:49 PM EST To: "cao@census.gov" Subject: Process for vetting questions Hi, I am trying to track down information on the process for vetting questions for the 2020 Census, particularly the DOJ’s requested question on immigration status. If you wouldn’t mind giving me a call, I would appreciate a quick run down on the process. Best, ­ Erin --Erin Helling Legislative Counsel Rep. Mike Thompson 231 Cannon House Office Building 202-225-3311 www.mikethompson.house.gov   Sign up for our e-newsletter 000793 https://outlook.office365.com/owa/boc.correspondence.quality.assurance@census.gov/?offli... 1/9/2018 ($059733 Missouri Johnson, Marcellina (Federal) From: Leach, Macie (Federal) Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2018 7:10 PM To: DOCExecSec Subject: FW: Proposed Census Citizenship Question From: Barbara Anderson [mailto? Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2018 3:37 PM in Ross. Wilbur lienerali non lama-n Enrinue Cc: Andrew A. Samwick Kathy Pettit Ken Simonson Peter w- Roberto nleonon Sunshine Hillvaus ?u2 Allison ilver lien Pablo lf~< . Arthur E. Gary, General Counsel, Justice Management Division u> . Subject: Proposed Census Citizenship Question 13' 3:5 is . . In; To: Jeff Attorney General 'l - ES i I -. .l'l'difljd? Wilbur Ross, Secretary of Commerce Ron Jarmin, Performing the Nonexclusive Functions and Duties of the Director Enrique Lamas, Performing the Nonexclusive Functions and Duties of the Deputy Director and Chief Operating Of?cer We are sending this email in response to the letter of December 12, 2017 from Arthur 15. Gary of the Department of Justice to the Census Bureau which requested that citizenship be included as an item on the 2020 Census. We are members of the Census Scienti?c Advisory Committee, a Congressionally-mandated committee which advises the Census Bureau on all scienti?c matters. We are sending this letter as an expression of our professional opinion as individuals and do not write as representatives of the Census Bureau or of our individual organizations. We include academics, members of the private sector and members of GOS. We hold the strong opinion that including citizenship in the 2020 Census would be a serious mistake which would result in a substantial lowering of the response rate. Producing a high quality census with a very high response rate is in the interest of all Americans. The United States Census has not encountered the problems with a high level of Census refusal that have been a problem in many other high income countries, including Germany. One reason is that in 2010 there were about 250,000 community partners who encouraged people in their communities to respond to the Census. It is expected that there will be a similar number of community partners for the 2020 Census. Adding a citizenship. 1 000794 question to the main Census questionnaire is almost certain to jeopardize the cooperation of at least some community partners and lead to a lower response rate, hurting the reputation of the Census Bureau. We are certain you would not like to see these outcomes occur. Sincerely, Dr. Barbara A. Anderson Ronald Freedman Collegiate Professor of Sociology and Population Studies, University of Michigan, Chair Census Scienti?c Advisory Committee Dr. Barbara Butten?eld Professor of Geography, University of Colorado Dr. Peter W. Thomas Ford Professor of Engineering Stanford University Dr. D. Sunshine Hillygus Professor of Political Science Director, Duke Initiative on Survey Methodology Duke University Dr. Juan Pablo Hourcade Associate Professor of Computer Science University of Iowa Ms. Pettit Senior Research Associate Metropolitan Housing and Communities Policy Center 000795 The Urban Institute Ms. Allison Plyer Chief Demographer The Data Center at Nonpro?t Knowledge Works Dr. Roberto Rigobon Society of Sloan Fellows Professor of Applied Economics Massachusetts Institute of Technology Dr. Andrew Samwick Professor of Economics Director, The Nelson A. Rockefeller Center Dartmouth College Mr. Kenneth D. Simonson Chief Economist The Associated General Contractors of America 000796 GONZALEZ wasnwm?ow OFFICE 15TH Distinct, Texas 113 Cannon House Grace EUFLDENCI Wasnworow, DJ: 2121515 i2921225~2531 COMMITTEE ON SERVICES ?atness of the flannel: grates wg oN Housman: AND importance gauge at ?epre??ntatibe? 632?5525 (M siND Washington, ass: 20515?4315 gonzulezdlousegov January 9, 2018 The Honorable Jeff Sessions Attorney General of the United States US. Department of Justice 950 Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 Dear Attorney General Sessions: I write to express my concerns with a letter the Justice Management Division of the Department of Justice mailed to the Census Bureau last month. The letter in question proposed reinstating a citizenship question that has not been a part of the census questionnaire for quite some time. The change was recommended under the guise ofvoter ?'aud prevention, but couid ultimately have detrimental effects on the 2020 Census. As the representative for an area known for low response rates, a strong immigrant community, and a hiatory of being undercomted, I worry that this question may have unforeseen consequences on participation in and implementation of the Decennial Census in my district. Reintroducing this question could incite fear among immigrants and potentially deter them from participating. Furthermore, this change would represent a step backward from the recent collaboration between my of?ce, Hidalgo County, and the Census Bureau to address past inaccuracies and better prepare for the Decenaial Census. i am also concerned this sudden change could increase the costs of the Census andlor divert much needed funds from efforts intended to improve accuracy. I am more than willing to support legislation and mice that advance the 1toting rights and security of Americans, but I truly believe this change would do more harm than good. The reintroduction of this citizenship question is an indirect attack on our immigrant communities, and on historicaliy undercounted communities like those in Hidalgo County. 1 stand ready to work with the Department of Justice and the Census Bureau to address your concerns, increase participation, and ensure the 2020 Census runs in the best possible way. - Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Please feel free to reach out to me to discuss this matter further at (202) 225-2531. Sincereiy, Vicente Gonzalez Member of Congress CC: Acting Director Ron Jarmin, Census Bureau PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1Y;-DS977~ The Leadership Conference on Civiland Human Rights 1620 L Street, NW Suite 1100 202.466.3311 voice 202.466.3435 fax Washington, DC www,civilrights.org ; 20036 o ,f> !"'1 -,,~ Chair Jlldllll L,lichtmon Natfonal Partnership for Women & FamWes Vice Chairs Jacqueline Pma Notional Congress af Amerw Thomas A Saenz '~1 T" I. January 10,2018 Officers '" C -' ::"~ The Leadership :"1"\ Conference (p} ;-:~l ~~ rri Indians Protect the Census: Oppose DOJ Request to Add a Citizenship Census MexiCM Amenc.1n Legal DelenSlJ and Edlll:atiooal Fund Hilary Shercan NAACP Secretary Jo Ann Jenkins Question to ~ 0:> tl1~20iiJ ~:;. :::.. 0 Dear Secretary Ross: >ARP Treasurer Lee "', Smmdm "'mericoo Federation of Swte, Calmly & Mmldpal On behalf of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition charged by its diverse membership of more than 200 national organizations to promote and protect the Employees Soard 01 Dlrectol'\! Helena Bergei' American Association 01 People with Disabilities KIItlllerIy CiUlI'ches >AlJW Kristen ClarKe Lawyers' CommiUee for Civil Rights Under Law Lily E~elsen Garcia civil and human rights of all persons in the United States, and the undersigned 167 organizations, we urge you to reject the Department of Justice's untimely and unnecessary request for a new citizenship question on the 2020 Census, which would threaten a fair and accurate decennial census. Adding a new citizenship question to the 2020 Census would destroy any chance for an accurate count, discard years of careful research, and increase costs significantly. NetiollJI Education Association fatima Goes Qr she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as iwell as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembl~d a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the I Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the ~eople, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legiislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, ! UJk~ Wilbur Ross 000813 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Claire McCaskill United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator McCaskill: i i Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justicd's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he 9r she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as :well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr .., Assistant Secretary for Legi1slative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. : Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000814 Eli Effinger-Weintraub January 12. 2018 Secretary Wilbur Ross US. Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Ave NW Washington, DC 20230 Dear Secretary Ross, I am writing to express my opposition to the proposal that the 2020 Census include a question on citizenship. I am especially concerned that the fear this question will raise in today's anti-immigrant climate wilt lead to a signi?cant increase in non-participation, which will, in turn, result in an inaccurate count and an inaccurate apportionment of Congressional Districts. As a government representative, l?m sure you share my concern that we must work to preserve our democracy. Part of that job is assuring that districts are fairly drawn and that all people are counted and represented. SincerelyEll Ef?nger-Welntraub 2000815 CONGRESSIONAL CAucus Mic/Idle Grisfmm I Chairwoman HSTH CONGRESS January 16, 2018 The Honorable Wilbur Ross Secretary US. Department of Commerce Room 5421 Fourteenth Street and Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20230 Dear Secretary Ross: We write to strongly oppose the Department of Justice?s (DOJ) requesth to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census. General Counsel Arthur Gary? 5 December 12th letter claims that the addition of a citizenship question is needed to enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) in order to protect against racial discrimination in voting. The addition of a citizenship question only serves to instill fear among immigrant communities, decrease participation and negatively impact the outcome and accuracy of the 2020 Census. The U. S. Census is completed every ten years to collect data that accurately re?ects the total United States population, regardless of citizenship. Census questions undergo years of extensive review, including ?eld testing and feedback from focus groups. Adding an untested question could seriously impair the Bureau?s ability to produce an accurate p0pulation count and result in increased costs to the Census. claims that the citizenship question is needed to enforce Section 2 of the VRA and to prevent racial discrimination in voting are unfounded. The Census Bureau already collects information on citizenship through the American Community Survey (ACS). This ongoing yearly survey provides more detailed information than the decennial Census, which enables the Census to focus more on pepulation counts. The reliable citizenship data was -used in 2010 by both and civil rights groups to monitor compliance with the VRA and will once again be utilized for the same purpose in 2020. The Trump administration?s immigration policies have already instilled fear among immigrant communities. Immigrant communities are less likely to report crimes, or even enroll their eligible US. citizen children in healthcare programs. Additionally, early surveys have documented that some immigrants are afraid to provide information to Census employees because they are fearful of how the infonnation may be used. This is a concerning trend and would no doubt be worsened if a citizenship question was included in the 2020 Census. We urge you to oppose the request for a citizenship question in the 2020 Census. As you work to ensure a fair and accurate census that encourages full participation, we believe that including a citizenship question would only serve to suppress participation and result in inaccurate data that does not truly re?ect the makeup of our nation. Not Printed at Taxpayer's Expense 000816 an? Thank you in advance for your attention to this critical issue. I 0 I Michelle Lujan Grisham CI-IC Civil Rights and Voting Rights Chair CHC Chair 56 E. Serrano Sincer Luis V. Gutierrez new 1:5} (glace F. Napolitancl Saliid O. Carbajal ?r Lucille l-Allard 1. Adriano Espaillat 'denas 1; Mb Ben Ray Lujan Linda T. 8% chez Ruben Gallego 3 71444217 16% Norma Torres Nanette Diaz Barragan 000817 bub Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan 000818 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE' The Secretary of Commerce Washington, nc. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Darren Soto U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Soto: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to' submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000819 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washihgton, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Michelle Lujan Grisham U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Lujan Grisham: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person,. in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you kno~, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce' sOffice of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000820 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Luis Gutierrez U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Gutierrez: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department'ofCommerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000821 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Jos~ E. Serrano U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Serrano: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact MichaelPlatt, Jr.; Assistant Secretary forLegislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U~j,~ Wilbur Ross 000822 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Grace Napolitano U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Napolitano: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U.~j~~ Wilbur Ross 000823 '* UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Salud Carbajal U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Carbajal: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitmem to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U~j,c-L Wilbur Ross 000824 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Lucille Roybal-Allard U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Roybal-Allard: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April I, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office ofthe Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000825 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Albio Sires U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Sires: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address. and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office ofthe Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000826 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Adriano Espaillat U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Espaillat: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office ofthe Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000827 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable J. Luis Correa U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Correa: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review ofthe Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April I, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000828 UNITED STATES DE.PARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Tony Cardenas u.s. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Cardenas: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming. and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000829 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washingtofl,D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Jimmy Gomez U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Gomez: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, k, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000830 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, p.e. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Ben Ray Lujan U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Lujan: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000831 UNITED.STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary .of.Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Linda Sanchez U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Sanchez: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U~j,~ Wilbur Ross 000832 . UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary. of Commerce WClEihington,. D. C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Juan Vargas u.s. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Vargas: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported.back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department ofCotnmerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions of would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and IntergovernmentalAffairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000833 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Ruben Gallego U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Gallego: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000834 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington; D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Norma Torres U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear RepresentativeTorres: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April I, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482 ..J663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000835 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Nanette Diaz Barragan U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Barragan: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000836 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Sablan: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000837 JOE MANCHIN III COMMlmes WEST VIRGINIA APPROPRIA 110NS Sum""" ctanitcd ~rotC5~cnatc H"ItT BUltoolG WASMNGTON. DC :10510 {lO2} 224-3954 WASHINGTON. DC 2051Q-.4ll04 January 16, 2018 ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES INTEWGENCE VETERANS' a < = ::! < CO ~,~ '"n c: 1" V> . ;n ) ;;0 '":> '" ~ "" -c ::s: W 00 I am writing to express my conccrns about the preparations that the Department of Commerce (the Department) and the Census Bureau (the Bureau) arc taking in advance of the 2020 Decennial Census for populations in remote rural and hard-to-count areas based on reports in a December 9,2017 New York Times artiele entitled With 2020 Census Looming. Worries Aboul Fail'lless and Accuraci. Iam wOlTied that based on this artiele and other ne\~s reports that rural and geographically challenged areas, such as West Virginia and the Appalachian region, will not be appropriately and accurately enumerated. According to the New York Times article, due to budget cuts, the Department cancelled testing in Bluefield, West Virginia that would have better infornled how to develop accurate population counts in hard-to-count and remote rural areas. The article also goes on to state that the Bureau plans to usc infornlation from the United Statcs Postal Service, satellite imagery and online surveys to make up for the labor-intensive work of going from door-to-door to gather data and ensure the Bureau is using an accurate list of addresses for the 2020 Census. I was alarnlcd to learn that only 30% of the country would bc visited by enumcrators in order to gather this information and it is unclear which areas are included in this 30% or the threshold that was used to come to this percentage. I also understand that the Census is largely intended to be completed online and only certain areas will receive paper questionnaires during the first round ofthc Census data collection. Given the remoteness of my state's rural population, the lack of broadband access across the state, and the prevailing concern by some of my constituents that the government is asking intrusive questions, I am apprehensive about these alternate more hands-off methodologies and their ability to work for my constituents. Moreover, the Department and the Bureau's emphasis and reliance on the internet for collecting most of their Census data is troubling and seems to ignore the Digital Divide in this country. Nearly 30 percent of West Virginians are without access to broadband which means over 500,000 West Virginias would be at risk for not being counted accurately in the Census. While Irecognize that relying on technology and the internet is a more cost effective way to gather as much infonnation as possible, Ifear that in an attempt to save money, the Bureau may I http5:/Imobile.nytime5.comI20 17/12/09/u5/cenSU5-2020redistricting.htm 17action=cl ick&modulc=Top%20Storic5&pgtype=Horncpage 000838 miss out counting segments of the population by not deploying more trusted local enumerators to areas to collect data. I understand how vital of a role the Census plays in the United States and which is why I am requesting that the Bureau reconsider its proposed .approach to collecting the data in order to make the 2020 Deeennial Census a meaningful one for the entire country, including West Virginia. I also request your response to the following questions: • • • Which areas are included in the 30% of the country that will be visited by enumerators to determine accurate addresses and how are these areas chosen? With the Administration's recent request for additional funds, does the Department intend to reinstate rural tcsting in West Virginia before the 2020 Census? What assurances can you provide that the counts in West Virginia will be accurate? I share your desire for a cost-effective Census but I believe it is imperative that we ensure all populations, especially remote rural ones, are accurately counted. I look forward to your response to my questions and stand ready to assist you and. the Department in order to make sure rural America is fully included in the 2020 Decennial Census. Sincerely, 000839 Congress at the l?niteh gtatea mashingtnu, ME EHEIE January 17, 2018 The Honorable Wilbur Ross Secretary Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Ave, NW Washington, DC 20230 Dear Secretary Ross: We write to express our deep concern about the Justice Department?s request to include questions about citizenship status in the next census.1 The U.S. Census is critical to ensuring that our democracy is truly representative and to gathering data that guides federal ?mding. The inclusion of citizenship questions will deter responses to the census, especially among minority, immigrant, and low-income communities. We strongly urge you to reject efforts to insert questions in the 2020 Census that focus on citizenship status. The inclusion of citizenship questions in the census will suppress responses from minority communities who will fear reprisal against themselves or loved ones from revealing citizenship details. As the Leadership Conference Education Fund recently observed, ?Asking about citizenship status in the 2020 Census. . .will have a chilling effect and keep many residents from responding, jeopardizing the accuracy? of the census? As it is, according to the Census Bureau, 1.5 percent of the Hispanic population and 2.1 percent of the A?ican- American population were not included in the last census in 2010.3 Including questions like this will only further depress the response rate.4 In fact, in an amicus curiae brief in Evenwel v. Abbott, four former directors of the U.S. Census Bureau noted that asking about citizenship status ?would likely exacerbate privacy concerns and lead to more inaccurate r83ponses from non-citizens worried about a government record of their immigration status. . .invariably lead[ing] to a lower response rate to the Census in general. . 5 Moreover, a September 2017 memo by the U.S. Census? Center for Survey Measurement (CSM) ?agged concerns about undercounting in the 2020 Census. In interviews with 366 individuals beginning in 2017, CSM staff reported facing a ?new phenomenon? encountering high numbers of people expressing con?dentiality concerns and reluctance to participate.6 Many individuals cited the Muslim ban, harsh immigration policies, and the current political climate as deterrents from participating. This is particularly concerning given that CSM reSpondents are paid a cash incentive for their participation in surveys and are interviewed by researchers with whom they have an established relationship. It is clear that individuals are lJustin Elliott, Trump Justice Department Pushes for Citizenship Question on Census, Alarming Experts, PROPUBLICA (Dec. 29,2017) available at: hues: nmnublieaomlu?ieiel?uunm instieedenamnent- nmhes? forsiuzcushiu?uuea?uu- hematite-11m m. 2 Leadership Conference Education Fund, Factsheet: Citizenship and Legal Status Questions on the 2020 Census: Preventing a Decennial Disaster (Jan. 1, 201B) 3 Michael Wines, Critics Say Questions About Citizenship Could Wreck Chances for an Accurate Census, N.Y. TIMES (Jan. 2, 2018) available at: Id. 5 5 78 U.S., 136 S. Ct. 1120 (2016) 5 Memorandum for Associate Directorate for Research and Methodology from Center for Survey Measurement re: Respondent Con?dentiality Concerns (Sep. 20, 2017) available at: us. r: in rn - rdin PRINTED on RECYCLED PAPER 000840 already reluctant to complete a paid survey with someone they know. How can we expect the general public to complete a census that includes questions which will only keep them from responding? The resulting undercount will reverberate across the nation: from ensuring a fair distribution of congressional seats based on the census data to making certain that an accurate allocation of nearly $700 billion taxpayer funds? for critical programs is made. These include programs like Medicaid ($311 billion), SNAP ($71 billion) and Pell Grants ($29.9 billion), highway planning and construction ($38 billion), Federal Transit Formula Grants billion) and Career and Technical Education Grants billion). Industry and businesses also rely on census data to determine where services and investments in communities will be made. In testimony before a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing in October 2017 you pledged that ef?cient 2020 Census that provides a fair and accurate count has been one of my highest priorities since being con?rmed in February. . .The census is the bedrock upon which we construct our system of democratic representation.?8 We know you understand the important role the census plays in our democracy, and we h0pe that you will push back against any efforts to politicize the census process. The Census Bureau has engaged in efforts for decades to build trust with under-counted communities, including communities of color and the rural poor, and build capacity among community organizations to maximize participation. During the 2010 Census, public and private investment built capacity among community leaders and strengthened the in?'astructure among community organizations.9 All these efforts stand to be reversed should the census become politicized. In April 20': 8, you will be sharing a list of questions for the next census with Congress. We strongly urge you not to include any questions relating to citizenship status such as the ones the Justice Department is requesting. In addition to the problems described above, the inclusion of such a question so late in the process will not allow for necessary testing to correct wording problems. Moreover, such an action will impede a fair, accurate and ef?cient national count. We must do everything we can to ensure maximum participation the 2020 Census. Sincerely, - . . Member of Congress Member of Congress I CEDRIC L. RICHMOND her 0 gress Member of Congress 7 Marisa Hotchkiss Jessica Phelan, Uses of Census Bureau Data in Federal Funds Distribution, U.S. CENSUS BUREAU (Sep. 2017) Fidsral-Fumh-?istributianhd? 3 Testimony of Wilbur Ross, Secretary of Commerce, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (Oct. 12, 2017) available at: hLmEuv/wn-cnntent/uploadgzm El 1 9 Kim Crews, Philanthropic Support for 2010 Census Outreach, Funders Census Initiative (May 2011); p. 1. 000841 MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON Member of Congress Member of Congress 924a BOBBY USH Member of Congress M. 3 Member of Congress Member of Congress SHEILA JACKSO EE DANNY DAVS Member of Congr Member of COG gr 5 BARBARA LEE Member of Congress Member of Congress Am JIM COS A A Member Congress Member of Congress 399% mean; DORIS 0. MATSUI Member of Congress Member of Congress 000842 AGUILAR TED LIEU Member of Congress Member of Congress BARRAGAN LISA BEUNT Member of Congress Member of Congress UIS ANTHONY snow Member of Congress Member of Congress SALUD CARBAJAL I ADRIANO ESPAILLAT Member Of Congress Member of Congress VIN NTE GONZALEZ Member of Congress A vine?Lb M?Zuh'a? A. DONALD MCEACHIN Member of Congress mics - ARREN A NCE Member of Congress Member Of Congress 000843 mm CLARKE KEITH ELLISON Member of Congress Member of Congress MARCIA FUDGE BASS Member of Con ess Member of Congress COLLEEN HANABUSA Member of Congress CE MENG MARK POC - i? ber of Congress Member of Congress MARK TAKANO Member of Congress Mem er of Congress MARC VEASEY I MON VELA Member of Con 55 Member of Congress 31 KA RINE CLARK Member of Congress Member of Congress 000844 JO LEWIS MOORE er of Congress Member of Congress re.? EDDIE BERNIOE JOHN er of Congress Member of Congress 03?3. F. NAPOLI mber of Congress Am TERRI A. SEWELL HAKEEM S. JEFF Member of Congress Member of Congress ?aswwl?zm?hmx 41405 I BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN Member of Congress l'Member Congress 6 xv (2le m) BEN RAY Luna}: No Member of Congress Congress ROBERT c. SCOTT Member of Congress Member 0 Congress 000845 1. FREDERICA S. WILSON Member of Congress 000846 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Pramila Jayapal U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Jayapal: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office ofthe Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you .apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000847 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington. D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Raul Grijalva U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Grijalva: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000848 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Judy Chu U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Chu: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U~J,~ Wilbur Ross 000849 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Cedric Richmond U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Richmond: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1,2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Managenient and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. . We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please_have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative all'd Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U~j,~ Wilbur Ross 000850 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Michelle Lujan Grisham of Representatives Washingt~m, DC 20515 u.s. House Dear Representative Grisham: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U~j,~ Wilbur Ross 000851 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT The Secretary of Commerce OF COMMERCE Washington; D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Holmes Norton: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this importm;t matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1,2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000852 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Alcee Hastings U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Hastings: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000853 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Bobby Rush U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Rush: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycIe cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000854 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Lucille Roybal-Allard U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Roybal-Allard: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000855 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Nydia Velazquez U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Velazquez: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000856 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Jackson Lee: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as athorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U~j,~ Wilbur Ross 000857 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Danny Davis U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Davis: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Uvt1-wvJ,~ Wilbur Ross 000858 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Gregory Meeks U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Meeks: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000859 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Barbara Lee U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Lee: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. . The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governanc~ and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000860 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Jim Costa u.s. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Costa: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000861 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Al Green U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Green: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and IntergovelllII).ental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000862 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Doris Matsui U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Matsui: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U.~j,~ Wilbur Ross 000863 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Albio Sires U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Sires: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000864 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Pete Aguilar U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Aguilar: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking thetime to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000865 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Ted Lieu U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Lieu: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1,2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000866 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Nanette Barragan U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Barragan: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000867 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Lisa Blunt Rochester U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Blunt Rochester: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after! conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000868 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Luis Correa U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Correa: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1,2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U~j,~ Wilbur Ross 000869 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington. D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Anthony Brown U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Brown: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecyc1e cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U~j~~ Wilbur Ross 000870 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Salud Carbajal U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Carbajal: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address ~d remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000871 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Adriano Espaillat U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Espaillat: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U~j,~ Wilbur Ross 000872 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Vicente Gonzalez U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Gonzalez: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U~j,~ Wilbur Ross 000873 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Ro Khanna U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Khanna: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concemsexpressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000874 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable A. Donald McEachin U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative McEachin: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each perSon, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office 'of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000875 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Jimmy Gomez U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Gomez: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U~j,~ Wilbur Ross 000876 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Darren Soto U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Soto: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000877 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Brenda Lawrence U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Lawrence: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000878 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Yvette Clarke U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Clarke: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure .strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000879 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Keith Ellison U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Ellison: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecyc1e cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000880 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Marcia Fudge U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Fudge: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000881 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Karen Bass U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Bass: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000882 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Colleen Hanabusa U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Hanabusa: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000883 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Tony Cardenas U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Cardenas: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000884 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Grace Meng U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Meng: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000885 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Mark Pocan U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Pocan: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000886 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Mark Takano of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 u.s. House Dear Representative Takano: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000887 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Juan Vargas U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Vargas: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000888 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Marc Veasey U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Veasey: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U~j~~ Wilbur Ross 000889 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Filemon Vela U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Vela: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U~cl~~ Wilbur Ross 000890 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Robin Kelly U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Kelly: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000891 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Katherine Clark U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Clark: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000892 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable John Lewis U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Lewis: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000893 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Gwen Moore U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Moore: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U~j,c-L Wilbur Ross 000894 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Emanuel Cleaver U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Cleaver: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000895 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Eddie Bernice Johnson U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Johnson: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high'-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000896 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Grace Napolitano U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Napolitano: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000897 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Wm. Lacy Clay U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Clay: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U~J,CL Wilbur Ross 000898 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Terri Sewell u.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Sewell: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U~j,c-L Wilbur Ross 000899 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Hakeem Jeffries U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Jeffries: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000900 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington. D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Bonnie Watson Coleman U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Watson Coleman: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecyc1e cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000901 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Hemy "Hank" Johnson, Jr. U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Johnson: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000902 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Ben Ray Lujan U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Lujan: Thank: you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1,2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U~j~~ Wilbur Ross 000903 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Jose Serrano U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Serrano: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April I, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000904 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Robert "Bobby" Scott U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Scott: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000905 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 The Honorable Carolyn Maloney U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Maloney: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1,2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the bffice of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put intd place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2p20 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000906 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 The Honorable Frederica Wilson U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Wilson: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after! conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate aswell as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U~j~~ Wilbur Ross 000907 19-05??ng Congress of the liniteh gluten ?6 20515 January 18, 20l8 to v: ii The Honorable Wilbur L. ROSS, Jr '53; '35 Secretary of Commerce :3 .53 51 L4 US. Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Avenue NW Washington, DC. 20230 Dear Secretary Ross: We write to strongly oppose the Department of Justice?s request to add a question regarding citizenship status to the 2020 decennial census. This duplicative, unnecessary effort seriously threatens the accuracy and integrity of a census, which has tremendous consequences for our country. We urge you to reject this request from the Department of Justice and focus on the goal of conducting a comprehensive, accurate, and cost effective decennial census in 2020. The addition of a citizenship question, along with the other recently reported actions of pending andlor already appointed unquali?ed political operatives to the Census to positions that have never been political, calls into question whether this administration is serious about an accurate count or is instead actively working to hurt the integrity of the Census and ultimately discount minority voters. As you know, the distribution of over $600 billion in annual federal funding and the redistricting of legislative seats for the next decade depend upon a well-executed census. if a citizenship question were to be added to the 2020 questionnaire, we would likely see a signi?cantly dropped head count of already-undercounted minority groups - particularly immigrants, non-citizens, and Latinos. This attack on civil rights would only serve to suppress the minority vote, drop the numbers necessary to apportion federal funding, and push immigrant communities even deeper into the shadows. The December 12 letter from General Counsel Arthur Gary to Dr. Ron Jarrnin of the Census ,Bureau argues that further information on citizenship is ?critical to the Department?s enforcement of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and its important protections against racial discrimination in voting.? We find this argument to be disingenuous considering questions on citizenship have been included on the American Community Survey (AC8), distributed on a basis for the last 13 years. The information derived from the ACS has long been effectively utilized to address voting rights abuses across the country. mmeo 0N RECYCLED amen 000908 Additionally, the ?nal census questions that are due to be submitted to Congress by April 1, 2018, will have undergone an extensive screening process constituting years of focus groups and ?eld tests to ensure a high response rate coupled with effective data collection. Including a new question this late in the process allows no time for testing or the correction of wording problems, and only serves to increase the risk to a census that has already experienced massive cost increases and heightened levels of public mistrust. New qualitative research from the Census Bureau con?rms that survey respondents and focus group participants are expressing an ?unprecedented? level ofconeern regarding the con?dentiality of the data they provide to the Bureau and whether that data will be improperly shared with other government agencies, especially immigration of?cials. While we recognize that Title 13 of the'U.S. Code has strict protections against the use of census data for law enforcement, it provides little reassurance to those who have seen their loved ones detained and/or deported under this administration. Protesting respondents were observed explicitly falsifying data or leaving household members off survey rosters for fear of incrimination. These trends suggest that the addition of a citizenship question could exacerbate con?dentiality concerns and severely undermine accuracy and initial response levels. This, in turn, would increase the cost of the census by hundreds of millions of dollars in non-reaponse follow-up, the most expensive component of the decennial census operation. Mr. Secretary, you have testified before Congress regarding the challenges that the 2020 Decennial faces; adding a citizenship question to the 2020 Censos will destabilize and politicize the decennial process at a time when we can least alTord it. As Congress has not provided you with the additional funds that you requested, threatening the already fragile response rate will only jeopardize data accuracy and increase cost to the American taxpayer who will eventually foot the bill when the costs skyrocket because of this preposal. We strongly urge to you to show us that you are committed to an accurate Census by denying the Department of ustice's request and working to ensure a full, fair, and accurate decennial census. Sincerely, Luis it. utierrez os? E. Serrano Member of Congress ember of Cengress 6225 Carolyn Maloney Member of Congress 000909 Keilhtfilison New or of Congress Lucille Royb Member of Congress rl Blumenauer? Member of Congress Linda T. S?nc Member of Congress Member of Congress Brad Sherman . Member of Congress Andre Carson Member of Congress ilemon ela Member of Congress Mike Quigley Member of Congress [2.3.24 W70 Val Demings Member of Congress Darren Soto Member of Congress Ju?y Chu a Member of Congress 000910 i I 5 Pramila Jayapal . Grijalva Member of Congress Member of Congress Frank Pallonc Jr Member of Congress 5. race F. Napoliland? Bobby L. ?ush ember of Congress Member of Congress . 'Ionald S. Beyer Jr. Nyc?? M. Velazque; ?7 Member of Congress Member of Congress a . . . $294?.ng A . 7? mm Suzann onamici. A. Donald McEachin Mambo Congress - Member of Congress I W7W Bonnie Watson Coleman Mark Takano Member of Congress - Member of Congress Thom?s R. Suozzi Sheila Jackson Lee 4mg? gm; qu Member of Congress Member of Congress? Brownle}. Nanette Diaz Barrag?n of Congress Member of Congress 00091 1 Khanna; on;r denas/ Member of Congress Mem rof Congress\_) ?wwm 3/ Debbie Schultz Juan Vargas Member of Congress Member of Congress )77: tgg?rney Jim Costa Mom of Congress Member of Congress Jerroid Nadler - Adam B. Schiff? Member of Co'ngress Member of Congress Robert C. 'iBobby" Soot! Member of Congress Me ber of Congress Pete Aguilar Jamie Raskin Member of Congress Member of Congress Dina Titus Mark Pooan Member of Congress Member of Congress 000912 Wm Alma S. Adanfs, Ph. D. Member of Congress WJWQ 5 arm Michael E. Capuano Member of Congress Adriano ESpaillal Member of Congress Grace eng Memb of Congress MM uis?t?orrea Member of Congress 69w. AW Paul D. Tonko Member of Congress Maw/Z. Henry Cue?lar Member of Congress kav Age L. Hastings Member of Congress 9 bar of Congress Huffman nber of COngress WIM- EleanOr Holmes Norton Member of Congress EMS. Moo Member of Con 55 000913 ??a?th ichard Nolan Member of Congress ember 0 Congress oycc It}; Sander M. Levin Me of Congress Member of Congress Donald M. Pam Jr C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger a Member of Congress Member of Congress Dwight Evans Bishop Member of Congress Member of Congress 'Mike Doyle Al Lawson . Member of Congress Member of Congress gm Joe Courtney Colleen HanabLsa I Member of Congress . Member of Con ess 000914 P. Kennedy fl! Member of Congress gill Foster Member of Congress MO Hakeem Jc?'ries? Member of of Congress Theodore E. Dcuteh Member of Congress Mark DeSaulme'b'r Member of Congress om O?Halleran Member of Congress MM David Price Member of Congress Lo ren emb of Congress Barbara Lee Member of? Congress th een Rice Member of Congres?s Charlie Crist Member of Congress Ted W. Lieu Member of Congress PmiQmM Rosa L. DeLauro Member of Congress 000915 Daniel T. Kiidee Member of Congress Membe Doris Matsui Member of Congress k/L es P. overn?r em ber of Congress 5 A. Himes .ber of Congress Ruben Kihuen Member of Congress nah/0Q Lois Frankel 1 Member of Congress MAM Nita Lowey Member of Congress Lisa Blunt Rochester Member of Congress Adam Smith Member of Congress to n. Wm. Lacy Clay Member of Congres $0.95 co?f?i' Da?rid Scott Momb?r of Congress mf?M Vicente? Gonzalez Member of Congress 000916 Maxine?aters Member of Congress GregOrio Kilili Camacho Sablen Member of Congress Ed Perlm utter Member of Congress EWL by? Eliot Engel Member of Congress I . 1254/? ren Bass Member of Congress Marc Veasey Member of Con res Eddie Bernice Johnson Member of Congress L/Member of Congress . Carbaja! Member of Congress ber of Congress John K. Delaney Member of Congress gaz?wz?t Bill Pascrell". Jr. Member of Congress Peler Welch Member of Congress See Peters Member of Congress 000917 WIN 48139 quid Castro Ian Higgins ember of Congress Member of Congress Mm Anthony G. Brown Kath rine Clark Member of Congress Member of Congress Seth Moulton mm? R. Keating? Member of Congress mmber of Congress vid N. Cicilline oh B. Larson Member of Congress Me ber of Congress 000918 m$w Danny K. Devi? Member of Congress 000919 Weak? 9, 55?? STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE - The Secretary of Commerce - a? Washington, {3.13. 20230 o?dgsoty February 26, 2018 The Honorable Pete Aguilar US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Aguilar: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of ustice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of ustice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high?quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team. to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. in addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, QML Wilbur Ross ,ac UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce #7 Washington, 20230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Ted Lieu US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Lieu: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of ustice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high?quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after i. conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, (JJUZFW Wilbur Ross ?Co age as, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT or: commence . The Secretary of Commerce a Washington, on. noose February 26, 201.8 The Honorable Nanette Diaz Barragao U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Barragan: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April I, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high~qnality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I. reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, was,? ails. Wilbur Ross UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, 20230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Lisa Blunt Rochester US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Blunt Rochester: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. - The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I. reported back to Congress last October after i conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3 663. Sincerely, paw im Wilbur Ross of was UNITED STATES communism er: commence The Secretary of Commerce is? Washington, DC. 20230 ?sumo? February 26, 2018 The Honorable Luis Correa US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Correa: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of ustice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March. 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 202.0. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back. to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, madam em Wilbur Ross UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce fl" Washington, E18. 28230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Anthony Brown US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Brown: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of ustice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of ustice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high?quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back. to Congress last October after I. conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial. management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Office of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Flatt, 31:, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, am Wilbur Ross UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, DC. 20230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Salud Carbajal U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Carbajal: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of ustice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1., 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a. rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. in addition, 1 have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Plait, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mp1att@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, 251.. Wilbur Ross UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, February 26, 2018 The Honorable Adriano Espaillat US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Espaillat: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of ustice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would. like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, warm Wilbur Ross or ?a We ?7 Egg? ?Ea, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE - gee The Secretary of Commerce 52,} 49$ Washington. 28230 o8?4mso?l?E February 26, 2018 The Honorable Vicente Gonzalez U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Gonzalez: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of usticeis request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by Iaw to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high?quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce- a new 2020 Census Iifecycie cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Plait, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482?3 663. Sincerely, (your 4% Wilbur Ross UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington. 20230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Ro Khanna US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Khanna: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 3 1 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person in the place where he or she lives is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to: address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 202.0 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Flatt, I Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Affairs, at Inplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, warm of?? Wilbur Ross 90992.9. 33f? UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce 3% Washington, no. 20230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable A. Donald McEaehia US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative McEachin: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of ustice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of ustice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 201.8, which is two years prior to Census Day, April -1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct afull, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high?quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would iike to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Flatt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482?3663. Sincerely, warm Wilbur Ross UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington. DC. 20288 February 26, 201.8 The Honorable Jimmy Gomez U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Gomez: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of ustiee?ls request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of ustice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31. 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I. conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I. have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Plait, Jr, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, UJUl/mr Wilbur Ross UMTED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, 20238 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Darren Soto US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Soto: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April I, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A higthnality 2020 Censas that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I. have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Flatt, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 4826663. Sincerely, wattm ails Wilbur Ross ?was colts UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington. 20280 050% February 26, 2018 The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Thompson: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 201.8, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce 5 Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members In addition, I have put into place the people, processes. and programs to ensure strongg Hovernance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovemmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, am Wilbur Ross UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, DC. 20230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Keith Ellison US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Ellison: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of ustice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of ustice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high~quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, 1 reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. in addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member 'of your staff contact Michael Platt, J11, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, walrus am Wilbur Ross 000934 9? as chit, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT or: commence The Secretary of Commerce Washington [3 {3 20230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Karen Bass U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Bass: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of ustice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. i appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of ustice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. 1 have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. - We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Flatt, J12, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, 4% Wilbur Ross at? ?a 5i UNITED STATES DEFARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, 20230 0 . $4 87517-55 0? l? February 26, 2018 The Honorable Colleen Hanabusa US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Hanabusa: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of" Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I. appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department ofCornmerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required. by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a fall, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and intergovemental Affairs, at inplatt@doc.gov or (202) 4826663. Sincerely, UAW ails Wilbur Ross view: 0: Cal! iris? UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce f5 Washington, 20236) February 26, 2018 The Honorable Tony Cardenas US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Cardenas: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, 1 reported back to Congress last October a?er l. conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Flatt, J12, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, (Jetwam' Wilbur Ross 000937 ?$6.51 OF CQQ. if gig is, umman STATES oamnrmem or: commence - The Secretary of Commerce 3% 1-: Washington, 20230 ?was 0? February 26, 2018 The Honorable Grace Meng US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Meug: Thank you. for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Office of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member ofyour staff contact Michael Flatt, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, UAW Wilbur Ross 99993.3 or: tag a, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT or commence . The Secretary of Commerce Washington [3 C. 20230 ?05 da?glx a" February 26, 2018 The Honorable Mark Pocan US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Pocan: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I. appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April I, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A highuquality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I. conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and. Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, 9.0.2 Wilbur Ross or 4? Eacoi?E UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF commence .- The Secretary of Commerce Washington. 20230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Mark Takano US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Takano: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of ustice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. in addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. if you have any additional questions or would. like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Flatt, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doe.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Quins am Wilbur Ross 00.99.49. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, 20230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Juan Vargas US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20315 Dear Representative Vargas: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of ustice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department ofCommerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high?quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, 1' reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I. have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Flatt, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at rnplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482?3663. Sincerely, warm Kl, Wilbur Ross 99994.1. . UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, 28280 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Marc Veasey U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Veasey: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire I appreciate your taking the time to rnake me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of ustice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 201.8, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lif'ecyele cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. in addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482?3663. Sincerely, UM 4:1. Wilbur Ross Wow," fag a umrren sures DEPARTMENT or: commence The Secretary of Commerce Washington 20230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Filemon Vela U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Vela: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of ustice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high~quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. 1 have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce?s Office of the inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, 4% Wilbur Ross 999943 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington. DC. 263230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Torn O?Halleran U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative O?Halleran: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and. accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Office of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, 1 have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Flatt, in, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, MAW Wilbur Ross OFD egg UNITED STATES oemnrmem or: commence a The Secretary of Commerce Washington. 20230 ?aw a? ?97.4125 0? February 26, 2018 The Honorable Rosa L. DeLauro U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative DeLauro: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of' Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high~quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifeeyele cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, gram of?? Wilbur Ross UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, DC. 2023B February 26, 2018 The Honorable Daniel T. Kildee US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Kildee: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of ustice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April. 1, 2.020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Office of. the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Flatt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482~3663. Since-rely, gnaw silo Wilbur Ross ..,990.9fl? 433$.? 0F 04.. a as it, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF commence The Secretary of Commerce at Washington. no sense C- $6 .- ?9?311?55 0? February 26, 2018 The Honorable Lois Frankel US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Frankel: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of ustice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high?quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place Where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October afterl conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovenunental Affairs, at rnplatt@doo.gov or (202) 482-6663. Sincerely, (Jaime AIL Wilbur Ross 99.99.47. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington. DC 263230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Emanuel Cleaver US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Cleaver: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April I, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each. person, in the place Where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. if you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Flatt, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, MW 40.? Wilbur Ross UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, 20230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Nita Lowey U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Lowey: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of ustice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. 1 appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department ot?Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A. high?quality 2020 Census that counts each. person, in the place Where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and. ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the InSpe-ctor General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Plait, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergoverrunental Affairs, at mplatt@cloc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, warm Wilbur Ross 99994.9. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, 263230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Bill Foster US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Foster: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of ustice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April l, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce?s Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the peeple, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Plait, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovenunental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Udll?w Wilbur Ross UNITEB STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, DE. 20230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Zoe Lofgren US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Lofgren: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of ustice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you knew, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifeeycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce? of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doe.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross . 9999.51. or ant-li- -. 60% UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce a7 Washington. 28230 06% February 26, 2018 The Honorable Kathleen Rice U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Rice: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of ustice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back. to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce anew 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Of?ce ofManagement and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at rnplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, (gnaw Wilbur Ross 9999.5? ?ts-in ?9?33? UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce a" Washington. no. 20230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Theodore E. Deutch US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Deutch: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the .2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Cengress by March 3i, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high~quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after .I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 20.2.0 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary tearn to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, madam 2.0? Wilbur Ross 99995.3. 4?69? 0" 5? tie UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF commence The Secretary of Commerce . a, a Washington, or; 20230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Charlie Crist US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Crist: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of ustice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, -I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. in addition, I. have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, In, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 4826663. Sincerely, warm ails Wilbur Ross ?004? is? UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF commence t. The Secretary of Commerce Washington. no. soaao February 26, 2018 The Honorable Mark DeSaulnier U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative DeSaulnier: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of ustice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April I, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I. conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce?s Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Flatt, J12, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt.@doc.gov or (202) 4826663. Sincerely, was?. Wilbur Ross UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce February 26, 2018 The Honorable Robin Kelly U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20513 Dear Representative Kelly: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2.018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April I, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, UAW Wilbur Ross ?$93 OF 353 3? UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE . - The Secretary of Commerce Washington, Elf). 20280 6? February 26, 2018 The Honorable Katherine Clark US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Clark: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I. appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of usticeis request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I. have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Office of the inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, . grow .10.. Wilbur Ross we? ?no 33?? The Secretary of Commerce 1 Washington, DC. 90230 ?trmg 0" ?9 a age 3, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF commence February 26, 2018 The Honorable ohn Lewis US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Lewis: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice?s request to add a. citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your positiOn on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of ustice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the InSpector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. if you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Flatt, J12, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, (JAM AIL Wilbur Ross UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, 20230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Kathy Castor US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Castor: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of ustice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of ustice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A higlpquality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as Well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovemmental Affairs, at rnplatt@doc.gov or (202) 4826 663. Sincerely, of)? Wilbur Ross .. .. OF coda, he? is UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE . - The Secretary of Commerce Washington D. 28280 onset? February 26, 2018 The Honorable Dwight Evans U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Evans: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let the underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in. the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, 213230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Joe Courtney US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Courtney: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department ofJustice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high~qaality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census, We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Mm .102, Wilbur Ross . . 49,51? We 55? hi UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE .. The Secretary of Commerce is 5,55 Washington, DC. 20238 February 26, 2018 The Honorable David Price US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Price: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of ustice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 3 l, 2018, which. is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high~quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, In, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 4826663. Sincerely, 4% Wilbur Ross ?1&6 DFCO E5 4like. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE . . The Secretary of Commerce ?at? Washington 20230 05.73% 0? February 26, 2018 The Honorable Joseph P. Kennedy Ill US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Kennedy: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of ustice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. appreciate your taking the time to make are aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce?s Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I. have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and lntergovermnental Affairs, at rnplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482?3663. Sincerely, 4% Wilbur Ross ??Egr 0F If speaker, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT or commence The Secretary of Commerce Washington. 20280 6, . a . .. mitt-?5 0? February 26, 2018 The Honorable Al Lawson, Jr. U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Lawson: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of astice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an. orderly review of the Department of ustice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April I, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place Where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I. conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Office of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of. the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U?w Wilbur Ross 000964 or av? 5? egg ounce STATES DEPARTMENT OF commence . - The Secretary of Commerce as, .. . . Washington, 20230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Mike Doyle U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Doyle: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department o't?Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of ustice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020.- Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census life?cycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Depattment of Commerce?s Office of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Flatt, Jr, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and intergovernmental. Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, madam Wilbur Ross UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, 20238 February :26, 2013 The Honorable Sanford D. Bishop, US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Bishop: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of ustice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April I, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I. conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecyole cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 4823663. Sincerely, madam Wilbur Ross 000966 $393? c0 4: 55$ Cit?? STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMEFICE The Secretary of Commerce Washington. 20230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable CA. Dutch Ruppersberger US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of ustice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of ustice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April I, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place Where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, 1 reported back to Congress last October a?er I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, 1 have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. It? you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter ?lrther, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Flatt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at inplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, warm am Wilbur Ross 000967 UMTED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, DC. 20288 February 26, 2018 The-Honorable Donald M. Payne, Jr. US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Payne: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of ustice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2.018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1., 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A ltiglvquaiity 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as Well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. 1. have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Office of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. if you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, ha, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 4826663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000968 The Secretary of Commerce Washington, QC. 20238 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Lloyd Doggett US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Doggett: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of ustiee?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department ofCommerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 3 i, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020' Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorousdeep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifeoycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. .I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovemeutal Affairs, at mplatt@doe.gov or (202) 482-3 663. Sincerely, UAW rim Wilbur Ross 000969 or 3? UNITED STATES communism or commence The Secretary of Commerce .3 f7 Washington, DE. 20230 p. 0 9? 63 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Sander M. Levin U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Levin: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department ofJustice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. i appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of ustice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior. to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high?quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in. the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled amultidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. in addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and intergovernmental Affairs, at mp1att@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, UM Wilbur Ross 000970 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, DC. 20230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Joyce Beatty US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Beatty: Thank. you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high~quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, (JAN if?? Wilbur Ross 000971 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, 20230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Jimmy Panetta U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Panetta: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of ustice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware ot?yonr position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a fall, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high?quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place Where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, In, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3 663. Sincerely, warm Wilbur Ross 000972 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington. 20238 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Richard M. Nolan US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Nolan: Thank you. for your recent letter regarding the Department of ustice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31., 2013, which is two years prior to Census Day, April I, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted. a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department ofComnierce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight ofthe 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional. questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Flatt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482?3663. Sincerely, madam Wilbur Ross 000973 UNITED STATES OF COMMEHCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, 13.63. 263230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Gwen Moore US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Moore: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of ustice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make roe aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high~quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in. the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifeeyele cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce?s Office of the Inspector Generai, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter forther, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doo.gov or (202) 482?3663. Sincerely, (Jaimi?a Wilbur Ross 000974 o?u?co no a; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE . . The Secretary of Commerce is,? ??57 Washington. 213280 oi??e? February 26, 2018 The Honorable Eddie Bernice Johnson US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Johnson: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department ot?Contn?rerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which. is two years prior to Census Day, April I, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each. person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back. to Congress last October after I condacted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I. have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Office of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, J12, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, wart,? am Wilbur Ross 000975 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington. 20230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Paul D. Tonko US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Tonko: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice 5 request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department ofCornmerC-e is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 201.8, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, .I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department ofCornrnerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Of?ce ofManagement and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Plett, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doo.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, UAW Wilbur Ross 000976 is?? a, ummso sures or commence - The Secretary of Commerce 4&7 Washington, DC. 20280 (99 53:41-55 cal?h February 26, 2018 The Honorable Grace Napolitano U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Napolitano: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department ofJustice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I. appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of ustice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a fall, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place Where he or She lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Govermnent Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter ?rrther, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, J12, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482?3 663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000977 UNITED STATES HEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, DC. 20288 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Wm. Lacy Clay US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Clay: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of ustice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of ustice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nai list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a ?Jll, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census iifecyeie cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Plait, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482?3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000978 is? std/rt}; It, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE see. The Secretary of Commerce Washington, 20230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Jared Huffman US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Huffman: Thank. you for your recent letter regarding the Department of ustice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 20.20 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October alter I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Flatt, In, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 4826663. Sincerel y, warm 4K1. Wilbur Ross 000979 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington. 20230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Hakeem Jeffries US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative effries: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of ustiee?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1,2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place Where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifeeycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial. management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Flatt, 12:, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doe.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000980 gnoqu - to? it, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF commence The Secretary of Commerce Washington, 20230 33511-1550? February 26, 2018 The Honorable Joseph Crowley US House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Crowley: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of ustiee?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April I, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of. any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Plan, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doe.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, .JKYM Wilbur Ross 000981 GFco 35$ Egg UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE . - The Secretary of Commerce a, a? Washington, on. ?am??otEE February 26, 2018 The Honorable Bonnie Watson Coleman U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Watson Coleman: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of ustice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 3 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifeeyele cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Plait, J11, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, @1th Wilbur Ross 000982 as!? GFCO 41,, ,5 at? 6?3. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE . The Secretary of Commerce a ?f .557 Washington [1.8 20238 ,e *Mms? February 26, 201.8 The Honorable Marcy Kaptur US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Kaptur: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department ol?Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of nstice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 3 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecyole cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Govemment Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce?s Office of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter thither, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, In, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, UJUOW Wilbur Ross 000983 g5 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce 9% Washington. 20230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Michael E. Capuano U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Capuano: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of ustice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. i. appreciate your taking. the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of ustice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place Where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional. members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@.doc.gov or (202) 4823663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000984 Wean ewmqie at; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce a7 Washington. 20230 62'9?? February 26, 2018 The Honorable Henry Cuellar, U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Cuellar: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department. of Justice?s request to add a citizenship question. to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department "of ustice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1., 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high~quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecyele cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any develOpments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 4826663. Sincerely, waters, 4% Wilbur Ross 000985 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, [16. 20230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Jose Serrano U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Serrano: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of ustice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware ofyour position. on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review ofthe Department of ustice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31., 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place Where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after! conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifeeycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Office of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. if you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Flatt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482?3663. Sincerely, (Jadbw ?Am Wilbur Ross 000986 UNITED STAYES OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, 20230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Robert C. ?Bobby? Scott US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Scott: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high~quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I. reported back to Congress last October after I. conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the morale, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staft?contaet Michael. Platt, In, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, 2&1. Wilbur Ross- 000987 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington. [3.63. 20230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Bill Pascrell, Jr. U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Pascrell: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April. 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, Fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place Where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial. management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce?s Office of the Inspector General, the Of?ce ofMenage-ment and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, In, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at or (202) 4826663. Sincerely, Uaam1<7w Wilbur Ross 000988 UMTED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, 13.8. 20230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Peter Welch US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Welch: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of usticc?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 3 i, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high~quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance- and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. if you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Plait, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3 663. Smcerel y, warm ASL Wilbur Ross 000989 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington. 20230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Scott H. Peters US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Peters: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of ustice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an. orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore ray commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you kaow, I reported back to Congress last October after conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough. review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the InSpector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I. have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Flatt, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 4826663. Sincerely, K72. Wilbur Ross 000990 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce . Washington, 28230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Joaquin Castro US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Castro: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A higlnquality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team. to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@cioc.gmr or (202) 4826663. Sincerely, UMQQ Wilbur Ross 000991 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington. DC. 20280 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Brian. Higgins US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Higgins: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department ofJustice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I. appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a fall, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, 1. reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce ol? the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doe.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000992 ?19? We ,5 We a, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT or commence - The Secretary of Commerce a 5" Washington, 20238 aim; art? February 26, 2018 The Honorable Seth Moulton U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Moultorr: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department ol?Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 201.8, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. AS you know, 1 reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have. assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the InSpector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovemmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, madam, .JCL Wilbur Ross 000993 STATES DEPARTMENT 6F COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, 28280 February 26, 2018 The Honorable William. R. Keating US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 203l5 Dear Representative Keating: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I. appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department oi?Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, Fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high~qnality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place Where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member ofyonr staff contact Michael Flatt, J11, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000994 UMTED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, or; aoaso February 26, 2018 The Honorable David N. Cicilline US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Cicilline: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of ustice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of ustiee?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my . highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a. thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 4826663. Sincerely, gram of?? Wilbur Ross 000995 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce it . Washington, 20230 February 26, 2.018 The Honorable John B. Larson U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Larson: .T hank you for your recent letter regarding the Department ofJustice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A higlvquality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a Iigorous deep dive?to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 4826663. Sincerely, Ugbirw AC1. Wilbur Ross 000996 ?90? BF gt? {if ?is UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT 0F COMMERCE . The Secretary of Commerce at, Washington aoaso atom or February 26, 2018 The Honorable James E. Clyburn U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Clyburn: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of ustice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make are aware of your position on this important. matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2.018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A higlaquality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifeeyele cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. 1 have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your-staff contact Michael Platt, Jr, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 000997 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington. 20230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Adam Smith US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Smith: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of ustice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of ustice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I. conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. if you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Plett, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovenunental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482?3663. Sincerely, 4% Wilbur Ross 000998 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, 20238 February 26, 2018 The Honorable James P. McGovern US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative McGovern: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of ustice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2.020 Census questionnaire. i appreciate your taking the time to tri?e me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and. remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce?s Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Plait, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482?3663. Sincerely, wail?w Wilbur Ross 000999 32 gig UNITED sures OF commence . The Secretary of Commerce . 5" Washington, E163. emote? February 26, 2018 The Honorable James A. Himes U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Himes: Thank you for 3our recent letter regarding the Department of Joetice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of ostice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place Where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. 1 have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Plait, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovemmental Affairs, at mplan@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, (Jacobo Wilbur Ross 001000 ga?wTWCOe {liq STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE .-. The Secretary of Commerce Washington, 20230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable David Scott U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Scott: Thank. you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking, the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review ofthe Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A highwquality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place Where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at inplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, malaria Wilbur Ross 001001 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington. 28230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Ruben Kihuen US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Kihuen: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of ostice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of usticeis request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census Iifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, In, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@.doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, more.? Wilbur Ross 001002 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, DE. 20230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Maxine Waters US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Waters: Thank. you for your recent letter regarding the Department of ustice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly reviewr of the Department of ustiee?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review ofCensus programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Flatt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mpiatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, warm Wilbur Ross 001003 The Secretary of Commerce . a? Washington, 20230 emissary ?9w10F% gr ta? its UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE February 26, 2018 The Honorable Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Sablan: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. 1 appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of ustioe?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conducts full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place Where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifeeycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled. a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce?s Office of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight ofthe 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Flatt, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at or (202) 482?3663. Sincere] y, udder. Wilbur Ross 001004 The Secretary of Commerce Washington C. 20230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Ed US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Perlmutter: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of ustice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of ustiee?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April I, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October afterl conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I. have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce?s Office of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gcv or (2.02) 482?3663. Sincerely, adama?w Wilbur Ross 001005 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, Elf). 20288 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Jacky Rosco US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Rosco: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department ot?Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the. Department of ustice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April I, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where- he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Flatt, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Qatar Wilbur Ross 001006 625$ or it? UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT or commence The Secretary of Commerce Washington D. 20280 February 26, 201.8 The Honorable Eliot L. Eogel US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Engel: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of ustice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by low to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high?quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. 1. have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department ot?Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482?3663. Sincerely, 41AM Wilbur Ross 001007 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, DC. 20238 February 26, 2018 The Honorable John K. Delaney US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Delaney: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of ustice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person? in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce: the Department of Commerce?s Office of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. in addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, in, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely. UAW if?? Wilbur Ross 001008 50?9? 059:} 3? if umrren STATES DEPARTMENT or: commence The Secretary of Commerce $3 Washington. 20230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Jirn Costa U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Costa: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April I, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I. conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at rnplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 001009 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, 20230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Doris Matsui US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Matsui: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of ustice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of ustice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March. 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high~quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecyele cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Ceminerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Flatt, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482?3663. Sincerely, Ule?r?w of?? Wilbur Ross 001010 OF Cg at ea m. ?the?? UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE - The Secretary of Commerce Washington. DC. 20230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Albio Sires US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Sires: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 20-18, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government. Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce?s Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your Staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3 663. Sincerely, madam. Wilbur Ross 001011 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, 20280 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Jamie Raskin US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Raskin: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well. as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns espressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 001012 Mac: ,5 3?ch a UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce 4:3 Washington [3.0 20280 2. a saQQa February 26, 2018 The Honorable Dina Titus US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Titus: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department oflustiee 5 request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of ustice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the prOposed tinal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after i conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, 3n, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and lntergovemrnental Affairs, at mplatt@doo.gov or (202) 4826663. Sincerely, madam of?? Wilbur Ross 001013 a?og ?are a UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington {3 20230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Linda T. Sanchez US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Sanchez: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of astice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of ustice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a fall, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigOrous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Office of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Flatt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, am Wilbur Ross 001014 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, 20230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Jerry McNeraey US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative McNemey: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Departmeat of Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?oal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high?quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back. to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. in addition, 1 have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovermnental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, matter if?? Wilbur Ross 001015 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, 20230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Alma S. Adams, US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Adams: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1., 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifeeycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review ofCensus programming and ?nancial. management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Badget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter ?lrther, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Flatt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovemmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482?3663. Sincerely, warm KL. Wilbur Ross 001016 OF ,5 owner: STATES DEPARTMENT or commence gem . The Secretary of Commerce Washington, 20230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Jerrold Nadler U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Nadler: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April I, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high?qoality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place Where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 4823663. Sincerely, warm ASL Wilbur Ross 001017 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, 20280 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Bobby Rush US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20513 Dear Representative Rush: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of ustice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an. orderly review of. the Department of usticeis request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 3i, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April I, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, i reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter forther, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Flatt, In, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 4826663. Sincerely, Qantas Wilbur Ross 001018 are? k?h UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE - The Secretary of Commerce 6% .. .3335 Washington, 20230 4.. ?41150" February 26, 2018 The Honorable Adam B. Schiff US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Schiff: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position. on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of ustice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place Where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost. estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482?3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 001019 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, 20230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Lucille Roybal?Allard U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative RoybahAllard: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of ustice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 3 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my" commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, In, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovemmental Affairs, at mplatt@doe.gov or (202) 482-?3663. Sincerely, madam Wilbur Ross 001020 {We UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE - The Secretary of Commerce a? Washington, 20230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Nydia Velazquez US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Velazquez: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 201.8, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a hill, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 20.20 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482~3663. Sincere] y, Wilbur Ross 001021 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, 20230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee- U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Jackson Lee: Thank you for your recent Ietter regarding the Department of Jasticeis request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make {no aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, 122, Assistant Secretary for Legisiative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mpiatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, watts. .10? Wilbur Ross 001022 OF if if 5 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, ?18. 28230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Danny Davis US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Davis: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of ustice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting. an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1,2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, 1 reported back. to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inapector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and prograrnsto ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Plait, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovermnental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, (JAN .10.. Wilbur Ross 001023 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, 20230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Carolyn B. Maloney US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Maloney: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department ot?Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make are aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of ustice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March. 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a fall, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I. reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the lnSpector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Plait, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, UAW JON Wilbur Ross 001 024 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, 28230 February 26, 2013 The Honorabie Luis V. Gutierrez U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Gutierrez: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of ustiee?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high~quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecyele cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, In, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 4823663. Sincerely, (JAN Wilbur Ross 001025 OF 33?? ?Egg . UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE . . The Secretary of Commerce at} Washington, DE. 20230 03mins?? February 26, 2018 The Honorable Raul Grij alva U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Grij alva: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of ustice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Departmental? nstice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit theproposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. in addition, I have. put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doe.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Quasi?? Wilbur Ross 001026 OF 33?? UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE .. The Secretary of Commerce 51% 37 Washington, 20230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Betty McCollum US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative McCollum: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of ustice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A highwquality? 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, 1 reported back to Congress last October after i conducted a rigorous deep dive to prodace a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to'address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, L) gusts ail, Wilbur Ross 001027 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, E16. February 26, 2013 The Honorable Frank Pallone, Jr. US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Pallone: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020, Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I. have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Flatt, 3L, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Odessa Wilbur Ross 001028 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce at: Washington, DC. 20230 8731315 s? February 26, 2018 The Honorable Judy Chu US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Chu: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of ostice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April I, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high~quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place Where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Office of the InSpeetor General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, UAW KL Wilbur Ross 001029 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMEHCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington. no. reason February 26, 2018 The Honorable Pramila ayapal US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20315 Dear Representative ayapal: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of ustice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department'is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a fall, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after i conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I. have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, 1 have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. if you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Flatt, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Madras Wilbur Ross 001030 STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington. 20280 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Donald S. Beyer, Jr. US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Beyer: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of ustice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of ustice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let rue underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, 1 reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Office of. the InSpeetor General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482?3663. Sincerely, Qatar Wilbur Ross 001031 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington. 13.8. 20230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Suzanne Bonamici US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Bonamici: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of ustice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to condoct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high.~quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, (J?w Wilbur Ross 001032 . The Secretary of Commerce a Washington. on. aoaso Q: egg umrso STATES DEPARTMENT OF commence February 26, 2018 The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Norton: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of ustice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high?quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after {conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 001033 0F g? as ?is, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT or: commence . . The Secretary of Commerce 3.59 Washington, 20280 ?snm or February 26, 2018 The Honorable Thomas R. Suozzi US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Suozzi: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of ustice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high~quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, 1 have put into place the people, processes, and. programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Flatt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Jim Wilbur Ross 001 034 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, DC 202363 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Alcee Hastings US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Hastings: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of ustice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of ustice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a. new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough reViety of Census programming and ?nancial management. have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the InSpector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. in addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482?3663. Sincerely, ik.) Lni?ier?Midata?? Wilbur Ross 001035 OFC as UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT as commence I The Secretary of Commerce Washington, 20238 or out ?has February 26, 2018 The Honorable ulia Brownley US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Brownley: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of ustice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovermnental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Gabi/?Mr KL. Wilbur Ross 001036 STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, 20230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Brad Sherman US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Sherman: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place ?where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecyele cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Conunerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doe.gov or (202) 482?3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross I 001037 a We; STATES DEPARTMENT or: commence The Secretary of Commerce Washington {10.202130 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Janice D. Schakowsky US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Schakowsky: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware let your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31., 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April I, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I. conducted a rigorons deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We Will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Flatt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Uglii?wcla Wilbur Ross 001038 STATES DEPARTMENT OF The Secretary of Commerce Washington, DC, 20230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Andre Carson US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Carson: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of ustice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of ustice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I. have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mp1att@doc.gov or (202) 482?3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 001039 era? as sigma UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF commence The Secretary of Commerce . 2 as Washington?c. stares If February 26, 2018 The Honorable Mike Quigley US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Quigley: Thank. you for your recent letter regarding the Department of ustice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of ustice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April I, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high~quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter ?lrther, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, whim Wilbur Ross 001040 Wei-?Wee, rise a umreo STATES DEPARTMENT or: commence The Secretary of Commerce Washington Cl C. 20230 6b ?In, 33517125 c? '9 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Debbie Schultz U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Wasserman Schultz: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of ustice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, whibh is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after] conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Govenunent Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additioaal questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Flatt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482?3663. Sincerely, UMJQ Wilbur Ross 001041 UNITED sures DEPARTMENT OF commence The Secretary of Commerce Washington, DC. 28230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Earl Blumenauer US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Blumenauer: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of ustice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a "full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A highequality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, 1 reported back to Congress last October after I. conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce?s Office of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Flatt, 11:, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental A?airs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482~3663. Sincerely, UAW Wilbur Ross 001042 0F i? ask UNITED sm?res napanrmem or commence The Secretary of Commerce Washington, 20230 February 26, 2018 The Honorable Val Demings US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Demings: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department ofCornmerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31., 2018, which-is two years prior to Census Day, April I, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 202.0 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and ?nancial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the Inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Flatt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3 663. Sincerely, warm Wilbur Ross 001043 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE . The Secretary of Commerce 37 Washington, DC. 20230 February 26, 2018 I The Honorable Louise M. Slaughter US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Slaughter: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of ustice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of ustice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 202.0. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high~qaality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review ochnsus programming and ?nancial management. 1 have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Of?ce, the Department of Commerce?s Of?ce of the inspector General, the Of?ce of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. if you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Plait, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, 4) Jam. Wilbur Ross 001 044 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES BOARD OF SUPERVISORS KEI\:t..'ETH HAH:\' HALL OF ADM1]\'ISTRAT10S' 500 WEST TEMPLE STREET LOS . Supervisor, First District ~~-~ MARK RIDLEY-T MAS Supervisor, Second District ~ JANICE HAHN Supervisor, Fourth District CEO LEGISLATNE AFFAIRS_011918 001046 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington. D.G. 20230 February 22,2018 Ms. Sheila Kuehl Chair.ofthe Board, Supervisor, Third District County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 500 West Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Dear Ms. Kuehl: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Letme underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, W~~ Wilbur Ross 001047 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 Ms. Hilda L. Solis Supervisor, First District County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 500 West Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Dear Ms. Solis: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 001048 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 Mr. Mark Ridley-Thomas Supervisor, Second District County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 500 West Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Dear Mr. Ridley-Thomas: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 001049 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22, 2018 Ms. Janice Hahn Supervisor, Fourth District County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 500 West Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Dear Ms. Hahn: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 001050 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 22,2018 Ms. Kathryn Barger Supervisor, Fifth District County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 500 West Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Dear Ms. Barger: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 001051 Mail - boc.correspondence.quality.assurance@census.gov Page 2 of 2 , "Potok, Nancy A. EOP/OMB" "Alan Lang (CENSUS/OCIA FED)" "Mason, Jacque (Federal)" Subject: Letter re. DoJ citizenship question from Population Association of America and Association of Population Centers Dear Secretary Ross, On behalf of the presidents of the Population Association of America and Association of Population Centers, Dr. Wendy Manning and Dr. Steve Ruggles, I am pleased to provide you with the attached letter expressing our concerns regarding a recent request that the Department of Commerce received to add a citizenship question on the 2020 Census. We appreciate you taking our organizations' views into consideration during the ongoing deliberations. Sincerely Mary Jo Hoeksema Director, Government Affairs Population Association of America/ Association of Population Centers Deputy Director, The Census Project 001052 https://outlook.office365.com/owa/boc.correspondence.quality.assurance@census.gov/?off... 1/24/2018 January 23, 2018 The Honorable Wilbur Ross Secretary Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20230 Dear Secretary Ross, On behalf of the over 3,000 scientists who are members of the Population Association of America (PAA) (www.populationassociation.org) and the over 40 federally supported population research centers at U.S. based research institutions comprising the Association of Population Centers (APC), we are writing to express our concerns regarding a request you recently received from the Department of Justice (DoJ) to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census. Population scientists include demographers, economists, and sociologists who conduct research on population trends and the individual, societal, and environmental implications of population change. They rely on the accurate and timely data from the federal statistical agencies to produce research findings and conduct research training activities. Decennial census data are the primary source of information population scientists rely on to monitor and analyze changes in the U.S. population. As a result, we share a profound commitment with other census stakeholders to ensuring full public participation in the decennial census. Our organizations recognize that based on your public comments, you are also committed to spearheading a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. On January 10, you received a letter signed by almost 200 organizations, including ours, urging the Department of Commerce to reject a recent request from the Department of Justice for a new citizenship question on the 2020 Census. The letter outlined numerous adverse fiscal, operational, and legal consequences of adding such a question. As scientists, we are especially concerned about the negative effect an untested citizenship question would have on response rates and the validity of the decennial data. Based on the experience of other surveys, population scientists have observed that responses to citizenship questions tend to be of low quality. Further, we have seen firsthand how adding questions to any survey inherently increases costs as well. As you know, and as noted in the January 10 letter, questionnaire design and testing began nearly eight years ago. With less than two years before Census 2020, there is simply not enough time to responsibly craft and 001053 evaluate how a citizenship question would affect census participation. Further, we are concerned that adding a question, particularly one that could influence enhanced nonresponse follow up activity, will significantly increase the costs of the 2020 Census at a time when Congress is already considering a request from the Administration to spend an estimated additional $3 billion on the 2020 Census. We trust the Administration is weighing the harmful effects, including increased costs, suppressed response rates, and unreliable data, that the citizenship question could have this late in the decennial planning process—a process that is already facing tremendous challenges in its ramp up to Census 2020. Our organizations urge you to reject this request from the Department of Justice, and we thank you for considering our views. Sincerely, Wendy Manning, Ph.D., President Population Association of America cc: Steve Ruggles, Ph.D., President Association of Population Centers Ron Jarmin, Acting Director, U.S. Census Bureau Nancy Potok, Chief Statistician of the United States 001054 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 23, 2018 Ms. Wendy Manning, Ph.D. President Population Association of America 8630 Fenton Street, Suite 722 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Dear Dr. Manning: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. I Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this ma;tter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary (or Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Thank you again for your letter. We appreciate your thoughtful input. . Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 001055 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 23,2018 Mr. Steve Ruggles, Ph.D. President Association of Population Centers 8630 Fenton Street, Suite 722 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Dear Dr. Ruggles: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of, Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Thank you again for your letter. We appreciate your thoughtful input. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 001056 January 26, 2018 The Honorable Wilbur L. Ross n ~ ~vr:C!lrl' Secretary of Commerce V •• 1.,",,_ co . '>'1". S~~CHE fARJl\T U.S. Department of Commerce 14th St. and Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20230 if'""..