Brookings: Experts - Andrew Reamer

The Essential Role of Federal Labor Market Statistics

Andrew Reamer — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 09:37:00 -0400

The United States faces two challenges in providing the opportunity for gainful and meaningful employment to all its citizens.

The first, structural and long-term, requires workers and their communities to adjust to the ongoing shift toward greater skill requirements and higher educational attainment, evidenced by a growing mismatch between worker abilities and employer needs. The second challenge is the cyclical and near-term hurdle of moving the economy out of the Great Recession.

To address these twin challenges, well-working labor markets are essential. A component of that functioning is good labor market information, enabling intelligent choices about career paths, hiring, training, and public investment and policy. Unfortunately, today’s federal statistical system is not adequately serving the needs of the full array of labor market participants and policymakers. This paper’s aim is to provide a vision of a federal labor statistics system that enables Americans to gain productive occupations and a roadmap for implementing that vision.

Downloads

Authors

Andrew Reamer

Publication: Brookings Institution

Putting America to Work: The Essential Role of Federal Labor Market Statistics

Andrew Reamer — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 00:00:00 -0400

During a roundtable event at Brookings, Andrew Reamer facilitated a series of presentations and focused discussions on:

The value of current, accurate, detailed federal statistics for the functioning of the nation’s labor markets
Innovations in labor market information that could substantially improve the decision-making by labor market participants and policymakers
An assessment of the current state of the federal labor market statistics system
A vision and roadmap for a system that meets labor market participant and policymaker needs

The topics of the sessions, with links to presentations and handouts, follows:

Occupational Transformation and Labor Market Dysfunction

Education Demand and The Future of American Labor Markets
Jeff Strohl, Georgetown University Center for Education and the Workforce
Labor Market Decision-Makers’ Need for Information in Today’s Economy
Andrew Reamer
The 2008-2010 Recession in Maine: Responding to Stranded Workers
John Dorrer, Center for Workforce Research and Information, Maine Department of Labor

Innovations in LMI
Innovative Products and Tools

Real-Time LMI
James Vollman, Advanced Workforce Systems

State Longitudinal Data Systems
SLDS Grant Program (presentation and handout)
Tate Gould, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education

Workforce Data Quality Initiative (presentation and handout)
Stephen Wandner, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor

Post-Secondary and Workforce (graphic)
David Stevens, The Jacob France Institute, University of Baltimore
Local Employment Dynamics
Ron Jarmin, Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce
Occupational Information
Dixie Sommers, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor
Improving the Occupational Employment Statistics Program

Definitions for the Proposed Education and Training Classification System

Experimental Data Set of Occupations on Proposed Education and Training Classification System

Reinventing the Occupational Outlook Handbook
Skills-Based Projections and Transferability
Anthony Dais, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor
Skills-Based Employment Projections System

mySkills myFuture
Healthcare Virtual Career Platform (plus list of covered occupations)
David Morman, American Association of Community Colleges
State Labor Market Information Agency State-of-the-Art
Challenges for LMI Innovation in Maine
John Dorrer

State LMI State-of-the-Art
Rebecca Rust, Labor Market Statistics Center, Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation

U.S. Labor Market Statistics System: Vision and Realities

Putting America to Work: The Essential Role of Federal Labor Market Statistics
Andrew Reamer
Providing Better Job Data to Consumers, Practitioners, and Policymakers
(Great Lakes LMI Agency Capacity Assessment)
David Altstadt, David Altstadt Consulting

Session Reference Materials

Federal Labor Market Statistics System (graphic)
Roadmap for a Demand-Driven Federal Labor Market Statistics System (discussion draft)
National Employment Statistics System (U.S. Code)
Workforce Information Council Mission and Priorities
State LMI Director Priorities for Investment in Labor Market Information

Downloads

Main Presentation

Authors

Andrew Reamer

Publication: Brookings Institution

Surveying for Dollars: The American Community Survey's Role in Federal Funding

Rachel Blanchard Carpenter and Andrew Reamer — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:39:00 -0400

The American Community Survey (ACS) is a Census Bureau program that provides annually updated information on demographic, social, economic, and housing characteristics of U.S. households at every level of geography, from the nation to the neighborhood. ACS data are used by public and business decision-makers to more clearly identify issues and opportunities and more effectively allocate scarce resources to address them.

While the ACS is a relatively new program (full implementation began in 2005), it is the most recent iteration of a long-standing federal tradition of using the decennial census to collect socioeconomic data (that is, data other than traditional demographic data of age, sex, race, and ethnicity) to inform public policy.

An analysis of federal domestic assistance program expenditures distributed on the basis of American Community Survey-related data indicates that:

The accuracy of the American Community Survey (ACS) will determine the geographic distribution of a substantial proportion of federal assistance, particularly in the form of grants. In FY2008, 184 federal domestic assistance programs used ACS-related datasets to help guide the distribution of $416 billion, 29 percent of all federal assistance. ACS-guided grants accounted for $389.2 billion, 69 percent of all federal grant funding.
The bulk of ACS-guided federal assistance goes to state governments through a handful of large formula grant programs to aid low-income households and support highway infrastructure. Medicaid alone accounts for 63 percent of ACS-guided funding. In general, ACS-guided funding is highly concentrated in a small number of programs, recipients (states), departments, and budget functions.
State per capita ACS-guided funding is positively related to income inequality (high annual pay, high poverty), Medicaid income limits, and the percent of the population that is rural. The higher any of these measures, the higher per capita funding tends to be.
The ACS facilitates the distribution of federal assistance largely by serving as the basis for six other federal datasets. Most important of these are the Bureau of Economic Analysis’ per capita income series and the Census Bureau’s population estimates. The ACS itself is directly used to guide the distribution of about a fifth of the $416 billion in assistance.

This report’s analysis of the distribution of federal funds on the basis of ACS-related data has significant implications for federal, state, and local stakeholders. The nation receives a very substantial return on its investment in ACS-related datasets. Through improved understanding of individual federal program reliance on ACS-related data, the Census Bureau will be better able to provide data and indicators that fit program needs. Advocates for communities and lower-income households now have a dollar-specific rationale for encouraging households to participate in the ACS. State governments have much to gain financially from a more accurate and reliable ACS.

Full Report » (PDF)
"Surveying for Dollars" Presentation » (PDF)

U.S. Table: Programs that Distributed Funds on the Basis of ACS-Related Statistics » (PDF)

State/Local Tables

Reference Materials

Tables for individual metropolitan areas and counties may be requested by writing Rachel Blanchard Carpenter at rcarpenter@brookings.edu

Downloads

Full Report

Authors

Rachel Blanchard Carpenter
Andrew Reamer

Looking Back, Looking Forward: The Role of the BLS Office of Price and Living Conditions in Economic Policy

Andrew Reamer — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 00:00:00 -0400

At the annual town hall meeting of the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Office of Prices and Living Conditions (OPLC), Andrew Reamer discussed the need to expand OPLC’s traditional mission of serving federal economic policymakers to also serve the needs of non-federal decisionmakers, public and private.

Introduction:

Good morning. Thanks, Commissioner, for the introduction, and Mike, for the invitation. I’m glad to be here. I’ll be discussing the traditional role of federal economic statistics programs, including those in OPLC, and my belief about how that role needs to expand and change to address current economic issues and opportunities.

The health of the U.S. economy is highly reliant on OPLC data products, for

macroeconomic policy
trade policy
adjustments in payments

going out – from governments and businesses
coming in – taxes

to keep them on a real basis.

OPLC’s importance came about as a result of institutional innovations in economic policy made in the 20-year period between the mid-40s and the mid-60s. These innovations emerged, in turn, from the development of modern social science, which rested on the notion that if we understand how the society works, we can create programs and structures to manage it.

The nation’s approach to public policy was based on the image of the economy as a machine, controlled by levers and informed by dials.

Two of those levers, fiscal and monetary policy, were institutionalized in federal policy with the Employment Act of 1946.

