Census deception

Both the New York Times and Washington Post have been running a real man-bites-dog story: a government agency -- in this case the US Census Bureau -- successfully carried out its assigned duties and managed to come in under budget, returning a cool $1.6 billion to government coffers:

Higher-than-anticipated response rates and an overqualified temporary workforce helped the U.S. Census Bureau keep the 2010 Census at least $1.6 billion under budget, officials announced Tuesday.

Congress appropriated $14.7 billion over 12 years for the 2010 head count, which began with planning meetings in 1999. More than half of the money was spent this year.

"This did not happen by chance," Commerce Secretary Gary Locke told reporters on Tuesday, adding later, "We demanded accountability and stretched every dollar as far as it could go."

If this sounds too good to be true, however, that's because it is. Digging a bit deeper, we find some facts which severely undercut the narrative that is being promoted by administration officials. Among these facts:

• The $13.1 billion actually spent on the 2010 census represents an increase of greater than 50 percent over the previous census in 2000, which cost $8.26 billion adjusted for inflation ($6.7 billion in 2000 dollars). In comparison, the population increase from 2000 to 2010 was roughly 9 percent (282 million to 307 million).

• The 72 percent response rate achieved by the 2010 census is described as "on par" with response rates from the 2000 census. Thus, additional money does not seemed to have produced improved results (although it is possible the accuracy was higher, but I couldn't find data on this point).

• Of the savings, roughly $800 million is attributed to the lack of natural disasters or epidemics which might have impeded the count. In other words, good luck.

• Perhaps most damning, the original budget for the census was roughly $11 billion (still a 33 percent increase over the 2000 census) according to Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), but the budget had to be increased after the Census decided not to use special handheld computers following a GAO report which said they would not be ready in time due to various problems encountered. The move was estimated to have cost upwards of $3 billion. Thus, the $13.1 billion actually spent is properly viewed as a 19 percent overrun, not some kind of savings.

The kicker, meanwhile, is that according to this story, Canada performed their own census in 2006 at a cost of CAN $567 million (US $542 million) with a response rate of 97 percent (Canadians strike me as rather civic minded people, but the discrepancy with the US is still 25 percentage points). At a population of 33 million, this comes out to US $16.42 per person. The US census, meanwhile, compares at $42.67 per person.

The US Census Bureau as a triumph of government efficiency? I don't think so.