- ." Dear Secretary Ross: As former directors ofthe U.S. Census Bureau, serving under both Republican and Democratic administrations, we want to thank you for the care for the future of the Census Bureau you have displayed. We were, however, troubled to learn that the Department of Justice has recently asked the Bureau to add a new question on citizenship to the 2020 census. We are deeply concerned about the consequences of this possible action and hope that our objective observations provide a useful perspective before a final decision is made on this issue. We were encouraged by your testimony before the Census Bureau's House and Senate authorizing committees last October. Your frank assessment of the status of 2020 Census preparations and your acknowledgment that the Bureau will need more resources to conduct an acceptably accurate enumeration were correct. Undoubtedly, your substantial private sector experience has informed your approach to the Bureau's mission. Similarly, your experience as a census enumerator many years ago may have helped to shape your appreciation for the importance of the fair and accurate census our Constitution envisions, free 1 from partisan influence and guided by sound, well documented, scientifically driven decisions. There is a well-proven multi-year process to suggest and test new questions. We strongly believe that adding an untested question on citizenship status at this late point in the decennial planning process would put the accuracy of the enumeration and success of the census in all communities at grave risk. Your observation at the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on October 12,2017 - that adding untested questions could reduce response rates - suggests that you have carefully considered respondent burden and other factors that contribute to public acceptance of censuses and surveys, as the window of opportunity to lock down census methods, operations, content, and infrastructure closes quickly. As you fully appreciate, planning a decennial census is an enormous challenge. Preparations for a census are complex, with each component related to and built upon previous research and tests. The critical 1 We think you will enjoy recallingthat KennethPrewitt, a signerof this letter, was your crew leader in 1960.Youwere in the HarvardBusinessSchool,and he in the HarvardDivinity School;like you, he wanted to make some extra moneyover spring break. Kenwas appointed a crew leader and recruited enumerators only from the HBS,knowing that they would carry out their duties efficiently. Indeed,they (you) did - your crew finished first in Boston,with the highestaccuracy scorein the city. 1 001057 'dress rehearsal' for the 2020 Census (the 2018 End-to-End CensusTest) is starting in Providence County, RI. Adding a citizenship question without a testing opportunity in a contemporary, census-like environment will invalidate the results and lessons learned from the End-to-End test. Key assumptions underlying estimates of self-response, staffing needs, local office sites, and communication strategies will no longer be sound, calling into question cost projections that we know you have worked hard to validate and update. In addition, the Census Bureau would need to modify data capture and processing systems, language assistance and enumerator training materials, and web-based instructions for completing the census in the time remaining before the 2020 Census starts - all without the benefit of field testing. There are sound reasons that the Census Act requires the Bureau to submit to Congress the topics and actual questions it will include, three and two years, respectively, before Census Day. It is highly risky to ask untested questions in the context ofthe complete 2020 Census design. There is a great deal of evidence that even small changes in survey question order, wording, and instructions can have significant, and often unexpected, consequences for the rate, quality, and truthfulness of response. The effect of adding a citizenship question to the 2020 Census on data quality and census accuracy, therefore, is completely unknown. Also of import, overcoming unexpected obstacles that arise as 2020 Census operations unfold would add to the cost, without assurances that such efforts would yield a more accurate outcome. In summary, we believe that adding a citizenship question to the 2020 fens us will considerably increase the risks to the 2020 enumeration. Because we share your goal of a "full, fair, and accurate census,lI as the Constitution requires, we urge you to consider a prudent course of action in response to the Justice Department's untimely and potentially disruptive request. Please let us know if we can answer any questions or be of further assistance. Sincerely, Vincent P. Barabba (1973-1976; 1979-1981) Martha Farnsworth Riche (1994-1998) Kenneth Prewitt (1998-2001) Steven H. Murdock (2008-2009) Robert M. Groves (2009-2012) John Thompson (2013-2017) 2 001058 -'. 233 South Wacker DriVe Suite 800 Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning. Chicago, Il6060!=, . 312.454-0400 wwW.cmap.illinols.goy 0 January 26, 2018 U> ~ fTI 00> = X rn (") c: ....• The Hon. Mick Mulvaney, Director The Office of Management and Budget 725 17'hStreet, NW Washington,D.C. 20503 ." :",c, .-:.:J I < ,., '" "'" ~ U> -0 (") ;0.: fTI ;:;! :o:e The Hon. Wilbur Ross, Secretary U.S. Department of Commerce 1401Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20230 E< The Hon. Dr. Ron Jarmin, Acting Director U.s. Census Bureau 4500Silver Hill Road Washingtort,D.C.20233 . ,: Dear:Director Mulvaney; Secretary Ros~, Jarmin: . Acting Director . . . ' On behalf of the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) and its. Board, I am writing to express support for initiatives that ensure the U.S. Census Bureau can complete ~ roll and ~.cf~f~te.~olliitin the 2020Census. As the.metropolitan planning org~nization'for the Chicago region, census data' are invaluable to cOl1)pletirigour .:nis~ionoftomprehenslve plartrtiitg in support of transportation, land use, economicdevel6pnient, and .' environmental protection in n~rtheastern nllnois, which is home io over 8.5 million people and 4.4 million jobs. Funding levels proposed for Fiscal Year (FY)2018 for the 2020 Census are inadequate, including those that have been part of continuing resolutions. To date, the Census Bureau has been unable to complete numerous preliminary activities that would bolster the integrity of the Census. We commend efforts to.modernize the Census because they could yield:benefits suCh as cost reduction and .improved data quality. However,.,uriderfundirig thus far has diminished the Bureau's abilit): to sufficiently pilot the questionnaire, safegu~rd daia infrastructure, and 'condhctrigoroustesting of elemeritssuch .as:new and modified information technology syste~,s. . VI N Board Members Gerald Bennett, Chair Rita Athas Frank Beal Matthew Brolley Franco C~ladipietro . Janel Forde AI Larson Andrew Madigan , John Noak Martin oberman Rick Reinboid Carolyn Schofield Petei' Silvestri Matthew Walsh TerryWeppler . Noh-voting Members . Sean McCarthy Leanne Redden Justine Sydello Executive Director : Joseph C. Szabo ,. According to the U.S. Government Accountability office, the return of census questionnaires by mail has declined substantially from 78 percent in 1970,to 63 percent in 2010. Insufficient investment in marketing and community partnerships to inform the public about the upcoming .. '~{ .' ' ... 001059 r_- January 26,2018 Page 2 census could result in increased costs and the potential underrepresentation households. of non-responding Since its inception, CMAP has worked to ensure prudent and data-driven decision-making, particularly concerning the investment of public resources. An inadequate 2020 Census would impair the ability of state and local governments in northeastern Illinois to meet their responsibilities per federal law. For example, CMAP's federally required transportation plan uses census data on employment, housing, demographics to inform selection of the region's future large-scale roadway and transit projects. Unreliable census data would undermine countless public decision-making processes in transportation, education, and development. Not only would CMAP's long-range planning be affected, it would also compromise public and private entities' ability to provide a variety of critical services for residents and businesses and could therefore have lasting, detrimental effects on our economy. I urge you to advocate for sufficient funding in FY 2018 and to include sufficient funding in the President's budget for FY 2019 to support an accurate and full count in the 2020 Census. On behalf of the CMAP Board, I appreciate your consideration: / Gerald R. Bennett, Chair-Chicago Mayor-City of Palos Hills Metropolitan Agency for Planning MP/GRB:stk cc: Northeastern lllinois Congressional Delegation 001060 January 29, 20] 8 THE HONORABLE WILBUR L. ROSS, SECRETARY UNTI ED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 1401 CONSTITUTIONAL AVE. NW WASHINGTON DC. 20230 RE: U.S. CITIZEN CENSUS COUNTS ANCHOR BIRTHS Dear Mr. Secretary: 1 have enclosed for your information a copy of a letter I have sent PreSIdent Trump today regarding the above matters. .3 Very truly yours, . (I) rn 33 ca 1'JVIHVZ ZS :2 001061 mm a mm January 29, 2018 Honorable Donald J. Trump, President United States of America The White House Washington 6 RE: U.S. CITIZENS CENSUS COUNTS ANCHOR BIRTHS Dear Mr. President: Immigration law was a significant area of my 50 year legal practice and I support your efforts to take control of our borders. i also value my good fortune to have obtained my US citizenship by birth and oppose the efforts of those of our citizens who would, for political reasons, extend that status to anyone who, with the capacity of criminal intent, violates our laws of entry or by act or omission intends to avoid or Weaken our ability to apply those laws in the conduct of our internal affairs. A prime example of the latter aspect is that prior censuses have not given the highlighted provision of Section 2 of the 14lh Amendment to the US. Constitution below the attention it deserves: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial of?cers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state. (Emphasis supplied) The Amendment, rati?ed in 1868, was necessary to negate the Supreme Court?s 1859 infamous Dred Scott decision that held slaves were not citizens. In so doing it both af?rmed each State?s total population as the basis of apportionment of representatives among the states and separately established their respective citizen populations as the basis to assure their right to elect those representatives. Obviously, those voting rights cannot be enforced unless there is reliable data establishing the numbers of each state?s citizen population. In 2010 the basic 10 question census form mailed to, or left for completion at, approximately 130,000,000 housing units did not ask any question re citizenship. The source of that data was provided by approximately 250,000 separate surveys conducted by the ?American Community Survey? division of the Department of Commerce?s Census Bureau. Some prior censuses did obtain that citizenship data by mailing a separate ?Long?, instead of the basic ?Short?, census form, to a portion of the total population. 001062 The process utilized to arrive at the respective total citizen populations is referred to as ?statistical sampling? (?imputation?) as opposed to an actual numerical count, (?enumeration?). Use of this sampling - imputation procedure for apportionment purposes is speci?cally prohibited by Section 195 of Title 13, of the Code In Department of Commerce v. United States House of Representatives, 525 US. 316 (1999) the Court held that utilizing small statistical samples to impute total U.S. population was prohibited by the statute. In the subsequent case Utah Evans, 536 U.S. 452 (2002) the Court held that the status of occupied properties within an individual census tract could be used to impute the occupied status of similar vacant nearby properties within the same census tract. The national return rate of the 2010 - ten question census forms was approximately 108,879,000. Considering that none these forms asked any question about citizenship it is certainly questionable whether reliance upon the American Community Survey?s separate imputation method to determine the number of our citizens satis?es the Constitutional requirement. This issue can be put to rest by simply requiring every census form to ask every occupant of a housing unit on the Census?s Master Address Mailing List two simple questions: 1) Was a designated occupant born in the And, 2) if the answer is ?No? is the occupant a naturalized U.S. Citizen? ANCHOR BIRTHS Another signi?cant immigration issue I believe needs to be addressed is the contention that any child born in the U.S. automatically becomes. a U.S. Citizen. The foundation for this result is the first sentence of Section (1) of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that provides: ?All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.? The signi?cance of the word ?reside? in this provision was recognized in the bell weather case United States vs Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), in which it was stipulated by both parties that before and following the birth of the child involved his parents were domiciled in San Francisco. In holding that the child was a U.S. citizen by birth the Supreme Court relied upon the stipulated fact of his U.S. domicile. While the case is often cited as the authority for the claim that any child born in the US, automatically becomes a U.S. citizen the fact that the child was domiciled in the U.S. at the time of his birth is typically omitted. Of note for entry in the realm of inconsistency is that a child of a U.S. citizen born outside of the U.S. does not automatically become a U.S. citizen unless he or she is under the age of 18, has been admitted to the U.S. pursuant to a request for permanent residence, and is in the legal and physical custody of a citizen parent. - It is respectfully submitted that in resolving the DACA issues inclusion of a statutory provision af?rming both domicile and birth as conditions of birth citizenship would be appropriate. Sincerely, WW cc: Hondrable Wilbur L. Ross, Secretary United States Department of Commerce 001 063 IS"-D S'I''iICf THE UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS 0 (," 1 ;< P1 n c.-:: :-..::! 1'...ulod Vi"" Pr<>;don" BRYAN K.IlARN£TI M2p:J,,,fR<>d,,,,u, January 29, 2018 <: i"'1': ~ = -= ,- ::1: ',,j ':J ' MICK CORNE"lT .\'\.oro, "fOkl.ho"", O'r ELIZABETH B. KAUTZ M"}"r of B,"n, ••i1k T",."""" STEVEAOLER M.,""of •.••. ""io ;,1 c"' ;..". ~ :,.:--l :q :::3 -I:: S~IANF.T.BEMIS M:t}"',,,fGreoh'm J. CfIRlgnAN !lOLLWAGE M.,,,,,,fFli •.•b,luvino MIKE RAWLINGS .\f•••••. "ofDoll.s JAMES). SCHMn-r ofG=n Boy M.l'''' NANWHAlEf Dear Secretary Ross, It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a successful decennial census for municipalities across our nation, Census results determine the number of seats each state has in the House of Representatives, are used to draw political districts at federal, state and local levels, and affect the distribution of billions of dollars of federal funding annually to local communities for infrastructure and vital services like hospitals and schools, An inaccurate census leads to underrepresentation and fewer dollars for many of our most vulnerable communities, M.,..."ufD.Y'''o A,jviso'yBo.td: JUA~ CARIDS BERMUDEZ Mayor of 00"; MURIEL BOWSER ARDMJL;"o~itE3~"icr"f ('.;' Mo)'", of Roch",,~,. MN ROYIlUOI. M.yo, ofl )"buq~ PETE BUfTIGIEG M.)"', of S<.~,m.!l.ro". MARK SH)[)Ot .••• WI M:l)"lr of Littl< Rode SYLVESTER TURNER M"yo' "fHo"""" BRIAN C. WAHL£R M.y'" ofPi"'ltawo.y We share the goal you have set for a full, fair and accurate 2020 Census, As such, we want to raise three areas of concern with you: adequate funding; qualified Census Bureau leadership; and rejecting untested questions that threaten to undermine census preparati ons and accuracy, First, ensuring that the 2020 Census has the necessary resources to meet the challenges of enumerating a geographically, economically, culturally, and linguistically diverse population is foundational to its success, The Census Bureau must be able to implement effectively the range of data collection methods the 2020 Census will include, including new Internet and telephone response options and a traditional paper questionnaire. We were pleased that you requested an additional $187 million for the Census Bureau in Fiscal Year (FY) 20I8,for a total of $1.684 billion, in order to fund IT systems development (e.g. scalability; cyber-security systems) and system integration and readiness for the 2018 End-to-End Census Test. However, this proposed increase does not include any additional funding for the Integrated Partnership and Communications program, which is essential to keeping long term census costs in check, given the growing barriers to a successful census. We are facing unprecedented challenges to a fair, accurate, and cost-effective census. Factors that could depress self-response rates considerably include the perception of cyber-security risks; real cyber-security threats; the digital divide affecting rural, low income, minority, and older households; a growing climate of fear among immigrants, regardless of their legal status; and growing anti- government sentiment in some communities. MARTIN J. WAL<;Jl M"l"'"ufB""nn ACQUANIITTA WARREN Moyor of Fo'''"" ao ••• d &.""ivo Dir«10r TO!.i COCHRAN 001064 To address these challenges, we urge additional resources to increase the number of Partnership Specialists in FY 2018 from the current 43 to 200, to help educate and guide state and local governments and vital "trusted voices" at the local level as they prepare to support the work of the Census Bureau during final preparations and early promotion in 2019 and execution of the count in 2020. Given the lower projected self-response rate embodied in your revised lifecycle cost estimate, we also urge a concurrent increase in the number of Area Census Offices, from the planned 248 to 300, to open in FY 2019. Finally, we believe new Census Bureau research documenting the growing reluctance of immigrants to participate (fully, if at all) in surveys and census tests will require expanded research and testing of effective messages and communications avenues to overcome this significant barrier to an inclusive enumeration. We urge to you to work closely with Congress in the coming weeks to ensure that the final FY 2018 omnibus appropriations bill includes not only the additional $1.684 billion adjusted allocation the administration requested for the Census Bureau, but additional funds to expand the number of Partnership Specialists in 2018, expand messaging research and testing before the early communications campaign begins at the start of 2019, and a larger field footprint to enhance a projected higher number of households that require personal visits in the Nonresponse Follow-up operation. Secondly, the Census Bureau has long benefited from exceptional leadership, helping the agency carry out its mission of serving as the leading source of quality data about the nation's people and economy. The American people must have confidence that the Bureau's leaders will uphold its core principles of protecting confidentiality, sharing expertise, and conducting its work openly and fairly, without regard to partisan interests, and be guided by a commitment to scientific objectivity and excellence and researchbased innovation. Now, more than ever, the Census Bureau needs strong, permanent leadership to steer the agency through crucial preparations and implementation of the 2020 decennial count. To that end, we urge the president to nominate ahighly qualified, nonpartisan candidate who is respected on both sides of the political aisle to be Census Director. At the same time, we are troubled by the administration's reported intent to appoint a candidate for Census Bureau deputy director whose body of professional work largely centers around achieving partisan advantage in the use of census data, and who lacks the traditional and requisite experience in managing a large organization like the Census Bureau and the complex operations of the decennial census. We urge the administration to put forward candidates for Census Director and Census Bureau Deputy Director who will continue the tradition of strong, nonpartisan, experienced, and strong leadership. Any nomination or appointment that wonld undermine the credibility of the Bureau's role as a fundamentally nonpartisan statistical agency will further erode already fragile public trust and confidence in the integrity of the 2020 Censns and, indeed, the objectivity of all Census Bureau statistics. Thirdly, the recent U.S. Department of Justice request to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 Census threatens the Census Bureau's ability to conduct an inclusive enumeration that accurately reflects the diverse fabric of America. The Constitution requires a count of all persons living in the United States on Census Day, regardless of citizenship or legal status. Since 1790, the decennial census has been the vehicle for this count and, to this day, Congress has rejected efforts to change the interpretation of this important tenet of the Constitution by basing apportionment on a subset of the population. The Census Bureau spends years testing alternative questionnaire formats and designs. Changes to the census form at this late stage of 2020 Census planning jeopardize the validity of the operational tests that already have been conducted, put into question the outreach and partnership strategies that have been 001065 designed around different content, and would require changes in training and execution of operations. Robust, iterative testing of census methods and content is crucial to an accurate enumeration, with even the smallest changes to question order and wording potentially having adverse and unintended consequences for the success of operations and the accuracy of the data. There are logistical and cost implications associated with adding a new question at this late point in the 2020 Census cycle. For example, the 2020 Census Operational Plan bases staffing levels on projected self-response rates that, in tum, the Bureau derived after carefully designed, iterative tests that did not include a question on citizenship. Adding a new question will nullify those prior projections and assumptions. Moreover, experts, elected officials, and community leaders all agree that adding a question on citizenship in particular wiil lower initial response, leading to an expanded Nonresponse Follow-up operation and increases in the field staff required to conduct door-to- --1 OPPOSE- DOJ Request to Add a Question on Citizenship to the 2020 Census Dear Secretary Ross: On behalf of the Monterey County Board of Supervisors, I write to express our opposition to the Department of Justice's (DOJ) request to add a question on citizenship to the 2020 Census. DOJ's stated rationale for its request - that it needs better citizenship data to better enforce the Voting Rights Act (VRA) "and its important protections against racial discrimination in voting" - belies the Department's hostile policies toward immigrants and will likely depress responses in immigrant communities. DOJ's claims that the citizenship question is needed to enforce Section 2 of the VRA and to prevent racial discrimination in voting are unfounded. The Census Bureau already collects information on citizenship through the American Community Survey (ACS). This ongoing yearly survey provides more detailed information than the decennial Census,which enables the Censusto focus more on population counts. The ACS' reliable citizenship data was used in 2010 by both DOJand civil rights groups to monitor compliance with the VRA and will once again be utilized for the same purpose in 2020. The Trump administration's aggressive immigration policies have already instilled fear among immigrant communities. Immigrant communities are less likely to report crimes, or even enroll their eligible U.S. citizen children in government health and nutrition programs. Early surveys have documented that some immigrants are afraid to provide information, or have given false information, to Censusemployees because they are fearful of how the information may be used. This is a concerning trend and would no doubt be worsened if a citizenship question was included in the 2020 Census. Clerk 01the Board, 168 W. Alisal 81., Salinas, California 93901 . (831) 755.5066 • cob@co.monterey.ca.us 001067 Given the critical importance of the decennial census to distributing the number of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and drawing congressional and state legislative district lines, as well as allocating billions of dollars in federal funding to states and local governments, we urge you to oppose the DOl's request for a citizenship question in the 2020 Census. As you work to ensure a fair and accurate census that encourages full participation, we believe that including a citizenship question would only serve to suppress participation and result in inaccurate data that does not truly reflect the makeup of our nation. , 'Cc: The Honorable Dianne Feinstein The Honorable Kamala Harris The Honorable Jimmy Panetta 001068 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 March 1,2018 Mr. Luis Alejo Chair, Board of Supervisors Monterey County 168 West Alisal Street Salinas, CA 93901 Dear Mr. Alejo: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of yoUr position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census life cycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census Bureau programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office ofInspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, wL~ Wilbur Ross 001069 Fw: Congressional inquiry - BOC Correspondence Quality Assurance (CENSUS) Page 4 of5 From: Bailey, Amanda Gray Sent: Tuesday, Februa 06, 2018 5:38 PM To: Subject: Congressional Inquiry Climino-Johnso - Good afternoon Mr. Edwards, Could you please review the attached correspondence on behalf of Mr. Climino?Johnson? Any guidance would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Amanda Gray Amanda Gray Bailey Congresswoman Barbara Comstock (VA-10th) 001070 2x?12/20l 8 Fw: Congressional Inquiry - BOC Correspondence Quality Assurance (CENSUS) Page 5 of5 21430 Cedar Drive, Suite 218 Sterling, VA 20164 001071 2/12/2018 Dear Representative Comstock, i write today to express deep concern about a request the Department of Commerce recently received from the Department ofJustice to include a citizenship question on the 2020 Census. I have written to Secretary Ross to express my strong hope that he will reject this proposal. lam writing to you as well to request that you do everything in your power to ensure that a citizenship question is not added to the census. Should such a proposal be favorably received, the integrity of the 2020 Census data will be fundamentally compromised. Including a citizenship question is likely to keep some people from responding to the questionnaire and others from responding truthfully, thereby undermining the accuracy of the data. The import of an accurate census cannot be understated. An accurate census allows policy-makers in public, private, and non-profit sectors to make evidence- based decisions. The Census Bureau is required to submit the questions for the 2020 Census to Congress by April 1, 2018. Please urge Commerce Secretary Ross to exclude a citizenship question. If the Census Bureau submits a citizenship question to Congress, I urge you to support legislation that would strike it from the final questionnaire. Please ensure that the 2020 Census is undertaken with integrity. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this matter. Regards, Todd Cimino-Johnso 001072 'f(;- 0 ~Cf S''3 S THE UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS 1620 EYE STREET NORTHWEST WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 TELEPHONE (202) 293-7330 FAX (202) 293-2352 URI.: www.usrnayots.org !'mid.,,,, MITCHELL]_ LAII:DRIEU M.y<>' "fNew Orlwu Vie< I'resid""" ~HEN February 6, 2018 K.BENJAMIN sc MoY'" "rc:alumbi., The Honorable Wilbur Ross Secretary of Commerce U.S. Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Avenue NW Washington, DC 20230 &.:und Vie< Prc, N Dear Secretary Ross, 80LLWAGE •••brth JAMES BRAINARD M"l"',,,fCannd, IN jOYCOOI'ER Mal'<" nfH.n.,KW" Be.d. Blll.":'B'Lalo .c: lA M>yo' ofN ••••York GREG FISCHER M>yor ofLoui..-illo: }OHNGU.FS M:l)'O'ofM"", KJMMcMIUAN ~"{),,,fCla.rluvill,, MIKE RAWliNGS M")",ofD.Jw JAMr~~J SCHMrrr Mayn, of Groe" &, NAN WHALEY M"l"',ofD.Y''''' AdruoryIbnl: JUAN CARLOS BERMUDEZ Mayor of Do,.l MURIEL BOWSER M"l"" of ,he DinJia of Colomb ARDELL F. BREDE MoY'" ufRod,,:,,«, MN ROYBUOL May.lr ofD"buqll< PETE BlJIT1GlEG •\1ayo, ofS<>u,h lknd CHRISTOPHER!.. CABAWON •• We share the goal you have set for a full, fair and accurate 2020 Census. As such, we want to raise three areas of concern with you: adequate funding; qualified Census Bureau leadership; and rejecting untested questions that threaten to undermine census preparations and accuracy . M>yot ofW •• , Socnmen", BUDDY DYER Moyor of Orlando JORGEO_ EWRZA ofl',ovidcn" KAREN FREE..\iAN_WlL'iON M")"'ofGat] M.,"O, jOSEl'H I~ G.",,'IIM Mayo' of llridgopun OUVERG. GILBERT,Ill M'Y'""fMi-'mi G>rrJ",,-, CAROLYN G. GOODMAN M.oY'" of I.•• vq;., SYLVESTER 'SlY" JAMES,JR. M"!,,1r ofKo" ••• Chy, MO HARRY L..ROSIUERE M>yo,ofP1lUo JOSEPHT. M,cfS.u=A MAD£LlNE ••. ROGERO MaVtl,ofKnm.vilk MULSOGIJN Ma)"', ofM>di>on, WI MARK STODOLA M.yo, of Li,,1t: Ro.:k SYlYFsrER TURNER M"l"',ofH<>wton BR1A.N C WAHLJ:R M.yer ofPi""lc.lwoy M"'R"flN J. WALSH M..."ofll.-.m>l\ ACQuA~E1TA W.••RREN .\1.oY",afFa",,,,,, First, ensuring that the 2020 Census has the necessary resources to meet the challenges of enumerating a geographically, economically, culturally, and linguistically diverse population is foundational to its success. The Census Bureau must be able to implement effectively the range of data collection methods the 2020 Census will include, including new Internet and telephone response options and a traditional paper questionnaire. We were pleased that you requested an additional $187 million for the Census Bureau in Fiscal Year (FY) 2018, for a total of $1.684 billion, in order to fund IT systems development (e.g. scalability; cyber-security systems) and system integration and readiness for the 2018 End-toEnd Census Test. However, this proposed increase does not include any additional funding for the Integrated Partnership and Communications program, which is essential to keeping long term census costs in check, given the growing barriers to a successful census. We are facing unprecedented challenges to a fair, accurate, and cost-effective census. Factors that could depress self-response rates considerably include the perception of cyber-security risks; real cyber-security threats; the ."d lh=.uiv. Oi"",o, mMCOCHRAN CEO 001073 February 6, 2018 page 2 digital divide affecting rural, low income, minority, and older households; growing climate of fear among immigrants, regardless of their legal status; and growing anti- govermnent sentiment in some communities. To address these challenges, we urge additional resources to increase the number of Partnership Specialists in FY 2018 from the current 43 to 200, to help educate and guide state and local governments and vital "trusted voices" at the local level as they prepare to support the work of the Census Bureau during final preparations and early promotion in 2019 and execution of the count in 2020. Given the lower projected self-response rate embodied in your revised lifecycle cost estimate, we also urge a concurrent increase in the number of Area Census Offices, from the planned 248 to 300, to open in FY 2019. Finally, we believe new Census Bureau research documenting the growing reluctance of immigrants to participate (fully, if at all) in surveys and census tests will require expanded research and testing of effective messages and communications avenues to overcome this significant barrier to an inclusive enumeration. We urge to you to work closely with Congress in the coming weeks to ensure that the final FY 2018 omnibus appropriations bill includes not only the additional $1.684 billion adjusted allocation the administration requested for the Census Bureau, but additional funds to expand the number of Partnership Specialists in 2018, expand messaging research and testing before the early communications campaign begins at the start of 2019, and a larger field footprint to enhance a projected higher number of households that require personal visits in the Nonresponse Follow-up operation. Secondly, the Census Bureau has long benefited from exceptional leadership, helping the agency carry out its mission of serving as the leading source of quality data about the nation's people and economy. The American people must have confidence that the Bureau's leaders will uphold its core principles of protecting confidentiality, sharing expertise, and conducting its work openly and fairly, without regard to partisan interests, and be guided by a commitment to scientific objectivity and excellence and research-based innovation. Now, more than ever, the Census Bureau needs strong, permanent leadership to steer the agency through crucial preparations and implementation of the 2020 decennial count. To that end, we urge the president to nominate a highly qualified, nonpartisan candidate who is respected on both sides of the political aisle to be Census Director. At the same time, we are troubled by the administration's reported intent to appoint a candidate for Census Bureau deputy director whose body of professional work largely centers around achieving partisan advantage in the use of census data, and who lacks the traditional and requisite experience in managing a large organization like the Census Bureau and the complex operations of the decennial census. We urge the administration to put forward candidates for Census Director and Census Bureau Deputy Director who will continue the tradition of nonpartisan, experienced, and strong leadership. Any nomination or appointment that would undermine the credibility of the Bureau's role as a fundamentally nonpartisan statistical agency will further erode already fragile public trust and confidence in the integrity of the 2020 Census and, indeed, the objectivity of all Census Bureau statistics. 001074 February 6, 2018 page 3 Thirdly, the recent U.S. Department of Justice request to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 Census threatens the Census Bureau's ability to conduct an inclusive enumeration that accurately reflects the diverse fabric of America. The Constitution requires a count of all persons living in the United States on Census Day, regardless of citizenship or legal status. Since 1790, the decennial census has been the vehicle for this count and, to this day, Congress has rejected efforts to change the interpretation of this important tenet of the Constitution by basing apportionment ona subset of the population. The Census Bureau spends years testing alternative questionnaire formats and designs. Changes to the census form at this late stage of2020 Census planning jeopardize the validity of the operational tests that already have been conducted, put into question the outreach and partnership strategies that have been designed around different content, and would require changes in training and execution of operations. Robust, iterative testing of census methods and content is crucial to an accurate enumeration, with even the smallest changes to question order and wording potentially having adverse and unintended consequences for the success of operations and the accuracy of the data. There are logistical and cost implications associated with adding a new question at this late point in the 2020 Census cycle. For example, the 2020 Census Operational Plan bases staffing levels on projected self-response rates that, in turn, the Bureau derived after carefully designed, iterative tests that did not include a question on citizenship. Adding a new question will nullify those prior projections and assumptions. Moreover, experts, elected officials, and community leaders all agree that adding a question on citizenship in particular will lower initial response, leading to an expanded Nonresponse Follow-up openition and increases in the field staff required to conduct door-to-door visits, thereby increasing the cost of the census considerably without improving accuracy. Adding a citizenship question to the decennial census would not promote the constitutional mandate of the census, but in fact, may compromise it. Such a question would increase the burden on respondents, likely heighten privacy concerns around the census, and lower participation by immigrants who fear the government will use this information to harm them and their families. Furthermore, the Justice Department has not set forth new legal or programmatic reasons for the Census Bureau to collect this information from every household in the country since its initial cataloguing of data requirements for the census and American Community Survey prior to the Census Bureau's submission of 2020 Census and ACS topics to Congress last spring. We urge you to reject the Justice Department's request to add a citizenship question to the decennial census and to ensure that the Census Bureau can focus its time and resources on finalizing and executing the current 2020 Census plan. Thank you for your attention to our concerns. We look forward to working closely with you to ensure the fair and accurate census our communities expect and deserve. . Sincerely, 001075 February 6, 2018 page 4 New Orleans Mayor Mitchell 1. Landrieu South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg Columbia Mayor Steve Benjamin Everett Mayor Cassie Franklin New York Mayor Bill de Blasio Rochester Mayor Lovely A. Warren Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner Boulder Mayor Suzanne _'Zan' Jones Baltimore Mayor Catherine E. Pugh Newark Mayor Alan L. Nagy Mesa Mayor John Giles Corvallis Mayor BiffTraber Rochester Hills Mayor Bryan K. Barnett Culver City Mayor Jeffrey Cooper Somerset Mayor Jeffrey Z. Slavin Lansing Mayor Andy Schor Albany Mayor Kathy M. Sheehan Clarksville Mayor Kim McMillan East Hartford Mayor Marcia A. Leclerc Wheat Ridge Mayor Bud Starker Dayton Mayor Nan Whaley Columbus Mayor Andrew 1. Ginther West Sacramento Mayor Christopher Cabaldon Fayetteville Mayor Lioneld Jordan Madison Mayor Paul R. Soglin Hartford Mayor Luke Bronin Chapel Hill Mayor Pam Hemminger Santa Ana Mayor Miguel A. Pulido Allentown Mayor Ed Pawlowski Lincoln Mayor Chris Beutler Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney Sumter Mayor Joseph T. McElveen Jr. Duluth Mayor Emily Larson Watsonville Mayor Lowell Hurst Knoxville Mayor Madeline Anne Rogero Tempe Mayor Mark W. Mitchell Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg Augusta Mayor Hardie Davis Jr. Torrance Mayor Patrick J. Furey Burlington Mayor Miro Weinberger Abington Mayor Wayne C. Luker Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings Austin Mayor Steve Adler Gary Mayor Karen M. Ffeeman- Wilson Tukwila Mayor Allan Ekberg Cincinnati Mayor John Cranley New Bedford Mayor Jon Mitchell Denver Mayor Michael B. Hancock Kinston Mayor Dontario 'Don' Hardy Burnsville Mayor Elizabeth B. Kautz Lima Mayor David J. Berger Henderson Mayor Debra March Reno Mayor Hillary Schieve Weston Mayor Daniel J. Stermer Union City Mayor Carol Dutra-Vemaci Beaverton Mayor Denny Doyle Niagara Falls Mayor Paul A. Dyster Napa Mayor Jill Techel Rocklin Mayor Ken Broadway Schenectady Mayor Gary R. McCarthy Fremont Mayor Lily Mei Sunland Park Mayor Javier Perea Beverly Hills Mayor Lili Bosse Asheville Mayor Esther E. Manheimer 001076 February 6. 2018 page 5 Pembroke Pines Mayor Frank C. Ortis Buffalo Mayor Byron W. Brown Charleston Mayor John J. Tecklenburg Central Falls Mayor James A. Diossa . Las Vegas Mayor Carolyn G. Goodman Chula Vista Mayor Mary Casillas Salas Muskegon Mayor Steve Gawron College Park Mayor Patrick 1. Wojahn Pittsburgh Mayor William Peduto Dolton Mayor Riley H. Rogers Piscataway Mayor Brian C. Wahler Findlay Mayor Lydia 1. Mihalik Minnetonka Mayor Brad Wiersum Goodyear Mayor Georgia Lord Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser Holyoke Mayor Alex B. Morse III Little Rock Mayor Mark Stodola Jackson Mayor Pete Muldoon Jackson Mayor Chokwe Antar Ltimumba Esq. Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton Seattle Mayor Jenny A. Durkan Jamestown Mayor Samuel Teresi Kansas City Mayor Sylvester 'Sly' James Jr. Arlington Mayor Jeff Williams Las Cruces Mayor Kenneth D. Miyagishima Frankfort Mayor William May Long Beach Mayor Robert Garcia Evanston Mayor Stephen H. Hagerty Medford Mayor Stephanie Muccini Burke Sheboygan Mayor Michael Vandersteen Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey West Hartford Mayor Shari Cantor New Haven Mayor Toni N. Harp Cleveland Mayor Frank G. Jackson New Rochelle Mayor Noam Bramson Elizabeth Mayor J Christian Bollwage Newark Mayor Ras J. Baraka San Leandro Mayor Pauline Russo Cutter Normal Mayor Chris Koos Pullman Mayor Glenn A. Johnson .Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer Princeton Mayor Liz Lempert Highland Park Mayor Nancy Rodkin Rotering Providence Mayor Jorge O. Elorza Salt Lake City Mayor Jackie Biskupski Richmond Mayor Thomas K. Butt West Hollywood Mayor John Heilman Santa Clara Mayor Lisa M. Gillmor Santa Monica Mayor Ted Winterer Santa Fe Mayor Javier Gonzales Camuy Mayor Edwin Garcia Feliciano Skokie Mayor George C. Van Dusen Newport News Mayor McKinley 1. Price DDS Somerville Mayor Joseph A. Curtatone Alexandria Mayor Allison Silberberg State College Mayor Don M. Hahn Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms Stockton Mayor Michael D. Tubbs Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguin Tacoma Mayor Victoria Woodards, Bloomington Mayor John Hamilton Tucson Mayor Jonathan Rothschild Boston Mayor Martin J. Walsh Yonkers Mayor Mike Spano Cupertino Mayor Darcy Paul 001077 February 6,2018 page 6 Paterson Mayor Jane E. Williams-Warren College Station Mayor Karl Mooney Fort Wayne Mayor Thomas 'Tom' C. Henry St. Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson Anaheim Mayor Tom Tait Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer Everett Mayor Carlo DeMaria Jr. Lakewood Mayor Diane DuBois Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler San Antonio Mayor Ron Nirenberg Dubuque Mayor Roy D. Buol Santa Cruz Mayor David Terrazas Livermore Mayor John P. Marchand Foster City Mayor Sam Hindi Baton Rouge Mayor Sharon Weston Broome Stamford Mayor David Martin Brighton Mayor William W. Moehle Takoma Park Mayor Kate Stewart Saratoga Mayor Mary-Lynne Bemald Arvin Mayor Jose Gurrola Charlotte Mayor Vi Alexander Lyles Dillon Mayor Kevin Burns Lakewood Mayor Adam A. Paul Pleasant Ridge Mayor Kurt R Metzger Gurnee Mayor Kristina Kovarik West Wendover Mayor Daniel J Corona White Plains Mayor Thomas M. Roach Jersey City Mayor Steven M. Fulop Hamtramck Mayor Karen Majewski 001078 State of Louisiana DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF THE ATIORNEY GENERAL P.O BOX 94005 BATON ROUGE 70804-9005 Jeff Landry General Anomey 0 ." >< ••••• "' ("> February 8, 2018 The Honorable Wilbur Ross United States Department of Commerce 140I Constitution Ave NW Washington, D.C. 20233-000 I c:: -I :< •...• = ;;:; ..,., ,..., co I "' CXl C ~ "' ~ ::0 W VI ••••• ::0 ~ 0 W Re: Request to Reinstate Citizenship Question on 2020 Census Questiorihaite Dear Secretary Ross: As the Chief Legal Officer of the State of Louisiana, I write concerning a matter that is very important to the People of Louisiana. The use of the decennial Census to capture accurate data concerning citizenship, legal immigration, illegal immigration, and the distribution of the population is crucial to the functions of State government. It is also crucial in terms of insuring fair and equitable districting of the people's representatives at the State and local level. This issue touches the heart of our democracy and the constitutional rights of every Louisiana citizen. As you are aware, from 1970 to 2000, the Census Bureau included a citizenship question on the "long form" questionnaire sent to nearly one in every six households during each decennial census. After the 2000 Census, the Census Bureau ceased using the "long form" questionnaire. Instead, it replaced this form with the American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS is currently the Census Bureau's only survey that collects information regarding citizenship and estimates citizen voting-age population. The ACS is sent to far fewer people - approximately one in every thirty-eight households each year, significantly changing the statistical integrity of the data. The ACS, whil~ insufficient for a number of reasons, most importantly provides only estimates with a high margin of error. Because it is standard practice for States to apportion their legislative districts on the basis of the numbers provided by the Census Bureau's decennial census, this issue is of critical importance. See Nat'! Conf. of State Legislatures Redistricting Law 20 I0 at 11 (2009). States frequently even find themselves mired in federal litigation lasting from one Census to the next. Currently, the decennial Census counts everyone regardless of the individual's legal status and no longer provides any reliable citizenship data. Ultimately, this process dilutes the votes of all legallyeligible voters by improperly counting those ineligible to vote when determining the population for representative districts. Not only does this result in bolstering the representation of illegal immigrants and non-voting legal immigrants at the expense of the voting age citizenry, but also skews the data nationally and can result in some states losing representatives in Congress to other States. 001079 Furthermore, the Supreme Court has held that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits "vote dilution" by state and local jurisdictions engaged in redistricting, which can occur when a racial group is improperly deprived of a single-member district in which it could form a majority. See Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 50 (1986). Multiple federal courts of appeals have held that, where citizenship rates are at issue in a vote-dilution case, citizen voting-age population is the proper metric for determining whether a racial group could constitute a majority in a singlemember district. See, e.g., Reyes v. City of Farmers Branch, 586 FJd 1019, 1023-24 (5th Cir. 2009); Barnell v. City of Chicago, 141 F.3d 699, 704 (7th Cir. 1998); Negron v. City of Miami Beach, 113 F.3d 1563,1567-69 (11th Cir. 1997); Romero v. Pomona. 883 F.2d 1418, 1426 (9th Cir. 1989), overruled in part on other grounds by Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp., 914 F.2d 1136 (9th Cir. 1990). A more accurate decennial census, which should collect this data, would prevent the inevitable dilution of votes and further exposure of the states to endless litigation. The current use of ACS data puts States into a no-win situation where they cannot apportion representative districts in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution, the Voting Rights Act, or their own state redistricting laws. It is clear that the intent of Section 2's prohibition "is to facilitate participation ... in our political process" by preventin~ unlawful vote dilution on account of race. Campos v. City of Houston, 113 F.3d 544, 548 (5' Cir. 1997). Courts have reasoned that "[t]he right to vote is one of the badges of citizenship" and that "[t]he dignity and very concept of citizenship are diluted if noncitizens are allowed to vote," Barnett, 141 FJd at 704. Thus, it would be the wrong result for a legislature or a court to draw a single-mcmber district in which a numerical racial minority group in a jurisdiction was a majority of the total voting-age population in that district but "continued to be defeated at the polls" because it was not a majority of the citizen voting-age population. Campos. 113 F.3d at 548. As these cases show, for the U.S. Department of Justice to . avert racial discrimination in voting and ensure adherence to the spiri t of Section 2, it is vital that the "long form" citizenship question in the decennial Census provide the necessary citizen voting-age population data. When the right of all citizens to cast a properly weighted vote is not protected, there is a resulting dilution of the voting power of citizens residing in districts that are home to a smaller number of nonvoting residents. Moreover, it incentivizes sanctuary cities by granting an electoral advantage at the expense of non-sanctuary cities. Voting is one of the most precious rights of citizenship. And yet, it is clear that representative districts with larger populations of illegal and non-voting legal immigrants have gained representation over those without. Accordingly, I am imploring the Census Bureau to reinstate the citizenship question in the decennial 2020 Census to assist Louisiana and all other states in making a good faith effort to equalize districts in a method that ensurcs, as far as practicable, equality in the weight of votes. 001080 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 March 19,2018 The Honorable Jeff Landry Attorney General of Louisiana P.O. Box 94095 Baton Rouge, LA 70804-4095 Dear Mr. Attorney General: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I have conducted a rigorous review and produced a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate, and I have put into place the people, processes, and programs necessary to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 001081 2018 OFFICERS P1'~ldont Matk Stodola M~yor L1ttlo Rock, Arkansas Fil'it Vi(;e President Karen Frocman-Wllson Moyor GIlI)'.lndiena February 8, 2018 SOOOl'ld Vice PresIdent Joe Busc~-" " ' • UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 March 13, 2018 The Honorable Karl Racine Attorney General for the District of Columbia 441 4th Street, NW, Suite 11OOS Washington, DC 20001 Dear Mr. Attorney General: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I have conducted a rigorous review and produced a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate, and I have put into place the people, processes, and programs necessary to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secr~tary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U~~ Wilbur Ross 001108 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 March 13,2018 The Honorable Russell Suzuki Acting Attorney General of the State of Hawaii 425 Queen Street Honolulu, HI 96813 Dear Mr. Attorney General: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years priorto Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, Ihave conducted a rigorous review and produced anew 2020 Census lifecyde cost estimate, and I have put into place the people, processes, and programs necessary to ensure strong governance and oversight ofthe 2020 Census. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, W~~ Wilbur Ross 001109 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce WasHington. D.C. 20230 March 13,2018 The Honorable Lisa Attorney General of James R. Thompson 100 West Randolph Chicago, IL 60601 Madigan the State of Illinois Center Street Dear Madam Attorney General: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review ofthe Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April!, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I have conducted a rigorous review and produced a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate, and I have put into place the people, processes, and programs necessary to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergoverntnental Affairs, atmRlatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, W~~ Wilbur Ross 001110 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 March 13,2018 The Honorable Thomas Miller Attorney General of the State of Iowa HoOver State Office Building 1305 East Walnut Des Moines, IA .50319 Dear Mr. Attorney General: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I have conducted a rigorous review and produced a new 2020 Census lifecyc1e cost estimate, and I have put into place the people, processes, and programs necessary to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. If you have any additional. questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U~~ Wilbur Ross 001111 '~- .. ,.' UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 March 13,2018 The Honorable Janet Mills Attorney General of the State of Maine State House Station 6 Augusta, ME 04333 Dear Madam Attorney General: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I have conducted a rigorous review and produced a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate, and I have put into place the people, processes, and programs necessary to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U~~ Wilbur Ross 001112 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 March 13,2018 The Honorable Brian Frosh Attorney General of the State of Maryland 200 St. Paul Place Baltimore, MD 21202-2202 Dear Mr. Attorney General: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I have conducted a rigorous review and produced a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate, and I have put into place the people, processes, and programs necessary to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U~~ Wilbur Ross 001113 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 March 13,2018 The Honorable Jim Hood Attorney General of the State of Mississippi Department of Justice P.O. Box 220 Jackson, MS 39205 Dear Mr. Attorney General: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I have conducted a rigorous review and produced a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate, and I have put into place the people, processes, and programs necessary to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, atmplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U~~ Wilbur Ross 001114 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The .Secretary of .Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 March 13,2018 The Honorable Gurbir Grewal Attorney General of the State of New Jersey Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex 25 Market Street P.O. Box 080 Trenton, NJ 08625 Dear Mr. Attorney General: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a .citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I have conducted a rigorous review and produced a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate, and I have put into place the people, processes, and programs necessary to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U~~ Wilbur Ross 001115 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 March 13,2018 The Honorable Hector Balderas Attorney General of the State of New Mexico P.O. Drawer 1508 Santa Fe, NM 87504-1508 Dear Mr. Attorney General: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I have conducted a rigorous review and produced a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate, and I have put into place the people, processes, and programs necessary to' ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U~~ Wilbur Ross 001116 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 March 13, 2018 The Honorable Ellen Rosenblum Attorney General of the State of Oregon Justice Building 1162 Court Street, NE Salem, OR 97301 Dear Madam Attorney General: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I have conducted a rigorous review and produced a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate, and I have put into place the people, processes, and programs necessary to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U~~ Wilbur Ross 001117 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 March 13,2018 The Honorable Josh Shapiro Attorney .General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PAl 7120 Dear Mr. Attorney General: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I have conducted a rigorous review and produced a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate, and I have put into place the people, processes, and programs necessary to ensUre strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatl@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, W~~ Wilbur Ross 001118 :, '.- UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington. D.C. 20230 March 13,2018 The Honorable Peter Kilmartin Attorney General of the State of Rhode Island 150 South Main Street Providence, RI 02903 Dear Mr. Attorney General: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I have conducted a rigorous review and produced a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate, and I have put into place the people, processes, and programs necessary to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U~~ Wilbur Ross 001119 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 March 13,2018 The Honorable Thomas Donovan, Jr. Attorney General of the State of Vermont 109 State Street Montpelier, VT 05609 Dear Mr. Attorney General: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April I, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I have conducted a rigorous review and produced a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate, and I have put into place the people, processes, and programs necessary to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.govor (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U~~ Wilbur Ross 001120 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce . Washington, D.C. 20230 March 13,2018 The Honorable Bob Ferguson Attorney General of the State of Washington 1125 Washington: Street, SE P.O. Box 40100 Olympia, WA 98504-0100 Dear Mr. Attorney General: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I have conducted a rigorous review and produced a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate, and I have put into place the people, processes, and programs necessary to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mp1att@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, lJ~~ Wilbur Ross 001121 Missouri Johnson, Marcellina (Federal) From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Fidel,Matt Thursday,February15, 2018 5:12 PM DOCExecSec Pesner,RabbiJonah;Weinstein, Barbara National JewishOrganizations Urge SecretaryRossto Rejectthe Department of Justice Requestto Add a CitizenshipQuestion to the 2020 Census National JewishOrganizations Urge SecretaryRossto Rejectthe Department of Justice Requestto Add a Question about Citizenshipto the 2020 CensusFINAL.docx . February 15, 2018 The Honorable Wilbur Ross Secretary of Commerce u.s. Commerce Department 1401 Constitution Avenue NW Washington, DC 20230 Dear Secretary Ross: On behalf of the 10 undersigned Jewish organizations, we urge you to reject the Department of Justice's harmful request to add a new citizenship question to the 2020 Census. This additional question is unnecessary and would fundamentally threaten the integrity and accuracy of the decennial census, with wide-ranging implications for our nation. Ifthe Census Bureau were to grant the Department of Justice's request, it raises the likelihood of suppressing response rates from immigrant and other minority communities. From the ban on entry of immigrants from Muslim-majority countries to the termination of DACA, America's immigrant communities feel increasingly vulnerable. A new Census question about citizenship will raise fears about such information now or in the future being used against them or their loved ones. This will potentially lower Census response rates and undermine the Census's accuracy. Depressed Census participation would have far reaching consequences, as the data gathered by the Census is relied upon to allocate federal funding and determine congressional representation. If communities with large immigrant populations are undercounted by the Census, the government's ability to meet the needs of the American people through the provision of essential services and aid dollars will be thwarted. Further, the interests of immigrant communities would not be accurately represented in Congress if the congressional apportionment process is based upon flawed data, undermining our representative democracy. The Justice Department stated that the addition of the citizenship question will facilitate enforcement the Voting Rights Act. However, the federal government continues to conduct the American Community Survey to obtain estimates of the citizen population, the data from which has been deemed suitable for use in Voting Rights Act enforcement cases. Since the inception ofthe decennial Census in 1790, it has counted citizens and non-citizens alike. It has not included questions about citizenship since 1960. Moreover, all questions that are included on the Census are carefully designed and tested to ensure that the data collected is accurate. Adding 1 001122 a question to the Census at this stage of the planning process would disrupt preparation and increase costs, in addition to threatening the accuracy of the data. Throughout history, the Jewish community has valued broad participation in civic life. Even in biblical times, Jewish leaders understood the importance of a fair and accurate census. The Torah tells us that in the wilderness of Sinai, God commanded Moses to take a head count of the people (Numbers 1:2). Our modernday responsibility to support the engagement of all people in the life and well-being of our communities is no less significant. Historically, the Census has undercounted people of color and immigrants. We urge you not to compound this problem and, instead, protect the integrity of the 2020 Census by rejecting the Department of Justice's request to add a question about citizenship. If you have any questions or wish to discuss this further, please contact Rabbi Jonah Pesner, Director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, at jpesner@rac.org or 202-387-2800. Sincerely, Anti-Defamation league Bend the Arc Jewish Action Central Conference of American Rabbis Hadassah,the Women's Zionist Organization of America, Inc. Jewish Council for Public Affairs Jewish Federations of North America Jewish Women International MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger National Council of Jewish Women Union for Reform Judaism Matt Fidel LegislativeAssistant ReligiousAction Center of Reform Judaism (202) 387-2800 I mfidel@rac.org twitter.com/TheRAC I facebook.com/TheRAC I instagram.com/theRACgram Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism 2 001123 Mail - boc.correspondence.quality.assurance@census.gov Page 3 of 3 Please share with OCIA and others as appropriate for a response. Please copy the Denver  region.  From: Philadelphia Regional Office (CENSUS/PH) Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 5:38 PM To: PHRO Geography List; PHRO RSM List Subject: Fw: Census­ Active Military From: Henry, Jason (Tester)  Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 5:36 PM To: Philadelphia Regional Office (CENSUS/PH) Subject: Census­ Active Military > To whom it may concern, Was hoping you could provide some background for our Staff on  the recent citizenship questions (as instructed by DOJ) on the  upcoming 2020 census.  We got word that active military is going  to be counted in the 2020 census.  Is that true?  I could not find  any reference to military in the 2020 Census Operation Plan  Exsum, other than the below excerpt from page 13: Federally Affiliated  Obtain counts by home state of U.S. military and federal civilian  Americans Count  employees stationed or deployed overseas and their dependents  Overseas  living with them.  Any background you could provide would be extremely  helpful….thank you.  V/r JC J.C. Henry Defense Legislative Fellow  U.S. Senator Jon Tester    311 Hart Senate Office Building  001124 https://outlook.office365.com/owa/boc.correspondence.quality.assurance@census.gov/?off... 2/16/2018 1200 IS" STREETNW SUITE501' WASHINGTON. DC 20036 PHONE: 202,296.o88Q • FAX. 202.296,6895 • wwwtheusconstitution.org February 15, 2018 The Honorable Secretary Wilbur Ross U.S. Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Avenue NW Washington, 20230 pC Dear Secretary Ross: The Constitutionality Accountability Center is a law firm, think tank, and action center dedicated to the text, history, and values of the Constitution. We write to urge you to reject the Department of Justice's request that you add a mandatory question to the 2020 Census asking all persons to divulge their citizenship status. The Constitution requires the Census Bureau to count all persons, not merely citizens. Adding a question on citizenship--particularly at this late juncture-threatens to undermine your constitutional duty to ensure that the 2020 Census counts all of the nation's people. More than two centuries ago, our Constitution's Founders established a democracy premised on the idea that all persons-no matter where they are from---deserve equal representation. To ensure a proper count of the nation's population, the Constitution explicitly requires an "actual Enumeration" of the people.' This itse1fwas a revolutionary undertaking. "While other nations had attempted population counts, none had made the count itself an important method of maintaining democracy by mandating it through a founding document.,,2 The Constitution's Framers required a decennial Census directly in the Constitution to prevent partisan manipulation of our .representative democracy. "The Framers understood that "those who have power in their hands will not give it up while they can retain it. On the [c]ontrary we kuow they will always when they can rather increase it.,,3 Wary that those in power might try to undermine the promise of equal representation for all, the Framers were careful to write into the Constitution a "permanent and precise standard" for the Censuscounting all persons-"as essential to yeo fair representation.,,4 As Hamilton insisted, "[a]n actual census or enumeration of the people must furnish the rule, a circumstance which U.S. Const., art. I, 9 2, d. 3. Utah V. Evans, 536 US. 452, 510 (2002) (Thomas, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). 31 Records of the Federal Convention 578 (Max Farrand ed., 1911). '{d. 1 2 I 001125 effectively shuts the door to partiality and oppression."5 Thus, the Constitution imposes a clear duty: it requires a count of all people living in the United States. The original Constitution's promise of equal representation for all persons, however, was marred by the Three-Fifths Clause, which provided that for the purpose of determining representation in Congress, enslaved persons would be counted as three-fifths of a person. This guaranteed to slaveholding states additional representation based on the number of people held in bondage. But, nearly 80 years later, after a bloody civil war fought over slavery, the Fourteenth Amendment fixed this injustice and reaffirmed the need for an accurate count of all persons to apportion representatives among the states. The Fourteenth Amendment requires apportioning representatives among the states "according to their respective numbers, counting the whole numbers of persons in each state,"6 reflecting that representation should be based "on the largest basis of population, counting every man, woman, and child."? "Numbers, not voters; numbers, not property, this is the theory of the Constitution."s During the debates over the Fourteenth Amendment, many in Congress sought a drastic change in our constitutional principles of equal representation, arguing that only citizens or voters should be counted in determining representation. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment decisively rejected those arguments. They insisted that "the whole immigrant population should be numbered with the people and counted as part of them.,,9 As history shows, the purpose of the census required by the Constitution has never been to count citizens, but rather to count "the whole body of the people."!O Adding a citizenship question to the 2020 Census would break faith with the Constitution's mandate for a head count of the entire nation. It would also result in bad data, biasing congressional apportionment, redistricting, and funding decisions, for an entire decade. Former directors of the Census Bureau-appointed by Presidents of both parties-have recognized that "[dJirectly inquiring about citizenship status as part of the short form Census ... would likely exacerbate privacy concerns and lead to inaccurate responses from non-citizens worried about a government record of their immigration status."!! These concerns are even more pronounced for the 2020 Census. The Census Bureau's own data demonstrates "an unprecedented groundswell in confidentiality and data sharing concerns, particularly among immigrants or those who live with immigrants."12 To add a citizenship question runs directly counter to the constitutional duty on the Census Bureau to ensure a count that includes everyone. The Department of Justice urges that a citizenship question is necessary to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act, but this is transparently false. Since the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, the short form census or the census questionnaire has never asked the 5 The Federalist No. 36, at 188 (Clinton Rossiter rev. ed. 1999). 6 U.s. Canst., amend XIV, ~ 2. 7 Congo Globe, 39'h Congo 1" Sess. 1280 (1866). 'Id. at 2767. 'Id. at 432. 10 Id. at 385. 11 Brief of Former Directors of the U.S. Census Bureau as Amici Curiae, at 23, Even weI V. Abbott, 136 S. Ct. 1220 (2016). 12 Mikelyn Meyers, U.S. Census Bureau, Respondent Confidentiality Concerns and Possible Effects on Response Rates and Data Quality for the 2020 Census, at 15 (Nov. 2, 2017). 2 001126 ~'. American people to reportih~it Citizenship: A mandatory questionon citizenship has never beel). necessary to ensure robust protection forthe'riglit to vok This is a speCious justification for undercutting what the Constitution mandates: a count of all the.people. Sincerely, Elizabeth B, Wydra President. Constitutional Accountability Center David H. Gans Director of the Human Rights, Civil Rights and CitizenshipProgram cc: Donald F. McGahn, White House Counsel Peter Davidson, General Counsel, Department of Commerce The Honorable Ron Johnson Chairman, Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee The Honorable Claire McCaskill Ranking Member, Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee The Honorable Trey Gowdy Chairman, House Committee on Oversight and Governrilent Reforin The Honorable Elijah Cummings Ranking Member, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform .' . .. 3 001127 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 March 12,2018 Ms. Elizabeth B. Wydra President Constitutional Accountability Center 1200 18th Street, NW, Suite 501 Washington, DC 20036 Dear Ms. Wydra: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I have conducted a rigorous review and produced a new 2020 Census lifecyc1e cost estimate, and I have put into place the people, processes, and programs necessary to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U~~ Wilbur Ross 001128 I < February 16, 2018 The Honorable Wilbur Ross 1401 Constitution Ave NW Washington, D.C. 20230 co ..,., co Dear Secretary Ross: We write to demonstrate our strong support for requiring the decennial census to ask respondents about their citizenship status. Adding a citizenship question to the decennial census would result in American citizens being more accUl'ately represented in Congress. In addition, such questions would [mally provide for an accurate count of how many aliens, both legal and illegal, are residing in the United States. For that purpose and in light of the vital role the decennial census plays in both representation and funding, 1 have introduced H.'R. 3600, the Census Accuracy Act of2017. 