Coming out the Depression, the concern was taming the economic cycle.
The price indices you produce are essential dials determining the use of the monetary policy lever by the Fed.

A third type of lever seeks to facilitate equity and fairness. These values came to the fore in the 1960s and 70s.

There was a shared belief that social policy should put a floor under those less well off, through AFDC, food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, and the like. And that recipients should not lose purchasing power due to inflation.
Further, in business transactions and union contracts, there was a notion that market actors, particularly workers, should not experience unearned losses due to inflation.
The notions of equity and fairness are relatively new social concepts and our ability to put these values into practice, based in part on your work on prices and expenditures, is even more recent.

So you get the image, price data are a key input for the management of our economic machine, for the masters of the economic universe and as a form of automatic stabilizer.

To continue with the metaphor, BLS was organized a half century ago along the lines of a production shop to feed the dials on the machine. The principles of statistical sciences provided the basis for setting up a highly structured operation. When you think about where the science and practice of price index development was in the 1920s and where it has come to today, the whole process—technical and organizational—is quite remarkable and a testament to the dedication, creativity, and discipline of BLS price and expenditures staff over time.

For this approach to public policy to work, it requires that the economic machine behave in response, to actually provide economic stability and well-being. But in fact, we can see, it hasn’t, particularly of late.

Downloads

Full Speech

Authors

Andrew Reamer

Publication: Office of Price and Living Conditions, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

The Role of Statistics in U.S. Economic Policy: Assessment and Agenda for Action

Andrew Reamer — Thu, 06 May 2010 00:00:00 -0400

At a meeting of the Committee on National Statistics, a unit of the National Research Council, Andrew Reamer discussed the need to expand the mission of federal economic statistical agencies to serve the needs of non-federal decisionmakers, public and private.

In this presentation, Reamer identified the barriers to meeting those needs and reviewed the efforts of the Brookings Federal Data Project in addressing those barriers.

Downloads

Economic Statistics Presentation

Authors

Andrew Reamer

Publication: Committee on National Statistics, National Research Council

Budget Allocations for Statistical Programs May Strengthen Demographic Data

Andrew Reamer — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 13:46:00 -0400

In Washington, it’s the season for many things—spring flowers, baseball, political speech (always in season), and House and Senate appropriations subcommittees delving into the minutiae of the president’s proposed $3.7 trillion budget for FY2011.

Scattered among the nooks and crannies of this massive document are the plans for the multiple agencies in the nation’s decentralized statistical system. And within these plans are disparate items that suggest that, slowly, the federal government is taking steps to improve our ability to grasp the demographic, economic, and social dimensions of the nation’s regions and communities.

The remarkable thing about our statistical system is that, when you realize it’s tracking about 310 million people and a $14 trillion economy, it’s really inexpensive, a few billion a year, on average. With the exception of the 2010 Census process, the proposed improvements that I’m about to describe are ridiculously cheap, well under the cost of one F-35 fighter jet.

In FY2011, the biggest statistical deal will be the Census Bureau’s providing the nation with a string of the tallies of population for use in apportionment, legislative redistricting, and other public and private functions. The Census Bureau also will be evaluating the accuracy of the 2010 Census, responding to state and local government concerns about the count, and, yes, planning for the 2020 Census. Cost: $477 million (or three F-35s).

The Census Bureau also proposes to add two important new wrinkles to its data offerings. First, it wants to boost the annual sample size of the American Community Survey, the detailed assessment of population characteristics, from 2.9 million to 3.5 million housing units. While the nation has been growing, the ACS sample size hasn’t. If the sample size isn’t increased, the reliability of the ACS neighborhood estimates, out for the first time this fall, will deteriorate. Strong ACS reliability is crucial for the smart investment of trillions of public and private funds in cities. Cost: $44.2 million.

The Census Bureau also proposes to develop a new Supplemental Poverty Measure.

The current official poverty measure is based on 1950s household economics, excludes federal assistance, and doesn’t account for geographic cost-of-living differences. While the current measure will still be used to determine federal program eligibility, the new measure would give a realistic sense of poverty in various communities, based on what people spend for housing, childcare, and other essentials and reflecting the cost differences between, say, Topeka and Los Angeles. Cost: $5 million, plus $2.5 million for work by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to improve data on household consumption.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Bureau of Economic Analysis are proposing to add new economic data, which, while not as flashy as the ACS or poverty measures, will be very useful for regional analysts.

BLS wants to boost the sample size for its Occupational Employment Statistics so it can replace a three-year average with a one-year estimate. This would allow analysts to build a time series of changes in occupational structure, important for workforce development. Cost: $5 million.
BEA proposes to use a new state cost-of-living index to produce real state personal consumption expenditure data. While the well-known BLS Consumer Price Index measures change over time, the BEA index would measure differences over space, highly useful for all sorts of regional analyses. In light of BEA’s research to date, our hope is that a metro cost-of-living index is not far behind. Cost: some sliver of a $3.9 million initiative for better household statistics.
BEA also plans to restore detailed state-level Foreign Direct Investment Statistics it terminated because of an FY2008 budget cut. These FDI data are crucial to state efforts to attract foreign business. Cost: some portion of $3.3 million for improved FDI data.

In addition to these various statistical goodies, the White House is proposing a series of regional data improvements in specific policy domains:

The Department of Housing and Urban Development wants to restore the American Housing Survey to something closer to its former glory, boosting the number of metros surveyed every two years from seven to 30. Cost: $2.9 million.
The National Center for Education Statistics also is looking for funds to provide technical assistance to states for data systems that track students through the educational system and into the workforce. Cost: $6.7 million.
To complement this NCES effort, the Employment and Training Administration is asking for increased funding of its Workforce Data Quality Initiative, to help states integrate education and workforce data. Cost: $1.3 million.
The National Center for Health Statistics wants to increase the sample size of the National Health Interview Survey to allow for state and community estimates of health insurance coverage for the largest states and metropolitan areas. Cost: $8 million.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics wants to redesign the National Crime Victimization Survey, which would include research on the development of sub-national crime estimates. Cost: some portion of $15 million.
The Energy Information Administration is asking for funds to increase the number of states covered by the Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey, data useful in sustainable development initiatives. Cost: some portion of $15.8 million.

While it’s sometimes difficult to see, the nation and its regions run on statistics—they’re how we frame problems and solutions. OMB Director Peter Orszag understands this, which in large part is why we are seeing a flowering of low-cost, high-impact data initiatives as well as gardens and trees this spring in Washington. Let’s hope that Congress allows these efforts to bear fruit.

Authors

Andrew Reamer

Publication: The Avenue, The New Republic

The Scouting Report: 2010 Census

Wed, 24 Mar 2010 12:30:00 -0400

Event Information

March 24, 2010
12:30 PM - 1:30 PM EDT

Online Only
The Brookings Institution

Washington, DC

Why fill out your census form? There are roughly $447 billion in federal distributions at stake this year as Americans respond to the 2010 census. The results of the decennial headcount will determine future budgets, legislative redistricting and key decisions on highways, schools, health facilities and much more.

On Wednesday, March 24, Andrew Reamer, a Metropolitan Policy Program fellow and author of the report Counting for Dollars was joined by POLITICO senior editor David Mark in an online discussion about the 2010 Census and the impact of its results.

Read the transcript »

Participants

Moderator

David Mark

Senior Editor
POLITICO

Panelists

The Scouting Report Web Chat: 2010 Census

Andrew Reamer — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0400

On Wednesday, March 24, Andrew Reamer, a Metropolitan Policy Program fellow and author of the report "Counting for Dollars," was joined by POLITICO Senior Editor David Mark in an online discussion about the 2010 Census and the impact of its results.

The transcript of this chat follows.

12:29 David Mark: Hello, Andrew. Thanks for joining us. I just sent in my Census material and I'm interested in the difference between the long form and short form.

