Santa Fe New Mexican

Yes, the census is worth a Big Mac

-

The census is the biggest political issue that most people don’t care about. Much of what we know about our nation’s people — their ages, their races, their incomes and housing — comes from Census Bureau workers patiently designing and tabulating its surveys. Their numbers frequently set the terms of major political debates, starting with political redistrict­ing. And of course, there is the original purpose for which the census was establishe­d: counting the number of people in these United States, and apportioni­ng representa­tives to each state according to those findings.

The census, in other words, matters a great deal. So it matters a great deal that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross is urgently petitionin­g Congress to give him more money so that we don’t screw it up.

The worries over the census distill the essence of a typical Washington story: The things that sound big ultimately don’t matter much. Small details and dull statistics turn out to be mighty levers that can shift the whole government.

Start with the big thing that doesn’t matter: the amount of money that Wilbur Ross is asking for. That’s $15.6 billion, roughly a fourth more than Obama-era projection­s that he dismissed at a congressio­nal hearing as “overly optimistic.”

This is, of course, objectivel­y a great deal of money. If you had that much money, you would be the 64th-richest person in the world. However, that’s not the right way to think about government expenditur­es. What matters is the cost to individual Americans, and this works out to about $48 apiece, for a procedure we perform only once every 10 years. That’s roughly the cost of one Big Mac meal a year — an eminently reasonable price to pay to ensure that political representa­tion matches as closely as possible the number of people in each state. But why is the cost rising? Well, one reason is simple enough to explain: The population has grown. We won’t know exactly how much it has grown until we do the census, of course, but there are definitely more people in the U.S. than there were in 2010. And if the Census Bureau is as determined as it should be to count each and every one of them, doing so will cost more.

But then, it’s tempting to argue that the government ought to be able to do more with less. We did, after all, have a technologi­cal revolution that has enabled companies to slash costs, and manipulati­ng this sort of data is exactly what technology is best at. Why can’t the Census Bureau follow where the private sector has led?

Secretary Ross was asked approximat­ely this during the hearing, and seemed slightly bemused by the question. While he was critical at several junctures of the sometimes absurd ways in which the government violates corporate best practices, he understand­s what the congressma­n didn’t: The Census Bureau simply cannot replicate what companies do with IT.

The Census Bureau has its own peculiar problem on top of the general issues with federal government IT, because it does the census only once every 10 years. Even if it managed to design and build a cutting-edge census taking system, that system would be obsolete by the time the next census rolled around. And since it’s only used once, you can’t build the way Silicon Valley does: starting small, and then improving through iteration, and gradually bringing it up to scale. This kind of bespoke, single-use system is an expensive endeavor that will never stay around long enough to generate the kind of savings that corporatio­ns wring out of technology over time. And it’s unlikely to reach their level of quality, either.

In fact, in some ways, technology has made the job of the Census Bureau harder, as Ross emphasized during his testimony. The census is prone to the same problems that are troubling private polling operations: the difficulty of getting people to respond to your surveys. People are overwhelme­d, he said, by technologi­cally enabled “clutter”; they are increasing­ly reluctant to answer phone calls from strangers, or open the door to them, or answer nosy questions about themselves. And plans to allow for internet response are now facing headwinds from high-profile data breaches like at Equifax (as well as some well-publicized hacks of the government), which are apt to make people reluctant to answer government questions at all, much less in a digital format.

Private-sector researcher­s deal with these challenges by resorting to a variety of statistica­l techniques to guess at the data that falling response rates are costing them. But that’s not a choice open to the census, which is required to count everyone. Unfortunat­ely, nonrespond­ers are wildly expensive compared to the millions of dutiful citizens who mail off their forms the week they get them.

Data-collection problems are rising at a time when congressio­nal willingnes­s to spend money is not. In the tight budget environmen­t, many of the nation’s datagather­ing agencies have scaled back their collection efforts as a result. But the census must go on. So unless Congress forks over adequate funding, there’s a risk that we’ll have a badly done census that will distort policies in countless ways for more than a decade to come. That would be truly costly.

 ??  ?? Megan McArdle Bloomberg View
Megan McArdle Bloomberg View

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States