2020 census, the bill would require a checkbox in any census questionnaire Statting with the for respondents to . . indicate whether the respondent .is: a citizen or national of the United States; lawfully admitted for pelmanent residence in the United States; an alien who otherwise has lawful status under the immigration laws; or none of these. This bill would also require that aliens be asked undcr which Federal program or provision of law they obtained legal status. Members of Congress are not alone in thcir SUPPOltfor adding a citizenship question. It is our understanding that the Department of Justice recently requested that the Census BUl'eau add a citizenship question as a way to allow the department to better enforce the Voting Rights Act. Again, we urge you to see that a citizenship question is added to the decennial census statting in 2020. Please let me know if you have any questions. AMES OffiCE 1421 s. anL AVENUE, SUIT[ AMES.'A 50010 (61til232-"IS5 fA)(; (t;1'J1~~2-2844 102 fonT DODGE OFFICE 723 CENmAl AVeNU( fORT DODGE, II'. 5Cl501 (5151l.i13-UJ8 FAX; (015) 57&-1141 SIOUX CITY OfFICE 310 /lTH STREET AOOM 112 MASON CITY OFFiCE 2020 l$TSTnI'FI" 51', SUITE! 120 MASON CITY, IA 5N01 (541)21J1-1&21 FAX, [(41) 201-1513 Hl Tf'JiWWW.5TEVfKlNG,flOUS!';.o.ov SIOUX C1TY, IA 5110.1 {712) 224-4692. FAX: (Jlt) 224-'"'693 Sf'£NCEfI OFFIce P.O.OOXIlSO s?mCEfl, IA 61301 !7121G$o..77~ fAX: (712) Cllo.:s354 WASHINGTON. D.C. OffiCE 2210 RAYBURN o.c. WASHINGTON, 2051(; (20.2)'25-'426 fAX, (21)2) 725-3193 001129 ~ -(; RalphAbraham, M.D. (LA-OS) ?no ad..•.... Mo Brooks (AL-OS) I~&cd Tom McClintock (CA-04) fu-t2 ~osey (FL-08)~ k:6&Glenn Grotbman{WI-06) (rtut. Bob Gibbs (OR-O?) Mike ohnson (LA-04) 001130 t ~ UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 March 12,2018 The Honorable Steve King U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative King: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me awate of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I have conducted a rigorous review and produced a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate, and I have put into place the people, processes, and programs necessary to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U~~ Wilbur Ross 001131 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D,C. 20230 March 12,2018 The Honorable Ralph Norman U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Norman: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I have conducted a rigorous review and produced a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate, and I have put into place the people, processes, and programs necessary to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U~~ Wilbur Ross 001132 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 March 12,2018 The Honorable Ralph Abraham U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Abraham: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I have conducted a rigorous review and produced a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate, and I have put into place the people, processes, and programs necessary to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U~~ Wilbur Ross 001133 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 March 12,2018 The Honorable Mo Brooks U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Brooks: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justic~'s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The pepartment is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I have conducted a rigorous review and produced a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate, and I have put into place the people, processes, and programs necessary to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U~~ Wilbur Ross 001134 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 March 12,2018 The Honorable Tom McClintock U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative McClintock: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census. questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed.finallist of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I have conducted a rigorous review and produced a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate, and I have put into place the people, processes, and programs necessary to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U~~ Wilbur Ross 001135 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 March 12,2018 The Honorable Andy Biggs U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Biggs: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I have conducted a rigorous review and produced a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate, and I have put into place the people, processes, and programs necessary to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U~~ Wilbur Ross 001136 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 March 12,2018 The Honorable Bill Posey U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Posey: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1,2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I have conducted a rigorous review and produced a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate, and I have put into place the people, processes, and programs necessary to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. c~~~ Wilbur Ross 001137 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secre~ary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 March 12,2018 The Honorable Glenn Grothman U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Grothman: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I have conducted a rigorous review and produced a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate, and I have put into place the people, processes, and programs necessary to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U~~ Wilbur Ross 001138 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, nc. 20230 March 12,2018 The Honorable Bob Gibbs U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Gibbs: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I have conducted a rigorous review and produced a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate, and I have put into place the people, processes, and programs necessary to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U~~ Wilbur Ross 001139 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 March 12,2018 The Honorable Mike Johnson U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Johnson: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I have conducted a rigorous review and produced a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate, and I have put into place the people, processes, and programs necessary to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.govor (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, CJ~~ Wilbur Ross 001140 Memorial Hall, 1st Floor 120 S.W: 10th Avenue Topeka, KS 66612-1594 (785)296-4575 ww\\',sos.ks.gov KRIS W. KOBACH SecretaIY of State STATE OF KANSAS February 12,2018 o 'J) ~ Q "'" ~ Secretary Wilbur Ross United States Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20233 Dear Secretary Ross, ""1'"1 ...•. tJ C:' :;::: '"' Vl r" £ .t:: ~ i1C! ~.t:: 0- ~ I am '.'.Titingin support of the Department of Justice's request that "a question regarding citizenship': be added to the decennial census of 2020. As you know, secretaries of state are the chief election officials of their respective states. There are a number of election-related reaSons why it is essential that a citizenship question be added to the census. Adding that question would be extremely helpful in ensuring Ihat state and local jurisdictions are in compliance with the Voting Rights Act and are not discriminating through race-based vote dilution. In order to assess whether such vote dilution exists, it is necessary that a precise count of the number of citizens of voting age occur. Adding a citizenship question will also be extremely helpful to secretaries of state across the country in the administration of elections. We need to know the exact number of citizens in our states in order to administrate elections fairly and to collect accurate data within our states regarding the percentage of voting-age citizens who are registered to vote. A version of the citizenship question already appears on the American Community Survey that is conducted by the Census Bureau (question #8). A slight variation of that question needs to be added to the census. It is important that the question be phrased as follows: Is this person a citizen of the United States? oYcs, born in the United States oYes, born in Puerto Rico, Guam, the U,S. Virgin Islands, or Northern Marianas oYes, born abroad of U.S. citizen parent or parents oYes, U.S. citizen by naturalization - Print year of naturalization __ oNo, not a U.S. citizen - this person is a lawful permanent resident (green i:ard holder) oNo, not a U.S. citizen - this person citizen of another country who is not a green eard holder (for example holds a tempora'1' visa or falls into another category of non-citizens) 001141 This slight variation of ACS question #8 is absolutely essential if the new census question is to be maximally useful to federal state and local governments, The variation occurs in the final two categories, which servc to separate noncitizens into lawful permanent residents versus all other categories of noncitizens, It is important to know the number of lawful permanent residents because these individuals are part of population of continuous residents in a state, and are not temporarily present or illegally present. State governments (and the federal government) must have a reliable count of the number of citizens plus lawful permanent residents in order to fairly distribute public services and benefits, An equally important reason to know the number of lawful permanent residents is because these individuals are the ones who are on the cusp of becoming U,S, citizens, If a jurisdiction is expericncing lower-than-average naturalizations of lawful permanent residents, that may indicate that discrimination against such noncitizens is occurring with the effect that they are discouraged from naturalizing, In addition, secretaries of state and county election officials need to know the number oflawful permanent residents in their jurisdictions in order to effectively plan for growth in the voting electorate (by purchasing election equipment, adding polling places, etc,), For all of these reasons, J strongly support the Department of Justice request; and J specifically support the addition of the question as phrased above, ~--- Yours sincerely, ~. Kansas Secretary of State 001142 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce . Washington, D.C. 20230 March 23,2018 The Honorable Krls W. Kobach Attorney General of Kansas 120SW 10th Avenue, NO.1 Topeka, KS 66612 Dear Mr. Attorney General: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I have conducted a rigorous review and produced a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate, and I have put into place the people, processes, and programs necessary to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020. Census. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff Contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, W~~ Wilbur Ross 001143 131 West 33" Street Suite 610 New York, NY 10001 (212) 627-2227 www.nyic.org February 20, 2018 By USPSExpress Mail The Honorable Wilbur L. Ross,Jr. Secretary of Commerce U.S. Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Avenue NW Washington, D.C. 20230 I 0 ,.., Vl X lT1 C') c: -< ..., ,.., a:> ex> < I'V ,.., ,.., -c '" w '"i;! '"~ Vl C') John M. Mulvaney Director of the Office of Management and Budget 72S 17th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20S03 •...• = % '0() Dear Secretary Ross and Director Mulvaney: On behalf of 106 undersigned organizations throughout New York State, we are requesting that you reject any effort by the Department of Justice to add a question regarding citizenship to the 2020 decennial Census. To do otherwise, would severely undermine the accuracy and nonpartisan legitimacy of the Census, impair the delicate trust between the community and the role of the Census, and skyrocket the cost of the Census. A non-partisan, reliable and responsive 2020 Census is needed to ensure the proper distribution of over $600 billion in federal funding to communities across this country for needed schools, hospitals, housing, and transportation. For that reason, great effort has been expended by the Census to ensure questions will elicit both an accurate and high response rate, a process that has involved extensive screening, focus groups, and field tests. At this stage in the process, there is no time to add questions that have not been properly vetted, especially since citizenship is already included in the American Community Survey. There is no doubt that adding a citizenship question to the decennial Census would pose a chilling effect and result in a significant undercount, particularly by already under-counted racial and ethnic minority groups, including immigrants and non-citizens. Such requests to bypass the process would only fuel distrust and concerns of the Census Bureau's obligation to keep the data confidential amid heightened anti-immigrant furor in the current, politically charged climate and the checkered history of the Bureau sharing data to aid the government in the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II and the post 9-11 targeting of Arabs, Muslims, and South Asians. Further, a high non-response rate to the Census, would result in exorbitant follow-up costs to do door-to-door canvassing to ensure an accurate count. 001144 We are asking you to ensure the Census remains non-partisan and is not politicized, and to work with us to ensure an accurate decennial Census that involves maximum participation by the entire, diverse population that constitutes this great nation. S~ Steven Choi, Esq. Executive Director New York Immigration Coalition New York Statewide: American Jewish Committee Asian American Federation CAIR-NY Common Cause/New York Greater New York Labor Religion Coalition Japanese American Citizens League-New York The Japanese American Association of New York Inc. LatinoJustice, PRLDEF NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. National Action Network (NAN) New York Civil Liberties Union New York Immigration Coalition Omicron Chapter of Phi Iota Alpha Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union New York City: AJC NY African Communities Together Arab American Family Support Center Asian Americans for Equality Bangladeshi American Community Development and Youth Services Brooklyn Defender Services CAAAV-Organizing Asian Communities Cabrini Immigrant Services of NYC CHHAYA,CDC Chinese American Planning Counsel Chinese Progressive Association Coalition of Asian-American IPA Columbia Law School Latino/a Law Students Association Nightline Peer Listening at Columbia College 2 001145 Community Voices Heard Damayan Migrant Workers Association DRUM - Desis Rising Up & Moving DSI International, Inc. EI Centro dellnmigrante Emerald Isle Immigration Center GlobeMed Henry Street Settlement Hunter Dream Team Indo-Caribbean Alliance Japanese American Social Services, Inc. Korean American Youth Foundation Masa-MexEd, Inc. DuBois Bunche Center for Public Policy, Medgar Evers College, CUNY Mexican Coalition for the Empowerment of Youth and Families Mexican Student Association (MexSA) MinKwon Center for Community Action American Constitution Society at New York University School of Law A/P/A Institute at New York University New York University Asian Pacific American Coalition Bengali Students Association, New York University The Interfaith Students of Color Coalition, New York University Generation Citizen @ New York University Immigrant Justice Center, Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University, John Jay Legal Services Independent Drivers Guild Latino Commission on AIDS Latino Unidos Con Honor y Amistad @ New York University Phi Chapter of Hermandad de Sigma Iota Alpha, Inc. ProColumbia-New York University Chapter NMIC OCA-NY OCA-APA Advocates-Long Island Chapter Opportunities for a Better Tomorrow People's Theatre Project Pilipino American Unity for Progress (UNIPRO) Asian/American Center at Queens College (CUNY) Queer Detainee Empowerment Project Russian-speaking Community Council of Manhattan and the Bronx, Inc. Safe Horizon Immigration Law Project Sakhi for South Asian Women SAPNA NYC Shetu Inc. South Asian Council for Social Services (SACSS) 3 001146 Sunnyside Community Services The Door-A Center of Alternatives The Ghanaian Association of Staten Island, NY Inc. United Neighborhood Houses UNITEHERELocal 100 University Settlement Viva Peru Volunteers of Legal Service Womankind Long Island: Dejus Center, Inc. Long Island Wins OCA-APA Advocates-Long Island Chapter Upper and Lower Hudson Valley/Westchester: Community Resource Center Community Voices Heard OCA-Westchester and Hudson Valley Chapter Worker Justice Center of New York, Inc. Northern New York: Plattsburgh Cares Central New York: American Constitution Society-Cornell Law School Chapter Tompkins County Immigrant Rights Coalition Volunteers Lawyers Project of Onondaga County Workers Center of Central New York Western New York State: ACCESSof WNY Catholic Family Center First Presbyterian Church of Buffalo Greater Rochester Coalition for Immigration Justice International Institute of Buffalo Justice for Migrant Families Kids for College Legal Aid Society of Rochester 4 001147 PUSH Buffalo Sisters of St. Joseph of Rochester Office University at Buffalo, SUNY Wayne Action for Racial Equality Western New York Council on Occupational Safety and Health (WNYCOSH) Worker Justice Center of New York, Inc. Outside New York State: OCA-New Jersey Chapter OCA-San Mateo Chapter Wind of the Spirit, Immigrant Resource Center cc: New York Congressional Delegation New York State Senate New York State Assembly New York City Council New York Governor Cuomo Buffalo Mayor Brown Rochester Mayor Warren Syracuse Mayor Walsh New York City Mayor de Blasio Nassau County Executive Curran Suffolk County Executive Bellone Westchester County Executive Latimer 5 001148 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 March 23,2018 Mr. Steven Choi, Esq. Executive Director New York Immigration Coalition 133 West 33rd Street New York, NY 10001 Dear Mr. Choi: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate you taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, Apr~ll, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I have conducted a rigorous review and produced a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate, and I now have in place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, CJ~~ Wilbur Ross 001149 J t'V N "" '"~ :i :>:l M >::!! ~ rs> w -0 Dear Secretary Ross: . On behalf of Asian Pacific Americans Voting & Organizing to Increase Civic Engagement (APA ..VOICE), a non-partisan civic engagement coalition consisting of 18 organizations in New York City which seeks to empower the Asian Pacific American community to build a just and inclusive society, we urge you to reject the Department of Justice's untimely and unnecessary request to include a citizenship question on the 2020 Census. A fair and accurate census, and the collection of useful, objective data used to determine school districts, law enforcement precincts, hospitals, housing developments, community facilities, .public services, federal funding, redistricting, and the equality of each vote, are among the most significant civil rights issues facing the country today. Asian Pacific Americans are the fastest growing population of any major racial or ethnic group, . growing 72% between 2000 and 2016 (from 11.9 million to 20.9 million), and are consistently one of the most challenging hard to reach populations to count. Approximately two-thirds of .Asian Pacific Americans are foreign-born, with roots from more than 20 countries, leading to a wide variety oflanguages spoken. Furthermore, one-in-five live in linguistic isolation, with nobody the age of 14 or older in the household who speaks English very well, adding another substantial obstacle to participation and accurate census enumeration. Adding a citizenship question at this time will negatively impact response rates and the accuracy among millions of United States residents, whether they are lawful permanent residents, asylees, refugees, Temporary Protected Status beneficiaries, visa holders, undocumented, or one of the 16.7 million people who have an undocumented family member living with them. Census Bureau representatives conducting field tests have already reported unprecedented fear among respondents. Out of fear, distrust, and concern for how the data collected will be used and shared, test respondents have been reported being visibly nervous, providing incomplete or incorrect 001150 r . information about household members. Furthermore, as the 2020 Census topics were already Bubmitted last March, introducing new topics this late in the process would add significant costs to an already constrained budget. .The goal of the census is to have an inclusive and accurate couiltof all United States residents, regardless of immigration status. Adding a citizenship question to the 2020 Census would ; .disproportionately harm response rates from immigrant communities, and would shake public ... confidence in the statistical and political objectives of the Census Bureau's work, including the. accuracy and legitimacy of the data. However, not including the citizenship question would .Bignal the Census Bureau's autonomy and independence from other federal agencies, potentiil1ly boosting public confidence in the accuracy of the data, but more importantly, the integrity in how the data would be used. For such reasons, APA VOICE urges you to reject the Justice Department's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census. APA VOICE consists of: Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund Asian Americans for Equality Adhikaar Bangladeshi American Community Development and Youth Services Coalition for Asian American Children and Families Chhaya Community Development Corporation Chinese American Planning Council Chinese Progressive Association Charles B. Wang Community Health Center Coalition for Asian American Children and Families Indo-Caribbean Alliance' MinKwon Center for Community Action Organization of Chinese Americans-NY Shetu South Asian Council for Social Services Pilipino American Unity for Progress United Chinese Association of Brooklyn YWCA of Queens 001151 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of CO,mmerce WashingtOn; D.C. 20230 March 23, 2018 Ms. Margaret Fung Executive Director, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund 99 Hudson Street, 12th Floor New York, NY 10013 Dear Ms. Fung: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship questi6nto the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking thetime to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice'srequest. The Departinentis required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I have conducted a rigorous review and produced a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate, and I have put into place the people, processes, and programs necessary to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. I Sincerely, CJ~~ Wilbur Ross 001152 SECRETARY OF STATE STATE OF INDIANA C>_ CONNIE. LAWSON ,,, Cit SECRETARY OF STATE ~ n c::: _, - = -...,, ~ < w ,.,, ii ::0 ~ fT1 Cl> February 2-3, 2018 C"> Secretary Wilbur Ross United States Department of·Commerce 140 l Constitution Ave.• NW Washington D.C. 20233 l'l'1 ~ ~ ~ ~ .a:: c Dear Secretary Ross, As Indiana's SccretaryofState'and Chief Elections Officer, I am contacting you in support of the Department of Justice's request t~· "a question ·regarding cj~zenship" .be added to the decennial census of2020. I believe that the.addition ofthiS·question is essential to the elcetion process in Indiana and across the country. Adding this question to the decennial census in 2020 would be beneficial to secretaries across the country in conducting elections. It i.s impera~ive for secretaries to know the exac~ number of state citiz.ens in order to properly and fairly administer elections and collect accurate data to calculate the percentage of voting-age ei~iz:ens registered to vote. The addition of this citiz.cnship question will ena:ble secretaries to prop~ly calculate the. n.umbers of state ~tizens more efficieptly and accurately. · Lastly1 it is essential that secretaries and county officials know the correct number of residents qualifioo to vote in their jurisdictions in order to adequately prepare and plan ·elections. Purchasing and distributing election equipmeQt and adding polling locations depends on increases and decreases in the voting electorate. · Therefore, l $'0ng1y !!upport the Department of Justice's request of ..a question ..-egarding citizenship" on the decennial ~nsus in 2020. · Sincerely, Connie LaW5on Indiana Se.crctary of State The State Flouse, 200 West Washington Street Room 20 l. Jndlanapolls. · · Indiana 46204, (317) 232-6$31, FAX (317) 233-3283 www.sos.IN.gov 001153 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington. D.C. 20230 March 19,2018 The Honorable Connie Lawson Secretary of State The State House 200 West Washington Street, Room 201 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Dear Madam Secretary: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me und~rscore my commitment to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I have conducted a rigorous review and produced a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate, and I have put into place the people, processes, and programs necessary to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov'or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U~(L Wilbur Ross 001154 KEN PAXTON Awlw?iFebruary 23, 2018 MAR [l E, Zuia Dr. Ron Jarmin w/ Performing the Non-Exclusive Functions and Duties of the Director US. Census Bureau United States Department of Commerce Washington, DC. 20233-0001 Dear Dr. Jarmin: I write on behalfof the Office of the Attorney General of Texas to support the reinstatement of a question regarding citizenship on the 2020 Census questionnaire. State legislatures depend on the Census to reapportion legislative districts, and they depend on citizenship data to ensure that those legislative districts comply with the Voting Rights Act. As you know, a question concerning citizenship appeared on the decennial census questionnaire for thirty years??from 1970 to 2000?before it was removed in 2010. Returning that question to the 2020 Census will give state legislatures the best available source of citizenship data to ensure that they carry out their constitutionally assigned reapportionment duties in accordance with federal law. Among many other legal requirements, state legislative districts must comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which forbids States to impose any voting practice ?which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.? 52 U.S.C. 10301(a). Section 2 has been interpreted to prohibit legislative districts that result in dilution of minority voting strength. To prove that a legislative districting plan results in vote dilution, a plaintiff must establish ?the possibility of creating more than the existing number of reasonably compact districts with a suf?ciently large minority population to elect candidates of [the minority group?s] choice.?' To meet that standard, a plaintiffmust provide an alternative plan with additional districts in which a minority group constitutes a voting majority, 126., more than 50% ofeligible voters.2 Citizen?voting?age population provides the best measure to determine whether a minority group crosses the 50% threshold. The Fifth Circuit, like many other circuits has expressly held citizen? voting?age population is the proper metric to determine potential minority voting strength.3 Specifically, the court has held that citizen-voting-age population is the appropriate population for measuring Section 2 compliance because (1) the plain language ofSection 2 ?makes clear that its protections apply to United States citizens? and (2) the purpose of Section 2 is ?to facilitate participation by minorities in our political process, by preventing dilution of their 'lleAC'u Perny,548 3 Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 US. I, 19 (2009). 3 Campus v. City ofHouston, 13 F.3d 544 (5th Cir. 1997). See also Reyes v. City of urmers Branch, 586 F.3d 1019, 1023?24 (5th Cir. 2009). HUI ~2548 001155 votes.?4 Other measures, such as voting-age population, may substantially overestimate minority voting strength if the minority group in question includes a significant number of non-citizens.S The United States Supreme Court has therefore recognized that reliance on citizen?voting-age population ?fits the language of 2 because only eligible voters affect a group?s opportunity to elect candidates.?6 Much has been made about whether including a question regarding citizenship will reduce the number of responses to the census questionnaire. But facts are stubborn things, and past experience provides no reason to believe that a question about citizenship will discourage participation.7 A question concerning citizenship appeared in each Census questionnaire from 1970?2000. Every census since 1970 has shown the total population in the United States has increased?~at an average rate of almost 1 1.5%.8 When the question concerning citizenship was removed from the 2010 Census, one might expect that the total reporting population might increase dramatically. Yet the 2010 Census revealed that percentage increase in the total population was actually the lowest percentage increase since at least 1960.9 Plus, since the question concerning citizenship has been used in the American Community Surveys the five?year rolling Demographic and Housing Estimates continue to show consistent annual percentage growth that can be projected to match the same rate of growth reported in the 2010 Census. ?0 Taken together, these figures refute any argument that including a question concerning citizenship on the 2020 Census will undermine its effectiveness.'1 It has also been suggested that it is too late to add a question concerning citizenship to the 2020 Census, mainly because the question has not been tested. On the contrary, such a question was tested for the thirty?year period between 1970?2000, and it continues to be tested in the ACS surveys. It is unfortunate that a few misguided individuals are attempting to politicize an apolitical issue by creating a sense of fear and distrust without any supporting evidence. It is my hope that the Bureau sees through the fog of misinformation and includes a question concerning citizenship on the 2020 Census. Obtaining this essential information from the best available source will signi?cantly assist the States in their effort to carry out their constitutional duty to reapportion legislative districts while complying with the Voting Rights Act. 4 Campos. I I3 F.3d, at 548. 5'Seeid ?liJLAClu Pen935481LS.at429. 7 "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.? John Adams (1735?1826), Argument in defense oft/1e soldiers oftlve Boston Massacre Trials, December 1770. 3 Census Bureau, Population Distribution and Change: 2000 to 20i0, Fig. 1 (Mar. 201 1), available at .pdf. 1d. '0 See. e. g, Census Bureau, .4 CS Demographic and Housing Estimates, (last visited Feb. 22, 20 I 8). In addition, information obtained by the Census Bureau is confidential and may not be shared, except in limited circumstances. See 13 U.S.C. 9 (West 1997). 001156 For these reasons, I request that the Census Bureau include a question regarding citizenship on the 2020 Census questionnaire. ey C. Mateer First Assistant Attorney General 001157 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economics and Statistics Administration US. Census Bureau Office of the Director Washington. DC 20233-0001 March 15, 2018 Mr. Jeffrey C. Mateer First Assistant Attorney General Of?ce of the Attorney General PO Box 12548 Austin, TX 78711-2548 Dear Mr. Mateer: Thank you for your recent inquiry regarding the US. Department of Justice?s (DOJ) request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. We appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The US. Department of Commerce (DOC) is conducting an orderly review of the request. The DOC is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 Census. A hi gh- quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please contact our Of?ce of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs at 301-763-6100. Sincerely, 73V Ron S. Jarmin Performing the Non-Exclusive Functions and Duties of the Director CUnited States? ENSUS Bureau . 001 1 5gensus. gov Office of th~ Secretary of State SIRIC' Olpitol Ch:irleston, Wcs1 Virginift 25305 Mac Warner Secretary ofS'tnte State of West Virginia Telephone: (304) 558-6000 Toll Free: l-86fi-SOS-VOTE Fax: (304) S.58-0900 WWW. W\'SOS.gO\· February 23, 2018 Honorable Wilbur Ross Secretary of Commerce U.S. Department of Commerce 1401Constitution Ave. NW Washington, DC 20230 Dear Secretary Ross: I am writing to express my strongest support for the J.ustice Department's request to add a citizenship · question to the decennial census of 2020. Accurate census information is critical in determining the designation of political district boundaries for House of Representative seats in each state. Having the ability to delineate this demographic from eligible voters is essentiaJ in forming this detennination. The census data is the sole mechanism in making the assessment. I I As you know, a citizenship component was part of the census data from 1970 through 2000. It was not until 2010 that this data was excluded from the "long form" questionnaire. The data was replaced by the American Community Survey which relies not upon actual responses to the survey, but is predicated on other data sets which do not confonn temporally or statistically with actual responses from the voting-age citizen population. 1. I I am strongly committed to working with your office to produce the most accurate representation of voting-age citizens in West Virginia. Respectfully submitted, i ·o Mac Warner WEST VIRGINIA SECRETARY OF STA TE en >< 0 c: ,,,"" .... < SIC co a ; r I "'°"' ""' :i rI' w ': ~ (") ;g ii! .;:o ~· ....... 11 0 Vt .. 001159 - . . ... . r UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 March 23,2018 The Honorable Mac Warner Secretary of State of the State of West Virginia State Capitol Charleston, WV 25305 Dear Mr. Warner: Thank you for your recent letter regarding your support of the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I have conducted a rigorous review and produced a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate, and I have put into place the people, processes, and programs necessary to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 001160 r~-osq71f7 1818 HAR - 5 PM.): 44 STATE OF ALABAMA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STEvEN T. MARSHALL OS EXECUTIVESECR5ifAllAT, SOl WASHINGTON AVENUE P.O.BOX300IS2 '\ ,,' MONTGOMERY, AL 36130-0152 (334) 242-7300 . ATTORNEY GENERAL February 23,2018 _.AGD.AL.ABAMA.G~" The Honorable Wilbur Ross Secretary of Commerce United States Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Avenue NW Washington, D.C. 20233-0001 Dear Secretary Ross, As the Chief Legal Officer of the State of Alabama, I respectfully request that the Department of Commerce collect full and accurate citizenship data during the 2020 census. State and local governments use census data in redistricting after the decennial census. This data allows state and local governments to draw accurate district lines that equalize population, consolidate communities of interest, and comply with the Voting Rights Act and United States Constitution. Citizenship data is especially important in redistricting because, along with voting-age information, citizenship data allows state and local bodies to identify the total potential voting population in any given district. As you know, the Census Bureau has historically included a citizenship question on the "long form" questionnaire sent to households during each decennial census. But, in 2000, the Bureau replaced the long form with the American Community Survey ("ACS"), which reaches far fewer people. The ACS is currently the only program that collects citizenship data for the Bureau. The ACS does not provide citizenship data at the level of detail the States and localities need. The ACS is a rolling survey that does not necessarily correspond to the total population data provided by the decennial census. ACS data is not reported at the census block level which, along with voting precincts, are the basic building blocks of districts. And, perhaps most important for state and local governments, the ACS's margin of error increases as the geographic area decreases. Many State and local districts are quite small, especially at the municipal and county level. The ACS' s sliding margin of error makes it an ineffective tool to understand the citizen population of small districts in less populated rural areas. 001161 . :"', '.:~ . 'if" ," ',." The Honorable Wilbur Ross February 23, 2018 Page 2 For these reasons, I believe the Department should reinstate a question regarding citizenship into the 2020 census. Sincerely, .~~ Steve Marshall Attorney General SM:KGR:smm. 001162 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 March 23,2018 The Honorable Steven T. Marshall Attorney General of the State of Alabama 501 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36130 Dear Mr. Marshall: Thank you for your recent letter regarding your support ofthe Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I have conducted a rigorous review and produced a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate, and I have put into place the people, processes, and programs necessary to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, U~~ Wilbur Ross 001163 BOB GOOOLAm, Virginia CHAIRMAN F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wl..:onlin LAMAR S. SMITH. T"'H . SnvE CHABOT, Ohio DARREll E. ISSA, Ca!llornl1 STI;l/E l(ING, low1 . LOUIE GOHMeRT. Texn JIM JORDAN. Ohio TED POE. Tex~• TOM MARINO, Penn1Vlvoni1 TREY GOWDY, South Caronna RAUL II. LABRADOR, Idaho BLAICE FARENTHOLD. T1xn DOUG COUINS, Georgia RON DESANTIS, Florida KEN BUCK. Colorldo JOHN R.t.Tcum, Tex11 MAllTH.t. ROBY, AJ1btma MATT GAETZ, Florida MIKE JOHNSON, l.oui1l1n1 ANDY BIGGS, lvilOfll JOHN lllmiERFORD. Aorida KAREN HANOEl. Georgie JERROLD NADL.Ell. N..,. York RANICJNG MEMBER ONE HUNDREO AFTEENTH CONGRESS ~ngrrss of thr ilnitnt ~tatt.s !\Duse of 'Rfprtsrntatiom COMMITIEE ON niE JUDICIARY 2138 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6216 ZOE LOFGll!N, C.llfoml1 SHEILA J.t.CKSON LEE, T8Xn STEVE COHEN, Tenneaat HENRY C. "HANK" JOHNSON, JR. G-1111 TED DE UTCH, Flond1 LUIS V, GUTIBIREZ. llll nol1 KAREN BASS, C.Hlornia CEDRIC L. RICHMOND. Louisiana HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, -York DAVID CICILUNE. Rhode l1land ERIC SWALWELL. C.llfomla TED LIEU, C.lifomla JAMIE R.llSKIN, M1ryl1nd PAAMILA JAYAPAL. Waahln;ton BRAD SCHNEIDER, llllnol& VAL DEMINGS, Florido (202) 225-3951 http:l!www.hou1e.11ov1Judlclary February 27, 2018 The Honorable Wilbur L. Ross Jr. Secretary of Commerce United States Department of Commerce Dear Secretary Ross, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act provides, among other things, that "No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be .imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement . of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color." In order to best enforce this prohibition, an accurate enumeration of the number of citizens in America should be conducted, and the most accurate such enumeration would be one in which a question regarding citizenship were reinstated starting with the 2020 Census. I am writing to formally request that the Census Bureau reinstate a question regarding citizenship starting in the 2020 Census. Thank you for considering this request. ~ . Bob Goodlatte Chairman C> en - ...., "",..., ·• ....., )< C"> c:: co < !"".'I !'-.) ~ !E "";! '9 -:1 en ~ :::D ~ en N ~ 001164 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 March 23, 2018 The Honorable Bob Goodlatte U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Goodlatte: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I have conducted a rigorous review and produced a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate, and I have put into place the people, processes, and programs necessary to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 001165 Orrrcn oF THE CouNrv CouNsnr, Counrv or S¡,Nr¡, Cr,¡.n¡. Williams CouNrv CouNsnr, James R. Greta S. Hansen County Government Center 70 West Hedding Street East Wing, gtr'Floor San Jose, CHrnn AssrsraNr Cou¡lrv CoUNSEL Winifred Botha California 95110-1770 Robert M. Coelho Steve Mitra Assrsr¡llr CouNrv Cou¡rsrl (408) 299-se00 (408) 292-7240 (FAX) February 21,2078 Dr. Ron Jarmin U.S. Census Bureau United States Department of Commerce Washinglon, DC 20233-001 Re: Planned Development and Submission of Questions Planned for the 2020 Census Dear Dr. Jarmin: We write on behalf of the County of Santa Clara (the "County") regarding whether and how the U.S. Census Bureau intends to consider public comment on proposed changes to the 2020 Census questionnaire. The County has reviewed the Census Bureau's Apnl29,20I6 2020 Census Program Memorandum No. 2016.05 entitled "Planned Development and Submission of Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census Program and Questions Planned for the 2020 Census Program" (the "Development Memo"), which "officially documents the U.S. Census Bureau's plan to develop and transmit to Congress the Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census Program and Questions Planned for the 2020 Census Program." (We have attached the memorandum to this letter.) The Development Memo sets out a timeline for development of subjects and questions to be included in the 2020 census, as well as planned public comment periods. In particular, the memorandum indicates that the Bureau intends to conduct two public comment periods on proposed changes to the questions included on the 2020 Census questionnaire. The Development Memo indicates that public comment would be sought between May 2018 - July 2018 and August 2018 - September 2018. Given the importance of the 2020 Census and proposed changes to the 2020 Census questionnaire, the County wishes to confirm as soon as possible that it will have the opportunity 001166 Letter to Dr. Ron Jarmin, U.S. Census Bureau Re: Planned Development and Submission of Questions Planned for the 2020 Census February 27,2018 Page2 of 2 to comment on any proposed changes. Please indicate at your earliest opportunity whether the Bureau intends to consider public comment on2020 Census questionnaire changes as set out in the Development Memo, or whether the Bureau intends to alter or abandon this plan. Very truly yours, JAMES R. WLLIAMS County Counsel lADANIELLE L. GOLDSTEIN Deputy County Counsel Attachment: U.S. Census Bureau's Apn129,20162020 Census Program Memorandum No. 2016.05, entitled "Planned Development and Submission of Subjects Planned for the2020 Census Program and Questions Planned for the 2020 Census Program" 1725602 001167 d5t\ qffi""t UNITED STATES DEPARTIIENT OF GOIIMERCE Economics and Statistics Administration U.S, Censue Buteau Washingfon, DC 20233-0001 2020 CENSUS PROGRAM MEMORANDUM SERIES: 2016.05 April29,2016 Date MEMORANDUM FOR: The Record From: Lisa M. Blumerman (signed April 29, 2016) Associate Director, Decennial Census Programs Subject: Planned Development and Submission of Subiecfs Planned for the 2020 Census Program and Quesfions Planned for the 2020 Census Program Contact: Marisa Hotchkiss Decennial Communications Coordination Office 301-763-2891 Ma risa.Tegler. Hotchkiss@census.gov This memorandum officially documents the U.S. Census Bureau's plan to develop and transmit to Congress the Suby'ecfs Planned for the 2020 Census Program and Quesfions Planned for the 2020 Census Program. Overview Title 13, U.S. Code requires the Census Bureau to send Congress the subjects proposed to be included in the census not later than three years before the Census date, Congress will receive the SubT'ecf s Planned for the 2020 Census Program, describing the subjects proposed for the 2020 Census and the American Community Survey (ACS) before March 31, 2017. Title 13 also requires that Congress receive the specific questions proposed to be included in the census not later than two years before the Census date. Congress will receive the Quesfions Planned for the 2020 Census Program, introducing the questions proposed for the 2020 Census and the ACS before March 31,2018. The Census Bureau will submit the topics included on the 2020 Census and ACS jointly, as ACS will incorporate 2020 Census content beginning in 2019, and the Census of lsland Areas will incorporate a selection of these subjects and questions as well. As preparations begin for the 2020 Census, the content of both operations is jointly considered and finalized. Scope Previous submissions of the documentation regarding subjects and questions included the following information, examples of which can be seen in Appendices A and B: 001168 Subjects Planned Documentation . A brief summary of the data created by each question collected; . An explanation of how the data are currently used to meet federal needs; . A selection of non-federal community uses of the data; and . Selected statutory uses by agency. Questions Planned Documentation . An image of the paper (mailed) version of each question; . A brief summary of the data created by each question collected; . An explanation of how the data are currently used to meet federal needs; and . A selection of non-federal community uses of the data: The documentation submitted in 2017 and 2018 will include the same complement of information. Additionally, although the ACS and 2020 questions differ by response mode, the version highlighted in the question documentation will continue to be the version included on the paper questionnaire. Project Timeline Many stakeholders share an interest in the 2020 Census and ACS content, including federal agencies, federal statistical agencies, state and local governments, those who will respond to the 2020 Census and ACS, academia, businesses, nonprofit organizations, media, data users, and oversight groups. The Census Bureau will develop this documentation through a process that is clear and transparent to all stakeholders, and offer opportunities for input to be provided and considered throughout the process. The table below contains a timeline for this document development, as well as opportunities for stakeholders to comment on proposed content.l Planned Activity Phase Planned Activity Timeline 1 I nform/Create General Awareness March 2016-August 2016 2 FederalAgencies are lnvited to Provide Updates to Federal Use Documentation March 2016-June 2016 3 lncorporate Feedback May 201 6-September 201 6 4 Develop Topic Submission October 201 6-December 201 6 5 Provide Updates and Conduct Briefings January 2017-March2017 6 Final lopics Planned document available No later than March 31,2017 7 Follow-up with Federal Agencies about Federal Use Documentation as needed March 2017-June 2017 B Federal Register notice of Public Comment July 2017 -September 201 7 t Th""" dates are intended to show the planned phases in the development of this documentation, though actual dates may be subject to change. 001169 Planned Activity Period (proposed changes to ACS) (60 days) Federal Register notice of Public Comment Period ll (ACS submission) December 2017-January 201 B (30 days) Submit lnformation Collection Request (lCR) to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (proposed changes to ACS) Federal Register notice Public Comment Period (proposed content for 2020 Census) January 2018 (60 days) 12 Federal Regisfer notice Public Comment Period ll (2020 Census submission) August 201 B-September 201 (30 days) 13 Submit lnformation Collection Request (lCR) to OMB under the Papenruork Reduction Act (proposed content for 2020 Census) September 2018 14 Provide Updates and Conduct Briefings January 2018-March 2018 15 Final Quesfions Planned document available No later than March 31,2018 Phase o 10 11 Planned Activity Timeline May 2018-July 2018 B FederalAgency lnput The Census Bureau intends to begin developing draft descriptions of each topic and question based on recent information about the federal requirements and uses of Census estimates. The current uses received from federal agency contacts as part of the 2014 ACS Content Review, as well as informational materials (FAQs, current question versions2, etc.) are posted with this memorandum at htto://www.census.qov/proqrams-survevs/decennial-census/2020census/planninq-manaqemenVmemo-series.html. Federal agencies with known uses of the 2020 Census or ACS content, and select other agencies, will receive a letter with instructions for how federal data users may provide updates to the documentation of data uses. Responses should be received before July 1, 2016. Census Bureau staff may follow-up with federal users directly if more clarification is required. Members of the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) lnteragency Committee on the ACS and lnteragency Committee on Statistical Policy Subcommittee on the ACS will be notified about this effort and encouraged to collaborate within their agencies on confirming existing uses, or submitting corrections and additions. Though this initial effort will take place in 2016, additional follow-up may be needed in 2017 if changes to the content warrant another check-in with agencies. Additionally, all interested stakeholders will be able to comment on the Federal Register notices related to proposed changes in the content. 2 Federal agency contacts should be aware that the topics and questions provided reflect past topics and questions (i.e., the topics and questions may change between the information gathering process and the final submission of the content). 001170 Content Determination This process assumes that there will be changes to the ACS content and that the 2020 Census content may also feature new or different questions. The development of this content, including proposals for new questions, will continue to follow the normal content development process (outside the scope of the development of the subjects and questions submission). However, it is important to note that these processes offer opportunities for all stakeholders to comment on the proposed subjects and questions. ln general, proposed changes to questions, proposed by federal agencies through OMB, must demonstrate a clear need for data at the geographic levels provided by the 2020 Census or ACS. OMB, the Census Bureau, and interagency committees (with federal agency representation) consider these proposals, conduct qualitative research and testing, and evaluate the resulting estimates. Final proposed questions are based on the results of extensive cognitive testing, field testing, other ongoing research, and input from advisory committees. To comply with the Papenruork Reduction Act (PRA) and its implementing regulations, the Census Bureau must submit an lnformation Collection Request (lCR) to OMB. This set of documents describes the information needed, why it is needed, how it will be collected, and how much collecting the information will cost the respondents and the government. Before an ICR is submitted, the Census Bureau will publish a Federal Register notice informing the public of an intent to ask for clearance for the collection of information and soliciting comments for a 60 day period. Census Bureau staff then respond to comments received, and make necessary revisions. Whenthefinal ICR is prepared, a second Federal Register notice is published. Thissecond opportunity for public comment notifies the public that the clearance request has been submitted to OMB and they have an opportunity to comment. OMB reviews the ICR and public comments over a 60-day period, and determines whether or not to authorize the change. lCRs for the 2020 Census and ACS are planned for 2018. The ACS submission will include a plan to incorporate questions developed for the 2020 Census along with changes recommended by the 2016 ACS Content Test. Stakeholders will have an opportunity to comment on these potential changes during lhe Federal Register notice comment periods. lf the lCRs are finalized before the March 31,2018 submission to Congress, the Quesfions Planned for the 2020 Census will reflect only content that has been approved by OMB. Alternatively, content that has not been authorized by OMB will be noted as "proposed" in the submission. Final Product The final Sublecfs for the 2020 Census Program and Quesfions for the 2020 Census Program documents will be printed and submitted to Congress. Additional .pdf versions of these documents and supporting materials will concurrently be made available on the census.gov website, 001171 The 2020 Census Memorandum Series ïhe 2020 Census Memorandum Series documents significant decisions, actions, and accomplishments of the 2020 Census Program for the purpose of informing stakeholders, coordinating interdivisional efforts, and documenting important historical changes. A memorandum generally will be added to this series for any decision that meets the following criteria: 1. A major program-level decision that will affect the overall design or have a significant effect on the 2020 Census operations or systems. 2. A major policy decision or change that will affect the overall design or significantly impact lhe 2020 Census operations or systems. Visit 2020 Census on census.gov to access the Memorandum Series, the 2020 Operational Plan, and other information about preparations for the 2020 Census. 001172 Appendix A: Subjects Planned for the 2010 Census and American Community Survey Federal Legislative and Program Uses (Age) Ã,Gñ .ssåed since f ll$ü il*ÊHFIüIG F$üTRÅL iIEEOñ Âge ¡f ænfal for a*y n¡¡i'r&Ër of Msr,ãl ffigrän-fs tlwt üBrgst ËJnds ff åênrlcgs t* Ëåril&n, $ffidng"ryË åd{.rltfi, riÆmän üf chådþêål*rg ago* ûrtlrË ddar paplhtfun, The üapart*vmnt ef Hduo*tipn u$€sûefiril¡e agedata f* ltstsmda føalloürunttû EtËrtüË. Underfx Vnüwg R¡Shù$ A.rt, ftå datå on pcp*latånn uf voürq ega BrB mry.¡ired tnr legi*latim radis#idtng- The ÐâÞgftrnË{,rl of Vnter*ne Affalrs urea ag*tudevelap *þ mffidatðd stf,tt pHK'tton$ ün *-'ts need forhnspit*k, ntuËnrinshorr-æa çern*lçr*Ês, dtrnitüliäfyserviffi$, årid ûthsrþffiêfitÉforvote¡aR*. C0ttïUilfrY.ËEllEFßT.8 tdu*#[sn Emp&rpn*nü xgç ürë rßåëd targnt ffalnlng prugfreffiË. t* üor¡flSss and scftoçldhtrf# ara sllffid Ê*r¡d+ based tÍÏ mgs dåtâ- Tf-ËËË â"HidË ÐEtn xbcx¡t veHens lor dieaú¡entsged clrlldmlt ønd drlldrËrÌ Equ*t emScymant opprtunltles ãr,e enffiasd usårg data #aut ege. provÌde resorr#,* äft# üsrdÉðt Ë lruprcw äla eduËätlom of awrordually Lñdtrr dirabiÍiüies- ,Lcælions x¡h€rs trrÊs¡ sÕhü*lã sf* nædad, ac ïrËll ns tF¡e r€qs¡lgd gilEds la¡¡e{* {el**renHy, Rnlddle, or high sühoÕÍ¡ æ *den*Iffed us[ng dste eh6uf ägË. üov*rnm*nt Ðæta proær*irq ihe Sockf âsrclef* Age *åfå æ used ùn ftreaÊËt the rrurnbar of æçph eligiblÊ fur SæieÌ See$rity srd Ir¡bdlæm berpftt*. Ûl&r É,møriear¡sl{ct, age daùa sf tl"m funrruüa used tû aüocats fu¡rds fgr rerriçs$ t* sËníor$ witlr lun¡ UndEr the wtãngr'age Fo*uktlorr am used hy rtatæ* to r*aet Negü$lãtfue *edüetdsting, rë{gJlr€n!ånb. Ftgnr¡edË at all lavels of govemrnnt forecast l¡ighwayc, thç flcõd fs þ *re perË inopmea. ten¡hs*- and mffmm*nt hor-ne* by udng *ge dak. hCIepltale, heaüFr 001173 Å'* tr,:l*ft tçl ¡:i¡¡cs T${JIJ gË¡-EtTË* STJhruT' gHY U8E# f;Þ{¡*ÂTl0l{,,0**"**o0"""".6È,r,!,,iù,i,,,rçe,"o"""o.o*.oiìro**.,,*.0,íÍ}divtduaklryi*t Fis*dlil¡Ëa ËdumlhnrAd l?'S Ll.*,t" t411{e[ ü*¡rytsrgS, tuh*haptçrlü* Vu*sffinul,ãrd Têühnirål E&¡üãtåGn, Asr*stasm tû th* $.tatsç U,.g.S. 2$2r(sXgXA], [ä0 {F}" & tG} snd zãTä{a}}, Sshml 4*,Wark SBpo,rtt¡nlüsa Ad pü u.&.s"&1*s &ü{rr, thaptar ffi, Sub*Ètaplur *É-Ftrt ffi æd St¡bWer U{l fi#Ë üi*crir'n&nstftrn gnd Ërrrpkïrnãr* åüt li$ L,[,H,t"#æ &ËSffiffi tFR "fiäS.T{c}} *".,,." **H8.."""..,. ..",.. ffiden*m*$eans ånt l.J,s.t. 3{mË{seþ{3t}, sûffi{al{t}B} e F}{E}, md fltãE{afi{}!, F*ä FUHåc Få;afill Sar*tæåd Frä u,$.Ê. âr4.b{b}{åx4} e {*}, 2$4Eb} * td} * 2f;4f-{i, Lffi,-{nÕeË-e fitaru ËrargX¡ å*cBÞnæ Fmgmrn {L}HËAF} f42 U.S-.t. üôÊfr*, e Fl{Ê}-e¡d 8tËãtl{}} HUæ.......".. ,...tomru¡¡rdty Þawlcprtmnt Ðftük $îËnrt {fr6ffi} Prrngnnn {42 [.].s.t. $sûâ{rufl&fl Ð]Ft¡il JåHIÏçß Vollng Rfgfrta A¡*-H{llngn¡al Hlec$o* Rsqru{mmEmk [49 U.S;Ð. l8l8aa-{a;3t ÐFR Fart ã#1, û,lvil Rlghta Aet {Unlantuü Ër*pfoyrnant Ëra*!eao} F42 U.s^C" ffiffþþq LåmR*.. ". IfA""..""".."." Wnrftkn* lnpefrüïent ånt üf 'lggg {F.L l0$-ru, SËË. Xt{a}l ."....,...."-8htã FndedonadVeþrsn Popr¡lEftorl [$ü, u"s,ü. tli,t{1} e eÌS4{n}tä}!, Veúpraft* ãsnafte lrnptairsmam Å* TBg [J.Ë.C" Sif å S1$, t*ra@r tJ, tlûsåËtr Frugram P8 U.S.ü. {t0fiÅ{efi{}, {ftapüEr4{} fiHraåled Vetersns ;{Ëffi Thãe*ü*trÉöryn}åülmrs lem*ptilnmed lû tltr¡söB*üönTFr,ÈtËnäñrç ffi" l¡¡ûrkþ urd*n*ayætth oüwr Fadtrd ryndæ b n¡ogt wnçntatghiügff tËå+Ê*#p€ftifrg g*sr mlsÇÉnrui gs f,¡r*-ricsn up*ared il*lr*,iilùs tndsdæd tn tha h,lamhåû{ü suhil*dan af *¡n*fun* &Ê!lfiç GamxnmlS $umeyqun*Hon. *r F{en¡ed rfu flrÊ ?{If0 Gena¡s snd Anmn'can C{rnrnunrfy &rrwy, Appendix B: Questions Planned for the 2010 Census and American Community Survey 001174 Federal Legislative and Program Uses (Age) åüE rsftsdsins* l$sü ? ïrffi* Flc*ut it msrs rÌpsrieffi Égrsnì{sf l,so ng+¡nlt utrd þ ff qgg f *rmn,llc d&sf HÉffr {rw È ffi #ürÌ t }ffir #" Blef¡lfæ Filrf¡smfrÊtr¡ffi r} IMt nry ilETilHç Yesrdt*fi frEDs Age is crntral far any number {rf federa[ Fft]grã¡f]s t*rat targrt funds nrsfrvi{Ës ¡ä chi,ldren, vrcrftingrage ndults, $mmÊn nf chifdbrarigg ilgÊF Ðr the clder pcpufatisn- The Ðepartmr*t sf Edr¡c*tisn r¡:ðs de!Ìsus agr dat'¿ $n Íts formula fËr xÌlotrnent to states. Under the 1l*ting ftigå*s Åct, .the det¿ sn fopnlation of vnting åg€ ãË€ req*$ned for kgixlatîve redistrictir'rg" The u"å. Depar,tment ef Veter¿n* Åffairs üfÊE age t* devdap it* mmdated xtate prcjertions sfl the need fEr haspit*k* nurrimç hon+er, cerueteries, h,I F'ËÐFR.AL þ} ds,mjriliäry service¡* and u#rer henefÍta f,nr r¡etnran¡.. CTþI M {.JNITY td:¡cati*n [qurTt¡e¡ ar¡d srhcol distrirts are sllsned funds besed un age data. Th*.s fun& prorride resnurres and r*svicx* to irnpr*nr tke edusatisn c¡f ecçnur-nirslly disadvantaçed children and chÊ[drçn r[rith disabilities" Lo{ations wh*re new s{hosk are needed, ss r¡ye[] as the requir*d grade lsvels {elemrr,*øry middk, or high xchaoll, arr Fdentified r*síng data nbsut frmpitaho healdt *ervires, and r€llræmËrfi hcrfies by using age da'H" Ë¡aplayrnsrt *ata abs¡f ag€ ilrË ¡¡sed tÕ'target ver*rãns fur job trainlng prìüg['¡rri]E. Equal,ernpl*ymrnt üppürBinitirs ¿rr snfarcd usÈag e*ata abaut agt. Ëor{d f;üwicrs forer¡:f Åg¡* data *re used to Ëhe nurnber nf peogla eligible f,er SÐcial Sec*¡rity a¡rd h{edirnre b*nefrts" agfe. üov*rnn*cùlt Data pn*senting th€ \¡st$Hg-üg€ pryulation are used by states tû rneÊt legisEatiue redistricting requirern*nts" Pìanners *t ¡ll le*¡eh uf gnvemm,ent fq¡r'paast Bflh¡ËFITS the nted f-,t*r under the Õ{der Am*ricans Act, açe drt¿ are par:t cf'the furmula *sed t* alNocate funds fur, srrvices tc,senisr¡ with lsw incmrer- hþhways- 001175 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economics and Statistics Administration U.S. Census Bureau Office of the Director Washington. DC 20233?0001 FEB 2 7 2018 The Honorable Barbara Comstock Member, US. House of Representatives 21430 Cedar Drive, Suite 218 Sterling, VA 20164 Dear Representative Comstock: Thank you for your staff? 3 February 6, 2018 inquiry on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Todd Cimino-Johnson, regarding the Department of Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. We contacted Mr. Cimino-Johnson and addressed his concerns. The US. Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high- quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. Thank you for bring this matter to our attention. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please contact our Of?ce of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs at 301 -763-61 00. Sincerely, 2V Ron S. Jarmin Performing the Non-Exclusive Functions and Duties of the Director CUnited States" ensus Bureau 001 17gensus. gov UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economics and Statistics Administration U.S. Census Bureau Office of the Director Washington, DC 20233?0001 FEB 2 7 2018 Mr. Todd Cimino-Johnson 775 Gateway Drive, SE Leesburg, VA 20175 Dear Mr. Cimino-Johnson: Thank you for your recent inquiry to Representative Barbara Comstock regarding the Department of Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. We appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The U.S. Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a ?ill, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high- quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please contact our Of?ce of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs at 301-763-6100. Sincerely, 73V Ron S. Jarmin Performing the Non-Exclusive Functions and Duties of the Director CUnited States? ensus Bureau 001 177census. gov CJanitro ~tarts ~matt . WASHINGTON. DC 205.10 February 27, 2018 VIA ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION The Honorable Wilbur Ross Secretary U.S. Department of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 Dear Secretary Ross: We are writing to request that you instruct the Census Bureau to add-a questTon regarding citizenship to the 2020 decennial census. 1 It's essential that we have an accl,lrate assessment of our population in order to administer laws such as the Voting Rights Act, and·the I 0 year censu5 provides the most precise assessment available. As you know, the Census Bureau already collects citizenship information in the annual American Community Survey (ACS),2 which is a roJling census introduced in 2005 to collect the same information previously gathered by the "long·fonn" census.l It goes out to 3.5 million households every year and according to your organization it is "the premier source for detailed population and housing information about our nation.,,.. Nonetheless, some are upset about the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the census. They claim that it will deter immigrants from answering honestly and will jeopardize the accuracy of the results. s We have never Jleard such criticism about the ACS questions on citizenship. · Your web site makes it clear that individual responses on the ACS can't be shared with anyone: ''not the IRS, not the FBI, not the CIA, and not with any other government agency.'16 You also make it clear that the larger body of census data is protected, and that "[v]iolating the confidentiality of a [census] respondent is a federal crime with serious penalties, including a federal prison sentence of up to five years, a fine of up to $250,000, or both.'t7 To d,ate, these 1 See Ltr. From Arthur E. Gary to Dr. Ron Jannin (Dec. 12, 2017) https://www.documentcloud.org/documcrits/434065 l-Text·of-Dec-20 I 7-DOJ-letter-to-Census.htm l 2 See, e.g., "Voting Age by Population and Race" https://www.census.gov/rdo/data/voting_agc_population_by_citizcnship_and_rac:e_cvap.html. l ACS, "Design and Methodology Report," https://www.ccnsus.gov/programs-.surveyslacs/methodology/design-and-rnetbodology.htm I. 4 See .. American Community Survey (ACS)" https:/Jwww.census.gov/programs.surveys/acs/. 5 See, e.g., Ur from Congresspersons Scrrana and Meng to Sec'y Ross (undated) https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/43.43863-FlNAL-Ccnsus-Lcttcr-to-Secretary-Wilbur-Ross.html. 6 ACS, "Why We Ask Questions About ... Place ofBirth, Citizenship, Year ofEntry" https:/Jwww.census.go.v/acs/www/about/why-w«Hsk-each-questionlcitizenship/. 7 U.S. Census Bureau, .. Data Protection and Privacy," https://www.census.gov/about/policies/privacy/data_protection/our_privacy_principles.html. 1 001178 assurances appear to have satisfied ACS respondents; there is no evidence that asking about citizenship reduces responses or otherwise limits the utility of that particular survey. We have yet to see any credible evidence that immigrants wouldn't be equally comforted by the stronger assurances regarding responses provided for the 10 year census. The most important difference between the ACS and the decennial census is the size of the population studied. The decennial census is both larger (in that it counts every resident in the United States) and more precise (in that it calculates results down to the size of individual census blocks). 8 The much smaller ACS samples approximately one tenth of the U.S. population, it calculates results only down to the census block group level, and of course, any statistical model based solely on a sample of the overall population is subject to the inevitable "sampling error." In short, the decennial census provides the most true and accurate.pi~ture of our overall population, and its relevant characteristics. The Department of Justice has indicated that it requires the more precise and granular data provided by the decennial census in order to best administer the Voting Rights Act. That enforcement is within their purview, and we see no reason not to defer to their analysis in this case. We hope that we will see a question regarding citizenship when you repo·rt your final census to Congress on March 31, 2018. S~ncerely, Tom Cotton Ted Cruz United States Senator United States Senator James M. Inhofe United States Senator 3 See generally U.S. Census Bureau, "What we·Do" https://www.census.gov/about/what.html 2 001179 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce . Washington, D.C. 20230 March 19, 2018 The Honorable Tom Cotton United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator Cotton: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I have conducted a rigorous review and produced a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate, and I have put into place the people, processes, and programs necessary to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 001180 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 March 19,2018 The Honorable Ted Cruz United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator Cruz: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I have conducted a rigorous review and produced a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate, and I have put into place the people, processes, and programs necessary to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at rnplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, w~~. Wilbur Ross I I I I I 001181 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE .The Secretary of Commerce. Washington, D.C. 20230 March 19,2018 The Honorable James M. Inhofe United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator Inhofe: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of .Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,.2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I have conducted a rigorous review and produced a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate; and I have put into place the people, processes, and programs necessary to ensure. strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census, We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 001182 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 27, 2018 Barbara A. Anderson, Ph.D. Chair, Census Scientific Advisory Committee Ronald A. Freedman Collegiate Professor of Sociology and Population Studies University of Michigan 500 South State Street Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1382 Dear Dr. Anderson: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecyc1e cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Thank you again for your letter. We appreciate your thoughtful input. u~ Wilbur Ross 001183 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 27, 2018 Barbara Buttenfield, Ph.D. Professor of Geography University of Colorado GUGG 110, 260 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0260 Dear Dr. Buttenfie1d: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me.aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecyc1e cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Thank you again for your letter. We appreciate your thoughtful input. Sincerely, ()~~ Wilbur Ross 001184 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 27,2018 Peter W. Glynn, Ph.D. Thomas W. Ford Professor of Engineering Stanford University Huang Engineering Center 359A Stanford, CA 94305 Dear Dr. Glynn: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lif~cycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Thank you again for your letter. We appreciate your thoughtful input. Sincerely, W~~ Wilbur Ross 001185 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 27,2018 D. Sunshine Hillygus, Ph.D. Professor of Political Science Director, Duke Initiative on Survey Methodology Duke University 203 Gross Hall - Box 90204 Durham, NC 27708 Dear Dr. Hillygus: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Thank you again for your letter. We appreciate your thoughtful input. Sincerely, UJk.