12:31 Andrew Reamer: Hi David. Well, there is no more long form. Once upon at time, from 1940 to 2000, one of six households got a detailed survey, about 50 or so questions, asking about things like occupation, journey to work, and income. This long form survey has been replaced by the monthly American Community Survey, same questions. So now, short form only, 10 questions.

12:32 [Comment From Erin: ] How much does the census itself cost? How many jobs are being created, and are they all short-term?

12:33 Andrew Reamer: The 2010 census costs about $14.8 billion, life cycle, that is over the decade. Jobs--3.8 million people recruited, 1.2 million field positions, 870K temp workers, and 635K for followup operations.

12:33 [Comment From Shaun Gallagher: ] Why can't we submit our census information online?

12:34 Andrew Reamer: The Census Bureau says for security reasons. Back in 2000, there was a not particularly well publicized internet option. For 2010, that was withdrawn. However, the Census Bureau looks like it will develop an internet option for the ACS and says it will have one available for 2020. The econ data side of census collects data online from businesses now, through Census Taker.

12:34 [Comment From Shawn: ] What are the most common sectors where Census funds are used?

12:36 Andrew Reamer: Census-related data are used to guide the distribution of about a half trillion dollars annually across the U.S. 61% of the funds go for health care, primarily Medicaid, 11% for transportation, 12% for income security, like housing vouchers.

12:36 [Comment From Fred: ] I’ve read that some 15 percent of the federal budget is allocated using the Census. Is that right?

12:36 Andrew Reamer: Yup, that's right.

12:36 [Comment From Laurie : ] Why is it important for Americans to fill out the Census?

12:38 Andrew Reamer: Three reasons--democracy--congressional apportionment, Electoral college votes by state, redistricting for federal, state, and local legislative offices.

Public policy--distributing all that money, enforcing anti-discrimination laws, figuring out where to put schools, highways, health clinics, attracting new businesses.

Economy--businesses use the data to figure out where to locate stores and operations, what goods and services to sell to the community.

12:39 [Comment From Eric: ] How accurate is the census? Are there any groups that the Census fails to reach or that have typically low response rates?

12:40 Andrew Reamer: The census has been getting more accurate. In 1990, the estimated undercount was 1.6 percent. In 2000, there was a 0.5% overcount. Five percent of blacks and Hispanics were missed in 1990, but that undercount dropped in 2000 to 1.8 percent for blacks and 0.7 percent for Hispanics. Hopefully, the 2010 Census will do even better.

12:41 [Comment From Mark: ] What will happen in December when the Census Bureau gives the information to the president for apportionment?

12:42 Andrew Reamer: By law, the Census Bureau is required to submit the population figures by state in December so that the number of seats in the House of Representatives can be apportioned. Next March, a data package goes to the states so that they can redistrict those congressional seats.

12:42 [Comment From Suzie: ] Do you know what the response rate is for the census forms? Do they have some kind of calculation that makes up for people not responding?

12:44 Andrew Reamer: I believe that the mail response rate for census form was in the 60s in 2000. If someone doesn't' t fill out their form, the household will get a visit from an enumerator to ask the questions in person. Multiple visits are made. The Census Bureau makes every effort to get information on a household to get as complete a count as possible.

That said, there is no adjusting for any undercount. What we see is what we get.

12:44 [Comment From Paul: ] It seems like the Census Bureau is spending a lot on advertising. Why are they doing this in such tough economic times?

12:46 Andrew Reamer: I think the ad budget is about $133 million, so less than 1 percent of the overall census budget. The advertising was found very helpful in 2000 in boosting participation, in other words it can save money. This year, each 1 percent increase in the mail-back rate saves 85 million bucks, so if the ads boost mailback by 1.5 percent, they pay for themselves.

12:46 [Comment From Megan: ] How are the Census-determined funds distributed? For instance, are the funds allocated for transportation a separate pot of money that is distributed independently, or are they tacked onto other funding mechanisms, like the transportation bill?

12:49 Andrew Reamer: We found 215 programs that rely on census-related data to distribute funds. Each one is unique. The large majority of programs use census data in the allocation formula, e.g., each state gets funds based on its share of total population, of poor kids, of poor kids with disabilities, of people in small towns. The formulas are in the authorizing legislation, typically, rather than the appropriations. About a quarter of the programs use the data to determine eligibility for the $, e.g., a rural area, an urban area.

12:49 [Comment From Ines: ] How do I know that the information I fill out on the Census and ACS is secure?

12:50 Andrew Reamer: The Census Bureau and all its employees by law are required, under penalty of jail time and a fine, to keep the data confidential. They take this charge very seriously as they know that confidentiality is necessary to get a complete count. There has been no instance since WWII of the census data being used inappropriately, as far as I know.

12:51 [Comment From Peter: ] Which comes first, the USA Patriot act or the US Census being anonymous?

12:51 Andrew Reamer: The ruling came down last week that Title 13, the Census Act requiring confidentiality, trumps the Patriot Act, no question.

12:51 [Comment From Matthew: ] It kind of seems like Republicans don't like the census. Is that because of redistricting?

12:54 Andrew Reamer: I'll answer in two ways. One, I think some people are using the Census as a symbol of big intrusive government, seeking to stoke fear and paranoia about government in general and the Democrats in particular. As I mentioned, the census data are safe; in the meantime, we're not hearing much hew and cry about giving data to businesses, e.g., credit card firms, who sell the data to other users.

Two, straight up political reality is that Republicans benefit from an undercount of nonwhites, who tend to vote Democratic. Democrats are the beneficiaries of a low undercount.

12:55 [Comment From Mark: ] Can you say more about the American Community Survey? I got one of those, and it's a lot of information. How will it be used?

12:58 Andrew Reamer: The ACS goes out to about 250,000 households a month, or 3 million a year. The idea is that over 5 years the Census Bureau will have enough of a sample to publish five-year averages for neighborhoods, updating this average annually. So the first five year data come out in late 2010 for 2005-2009.

The data are used in multiple ways. One is for state and local government and nonprofit planning for schools, travel, health delivery, and, very importantly, disaster planning. the 2000 long form data were important in understanding who got impacted by Katrina in New Orleans. The data are used to drive federal funding and by businesses for site location, as well.

12:58 [Comment From Matthew: ] I don't think that cities usually get a fair shake when it comes to funding from the national government. It seems like city infrastructure is crumbling while highways are constantly being repaved. Will the census help with that disparity at all?

1:00 Andrew Reamer: Well, yes, sort of. The bulk of the census-driven funds, like for transportation, go to state governments. The states then figure out where to spend the money in-state. And they use census data to help figure that out, so an accurate count will help your community. But the states have flexibility to use other factors as well. Each federal program has its own rules about how the states should divvy up the money in-state, the highway program's a very flexible one.

1:00 [Comment From Tom: ] What happens if I don't fill out my Census form? And how does anyone know that I haven't filled it out?

1:02 Andrew Reamer: This year, each census form has a bar code, so when you mail it back, it gets registered. The Census Bureau has a daily updated map of return rates across the U.S., on the web. At some point soon, the Census Bureau will start looking to see who hasn't sent back their form, and if it's you, you get a visit from one of your neighbors working for the Census Bureau.

1:02 [Comment From Ray: ] Do you know if the Census questionnaires were mailed on recycled paper? It seems like they should have been!

1:03 Andrew Reamer: Hey, good question! Back in the 1990s, the federal government issued guidelines for encouraging or mandating the purchase of recycled paper, I assume that applies to the census forms.

1:03 [Comment From Ragen: ] Is there any penalty for not filling out the census form?

1:04 Andrew Reamer: Filling out the form is mandated by law, and so there is the potential for a penalty for not filling it out, but I haven't heard of anyone being fined for not doing so. The Census Bureau is much more about carrots than sticks, I think.

1:05 David Mark: What kind of people are more difficult to count than others? Does this break down along race, ethnicity, income level, etc.?