~ Wilbur Ross 001186 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 27,2018 Juan Pablo Hourcade, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Computer Science University oflowa 14 MacLean Hall Iowa City, IA 52242 Dear Dr. Hourcade: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31,2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Thank you again for your letter. We appreciate your thoughtful input. Sincerely, CJ~~ Wilbur Ross 001187 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 27,2018 Ms. Kathryn Pettit Senior Research Associate Metropolitan Housing and Communities Policy Center The Urban Institute 2100 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20037Dear Ms. Pettit: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my -highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Thank you again for your letter. We appreciate your thoughtful input. Sincerely, LJ~ Wilbur Ross 001188 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 27,2018 Allison Plyer, ScD Chief Demographer The Data Center at Nonprofit Knowledge Works 1600 Constance Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Dear Dr. Plyer: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1,2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, process~s, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Thank you again for your letter. We appreciate your thoughtful input. Sincerely, CJ~rL Wilbur Ross 001189 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington. D.C. 20230 February 27, 2018 Roberto Rigobon, Ph.D. Society of Sloan Fellows Professor of Applied Economics MIT Sloan School of Management 100 Main Street, Building E62, Room E62-515 Cambridge, MA 02139 Dear Dr. Rigobon: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Thank you again for your letter. We appreciate your thoughtful input. Sincerely, Wilbur Ross 001190 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 27, 2018 Andrew Samwick, Ph.D. Professor of Economics Director, The Nelson A. Rockefeller Center Dartmouth College 6082 Rockefeller Hall Hanover, NH 03755 Dear Dr. Samwick: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycIe cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Thank you again for your letter. We appreciate your thoughtful input. Sincerely, U~~ Wilbur Ross 001191 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 February 21,2018 Mr. Kenneth D. Simonson Chief Economist The Associated General Contractors of America 2300 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 300 Arlington, VA 22201 Dear Mr. Simonson: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a full, fair, and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I reported back to Congress last October after I conducted a rigorous deep dive to produce a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate as well as a thorough review of Census programming and financial management. I have assembled a multidisciplinary team to address and remedy concerns expressed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional members. In addition, I have put into place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Thank you again for your letter. We appreciate your thoughtful input. Sincerely, LJ~~ Wilbur Ross 001192 0? - UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE . Economics and Statistics Administration U.S. Census Bureau Office of the Director Washington. DC 20233-0001 February 28, 2018 The Honorable Jon Tester United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator Tester: Thank you for your staff? 3 recent inquiry regarding the Department of Justice?s request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. We appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The US. Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of ustice?s request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 Census. A high- quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please contact our Of?ce of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs at 301-763-6100. Sincerely, 73V Ron S. Jannin Performing the Non-Exclusive Functions and Duties of the Director CUnited States? ensus Bureau 001 19gensusgov PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT As part of his decision-making process, Secretary Ross spoke to a number of different stakeholders about the Department of Justice’s request to reinstate the citizenship question on the 2020 Decennial. These notes attempt to memorialize those conversations. These are not verbatim transcripts and each summary reflects the recollections of attendees from the Department of Commerce. Every effort has been made to ensure these notes are an accurate reflection of Secretary Ross’s conversations with stakeholders. Senator Brian Schatz (D. HI) On February 28, 2018, Secretary Ross and members of his staff spoke to Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii. Secretary Ross thanked Senator Schatz for helping confirm Assistant Secretary Jacobs and noted the importance of a continued positive relationship between NOAA and the State of Hawaii. Senator Schatz stated that he was concerned about the potential addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 Decennial Census primarily on the ground that the question had never been asked before. Secretary Ross explained the process through which the potential addition of a new question was considered and reassured the Senator that process was underway. Secretary Ross also corrected the Senator’s misperception about the question’s novelty, noting that variations of the question were included on the Decennial Census from 1820 through 1950, and that citizenship questions were also included on the American Community Survey. Secretary Ross asked the Senator whether he had any concerns that were unique to the State of Hawaii, and Senator Schatz responded that he did not. Senator Schatz thanked the Secretary for his time and careful consideration of the question, and the call concluded.  The question has never been asked 001194 A nyc V votes Voter Assistance Advisory Committee 100 Church Street. 12'" Floor New York. NY 10007 tel 212.409.1800 I www.nyccfb.lnfo/nycvotes o March 6, 20Ul f"1 >c f"1 The Honorable Wilbur Ross Secretary of Commerce U.S. Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Avenue NW Washington, DC 20230 n c:: ::! < f"1 N g: n ;Q f"1 ;;;! ::!? ;::; w o N Dear Secretary Ross: I am chair of the New York City Voter Assistance Advisory Committee (VAAC), an arm of the New York City Campaign Finance ~oard, an independent agency of the City of New York. I write on behalf of the VAAC to oppose the recent request by the Departmen(of Justice to add a question on citizenship to the questionnaire for the 2020 Census. The VAAC is mandated by the New York City Charter to encourage and facilitate voter registration ,and votil).gby all residents of New York City. Specifically, we are required by the Charter to identify groups who are underrepresented among those who are registered and voting, and to work to increase participation by these residents in the democratic process. With plarining for the 2020 Census. nearly complete, no question regarding citizenship has been tested or made available for public review. We are concemedthat asking respondents to report their citizenship status will significantly depress participation by these underrepresented groups in the Census, resulting in a population undercount. The undercount will disproportionately harm underrepresented groups, their neighborhoods, and our entire city. It will threaten the representation in Congress of communities that are already underrepresented and who we are mandated to serve. The Census Bureau is obligated under the Constitution to determine "the whole number of persons in each state." This predictable, preventable undercount will represent a failure to discharge the Bureau's Constitutional mandate. In addition, the JusticeDepartment's request for this data as necessary to ensure compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is not accurate. The V pting Rights Act was enacted to protect fair and effective representation for all communities, and collecting citizenship information will actually undermine this goal. Gommunities that are undercounted will be deprived of their fair representation when legislative seats are apportioned and district .lines drawn. 001195 Secretary Ross Page 2 March 2, 2018 Fair, accurate electoral representation depends on valid Census data. Adding a citizenship question would defeat that goal, violate the Constitution, and undermine the purposes of the Voting Rights Act. We urge you to reject the Justice Department's request. Sincerely, Naomi B. Zauderer Chair Cc: Committee Members 001196 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington. D.C. 202:;30 March 23,2018 Ms. Naomi B. Zauderer Voter Assistance Advisory Committee NYC Votes 100 Church Street, 12th Floor New York, NY 1007 Dear Ms. Zauderer: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate you taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I have conducted a rigorous review and produced a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate, and I now have in place the people, processes, and programs to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please .contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, u~Clo-Wilbur Ross 001197 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT As part of his decision-making process, Secretary Ross spoke to a number of different stakeholders about the Department of Justice’s request to reinstate the citizenship question on the 2020 Decennial. These notes attempt to memorialize those conversations. These are not verbatim transcripts and each summary reflects the recollections of attendees from the Department of Commerce. Every effort has been made to ensure these notes are an accurate reflection of Secretary Ross’s conversations with stakeholders. Senator Tom Carper (D. DE) On March 12, 2018, Secretary Ross and members of his staff spoke to Senator Carper and two members of his staff – Brian Papp and Richard Colley. The Senator thanked Secretary Ross for the opportunity to discuss DOJ’s request to reinstate a citizenship question on the Decennial Census. The Senator noted that as a Senator from a single district state, he does not share concerns about redistricting that members of Congress from other states may have. Senator Carper noted that his concerns focused on Delaware’s economy and its ability to remain competitive in business. Senator Carper then noted that the position of Census Director was vacant, but that he believed that the Acting Director and Acting Deputy Director were both well regarded and that “everyone loves” them. He further noted that Secretary Ross knew them well and hoped he would consider them to be permanent candidates for the positions. Senator Carper offered to work with the Secretary to help Dr. Jarmin and Dr. Lamas through the confirmation process by promptly holding hearings (he sits on the Committee with jurisdiction over the confirmation process) and moving their nominations forward. Senator Carper then referenced the joint letter he sent with Senator Feinstein on January 5, 2018, expressing concern about reinstating the citizenship question. His main concern, however, was with the negative effect on the Non-Response Follow-Up operation (NRFU), which historically has had a low response rate. Overall the Senator shared his support for an accurate census. He asked that the Secretary consider that adding a new question requires months of testing, cost overrun implications, and should seek a better return on response rates than having to enumerate. The call ended with the Senator stressing the importance of getting the census “done right.”     Lower response rate/higher NRFU Acting leadership Testing Higher costs 001198 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT As part of his decision-making process, Secretary Ross spoke to a number of different stakeholders about the Department of Justice’s request to reinstate the citizenship question on the 2020 Decennial. These notes attempt to memorialize those conversations. These are not verbatim transcripts and each summary reflects the recollections of attendees from the Department of Commerce. Every effort has been made to ensure these notes are an accurate reflection of Secretary Ross’s conversations with stakeholders. Senator Tom Cotton (R. AR) On March 12, 2018, Secretary Ross and members of his staff spoke with Senator Cotton of Arkansas. Senator Cotton stated that he supports the reinstatement of a citizenship question on the 2020 Decennial Census. He said that such a question is necessary in order to ensure that DOJ has sufficiently accurate data to enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Senator Cotton also stated that such a question was not unprecedented. He noted that the question appeared on the Decennial Census until 1950 and that a citizenship question is currently included in the ACS survey. Senator Cotton stated that he believed the data would be more precise and accurate if it was collected through the Decennial Census. Senator Cotton indicated that he believed the Census Bureau makes clear that any answers collected from respondents would not be shared with law enforcement. Senator Cotton noted that the reinstatement of the question was a common sense call. When asked about concerns unique to Arkansas, Senator Cotton stated that there are two communities that may be impacted by the reinstatement of a citizenship question: (1) Marshallese Islanders who live in Arkansas and (2) the poultry producers in Arkansas who rely on immigrant workers. Senator Cotton’s point about Marshallese Islanders focused more on their “hard-to-count” status than on the citizenship question itself. Senator Cotton thanked Secretary Ross for taking the time to discuss the census with him, and the call concluded.     Accurate data for enforcement of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act Question has been asked in the past Accurate data Question is already asked in other surveys 001199 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT As part of his decision-making process, Secretary Ross spoke to a number of different stakeholders about the Department of Justice’s request to reinstate the citizenship question on the 2020 Decennial. These notes attempt to memorialize those conversations. These are not verbatim transcripts and each summary reflects the recollections of attendees from the Department of Commerce. Every effort has been made to ensure these notes are an accurate reflection of Secretary Ross’s conversations with stakeholders. Senator Ted Cruz (R. TX) On March 12, 2018, Secretary Ross and members of his staff spoke to Senator Ted Cruz. The Senator thanked the Secretary for his time and noted that he sent a letter supporting DOJ’s request to reinstate the citizenship question to the Decennial Census. The Senator stated that it makes sense to ask a citizenship question and that granting DOJ’s request would be a good decision. Senator Cruz noted that the citizenship question was immensely important for many public policy questions including social services, welfare, education, voting, and others. He believes that accurate data enables policymakers to make better policy decisions. Senator Cruz also noted that there was a lot of variance in the estimates provided on citizen voting age population. Senator Cruz stated that he did not believe that interest groups opposing the question on the ground that it would discourage participation was based in fact. Senator Cruz noted that the American Community Survey (ACS) contains a citizenship question and that the Census Bureau has long collected citizenship information. Senator Cruz discounted the risk of litigation, stating that the attorneys general who provided their views on the reinstatement of a citizenship question would not necessarily litigate if the question is added. Senator Cruz next noted that sound public policy mandates the ability to determine who lives in a country, and that it is important to maintain accurate data about this. Senator Cruz noted that there have often been political differences over the census. For example, some believe that the Census Bureau should rely more on statistical sampling. Senator Cruz has significant concerns about statistical sampling since it can be manipulated. Senator Cruz referenced a prior conversation with the Secretary about the Census Bureau but he did not provide details. Senator Cruz noted that the Secretary was given the responsibility by the Constitution to collect accurate data, and the data is less than accurate now. Senator Cruz stated that if the Secretary reinstated the citizenship question on the Decennial Census, he would be on a firm foundation to do so.     Accuracy Need for citizen voting age population Will not decrease response rate Improves public policy decisions 001200 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT As part of his decision-making process, Secretary Ross spoke to a number of different stakeholders about the Department of Justice’s request to reinstate the citizenship question on the 2020 Decennial. These notes attempt to memorialize those conversations. These are not verbatim transcripts and each summary reflects the recollections of attendees from the Department of Commerce. Every effort has been made to ensure these notes are an accurate reflection of Secretary Ross’s conversations with stakeholders. Attorney General Jim Hood (D. MS) On March 12, 2018, Secretary Ross and his staff spoke with Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood. The Attorney General expressed his appreciation for the opportunity to provide input on the Department of Justice’s request to add the citizenship question to the 2020 Decennial Census. Attorney General Hood noted that he opposed the reinstatement of a citizenship question on the Decennial Census for the reasons set forth in the February 12, 2018 letter that he signed (but did not write). He stated that the intent of the census is to count everyone, and that reinstating the citizenship question may lower response rates. AG Hood expressed concern that a number of migrant workers on sweet potato farms in the hills near Tupelo (in Northeast Mississippi), the sweet potato capital of the world, may be afraid to answer a citizenship question on the 2020 Decennial Census. AG Hood noted that sweet potato farms were a large source of revenue for Mississippi farmers. AG Hood noted that migrants come and go, and in addition to those who may be afraid to answer, some may be merely hesitant. AG Hood noted that he believed that migrants generally hesitate to provide information to the federal government about their immigration status. AG Hood noted that the intent of the census is to count everyone in the state. AG Hood referenced the portion of the February 12 letter that threatened injunctive relief should the Secretary add a citizenship question to the 2020 Decennial Census and noted that he was not sure he would join such a request. He stated that the injunctive relief sentiment seemed to come from the larger states, and that an injunction if granted would tie the issue up in litigation, which would not be good for anyone. AG Hood restated his preference for a simple short form census, and noted that it would be a waste of resources. AG Hood ended the call by thanking Secretary Ross for taking the time to call him on this issue, noting that during his 14 years as Attorney General, he has never known another Secretary who has dedicated as much time to the census. AG Hood noted that it was good for the Secretary to take the time to make calls to stakeholders and assess the risks associated with granting DOJ’s request.    Fear in immigrant community Government mistrust Litigation risk and costs 001201 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT As part of his decision-making process, Secretary Ross spoke to a number of different stakeholders about the Department of Justice’s request to reinstate the citizenship question on the 2020 Decennial. These notes attempt to memorialize those conversations. These are not verbatim transcripts and each summary reflects the recollections of attendees from the Department of Commerce. Every effort has been made to ensure these notes are an accurate reflection of Secretary Ross’s conversations with stakeholders. Senator Ron Johnson (R. WI) On March 12, 2018, Secretary Ross and members of his staff spoke with Senator Johnson of Wisconsin. Senator Johnson stated that he supports the reinstatement of a citizenship question to the 2020 Decennial Census. He noted that the question would be helpful in making determinations about federal welfare benefits and voting rights. Senator Johnson noted that there would likely be political pushback if the citizenship question is reinstated, and he noted that he expected the Department and the Census Bureau to be able to answer questions about how the Census Bureau planned to conduct a full enumeration if the citizenship question is reinstated on the Decennial Census. Senator Johnson noted that he was considering holding a hearing to discuss and better understand the facts supporting reinstatement, should the Secretary exercise his discretion to reinstate the question. When asked about concerns unique to Wisconsin, Senator Johnson noted that the dairy industry in Wisconsin relies on immigrant workers. Senator Johnson also raised the issue of steel tariffs and the potential impact of those tariffs in Wisconsin. Senator Johnson thanked Secretary Ross for taking the time to discuss the census with him, and the call concluded.   Improves public policy decisions Complete enumeration 001202 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT As part of his decision-making process, Secretary Ross spoke to a number of different stakeholders about the Department of Justice’s request to reinstate the citizenship question on the 2020 Decennial. These notes attempt to memorialize those conversations. These are not verbatim transcripts and each summary reflects the recollections of attendees from the Department of Commerce. Every effort has been made to ensure these notes are an accurate reflection of Secretary Ross’s conversations with stakeholders. Attorney General Jeff Landry (R. LA) On March 12,2018, Secretary Ross and members of his staff spoke to Attorney General Jeff Landry of Louisiana. The AG thanked the Secretary for taking the time to speak about DOJ’s request to add the citizenship question to the Decennial Census. The AG noted that his views supporting reinstatement of a citizenship question on the Decennial Census were set forth and best stated in the February 8, 2018 letter he sent to the Secretary. AG Landry noted that states have a lot of flexibility when it comes to redistricting, and having accurate data about citizen voting age population would better inform the state legislatures charged with carrying out the task of redistricting. AG Landry further noted his belief that the average resident on the streets of Louisiana believed that the census should ask about citizenship and that it was a no brainer. AG Landry stated that inclusion of the question would not be unprecedented. He noted that the following state attorneys general likely shared his view that the Secretary should reinstate a citizenship question on the 2020 Decennial Census: Steve Marshall (AL), Tim Fox (MT), Derek Schmidt (KS), and Doug Peterson (NE). AG Landry further noted that the Solicitor General of Texas also likely supported reinstatement of the question while Attorney General Rutledge of Arkansas seemed opposed to reinstating the citizenship question but had taken the matter under advisement.    Question has been asked in the past Need for citizen voting age population Fairer redistricting 001203 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT As part of his decision-making process, Secretary Ross spoke to a number of different stakeholders about the Department of Justice’s request to reinstate the citizenship question on the 2020 Decennial. These notes attempt to memorialize those conversations. These are not verbatim transcripts and each summary reflects the recollections of attendees from the Department of Commerce. Every effort has been made to ensure these notes are an accurate reflection of Secretary Ross’s conversations with stakeholders. Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D. NY) On March 12, 2018, Secretary Ross and members of his staff spoke to Representative Maloney. The Congresswoman thanked the Secretary for his time and noted that she looked forward to receiving responses to the questions she submitted after her October 2017 hearing. She stated that she appreciated the Secretary’s commitment to a full and accurate census, but noted that she opposed any late changes to the questions on the 2020 Decennial Census questionnaire. Congresswoman Maloney further stated that she feared that undocumented immigrants would not answer the questions if asked for citizenship status. She noted that she understood that the Secretary would need to make his decision about which questions appeared on the Decennial Census questionnaire by March 31. Congresswoman Maloney noted that new questions are usually tested and expressed concern that the addition of any new presumably untested citizenship question would be counterproductive. Congresswoman Maloney described the perceived fear of deportation in the immigrant community. Congresswoman Maloney discussed the need to zero in on getting a permanent Director and a Deputy Director at the Census Bureau. She encouraged the Secretary and Under Secretary Kelley to put lots of effort into the search and to work with the acting Director and Deputy Director, both of whom have impressed the Congresswoman. Congresswoman Maloney suggested that maybe the two acting officials should be made permanent, but that there had been no recommendation to do so to date. Congresswoman Maloney next discussed the status of hiring partnership specialists, and the Secretary informed her that he had hired 1,000, which is 200 more than in 2010. Congresswoman Maloney then reiterated her concern that the census should not contain a citizenship question due to high levels of government mistrust. She further noted that she expected there would be lots of pushback if a citizenship question is reinstated on the Decennial Census. Congresswoman Maloney discussed the importance of the 2nd Avenue subway in New York and plans for public-private partnerships to move the project forward. The Secretary recommended she speak with Secretary Chao because transportation projects are generally the purview of the Department of Transportation.      Lower response rate Testing Government mistrust Acting leadership Partnership specialists 001204 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT As part of his decision-making process, Secretary Ross spoke to a number of different stakeholders about the Department of Justice’s request to reinstate the citizenship question on the 2020 Decennial. These notes attempt to memorialize those conversations. These are not verbatim transcripts and each summary reflects the recollections of attendees from the Department of Commerce. Every effort has been made to ensure these notes are an accurate reflection of Secretary Ross’s conversations with stakeholders. Attorney General Tom Miller (D. IA) On March 12, 2018, Secretary Ross and his staff spoke with Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller. The Attorney General stated his opposition to the addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 Decennial Census. He discussed the importance of the census and Iowa’s reliance on its results with total and absolute credibility. His objection to the addition of the question centers around “the human nature of immigrants,” and he noted that immigrants feel a significant amount of anxiety about answering this question. They fear giving information to the federal government. The Attorney General also expressed concern about the lack of testing for a citizenship question. He noted the requirement that there be testing on new questions. And he also noted that there are other ways that DOJ may be able to get citizenship information and conjectured as to whether the information is actually critical. During the call, Attorney General Miller noted his appreciation of the President’s support for DACA reform.    Fear in immigrant community Government mistrust Testing 001205 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT As part of his decision-making process, Secretary Ross spoke to a number of different stakeholders about the Department of Justice’s request to reinstate the citizenship question on the 2020 Decennial. These notes attempt to memorialize those conversations. These are not verbatim transcripts and each summary reflects the recollections of attendees from the Department of Commerce. Every effort has been made to ensure these notes are an accurate reflection of Secretary Ross’s conversations with stakeholders. Dr. Steven Camarota, Director of Research for the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) On March 13, 2018, Secretary Ross and members of his staff spoke with Dr. Steven Camarota, Director of Research for the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS). Dr. Camarota thanked the Secretary for the opportunity to share his thoughts on DOJ’s request to add the citizenship question to the Decennial Census. Dr. Camarota noted that as a general matter, researchers like him want to work with the broadest data sets possible because broader data sets allow for higher quality analysis. Dr. Camarota noted that the ACS data does not provide local block level (CVAP) information, and that this information can only be obtained through the Decennial Census. He believes local level data can serve as a benchmark to compare the accuracy of the data obtained through the ACS. Dr. Camarota also noted that any decrease in response rate resulting from the addition of a citizenship question could be mitigated through surveys. Dr. Camarota stated that local level data is necessary because it can inform a wide range of public policy matters, including voter turnout rate, registration rate, and where to locate polling places. It can also help estimate migration and better understand migration patterns. Dr. Camarota stated that concerns about decreased participation are unfounded and that citizenship questions are currently included on a number of surveys, including the ACS, the Population Survey, and Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP). Dr. Camarota noted that this data is used to research issues like unemployment, welfare, healthcare, and others. Dr. Camarota also noted that although he is aware of a general sentiment that the addition of a citizenship question to the Decennial Census would decrease response rates, he has not seen any evidence to that effect. If the Secretary chooses to add the citizenship question, Dr. Camarota suggested that the monthly current population survey could be used to determine whether it was the addition of that question that caused response rates to decrease or whether response rates had already decreased at the start of the current presidential administration. Finally, Dr. Camarota added that the citizenship question can help localities better plan for the future, and suggested additional data points that could be collected through additional questions about foreign born respondents on future Decennial Censuses.       More data leads to better analysis Current local level data is insufficient Question is already asked in other surveys Will lead to better benchmarking Will not decrease response rate Improves public policy decisions 001206 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT As part of his decision-making process, Secretary Ross spoke to a number of different stakeholders about the Department of Justice’s request to reinstate the citizenship question on the 2020 Decennial. These notes attempt to memorialize those conversations. These are not verbatim transcripts and each summary reflects the recollections of attendees from the Department of Commerce. Every effort has been made to ensure these notes are an accurate reflection of Secretary Ross’s conversations with stakeholders. Vanita Gupta, President & CEO, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights On March 13, 2018, Secretary Ross and members of his staff spoke to Vanita Gupta, President and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. Ms. Gupta thanked the Secretary for the opportunity to share her thoughts and views on the Department of Justice’s request to add the citizenship question to the 2020 Decennial Census. Ms. Gupta stated that she opposed adding the citizenship question to the Decennial Census. Ms. Gupta noted that as the former acting head of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice (which requested the addition of the question in December 2012), she knew personally that the ACS citizenship data on which DOJ has relied to enforce the Voting Rights Act (“VRA”) was sufficient to do so. Ms. Gupta further noted that in her current position, she kept a “close eye” on VRA enforcement litigation and her position is no different today than it was when she served at DOJ Civil Rights. Ms. Gupta next underscored her concern that adding the citizenship question would have a chilling effect on the immigrant population, undermine the efforts of the Census Bureau to conduct a complete and accurate census, lead to expensive litigation, and cause a devastating impact on potential partnership opportunities. She stated her concern that all of these issues would drive up costs. Ms. Gupta believes that conducting a Decennial Census is a non-partisan effort and that good work can be done. Ms. Gupta suggested that the Secretary speak to former Census Directors, and concluded by offering herself as a resource. Ms. Gupta wants to be “all-in” to help conduct a successful census.     ACS data is sufficient Lower response rate Litigation risk and costs Confidentiality concerns 001207 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT As part of his decision-making process, Secretary Ross spoke to a number of different stakeholders about the Department of Justice’s request to reinstate the citizenship question on the 2020 Decennial. These notes attempt to memorialize those conversations. These are not verbatim transcripts and each summary reflects the recollections of attendees from the Department of Commerce. Every effort has been made to ensure these notes are an accurate reflection of Secretary Ross’s conversations with stakeholders. Jerry Howard, CEO the National Association of Homebuilders (NAHB) On March 13, 2018, Secretary Ross and members of his staff spoke Gerald “Jerry” Howard, CEO of the National Association of Home builders (NAHB). Mr. Howard indicated that even though his association does not have a position on DOJ’s request to add a citizenship question to the Decennial Census, his organization wants the census to be transparent and to succeed. Mr. Howard then asked about ongoing lumber negotiations and stated that he would follow up with information from NAHB that will be sent separately to Commerce staff. 001208 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT As part of his decision-making process, Secretary Ross spoke to a number of different stakeholders about the Department of Justice’s request to reinstate the citizenship question on the 2020 Decennial. These notes attempt to memorialize those conversations. These are not verbatim transcripts and each summary reflects the recollections of attendees from the Department of Commerce. Every effort has been made to ensure these notes are an accurate reflection of Secretary Ross’s conversations with stakeholders. Ditas Kitague, California Census Coordinator; Dan Torres, Director of Immigrant Integration On March 13, 2018, Secretary Ross and members of his staff spoke to Ditas Kitague, the California Census Coordinator, and Dan Torres, the Director of Immigrant Integration. Keely Bosler, the Cabinet Secretary to Governor Jerry Brown, was scheduled to join the discussion but was unable to do so. Ms. Kitague and Mr. Torres thanked the Secretary for the opportunity to share their views, and reiterated their commitment to helping the Census Bureau obtain a complete and accurate count of the population. Ms. Kitague noted that this is her third Decennial Census. She noted that California presents significant issues with online self-response because 31 percent of California’s population is considered underconnected or not connected to the internet. Ms. Kitague noted that a telephone response option would be helpful for these groups. Ms. Kitague further noted that she is partnering with the Census Bureau to hire operational support specialists. Regarding the citizenship question, Ms. Kitague was concerned it would have a chilling effect on participation and increasing the undercounted population. She also noted that certain portions of the population in California are generally distrustful of all government agencies. Ms. Kitague noted that certain victims of the California wildfires were reluctant to provide information to the government officials providing relief and aid. Ms. Kitague did not know whether the addition of a citizenship question would amplify this distrust and depress the response rate even further, but she was not aware of any evidence that it would. Ms. Kitague noted that the addition of a citizenship question to the Decennial Census could cause confusion among the 4.7 million Californians (12% of the state’s total population) who live in households where the residents have mixed citizenship status. Ms. Kitague also noted that 10 million Californians (27% of the state’s total population) are foreign born, and of those 10 million approximately 50 percent are naturalized citizens. Mr. Torres noted that Californians were concerned that their response data would not be kept confidential and that concern over the citizenship question is likely exacerbated by Californian’s increasing distrust in government. Mr. Torres then reiterated the example of the difficulties government officials had in obtaining information from victims of the wildfires who needed relief. Mr. Torres also noted that immigrants in particular seemed afraid to seek shelter or aid from government officials.     Confidentiality concerns Lower response rate Government mistrust Confusion in mixed households 001209 I 9i - () " 0 0 / :2.:)" .... '">< == "'" !"1 !"1 n c: M1KE HUNTER ... < !"1 March 13, 2018 ATTORNEY GENERAL Re: Request to Reinstate Citizenship ,." '"~ J::: 5ii !"1 '9 ::!! .::: ~ Question "'= " U'l (") Secretary Wilbur Ross United States Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Ave. NW Washington, D.C., 20233 :ll: .c: on 2020 Census Questionnaire Dear Secretary Ross, As Attorneys General and Governors, we write requesting the Department of Commerce to reintroduce the question asking a person's citizenship in the long form questionnaire for the 2020 Census. Citizenship means something, and statistical information on the state of citizenship in our country is vital to the functioning of our democracy. The lack of reliable data on citizenship degrades each citizen's right to participate in free and fair elections. When legislators determine districts based on population and widlOut access to accurate statistics on citizenship, the result is d,at legally eligible voters may have their voices diluted or distorted. Matters of such constimtional importance should not be unnecessarily imperiled when the solution is as simple as a question on a census form. From 1970 until the 2010 Census, the Census Bureau provided this data by including a citizenship question on its "long form" questionnaire during each decennial census. Since this practice was discontinued in the 2010 Census, state officials have been denied access to equally reliable data. The decennial census is the besr method to collect data about citizenship. It has significant advantages over the method currently used: the American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS, for example, draws data from a significantly smaller sample size: only 1 in every 38 households is selected to participate in the survey. This smaller sample size translates to larger margins of error. Moreover, the ACS data is not temporally consistent with decennial census data. Rather, ACS data is collected over time and only later aggregated into one-year and flve-year estimates. These estimates do not align with tl,e total and voting-age population data from the decennial census. To comply with the Constimtion's one-person, one-vote requirement, States usc the total population data from d,e decennial census. See E,Jellwe! II. Abbot!, 136 S. Ct. 1120 (2016). In the absence of citizenship information derived from the decennial census, state officials must resort to using ACS citizenship estinlates rhat do not match with the total population data provided by the Census. But tl,e ACS data is inferior, because it lacks the scope and level of detail that the decennial census provides. j\nd even if the data wete equally accurate, the ACS data come from surveys conducted at different times than the decennial census data; thus, when legislators need to draw districts that incorporate different data from both surveys, the result contains internal inconsistencies because the data sets do not mesh. This unnecessarily complicates any constitutional analysis and deprives legislators, courts, and citizens of their confidence in the districting process. 313 N,E. 21:)T S'l'HI~f.T• OKI.Il,HOMt\ CITY, OK 73105 •••• "" • (405) 521 ~3921 • FAK: (405) 521-6246 recycled paper 001210 incorporate different data from both surveys, the result contains internal inconsistencies because the data sets do not mesh. This unnecessarily complicates any constitutional analysis and deprives legislators, courts, and citizens of their confidence in the districting process. Adding a citizenship question would also alleviate courts of significant litigation. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act has been interpreted to mandate that redistricting cannot result in racial ''vote dilution," which occurs when a racial minority is improperly deprived of a single-member district in which it could form a majority with the ability to elect the candidate of their choice. Thornburg v. GiNgles, 478 U.S. 30, 50 (1986). Courts have held that the proper metric for determining whether a racial group could constitute a majority in a single member district is the citizen voting-age population. ~es v.Ciry ofParmers BraNch, 586 F.3d 1019, 1023-24 (5th Cir. 2009); Barnett v. Ciry of Chicago, 141 F.3d 699, 704 (7th Cir. 1998); NegroN v. Ciry ofMiomi Beach, 113 F.3d 1563, 1567-69 (11th Cir. 1997); Romero v. PomONa, 883 F.2d 1418, 1426 (9th Cir. 1989), oI/Ctnlled iN pari ONother groUNds I!J1 TOWNSeNdv. HolmaN CONsultiNg Corp., 914 F.2d 1136 (9th Cir. 1990). Ths is especially important for districts with minority groups that have a large non-citizen population, because in such districts good data is necessary to ensure that the citiZeN population is large enough to elect that minority group's candidate of choice. But without access to accurate data, the States cannot obtain certainty about whether they comply with the Voting Rights Act's requirements. The result is protracted litigation and the possibility that minority populations will be unable to elect the candidate of their choice. Finally, adding a citizenship question would improve the public policy of States and municipalities. Equitably distributing voting power will translate to more equitable policies that reflect the values of the local citizenry. Citizenship still matters. It is a privilege that is important and meaningful, and not lighdy ignored. Non-citizens can be valuable members of our community, but citizenship righdy confers benefits and responsibilities that must be taken seriously. Chief among them is the right to vote. Voting is the most precious right of every citizen-it provides the means to participate, to influence, and to articulate his concerns to the government. Including a simple question in the census will impose a minimal burden on the government and the residents surveyed, but this small step will have a significant and positive impact on the policies and constitution of our great republic. But failing to accurately account for our citizenry harms the rights of our citizens, perhaps especially our minority and immigrant citizens. In order to have accurate and usable data regarding voting-age citizens in the United States, we respectfully request that the 2020 Census include a question regarding citizenship. Respectfully, Mike Hunter Attornry GeNeral of Oklahoma Derek Schmidt Attornry GeNeral of KaNSas 001211 Bill Schuette Attorney General of Michigan Cuttis T. Hill Attorney General of Indiana Douglas J. Peterson Attorney General of Nebraska Alan Wilson Attorney General of South Carolina Leslie C. Rutledge Attorney General of Arkansas Christopher M. Carr Attorney General of Georgia , Matthew C. Bevin Governor of Kentucky Herbert H. Slatery III Attorney General of Tennessee Phil Bryant Governor of Mississippi Pam Bondi Attorney General ofF lorida Patrick Morrisey . Attorney General of West Virginia 001212 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT As part of his decision-making process, Secretary Ross spoke to a number of different stakeholders about the Department of Justice’s request to reinstate the citizenship question on the 2020 Decennial. These notes attempt to memorialize those conversations. These are not verbatim transcripts and each summary reflects the recollections of attendees from the Department of Commerce. Every effort has been made to ensure these notes are an accurate reflection of Secretary Ross’s conversations with stakeholders. Arturo Vargas, NALEO On March 13, 2018, Secretary Ross and members of his staff spoke to Arturo Vargas, the Executive Director of National Association of Latino Elected Officials (NALEO) Educational Fund. Mr. Vargas thanked the Secretary for the opportunity to share his views on DOJ’s request to add the citizenship question to the 2020 Decennial Census. Mr. Vargas stated that he feels very strongly about encouraging participation in a census that is both safe and confidential. Mr. Vargas noted, however, that members of his community were skeptical that data provided in response to census questions would be kept confidential and that it would not be shared with other agencies. Mr. Vargas noted that it is not necessary to ask a question on citizenship because the data is collected in response to a citizenship question on the ACS, making any question on the decennial redundant. Mr. Vargas notes that ACS data is more reliable than decennial data would be because decennial data would quickly become obsolete. Mr. Vargas is concerned that the question will make it more difficult for organizations like his to encourage census participation, causing an increased need to hire enumerators. According to Mr. Vargas, adding a citizenship question will both drive up NRFU costs and simultaneously raise skepticism as to the timing of the question being added. Mr. Vargas noted that the fact that the citizenship question has not been tested would also decrease response rates (noting 18 percent of the population is Latino). To date, Mr. Vargas has heard from local trusted messengers that they are not comfortable encouraging participation in a census that contains the citizenship question given the current political environment. Mr. Vargas emphasized how important it is to obtain a complete count of the U.S. population for reapportionment and critical federal funding allocation. He concluded by asking the Secretary to decline to add the citizenship question and explained that such an act would generate goodwill and help overcome setbacks the Census Bureau has experienced over the years, including cost overruns.        Government mistrust ACS data is sufficient Inaccurate – ACS data is more accurate (ACS) Lower response rate/higher NRFU Higher costs Testing Confidentiality concerns 001213 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT As part of his decision-making process, Secretary Ross spoke to a number of different stakeholders about the Department of Justice’s request to reinstate the citizenship question on the 2020 Decennial. These notes attempt to memorialize those conversations. These are not verbatim transcripts and each summary reflects the recollections of attendees from the Department of Commerce. Every effort has been made to ensure these notes are an accurate reflection of Secretary Ross’s conversations with stakeholders. Bruce Chapman, former Director of the Census Bureau On March 15, 2018, Secretary Ross and his staff spoke with Bruce Chapman. Mr. Chapman stated that reinstating the citizenship question would make existing data on citizenship more accurate. Mr. Chapman noted that prior censuses included a question on citizenship and that when he was Director it would have been helpful to have the data on citizenship. Mr. Chapman also noted that as a general matter, it is a good idea for the Census Bureau to have data on citizenship. Mr. Chapman stated that the impact of any reduced response rate (should it exist) could be mitigated through the follow-up surveys and imputation through the use of administrative records. Mr. Chapman concluded by stating his belief that the way to obtain the most accurate data on citizenship would be to ask the question on the Decennial Census and then cross-reference responses against administrative records and other Census Bureau surveys.   Need accurate citizenship data Ask the question and use administrative records 001214 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT As part of his decision-making process, Secretary Ross spoke to a number of different stakeholders about the Department of Justice’s request to reinstate the citizenship question on the 2020 Decennial. These notes attempt to memorialize those conversations. These are not verbatim transcripts and each summary reflects the recollections of attendees from the Department of Commerce. Every effort has been made to ensure these notes are an accurate reflection of Secretary Ross’s conversations with stakeholders. Congressman Gerry Connolly (D. VA) On March 15, 2018, Secretary Ross and members of his staff spoke with Congressman Gerry Connolly of Virginia. The Congressman thanked the Secretary for the opportunity to share his thoughts and views on the Department of Justice’s request to reinstate the citizenship question on the 2020 Decennial Census. Congressman Connolly expressed his opposition to the addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 Decennial Census. Specifically, he expressed concern that his district would be impacted because it has a large number of foreign-born residents, and that immigrants generally distrust government surveys, regardless of citizenship status. Congressman Connolly noted that this concern would likely be exacerbated due to the current political climate even though the citizenship question seemed like an innocent one on its face. He cited to rumors within the immigrant community that census data would be used to increase high profile deportations by ICE. Congressman Connolly noted the example of a “beloved coach” who was detained and deported after living in the U.S. for 15 years. He also cited the example of a “dreamer” who only learned at age 16 that she had not been born in the United States. Congressman Connolly stated that the reinstatement of the question would likely discourage participation and “spook” members of the immigrant communities. Congressman Connolly also stated his concern that adding a citizenship question would make it harder for the Department and the Census Bureau to do their job of counting the entire population and that increased follow up efforts could lead to increased overall costs. Keeping the question off the Decennial Census, on the other hand, would minimize inaccuracies, streamline the process, and avoid unnecessary costs. Congressman Connolly stated that there were other mechanisms to collect citizenship data from residents, but that including a question on the Decennial Census would be an impediment to enumerating the entire population. Congressman Connolly stated that he hoped that the Department would be able to conduct a successful census. Finally, Congressman Connolly stated that the citizenship question need not be reinstated on the Decennial Census because it is already included in other surveys. Congressman Connolly did not state whether or not he had reason to believe the data collected in response to the survey questions was accurate. Regardless, he reiterated his position that the question need not be part of the Decennial Census. Congressman Connolly also noted that the Decennial Census is “special” because it is mandated by the Constitution.    Government mistrust Confidentiality concerns Lower response rate/higher NRFU 001215 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT   Higher costs Question is already asked in other surveys 001216 UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS 1331 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE , NW, WASHINGTON, DC 20425 www.usccr.gov Dr. Ron Jarmin Performing the Non-Exclusive Functions and Duties of the Director U.S. Census Bureau United States Department of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20233-0001 March 15, 2018 Dear Dr. Jarmin: I write as one member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and not on behalf of the Commission as a whole, to urge that the 2020 Census include a citizenship question. I am aware that the Department of Justice has already requested the inclusion of a citizenship question in the 2020 Census so that it can properly enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.1 I urge you to include a citizenship question for a similar, but not identical, reason. It is not only important that votes not be diluted on racial grounds. It is also important that all citizens in a state have their votes weighted equally, and that the votes of citizens of different states should also have roughly the same weight. When noncitizens, particularly illegal aliens, are counted as citizens for purposes of apportionment, this goal is undermined. It shifts votes away from states that have a lower percentage of non-citizens to states that have a higher percentage of noncitizens. Within states, it also shifts weight away from voters in districts with small number of non-citizens to districts with large numbers of non-citizens, and makes it easier for candidates to win in the latter districts.2 I realize that a citizenship question would not ask if an individual is in the country legally or illegally. However, it would be possible for Congress or a state to apply statistical analysis to determine what percentage of non-citizens within a state are in the country illegally and to use that information to draw legislative districts. Even if the information is imperfect, it is better than no information at all. I realize that Congress is unlikely to act to exclude illegal aliens from apportionment, particularly because states that have large number of illegal aliens would fiercely fight such a change for fear 1 Letter from Arthur E. Gary to Dr. Ron Jarmin, Dec. 12, 2017, https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4340651-Text-of-Dec-2017-DOJ-letter-to-Census.html. 2 John J. Miller, “One Citizen, One Vote,” National Review Online, December 6, 2005, https://www.nationalreview.com/blog/corner/re-one-citizen-one-vote-john-j-miller/. Counting illegal aliens in congressional apportionment creates a set of modern-day rotten boroughs – political districts with representatives who are elected by a pitifully small number of voters. Those who believe illegal aliens should count in apportionment say that they deserve representation, too. The 14th Amendment does call for apportionment to be based on “the whole number of persons” in each state. But we don’t count tourists or business travelers who are here legally; why should we count illegal aliens? 001217 UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS 1331 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE , NW, WASHINGTON, DC 20425 www.usccr.gov they might lose a congressional seat. However, states are free to draw their districts based on the number of citizens present, not the number of individuals, and we should give them the data to do so.3 As the Supreme Court has said: Neither in Reynolds v. Sims nor in any other decision has this Court suggested that the States are required to include aliens, transients, short-term or temporary residents, or persons denied the vote for conviction of crime in the apportionment base by which their legislators are distributed and against which compliance with the Equal Protection Clause is to be measured. The decision to include or exclude any such group involves choices about the nature of representation with which we have been shown no constitutionally founded reason to interfere. Unless a choice is one the Constitution forbids, cf., e.g., Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89, 85 S.Ct. 775, 13 L.Ed.2d 675, the resulting apportionment base offends no constitutional bar, and compliance with the rule established in Reynolds v. Sims is to be measured thereby.4 For example, the Nebraska Constitution provides that “The basis of apportionment shall be the population excluding aliens, as shown by the next preceding federal census.”5 A Nebraska state senator has introduced a bill that would follow this provision of the Nebraska Constitution when redistricting occurs after the next Census. With reliable citizenship information available from the 2020 Census, other states may wish to follow suit. Other states will likely prefer to dilute the votes of their citizens in favor of non-citizens. But states that want to ensure that the votes of eligible voters have roughly the same weight throughout the state should be able to do so.6 Vast amounts of money and time have been expended in Section 2 “one person, one vote” litigation over the years in an effort to ensure that the votes weigh roughly the same, regardless of the voter’s race. It is at least as important to ensure that the votes of citizens are not diluted by the presence of non-citizens, particularly non-citizens who are in the country illegally. 3 See generally Patrick J. Charles, Representation Without Documentation?: Unlawfully Present Aliens, Apportionment, the Doctrine of Allegiance, and the Law, 25 BYU J. Pub. L. 35 (2011) (arguing that when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, the understanding was “The whole number of persons in each State cannot mean everybody on the soil at the particular time, nor exclude everybody who may happen not to be on it at the same time, and of course should be authoritatively construed by the law-making power.”). 4 Burns v. Richardson, 384 U.S. 73, 92 (1966). 5 Chris Dunker, “Murante’s proposed redistricting plan would remove non-U.S. citizens from count,” Lincoln Journal-Star, Jan. 18, 2018, http://journalstar.com/legislature/murante-s-proposed-redistricting-plan-would-removenon-u-s/article_98fc3de3-b11c-5c70-b571-bc01a813eb8a.html. 6 Charles, supra note 3, at 42. [O]nly through the elective franchise, the right to petition, and the legislative process can state legislatures and municipal governments be made to apportion according to citizenship. However, such encouragement starts with the citizens themselves, for only in response to their voice and opinion will state and municipal governments take action. In exercising this voice, it should be emphasized that not only does apportionment according to citizen interests ensure that every citizen’s voting power is equal, but it serves as a vehicle for petitioning Congress to remedy the Census Bureau’s counting of unlawful aliens for apportionment purposes. 001218 UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS 1331 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE , NW, WASHINGTON, DC 20425 www.usccr.gov Furthermore, this data would be useful for the citizens of the United States, especially given the now nearly two-decades-long national argument over immigration. How many non-citizens are in the country? How many are in the country compared to when the question was asked on the 2000 Census? What percentage are likely in the country illegally? Does it appear that noncitizens naturalize relatively quickly? All of this information is important for the American people to have. Perhaps it would alleviate concerns that there is such a large illegal immigrant problem that any amnesty is almost unthinkable. Perhaps it would reveal that naturalization is not proceeding as quickly as we would like, and that there might be something that can be done to speed the process. There would likely be interesting surprises in the data for everyone. But without the data, we cannot address any of this. Lastly, if the citizenship data is collected, and if more states use it in redistricting, it would send a salutary message to our elected representatives: You are elected to represent American citizens. It appears some of our elected representatives forget this from time to time. It is also in the interests of certain organizations to blur the distinction between citizens and non-citizens. But it is a very important distinction, and one we should maintain, in part to encourage those who live among us but have not yet become part of our polity through naturalization to do so. Sincerely, Peter Kirsanow Commissioner 001219 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economics and Statistics Administration U.S. Census Bureau Office of the Director Washington. DC 20233-0001 March 20, 2018 The Honorable Peter Kirsanow Commissioner United State Commission on Civil Rights 1331 Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20425 Dear Commissioner Kirsanow: Thank you for your recent inquiry regarding the US Department of Justice?s (DOJ) request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. We appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The US. Department of Commerce (DOC) is conducting an orderly review of the request. The DOC is required by law to submit the proposed ?nal list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 Census. A high- quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please contact our Of?ce of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs at 301-763-6100. Sincerely, 2% Ron S. Jarmin Performing the Non-Exclusive Functions and Duties of the Director (United States? ensus Bureau . PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT As part of his decision-making process, Secretary Ross spoke to a number of different stakeholders about the Department of Justice’s request to reinstate the citizenship question on the 2020 Decennial. These notes attempt to memorialize those conversations. These are not verbatim transcripts and each summary reflects the recollections of attendees from the Department of Commerce. Every effort has been made to ensure these notes are an accurate reflection of Secretary Ross’s conversations with stakeholders. Dr. Steven Murdock (Former Census Bureau Director, 2008-2009) On March 15, 2018, Secretary Ross and his staff spoke to Dr. Steve Murdock, a former Census Bureau Director from 2008-2009. Dr. Murdock stated that he opposed the reinstatement of a citizenship question on the 2020 Decennial Census, noting that he did not believe that asking the question would make the census more accurate. Dr. Murdock stated that based on anecdotal information he received in connection with his research in the state of Texas, a large group of unidentified residents would go underground if the Decennial Census includes a citizenship question. Dr. Murdock noted that the Decennial Census was “key” because it decides how representatives are apportioned. To do so, a completed and accurate count is required. Dr. Murdock then stated that samples, such as those collected through the American Community Survey, are generally accurate. Because the census is not just a sample and because all residents receive it, it is harder to obtain accurate data than it is to obtain accurate data through surveys. Dr. Murdock cited to an undercount in Houston that resulted from a lack of willingness to respond to the Decennial Census. Dr. Murdock repeated his belief that the fact that everyone is required to respond to the Decennial questionnaire necessarily decreases the accuracy of the responsive data. Dr. Murdock further stated that longer questionnaires generally elicited lower rates of response, but that he was not sure there was a “breaking point” at which response rates were certain to trail off. Dr. Murdock noted that length and content of questions and questionnaires all impact response rates – the longer they are, the lower the response rates. Dr. Murdock stated that a long Decennial Census questionnaire would increase the likelihood of an inaccurate count and a less representative congress. It could also negatively impact redistricting and the federal and state programs that use census data. Dr. Murdock noted that the census was “not a secret” and that if there is a negative response to the reinstatement of a citizenship question, it would not take long for that sentiment to ripple through the community. Dr. Murdock noted that the Hispanic community in particular would be concerned. Dr. Murdock acknowledged that there was no clear data to support this sentiment, but that he was nevertheless concerned about the potential reinstatement of the citizenship question.      Lower response rate Accurate data Government mistrust ACS and other surveys more accurate Fairer redistricting 001221 LATINO COMMUNITY FOUNDATION 0 ,."'" >< ,." 111111111111111111 c: =< ,." N N '",." ~ ,." ~ -l The Honorable Wilbur L. Ross Secretary of Commerce U.S. Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Ave NW Washington, DC 20230 CD ::I!: >:::0 (") March 19, 2018 ....• = (") ;:0 ~ ;:0 ~ V1 0- Dear Secretary Ross: On behalf of the Latino Community Foundation (LCF), we strongly urge you to reject the inclusion of a citizenship question to the 2020 Census. Ensuring a fair and accurate count for California's Latino community is of upmost importance to LCF, and this ill-timed, ill-advised addition will threaten that count for the state's largest ethnic group. LCF is the premier statewide foundation focused on unleashing the power of Latinos in California. We fulfill our mission by building a movement of civically engaged philanthropic leaders, investing in Latino-led organizations, and increasing political participation of Latinos. To accelerate impact for the Latino families we serve, it is imperative that we are also leveraging public dollars available to realize our mission. This is especially important as over five million Latinos in the state live in hard-to-count communities, due in part to immigration status. As the Latino population in California continues to grow, greater federal dollars are required to support this growth. Including a citizenship question to the census will add to an extensive list of concerns that can and will suppress Latino participation. Increased immigration enforcement, anti-immigrant rhetoric in our political discourse, and privacy concerns have already meshed together to create a climate of fear and aversion of the federal government. In fact, a recent poll commissioned by LCF showed that over 50% of California's Latinos believe that their responses to the census might be shared with inunigration authorities. The U.S. Census is a cornerstone of our democracy. It is responsible for distributing $76 billion in federal funds to California and the method in which we ensure our political representation. A fair and accurate count is necessary for California's Latino community to assert their rightful claim to resources and political voice. We ask that you not include the citizenship question and maintain the integrity of this important civic duty for all people, regardless of inunigration status. Should you have any further questions, please contact Christian Arana, LCF Policy Director, at carana@latinocf.org. Respectfully, t?_eJacqueline Martinez Garce! Chief Executive Officer Christian Arana . Policy Director 235 Montgomery Street. Suite 1160 I San Francisco, CA 94104 I T 415.236.4020 I F 415.870.2678 I E into@latinoct.org I W latinoct.org 001222 atottgrt.a.a of tqt lltttitdl ~tatt.a lilaa4inginn, !lor 2D515 March 20, 2018 o The Honorable Wilbur L. Ross, Jr. Secretary U.S. Department of Commerce 140 I Constitution Ave, NW Washington, D.C. 20230 (/) ~ \.',.".1 ::g n c:: ';:;>.:;0 :2 '" ~ (I) .~ ~ ~ -I R\ Dear Secretary Ross: "'" _ i.! .• We urge you to reject any attempt to include a question regarding U.S. citizenship in ie Decennial Census. Including such a question will lead to an increase in inaccurate responses and will depress response rates. As representatives of New York City, we rely on 'accurate census data, and an inaccurate decennial census count will have a devastating impact on our ability to . serve our constituents and ensure that they receive the resources they need. 2Gto The City of New York estimates that approximately 2.6 percent of its residents, or 225,000 people, were not counted in the 2010 Decennial Census. Administering the decennial census is already a challenge in New York City, which has a high percentage of communities that are deemed "hard-to-count" by the Census Bureau: persons who do not speak English fluently, lower income persons, homeless persons, undocumented immigrants, young mobile persons, children, etc. Recent qualitative data released by the Census Bureau shows that survey respondents expressed "unprecedented" levels of concern with the confidentiality of their data and who has access to their responses regarding immigration. These concerns caused respondents to provide incorrect or incomplete information in an effort to protect themselves and their families. Adding a question about citizenship or immigration status to the 2020 Decennial Census will only exacerbate these existing challenges. An undercount in the 2020 Decennial Census will have a devastating, decade-long impact on New York State and New York City. Data from the decennial census is used to allocate approximately $700 billion dollars to states and municipalities each fiscal year, and inaccuracies and depressed response rates in survey responses could easily lead to the misallocation of billions of dollars each fiscal year. It is our sincere hope that you will reject any attempt to add a question on citizenship to the 2020 Decennial Census. Doing so will result in depressed and inaccurate response rates, which could have a real and direct impact on the resources that New York City residents receive from the federal government over the next decade. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 001223 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 March 23,2018 The Honorable Grace Meng U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Meng: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to ~ubmit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, Aprj11, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I have conducted a rigorous review and produced a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate, and I have put into place the people, processes, and programs necessary to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, pleaSe have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, LJ~~ Wilbur Ross 001224 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 March 23,2018 The Honorable Jose Serrano U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Serrano: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I have conducted a rigorous review and produced a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate, and I have put into place the people, processes, and programs necessary to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, LJ~~ Wilbur Ross 001225 .UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington. D.C. 20230 March 23,2018 The Honorable Carolyn Maloney U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Maloney: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I have conducted a rigorous review and produced a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate, and I have put into place the people, processes, and programs necessary to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, lJ~~ Wilbur Ross 001226 0900785 March 21, 2018 The Honorable Vl?lbur L. Ross Secretary of Commerce US. Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20230 . ma vrsaass amnesia o- 88 lit Bid ill}? Dear Mr. Secretary, We are leaders of some of our nation?s largest and oldest nonpartisan philanthropic institutions giving hundreds of millions of dollars each year to advance the common good and improve quality of life in the United States. We have different funding priorities are ideologically diverse, and do not always agree with each other. However we have come together to support the Census Bureau?s efforts to achieve a fair and accurate census. We share a commitment to reliable and accurate data as a necessary foundation for a well- functioning government, robust civil society, and thriving business sector in the United States. Vt?th these shared interests in mind, we write to raise our profound concerns about adding a new question regarding citizenship status to the 2020 Census questionnaire. Adding such a question would undermine the accuracy of 2020 Census data. Despite the Census Bureau?s best efforts, recent decennial censuses have resulted in net undercounts of many communities, with consequences for drawing political boundaries, disbursing roughly $700 billion in federal funds annually, and facilitating business and economIc development. Adding a citizenship question without suf?cient testing further jeopardizes the quality of the upcoming census. What the Bureau learned when researching respondent con?dentiality concerns is troubling enough to warrant substantial testing of such a question. A September 20, 2017 Census Bureau memo from the Center for Survey Management noted that "fears, particularly among immigrant respondents, have increased markedly this year.? That ,mer?no further stated, "These ?ndings are particularly troubling given that they impact hard-to- count populations disproportionately, and have implications for data quality and nonresponse.? Similarly, previous Census Bureau directors have noted that adding a citizenship question without necessary testing endangers the quality of all census data because it could discourage census participation among the tens of millions of households with non-citizen members as well as have unknown impacts on other populations. The 2020 Census is so near that the once?a-decade end-to?end test arguably represents the last reasonable chance to have tested a substantial revision to the questionnaire. That test is well underway in Providence, thde island without the citizenship question being asked. Other tests, including of non-traditional addresses and languages other than English, were previously canceled due to funding limitations and uncertainty. Long-time census experts and observers are uni?ed in their belief that the decennial census has been and continues to be underfunded. . As a result, it does not seem possible that the Census Bureau could conduct a high-quality test to learn how and to what extent a new citizenship question could undermine the quality of 2020 Census data. Our institutions have appreciated 3 strong working relationship with Census Bureau staff In some cases stretching back decades. We have previously supported and are again supporting research education, outreach, and other efforts to help the Bureau ful?ll its goal of counting 001227 everyone once, only once, and in the right place. Adding a citizenship question at this late date seriously threatens any chance of achieving that goal. As it is, the Census Bureau faces daunting challenges to ful?ll its constitutional obligation to produce an accurate decennial census in 2020. Funding shortfalls, the need to develop new and unprecedented data and information infrastructure, and the lack of a Senate-con?rmed director for this ?rst high-tech census already raise worries about the Bureau's ability to produce a reliable and accurate count. Now is not the time to add a new, untested citizenship question. We would be pleased to meet with you should you like more information about our philanthropic efforts to support an accurate census or discuss the citizenship question We thank you for your consideration of these concerns, and for your leadership on the census. Sincerely, Alexie Torres Executive Director Access Strategies Fund Cambridge, MA Randy Royster President and CEO Albuquerque Community Foundation Albuquerque, NM Patrick McCarthy President and Chief Executive Of?cer The Annie E. Casey Foundation Baltimore, MD Sampriti Ganguli Chief Executive Of?cer Arabella Advisors Washington, DC. Nancy R. Bagley President Arca Foundation Washington, DC. Audrey Yamamoto President Executive Director Asian Paci?c Fund San Francisco. CA Gary D. Bass Executive Director Bauman Foundation Washington, DC. Sara Kay Chief Executive Of?cer Bernard and Anne Spitzer Charitable Trust New York, NY Kathleen R. Annette President/CEO Blandin Foundation Grand Rapids, MN Antonia Hernandez President CEO California Community Foundation Los Angeles, CA I Sandra Hernandez, MD President and CEO California Health Care Foundation Oakland, CA Judy Belk President and CEO The California Wellness Foundation Los Angeles, CA Tom Chavez President/CEO Chavez Family Foundation San Francisco, CA Bob Glaves Executive Director The Chicago Bar Foundation Chicago, IL 001228 Helene D. Gayle President CEO The Chicago Community Trust Chicago, IL Michael Cheever interim President College Success Foundation Washington, DC. Alicia Philipp President Community Foundation for Greater Atlanta Atlanta, GA Dolores E. Roybal Executive Director Con Alma Health Foundation Santa Fe, NM Leslie Ramyk Executive Director Conant Family Foundation Chicago, IL Yanique Redwood, President and CEO Consumer Health Foundation Washington, DC. Jeanne Whitman Bobbitt and Helen Holman Interim 00- Presidents The Dallas Foundation Dallas, TX Michael M. Parks President The Dayton Foundation Dayton, OH Joe Goldman President Democracy Fund Washington, DC. David Geenen Executive Director Doris and Victor Day Foundation Rock Island, Illinois Jennifer Leith Executive Director The Douty Foundation Philadelphia, PA James W. Head President and Chief Executive Of?cer East Bay Community Foundation Oakland, CA Melissa Beck Executive Director The Educational Foundation of America Hudson Valley, New York The Reverend Arrington Chambliss Executive Director Episcopal City Mission Boston, MA Nicky Goren President and CEO Eugene and Agnes E. Meyer Foundation Washington, DC. Angelique Power President The Field Foundation Chicago, IL Darren Walker President Ford Foundation New York, NY Kiki Jamieson President The Fund for New Jersey Princeton, NJ Marcos Vargas, Executive Director Fund for Santa Barbara Santa Barbara, CA David T. Abbott Executive Director The George Gund Foundation Cleveland, Ohio 001229 Gregg Behr Executive Director The Grable Foundation Pittsburgh, PA Chris Fulton Executive Director Grand Rapids Area Community Foundation Grand Rapids, MN Nancy Bales Executive Director Gray Family Foundation Portland, OR Andrew D. Kopplin President CEO Greater New Orleans Foundation New Orleans, LA Vanessa Daniel Executive Director Groundswell Fund Oakland, CA Leslie Dorosin and Rebekah Saul Butler Co-Executive Directors The Grove Foundation Los Altos, CA Jay Williams President Hartford Foundation for Public Giving Hartford, CT Micah A. Kane President and CEO Hawai?i Community Foundation Honolulu, .HI David Nicholson Executive Director Headwaters Foundation for Justice Minneapolis, MN Bridget McCandless, M.D. PresidentICEO Health Care Foundation of Greater Kansas City Kansas City, MO Deanna Gomby President and CEO Heising-Simons Foundation Los Altos, CA Daphne Rowe Executive Director The Hilles Fund Ardmore, PA Ann Marie Horner Board Chair The Homer Foundation Philadelphia, PA Glink Executive Director lrving Harris Foundation Chicago, lL Donald J. Howard President and CEO . The James lrvine Foundation San Francisco, CA Julia Stasch President John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Chicago, lL Ellen Alberding President Joyce Foundation Chicago, IL Jacqueline Martinez Garcel CEO Latino Community Foundation San Francisco, CA Gilda (Gigi) Pedraza Executive Director Latino Community Fund (LCF Georgia) Atlanta, Georgia Peter Bloch Garcia Executive Director Latino Community Fund of Washington State Seattle, WA 001230 Ann H. Lederer Director Lederer Foundation Lakewood, CO Caitlin Davis Executive Director Legal Foundation of Washington Seattle, WA Unmi Song President Lloyd A. Fry Foundation Chicago, lL Sol Marie Alfonso Jones Senior Program Of?cer Long island Community Foundation Melville, NY Thomas Peters, President CEO Marin Community Foundation Novato, CA Justin Maxson Executive Director Mary Reynolds Babcock Foundation Winston-Salem, NC Wendy Lewis Executive Director McCune Charitable Foundation Santa Fe, NM Patricia Blakely Executive Director The Merchants Fund Philadelphia, PA Doug Stamm Chief Executive Of?cer Meyer Memorial Trust Portland, OR R.T. Rybak President and CEO The Minneapolis Foundation Minneapolis, MN Terence P. Mulligan President Napa Valley Community Foundation Napa, CA . Linda Milbourn President and CEO New Mexico Community Foundation Santa Fe, NM Maria Mottola Executive Director New York Foundation New York, NY Kevin F. Walker President CEO Northwest Area Foundation St. Paul,_MN Nichole Maher President CEO Northwest Health Foundation Portland, OR Max Vl?lliams President CEO The Oregon Community Foundation Portland, OR Marian Blankenship Executive Director Paci?cSouroe Foundation for Health Improvement Spring?eld, OR Jennifer Fleming DeVoIl President and CEO Pasadena Community Foundation Pasadena, CA Chong Moua interim Executive Director PFund Foundation Minneapolis, MN Pedro A. Ramos President CEO The Philadelphia Foundation Philadelphia, PA 001231 Ann Marie Healy Executive Director Philadelphia Health Partnership Philadelphia, PA Andrew Frishkoff Executive Director Philadelphia LISC Philadelphia, PA Maxwell King President and CEO The Pittsburgh Foundation Pittsburgh, PA Kashif Shaikh Executive Director Pillars Fund Chicago, IL Gillian Darlow Chief Executive Of?cer Polk Bros. Foundation Chicago, lL Susie Lee Executive Director Potomac Health Foundation, Woodbridge, VA Kris A. Hermanns Chief Executive Of?cer Pride Foundation Seattle, WA Liz Powell Executive Director Racine Community Foundation Racine, WI Erin Kahn Executive Director Raikes Foundation Seattle, WA Brenda R. Sharpe President and CEO REACH Healthcare Foundation Merriam, KS Neil Steinberg President CEO Rhode Island Foundation Providence, David Hiller President and CEO Robert R. McCormick Foundation Chicago, lL Timothy Silard President Rosenberg Foundation San Francisco, CA Alfred L. Castle Chief Executive Of?cer Samuel N. and Mary Castle Foundation Honolulu, HI- Sarah Martinez?Helfman President Samuel S. Fels Fund Philadelphia, PA Fred Blackwell Chief Executive Of?cer (CEO) The San Francisco Foundation San Francisco, CA Vl?lliam Smith President and CEO Santa Fe Community Foundation Santa Fe, NM Christine Reeves Strigaro Executive Director The Sapelo Foundation Savannah, GA Tony Mestres President and CEO Seattle Foundation Seattle, WA Brian F. Boyd Executive Director Sequoia Foundation Tacoma, WA 001232 Danielle Garbe CEO Sherwood Trust Walla Walla, WA Emmett D. Carson CEO and President Silicon Valley Community Foundation Mountain View, CA ?Amanda Cloud President CEO The Simmons Foundation Houston, TX Nancy L. Jacobs Founder and President Sundance Family Foundation St. Paul, MN Fo-Ching Lu President SYL Foundation Seattle, WA Allan Oliver Executive Director Thornburg Foundation Santa Fe, NM Taryn Higashi Executive Director. Unbound Philanthropy New York, NY Pete Manzo President CEO United Ways of California South Pasadena, CA Keith Thomajan President CEO United Way of the Columbia-Wilamette Portland, OR Carl Borg Executive Director United Way of Kitsap County Bremerton, WA Nancy L. \Mltsek, MNA Executive Director van Loben SelisembeRock Foundation San Francisco, CA Irene Cooper-Beach Executive Of?cer Victoria Foundation Newark, NJ Jan T. .Vilcek Chairman and CEO The Vilcek Foundation New York, NY Stacie Ma?a President Wallace Alexander Gerbode Foundation San Francisco, CA Sue Van President CEO . Wallace H. Coulter Foundation Miami, FL Fred Ali President and CEO Weingart Foundation Los Angeles, CA Peter Gonzales President and CEO Welcoming Center for New Philadelphia, PA Edward Kissam Trustee Werner-Kohnstamm Family Fund San Francisco, Mauri lngram President CEO Whatcom Community Foundation Bellingham, WA Larry Kramer President Vl?lliam and Flora Hewlett Foundation Menlo Park, CA 001233 Diane Cornman-Levy Executive Director WAY Philadelphia, PA Grace Hou President Woods Fund Chicago Chicago, IL Bob Uyeki CEO Soda Foundation Moraga, CA Merryl Snow Zegar Trustee and Executive Director Zegar Family Foundation New York, NY Allison Magee Executive Director Zellerbach Family Foundation San Francisco, CA 001234 From: Gary Bass Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 7:34 PM To: Walsh, Michael (Federal) Subject: Citizenship Question on the 2020 Census Dear Mr. Walsh, chair a collaborative of foundations and other grantmakers that have been working with the Census Bureau to support a fair and accurate census. Our primary focus aligns with the Census Bureau?s: to ensure that everyone is counted, only once, and in the right place. Doing so will reduce differential undercounts and produce a high quality and reliable census. The attached letter to Secretary Ross from nearly 120 foundations from across the country urges the Secretary to oppose adding a question on citizenship to the 2020 census. The letter represents local community foundations and large global foundations, that together contribute billions of dollars every year to support research, innovation, service delivery, advocacy and infrastructure in fields as diverse as education the arts technology healthoare and human needs But all agree that an accurate census is critical to the Issues they care about, and that adding a citizenship question will undermine its aCcuracy. We moved forward with this letter once we saw President Trump?s reelection campaign send a fundraising email calling for adding a census question on citizenship. We believe the census should never become a partisan issue. That is why we are not releasing our letter to the press or otherwise promoting it in public. 001296 Foundations rarely like to function in the spotlight. We are not political organizations. In fact, it is quite unusual for foundation leaders to sign a letter like this. That makes it even more compelling that nearly 120 foundations all with different interests signed on in such a short period of time. If we had more time, can assure you that the list of signatories would be even longer. We will be following the outcome of this issue most closely. Most certainly it will affect our funding decisions going forward. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss these concerns with you and Secretary Ross, and we are happy to share with you how we are supporting a fair and accurate census. Since I do not have Secretary Ross's email address. I would appreciate it if you would share the attached letter with him. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Gary D. Bass Executive Director Bauman Foundation 2040 St, NW. Washington, DC. 20009 001296 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 March 23,2018 Mr. Gary D. Bass Executive Director. Bauman Foundation 2040 S Street, NW, Suite 100 Washington, DC 20009 Dear Mr. Bass: Thank you for your recentletter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. Please assure your colleagues that the Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a complete and aCCurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I have conducted a rigorous review and produced a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate, and I have put into place the people, processes, and programs necessary to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, lJ~~ Wilbur Ross 001237 :. ~' '. J &-- 9 0 " Dc:J7 s SAl'"" PAUL .AREA CHAMBER OF COHMERCE 1March 21, 2018 The Honorable Wilbur Ross VIA EMAIL Secretary, United States Department 1401 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, of Commerce DC 20230 Dear Secretary Ross: As the leader of Minnesota's largest regional Chamber of Commerce, I am deeply concerned about the Department of Justice's request that the Census Bureau include an untested question about citizenship in the 2020 Census questionnaire. As you know, businesses rely on accurate, complete census data to analyze demographic and economic trends required for business strategy. Businesses use census data to determine where to locate stores and facilities, find qualified workers, and market products and services. Adding a new question this late in the decennial Census process could reduce the accuracy of the 2020 Census. In addition, adding a new question would incur more delays and costs, and waste taxpayer dollars that have already been spent on designing and planning the 2020 Census. We respectfully request that the Census Bureau refrain from adding any untested questions -- on citizenship or otherwise -- that could undermine the integrity of this critical data collection tool. We appreciate your leadership on this matter. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, ~/¥-B Kyle g 0 rn .", ""rn c> Z c: ....• ". "'N " President and CEO :;::, rn N Saint Paul Area Chamber of Commerce '"rnc> ~ ;;?, ....• ):> ?2 <:< --., N vJ 001238 o (/) :=: '"?:i '"" n March 21, 2018 The Honorable Wilbur Ross Secretary, United States Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20230 Re: c: -< < '" (/) - ~ ~. '"'"--t •• !:; w Native American Concerns About Adding A Citizenship Question To The 20~Cel\SUs Dear Secretary Ross: ., We recently testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs at its Oversight Hearing held on February 14, 2018 on "Making Indian Country Count: Native Americans and the 2020 Census." We write to you today to share our concerns about the potential addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 decennial census form at this late date. As we noted in our testimony, the failure to fully enumerate the American Indian and Alaska Native population could result in devastating consequences, including reductions in access to critical government services and resources. The Census Bureau's work impacts tribes in many ways. It promotes our fair and equal participation in American democracy through a count to meet one person, one vote requirements. It provides data essential for research and planning purposes, which facilitates enforcement of federal non-discrimination laws. Census data is used to determine funding levels for federal programs that are vital to Native communities, including housing, healthcare and education. Unfortunately, Native communities have been undercounted for decades. The Census Bureau estimates that in the most recent census, nearly five percent of Native people on reservations were missed, more than double the undercount rate of the next closest population group. In the 1990 Census, the net undercount for American Indians on reservations was more than 12 percent. Historical distrust of the federal government often deters responses. One third of all Native Americans, 1.7 million people live in hard-to-count census tracts, including geographically isolated rural areas. Native Americans had the lowest census mail response rate in the 2015 National Content Test. The low response rate was exacerbated by the lack of traditional mailing addresses, a highly mobile population on tribal lands, and homelessness. Additional factors that contribute to Native people being hard-tocount are similar to those of other groups that experience undercounts, such as a very young population, poverty, low educational attainment, lack of telephone access, unemployment and linguistic isolation. In 2015, 38 percent of Native individuals on reservations were living in poverty, compared to 13 percent of the U.s. population. Over one quarter of all Native Americans are under 18 years of age, with a third of those below the poverty line. Young children are also undercounted at high rates, which is concerning because Native people living on tribal lands have a median age nine years lower than the national average. Language barriers and illiteracy are pervasive, especially among thousands of tribal elders in Alaska, Arizona and New Mexico. The credibility of the Census Bureau is critical for public trust in the integrity of the 2020 Census, particularly among American Indians and Alaska Natives. Research on barriers and attitudes about the Census shows that Native people had the lowest intent to respond in the 2010 Census. Native people also did not believe responding would lead to any positive result in their community. Finding trusted messengers to address concerns among American Indians and Alaska Natives about the use and purpose of the census is vital to a successful 2020 count. 001239 Considering these existing difficulties, the addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 census form, especially this close to 2020 Census, would jeopardize the responses of hard-to-count communities, including those in Indian Country. We are informed that immigrants and minority groups are currently fearful for the security and safety of their families posed by the possibility of including a question on citizenship, which could have a very negative impact on the accuracy of the 2020 Census count (as highlighted by the Census Bureau at the Fall 2017 meeting of its National Advisory Committee on Racial, Ethnic and Other Population). We believe that a citizenship question would have a similar negative impact in Indian Country, resulting in an undercount of American Indians and Alaska Natives in 2020 that surpasses their high undercount in 2010. Because of the lengthy and complicated history of discrimination against indigenous peoples in this country, American Indians and Alaska Natives share a strong distrust of non-tribal governments. In a recent four-state study in Indian Country of attitudes towards non-tribal governments, the level of trust in the federal government ranged from a low of just five percent in South Dakota to a high of only 28 percent in Nevada. Native Americans continue to have much more trust in their own tribal governments than they do in any non-tribal governments. The inclusion of a citizenship question will add another layer to that distrust, making it more difficult to convince hard-to-count American Indians and Alaska Natives to participate in the census. We all share the goal of ensuring a fair and accurate census. However, we fear the addition of a citizenship question would put the accuracy and fairness of the census in jeopardy. As you noted during the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform's October 12, 2017 hearing on the 2020 Census, requiring a new topic this late in the preparations for the census is irresponsible because robust testing for new questions in a contemporary, census-like environment is essential. Former Census Bureau Directors Robert Groves and Steven Murdock, directors who served under a Democratic and Republican Administration respectively, agree with your testimony, noting that "the scientific components of the census should not be undermined by the last-minute addition of untested questions (as is currently proposed by the U.S. Department of Justice)" in their recent joint editorial, "Science matters for the census" (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6378/847). For all these reasons, we urge you to reject adding a citizenship question to the 2020 decennial form. Sincerely, Carol Gore President and Chief Executive Officer Cook Inlet Housing Jefferson Keel President National Congress of American Indians roL:JL James T. Tucker Pro Bono Voting Rights Counsel Native American Rights Fund 001240 Missouri Johnson, Marcellina (Federal) From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Guido, John (Federal) Wednesday, March 21, 2018 1:27 PM DOCExecSec FW: Letter Opposing Addition of Citizenship Question to 2020 Census Citizenship Question Letter to Ross from Indian Affairs Witnesses-FINAL.PDF From: Tucker, James T. Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 1:26:19 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada) To: Ross, Wilbur (Federal) Cc: Kelley, Karen (Federal); Burgess, Michael (Federal); Guido, John (Federal); Walsh, Michael (Federal) Subject: Leiter Opposing Addition of Citizenship Question to 2020 census Dear Secretary Ross: Attached please find a letter from representatives of Alaska Native and American Indian organizations who recently testified before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs at its Oversight Hearing entitled "Making Indian Country Count: Native Americans and the 2020 Census." As explained in the letter, we respectfully urge you to reject the addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 Census form at this late date. Please feel free to have your staff contact me if they have any questions. Very truly yours, James Tucker Pro Bono Voting Rights Counsel Native American Rights Fund james. tucke r@wilsonelser.com (702) 727-1246 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic message is intended to be viewed only by the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited without our prior permission. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, or if you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail and delete the original message and any copies of it from your computer system. For further information about wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP, please see our website at www.wilsonelser.com or refer any of our offices. to Thank you. 1 001241 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230. March 23,2018 Ms. Carol Gore President and Chief Executive Officer Cook Inlet Housing 3510Spenard Road, Suite 100 Anchorage, AK 99503 Dear Ms. Gore: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. ' The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I have conducted a rigorous review and produced a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate, and I have put into place the people, processes, and programs necessary to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, LJ~~ Wilbur Ross 001242 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 March 23,2018 Mr. James T. Tucker Pro Bono Voting Rights Counsel Native American Rights Fund 1506 Broadway Boulder, CO 80302-6296 Dear Mr. Tucker: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I have conducted a rigorous review and produced a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate, and I have put into place the people, processes, and programs necessary to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, lJ~~ Wilbur Ross 001243 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 March 23,2018 Mr. Jefferson Keel President National Congress of American Indians Embassy of Tribal Nations 1516 P Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Dear Mr. Keel: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 Census. A high...;quality2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I have conducted a rigorous review and produced a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate, and I have put into place the people, processes, and programs necessary to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, LJ~~ Wilbur Ross 001244 THE ASSEMBLY STATE OF NEW YORK ALBANY Dan Quart Member of Assembly 73RO District CHAIR Legislative Commission on Administrative Regulations Review COMMITIEES Alcoholism & Drug Abuse Corporations, Authorities & Commissions Consumer Affairs & Protection Judiciary Tourism, Parks, Arts & Sports Development (;) The Honorable Wilbur L. Ross, Jr. Secretary U.S Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Ave, NW Washington, D.C. 20230 March 21~01~ x I""l Ci:> ,-- 2 ~ -l :< I""l N 0-. U) {'T1 n :;lO rn ""I.";) 3 f5) W I urge you to reject any attempt to include a question regarding U.S citizenship in the 2020 Dec~ialW Census. Including such a question will lead to an increase in inaccurate responses and will depress response rates. As a state representative of New York City, I rely on accurate census data, and an inaccurate decennial census count will have a devastating impact on my ability to serve my constituents and ensure that they receive the resources they need. Dear Secretary Ross: ~ :::0 The City of New York estimates that approximately 2.6 percent of its residents, or 225,000 people, were not counted in the 2010 Decennial Census. Administering the decennial census is already a challenge in New York City, which has a high percentage of communities that are deemed as "hard-to-count" by the Census Bureau: persons who do not speak English fluently, lower income persons, homeless persons, undocumented immigrants, young mobile people, children, etc. Recent qualitative data released by the Census Bureau shows that survey respondents have expressed "unprecedented" levels of concern with the confidentiality of their data and who has access to their responses regarding immigration. These concerns caused respondents to provide incorrect or incomplete information in an effort to protect themselves and their families. Adding a question about citizenship or immigration status to the 2020 Decennial Census will only exacerbate these existing challenges. An undercount in the 2020 Decennial Census will have a devastating, decade-long impact on New York State and New York City. Data from the decennial census is used to allocate approximately $700 billion dollars to states and municipalities every fiscal year, and inaccuracies and depressed response rates in survey responses could easily lead to the misallocation of billions of dollars each fiscal year. It is my sincere hope that you will reject any attempt to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 Decennial Census. Doing so will result in depressed and inaccurate response rates, which could have a real and direct impact on the resources that New York City residents receive from the federal government over the next decade. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, Dan Quart Member of the New York State Assembly DISTRICT OFFICE: Suite 704,353 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York 10016. (212) 605-0937 ALBANY OFFICE: Room 741, Legislative Office Building, Albany, New York 12248 • (518) 455-4794 001245 THE ASSEMBLY STATE OF NEW YORK ALBANY CHAIR WAYS & MEANS COMMITTEE HELENE E. WEINSTEIN Assemblywoman 41sT District Kings County COMMITTEE alules March 21,2018 The Honorable Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., Secretary U.S. Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20230 Dear Secretary Ross: I urge you to reject any attempt to include a question regarding U.S. citizenship in the 2020 Decennial Census. Including such a question will lead to an increase in inaccurate responses and will depress response rates. As arepresentative of New York City, I rely on accurate census data, an inaccurate decennial census count will have a devastating impact on my ability to serve my constituents and ensure that they receive the resources they need. The City of New York estimates that approximately 2.6 percent of its residents, or 225,000 people, were not counted in the 2010 Decennial Census. Administering the decennial census is already a challenge in New York City, which has a high percentage of communities that are deemed "hard-to-count" by the Census Bureau: persons who do not speak English fluently, lower income persons, homeless persons, undocumented immigrants, young mobile persons, childr~n, etc. Recent qualitative data released by the Census Bureau shows that survey respondents expressed "unprecedented" levels of concern with the confidentiality of their data and who has access to their responses regarding immigration. These concerns caused respondents to provide incorrect or incomplete information in an effort to protect themselves and their families. Adding a question about citizenship or immigration status to the 2020 Decennial Census will only exacerbate these existing challenges. An undercount in the 2020 Decennial Census will have a devastating, decade-Iong"impact on New York State and New York City. Data from the decennial census is used to allocate approximately $700 billion dollars to states and municipalities each fiscal year, and inaccuracies and depressed response rates in survey responses could easily lead to the misallocation of billions of dollars each fiscal year. It is my sincere hope that you will reject any attempt to add a question on citizenship to the 2020 Decennial Census. Doing so will result in depressed and inaccurate response rates, which could have a real and direct impact on the resources that New York City residents receive from the federal government over the next decade. Thank you for your consideration ofthis request. Sincerely, Helene E. Weinstein, Chair NYS Assembly Ways & Means Committee Room 923, Legislative Office Building, Albany, New York 12248, (518) 455-5462 3520 Nostrand Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11229, (718) 648-4700 001246 COMMITIEES THE ASSEMBLY Banks STATE OF NEWYORK ALBANY Children and Families Economic Development, Job Creation, Commerce and Industry Local Governments Mental Health Transportation KIMBERLY JEAN-PIERRE Assemblywoman 11th District Suffolk County Black, Puerto Rican, Hispanic and Asian Legislative Caucus o March 21,2018 in rT1 >< The Honorable Wilbur L. Ross, Jr. Secretary U.S. Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Ave, NW Washington, D.C. 20230 Dear Secretary Ross: fT1 g :=:: - c= 3 ~-.. ::! ;;::0 <: N f""l"l en 0.. ,.." -0 rt1 x i)3 •. ::u W &5 .j;j I urge you to reject any attempt to include a question regarding U.S. citizenship in the 2020 Decennial C~us.~cluding such a question will lead to an increase in inaccurate responses and will depress responseTates. As a New York State Assembly Member, I rely on accurate census data, and an inaccurate decennial census count will have a devastating impact on my ability to serve my constituents and ensure that they receive the resources they need. The City of New York estimates that approximately 2.6 percent of its residents, or 225,000 people, were not counted in the 2010 Decennial Census. Administering the decennial census is already a challenge in New York City, which has a high percentage of communities that are deemed "hard-to-count" by the Census Bureau; persons who do not speak English fluently, lower income persons, homeless persons, undocumented immigrants, young mobile persons and children all constitute this group. The 11th Assembly District, which I represent, is comprised of many of these same folks. Recent qualitative data released by the Census Bureau shows that survey respondents expressed "unprecedented" levels of concern with the confidentiality of their data and who has access to their responses as it relates to immigration. These concerns resulted in respondents providing incorrect or incomplete information in an effort to protect themselves and their families. Adding a question about citizenship or immigration status to the 2020 Decennial Census will only exacerbate these existing challenges. An undercount in the 2020 Decennial Census will have a devastating, decade-long impact on New York State and New York City. Data from the decennial census is used to allocate approximately $700 billion to states and municipalities each fiscal year, and inaccuracies and depressed response rates in survey responses could easily lead to the misallocation of billions of dollars each fiscal year. It is our sincere hope that you will reject any attempt to add a question on citizenship to the 2020 Decennial Census, which would have a real and direct impact on the resources that New York residents receive from the federal government over the next decade. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, i! " ,WyRMV~.e. fl' ' tI I~ Kimberly Jean-Pierre Assemblywoman 11th Assembly District ALBANY OFFICE: Room 742, Legislative Office Building, Albany, New York 12248 • 518-455-5787, FAX: 518-455-3976 DISTRICT OFFICE: 640 West Montauk Highway, Lindenhurst, New York 11757-5538.631-957-2087, FAX: 631-957-2998 EMAIL: jeanpierrek@nyassembly,gov 001247 ~ CONSTITUTIONAL ;;;nmTi"i"i" ACCOUNTABI LlTY CENTER 1200 18th St. NW, Suite 5011 Washington, DC 20036 0: 202-296-6889 I F: 202-296-6895 I www.theusconstitution.org March 22, 2018 The Honorable Secretary Wilbur Ross U.S. Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Avenue NW Washington, DC 20230 o CJ) .::1 """ .~ - C::> ~ (") ;«: c:: ~ :::::! Dear Secretary Ross: We the undersigned legal organizations write to urge you to reject the DepartmeJiliiof ~ Justice's request that you add a mandatory question to the 2020 Census asking all pers~ to divulge their citizenship status. A new, untested citizenship question would be an ~~nd-run arouJ@ th~ 1. Constitution's text, history, and values. It cannot be squared with the federal govemmeji1's 'R: constitutional obligation to ensure a national count of all persons-regardless of wherejIey e;e from or their immigration status. I ._'.. . -4 . ---'- .-------. - . Our Constitution establishes a democracy premised on the idea that all persons deserve equal representation in our government. To ensure a proper count ofthe nation's population and a proper apportionment of representatives, the Constitution explicitly requires an "actual Enumeration" of the people, imposing on the federal government the duty to count the "whole number of persons in each State."l This critical constitutional language imposes a clea.rduty on the federal government: it must count all people living in the United States, whether they are citizens o~non-citizens, whether they . were born in the United States or in a distant part of the world. As the Constitution's text and history dictate, the Constitution requires th~ federal government to count "the whole body of the people" without exception.2 It draws no distinction between citizens and non-citizens, but rather requires that the "whole immigrant population should be numbered with the people and counted as part of them."3 . Adding the new citizenship question proposed by the Department of Justice would. undermine the Census Bureau's constitutional commitment to count all persons. It would also result in inaccurate data, thereby biasing congressional apportionment, redistricting, and funding decisions, for an entire decade, and producing harmful inequalities which would last even longer. Overwhelming evidence shows that this new question, if it becomes a part of the 2020 Census, will deter participation by immigrants across the country, who do not want an official record of their immigration status and fear that their responses will be used by the government to harm them and their families. The Census Bureau's own data demonstrates ."an unprecedented groundswell in confidentiality and data sharing concerns, particularly among immigrants or those who live with immigrants."4 In the run up to the 2020 Census, "researchers heard respondents express new u.s. Const, art. I, 9 2, cl. 3; amend. XIV,9 2. Congo Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 385 (1866). 3 Id. at 432. ... . , 4 Mikelyn Meyers, U.S. Census Bureau, Respondent Confidentiality Concerns and Possible Effects On RespcJn.seRates and Data Quality for the 2020 Census 15 (Nov. 2, 2017), https:/ /y.tw~2.census.gov/cac/nac/meetings/2017. l1/Meyers-NAC-Confidentiality;Presentation'.pdf. . .. .. . i 2 .0; :.'; 001248 concerns about topics like the 'Muslim Ban,' discomfort 'registering' other household members by reporting their demographic characteristics, the dissolution of the 'DACA'... program, [and] repeated references to Immigration and Customs Enforcement."s Adding a citizenship question to the 2020 Census-given the overwhelming evidence that it will chill participation and produce inaccurate responses-would break faith with the Constitution's mandate for a head count of the entire nation. Although the Department of Justice urges the addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 Census, it offers no reason to doubt what the latest Census Bureau data shows: asking all persons to divulge their citizenship status will chill participation by noncitizens and citizens alike and produce inaccurate data. Instead, the DOJ maintains that a new citizenship question will ensure better enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. This is false. Since the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, the Census has never asked all persons to report their citizenship. In other words, a mandatory question on citizenship has never been necessary to ensure robust protection of the right to vote. That is just as true now as it was in 1965 when the Voting Rights Act was passed. The Justice Department's effort to game the Census and manipulate the national head count our Framers wrote into the Constitution should be rejected. Failing to count all persons in the United States, as the Constitution mandates, would deal a huge blow to our democracy. The stakes are high, and there are no do-overs permitted-we must get it right, and get it right now. Sincerely, Asian Americans Advancing Justice--AAJC Campaign Legal Center Constitutional Accountability Center Democracy Forward Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law NAACPLegal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. United To Protect Democracy Voting Rights Institute cc: Donald F. McGahn, White House Counsel Michael J. Walsh, Jr., Deputy General Counsel, Department of Commerce Hon. Ron Johnson, Chairman, Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Hon. Claire McCaskill Ranking Member, Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee' Hon. Trey Gowdy Chairman, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Hon. Elijah Cummings Ranking Member, House COinmittee on Oversight and Government Reform s Memorandum from Ctr. for Survey Measurement to the Assoc. Directorate for Research& Methodology, Re: Respondent Confidentiality Concerns 1 (Sept. 20, 2017), https://www2.census.gov/cac/nac/meetings/201711/Memo-Rega rd ing -Respon de nt -Confid entia Iity-Con ce rns. pdf. o;;;;ifrii:,. Constitutional Accountability Center I Page 2 001249 A CITVOF 0 ~~mes. '\.) ~ ;;; '"'">< '"nc: Smart Choice -< 2. '" '"'"n '"'"-< rrI C') C "'""i :< rrI co Z ::1;:::.- ::xl l'V 0., (/) m ('") :::0 r"1 ;;! Dear Secretary Ross: ~ :::0 ):>: "-l -0 ::::: ~ W W Re: 2020 Decennial Census I write to urge you to reject inclusion of a question regarding United States Decennial Census. I believe including such a question would ultimately be gathering the most accurate, reliable information possible - as you know, crucial crucial for the government agencies and institutions that rely on Census data follow-on consequences of inaccurate Census data would be felt by the over represent and millions more across our nation. citizenship in the 2020 harmful to the aim of for the 2020 Census and to make decisions. The 300,000 Brooklynites I We already face a significant challenge in successfully obtaining the most accurate census data possible in 2020. The City of New York estimates that approximately 2.6% of residents, approximately 225,000 people, were not counted in the 2010 Decennial Census. Significant numbers of New York City populations are deemed "hard-to-count" by the Census Bureau. Reasons for this designation include: not speaking English fluently, low-income households, homeless populations, undocumented immigrants, young mobile people, etc. Qualitative data released by the Census Bureau finds an "unprecedented" level of concern with the confidentiality of data. Such concerns can cause respondents to provide inaccurate or incomplete information. I join my colleagues in government who voice grave concerns that adding a question about citizenship or immigration status to the 2020 Decennial Census exacerbates the existing challenges and is thus seriously ill-advised. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact my office at (718) 284-4700. r~~ Sincerely, Jesse E. Hamilton New York State Senator 20th District 001251 -- •.... => .., 0 V> x "" ,."C") March 22, 2018 :x :l> c:: ::0 -< < ,." The Honorable Wilbur Ross Secretary, United States Department 1401 Constitution Washington, V> of Commerce ,."C") ,."'" Avenue, N.W. DC 20230 Dear Secretary N N ~ r:Y );' Ross: VI '" ~ , ......., As American business leaders, we write to express our deep concem about the Department Justice's request that the Census Bureau include an untested question about citizenship 2020 Census questionnaire. The decennial Census provides critical data that informs decision-making public sectors. As you know, businesses demographic and economic .. of in the in both the private and rely on accurate, complete census data to analyze trends required for business strategy. Businesses use census data to determine where to locate stores and facilities, find qualified workers, and market products and services. Adding a new question this late in the decennial Census process could reduce the accuracy of the 2020 Census. We know from the science of survey design that adding questions established questionnaire essentially creates a new questionnaire Every question and the order of questions affect how respondents When a change is made to a standardized reliability and validity of the questionnaire questionnaire to an • that needs to be validated. answer the other questions. that has already been tested, the are potentially affected, requiring the survey to be re- tested. Adding a new question would incur additional delays and costs, and waste taxpayer dollars that have already been spent on designing and planning the 2020 Census. The Census Bureau has completed its multi-year, and its end-to-end multi-million-dollar research and testing phase for the 2020 Census, test in Rhode Island is underway. And the schedule is already tight. Instead of spending more money and time on altering the questionnaire, additional taxpayer dollars would be better directed to addressing ongoing challenges around deploying mobile technology that will yield a more accurate Census. We appreciate your leadership and are pleased that the Census Bureau is utilizing your business acumen to execute the nation's most comprehensive population count. We respectfully request that the Census Bureau refrain from adding any untested questions -- on citizenship or otherwise - that could undermine the integrity of this critical data collection tool. Thank you for your consideration. 1001252 of 3 Sincerely, Karen Blanco Roy Bostock Co-Founder Vice-Chairman & Director Irene B. Bueno (retired), Partner Ejecutiva Magazine Delta AirLines; Chairman (retired), Yahoo!; Director (retired), Morgan Stanley NVGLLC Carl Camden President & CEO (retired) Kelly SeNices Maxine Clark Founder, Build-A-Bear Workshop; CEO, Clark-Fox Family Foundation Billy Dec H. Patrick Dee Barry Downing President & CEO Northrock, Inc. Robert Dugger Founder & Managing Partner, Hanover Provident Capital; Partner (retired), Paul Tudor Jones; Chairman of the National Advisory Board, ReadyNation Buck Gee Vice President & General Manager (retired) Nikolai Gregory Galle Managing Director U.S. Bank Wealth Management Elizabeth Fullerton General Partner Fullerton Venture Partners Cisco Systems Eduardo Hapke Co-Founder & Publisher Negocios Magazine Chris Lehane Global Head of Public Policy & Public Affairs Airbnb Lukas Lipinski Founding Partner The Policy Bridge Founder Elston Films CEO Future Partners, LLC Richard Hazleton Jimmy Lee Chairman & CEO (retired) President & CEO Dow Corning Corporation Goodcity Ginger Lew CEO, Three Oaks Investments, Dennis Linderbaum President & COO UnityPoint Health Des Moines Foundation LLC; Former General Counsel, U.S..Department of Commerce Gary F. Locke Chairman, Locke Global Strategies, LLC; Former Secretary, U.S. Department of Commerce Helmuth A. Lutty Senior Vice PresidentShipping Operations Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc. 2001253 of 3 Norman Y. Mineta President & CEO, Mineta & Associates, LLC; Former Secretary, U.S. Department of Jack McBride CEO Con tee, Inc. Robert Myers Chairman & CEO (retired) . . Casey's General Stores, Inc. Transportation Shekar Narasimhan Managing Partner Richard Nieman Head of Regulatory & Government Affairs Beekman Advisors John Pepper Chairman & CEO (retired) Procter & Gamble Lending Club Lorna Randlett Founder & Co-Chair Nicole Quiroga President & CEO Greater Washington Hispanic Leaders Forum Jennifer Riordan Vice President Community Relations Wells Fargo Chamber of Commerce Carley Roney Founder XO Group Inc. William Schroeer Executive Director Tejal Shah Strategic Alliances Jeffrey Smulyan Chairman, CEO & Founder Urban Sitter Emmis Communications Kenneth R. Thrasher CEO (retired), Fred Meyer Stores; Chairman of the Board, Former CEO, Compti Inc. Brian Wallace President & CEO Hugh Welsh President, Secretary & General Counsel W. David Romoser Former Senior Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary A. East Metro Strong O. Smith Corporation Coin Laundry Association DSM North America Shawn Xu Managing Partner Dorm Room Fund James Zimmerman Chairman & CEO (retired) Macy's Inc. Note: Signatories named above sign as individuals. Organization or company names are included for identification purposes only, and do not imply company endorsement. ReadyNation is a national business membership organization of business executives who promote policy solutions that build a strong workforce and economy. 3001254 of 3 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington. D.C. 20230 March 23,2018 Ms. Jill Boxler Senior National Policy Advisor Ready Nation, Council for a Strong America 1212 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20005 Dear Ms. Boxler: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I have conducted a rigorous review and produced a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate, and I have put into place the people, processes, and-programs necessary to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, LJ~~ Wilbur Ross 001255 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT As part of his decision-making process, Secretary Ross spoke to a number of different stakeholders about the Department of Justice’s request to reinstate the citizenship question on the 2020 Decennial. These notes attempt to memorialize those conversations. These are not verbatim transcripts and each summary reflects the recollections of attendees from the Department of Commerce. Every effort has been made to ensure these notes are an accurate reflection of Secretary Ross’s conversations with stakeholders. Congressman Elijah Cummings (D. MD) On March 23, 2018, Secretary Ross and his staff spoke with Congressman Elijah Cummings. Congressman Cummings stated that he is vehemently against adding a citizenship question to the 2020 Decennial Census. He noted that in his district—the inner city of Baltimore—a number of people are already skeptical of the federal government and adding a citizenship question would chill response rates because of concerns about confidentiality. Congressman Cummings stated that this chilling effect would be significant because the census is asking something that it has never done before. He further stated that this (presumably using data from the Decennial Census to enforce the VRA) is not the way DOJ does it. Congressman Cummings noted that the inclusion of a citizenship question would cost the government more money because people would be hesitant to get involved because they will not want to give their information to the government. Congressman Cummings noted that even in his inner-city district in Baltimore, lots of people in his neighborhood do not want to get involved. He reiterated that it is hard for people to give the government their personal information at this time, and this exacerbates the problem. Congressman Cummings further noted that it’s getting late in the process and the Secretary probably has a lot on his plate. When asked about issues unique to his district, Congressman Cummings noted that 10% of his district was Hispanic or other immigrant populations and that they are concerned like they have never been before. Congressman Cummings noted that the president’s policies have scared people in his district and the government has become the enemy instead of lifting people up. Congressman Cummings stated that when he goes to church, he can’t leave without constituents expressing their concerns about how they are scared to death overall. Congressman Cummings noted that the administration has the right to carry out its own policies but that doing so has ramifications. Finally, Congressman Cummings noted that African Americans are very skeptical of the Census Bureau generally and less inclined to respond. In response to a question, Congressman Cummings confirmed that this skepticism existed separate from and regardless of the question on citizenship.      Government mistrust Confidentiality concerns Question has never been asked before Higher costs Bad political climate 001256 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT As part of his decision-making process, Secretary Ross spoke to a number of different stakeholders about the Department of Justice’s request to reinstate the citizenship question on the 2020 Decennial. These notes attempt to memorialize those conversations. These are not verbatim transcripts and each summary reflects the recollections of attendees from the Department of Commerce. Every effort has been made to ensure these notes are an accurate reflection of Secretary Ross’s conversations with stakeholders. Professor Bob Groves, former Director of the Census (2009-2012) On March 23, 2018, Secretary Ross and his staff spoke with Professor Bob Groves, director of the Census Bureau from 2009 to 2012. Dr. Groves noted that the Commerce Secretary in 2009 was in precisely the same situation that the Secretary is now – attempting to implement changes to the census questionnaire in a justifiable way. Professor Groves stated that there was a scholar from the University of Michigan who worked on VRA issues and who combined estimates from the Decennial Census and the ACS to evaluate the quality of data for enforcement of the VRA. Professor Groves noted that the VRA calls for data on language proficiency but there is not a question about language proficiency on the census. Professor Groves stated that the results were proven out of necessity to their satisfaction and that the Census Bureau developed a set of techniques to provide estimates on citizenship status without adding a citizenship question to the decennial questionnaire. Professor Groves next discussed the protocol for the development of questions for the census. He stated that making last minute changes to the census without testing is risky, but he conceded that no one has estimates of that risk, so he cannot quantify it. He believes that the argument that making last minutes changes is risky is a valid one. Professor Groves also stated that the Secretary should consider how badly the Census Bureau would be damaged by the addition of a question. Professor Groves noted that adding questions to the decennial questionnaire creates a non-trivial risk, but that again there is no empirical evidence to support this proposition. Professor Groves stated that he believed the top priority when considering whether to add a question to the decennial census questionnaire is whether that question is required by law or necessary to guarantee that the census is properly done. Professor Groves stated that the questions that are legally required are the highest priority. In response to a question, Dr. Groves clarified the types of questions that are legally required. He referenced existing laws that require the dispersal of funds based on census data as well as laws that require certain census data to be implemented. Professor Groves noted that some laws specifically reference the use of census data while others merely imply as much. Finally, Professor Groves discussed the issue of “speculation” about participation rates. Professor Groves stated that based on his past experience, in the year before the census interest groups will begin raising concerns about the intrusiveness of the Census Bureau into the lives of the public. He stated that interest groups will encourage people to refuse to participate in the census. Professor Groves noted that new immigrant groups are often susceptible to influence by these campaigns, which he claimed occurred regularly in years ending with the number 9. Professor Groves made clear that these campaigns would occur in 2019 regardless of whether or not the 2020 Decennial Census contains a citizenship question. Professor Groves noted that the 001257 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT Secretary and the Census Bureau would have to find ways to counter such campaigns so that his census is not ruined. Professor Groves stated that he engaged in this exercise to support his Secretary in response to a campaign against participation from Michelle Bachman in 2009. Professor Groves then thanked the Secretary for the time and attention he was giving the issue and lamenting that there is no upside for the Secretary of Commerce during a Decennial Census year. Secretaries are not praised if the census goes well – only criticized when it goes poorly. Professor Groves cautioned that the Secretary could “only lose” with the census and wished him luck.      ACS data is sufficient Testing No empirical evidence of risk exists Government mistrust Interest groups will attempt to decrease participation regardless of content 001258 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT As part of his decision-making process, Secretary Ross spoke to a number of different stakeholders about the Department of Justice’s request to reinstate the citizenship question on the 2020 Decennial. These notes attempt to memorialize those conversations. These are not verbatim transcripts and each summary reflects the recollections of attendees from the Department of Commerce. Every effort has been made to ensure these notes are an accurate reflection of Secretary Ross’s conversations with stakeholders. Hermann Habermann, former Deputy Director and COO of the Census Bureau (2002-2006) On March 23, 2018, Secretary Ross and his staff spoke with Hermann Habermann, former Deputy Director and COO of the Census Bureau, former Director of the U.N. Statistical Division, and former Chief Statistician at OMB. Mr. Habermann stated that he was not aware of a controlled study that could quantify the effect on participation rates of asking a citizenship question. Mr. Habermann stated that he believed that asking a citizenship question on the Decennial Census would diminish response rates and degrade the quality of responses, but there is no data to support these beliefs or to quantify the expected response diminution rate. Mr. Habermann stated that he believed the “burden of proof” for getting a question added to the Decennial Census is on the person who proposes it. Specifically, the proposing party should be required to demonstrate how the proposed question would not degrade the census. Mr. Habermann stated that the census is fragile, and that it is particularly fragile now because our country is divided and people are influenced by social media, which can be a powerfully disrupting force. Mr. Habermann continued that social media makes it much easier to galvanize mistrust about the census by questioning its very purpose. Mr. Habermann stated that lower response rates cause the costs of the census to go up and the quality of the data to go down. Mr. Habermann shared an example from his time at Census Bureau. In 2004, DHS asked the Census Bureau to provide data on the number of Arab Americans by zip code in certain areas of the country. Mr. Habermann noted that this information was already available to the public but DHS could not figure out how to access it. When the Census Bureau provided DHS with the information it requested, there was a political firestorm and the Census Bureau was accused of providing DHS with sensitive information. (Mr. Habermann made clear that the Census Bureau does not give out personally identifiable information and did not do so here, but the result was the same.) Mr. Habermann noted that despite the outcry, the response rate to subsequent census surveys did not change in the communities most impacted by the dissemination of the supposedly sensitive information. Mr. Habermann confirmed that he ascertained this personally, but also cautioned that we are living in a different time now and the political climate is different. Mr. Habermann stated that he believed that reinstating a citizenship question would cause divisiveness and that the party requesting the addition should have the burden of proof to establish the overriding policy reason for the addition. Mr. Habermann further stated that if the Secretary wants to add the question, the reason must be clear – there must be no public mistrust of the underlying reason, which is not the case here. Mr. Habermann noted that this proposed citizenship question would be particularly fraught because there has not been a clear explanation given as to why this data is necessary. Therefore, it is easy to misconstrue the motives behind the question. Finally, Mr. Habermann noted that if a proposed question would not decrease cost, 001259 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT serve an important policy objective, or increase data quality, there is no reason to put it on the questionnaire.      Lower response rate Degrade quality of responses Burden of proof on proposing party Country divided Higher costs 001260 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT As part of his decision-making process, Secretary Ross spoke to a number of different stakeholders about the Department of Justice’s request to reinstate the citizenship question on the 2020 Decennial. These notes attempt to memorialize those conversations. These are not verbatim transcripts and each summary reflects the recollections of attendees from the Department of Commerce. Every effort has been made to ensure these notes are an accurate reflection of Secretary Ross’s conversations with stakeholders. Dr. Kay Cole James, President, Heritage Foundation On March 23, 2018, Secretary Ross and his staff spoke with Dr. Kay Cole James, President of the Heritage Foundation. Dr. James complimented the Secretary on remarks he made at the Swedish embassy. Dr. James stated that it is vitally important to have accurate data on citizenship status of U.S. residents and that she supports adding a citizenship question to the Decennial Census. Dr. James stated that the Heritage Foundation, as a policy and research institution, uses census data in numerous ways, and Heritage counts on census data to be a reliable source of data. She stated that she considered census data to be the most reliable source of data that Heritage used. Dr. James stated that Heritage policy analysts used census data across the board and that the accuracy of census data is important because it determines the quality of Heritage’s work product. Dr. James stated that a citizenship question would allow Heritage and other research organizations to know the full cohort of what researchers are dealing with in terms of citizenship. The data could allow analysts to better understand whether opinions are held by the general public, citizens specifically, or a mix of citizens and non-citizens. More data on citizenship would allow more in-depth research and better breakdowns of data cohorts. In response to a question, Dr. James stated that she had no insight into the commercial uses of census data. Dr. James next stated that citizenship data would be vitally important for research on issues of voting rights. She explained that it was hard to predict how having more accurate citizenship data would specifically impact VRA enforcement, but that Heritage analysts will eventually be able to review the new data, analyze it, and produce more accurate reports. Dr. James next noted that accurate citizenship data could improve research into important immigration issues. She noted that in this area in particular it is critical for researchers to have access to accurate data on citizenship status. In conclusion, Dr. James reiterated that she was extremely supportive of the reinstatement of the citizenship question on the Decennial Census.   Need accurate citizenship data Improved research 001261 NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY 31-19 ARAVELLA SIMOTAS Assemblymember - 36th District Queens County DISTRICT OFFICE: Newtown Avenue, Suite 401, Astoria, NY 11102 (718) 545-3889 e.FAX (718) 545-3607 Legislative ALBANY OFFICE: Office Building, Room 652, Albany, (518) 455-5014 e FAX (518) 455-4044 Committee Commission NY 12248 cI> ...., rr1 0::> )< 1""1 ("') Honorable Wilbur L. Ross, Jr. Secretary U.S. Department of Commerce 14021 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20230 CO-CHAIR on Legislative COMMITTEES Energy Insurance Judiciary Ways and Means Q March 23, 2018 CHAIR on Ethics and Guidance c: -I <: M (;:l::I 3 :;~> ;;:;0 rv 0' tn 1""1 M ;;0 M Dear Secretary Ross: :i :;;;; ~ 22 ~ ..a::= w I write to urge you to reject any attempt to include a question on citizenship status in the 2020 Decennial Census. As a representative of a diverse community in New York that is home to a large population of immigrants, I am deeply concerned that a citizenship question would deter many of my constituents from participating in the census and prevent them from receiving critically needed resources over the next decade. In the district I represent, approximately 90% of residents currently live in neighborhoods considered "hard-to-count" by the Census Bureau, and only 68.4% of households returned their questionnaires in the 2010 Decennial Census. With heightened fears of immigration enforcement and anxieties over the confidentiality of census data, it will be even more challenging to collect and complete, accurate information. Adding a question about citizenship will exacerbate these issues and depress response rates even further, leading to detrimental consequences for our most vulnerable populations. It is critical that the 2020 Decennial Census captures accurate data so our communities can be fairly represented and federal funding can be properly allocated. The inclusion of an immigration status question would undermine the validity of census data and hinder efforts to provide vital services to people in need. The long-term effects of an undercount would be devastating for families in my community and throughout New York, and I strongly urge you to reject requests to add a citizenship question that would cause depressed and inaccurate responses. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Sincerely, Aravella Simotas New York State Assemblymember 36th District - Queens 001262 Ethics If-Ob()333 ,- THE ASSEMBLY COMMITIEES STATE OF NEW YORK -ALBANY Codes Ethics & Guidance Health Insul'i\nce .Judiciary CHARLES D. LAVINE Assembfyman 13~District CHAIR Election LawCommitteo March 2S, 2018 Hon. Wilbur L. Ross,Jr. Secretary US.Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution AvenUe, NW Washington/ D.C 20230 Dear Secretary Ross: lamasking you to reject any attempt to include any questioning regarding U.S. citizenship in the 2020 Decennial Census. The presen<;eof such a question will iead to an increase in inaccurate responses and will suppress response rates, An inaccurate decennial censUs count will have a devastating impact on my ability as an elected official to seNe my Constituents and ensure they receiVed the proper resources. I represent a number of impacted minority communities that are deemed "hard-to-count" by the Census Bureau: persons who do not speak English fluently/ lower income people; undocumented immigrants, children, etc. Recent qualitative data released by the Census Bureau shows that survey respondents expressed lIunprecedented" levels of concern with the Confidentiality of their data and who has access to their responses regarding immigration. These concernS caus~d respondents to provide incorrect or incomplete information in an effort to protect themselves and their families. Adding a question about citizenship or immigration status to the 2020 Decennial Census will only exacerbate these existing challenges, Anundercountin the 2020 Decennial Census will. have a devastating/ decade-long impact on New York State. Data frOm the decennial census is used to allocate approximately $700 billion dollars to states and municipalities each fiscal year and inaccuracies and depressed responses could easily lead toa misallocation in the billions. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely/ c~.- Charles D. Lavine Member of Assembly -- CL/sw ALBANY OFFICE: Room 713, Legislative Onice Building, Albany, New Yorl< 12248' 518-455-5456, FAX: 5i8-455~5467 DISTRICT OFFICE: 1 School Street,Slllta 3036, Glen Cove; New Yori{ 11642 • 516-676-0050, FAX: 516-'676-0071 EMAIL: lavinoc@ilyasseriibly_gov 001263 THE ASSEMBLY STATE OF NEW YORK ALBANY CHAIR Higher Education Committee Intern Committee COMMITIEES Environmental Conservation Rules Ways & Means DEBORAH J. GLICK Assemblymember 66TH District New York County March 23, 2018 o Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., Secretary US Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Ave, NW Washington D.C., 20230 ~ (/> f'I'\ )< S -< rrl (/> rrl n :;0 Dear Secretary Ross, ~ - 00 .