1:08 Andrew Reamer: The Census Bureau has studied the characteristics of the hard-to-count populations. Characteristics include people who live in crowded housing, are in poverty, not a H.S. grad, unemployed, don't speak English, and a few others. Of course, undocumented residents are difficult as well. A key aim of the advertising and the local complete count committees is to reach people with HTC characteristics.

1:08 David Mark: What types of federal assistance are premised on the Census count? And how do Census figures play into congressional reapportionment?

1:12 Andrew Reamer: There are four kinds of federal assistance that are driven by census stats. The biggest by far is grants, $420B. Next is direct loans, $4.8B, guaranteed or insured loans, $10.4B, and direct payments (e.g., housing vouchers), $11.6 billion.

The Census figures are used to determine how many seats in the House of Representatives each state gets for the 2012-2020 elections. There's a somewhat elaborate procedure, but it comes down to taking the total population counted in the 2010 Census, dividing by 435 seats, and then dealing with the fractions one way or the other in each state. After the 2000 census, Utah missed getting a fourth seat by under 1,000 residents, and promptly sued the federal government in court to get permission to count overseas Mormon missionaries from Utah. Utah lost.

1:12 [Comment From Greg: ] Why is the Census only every 10 years?

1:13 Andrew Reamer: A census every ten years is called for by the Constitution, in Article I, section II. The government, of course, could do one more frequently, if Congress so chose.

1:14 [Comment From Kenneth: ] How do homeless people figure in to this equation? Can they use shelters as a home address? What if they are living on the street?

1:15 Andrew Reamer: Good question. Yes, the Census Bureau does the best it can to count the homeless. It visits shelters across the U.S. to get a count of those residents. I'm not sure how it goes about counting homeless people not in shelters, but I do know that they try.

1:15 [Comment From Nate: ] Are immigrant populations underreported? It seems like some individuals in the US illegally might be pretty hesitant to fill out the Census forms.

1:17 Andrew Reamer: Yes, immigrants not in the U.S. legally are undercounted out of hesitancy to fill out a form. A good part of the "get out the count" effort at the local level is to have trusted intermediaries, e.g., churches, aid organizations, tell the undocumented that they are safe if they fill out the form and filling it out will help their community.

1:17 [Comment From Matthew: ] Do states get involved in getting people to participate in the census? It seems like they have a lot to gain!

1:18 Andrew Reamer: Another good question. States do get involved in promoting the census. An interesting finding of our study on census-driven funding is that states get over 80% of the money and that overall 20% of state budgets come from federal grants. That said, some states are less active this year than others due to budget constraints, which I think is shortsighted given the multiple billions at stake.

1:19 [Comment From Matthew: ] That comment about the Mormons is interesting. Do U.S. citizens abroad get counted in any way?

1:20 Andrew Reamer: I'm not sure of the rules for counting people overseas, we'll see if we can find the answer.

1:21 David Mark: Is there much disparity among states on how much money they receive from Washington based on Census results?

1:25 Andrew Reamer: Yes, a big difference on a per capita basis. DC is at the top of the list at $4,656 per person and Nevada takes up the rear at $742. The national average is $1,469. The major reason, but not only, for the difference is the nature of each state's Medicaid program and their federal reimbursement rate. Medicaid accounts for 58% of the census-driven $. States have a lot of flexibility in designing the program, so Nevada's is conservative and Vermont's and DC's are generous. The richer the state, the lower the reimbursement rate, that makes a difference as well. Rural states get slightly more $ per person than urban states. States with large income inequality tend to have higher per capita fund flows, because they are wealthy enough to have a generous Medicaid program and they have poor people who use it. NY state fits this profile.

1:26 [Comment From Kenneth: ] To follow up on the question about homeless people. Oftentimes homeless people are couch surfing at friends' and relatives'. Should they get reported on those household's numbers?

1:27 Andrew Reamer: Yes. People who don't have a permanent address should be counted where they are on April 1.

Back to the overseas question--only overseas Armed Forces personnel are counted.

1:28 David Mark: Thanks for joining us, everybody. Enjoy the afternoon.

Authors

Andrew Reamer

Image Source: Photo Credit: U.S. Census Bureau, Public Information Office

@ Brookings Podcast: The 2010 Federal Census

Andrew Reamer — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 14:12:00 -0400

Every ten years, the federal government takes a nationwide census, collecting a gold mine of data that helps determine everything from how federal dollars are spent to where the lines of congressional voting districts are drawn. Andrew Reamer details the importance of an accurate census to our system of democracy and the smooth functioning of the economy, in this week’s @Brookings podcast.

See the recent report, "Counting for Dollars: The Role of the Decennial Census in the Distribution of Federal Funds" for state, county and large metropolitan area data.

previous play pause next

mute unmute

@ Brookings Podcast: The 2010 Federal Census 6:38

Right-click (ctl+click for Mac) on 'Download' and select 'save link as..'

Get Code

Copy and paste the embed code above to your website or blog.

Video

The 2010 Federal Census

Audio

@ Brookings Podcast: The 2010 Federal Census

Recommendations for Incorporating Postsecondary and Workforce Data into Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems

Evelyn Ganzglass, Andrew Reamer, Brandon Roberts, Whitney Smith and Rachel Unruh — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0400

So every American can acquire a postsecondary credential leading to a career that provides prosperity for each family and value to America’s employers, we must reform and strengthen state and local educational and skills-development systems. And to guide and ensure the effectiveness of these reforms, we must be able to measure and assess student progress and success as well as the outcomes of publicly funded educational and skills-development programs intended to prepare Americans for the labor market.

In recent years, state governments, with assistance from the U.S. Department of Education, have been working to improve state and local data systems that can document and measure student progress and program outcomes. One effort, the Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS) Grant Program, has made significant progress in strengthening data systems for K-12. This sets a strong foundation for instituting educational improvements that can prompt higher graduation rates and greater numbers of high school students transitioning to and succeeding in postsecondary education.

However, efforts to improve student success in K-12 alone will not meet the skill needs of America’s employers. Already, two-thirds of those who will be working in 2020 are beyond elementary and secondary school age. Of these adult workers, 88 million lack the postsecondary experience and the basic skills to enroll in traditional college courses.[1] To remain economically competitive, the U.S. needs to make sure these workers acquire post-secondary education and skill credentials valued by the labor market. Addressing their needs will require reforming and strengthening state and local educational and skills-development systems. This too can be accomplished only if data measuring participant progress and success is available to inform and guide programs improvements.

Congress and the administration have recognized the importance of having data to assess performance of postsecondary and adult skills-development programs by expanding the SLDS Grant Program to include these systems. This decision supports the need of policy-makers to answer questions such as:

To what extent do high school dropouts who earn a GED go on to obtain a postsecondary credential?
What are the educational and labor market outcomes for unemployed workers who use federal and state resources to obtain training at community colleges?
What value do noncredit community college certificates have in the workplace?

As most state postsecondary and workforce data systems cannot measure participant progress across educational and skills development systems nor document labor market outcomes, these and similar questions are difficult to answer. This is particularly true for the many students who pursue paths other than the traditional P-20 education system. In fact, a recent Data Quality Campaign survey shows, only eight states have the ability to collect and analyze student-level data across the postsecondary and workforce spectrum.[2] A recent National Governor’s Association report found that uneven data quality and imprecise performance measures have stalled state efforts to improve postsecondary education.[3] Moreover, nearly all states have difficulty linking data on adult students in non-degree training settings with postsecondary and workforce data – a step needed to achieve more effective human capital development programs. The recommendations below are intended to inform governors, state legislators, state agencies, leaders in the postsecondary and public workforce systems, and other key stakeholders of the actions needed to build statewide longitudinal data systems that measure the educational transitions, completions, and labor market outcomes of adult students and workers. These measures are essential for improving educational and skills development practices, policies, programs, and strategies that serve the largest portion of our future workforce – adults who are in the workforce today.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Statewide data systems should have the capacity to:

1) Follow the educational progress and labor market outcomes of all adult students and workers:

Within Postsecondary institutions, this means non-traditional students such as those attending part-time, taking non-credit occupational courses, and assigned to development education. This also should include any students who have dropped out.
Within Adult Education programs, this means all participants enrolled in adult basic education, adult secondary education, and English language programs across the state.
Within Skill Development programs, at a minimum this means all participants enrolled in Workforce Investment Act Title 1 (which includes youth, adult, and dislocated workers), Trade Adjustment Assistance, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families training, and Correctional Education.[4]

2) Track and measure the educational and skills development progress, completions, and outcomes of all participants:

Measure and report student/participant progress within programs and institutions such as the progression of postsecondary students from course to course, year to year, non-credit to credit programs, and remedial education to credit courses.
Measure and report on student/participants’ transitions across programs and institutions, such as adult basic education or Title I participants moving into postsecondary remedial education, or non-credit and credit courses/programs as well as transfers from program-to-program.
Measure and report student/participant completions and outcomes for programs and institutions, including the achievement of various credentials (degrees, diplomas, and credit and non-credit certificates of value in the labor market).

3) Track and measure the labor market outcomes of all participants:

Measure and report employment status, earnings, and career advancement for all students/participants who have participated in a program or institution and entered the state’s labor market.

4) Respond to additional challenges such as:

Capture, measure, and report on student/participant education and skill development progression and labor market outcomes across states.
Capture, measure, and report on the achievement of accredited industry certifications generated via state-approved educational and skills development programs.

[1] Report of the National Commission on Adult Literacy, Reach Higher America: Overcoming the Crises in the U.S. Workforce, June 2008, p. v. See: http://www.nationalcommissiononadultliteracy.org/ReachHigherAmerica/ReachHigher.pdf
[2] Data Quality Campaign, DQC 2009-2010 Survey Results Compendium – 10 Actions, January 2010. See: http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/files/Actions_Compendium.pdf
[3] NGA Center for Best Practice, Measuring Student Achievement at Postsecondary Institutions, National Governors’ Association, November 2009. See: http://www.nga.org/Files/pdf/0911MEASURINGACHIEVEMENT.PDF
[4] For Adult Basic Education and Skill Development programs, this does not require tracking participants in the state longitudinal data system, but should include linking relevant data systems to assess progress and outcomes

Authors

Evelyn Ganzglass
Andrew Reamer
Brandon Roberts
Whitney Smith
Rachel Unruh

Publication: Center for Law and Social Policy

Census Brings Money Home

Andrew Reamer — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:44:00 -0400

Last Monday, I came home to a letter from the U.S. Census Bureau urging me to fill out the 2010 Census form. The letter went on to tell me why: “Results from the 2010 Census will be used to help each community get its fair share of government funds for highways, schools, health facilities, and many other programs you and your neighbors need. Without a complete an accurate census, your community may not receive its fair share.”

My new report from Brookings, Counting for Dollars: The Role of the Decennial Census in the Distribution of Federal Funds offers important reasons why it’s worth a few minutes of your time to answer the 10 questions. I look at the extent to which the federal government relies on decennial census-related data to determine where domestic assistance funds are distributed across the nation. The motivation behind my study was to “make it real” for individual states and communities by providing dollar amounts, by program, that could be used by local Complete Count Committees to stimulate greater census participation.

The study’s results are interesting in a number of ways.

The numbers gathered through the decennial census determine the distribution of enormous sums -- $447 billion in FY2008, $1,469 per person, and 15 percent of the total federal budget.

Over 80 percent of that $447 billion goes to state governments — mainly through large formula grant programs that aid low-income households and support highway construction. One fifth of state government budgets, it turns out, come from federal grants, so states have a big stake in an accurate census. For each extra person counted, aid increases from between a few hundred to a few thousand dollars, depending on the state.

Census-guided funding per capita going to states varies enormously, from $4,656 in the District of Columbia to $742 in Nevada. Differences in Medicaid programs explain much of this variation. Medicaid reimbursements are huge -- $261 billion or 58 percent of total census-guided funding. States with more generous coverage tend to get more census-guided funding per person, as do those with a higher proportion of lower income people.

Rural states tend to come out a little better. Highway building over large spaces with few people costs a high amount per capita. And for some programs, less populated states get a base amount that’s higher per person than for more populous states.

The outsized influence of census statistics on federal funding indicates the enormous return on taxpayer investment in federal statistics. One way to think about this is that the $14 billion life cycle cost of the 2010 Census will enable the fair allocation of nearly $5 trillion in funds over the coming decade (not adjusting for inflation or other changes).

The upshot: The 2010 Census is important for many reasons, including apportionment and redistricting, figuring out where businesses, schools, and roads go, and, as we see here, who gets hundreds of billions of dollars in federal aid. If you want, check out what monies will be coming to your community because of your participation.

Authors

Andrew Reamer

Image Source: Rick Wilking

Census 2010: Counting for Dollars

Rachel Blanchard Carpenter and Andrew Reamer — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0500

The federal government’s role in annually dispensing hundreds of billions of dollars to state and local governments, nonprofit organizations, businesses, and individuals is highly visible and political, with substantial economic impact in every corner of the nation.

It has been understood for some time that a substantial proportion of federal domestic assistance is distributed on the basis of population data gathered through the decennial census, the once-a-decade headcount mandated by the Constitution and managed by the U.S. Census Bureau.

An analysis of federal domestic assistance program expenditures distributed on the basis of census-related data indicates that:

The accuracy of the 2010 Census will determine the geographic distribution of a substantial proportion of federal assistance, particularly in the form of grants, over the coming decade. In FY2008, 215 federal domestic assistance programs used census-related data to guide the distribution of $446.7 billion, 31 percent of all federal assistance. Census-guided grants accounted for $419.8 billion, 75 percent of all federal grant funding.
The bulk of census-guided federal assistance goes to state governments through a handful of large formula grant programs to aid low-income households and support highway infrastructure. Medicaid alone accounts for 58 percent of census-guided funding. In general,census-guided funding is highly concentrated in a small number of programs,recipients states), departments, and budget functions.
State per capita census-guided funding is positively related to income inequality (high annual pay, high poverty), Medicaid income limits, and the percent of the population that is rural. The higher any of these measures, the higher per capita funding tends to be.
The decennial census facilitates federal funds distribution largely through being the basis for ten other federal datasets, most importantly the Bureau of Economic Analysis’ per capita income series and the Census Bureau’s population estimates. Decennial census data are directly used to guide a relatively small proportion of the funding.
To illustrate the fiscal impact of decennial census accuracy, each additional person included in the Census 2000 resulted in an annual additional Medicaid reimbursement to most states of between several hundred and several thousand dollars, depending on the state.

The findings have several implications for local efforts to promote greater 2010 Census participation. First, they show that efforts to increase 2010 Census participation by indicating the link between the census and the flow of federal funds are valid. Second, state governments stand to gain the greatest fiscal benefit from increased census participation. Third, raising the response rate of hard-to-count populations, particularly among the subset of families with children, will serve to increase the flow of federal funds. Finally, census participation will have a positive impact on federal fund flows regardless of whether a household is in a rural or urbanized area.

Full Report » (PDF)

U.S. Tables

Federal Assistance by Budget Function » (PDF)
Federal Assistance by Program » (PDF)

State/Local Tables (Summary and Individual)

Reference Document » (PDF)

Tables for smaller metropolitan areas and counties may be requested by writing Rachel Blanchard Carpenter at rblanchard@brookings.edu

Downloads

Download Full Report

Authors

Rachel Blanchard Carpenter
Andrew Reamer

Image Source: © Sam Mircovich / Reuters

Innovation’s Conference Committee Hurdle

Mark Muro and Andrew Reamer — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:08:00 -0500

America continues to grope toward the development of an effective innovation strategy as part of a credible push toward economic reinvention. Notably, in September President Obama--through a solid white paper and a good Troy, N.Y. speech--articulated a bona fide plan for catalyzing the development and commercialization of mold-breaking new products and processes essential to staving off further economic decline.