~ :;Q N '" -0 3: ts;; m ~ ;:0 W I urge you to reject any attempt to include any question regarding U.S. citizepship and ~adeIJ. status in the 2020 Decennial Census. Asking for such information would have a chilling effect on the Census completion rate. The United States Census Bureau states that the goaf of the Census is to serve "as the leading source of quality data about the nation's people and economy." Implementing questions about citizenship would undermine this goal. Many N ew Yorkers, such as people who are homeless, lack of proficiency with the English language, or fear federal action due to their race, ethnicity, or immigration status are deemed "hard to count" populations for Census collection. These groups will be further deterred from participating in the Census if there are questions regarding citizenship and immigration status. The majority of the people who will be discouraged from participating in the Census, are also those who would benefit greatly from a precise and fair allocation of resources. Individuals and families alike are rightfully concerned with how their data will be used and with whom it will be shared. Low participation in the Census can lead to significantly underfunding from the Federal government for the next decade. In order for elected officials to best serve our constituents, we need to ensure that we obtain the most accurate information possible while remaining aware of the delicacies that exist in our constituents' lives. Adding additional barriers or causes for lack of participation in the survey will only serve to further undermine funding for services for our most vulnerable popul~tions. I urge you to allow the Census to be as accessible as possible, and reject questions regarding citizenship or immigration status. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, yJ.-J.. JjU Deborah J. Glick Assemblymember o o DISTRICT OFFICE -853 Broadway, Suite 2007, New York, New York 10003-4703. (212) 674-5153, ALBANY OFFICE - Room 717, Legislative Office Building, Albany, New York 12248 • (518) 455-4841, glickd@nyassembly.gov FAX (212) 674-5530 FAX (518) 455-4649 001264 THE ASSEMBLY CHAIR Correction Committee STATE OF NEW YORK COMMITTEES Banks Codes Judiciary Ways and Means ALBANY TASKFORCE Puerto Rican/Hispanic Task Force DAVID I. WEPRIN Member of Assembly 24'" Dislrict o (J) ,." X ~ C:> /"T1 ("') The Honorable Wilbur L. Ross, Jr. Secretary U.S. Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Ave, NW Washington, D.C. 20230 ~ ;:0 •••••• !2] ~.-•. Dear Secretary Ross: ::0 c:: -1 :< M (J') :s :2 W W . ~ We urge you to reject any attempt to include a question regarding U.S. citizenship in the 2020 Decennial Census. Including such a question will lead to an increase in inaccurate responses and will depress response rates: As representative of New York City, we rely on accurate census data, and an inaccurate decennial census count will have a devastating impact on our ability to serve our constituents and ensure that they receive the resources they need. > The City of New York estimates that approximately 2.6 percent of its residents, or 225,000 people, were not counted in the 2010 Decennial Census. Administering the decennial census is already a challenge in New York City, which has a high percentage of communities that are deemed "hard to count" by the Census Bureau; persons who do not speak English fluently, lower income persons, homeless persons, undocumented immigrants, young mobile persons, children, etc. Recent qualitative data released by the Census Bureau shows that survey respondents expressed "unprecedented" levels of concern with the confidentiality of their data and who has access to their responses regarding immigration. These concerns caused respondents to provide incorrect or incomplete information in an effort to protect themselves and their families. Adding a question about citizenship or immigration status to the 2020 Decennial Census will only exacerbate these existing challenges. ' An undercount in the 2020 Decennial Census will have a devastating, decade-long impact on New York State and New York City. Data from the decennial census is used to allocate approximately $700 billion dollars to states and municipalities each fiscal year, and inaccuracies and depressed response rates in survey responses could easily lead to the misallocation of billions of dollars each fiscal year. It is our sincere hope that you will reject any attempt to add a question on citizenship to the 2020 Decennial Census. Doing so will result in depressed and inaccurate rates, which could have a real and direct impact on the resources that New York City residents receive from the federal government over the next decade. Thank you for the consideration of this request. Sincerely, .g4iittv~. David I. Weprin Member of Assembly ALBANY OFFICE: Room 602, Legislative Office Building, Albany, New York 12246 ' 516-455-5606, FAX: 516-455-5977 DISTRICT OFFICES: 165-06 Union Turnpike, Fresh Meadows, New York 11366 ' 716-454-3027, FAX: 716-454-3176 111.12 AtianticAvenue, Suite #5, Richmond Hill, New York 11419, 716-605-2361, FAX: 716-605-2364 EMAIL:weprind@nyassembly,gov 001265 THE ASSEMBLY STATE OF NEW YORK ALBANY Chairman Committee on Codes COMMITTEES Rules Ways & Means Election Law JOSEPH R. LENTOL Assemblyman 50th District Kings County Ientolj@assembly.state.ny.us 0 March 23,2018 c:::::> tTl co tTl :z: ;;:r;:.. ><: ("') The Honorable Wilbur L. Ross, Jr. Secretary U.S. Department ofCoI1111lerce 1401 Constitution Ave, NW Washington, D.C. 20230 ......, CJ) c:: :;0 <: N 0>- -I r>1 (J) /'T1 ("") ::l:J /'T1 i;! ::l:J .l:j ""0 3 r:;; W W Dear Secretary Ross: I urge you to reject any attempt to include a question regarding U.S. citizenship in the 2020 Decennial Census. Including such a question will discourage people worried about their citizenship status from responding to the census at all. As a member ofthe New York State Assembly, I am deeply concerned about an inaccurate count and the resulting inaccuracies in the distribution of state and federal resources based on that count. Naturally, many people are concerned about the confidentiality oftheir personal information, and this is especially true amongst many of New York City's immigrant populations. These concerns cause respondents to provide incorrect or incomplete information in an effort to protect themselves and their families. New York City is home to many different groups of people, some of which are inherently hard to count by the Census Bureau's own standards: non-fluent English speakers; people of low income, the homeless; undocumented immigrants; and young, transient professionals. One estimate of the 2010 Census shared with my office by MC Meng, MC Serrano and MC Maloney suggests that 225,000 New Yorkers were not counted that year. That is more people than live in most American cities, and that is a miscount that I want to avoid repeating. Thank you for considering my request. ~A. ..~ . Joseph R. Lentol 001266 THE ASSEMBLY STATE OF NEW YORK ALBANY PETER J. ABBATE, JR. Assemblyman 49" District Kings County . CHAIRMAN Committee on Governmental Employees COMMITIEES Aging Banks Consumer Affairs & Protection Labor d tf) rTJ .x fl1 C") ClIO :".:1: c: ~1Iloi =2 N -t March 23, 2018 •....• o:t=::I m :;;ra 0- Ul Honorable William Ross Secretary U.S. Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Ave, NW Washington, DC 20230 f"T1 C") ;0 m ~ ::0 ~ ~ r:;; W W Dear Secretary Ross: I am writing to you regarding the upcoming 2020 Decennial"Census and the proposal that would include a question of citizenship on the questionnaire. As an Assemblyman from Brooklyn, New York that represents a majority Asian-American district, it is crucial that we do all we can to ensure an accurate count. I urge you to reject any attempt to include a question. regarding U.S. citizenship in the 2020 Decennial Census. . New York City has been chronically undercotmted in the past censuses which have had a decade long impact. Since the five-boroughs has many obstacles for getting an accurate count, such as homeless, undocumented, non-English speakers as well as many other challenges that depress turnout. Ensuring that New York residents receive the accw-ate and appropriate amount of federal government funding should be a top priority. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter and I hope that you will join me and many of my colleagues in government to make sure that we receive the resources we need and an accurate count in the census. /"-' j' l" 1;/ ~~lte, Jr. Assembly rj Cl Room 839, Legislative Office Building, Albany, New York 12248. (518) 455.3053 Cl 6605 Fort Hamilton Parkway, Brooklyn, New York 11219 • (718) 232.9565 001267 THE ASSEMBLY CHAIR Subcommittee on Women Velerans STATE OF NEW YORK COMMITTEES Energy Insurance Social Services Transportation . Veterans' Affairs ALBANY PAMELA J. HUNTER Assemblywoman 128'" District Onondaga County <5 (/') rr1 March 23, 2018 Hon. Wilbur L. Ross,Jr. Secretary U.S. Dept. of Commerce 1401 Constitution Ave. NW Washington D.C. 20230 """" :::! co >< rr1 n c: -,\ :::i: :~:~~ < rr1 0-. :;0 rv (/) I""l (") ::xl tTl ~ ::xl ~ d:! iSS W W Dear Secretary Ross: I write to urge you to reject any proposal to include questions regarding U.S. citizenship in the 2020 Decennial Census. Any inclusion of such a question will lead to depressed response rates and inaccurate data. As a representative in Central New York, I rely on accurate data to better serve my constituents and determine what resources they need. As the representative of one of the most impoverished communities in the county, census data will I already be challenging to collect in my district. Constituents are already concerned about keeping their data secure and questioning them about citizenship will sew an even greater distrust of the federal government in our country. Immigrants will conceal information to protect their families rendering the data inaccurate, incomplete, and ultimately less useful. Additionally, if an undercount occurs, New York will suffer a major blow to its funding allocation. This is' a disservice to my constituents and the State of New York as a whole. We should not tolerate a decade of misallocated resources because of ill advised questions in the 2020 Decennial Census. I hope that you see the counterproductive nature of any citizenship question inclusion and reject such proposals. Thank you for your consideration of this request. . . ';>~ AsSemblyWOmantl. 12Sth Assembly District .~tv J. Hunter . . ALBANY OFFICE: Room 432 Legislative Office Building. Albany, New York 12248' 518-455-5383, Fax: 518.455-5417 DISTRICT OFFICE: 711 East Genesee Street, 2nd Floor, Syracuse, New York 13210' 315-449.9536, Fax: 315-449.0712 .EMAIL: hunterp@nyassembly.gov WEBSITE: nyassembty.gov!mem,'Pamela-J-Hunterl 001268 March 23, 2018 The Honorable Wilbur Ross Secretary, United States Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20230 Re: Protect the Scientific Integrity of the Census Dear Secretary Ross, Since its inception in 1787, the decennial U.S. Census has served as the scientificfoundation for population-based representation in our democracy, in addition to providing a wealth of social and economic data that serves the entire country. As we approach the 2020.Census, changes in data collection are being proposed at this late stage that threaten to undermine the scientific integrity of this crucial enterprise. Last December, the Department of Justice requested that the Census Bureau add a question regarding citizenship in an effort to identify undocumented immigrant populations. This request is ill-conceived for a number of reasons. We have more accurate methods for measuring and studying non-citizenship, for example through anonymous surveys. Imposing a citizenship question would lead to a lower participation rate and substantial undercount of certain geographic regions and demographic populations, undermining the scientific integrity of the entire project. Preliminary focus groups and interviews with Census field representatives have already shown that greater fears of deportation, threats of a "Muslirn ban:' and the termination of the DACA program are exacerbating already high non-response rates among historically undercounted populations. The potential for an increased undercount would have far reaching consequences. In addition to the possible loss of Congressional seats for states, accurate population counts are essential for commerce. Businesses that depend on sales to individual consumers rely on regional information about the age, income, education, family structure, occupations and commuting patterns of people that determine market segmentations. Additionally, behavioral data about the use of household accessories and technology provide the best picture that we have about how Americans live. Without a high participation rate and accurate interviews, the validity of important economic data is threatened. The accuracy of the Census is also crucial for effective public policy. Not only do we rely on accurate Census data to provide public services like schools, health care centers and highways, demographic information from the Census has played a major role in the protection of our most fundamental freedoms. The accurate classification of specific racial and ethnic populations provides the core evidence that facilitates enforcement of both the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. Recent calls to remove or abruptly transform these questions similarly threaten the scientific integrity of the Census. Traditionally, the Census Bureau has led a continuous effort to refine and improve questions designed to measure evolving constructs such as race. For example, the 2000 Census was the first to provide the option of self-identification in multiple categories, to better reflect the growing 001269 complexity of racial identity. Our hope is that demographers and other scientists at the Bureau will continue to adjust such questions in order to capture meaningful distinctions, but they should be free from political pressure in doing so. The Census captures the story of who we have been, who we are, and who we are becoming. We urge the Department of Commerce uphold its responsibility to protect the scientific integrity and ensure the accuracy of the population data that results from the 2020 Census. Sincerely, Steven Aftergood Acting President, Federation of American Scientists Andrew Cherlin Benjamin H. Griswold III Professor of Public Policy & Chair, Johns Hopkins University Sarah Christopherson Policy Advocacy Director, National Women's Health Network Louis Clark Executive Director/CEO, Government Accountability Project Charlie Cray Interim Political and Business Policy Director, Greenpeace USA Julie Dowling Associate Professor, Department of Latina/Latino Studies, University of "Iinois at Urbana-Champaign Wendy Fields Executive Director, Democracy Initiative Carol Gore President/CEO, Cook Inlet Housing Authority President, Association of Alaska Housing Authorities Christine Harley Director, 2020 Census Counts Hassan Jaber Executive Director, Arab Com'munity Center for Economic and Social Services David lewis William R. Kenan, Jr. Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science, Vanderbilt University Meghan Maury Policy Director, NationallGBTQ Task Force 001270 Alondra Nelson President, Social Science Research Council Andrew Rosenberg Director, Center for Science and Democracy, Union of Concerned Scientists Alisu Schoua-Glusberg Principal Owner, Research Support Services Inc. Sonal Shah Professor of Practice and founding Executive Director of the Beeck Center for Social Impact and Innovation, Georgetown University Maile Taualii Assistant Professor of Public Health, John A. Burns School of Medicine, University of Hawaii, Manoa Kathleen Thelen President, American Political Science Association Arturo Vargas Executive Director, NALEOEducational Fund Bethany Wiggin Founding Director, Penn Program in Environmental Humanities, University of Pennsylvania Susan F. Wood Executive Director, Jacobs Institute of Women's Health Jane Zelikova Research Scientist, sao Women Scientists 001271 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington: D.C. 20230 March 23,2018 Ms. Vivian Chang Outreach Specialist, Center for Science and Democracy Union of Concerned Scientists 1825 K Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20006 Dear Ms, Chang: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. Please assure your colleagues that the Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I have conducted a rigorous review and produced a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate, and I have put into place the people, processes, and programs necessary to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please have a member of your staff coIitact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, CJ~~ Wilbur Ross 001272 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 March 23,2018 Mr. Marvin D. Nathan National Chair Anti-Defamation League 1100 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Number 1020 Washington, DC 20036 Dear Mr. Nathan: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Department of Justice's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. I appreciate your taking the time to make me aware of your position on this important matter. The"Department of Commerce is conducting an orderly review of the Department of Justice's request. The Department is required by law to submit the proposed final list of questions to Congress by March 31, 2018, which is two years prior to Census Day, April 1, 2020. Let me underscore my commitment to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 Census. A high-quality 2020 Census that counts each person, in the place where he or she lives, is my highest priority. As you know, I have conducted a rigorous review and produced a new 2020 Census lifecycle cost estimate, and I have put into place the people, processes, and programs necessary to ensure strong governance and oversight of the 2020 Census. We will keep you apprised of any developments regarding the citizenship question. If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please contact Michael Platt, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, at mplatt@doc.gov or (202) 482-3663. Sincerely, lJ~~ Wilbur Ross 001273 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT As part of his decision-making process, Secretary Ross spoke to a number of different stakeholders about the Department of Justice’s request to reinstate the citizenship question on the 2020 Decennial. These notes attempt to memorialize those conversations. These are not verbatim transcripts and each summary reflects the recollections of attendees from the Department of Commerce. Every effort has been made to ensure these notes are an accurate reflection of Secretary Ross’s conversations with stakeholders. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D. CA) On March 23, 2018, Secretary Ross and his staff spoke with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. The Secretary and Leader Pelosi briefly discussed trade and the recent 232 actions. Leader Pelosi then stated that she hoped that she and the Secretary could find “common ground” on census issues and the issue surrounding reinstatement of the citizenship question on the Decennial Census. Leader Pelosi stated that she thinks it would be wrong to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Decennial Census because it is not in the public interest and it does not honor the vision of the founders to meet the needs of the people. Leader Pelosi noted that the census was really about reapportionment and to measure needs and opportunities. According to Leader Pelosi, the census is about how many people live in the United States. Determining the citizenship of residents is not part of the intention of the founders. Leader Pelosi stated that the addition of a citizenship question would (1) have a chilling effect; (2) have an impact on federal government programs and benefits; and (3) impact the distribution of votes in Congress. Leader Pelosi shared that some unease has arisen out of the Trump campaign’s fundraising email that was sent out earlier in the week regarding the citizenship question. She expressed her appreciation that when asked about this email before the House CJS Committee on Tuesday, the Secretary testified that the census is not about politics. Leader Pelosi noted that the citizenship question is about some borderline stuff at best and at worst, it undermines the basis of our democracy, which is to meet the needs of and be fair to the states. Leader Pelosi stated that she appreciated the fact that the Secretary must make a decision by March 31 and that he is reaching out to various sides. Leader Pelosi noted that she was blessed to be from California, where the beauty is in the mix, and where there are a number of mixed households and a large population of non-citizens or nonU.S. born individuals. She stated her concern that residents of mixed households may be reluctant to even cooperate with the census if the short form decennial contains a citizenship question. Leader Pelosi noted that the mere flirtation with adding a question has a chilling effect on people who are citizens and people who are not citizens. Leader Pelosi noted that the census is used to make judgments about the formula for how opportunities are distributed relative to the population. Leader Pelosi stated that a diminished count (which was not yet established by evidence or facts) would lead to a decrease in resources and opportunity from the federal government. Leader Pelosi then discussed her time as a student answering questions about the diplomatic policy of the United States in the nineteenth century, all of which were based on geography, particularly those about Lewis and Clark. Leader Pelosi stated that questions of history are often 001274 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT answered by knowing “who are the people?” She spoke of how Ben Franklin feared that America would become a nation of Germans. Leader Pelosi stated that currently, our country consists of natives and others. Leader Pelosi then asked “Who is America? Who are America?” Regardless, Leader Pelosi explained, there is no constitutional basis to ask a question about citizenship. Leader Pelosi next referenced the fact that many states assessed poll taxes in the past as a matter of course. Leader Pelosi then reiterated her concerns about the citizenship question having a chilling effect and noted that the answers will have an impact on the federal government. According to Leader Pelosi, the will determine the distribution of votes in Congress in the United States and it will show where people live and move and the “rest of that.” Leader Pelosi explained that for a long time, the Sun Belt has drawn people, and states in the Sun Belt received additional congressional seats because the census accurately counted Sun Belt residents. Leader Pelosi noted that in her district, there are a large number of people who were foreign born, and that this is the case throughout California, and that the citizenship question would have a chilling effect on response rate. Leader Pelosi stated that anytime the government seeks to ascertain certain information, particularly at public schools in her district, kids don’t show up because there is a fear. Questions that may seem appropriate lead to questions that are not appropriate, which in turn leads to a chilling effect. Leader Pelosi noted that even in bright red states, governors would be at a disadvantage if they needed resources but did not get them due to an undercount. According to Leader Pelosi, it is wrong to inject a citizenship question even if all of the things she is worried about are not true – she does not think it is in the public interest of the country. Leader Pelosi noted that she would document this conversation and commented that the Secretary should be happy because the Census Bureau received a lot of money in the recently passed budget bill.       Does not honor the vision of the founders Confidentiality concerns Impact federal programs and benefits Impact the distribution of votes in Congress Lower response rate Government mistrust 001275 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT As part of his decision-making process, Secretary Ross spoke to a number of different stakeholders about the Department of Justice’s request to reinstate the citizenship question on the 2020 Decennial. These notes attempt to memorialize those conversations. These are not verbatim transcripts and each summary reflects the recollections of attendees from the Department of Commerce. Every effort has been made to ensure these notes are an accurate reflection of Secretary Ross’s conversations with stakeholders. Christine Pierce, SVP of Data Science, Nielsen On March 23, 2018, Secretary Ross and his staff spoke with Christine Pierce, Senior Vice President of Data Science for Nielsen. Ms. Pierce shared that Nielsen uses census data in a lot of important ways, specifically how they recruit and project samples. Ms. Pierce stated that Nielsen needed the census to be accurate and needed the census to be efficient and that the best census is one that produces the highest quality data at the lowest cost. Ms. Pierce stated that her biggest concerns was that the reinstatement of a citizenship question could lead to a lower response rate, and that the mailback rate (or initial response rate) is very important. Costs are lower when people respond the first time. Failure to respond increases costs because Census Bureau needs to deploy enumerators. Ms. Pierce stated that including a question on citizenship could make people less likely to respond, but that there is no data to predict how much lower the response rate might be. In response to a question, Ms. Pierce stated that the longer a survey is, the less likely people are to respond. She further stated that the more sensitive the question, the more likely people are to be turned off by the question and decline to respond. Ms. Pierce explained that examples of sensitive questions included questions or religion and sexuality. Ms. Pierce stated that Nielsen sometimes chooses to ask sensitive questions even if they believe it will depress response rates. Ms. Pierce stated that Nielsen conducts a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether it is worth asking the question, even if it means having to do more extensive nonresponse follow-up. Ms. Pierce stated that sensitive questions often appeared on longer surveys and that longer surveys generally had lower response rates than shorter ones. Ms. Pierce stated that she was not aware of a short census survey that contained a sensitive question, but that Nielsen has tested some of the ACS questions perceived to be “sensitive” (birthplace and date of arrival in the US) on shorter surveys. Ms. Pierce noted that she and others at Nielsen were concerned about response rates declining due to the presence of the sensitive questions on the short questionnaire, but that Nielsen did not observe lower response rates to the survey. Ms. Pierce noted the importance of testing questions. She also noted that in the only specific situation she was aware of that sensitive questions were tested on a short questionnaire, there was no impact on response rates. Finally, in response to a question, Ms. Pierce stated that Nielsen incentivize participation with low dollar cash reward in the $1-$15 range. Ms. Pierce believed that for the survey referenced above, any incentive would have been at the lower end of the range.    Lower response rate/higher NRFU Higher costs Testing 001276 January 19, 2018 MEMORANDUM FOR: Wilbur L. Ross, Jr. Secretary of Commerce Through: Karen Dunn Kelley Performing the Non-Exclusive Functions and Duties of the Deputy Secretary Ron S. Jarmin Performing the Non-Exclusive Functions and Duties of the Director Enrique Lamas Performing the Non-Exclusive Functions and Duties of the Deputy Director From: John M. Abowd Chief Scientist and Associate Director for Research and Methodology Subject: Technical Review of the Department of Justice Request to Add Citizenship Question to the 2020 Census The Department of Justice has requested block-level citizen voting-age population estimates by OMBapproved race and ethnicity categories from the 2020 Census of Population and Housing. These estimates are currently provided in two related data products: the PL94-171 redistricting data, produced by April 1st of the year following a decennial census under the authority of 13 U.S.C. Section 141, and the Citizen Voting Age Population by Race and Ethnicity (CVAP) tables produced every February from the most recent five-year American Community Survey data. The PL94-171 data are released at the census block level. The CVAP data are released at the census block group level. We consider three alternatives in response to the request: (A) no change in data collection, (B) adding a citizenship question to the 2020 Census, and (C) obtaining citizenship status from administrative records for the whole 2020 Census population. We recommend either Alternative A or C. Alternative C best meets DoJ’s stated uses, is comparatively far less costly than Alternative B, does not increase response burden, and does not harm the quality of the census count. Alternative A is not very costly and also does not harm the quality of the census count. Alternative B better addresses DoJ’s stated uses than Alternative A. However, Alternative B is very costly, harms the quality of the census count, and would use substantially less accurate citizenship status data than are available from administrative sources. census.gov 001277 Description Summary of Alternatives Alternative A Alternative B No change in data Add citizenship collection question to the 2020 Census (i.e., the DoJ request), all 2020 Census microdata remain within the Census Bureau Impact on 2020 Census Quality of Citizen Voting-Age Population Data None Other Advantages Lowest cost alternative Shortcomings Citizen voting-age population data remain the same or are improved by using small-area modeling methods Status quo Major potential quality and cost disruptions Block-level data improved, but with serious quality issues remaining Direct measure of selfreported citizenship for the whole population Citizenship status is misreported at a very high rate for noncitizens, citizenship status is missing at a high rate for citizens and noncitizens due to reduced self-response and increased item nonresponse, nonresponse followup costs increase by at least $27.5M, erroneous enumerations increase, whole-person census imputations increase Alternative C Leave 2020 Census questionnaire as designed and add citizenship from administrative records, all 2020 Census microdata and any linked citizenship data remain within the Census Bureau None Best option for blocklevel citizenship data, quality much improved Administrative citizenship records more accurate than selfreports, incremental cost is very likely to be less than $2M, USCIS data would permit record linkage for many more legal resident noncitizens Citizenship variable integrated into 2020 Census microdata outside the production system, Memorandum of Understanding with United States Citizen and Immigration Services required to acquire most up-to-date naturalization data Approved: _______________________________ Date: __________ John M. Abowd, Chief Scientist and Associate Director for Research and Methodology 001278 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives The statistics in this memorandum have been released by the Census Bureau Disclosure Review Board with approval number CBDRB-2018-CDAR-014. Alternative A: Make no changes Under this alternative, we would not change the current 2020 Census questionnaire nor the planned publications from the 2020 Census and the American Community Survey (ACS). Under this alternative, the PL94-171 redistricting data and the citizen voting-age population (CVAP) data would be released on the current schedule and with the current specifications. The redistricting and CVAP data are used by the Department of Justice to enforce the Voting Rights Act. They are also used by state redistricting offices to draw congressional and legislative districts that conform to constitutional equal-population and Voting Rights Act nondiscrimination requirements. Because the block-group-level CVAP tables have associated margins of error, their use in combination with the much more precise block-level census counts in the redistricting data requires sophisticated modeling. For these purposes, most analysts and the DoJ use statistical modeling methods to produce the block-level eligible voter data that become one of the inputs to their processes. If the DoJ requests the assistance of Census Bureau statistical experts in developing model-based statistical methods to better facilitate the DoJ’s uses of these data in performing its Voting Rights Act duties, a small team of Census Bureau experts similar in size and capabilities to the teams used to provide the Voting Rights Act Section 203 language determinations would be deployed. We estimate that this alternative would have no impact on the quality of the 2020 Census because there would be no change to any of the parameters underling the Secretary’s revised life-cycle cost estimates. The estimated cost is about $350,000 because that is approximately the cost of resources that would be used to do the modeling for the DoJ. Alternative B: Add the question on citizenship to the 2020 Census questionnaire Under this alternative, we would add the ACS question on citizenship to the 2020 Census questionnaire and ISR instrument. We would then produce the block-level citizen voting-age population by race and ethnicity tables during the 2020 Census publication phase. Since the question is already asked on the American Community Survey, we would accept the cognitive research and questionnaire testing from the ACS instead of independently retesting the citizenship question. This means that the cost of preparing the new question would be minimal. We did not prepare an estimate of the impact of adding the citizenship question on the cost of reprogramming the Internet Self-Response (ISR) instrument, revising the Census Questionnaire Assistance (CQA), or redesigning the printed questionnaire because those components will not be finalized until after the March 2018 submission of the final questions. Adding the citizenship question is similar in scope and cost to recasting the race and ethnicity questions again, should that become necessary, and would be done at the same time. After the 2020 Census ISR, CQA and printed questionnaire are in final form, adding the citizenship question would be much more expensive and would depend on exactly when the implementation decision was made during the production cycle. 001279 For these reasons, we analyzed Alternative B in terms of its adverse impact on the rate of voluntary cooperation via self-response, the resulting increase in nonresponse followup (NRFU), and the consequent effects on the quality of the self-reported citizenship data. Three distinct analyses support the conclusion of an adverse impact on self-response and, as a result, on the accuracy and quality of the 2020 Census. We assess the costs of increased NRFU in light of the results of these analyses. B.1. Quality of citizenship responses We considered the quality of the citizenship responses on the ACS. In this analysis we estimated item nonresponse rates for the citizenship question on the ACS from 2013 through 2016. When item nonresponse occurs, the ACS edit and imputation modules are used to allocate an answer to replace the missing data item. This results in lower quality data because of the statistical errors in these allocation models. The analysis of the self-responses responses is done using ACS data from 2013-2016 because of operational changes in 2013, including the introduction of the ISR option and changes in the followup operations for mail-in questionnaires. In the period from 2013 to 2016, item nonresponse rates for the citizenship question on the mail-in questionnaires for non-Hispanic whites (NHW) ranged from 6.0% to 6.3%, non-Hispanic blacks (NHB) ranged from 12.0% to 12.6%, and Hispanics ranged from 11.6 to 12.3%. In that same period, the ISR item nonresponse rates for citizenship were greater than those for mail-in questionnaires. In 2013, the item nonresponse rates for the citizenship variable on the ISR instrument were NHW: 6.2%, NHB: 12.3% and Hispanic: 13.0%. By 2016 the rates increased for NHB and especially Hispanics. They were NHW: 6.2%, NHB: 13.1%, and Hispanic: 15.5% (a 2.5 percentage point increase). Whether the response is by mail-in questionnaire or ISR instrument, item nonresponse rates for the citizenship question are much greater than the comparable rates for other demographic variables like sex, birthdate/age, and race/ethnicity (data not shown). B.2. Self-response rate analyses We directly compared the self-response rate in the 2000 Census for the short and long forms, separately for citizen and noncitizen households. In all cases, citizenship status of the individuals in the household was determined from administrative record sources, not from the response on the long form. A noncitizen household contains at least one noncitizen. Both citizen and noncitizen households have lower selfresponse rates on the long form compared to the short form; however, the decline in self-response for noncitizen households was 3.3 percentage points greater than the decline for citizen households. This analysis compared short and long form respondents, categories which were randomly assigned in the design of the 2000 Census. We compared the self-response rates for the same household address on the 2010 Census and the 2010 American Community Survey, separately for citizen and noncitizen households. Again, all citizenship data were taken from administrative records, not the ACS, and noncitizen households contain at least one noncitizen resident. In this case, the randomization is over the selection of household addresses to receive the 2010 ACS. Because the ACS is an ongoing survey sampling fresh households each month, many of the residents of sampled households completed the 2010 ACS with the same reference address as they used for the 2010 Census. Once again, the self-response rates were lower in the ACS than in the 2010 Census for both citizen and noncitizen households. In this 2010 comparison, moreover, the decline in selfresponse was 5.1 percentage points greater for noncitizen households than for citizen households. 001280 In both the 2000 and 2010 analyses, only the long-form or ACS questionnaire contained a citizenship question. Both the long form and the ACS questionnaires are more burdensome than the shortform. Survey methodologists consider burden to include both the direct time costs of responding and the indirect costs arising from nonresponse due to perceived sensitivity of the topic. There are, consequently, many explanations for the lower self-response rates among all household types on these longer questionnaires. However, the only difference between citizen and noncitizen households in our studies was the presence of at least one noncitizen in noncitizen households. It is therefore a reasonable inference that a question on citizenship would lead to some decline in overall self-response because it would make the 2020 Census modestly more burdensome in the direct sense, and potentially much more burdensome in the indirect sense that it would lead to a larger decline in self-response for noncitizen households. B.3. Breakoff rate analysis We examined the response breakoff paradata for the 2016 ACS. We looked at all breakoff screens on the ISR instrument, and specifically at the breakoffs that occurred on the screens with the citizenship and related questions like place of birth and year of entry to the U.S. Breakoff paradata isolate the point in answering the questionnaire where a respondent discontinues entering data—breaks off—rather than finishing. A breakoff is different from failure to self-respond. The respondent started the survey and was prepared to provide the data on the Internet Self-Response instrument, but changed his or her mind during the interview. Hispanics and non-Hispanic non-whites (NHNW) have greater breakoff rates than non-Hispanic whites (NHW). In the 2016 ACS data, breakoffs were NHW: 9.5% of cases while NHNW: 14.1% and Hispanics: 17.6%. The paradata show the question on which the breakoff occurred. Only 0.04% of NHW broke off on the citizenship question, whereas NHNW broke off 0.27% and Hispanics broke off 0.36%. There are three related questions on immigrant status on the ACS: citizenship, place of birth, and year of entry to the United States. Considering all three questions Hispanics broke off on 1.6% of all ISR cases, NHNW: 1.2% and NHW: 0.5%. A breakoff on the ISR instrument can result in follow-up costs, imputation of missing data, or both. Because Hispanics and non-Hispanic non-whites breakoff much more often than non-Hispanic whites, especially on the citizenship-related questions, their survey response quality is differentially affected. B.4. Cost analysis Lower self-response rates would raise the cost of conducting the 2020 Census. We discuss those increased costs below. They also reduce the quality of the resulting data. Lower self-response rates degrade data quality because data obtained from NRFU have greater erroneous enumeration and whole-person imputation rates. An erroneous enumeration means a census person enumeration that should not have been counted for any of several reasons, such as, that the person (1) is a duplicate of a correct enumeration; (2) is inappropriate (e.g., the person died before Census Day); or (3) is enumerated in the wrong location for the relevant tabulation (https://www.census.gov/coverage_measurement/definitions/). A whole-person census imputation is a census microdata record for a person for which all characteristics are imputed. Our analysis of the 2010 Census coverage errors (Census Coverage Measurement Estimation Report: Summary of Estimates of Coverage for Persons in the United States, Memo G-01) contains the relevant data. That study found that when the 2010 Census obtained a valid self-response (219 million persons), 001281 the correct enumeration rate was 97.3%, erroneous enumerations were 2.5%, and whole-person census imputations were 0.3%. All erroneous enumeration and whole-person imputation rates are much greater for responses collected in NRFU. The vast majority of NRFU responses to the 2010 Census (59 million persons) were collected in May. During that month, the rate of correct enumerations was only 90.2%, the rate of incorrect enumeration was 4.8%, and the rate of whole-person census imputations was 5.0%. June NRFU accounted for 15 million persons, of whom only 84.6% were correctly enumerated, with erroneous enumerations of 5.7%, and whole-person census imputations of 9.6%. (See Table 19 of 2010 Census Memorandum G-01. That table does not provide statistics for all NRFU cases in aggregate.) One reason that the erroneous enumeration and whole-person imputation rates are so much greater during NRFU is that the data are much more likely to be collected from a proxy rather than a household member, and, when they do come from a household member, that person has less accurate information than selfresponders. The correct enumeration rate for NRFU household member interviews is 93.4% (see Table 21 of 2010 Census Memorandum G-01), compared to 97.3% for non-NRFU households (see Table 19). The information for 21.0% of the persons whose data were collected during NRFU is based on proxy responses. For these 16 million persons, the correct enumeration rate is only 70.1%. Among proxy responses, erroneous enumerations are 6.7% and whole-person census imputations are 23.1% (see Table 21). Using these data, we can develop a cautious estimate of the data quality consequences of adding the citizenship question. We assume that citizens are unaffected by the change and that an additional 5.1% of households with at least one noncitizen go into NRFU because they do not self-respond. We expect about 126 million occupied households in the 2020 Census. From the 2016 ACS, we estimate that 9.8% of all households contain at least one noncitizen. Combining these assumptions implies an additional 630,000 households in NRFU. If the NRFU data for those households have the same quality as the average NRFU data in the 2010 Census, then the result would be 139,000 fewer correct enumerations, of which 46,000 are additional erroneous enumerations and 93,000 are additional whole-person census imputations. This analysis assumes that, during the NRFU operations, a cooperative member of the household supplies data 79.0% of the time and 21.0% receive proxy responses. If all of these new NRFU cases go to proxy responses instead, the result would be 432,000 fewer correct enumerations, of which 67,000 are erroneous enumerations and 365,000 are whole-person census imputations. For Alternative B, our estimate of the incremental cost proceeds as follows. Using the analysis in the paragraph above, the estimated NRFU workload will increase by approximately 630,000 households, or approximately 0.5 percentage points. We currently estimate that for each percentage point increase in NRFU, the cost of the 2020 Census increases by approximately $55 million. Accordingly, the addition of a question on citizenship could increase the cost of the 2020 Census by at least $27.5 million. It is worth stressing that this cost estimate is a lower bound. Our estimate of $55 million for each percentage point increase in NRFU is based on an average of three visits per household. We expect that many more of these noncitizen households would receive six NRFU visits. We believe that $27.5 million is a conservative estimate because the other evidence cited in this report suggests that the differences between citizen and noncitizen response rates and data quality will be amplified during the 2020 Census compared to historical levels. Hence, the decrease in self-response for citizen households in 2020 could be much greater than the 5.1 percentage points we observed during the 2010 Census. 001282 Alternative C: Use administrative data on citizenship instead of add the question to the 2020 Census Under this alternative, we would add the capability to link an accurate, edited citizenship variable from administrative records to the final 2020 Census microdata files. We would then produce block-level tables of citizen voting age population by race and ethnicity during the publication phase of the 2020 Census using the enhanced 2020 Census microdata. The Census Bureau has conducted tests of its ability to link administrative data to supplement the decennial census and the ACS since the 1990s. Administrative record studies were performed for the 1990, 2000 and 2010 Censuses. We discuss some of the implications of the 2010 study below. We have used administrative data extensively in the production of the economic censuses for decades. Administrative business data from multiple sources are a key component of the production Business Register, which provides the frames for the economic censuses, annual, quarterly, and monthly business surveys. Administrative business data are also directly tabulated in many of our products. In support of the 2020 Census, we moved the administrative data linking facility for households and individuals from research to production. This means that the ability to integrate administrative data at the record level is already part of the 2020 Census production environment. In addition, we began regularly ingesting and loading administrative data from the Social Security Administration, Internal Revenue Service and other federal and state sources into the 2020 Census data systems. In assessing the expected quality and cost of Alternative C, we assume the availability of these record linkage systems and the associated administrative data during the 2020 Census production cycle. C.1. Quality of administrate record versus self-report citizenship status We performed a detailed study of the responses to the citizenship question compared to the administrative record citizenship variable for the 2000 Census, 2010 ACS and 2016 ACS. These analyses confirm that the vast majority of citizens, as determined by reliable federal administrative records that require proof of citizenship, correctly report their status when asked a survey question. These analyses also demonstrate that when the administrative record source indicates an individual is not a citizen, the self-report is “citizen” for no less than 23.8% of the cases, and often more than 30%. For all of these analyses, we linked the Census Bureau’s enhanced version of the SSA Numident data using the production individual record linkage system to append an administrative citizenship variable to the relevant census and ACS microdata. The Numident data contain information on every person who has ever been issued a Social Security Number or an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number. Since 1972, SSA has required proof of citizenship or legal resident alien status from applicants. We use this verified citizenship status as our administrative citizenship variable. Because noncitizens must interact with SSA if they become naturalized citizens, these data reflect current citizenship status albeit with a lag for some noncitizens. For our analysis of the 2000 Census long-form data, we linked the 2002 version of the Census Numident data, which is the version closest to the April 1, 2000 Census date. For 92.3% of the 2000 Census longform respondents, we successfully linked the administrative citizenship variable. The 7.7% of persons for whom the administrative data are missing is comparable to the item non-response for self-responders in the mail-in pre-ISR-option ACS. When the administrative data indicated that the 2000 Census respondent was a citizen, the self-response was citizen: 98.8%. For this same group, the long-form response was 001283 noncitizen: 0.9% and missing: 0.3%. By contrast, when the administrative data indicated that the respondent was not a citizen, the self-report was citizen: 29.9%, noncitizen: 66.4%, and missing: 3.7%. In the same analysis of 2000 Census data, we consider three categories of individuals: the reference person (the individual who completed the census form for the household), relatives of the reference person, and individuals unrelated to the reference person. When the administrative data show that the individual is a citizen, the reference person, relatives of the reference person, and nonrelatives of the reference person have self-reported citizenship status of 98.7%, 98.9% and 97.2%, respectively. On the other hand, when the administrative data report that the individual was a noncitizen, the long-form response was citizen for 32.9% of the reference persons; that is, reference persons who are not citizens according to the administrative data self-report that they are not citizens in only 63.3% of the long-form responses. When they are reporting for a relative who is not a citizen according to the administrative data, reference persons list that individual as a citizen in 28.6% of the long-form responses. When they are reporting for a nonrelative who is not a citizen according to the administrative data, reference persons list that individual as a citizen in 20.4% of the long-form responses. We analyzed the 2010 and 2016 ACS citizenship responses using the same methodology. The 2010 ACS respondents were linked to the 2010 version of the Census Numident. The 2016 ACS respondents were linked to the 2016 Census Numident. In 2010, 8.5% of the respondents could not be linked, or had missing citizenship status on the administrative data. In 2016, 10.9% could not be linked or had missing administrative data. We reached the same conclusions using 2010 and 2016 ACS data with the following exceptions. When the administrative data report that the individual is a citizen, the self-response is citizen on 96.9% of the 2010 ACS questionnaires and 93.8% of the 2016 questionnaires. These lower selfreported citizenship rates are due to missing responses on the ACS, not misclassification. As we noted above, the item nonresponse rate for the citizenship question has been increasing. These item nonresponse data show that some citizens are not reporting their status on the ACS at all. In 2010 and 2016, individuals for whom the administrative data indicate noncitizen respond citizen in 32.7% and 34.7% of the ACS questionnaires, respectively. The rates of missing ACS citizenship response are also greater for individuals who are noncitizens in the administrative data (2010: 4.1%, 2016: 7.7%). The analysis of reference persons, relatives, and nonrelatives is qualitatively identical to the 2000 Census analysis. In all three analyses, the results for racial and ethnic groups and for voting age individuals are similar to the results for the whole population with one important exception. If the administrative data indicate that the person is a citizen, the self-report is citizen at a very high rate with the remainder being predominately missing self-reports for all groups. If the administrative data indicate noncitizen, the self-report is citizen at a very high rate (never less than 23.8% for any racial, ethnic or voting age group in any year we studied). The exception is the missing data rate for Hispanics, who are missing administrative data about twice as often as non-Hispanic blacks and three times as often as non-Hispanic whites. C.2. Analysis of coverage differences between administrative and survey citizenship data Our analysis suggests that the ACS and 2000 long form survey data have more complete coverage of citizenship than administrative record data, but the relative advantage of the survey data is diminishing. Citizenship status is missing for 10.9 percent of persons in the 2016 administrative records, and it is missing for 6.3 percent of persons in the 2016 ACS. This 4.6 percentage point gap between administrative and survey missing data rates is smaller than the gap in 2000 (6.9 percentage points) and 2010 (5.6 001284 percentage points). Incomplete (through November) pre-production ACS data indicate that citizenship item nonresponse has again increased in 2017. There is an important caveat to the conclusion that survey-based citizenship data are more complete than administrative records, albeit less so now than in 2000. The methods used to adjust the ACS weights for survey nonresponse and to allocate citizenship status for item nonresponse assume that the predicted answers of the sampled non-respondents are statistically the same as those of respondents. Our analysis casts serious doubt on this assumption, suggesting that those who do not respond to either the entire ACS or the citizenship question on the ACS are not statistically similar to those who do; in particular, their responses to the citizenship question would not be well-predicted by the answers of those who did respond. The consequences of missing citizenship data in the administrative records are asymmetric. In the Census Numident, citizenship data may be missing for older citizens who obtained SSNs before the 1972 requirement to verify citizenship, naturalized citizens who have not confirmed their naturalization to SSA, and noncitizens who do not have an SSN or ITIN. All three of these shortcomings are addressed by adding data from the United States Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS). Those data would complement the Census Numident data for older citizens and update those data for naturalized citizens. A less obvious, but equally important benefit, is that they would permit record linkage for legal resident aliens by allowing the construction of a supplementary record linkage master list for such people, who are only in scope for the Numident if they apply for and receive an SSN or ITIN. Consequently, the administrative records citizenship data would most likely have both more accurate citizen status and fewer missing individuals than would be the case for any survey-based collection method. Finally, having two sources of administrative citizenship data permits a detailed verification of the accuracy of those sources as well. C.3. Cost of administrative record data production For Alternative C, we estimate that the incremental cost, except for new MOUs, is $450,000. This cost estimate includes the time to develop an MOU with USCIS, estimated ingestion and curation costs for USCIS data, incremental costs of other administrative data already in use in the 2020 Census but for which continued acquisition is now a requirement, and staff time to do the required statistical work for integration of the administrative-data citizenship status onto the 2020 Census microdata. This cost estimate is necessarily incomplete because we have not had adequate time to develop a draft MOU with USCIS, which is a requirement for getting a firm delivery cost estimate from the agency. Acquisition costs for other administrative data acquired or proposed for the 2020 Census varied from zero to $1.5M. Thus the realistic range of cost estimates, including the cost of USCIS data, is between $500,000 and $2.0M 001285 Questions on the Jan 19 Draft Census Memo on the DoJ Citizenship Question Reinstatement Request 1. With respect to Alternatives B and C, what is the difference, if any, between the time when the data collected under each alternative would be available to the public? Since the collection of this data, whether from administrative records or from an enumerated question, occurs prior to the creation of the Microdata Detail File (MDF) from which all tabulations will be performed, there is no difference in the timing of when the data collected under either alternative B or C could be made available to the public. The exact date for completion of the MDF is still being determined as the 2020 Census schedule is matured. However, the 2020 Census is working towards publishing the first postapportionment tabulation data products as early as the first week of February 2021. 2. What is the “2020 Census publication phase” (page 1 of the Detailed Analysis for Alternative B) versus Alternative C? Would there be any difference? The 2020 Census publication phase is a broad window stretching from the release of the apportionment counts by December 31, 2020 through the last data product or report published in FY 2023, the final year of decennial funding for the 2020 Census. However, as stated in the answer to question 1, these data could be made available to the public on the same schedule as any other post-apportionment tabulated data product regardless of whether alternative B or C is used in its collection. 3. What is the non-response rate for: (A) each question on the 2000 and 2010 Decennial Census short form and (B) each question on the 2010 ACS and most recent ACS? The table below shows the item non-response (INR) rate for each question on the 2000 and 2010 Decennial Census short form. This is the percentage of respondents who did not provide an answer to an item. Item Nonresponse Rates for 2000 and 2010 Short Form Person Questions Relationship Sex Age Hispanic Race Origin 2010 1.5 1.5 3.5 3.9 3.3 2000 1.3 1.1 3.7 3.1 2.9 Source: Rothhaas, Lestina and Hill (2012) Tables Tenure 4.5 4.1 Notes and Soucre: Rothhaas, C., Lestina, F. and Hill, J. (2012) “2010 Decennial Census Item Nonresponse and Imputation Assessment Report” 2010 Census Program for Evaluations and Experiments, January 24, 2012. 1 001286 From report: The INR rate is essentially the proportion of missing responses before pre-editing or imputation procedures for a given item (i.e., the respondent did not provide an answer to the item). For INR, missing values are included in the rates, but inconsistent responses (i.e., incompatible with other responses) are considered non-missing responses. Online link to 2010 report that has 2000 information as well. https://www.census.gov/2010census/pdf/2010_Census_INR_Imputation_Assessment.pdf See attached spreadsheet for the item allocation rates by questions for the ACS for 2010, 2013, and 2016. 4. What was the total survey response rate (i.e., percentage of complete questionnaires) for the 2000 long form and the 2000 short form? Of the incomplete long forms, what percentage left the citizenship question blank? Of the completed long forms, what percentage (if known) contained incorrect responses to the citizenship question? We do not have measures of total survey response rates from the 2000 long form and 2000 short form available at this time. The mail response rate in 2000 was 66.4 percent for short forms and 53.9 percent for long forms. No analysis that we were aware of was conducted on the incomplete long forms that left the citizenship question blank. The Census 2000 Content Reinterview Survey showed low inconsistency of the responses to the citizenship question. Only 1.8 percent of the respondents changed answers in the reinterview. Source for 2000 mail response rates: https://www.census.gov/pred/www/rpts/A.7.a.pdf Source for 2000 Content Reinterview Survey. Page 32 source. https://www.census.gov/pred/www/rpts/B.5FR_RI.PDF 5. For the 2000 long and short forms, what was the percentage unanswered (left blank) for each question (i.e., what percentage of the responses for each question (sex, race, ethnicity, income, citizenship, etc.) were left blank)? For the 2000 shortform, the table in question 3a provides the percentage unanswered for each question. For the 2000 longform, Griffin, Love and Obenski (2003) summarized the Census 2000 longform responses. Allocation rates for individual items in Census 2000 were computed, but because of the magnitude of these data, summary allocation measures were derived. 2 001287 These rates summarize completeness across all data items for occupied units (households) and are the ratio of all population and housing items that had values allocated to the total number of population and housing items required to have a response. These composite measures provide a summary picture of the completeness of all data. Fifty-four population items and 29 housing items are included in these summary measures. The analysis showed that 9.9 percent of the population question items and 12.5 percent of the housing unit question items required allocation. Allocation involves using statistical procedures, such as within-household or nearest neighbor matrices, to impute missing values. https://ww2.amstat.org/sections/srms/Proceedings/y2003/Files/JSM2003-000596.pdf 6. What was the incorrect response rate for the citizenship question that was asked on the Long Form during the 2000 Decennial Census? Does the response rate on the 2000 Long Form differ from the incorrect response rate on the citizenship question for the ACS? In the 2000 long form, 2.3 percent of persons have inconsistent answers, 89.4 percent have consistent answers, and 8.2 percent have missing citizenship data in the SSA Numident and/or the 2000 long form. Among persons with nonmissing citizenship data in the SSA Numident and/or the 2000 long form, 2.6 percent have inconsistent answers and 97.4 percent have consistent answers. In the 2010 ACS, 3.1 percent of persons have inconsistent answers, 86.0 percent have consistent answers, and 10.8 percent have missing citizenship data in the SSA Numident and/or the 2010 ACS. Among persons with nonmissing citizenship data in the SSA Numident and/or the 2010 ACS, 3.6 percent have inconsistent answers and 96.4 percent have consistent answers. In the 2016 ACS, 2.9 percent of persons have inconsistent answers, 81.2 percent have consistent answers, and 15.9 percent have missing citizenship data in the SSA Numident and/or the 2016 ACS. Among persons with nonmissing citizenship data in the SSA Numident and/or the 2016 ACS, 3.5 percent have inconsistent answers and 96.5 percent have consistent answers. These ACS and 2000 Census long form rates are based on weighted data. This shows that inconsistent response rates are higher in the 2010 and 2016 ACS than in the 2000 long form. 7. What is the incorrect response rate on other Decennial or ACS questions for which Census has administrative records available (for example, age, sex or income)? Table 7a shows the agreement rates between the 2010 Census response and the SSA Numident for persons who could be linked and had nonmissing values, and Table 7b shows 3 001288 the agreement rates between the 2010 ACS and the SSA Numident. Gender has low disagreement (0.4-0.5 percent), and white alone (0.9 percent), black alone (1.7-2 percent), and age (2.1 percent) also have low disagreement rates. Disagreement rates are greater for other races (e.g., 46.4-48.6 percent for American Indian or Alaska Native alone). Hispanic origin is not well measured in the Numident, because it contains a single race response, one of which is Hispanic. Table 7a. Demographic Variable Agreement Rates Between the 2010 Census and the SSA Numident 2010 Census Response Percent Agreement with SSA Numident Hispanic 54.2 Not Hispanic 99.7 White Alone 99.1 Black Alone 98.3 American Indian or Alaska Native Alone 51.4 Asian Alone 84.3 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 74.4 Alone Some Other Race Alone 17.7 Age 97.9 Gender 99.4 Source: Rastogi, Sonya, and Amy O’Hara, 2012, “2010 Census Match Study,” 2010 Census Planning Memoranda Series No. 247. Table 7b. Demographic Variable Agreement Rates Between the 2010 Census and the SSA Numident 2010 ACS Response Percent Agreement with SSA Numident White Alone 99.1 Black Alone 98.0 American Indian or Alaska Native Alone 53.6 Asian Alone 82.9 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 72.9 Alone Some Other Race Alone 17.2 Age 0-2 Date of Birth 95.2 Age 3-17 Date of Birth 95.6 Age 18-24 Date of Birth 95.2 Age 25-44 Date of Birth 95.8 Age 45-64 Date of Birth 95.9 Age 65-74 Date of Birth 96.5 Age 75 and older Date of Birth 92.7 Male 99.5 Female 99.5 4 001289 Source: Bhaskar, Renuka, Adela Luque, Sonya Rastogi, and James Noon, 2014, “Coverage and Agreement of Administrative Records and 2010 American Community Survey Demographic Data,” CARRA Working Paper #2014-14. Abowd and Stinson (2013) find correlations of 0.75-0.89 between Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) and SSA Detailed Earnings Record annual earnings between 1990-1999.1 8. How does the Census presently handle responses on the (A) Decennial Census and (B) the ACS when administrative records available to the Census confirm that the response on the Decennial Census or ACS is incorrect? Is the present Census approach to incorrect responses based on practice/policy or law (statute or regulation)? We have always based the short form Decennial Census and the ACS on self-response, and while we have procedures in place to address duplicate or fraudulent responses, we do not check the accuracy of the answers provided to the specific questions on the Census questionnaire. This is a long established practice at the Census Bureau that has been thoroughly tested and in place since 1970, when the Census Bureau moved to a mailout/respond approach to the Decennial Census. Title 13 of the U.S. Code allows the Census Bureau to use alternative data sources, like administrative records, for a variety of purposes, and we are using data in new ways in the 2020 Census. While this includes the use of administrative records data to fill in areas where a respondent does not provide an answer, we have not explored the possibility of checking or changing responses that a responding household has provided in response to the questionnaire. 9. Please explain the differences between the self-response rate analysis and the breakoff rate analysis. The range of breakoff rates between groups was far smaller than the range of self-response rates between groups. Self-response means that a household responded to the survey by mailing back a questionnaire or by internet, and a sufficient number of core questions were answered so that an additional field interview was not required. A breakoff occurs when an internet respondent stops answering questions prior to the end of the questionnaire. In most cases the respondent answers the core questions before breaking off, and additional fieldwork is not required. The breakoff rates are calculated separately by which question screen was the last one reached before the respondent stopped answering altogether. The share of Hispanic respondents who broke off at some point before the end of the questionnaire (17.6 percent) is much higher than for non-Hispanic whites (9.5 percent). Abowd, John M., and Martha H. Stinson, 2013, “Estimating Measurement Error in Annual Job Earnings: A Comparison of Survey and Administrative Data,” Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 95(55), pp. 1451-1467. 1 5 001290 Spreading the overall breakoff rates over 134 screens in the questionnaire works out to quite small rates per screen. It works out to an average breakoff rate of 0.131 percent per screen for Hispanics and 0.066 percent for non-Hispanic whites. 10. The NRFU numbers are comparatively small – approximately one additional household for NRFU per Census enumerator. Is this really a significant source of concern? Yes, this is a significant concern. First, it gives rise to incremental NRFU cost of at least $27.5 million. This is a lower bound becaues it assumes the households that do not selfrespond because we added a question on citizenship have the same follow-up costs as an average U.S. household. They won't because these households overwhelmingly contain at least one noncitzen, and that is one of our acknowledged hard-to-count subpopulations. 11. Given that the breakoff rate difference was approximately 1 percent, why did Census choose to use the 5.1 percent number for assessing the cost of Alternative B? If a household breaks off an internet response at the citizenship, place of birth, or year of entry screens, this means it would have already responded to the core questions. This would not trigger follow-up fieldwork and thus would not involve additional fieldwork costs. In contrast, if a household does not mail back a questionnaire or give an internet response, fieldwork will be necessary and additional costs will be incurred. Thus, the 5.1 percent number for differential self-response is more appropriate for estimating the additional fieldwork cost of adding a citizenship question. 