So now comes the next juncture: Congress’ final deliberations on the creation of a new regional industry clusters program.

Congressional approval of an adequately funded clusters effort is critical because the nation’s economic recovery and longer-term revitalization hinge on restoring the economic health of its regions, metropolitan and rural.

Clusters matter because networks of interconnected, geographically concentrated businesses and related entities in a particular field have been shown, as we have noted previously, to deliver substantial economic benefits to firms and industries by facilitating accelerated knowledge sharing, enhanced access to specialized labor and suppliers, and substantial economies of scale.

Once it seemed U.S. industry clusters, think Detroit’s automakers, were invulnerable and immortal. Over the last 30 years, though, we’ve learned that in a highly competitive, highly connected world no region can take its economic base for granted.

What the federal government hasn’t learned is how to create a policy that catalyzes economic resiliency through greater cluster competitiveness.

Which is why it is crucial that the House-Senate conference committee on the Commerce-Justice-Science (CJS) appropriations bill (H.R. 2847) put aside squabbling and turf issues and approve something like the balanced two-part regional industry clusters initiative requested in the president’s budget for the Economic Development Administration (EDA) (also envisioned in a 2008 Brookings report).

The EDA budget request seeks $50 million for a regional innovation clusters initiative that would at once award competitive, bottom-up grants to strengthen local efforts and, to further support them, establish a national clusters research and information center.

The problem is, neither the House nor Senate CJS appropriation bills fully fund the president’s proposal. The Senate version provides about $35 million of the requested funds--enough to fund a viable clusters program with both a grants and information component. However, the House version slashed the president’s request to only $10 million to restore funds to EDA’s public works account, leaving only enough to fund a very small grant program (and no research and information center). Here, the president made a political mistake in repurposing EDA’s existing funding base rather than adding new funds. Predictably, those hurt by the shift came forward to ensure their interests were protected. But an opportunity remains for the greater good to be served.

To ensure that a fully-rounded clusters program becomes operational., the conferees should agree to the Senate funding level for the EDA economic adjustment, technical assistance, and research/evaluation accounts (allowing the clusters effort to be funded at about $35 million) but also accept the higher House funding level for EDA assistance programs ($255 million), which would allow conferees to split the difference between House and Senate appropriations for public works. Further, the conference report should explicitly affirm in its explanatory statements that the new cluster innovation program represents a new paradigm for EDA development activities--one applicable to both rural and metropolitan economies and that seeks to build local institutional capacity for global competitiveness.

Now, it’s true that the sum of $35 million for a new federal clusters program remains paltry given the scale of America’s needed economic reconstruction. And yet, the establishment of a well-designed and implemented EDA clusters program would serve as an important symbol and demonstration of a new federal approach to economic policy.

At stake here, then, is an excellent opportunity to test a new bottom-up approach to regional development that encourages local creativity for innovation; leverages additional public and private money; deploys information to enable better decisionmaking; and, finally, encourages a more flexible federal culture.

So let’s go for it. Congress should implement the president’s vision and test an important new strategy for stimulating innovation and job-creation, region by region.

Authors

Who Cares About Federal Economic Statistics?

Andrew Reamer — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:54:00 -0400

Editor's note: This article originally appeared on October 30, 2009 in Dismal Scientist at Moody’s Economy.com under the title: Who Cares About Federal Economic Statistics?

Two years ago, the state of the federal government's system for gathering and maintaining economic statistics was like The Dismal Scientist—dismal.

In response to former President George Bush's threat to veto what he viewed as excessive federal spending, Congress cut the budgets of a number of agencies, including three whose responsibilities include gathering the nation's vital economic statistics: the Census Bureau, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

These agencies didn't yield particularly large savings. Congress snipped some $35 million from the BLS and the BEA and delayed about $60 million for the Census Bureau, all to help cover a $22 billion gap in a $3 trillion appropriations bill.

Statistical values

Congress could order these cuts because most of its members don’t fully comprehend the value that the $1 billion federal economic statistical system provides to the nation. Data collected by government agencies guide fiscal and monetary policy in a $14 trillion economy and inform the investment decisions of 6 million U.S. firms. Without timely and accurate statistics, thousands of private and public agencies would be unable to successfully carry out efforts in transportation, education, healthcare, affordable housing, and economic, community and workforce development.

Congress’ actions pushed the federal statistical system, which had not been faring well for some time, into dire straits. Because of the budget cuts, in 2008, the Census Bureau couldn’t add new quarterly and annual data it planned to collect on the nation’s finance, insurance and real estate industries. As a result, the BEA now lacks optimal data for measuring economic activity in those areas that were at the heart of the recent recession.

The cuts also left the BLS unable to update its consumer price index survey with information from the 2000 census. The CPI's housing sample thus continues to be based on data from the 1990 census, which has created a visible, growing age bias in the sample.

There were other consequences of Congress' budget cuts as well.

The BEA said it would stop publishing industry subsector estimates for metro and county GDP and earnings. Researchers therefore would be unable, for instance, to track Detroit's dependence on auto manufacturing.
The BEA also halted the collection and publication of detailed state foreign direct investment data, despite protests from state economic development agencies, which depend on that information to help attract overseas firms.
The Census Bureau cut back and postponed the 2008 "dress rehearsal" for the 2010 census, leaving it unable to test its procedures and technologies for the upcoming decennial count.
The BLS killed current employment statistics for 65 small metro areas.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development discontinued the residential finance survey, which gathered data on mortgage debt, and had dramatically cut back the number of metro areas covered by the American Housing Survey, which examines local housing conditions and markets.

With only a $2 million appropriation, the Census Bureau’s innovative Local Employment Dynamics program barely dodged elimination and was relegated to pilot status. Starved for funds, the program could not realize its potential to use existing administrative records to track worker movement over time and space—knowledge that could transform how we understand the workings of our national and regional economies.

Properly funded, LED could show patterns of labor turnover by worker characteristics such as age, sex, race, industry and occupation, down to the community level. It could trace how workers fare after layoffs, shedding light on such questions as the fate of construction workers after housing markets collapsed. And the program could provide a demographically rich picture of where people live in relation to where they work, a valuable tool for business site location and transportation planning.

Turnabout

One year and a new administration later, the situation is markedly different.

In the budget for fiscal 2009, Congress gave the Census Bureau the $8 million it needed to collect data from finance, insurance and real estate firms quarterly and annually, rather than once every five years. The BLS also received sufficient funds to update the CPI housing sample and restore current employment statistics for the 65 small metro areas cut under the last Bush budget.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act gave the Census Bureau $1 billion to improve operations and beef up its "get out the count" efforts, to ensure a more accurate 2010 census. The Census Bureau also initiated a new Business Dynamics Statistics program that allows researchers to examine longitudinal trends in business development.

For fiscal 2010, the House and Senate are on the verge of agreeing to fund several important economic data improvements. Assuming budget passage, these positive developments are in store:

The BEA will improve its estimates of service industry contributions to GDP using the newly expanded Census Bureau services industry data.
The BEA will restore detail to regional NAICS for GDP and earnings and also create a new interarea price index to produce real measures of state and local area product and income.
The Census Bureau’s LED program will become permanent, with increased funding for significant enhancements. Among these would be a “job-to-job flows tool” allowing analysts to see how different categories of workers move among industries and regions over time.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development will receive a substantial increase in funding for improved housing statistics. In particular, HUD will expand the American Housing Survey and begin capturing residential finance data in a more timely way.
If the House agrees to Senate funding levels, the BEA would reverse cuts to the state FDI data program and the Economic Development Administration would create an industry clusters research and information center, including detailed cluster mapping.