12. Alternative C states that Census would use administrative data from the Social Security Administration, Internal Revenue Service, and “other federal and state sources.” What are the other sources? In addition to continuing the acquisition of the Social Security Administration and Internal Revenue Service data, the Census Bureau is in discussion with the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) staff to acquire additional citizenship data. 13. Is Census confident that administrative data will be able to be used to determine citizenship for all persons (e.g., not all citizens have social security numbers)? We are confident that Alternative C is viable and that we have already ingested enough high-quality citizenship administrative data from SSA and IRS. The USCIS data are not required. They would, however, make the citizenship voting age tabulations better, but the administrative data we’ve got are very good and better than the data from the 2000 Census and current ACS. The type of activities required for Alternative C already occur daily and routinely at the Census Bureau. We have been doing this for business data products, 6 001291 including the Economic Censuses, for decades. We designed the 2020 Census to use this technology too. 14. For Alternative C, the memo says, “we assume the availability of these record linkage systems and associated administrative data” – does Census already have in place access to this data or would this need to be negotiated? If negotiated, for which data sets specifically? The Census Bureau has longstanding contractual relationships with the Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service that authorize the use of data for this project. For new data acquired for this project (i.e., USCIS) we would estimate a six-month development period to put a data acquisition agreement in place. That agreement would also include terms specifying the authorized use of data for this project. 15. Are there any privacy issues / sensitive information prohibitions that might prevent other agencies from providing such data? There are no new privacy or sensitivity issues associated with other agencies providing citizenship data. We have received such information in the past from USCIS. We are currently authorized to receive and use the data from SSA and IRS that are discussed in Alternative C. 16. How long would Census expect any negotiation for access to data take? How likely is it that negotiations would be successful? Are MOA’s needed/required? Current data available to the Census Bureau provide the quality and authority to use that are required to support this project. Additional information potentially available from USCIS would serve to supplement/validate those existing data. We are in early discussions with USCIS to develop a data acquisition agreement and at this time have no indications that this acquisition would not be successful. 17. What limitations would exist in working with other agencies like IRS, Homeland Security, etc. to share data? The context for sharing of data for this project is for a one-way sharing of data from these agencies to the Census Bureau. Secure file transfer protocols are in-place to ingest these data into our Title 13 protected systems. For those data already in-place at the Census Bureau to support this project, provisions for sharing included in the interagency agreement restrict the Census Bureau from sharing person-level microdata outside the Census Bureau’s Title 13 protections. Aggregates that have been processed through the Bureau’s disclosure avoidance procedures can be released for public use. 7 001292 18. If Alternative C is selected, what is Census’s backup plan if the administrative data cannot be completely collected and utilized as proposed? The backup plan is to use all of the administrative data that we currently have, which is the same set that the analyses of Alternative C used. We have verified that this use is consistent with the existing MOUs. We would then use estimation and modeling techniques similar to those used for the Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) to impute missing citizenship status for those persons for whom we do not have administrative records. These models would also include estimates of naturalizations that occurred since the administrative data were ingested. 19. Does Census have any reason to believe that access to existing data sets would be curtailed if Alternative C is pursued? No we do not believe that any access to existing data sets would be curtailed if we pursue Alternative C. 20. Has the proposed Alternative C approach ever been tried before on other data collection projects, or is this an experimental approach? If this has been done before, what was the result and what were lessons learned? The approach in Alternative C has been routinely used in processing the economic censuses for several decades. The Bureau's Business Register was specifically redesigned for the 2002 Economic Census in order to enhance the ingestion and use of administrative records from the IRS and other sources. The data in these administrative records are used to substitute for direct responses in the economic censuses for the unsampled entities. They are also used as part of the review, edit, and imputation systems for economic censuses and surveys. On the household side, the approach in Alternative C was used extensively to build the residential characteristics for OnTheMap and OnTheMap for Emergency Management. 21. Is using sample data and administrative records sufficient for DOJ’s request? The 2020 Census data combined with Alternative C are sufficient to meet DoJ's request. We do not anticipate using any ACS data under Alternative C. 22. Under Alternative C, If Census is able to secure interagency agreements to provide needed data sets, do we know how long it would take to receive the data transmission from other agencies and the length of time to integrate all that data, or is that unknown? With the exception of the USCIS data, the data used for this project are already integrated into the 2020 Census production schema. In mid-to late 2018, we plan to acquire the USCIS data and with those data and our existing data begin to develop models and business rules to select citizenship status from the composite of sources and attach that characteristic to 8 001293 each U.S. person. We expect the development and refinement of this process to continue into 2019 and to be completed by third quarter calendar year 2019. 23. Cross referencing Census decennial responses with numerous governmental data sets stored in various databases with differing formats and storage qualities sounds like it could be complicated. Does Census have an algorithm in place to efficiently combine and cross reference such large quantities of data coming from many different sources? What cost is associated with Alternative C, and what technology/plan does Census have in place to execute? Yes, the 2018 Census End-to-End test will be implementing processing steps to be able to match Census responses to administrative record information from numerous governmental data sets. The Census Bureau has in place the Person Identification Validation System to assign Protected Identification Keys to 2020 Census responses. The required technology for linking in the administrative records is therefore part of the 2020 Census technology. This incremental cost factored into the estimate for Alternative C is for integrating the citizenship variable specifically, since that variable is not currently part of the 2020 Census design. No changes are required to the production Person Identification Validation system to integrate the administrative citizenship data. 24. For section C-1 of the memo, when did Census do the analyses of the incorrect response rates for non-citizen answers to the long form and ACS citizenship question? Were any of the analyses published? The comparisons of ACS, 2000 Decennial Census longform and SSA Numident citizenship were conducted in January 2018. This analysis has not been published. 25. Has Census corrected the incorrect responses it found when examining non-citizen responses? If not, why not? In the American Community Survey (ACS), and the short form Decennial Census, we do not change self-reported answers. The Decennial Census and the ACS are based on selfresponse and we accept the responses provided by households as they are given. While we have procedures in place to address duplicate or fraudulent responses, we do not check the accuracy of the answers provided to the specific questions on the Census questionnaires. This is a long established process at the Census Bureau that has been thoroughly tested and in place since 1970, when the Census Bureau moved to a mail-out/respond approach to the Decennial Census. 26. Has the Department of Justice ever been made aware of inaccurate reporting of ACS data on citizenship, so that they may take this into consideration when using the data? 9 001294 Not exactly. The Census Bureau is in close, regular contact with the Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding their data requirements. Our counterparts at DOJ have a solid understanding of survey methodology and the quality of survey data, and they are aware of the public documentation on sampling and accuracy surrounding the ACS. However, the specific rate of accuracy regarding responses to the ACS question on citizenship has never been discussed. 27. Why has the number of persons who cannot be linked increased from 2010 to 2016? The linkage between the ACS and administrative data from the SSA Numident and IRS ITIN tax filings depends on two factors: (a) the quality of the personally identifiable information (PII) on the ACS response and (b) whether the ACS respondent is in the SSN/ITIN universe. With respect to the quality of the PII on the ACS, there may be insufficient information on the ACS due to item nonresponse or proxy response for the person to allow a successful match using the production record linkage system. There may also be more than one record in the Numident or ITIN IRS tax filings that matches the person’s PII. Finally, there may be a discrepancy between the PII provided to the ACS and the PII in the administrative records. Alternatively, the person may not be in the Numident or ITIN IRS tax filing databases because they are out of the universe for those administrative systems. This happens when the person is a citizen without an SSN, or when the person is a noncitizen who has not obtained an SSN or ITIN. Very few of the unlinked cases are due to insufficient PII in the ACS or multiple matches with administrative records. The vast majority of unlinked ACS persons have sufficient PII, but fail to match any administrative records sufficiently closely. This means that most of the nonmatches are because the ACS respondent is not in the administrative record universe. The incidence of ACS persons with sufficient PII but no match with administrative records increased between 2010 and 2016. One contributing factor is that the number of persons linked to ITIN IRS tax filings in 2016 was only 39 percent as large as in 2010, suggesting that either fewer of the noncitizens in the 2016 ACS had ITINs, or more of them provided PII in the ACS that was inconsistent with their PII in IRS records. 28. Independent of this memo, what action does Census plan to take in response to the analyses showing that non-citizens have been incorrectly responding to the citizenship question? The Census Bureau does not have plans to make any changes to procedures in the ACS. However, we will continue to conduct thorough evaluations and review of census and survey data. The ACS is focusing our research on the potential use of administrative records 10 001295 in the survey. For instance, we are exploring whether we can use IRS data on income to reduce the burden of asking questions on income on the ACS. We are concentrating initially on questions that are high burden, e.g., questions that are difficult to answer or questions that are seen as intrusive. 29. Did Census make recommendations the last time a question was added? Since the short form Decennial Census was established in 2010, the only requests for new questions we have received have been for the ACS. And, in fact, requests for questions prior to 2010 were usually related to the Decennial Census Long Form. We always work collaboratively with Federal agencies that request a new question or a change to a question. The first step is to review the data needs and the legal justification for the new question or requested changes. If, through this process, we determine that the request is justified, we work with the other agencies to test the question (cognitive testing and field testing). We also work collaboratively on the analysis of the results from the test which inform the final recommendation about whether or not to make changes or add the question. 30. Does not answering truthfully have a separate data standard than not participating at all? We’re not sure what you’re asking here. Please clarify the question. 31. What was the process that was used in the past to get questions added to the decennial Census or do we have something similar where a precedent was established? Because no new questions have been added to the Decennial Census (for nearly 20 years), the Census Bureau did not feed bound by past precedent when considering the Department of Justices’ request. Rather, the Census Bureau is working with all relevant stakeholders to ensure that legal and regulatory requirements are filled and that questions will produce quality, useful information for the nation. As you are aware, that process is ongoing at your direction. 32. Has another agency ever requested that a question be asked of the entire population in order to get block or individual level data? Not to our knowledge. However, it is worth pointing out that prior to 1980 the short form of the Decennial Census included more than just the 10 questions that have been on the short form since 1990. 33. Would Census linking of its internal data sets, with other data sets from places like IRS and Homeland Security, have an impact on participation as well (i.e., privacy concerns)? 11 001296 The potential that concerns about the use of administrative records could have an impact on participation has always been a concern of ours, and it’s a risk that we’re managing on our risk register. We’ve worked closely with the privacy community throughout the decade, and we established a working group on our National Advisory Committee to explore this issue. We’ve also regularly briefed the Congress about our plans. At this stage in the decade there does not appear to be extensive concerns among the general public about our approach to using administrative records in the Nonresponse Operation or otherwise. We will continue to monitor this issue. 34. Would Alternative C require any legislation? If so, what is the estimated time frame for approval of such legislation? No. 35. Census publications and old decennial surveys available on the Census website show that citizenship questions were frequently asked of the entire population in the past. Citizenship is also a question on the ACS. What was the justification provided for citizenship questions on the (A) short form, (B) long form, and (C) ACS? In 1940, the Census Bureau introduced the use of a short form to collect basic characteristics from all respondents, and a long form to collect more detailed questions from only a sample of respondents. Prior to 1940, census questions were asked of everyone, though in some cases only for those with certain characteristics. For example, in 1870, a citizenship question was asked, but only for respondents who were male and over the age of 21. Beginning in 2005, all the long-form questions – including a question on citizenship -- were moved to the ACS. 2010 was the first time we conducted a short-form only census. The citizenship question is included in the ACS to fulfill the data requirements of the Department of Justice, as well as many other agencies including the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Social Security Administration. 12 001297 ACS Item Allocation Rates for United States: 2016, 2013, 2010 Title Overall housing allocation rate occupied and vacant housing units Overall person allocation rate total population Vacancy status vacant housing units Tenure occupied housing units Units in structure occupied and vacant housing units Year moved in occupied housing units Month moved in occupied housing units into which households move in the last two years Year built occupied and vacant housing units Lot size occupied and vacant single family and mobile homes Agricultural sales occupied and vacant single family and mobile homes with lot size greater than or equal to 1 acre Business on property occupied and vacant single family and mobile homes Number of rooms occupied and vacant housing units Number of bedrooms occupied and vacant housing units Running water occupied and vacant housing units Flush toilet occupied and vacant housing units Bathtub or shower occupied and vacant housing units Sink with a faucet occupied and vacant housing units Stove or range occupied and vacant housing units Refrigerator occupied and vacant housing units Telephone occupied housing units Number of vehicles occupied housing units Heating fuel occupied housing units Monthly electricity cost occupied housing units Monthly gas cost occupied housing units 2016 2013 2010 4.9 5.6 5.2 9.5 8.4 5.8 3.9 3.5 2.9 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.5 1.5 1.5 3 3 3.4 0.7 0.7 0.7 18.2 17.1 16.2 3.9 3.9 4.2 4 4.2 4.4 ** 2.4 3 5 5.5 5.2 5.5 4.6 4.3 2.4 2.1 2 ** 2.2 2 2.6 2.2 2 2.6 2.2 2 3.1 2.8 2.5 3.2 2.9 2.7 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.3 3.4 3.4 3.3 8.1 8.2 7.3 9.6 9.9 9.8 001298 Yearly water and sewer cost occupied housing units Yearly other fuel cost occupied housing units Yearly food stamp recipiency - household occupied housing units Yearly real estate taxes owner-occupied housing units Yearly property insurance owner-occupied housing units Mortgage status owner-occupied housing units Monthly mortgage payment owner-occupied housing units with a mortgage Mortgage payment incl. real estate taxes owner-occupied housing units with a mortgage Mortgage payment incl. insurance owner-occupied housing units with a mortgage Second mortgage owner-occupied housing units Home equity loan owner-occupied housing units Other monthly mortgage payment(s) owner-occupied housing units with second mortgage or home equity loan Property value owner-occupied housing units and vacant housing units for sale Yearly mobile home costs occupied mobile homes and other units Monthly condominium fee owner-occupied housing units Monthly rent occupied housing units rented for cash rent and vacant housing units for rent Meals included in rent occupied housing units rented for cash rent and vacant housing units for rent Desktop/laptop/notebook computer occupied housing units Handheld computer/smart mobile phone occupied housing units Tablet or other portable wireless computer occupied housing units Smartphone occupied housing units Other computer occupied housing units Household has internet access occupied housing units Dial-up internet service occupied housing units with internet access DSL internet service occupied housing units with internet access 8.5 8.8 8.1 7.3 8.3 10.6 1.7 1.7 1.3 16.7 18.5 16.3 23.9 25.6 23.2 2.2 2.5 2.1 10.5 12.4 10.7 6.2 6.9 (X) 6.8 7.4 (X) 3.2 3.7 3.4 3.7 4.3 4.2 23.3 21.7 17.9 11.6 12.9 12.3 21.7 21.5 19.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 10.5 9.8 9.3 2.1 2.1 2 1.3 3.2 ** ** 3.3 ** 1.6 ** ** 1.6 ** ** 1.7 3.7 ** 3.3 4.4 ** 3.8 5.7 ** ** 5.7 ** 001299 Cable modem internet service occupied housing units with internet access Fiber-optic internet service occupied housing units with internet access Cellular data plan (formerly mobile broadband) occupied housing units with internet access Satellite internet service occupied housing units with internet access High speed internet service occupied housing units with internet accesss Some other internet service occupied housing units with internet access Race total population Hispanic origin total population Sex total population Age total population Relationship total household population Marital status total population 15 years and over Married past 12 months total population 15 years and over, except those never married Widowed past 12 months total population 15 years and over, except those never married Divorced past 12 months total population 15 years and over, except those never married Times married total population 15 years and over, except those never married Year last married total population 15 years and over, except those never married Place of birth total population Citizenship total population Year of naturalization total population naturalized citizens Year of entry total population not born in US Speaks another language at home total population 5 years and over Language spoken ** 5.7 ** ** 5.7 ** 7.6 26.7 ** 3.8 5.7 ** 3.8 ** ** 3.8 5.7 ** 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.8 2.1 1.8 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.7 1.6 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.2 5.3 4.8 3 6.9 6.6 4.7 7.4 7 4.5 7.4 7 4.5 8.1 7.8 5.1 13.5 13.3 11.4 9.1 8.6 6.5 6 5.2 2.7 22.5 22.5 16.6 14.8 13.2 10.3 6.8 5.9 3.4 total population 5 years and over who speak another language at home English ability 8.3 7 5.7 total population 5 years and over who speak another language at home School enrollment total population 3 years and over Grade level attending 7.1 5.9 4 6.7 6 3.7 001300 total population 3 years and over enrolled Educational attainment total population 3 years and over Field of degree 10.2 8.9 6 8.5 8 5.6 total population 25 years and over with a bachelor's degree or higher Mobility status total population 1 years and over Migration state/foreign county total population 1 years and over movers Migration county total population 1 years and over movers within US Migration minor civil division total population 1 years and over movers within US Migration place total population 1 years and over movers within US Health insurance thru employer/union total population Health insurance purchased directly total population Health insurance through Medicare total population Health insurance through Medicaid total population Health insurance through TRICARE total population Health insurance through VA total population Health ins. thru Indian Health Service total population Visual difficulty  total population Hearing difficulty  total population Physical difficulty  total population 5 years and over Difficulty remembering  total population 5 years and over Difficulty dressing  total population 5 years and over Difficulty going out  total population 16 years and over Grandchildren living in home noninstitutionalized population 30 years and over Responsibility for grandchildren noninstitutionalized population 30 years and over who are grandparents with grandchildren in the home Months responsible for grandchildren 13.5 12.4 9.8 7.2 6.5 4 13.2 11.3 7.1 14.6 12.5 8.3 14.2 12.1 8.4 15 12.9 8.8 10.7 9 6.2 11.3 9.7 6.9 9.5 8.1 5.2 12.2 10.5 7.9 12.5 10.8 8.1 12.3 10.7 8.1 12.8 11.1 8.5 7.1 6.1 3.4 6.8 5.9 3.2 7.5 6.7 3.5 7.5 6.7 3.5 7.5 6.7 3.5 7.3 6.5 3.4 1.1 1 0.9 17.7 15.7 12 17.2 16.1 14.9 7.8 6.7 3.7 noninstitutionalized population 30 years and over who are grandparents with grandchildren in the home that have responsibility Fertility status female total population 15-50 001301 Veteran status total population 17 years and over Periods of military service total population 17 years and over on active duty now or previously Service-connected disability rating total population 17 years and over, except those who never served in the Armed Forces Service-connected disability rating value 7.3 6.8 3.8 9.7 9.3 6.3 6.8 6.6 3.9 0.2 0.2 0.7 8.7 8.1 5.1 9.6 9.1 5.7 10.6 9.7 6.9 11.9 10.8 7.7 noninstitutionalized population 16 years and over at work last week Place of work county 11.8 10.4 6.3 noninstitutionalized population 16 years and over at work last week Place of work minor civil division 12.5 11 7 noninstitutionalized population 16 years and over at work last week Place of work place 3.6 3.3 2.1 noninstitutionalized population 16 years and over at work last week Transportation to work 13.1 11.6 7.6 noninstitutionalized population 16 years and over at work last week Carpool size noninstitutionalized population 16 years and over at work last week who drive to work Time of departure noninstitutionalized population 16 years and over at work last week who don't work at home Commuting time noninstitutionalized population 16 years and over at work last week who don't work at home Class of worker total population 16 years and over who worked in the last 5 years Industry total population 16 years and over who worked in the last 5 years Occupation total population 16 years and over who worked in the last 5 years Wages/salary income total population 15 years and over Self-employment income 9.6 8.8 5.7 10.9 9.9 6.8 20.2 18.5 12.8 14.5 13.3 9.7 11.7 10.7 7.2 12.7 11.4 7.8 13.4 11.8 8.1 19.1 19 16 total population 17 years and over with a service-connected disability Employment status recode noninstitutionalized population 16 years and over When last worked noninstitutionalized population 16 years and over Weeks worked in the past 12 months noninstitutionalized population 16 years and over who worked in the past 12 months Hours worked per week noninstitutionalized population 16 years and over who worked in the past 12 months Place of work state/foreign county 001302 total population 15 years and over Interest, dividends, etc. income total population 15 years and over Social security or railroad retirement total population 15 years and over Supplemental security income total population 15 years and over Public assistance total population 15 years and over Retirement income total population 15 years and over Other income total population 15 years and over Some or all income allocated total population 15 years and over 10.5 9.3 5.9 15.2 12.6 8.8 14.5 12.3 8.9 12.7 10.3 6.7 13.2 10.5 6.8 13.6 11.1 7.5 13.2 10.8 7.4 28.4 25.3 22.4 Source: ACS 1-year data. See following links for more information: https://www.census.gov/acs/www/methodology/sample-size-and-data-quality/item-allocation-rates/ https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/methodology/sample-size-and-data-quality/item-allocation-rates-definitions.html Note: ** X0AT This item was not asked in this year. 001303 Summary Analysis of the Key Differences Between Alternative C and Alternative D This short note describes the Census Bureau’s current assumptions about two alternatives to address the need for block level data on citizen voting age populations. The goal is to measure the citizenship status of all people enumerated in the 2020 Decennial Census. Both alternatives utilize administrative data on the citizenship status of individuals, however one option, Alternative D, proposes to also include the current American Community Survey (ACS) question on citizenship status on the 2020 Decennial Census short form. In both alternatives described here, the methodology requires linking 2020 census response data and administrative records. However, as illustrated both alternatives would also need to assign/impute citizenship for a portion of the population. The Census Bureau will have to assign citizenship in cases of questionnaire non-response and item non-response. Additionally, it is important to note, that even when a self-response is available it is not always possible to link response data with administrative records data. Poor data quality (e.g., name and age) and nonresponse or incomplete 2020 Census responses mean that we will not have a direct measure of citizenship status for all residents enumerated in 2020. The Census Bureau will to need employ an imputation model for these cases. One of the key differences between to the two alternatives described below is the number of cases requiring imputation. The other key difference is the impact of errors in the citizenship status reported on the 2020 Census. In the most recent version of the 2020 Decennial Life Cycle Cost Estimate, the Census Bureau projects counting 330 million residents in 2020. Figure 1 summarizes how citizenship status will be measured under Alternative C that does not employ a citizenship question on the 2020 Census. Figure 2 summarizes how this will be done using both administrative records and a 2020 citizenship question under Alternative D. Alternative C is a simplified process for assigning citizenship through direct linkage and modelling, without including the question on the 2020 Census. The Census Bureau will link the responses for the 330 million census records to administrative records that contain information on the citizenship status of individuals. The Census Bureau expects to successfully link and observe this status for approximately 295 million people. The Census Bureau would need to impute this status for approximately 35 million people under Alternative C whose 2020 responses cannot be linked to administrative data. Although the Census Bureau has fully developed and tested the imputation model, it has high confidence that an accurate model can be developed and deployed for this purpose. Further, we will most likely never possess a fully adequate truth deck to benchmark it to. Measuring citizenship status is slightly more complex under Alternative D where all U.S. households will be given the opportunity to provide the citizenship status of each household member. Based on response data for the ACS citizenship and other response data research, we know that not all households that respond to the 2020 Census will answer this question, leaving the question blank or with otherwise invalid responses. Additionally, Alternative D, must also account for those households that do not respond at all or will have proxy responses. Due to these reasons, we estimate that we will get 2020 citizenship status responses for approximately 294.6 million people, a slightly higher estimate 001304 than Alternative C. For the 35.4 million people without a 2020 citizenship response, the Census Bureau will employ the same methodology as in Alternative C, linking the 2020 Census responses to the administrative records. The Census Bureau estimates that it will be able to link these cases to administrative records where we observe citizenship status for approximately 21.5 million people. For the remaining 13.8 million will be imputed through a model as described above. Thus, there will be a need for imputing many cases across either alternative. The Census Bureau will link the 294.6 million records from the 2020 Census with the administrative records. This will be done both for potential quality assurance purposes and to improve the quality of future modeling uses. Based on the current research from the ACS, the Census Bureau expects to successfully link approximately 272.5 million of these cases. Of these, 263 million will have citizenship statuses that agree across the 2020 response and administrative record. The Census Bureau estimates there will be 9.5 million cases where there is disagreement across the two sources. Historic Census Bureau practice is to use self-reported data in these situations. However, the Census Bureau now knows from linking ACS responses on citizenship to administrative data that nearly one third of noncitizens in the administrative data respond to the questionnaire indicating they are citizens, indicating that this practice should be revisited in the case of measuring citizenship. Finally, for those 22.2 million cases that do not link to administrative records (non-linkage occurs for the same data quality reasons discussed above), the Census Bureau will use the observed 2020 responses. Again, Census Bureau expect some quality issues with these responses. Namely, the Census Bureau estimates that just under 500 thousand noncitizens will respond as citizens. The relative quality of Alternative C versus Alternative D will depend on the relative importance of the errors in administrative data, response data, and imputations. To be slightly more but not fully precise consider the following description of errors under both alternatives. First note that all possible measurement methods will have errors. Under Alternative C, there will be error in the administrative records, but we believe these to be relatively limited dues to the procedure following by SSA, USCIS and State. In both Alternative, the modeled cases will be subject to prediction error. Prediction error occur when the model returns the incorrect status of a case. As there are more models cases in Alternative C, prediction error will be a bigger issue there. Alternative D has an additional source or error, response error. This is where 2020 respondent give the incorrect status. Statisticians often hope these error are random and cancel out. However, we know from prior research that citizenship status responses are systematically biased for a subset of noncitizens. Response error is only an issue in alternative D. Unfortunately, the Census Bureau cannot quantify the relative magnitude of the errors across the alternatives at this time. 001305 Figure 1 Alternative 2 330,000,000 EEJ 295,000,000 35,000,000 mind 51?? um" A'A.001306 Figure 2 Alternative Census 202!) 3 Citirenship ?bserved HOT Dbserved 1 CitiJenship Linked Met linked Llnked i J, i ?r 113013.003 Citizenship 9,500,001} census hum-.- new 001307 March 1, 2018 MEMORANDUM FOR: Wilbur L. Ross, Jr. Secretary of Commerce Through: Karen Dunn Kelley Performing the Non-Exclusive Functions and Duties of the Deputy Secretary Ron S. Jarmin Performing the Non-Exclusive Functions and Duties of the Director Enrique Lamas Performing the Non-Exclusive Functions and Duties of the Deputy Director From: John M. Abowd Chief Scientist and Associate Director for Research and Methodology Subject: Preliminary analysis of Alternative D (Combined Alternatives B and C) See attached. Approved: _______________________________ Date: __________ John M. Abowd, Chief Scientist and Associate Director for Research and Methodology census.gov 001308 Preliminary Analysis of Alternative D At the Secretary’s request we performed a preliminary analysis of combining Alternative B (asking the citizenship question of every household on the 2020 Census) and Alternative C (do not ask the question, link reliable administrative data on citizenship status instead) in the January 19, 2018 draft memo to the Department of Commerce into a new Alternative D. Here we discuss Alternative D, the weaknesses in Alternative C on its own, whether and how survey data could address these weaknesses, implications of including a citizenship question for using administrative data, and methodological challenges. Description of Alternative D: Administrative data from the Social Security Administration (SSA), Internal Revenue Service (IRS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), and the State Department would be used to create a comprehensive statistical reference list of current U.S. citizens. Nevertheless, there will be some persons for whom no administrative data are available. To obtain citizenship information for this sub-population, a citizenship question would be added to the 2020 Census questionnaire. The combined administrative record and 2020 Census data would be used to produce baseline citizenship statistics by 2021. Any U.S. citizens appearing in administrative data after the version created for the 2020 Census would be added to the comprehensive statistical reference list. There would be no plan to include a citizenship question on future Decennial Censuses or American Community Surveys. The comprehensive statistical reference list, built from administrative records and augmented by the 2020 Census answers would be used instead. The comprehensive statistical reference list would be kept current, gradually replacing almost all respondent-provided data with verified citizenship status data. What are the weaknesses in Alternative C? In the 2017 Numident (the latest available), 6.6 million persons born outside the U.S. have blank citizenship among those born in 1920 or later with no year of death. The evidence suggests that citizenship is not missing at random. Of those with missing citizenship in the Numident, a much higher share appears to be U.S. citizens than compared to those for whom citizenship data are not missing. Nevertheless, some of the blanks may be noncitizens, and it would thus be useful to have other sources for them. A second question about the Numident citizenship variable is how complete and timely its updates are for naturalizations. Naturalized citizens are instructed to immediately apply for a new SSN card. Those who wish to work have an incentive to do so quickly, since having an SSN card with U.S. citizenship will make it easier to pass the E-Verify process when applying for a job, and it will make them eligible for government programs. But we do not know what fraction of naturalized citizens actually notify the SSA, and how soon after being naturalized they do so. A third potential weakness of Numident citizenship is that some people are not required to have a Social Security Number (SSN), whether they are a U.S. citizen or not. It would also be useful to have a data source on citizenship that did not depend on the SSN application and tracking process inside SSA. This is why we proposed the MOU with the USCIS for naturalizations, and why we have now begun pursuing an MOU with the State Department for data on all citizens with passports. 001309 IRS Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITIN) partially fill the gap in Numident coverage of noncitizen U.S. residents. However, not all noncitizen residents without SSNs apply for ITINs. Only those making IRS tax filings apply for ITINs. Once again, it would be useful to have a data source that did not depend on the ITIN process. The USCIS and State Department MOUs would provide an alternative source in this context as well. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) data on naturalizations, lawful permanent residents, and I-539 non-immigrant visa extensions can partially address the weaknesses of the Numident. The USCIS data provide up-to-date information since 2001 (and possibly back to 1988, but with incomplete records prior to 2001). This will fill gaps for naturalized citizens, lawful permanent residents, and persons with extended visa applications without SSNs, as well as naturalized citizens who did not inform SSA about their naturalization. The data do not cover naturalizations occurring before 1988, as well as not covering and some between 1988-2000. USCIS data do not always cover children under 18 at the time a parent became a naturalized U.S. citizen. Such children automatically become U.S. citizens under the Child Citizenship Act of 2000. The USCIS receives notification of some, but not all, of these child naturalizations. Others inform the U.S. government of their U.S. citizenship status by applying for U.S. passports, which are less expensive than the application to notify the USCIS. USCIS visa applications list people’s children, but those data may not be in electronic form. U.S. passport data, available from the State Department, can help plug the gaps for child naturalizations, blanks on the Numident, and out-of-date citizenship information on the Numident for persons naturalized prior to 2001. Since U.S. citizens are not required to have a passport, however, these data will also have gaps in coverage. Remaining citizenship data gaps in Alternative C include the following categories: 1. U.S. citizens from birth with no SSN or U.S. passport. They will not be processed by the production record linkage system used for the 2020 Census because their personally identifiable information won’t find a matching Protected Identification Key (PIK) in the Person Validation System (PVS). 2. U.S. citizens from birth born outside the U.S., who do not have a U.S. passport, and either applied for an SSN prior to 1974 and were 18 or older, or applied before the age of 18 prior to 1978. These people will be found in PVS, but none of the administrative sources discussed above will reliably generate a U.S. citizenship variable. 3. U.S. citizens who were naturalized prior to 2001 and did not inform SSA of their naturalization because they originally applied for an SSN after they were naturalized, and it was prior to when citizenship verification was required for those born outside the U.S. (1974). These people already had an SSN when they were naturalized and they didn’t inform SSA about the naturalization, or they didn’t apply for an SSN. The former group have inaccurate data on the Numident. The latter group will not be found in PVS. 4. U.S. citizens who were automatically naturalized if they were under the age of 18 when their parents became naturalized in 2000 or later, and did not inform USCIS or receive a U.S. passport. Note that such persons would not be able to get an SSN with U.S. citizenship on the card without either a U.S. passport or a certificate from USCIS. These people will also not be found in the PVS. 001310 5. Lawful permanent residents (LPR) who received that status prior to 2001 and either do not have an SSN or applied for an SSN prior to when citizenship verification was required for those born outside the U.S. (1974). The former group will not be found in PVS. The latter group has inaccurate data in Numident. 6. Noncitizen, non-LPR, residents who do not have an SSN or ITIN and who did not apply for a visa extension. These persons will not be found in PVS. 7. Persons with citizenship information in administrative data, but the administrative and decennial census data cannot be linked due to missing or discrepant PII. Can survey data address the gaps in Alternative C? One might think that survey data could help fill the above gaps, either when their person record is not linked in the PVS, and thus they have no PIK, or when they have a PIK but the administrative data lack up-to-date citizenship information. Persons in Category 6, however, have a strong incentive to provide an incorrect answer, if they answer at all. A significant, but unknown, fraction of persons without PIKs are in Category 6. Distinguishing these people from the other categories of persons without PIKs is an inexact science because there is no feasible method of independently verifying their non-citizen status. Our comparison of ACS and Numident citizenship data suggests that a large fraction of LPRs provide incorrect survey responses. This suggests that survey-collected citizenship data may not be reliable for many of the people falling in the gaps in administrative data. This calls into question their ability to improve upon Alternative C. With Alternative C, and no direct survey response, the Census Bureau’s edit and imputation procedures would make an allocation based primarily on the high-quality administrative data. In the presence of a survey response, but without any linked administrative data for that person, the edit would only be triggered by blank citizenship. A survey response of “citizen” would be accepted as valid. There is no scientifically defensible method for rejecting a survey response in the absence of alternative data for that respondent. How might inclusion of a citizenship question on the questionnaire affect the measurement of citizenship with administrative data? Absent an in-house administrative data census, measuring citizenship with administrative data requires that persons in the Decennial Census be linked to the administrative data at the person level. The PVS system engineered into the 2020 Census does this using a very reliable technology. However, inclusion of a citizenship question on the 2020 Census questionnaire is very likely to reduce the self-response rate, pushing more households into Nonresponse Followup (NRFU). Not only will this likely lead to more incorrect enumerations, but it is also expected to increase the number of persons who cannot be linked to the administrative data because the NRFU PII is lower quality than the self-response data. In the 2010 Decennial Census, the percentage of NRFU persons who could be linked to administrative data rate was 81.6 percent, compared to 96.7 percent for mail responses. Those refusing to self-respond due to the citizenship question are particularly likely to refuse to respond in NRFU as well, resulting in a proxy response. The NRFU linkage rates were far lower for proxy responses than selfresponses (33.8 percent vs. 93.0 percent, respectively). Although persons in Category 6 will not be linked regardless of response mode, it is common for households to include persons with a variety of citizenship statuses. If the whole household does not self- 001311 respond to protect the members in Category 6, the record linkage problem will be further aggravated. Thus, not only are citizenship survey data of suspect quality for persons in the gaps for Alternative C, collecting these survey data would reduce the quality of the administrative records when used in Alternative D by lowering the record linkage rate for persons with administrative citizenship data. What methodological challenges are involved when combining these sources? Using the 2020 Census data only to fill in gaps for persons without administrative data on citizenship would raise questions about why 100 percent of respondents are being burdened by a citizenship question to obtain information for the two percent of respondents where it is missing. Including a citizenship question in the 2020 Census does not solve the problem of incomplete person linkages when producing citizenship statistics after 2020. Both the 2020 decennial record and the record with the person’s future location would need to be found in PVS to be used for future statistics. In sum, Alternative D would result in poorer quality citizenship data than Alternative C. It would still have all the negative cost and quality implications of Alternative B outlined in the draft January 19, 2018 memo to the Department of Commerce. 001312 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Secretary of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 To: Karen Dunn Kelley, Under Secretary for Economic Affairs From: Secretary Wilbur Ross U ~~ Date: March 26,2018 Re: Reinstatement of a Citizenship Question on the 2020 Decennial Census Questionnaire Dear Under Secretary Kelley: As you know, on December 12,2017, the Department of Justice ("DOJ") requested that the Census Bureau reinstate a citizenship question on the decennial census to provide census block level citizenship voting age population ("CV AP") data that are not currently available from government survey data ("DOJ request"). DOJ and the courts use CV AP data for determining violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act ("VRA"), and having these data at the census block level will permit more effective enforcement of the Act. Section 2 protects minority population voting rights. Following receipt of the DOJ request, I set out to take a hard look at the request and ensure that I considered all facts and data relevant to the question so that I could make an informed decision on how to respond. To that end, the Department of Commerce ("Department") immediately initiated a comprehensive review process led by the Census Bureau. The Department and Census Bureau's review of the DOJ request - as with all significant Census assessments - prioritized the goal of obtaining complete and accurate data. The decennial census is mandated in the Constitution and its data are relied on for a myriad of important government decisions, including apportionment of Congressional seats among states, enforcement of voting rights laws, and allocation of federal funds. These are foundational elements of our democracy, and it is therefore incumbent upon the Department and the Census Bureau to make every effort to provide a complete and accurate decennial census. At my direction, the Census Bureau and the Department's Office of the Secretary began a thorough assessment that included legal, program, and policy considerations. As part of the process, I also met with Census Bureau leadership on multiple occasions to discuss their process for reviewing the DOJ request, their data analysis, my questions about accuracy and response rates, and their recommendations. At present, the Census Bureau leadership are all career civil servants. In addition, my staff and I reviewed over 50 incoming letters from stakeholders, interest groups, Members of Congress, and state and local officials regarding reinstatement of a citizenship question on the 2020 decennial census, and I personally had specific conversations on 1 001313 the citizenship question with over 24 diverse, well informed and interested parties representing a broad range of views. My staff and I have also monitored press coverage of this issue. Congress has delegated to me the authority to determine which questions should be asked on the . decennial census, and I may exercise my discretion to reinstate the citizenship question on the 2020 decennial census, especially based on DOl's request for improved CV AP data to enforce the VRA. By law, the list of decennial census questions is to be submitted two years prior to the decennial census - in this case, no later than March 31, 2018. Th~ Department's review demonstrated that collection of citizenship data by the Census has been a long-standing historical practice. Prior decennial census surveys of the entire United States population consistently asked citizenship questions up until 1950, and Census Bureau surveys of sample populations continue to ask citizenship questions to this day. In 2000, the decennial ' census "long form" survey, which was distributed to one in six people in the U.S., included a question on citizenship. Following the 2000 decennial census, the "long form" sample was replaced by the American Community Survey ("ACS"), which has included a citizenship question since 2005. Therefore, the citizenship question has been well tested. DOJ seeks to obtain CV AP data for census blocks, block groups, counties, towns, and other locations where potential Section 2 violations are alleged or suspected, and DOJ states that the current data collected under the ACS are insufficient in scope, detail, and certainty to meet its purpose under the VRA. The Census Bureau has advised me that the census-block-level citizenship data requested by DOJ are not available using the annual ACS, which as noted earlier does ask a citizenship question and is the present method used to provide DOJ and the courts with data used to enforce Section 2 of the VRA. The ACS is sent on an annual basis to a sample of approximately 2.6 percent of the population. To provide the data requested by DOJ, the Census Bureau initially analyzed three alternatives: Option A was to continue the status quo and use ACS responses; Option B was placing the ACS citizenship question on the decennial census, which goes to every American household; and Option C was not placing a question on the decennial census and instead providing DOJ with a citizenship analysis for the entire populati~n using federal administrative record data that Census has agreements with other agencies to access for statistical purposes. Option A contemplates rejection of the DOJ request and represents the statu;s quo baseline. Under Option A, the 2020 decennial census would not include the question on citizenship that DOJ requested and therefore would'not provide DOJ with improved CVAP data. Additionally,. the block-group level CV AP data currently obtained through the ACS has associated margins of error because the ACS is extrapolated based on sample surveys of the population. Providing more precise block-level data would require sophisticated statistical modeling, and if Option A'is selected, the Census Bureau advised that it would need to deploy a team of experts to develop model-based methods that attempt to better facilitate DOl's request for more specific data. But the Census Bureau did not assert and could not confirm that such data modeling is possible for census-block-level data with a sufficient degree of accuracy. Regardless, DOl's request is based at least in part on the fact that existing ACS citizenship data-sets lack specificity and 2 001314 completeness. Any future modeling from these incomplete data would only compound that problem. Option A would provide no improved citizenship count, as the existing ACS sampling would still fail to obtain actual, complete number counts, especially for certain lower population areas or voting districts, and there is no guarantee that data could be improved using small-area modeling methods. Therefore, I have concluded that Option A is not a suitable option. The Census Bureau and many stakeholders expressed concern that Option B, which would add a citiz~nship question to the decennial census, would negatively impact the response rate for noncitizens. A significantly lower response rate by non-citizens could reduce the accuracy of the decennial census and increase costs for non-response follow up ("NRFU") operations. However, neither the Census Bureau nor the concerned stakeholders could document that the response rate would in fact decline materially. In discussing the question with the national survey agency Nielsen, it stated that it had added questions from the ACS on sensitive topics such as place of birth and immigration status to certain short survey forms without any appreciable decrease in response rates. Further, the former director of the Census Bureau during the last decennial census told me that, while he wished there were data to answer the question, none existed to his knowledge. Nielsen's Senior Vice President for Data Science and the former Deputy Director and Chief Operating Officer of the Census Bureau under President George W. Bush also confirmed that, to the best of their knowledge, no empirical data existed on the impact of a citizenship question on responses. When analyzing Option B, the Census Bureau attempted to assess the impact that reinstatement of a citizenship question on the decennial census would have on response rates by drawing comparisons to ACS responses. However, such comparative analysis was challenging, as response rates generally vary between decennial censuses and other census sample surveys. For example, ACS self-response rates were 3.1 percentage points less than self-response rates forthe 2010 decennial census. The Bureau attributed this difference to the greater outreach and followup associated with the Constitutionally-mandated decennial census. Further, the decennial census has differed significantly in nature from the sample surveys. For example, the 2000 decennial census survey contained only eight questions. Conversely, the 2000 "long form" sample survey contained over 50 questions, and the Census Bureau estimated it took an average of over 30 minutes to complete. ACS surveys include over 45 questions on numerous topics, including the number of hours worked, income information, and housing characteristics. The Census Bureau determined that, for 2013-2016 ACS surveys, nonresponses to the citizenship question for non-Hispanic whites ranged from 6.0 to 6.3 percent, for non-Hispanic blacks ranged from 12.0 to 12.6 percent, and for Hispanics ranged from 11.6 to 12.3 percent. However, these rates were comparable to nonresponse rates for other questions on the 2013 and 2016 ACS. Census Bureau estimates showed similar nonresponse rate ranges occurred for questions on the ACS asking the number times the respondent was married, 4.7 to 6.9 percent; educational attainment, 5.6 to 8.5 percent; monthly gas costs, 9.6 to 9.9 percent; weeks worked in the past 12 months, 6.9 to 10.6 percent; wages/salary income, 8.1 to 13.4 percent; and yearly property insurance, 23.9 to 25.6 percent. 3 001315 The Census Bureau also compared the self-response rate differences between citizen and noncitizen households' response rates for the 2000 decennial census short form (which did not include a citizenship question) and the 2000 decennial census long form survey (the long form survey, distributed to only one in six households, included a citizenship question in 2000). Census found the decline in self-response rates for non-citizens to be 3.3 percent greater than for citizen households. However, Census was not able to isolate what percentage of decline was caused by the inclusion of a citizenship question rather than some other aspect of the long form survey (it contained over six times as many questions covering a range of topics). Indeed, the Census Bureau analysis showed that for the 2000 decennial census there was a significant drop in self response rates overall between the short and long form; the mail response rate was 66.4 percent for the short form and only 53.9 peicent for the long form survey. So while there is widespread belief among many parties that adding a citizenship question could reduce response rates, the Census Bureau's analysis did not provide definitive, empirical support for that belief. Option C, the use of administrative records rather than placing a citizenship question on the decennial census, was a potentially appealing solution to the DOJ request. The use of administrative records is increasingly part of the fabric and design of modem censuses, and the Census Bureau has been using administrative record data to improve the accuracy and reduce the cost of censuses since the early 20th century. A Census Bureau analysis matching administrative records with the 20 1a decennial census and ACS responses over several more recent years showed that using administrative records could be more accurate than self-responses in the case of non-citizens. That Census Bureau analysis showed that between 28 and 34 percent of the citizenship self-responses for persons that administrative records show are non-citizens were inaccurate. In other words, when non-citizens respond to long form or ACS questions on citizenship, they inaccurately mark "citizen" about 30 percent of the time. However, the Census Bureau is still evolving its'use of administrative records, and the Bureau does not yet have a complete administrative records data set for the entire population. Thus, using administrative records alone to provide DOJ with CV AP data would provide an incomplete picture. In the 20 1a decennial census, the Census Bureau was able to match 88.6 percent of the population with what the Bureau considers credible administrative record data. While impressive, this means that more than 10 percent of the American population - some 25 million voting age people - would need to have their citizenship imputed by the Census Bureau. Given the scale of this number, it was imperative that another option be developed to provide a greater level of accuracy than either self-response alone or use of administrative records alone would presently provide. I therefore asked the Census Bureau to develop a fourth alternative, Option D, which would' combine Options Band C. Under Option D, the ACS citizenship question would be asked on the decennial census, and the Census Bureau would use the two years remaining until the 2020 decennial census to further enhance its administrative record data sets, protocols, and statistical models to provide more comple~e and accurate data. This approach would maximize the Census Bureau's ability to match the decennial census responses with administrative records. Accordingly, at my direction the Census Bureau is working to obtain as many additional Federal and state administrative records as possible to provide more comprehensive information for the population. " 4 001316 It is my judgment that Option D will provide DOJ with the most complete and accurate CV AP data in response to its request. A"sking the citizenship question of 100 percent of the population gives each respondent the opportunity to provide an answer. This may eliminate the need for the Census Bureau to have to impute an answer for millions of people. For the approximately 90 percent of the population who are citizens, this question is no additional imposition. And for the approximately 70 percent of noli-citizens who already answer this question accurately on the ACS, the question is no additional imposition since census responses by law may only be used anonymously and for statistical purposes. Finally, placing the question on the decennial census and directing the Census Bureau to determine the best means to compare the decennial census responses with administrative records will permit the Census Bureau to determine the inaccurate response rate for citizens and non-citizens alike using the entire population. This will enable the Census Bureau to establish, to the best of its ability, the accurate ratio of citizen to non-citizen responses to impute for that small percentage of cases where it is necessary to do so. Consideration of Impacts I have carefully considered the argument that the reinstatement of the citizenship question on the decennial census would depress response rate. Because a lower response rate would lead to increased non-response follow-up costs and less accurate responses, this factor was an important consideration in the decision-making process. I find that the need for accurate citizenship data and the limited burden that the reinstatement of the citizenship question would impose outweigh fears about potentially lower response rate. a Importantly, the Department's review found that limited empirical evidence exists about whether adding a citizenship question would decrease response rates materially. Concerns about decreased response rates generally fell into the following two categories - distrust of government and increased burden. First, stakeholders, particularly those who represented immigrant constituencies, noted that members of their respective communities generally distrusted the government and especially distrusted efforts by government agencies to obtain information about them. Stakeholders from California referenced the difficulty that government agencies faced obtaining any information from immigrants as part of the relief efforts after the California wildfires. These government agencies were not seeking to ascertain the citizenship status of these wildfire victims. Other stakeholders referenced the political climate generally and fears that Census responses could be used for law enforcement purposes. But no one provided evidence that reinstating a citizenship question on the decennial census would materially decrease response rates among those who generally distrusted government and government information collection efforts, disliked the current administration, or feared law enforcement. Rather, stakeholders merely identified residents who made the decision not to participate regardless of whether the Census includes a citizenship question. The reinstatement of a citizenship question will not decrease the response rate of residents who already decided not to respond. And no one provided evidence that there are residents who would respond accurately to a decennial census that did not contain a citizenship question but would not respond if it did (although many believed that such residents had to exist). While it is possible this belief is true, there is no information available to determine the number of people who would in fact not respond due to a citizenship question being added, and no one has identified any mechanism for making such a determination. 5 001317 A second concern that stakeholders advanced is that recipients are generally less likely to respond to a survey that contained more questions than one that contained fewer. The former Deputy Director and Chief Operating Officer of the Census Bureau during the George W. Bush administration described the decennial census as particularly fragile and stated that any effort to . add questions risked lowering the response rate, especially a question about citizenship in the current political environment. However, there is limited empirical evidence to support this view. A former Census Bureau Director during the Obama Administration who oversaw the last decennial census noted as much. He stated that, even though he believed that the reinstatement of a citizenship question would decrease response rate, there is limited evidence to support this conclusion. This same former director noted that, in the years preceding the decennial census, certain interest groups consistently attack the census and discourage participation. While the reinstatement of a citizenship question may be a data point on which these interest groups seize in 2019, past experience demonstrates that it is likely efforts to undermine the decennial census will occur again regardless of whether the decennial census includes a citizenship question. There is no evidence that residents who are persuaded by these disruptive efforts are more or less likely to make their respective decisions about participation b~sed specifically on the reinstatement of a citizenship question. And there are actions that the Census Bureau and stakeholder groups are taking to mitigate the impact of these attacks on the decennial census. Additional empirical evidence about the impact of sensitive questions on survey response rates came from the SVP of Data Science at Nielsen. When Nielsen added questions on place of birth and time of arrival in the United States (both of which were taken from the ACS) to a short survey, the response rate was not materially different than it had been before these two questions were added. Similarly, the former Deputy Director and COO of the Census during the George W. Bush Administration shared an example of a citizenship-like question that he believed would negatively impact response rates but did not. He cited to the Department of Homeland Security's 2004 request to the Census Bureau to provide aggregate data on the number of Arab Americans by zip code in certain areas of the country. The Census Bureau complied, and Census employees, including the then-Deputy Director, believed that the resulting political fire storm would depress response rates for further Census Bureau surveys in the impacted communities. But the response rate did not change materially. Two other themes emerged from stakeholder calls that merit discussion. First, several stakeholders who opposed reinstatement of the citizenship question did not appreciate that the question had been asked in some form or another for nearly 200 years. Second, other stakeholders who opposed reinstatement did so based on the assumption that the data on citizenship that the Census Bureau collects through the ACS are accurate, thereby obviating the need to ask the question on the decennial census. But as discussed above, the Census Bureau estimates that between 28 and 34 percent of citizenship self-responses on the ACS for persons that administrative records show are non-citizens were inaccurate. Because these stakeholder concerns were based on incorrect premises, they are not sufficient to change my decision. 6 001318 Finally, I have considered whether reinstating the citizenship question on the 2020 Census will lead to any significant monetary costs, programmatic or otherwise. The Census Bureau staff have advised that the costs of preparing and adding the question would be minimal due in large part to the fact that the citizenship question is already included on the ACS, and thus the citizenship question has already undergone the cognitive research and questionnaire testing required for new questions. Additionally, changes to the Internet Self-Response instrument, revising the Census Questionnaire Assistance, and redesigning of the printed questionnaire can be easily implemented for questions that are finalized prior to the submission of the list of questions to Congress. . The Census Bureau also considered whether non-response follow-up increases resulting from inclusion of the citizenship question would lead to increased costs. As noted above, this estimate was difficult to assess given the Census Bureau and Department's inability to determine what impact there will be on decennial census survey responses. The Bureau provided a rough estimate that postulated that up to 630,000 additional households may require NRFU operations if a citizenship question is added to the 2020 decennial census. However, even assuming that estimate is correct, this additional Y2 percent increase in NRFU operations falls well within the margin of error that the Department, with the support of the Census Bureau, provided to Congress in the revised Lifecycle Cost Estimate ("LCE") this past fall. That LCE assumed that NRFU operations might increase by 3 percent due to numerous factors, including a greater increase in citizen mistrust of government, difficulties in accessing the Internet to respond, and other factors. Inclusion of a citizenship question on this country's decennial census is not new - the decision to collect citizenship information from Americans through the decennial census was first made centuries ago. The decision to include a citizenship question on a national census is also not uncommon. The United Nations recommends that its member countries ask census questions identifying both an individual's country of birth and the country of citizenship. Principals. and Recommendations/or Population and Housing Censuses (Revision 3), UNITED NATIONS 121 (2017). Additionally, for countries in which the population may include a large portion of naturalized citizens, the United Nations notes that, "it may be important to collect information on the method of acquisition of citizenship." Id. at 123. And it is important to note that other major democracies inquire about citizenship on their census, including Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Indonesia, Ireland, Mexico, Spain, and the United Kingdom, to name a few. The Department of Commerce is not able to determine definitively how inclusion of a citizenship question on the decennial census will impact responsiveness. However, even iftliere is some impact on responses, the value of more complete and accurate data derived from surveying the entire population outweighs such concerns. Completing and returning decennial census questionnaires is required by Federal law, those responses are protected by law, and inclusion of a citizenship question on the 2020 decennial census will provide more complete information for those who respond. The citizenship data provided to DOJ will be more accurate with the question than without it, which is of greater importance than any adverse effect that may result from people violating their legal duty to respond. 7 001319 To conclude, after a thorough review of the legal, program, and policy considerations, as well as numerous discussions with the Census Bureau leadership and interested stakeholders, I have determined that reinstatement of a citizenship question on the 2020 decennial census is necessary to provide complete and accurate data in response to the DOl request. To minimize any impact on decennial census response rates, I am directing the Census Bureau to place the citizenship question last on the decennial census form. Please make my decision known to Census Bureau personnel and Members of Congress prior to March 31, 2018. I look forward to continuing to work with the Census Bureau as we strive for a complete and accurate 2020 decennial census. CC: Ron larmin, performing the nonexclusive functions and duties of the Director of the Census Bureau Enrique Lamas, performing the nonexclusive functions and duties of the Deputy Director of the Census Bureau 8 001320