Apart from this year’s appropriations process, agencies are pursuing several efforts to improve the statistical system. The BEA is exploring the creation of measures of economic well-being and sustainability. The Census Bureau has proposed collecting data needed to create a modern poverty measure as well as a new program to improve its longitudinal business datasets. The Census Bureau also is looking at ways to expand the sample size of the American Community Survey (to increase its reliability) and to improve its annual population estimates program. In addition, an administration-supported effort is under way to improve the accuracy, comparability and usefulness of economic statistics through a series of “data synchronization” activities across statistical agencies.

Looking ahead, however, the political and budget winds blow in different directions. The good news is that senior Obama administration officials understand the importance of reliable and extensive economic statistics. OMB Director Peter Orszag has written about using statistics to drive sound policy, for example.

Time to speak up

The bad news is that for the foreseeable future, Washington will be under enormous pressure to reduce spending. It is quite possible that the administration's understanding of the need for good statistics will not be reflected in the president’s upcoming budget proposals—unless data users weigh in. And if the past is a guide, Congress may well make cuts because it doesn’t naturally comprehend the nearly infinite economic return on a relatively small taxpayer investment in data collection and product development.

To a great extent, then, the future health of the federal statistical system is in the hands of data users. Historically, consumers of government statistics have had little direct contact with federal decision makers. Congress and the bureaucracy take data users' concerns seriously when they hear them, but they rarely do. If the federal statistics system is to sustain recent improvements and survive upcoming budget battles, data users need to make their case. Silence in this instance is the opposite of golden.

Authors

Andrew Reamer

Publication: Economy.com

Changing the Census? Don’t Even Think about It

Andrew Reamer and Audrey Singer — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:54:00 -0400

Preparations for April’s 2010 Census are well underway. The federal government’s largest ever peacetime operation, the 23rd decennial headcount is a tightly choreographed effort involving years of planning, $14 billion and 700,000 staff.

After some fits and starts, the Census Bureau is ready to deliver an accurate census. However, an appropriations amendment just introduced by Sens. David Vitter (R-LA) and Robert Bennett (R-UT) could derail that outcome. The Senators want to bar the Census Bureau from conducting the census unless it adds questions on each person’s citizenship and immigration status.

It’s difficult to overstate the importance of the 2010 Census. Census results will drive congressional and Electoral College apportionment; legislative redistricting; voting and civil rights enforcement; the annual distribution of $500 billion in federal funds to U.S. communities; the siting of roads, health centers, and schools; response to disasters; and the location and hiring decisions of millions of businesses from mom-and-pop to Wal-Mart.

The census aims to count everyone, regardless of citizenship and immigration status. The amendment’s sponsors complain that the current approach to congressional apportionment is skewed because unauthorized immigrants are included. They want the census to identify the unauthorized in order to exclude them from the apportionment process.

But they are ignoring the Constitution itself. It requires a count of all “persons” residing in the United States, not just citizens or legal residents. The framers intended the census to be an inclusive count and so avoided the term “citizen” used elsewhere throughout the Constitution.

Additionally, the Census Bureau doesn’t ask about a person’s legal status to avoid intimidating immigrants, authorized and unauthorized, from participating in the census. While Census Bureau employees are held to strict standards of confidentiality, under threat of criminal penalty, many immigrants may still be reluctant. Charged with getting a full count of the U.S. population, the Census Bureau can’t afford additional risk that a significant number of people will not fill out the form.

In a country of 308 million people, getting a complete headcount is a gargantuan undertaking even when the number of questions (now ten) is small. Add a bitter politicized environment around immigration and it’s understandable why many immigrants, even those legally present, may not want to stand up to be counted.

In addition to compromising census accuracy, the Vitter-Bennett amendment would wreak havoc with census timing and cost.

Due to additional needs for testing, printing, and training, changing the census questionnaire would delay the census well beyond the congressionally mandated date of April 1, 2010. This, in turn, would postpone the Census Bureau delivery of population figures to states for apportionment and redistricting beyond April 1, 2011, as required by law. Ironically, in their fervor to deny congressional representation to non-citizens, Senators Vitter and Bennett would disrupt the entire apportionment process.

Then there is the added cost to taxpayers. Extending and remaking the massive census operation over many months will create, in the words of Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations Subcommittee chair, a “financial challenge that borders on . . . a nightmare.” The Vitter-Bennett amendment would waste hundreds of millions of dollars already spent on testing, printing, training, and advertising and require spending hundreds of millions more.

Barring a constitutional amendment to alter practices in place since 1790, if Sens. Vitter and Bennett wanted to add new census questions, they should have said so in 2007—when the Census Bureau, as required by law, gave Congress the opportunity to review the questionnaire. Congress put this review process in place precisely to avoid the disastrous consequences of the eleventh-hour changes now being proposed.

The Vitter-Bennett attempt to remake the census less than six months before Census Day might have one positive impact. It provides Congress with further incentive to undertake major reform to the nation’s immigration policy. Congress should do so without the collateral damage of a delayed, less accurate, more costly census.

Authors

The Structure of the U.S. Economic Statistical System: Implications for Public Policy

Andrew Reamer — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 00:00:00 -0400

At the biennial International Statistical Institute conference in Durban, South Africa, Andrew Reamer said that the federal economic statistical system has been too narrowly focused on meeting the data needs of macroeconomic policymakers, to the detriment of other data users, particularly those at the regional level. He argued that the government needs a coherent policy for promoting the nation’s economic competitiveness; such a policy should be built around encouraging the competitiveness of regions; and, as a key aspect of that policy, the statistical system should produce the data needed for improved public and private decision-making at the regional level.

Downloads

Authors

Andrew Reamer

Publication: International Statistical Institute conference Durban, South Africa

The Federal Statistical System in the 21st Century: The Role of the Census Bureau

Andrew Reamer — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 00:00:00 -0400

Chairwoman Maloney, Vice Chairman Schumer, Congressman Brady, Senator Brownback, and members of the Joint Economic Committee, I am pleased to speak to you today about the role of the Census Bureau in a 21st century federal statistical system.

Census Bureau data are essential to the effective functioning of our nation’s democracy, public policy at all levels of government, and our $14 trillion economy. For example, congressional apportionment and redistricting; federal macroeconomic and regional economic development policies; the annual distribution of a half trillion dollars in federal funds; the enforcement of the Voting Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act; state road-building and emergency planning; the placement of public schools and community health centers; and business startup, location, and investment decisions all rely on Census Bureau statistics. At the most fundamental level, the nation could not operate without this agency.

Relative to the enormity of the political and economic impacts, the size of the Census Bureau operation is very small. Outside the Decennial Census, Census Bureau operations cost in the range of $500 million annually; averaged over a decade, the cost of the 2010 Census operation is about $1.5 billion a year. The return to the nation on this investment in the Census Bureau is nearly infinite.

However, the Census Bureau is not yet a 21st century statistical agency. While the bureau has made substantial, innovative advances in improving the value of its data offerings, I believe these offerings need to more fully reflect three new realities:

major changes in the nation’s economic structure,
the potential for Census Bureau data to enable more informed, effective nonfederal public and private decision-making across the nation, and
significant opportunities for new data products and techniques afforded by large scale advances in information technology.

Downloads

Download Testimony

Authors

Andrew Reamer

Publication: Joint Economic Committee

Report, Plan, and Public Access Requirements Specified by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and Related OMB Guidance

Andrew Reamer — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:00:00 -0400

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) seeks to create a greater level of transparency and accountability regarding federal spending than ever seen before.

Organizations with a stake in transparency and accountability are well aware that all award recipients must report certain information on a regular basis; that all awardgranting agencies need to file plans and ongoing reports; and that the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board (Board) must provide a series of reports and provide public access to substantial amounts of information on all ARRA awards and award-granting agencies.

Because of the complexities of ARRA, stakeholders find it far more difficult to fully grasp the large number of additional report, plan, public access, and other requirements specific to recipients of particular ARRA awards (e.g., from the Department of Transportation), to particular agencies managing ARRA award programs (e.g., Department of Defense reports to Congress regarding civil investigations), and to a wide array of federal agencies with policy and oversight responsibilities for ARRA (e.g., the president, the Government Accountability Office, inspectors general, and the Council of Economic Advisers).

Further, stakeholders may not be completely aware of ARRA report, public access, and other requirements concerning individual agency activities outside of ARRA awards. So, for instance, the Secretary of Commerce is directed to submit a report to Congress “on ways to improve the timeliness and coverage of data on trade in services . . . .”

The purpose of this document is to catalog this wide array of requirements specified by ARRA for the benefit of the community of stakeholders in transparency and accountability. Requirements (in the form of excerpts from ARRA) are organized in three chapters, covering all ARRA awards and programs, individual agency ARRA awards and programs, and agency efforts other than ARRA awards and programs. Each chapter’s requirements are categorized by type, e.g., recipient reporting to agency, agency report to Congress, GAO to Congress. Requirements are bolded. The document also includes report, plan, and access requirements indicated by ARRA implementation guidance to federal agencies published by the Office of Management and Budget on April 3, 2009.

Downloads

Download Report

Authors

Andrew Reamer

Budget 2010: More and Better Data for Metro Decisionmaking

Andrew Reamer — Wed, 13 May 2009 16:52:05 -0400

As reflected in reports, articles, and congressional testimony, the Metropolitan Policy Program has long argued that current, accurate, and accessible federal socioeconomic statistics are necessary to sustain well-functioning metro regions.

At a cost of a few dollars per person per year, the return on taxpayer investment in federal statistics is substantial. Federal data are relied upon to:

apportion congressional seats and Electoral College votes;
redraw legislative districts;
guide national economic policy;
determine the annual flow of hundreds of billions of federal funds;
allow federal, state, and local governments to address issues and assess actions in every domain of metropolitan life, such as jobs, housing, transportation, and health; and provide businesses from Wal-Mart to mom and pop outfits with information to assess markets and find the right locations and product offerings.

As we reported previously, long-standing metro employment and housing measures were eliminated, severely cut back, or not updated by the previous administration and Congress. Further, opportunities to take advantage of the power of information technology were not seized.

The passage of the omnibus FY 2009 budget in March restored Bureau of Labor Statistics current employment statistics for 65 smaller metros and “modernized” the Consumer Price Index, which continued to draw its housing sample from the 1990 Census due to the lack of $10 million.

President Obama’s proposed FY 2010 budget continues the data restoration process in several more agencies and also offers a number of significant improvements:

At the Census Bureau, a series of management and funding missteps led to concerns over the possibility of a poorly implemented 2010 census. However, a new management team and an additional $1 billion from the Recovery Act appear to have set census planning and implementation on a viable path. The Census Bureau FY 2010 budget provides further fiscal basis for a successful census, a jump to $7.8 billion in the census year from $2.9 billion in FY 2009 (46).

Also at Census, additional funding is proposed for the innovative Local Employment Dynamics (LED) program, from $2 million to $14 million. The LED program will allow data users to compute the “flows” of local economies in any of three ways—labor turnover (hires and fires), where people live in relation to where they work, and the path people take from one job to the next—with disaggregation by industry, age, sex, race/ethnicity, and educational attainment. LED has the potential to allow far more sophisticated understanding, analysis, and policy prescriptions, at very low cost. For several years, the Metro program has actively supported the LED program through hosting workshops and presentations; that support laid the foundation for this request.

Also highly beneficial for metros, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) FY 2010 budget request includes a $2 million initiative for “Rebuilding County and Metropolitan Area Economic Statistics.” Due to a budget cut in late 2007, BEA expected to eliminate “subsector” industry detail from its county and metro income and GDP data. Recognizing the significant political and analytic problems such cuts would cause, the administration added funds not only to restore the subsector detail but also:

develop a new county-level GDP data series,
create inter-state, inter-metro, and inter-county price indices that would allow for real (inflation-adjusted) estimates of state and local GDP and income; and
accelerate the release of county and metro data so they are released ten months after the calendar year rather than 16 months.

BEA proposed this initiative following an October 2008 idea-generating Metro program workshop that brought together BEA leadership and staff with the representatives of 20 associations, research organizations, and federal agencies reliant on BEA regional data.

The Economic Development Administration proposes to create a regional industry clusters information center as complement to a new clusters grant program. The center would provide a constantly updated picture of the geography of industry clusters across the U.S. Such a picture would inform regional, state, and federal economic development strategy as well as business decision making. The EDA clusters program proposal reflects the recommendations of a Metro program paper on the topic.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is requesting a 56 percent boost in Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) data infrastructure spending, from $32 million to $50 million. Additional funds would be used for two critical purposes. One would be to rebuild the American Housing Survey (AHS), the most detailed source of information about the nation’s housing stock and occupants. The AHS has been in a sorry state, as recent funding cuts have substantially reduced sample sizes and coverage of metropolitan areas. PD&R also proposes to create a new Multifamily Residential Finance Survey to complement existing single-family residential finance efforts.

The Department of Education’s Institute for Education Sciences seeks to continue its work supporting the development of state longitudinal education data systems that can track the performance of all students over years and so lead to improved program design and student outcomes. While the request for $65 million is the same as in FY 2009, an additional $250 million was allocated by the Recovery Act. And the budget for the Employment and Training Administration proposes $15 million for a new Workforce Data Quality Initiative to support integration of workforce and education data in longitudinal data systems.

While many statistical agencies have budget requests that, if enacted, would lead to improved metro statistics, several federal efforts continue to struggle with inadequate requests for FY 2010. These include the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, which received a woeful $1 million increase to $28 million, and the Workforce Information-Electronic Tools-Systems Building program at the Employment and Training Administration, which was flatlined at $51.7 million.

The FY 2010 budget requests for statistical agencies suggest that the Obama administration realizes the need to revitalize federal statistics for metros. At the same time, the budget reflects the facts that the administration inherited a mature budget process and had to make a series of final decisions ad hoc. The hope is that this budget proposal provides the foundation for an even more robust set of statistical program budget requests for FY 2011.

Authors

Andrew Reamer

Metro Potential in ARRA: An Early Assessment of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:14:00 -0400

America’s national economic crisis is also a metropolitan crisis, because metropolitan areas are the true engines of the national economy.

Home to 65 percent of the U.S. population, the largest 100 metropolitan areas alone account for threequarters of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP), as notes the Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings’ Blueprint for American Prosperity initiative. Strictly speaking, there is no single U.S. economy, but rather a tightly linked network of metropolitan economies.

And that is why it matters intensely how well efforts to revive the nation’s economy—including the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)—empower metropolitan leaders to marshal their given resources to boost prosperity.

To produce real prosperity local leaders require rich stocks of the fundamental “drivers” of productive growth—key innovation inputs, cutting-edge infrastructure, abundant human capital, and quality places. But metropolitan actors also need the discretion and power to aggregate, link, and coordinate those drivers to maximize their impact.

Therefore, it is a matter of both national and local concern to consider how ARRA, aka the “stimulus” package, will affect U.S. metropolitan areas, and to assess how easily—or not—its multiple funding flows may be utilized to bolster metro efforts to get the economy moving.

This report probes those questions by providing an initial overview of the intent, approach, and content of ARRA from the point of view of metropolitan America.

From that perspective, this policy paper finds that ARRA usefully directs billions of dollars towards significant investments in the four key drivers of prosperity that concentrate in metropolitan areas. At the same time, the paper concludes that ARRA does very little to actively support metropolitan leaders’ efforts to bundle and align ARRA resources to foster local and national recovery. This lack of attention means that the burden of optimizing ARRA’s implementation falls squarely on states, which control significant amounts of ARRA funding, and local and regional actors, who will have a number of opportunities to craft coordinated approaches to implementing the law and sparking recovery.

Download Executive Summary » (PDF)
Download Full Report » (PDF)

Downloads

Download

Authors

Alan Berube
Jennifer Bradley
Mark Muro
Robert Puentes
Sarah Rahman
Andrew Reamer