RDP_SupportingStatement_PartA_2021

SUPPORTING STATEMENT A

U.S. Department of Commerce

U.S. Census Bureau

Redistricting Data Program

OMB Control No. 0607-0988

Abstract

The Redistricting Data Program (RDP) is administered in accordance with Public Law 94-171. The RDP provides states the opportunity to delineate the small area geographies for which they need to receive data tabulations to support their redistricting efforts. The RDP provides high quality redistricting data to the states in a timely manner in support of state redistricting efforts. The RDP also collects state legislative district and congressional district plans from the states, delineated using the decennial P.L. 94-171 redistricting data tabulations, and allows for periodic collection of updated state legislative and congressional district boundaries.

Justification

1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary. Identify any legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the collection. Attach a copy of the appropriate section of each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing the collection of information.

As the current Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number 0607-0988 will expire in November 2021, the new clearance will allow the Census Bureau to provide RDP-specific materials, burden hours, and procedures to 52 state liaisons to complete Phase 4: Collection of Post 2020 Census Redistricting Data Plans and Phase 5: Review of the 2020 Census RDP and Recommendations for the 2030 RDP. The RDP is executed under the provisions of Title 13, Section 141(c) of the United States Code (U.S.C.).

Under the provisions of Public Law 94–171, as amended (Title 13, United States Code (U.S.C.), Section 141(c)), the Secretary of Commerce, who designates this responsibility to the Director of the Census Bureau, is required to provide the “officers or public bodies having initial responsibility for the legislative apportionment or districting of each state with the opportunity to specify geographic areas (e.g., Voting Districts (wards and election precincts), congressional and state legislative districts, census blocks) for which they wish to receive decennial census population counts for the purpose of reapportionment or redistricting” and to deliver those counts in a timely manner.

2. Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used. Except for a new collection, indicate the actual use the agency has made of the information received from the current collection.

After the 2020 Census, states may use 2020 Census (P.L. 94-171) redistricting data tabulated for census blocks, voting districts, and possibly other geographic areas such as cities, counties, etc., as considerations when they draw their new congressional and legislative district boundaries. States are the only authority that can choose where and how to draw their boundaries.

At the start of the 2020 RDP, the Census Bureau issued invitation letters by mail (U.S. Postal Service) and follow-up emails to the officers or public bodies having initial responsibility for legislative reapportionment and redistricting. Majority and minority state legislative leadership in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico have identified non-partisan liaisons to serve as the primary point of contact between the state and the Census Bureau on the 2020 Census RDP.

All RDP activities directly support the Census Bureau’s efforts to comply with Public Law 94-171 by providing states the opportunity to identify the small area tabulations they need for legislative redistricting and by supplying them with that data in a timely manner. In addition, these activities assist in maintaining the Master Address File/Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) system, in partnership with tribal, state, and local governments nationwide. Because tribal, state, and local governments have current knowledge of, and data about, where housing growth and change are occurring in their jurisdictions, their input into the overall development of geographic data for the Census Bureau makes a vital contribution to MAF/TIGER. Similarly, those governments are in the best position to work with local geographic boundaries, and they benefit from accurate address and geographic data.

Information quality is an integral part of the pre-dissemination review of the information disseminated by the Census Bureau (fully described in the Census Bureau's Information Quality Guidelines). Information quality is also integral to the information collections conducted by the Census Bureau and is incorporated into the clearance process required by the Paperwork Reduction Act.

3. Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic submission of responses, and the basis for the decision for adopting this means of collection. Also, describe any consideration of using information technology to reduce burden.

The Census Bureau continually researches and develops new technology in the fields of GIS and web services to lessen the burden to participants. The Census Bureau provides the Geographic Update Partnership Software (GUPS) free of charge for all RDP participants to participate digitally. The GUPS is a specifically designed boundary and feature update tool that guides RDP partners through each step of the update process, and the software formats and packages participant updates for easy submission to the Census Bureau for processing.

The internet also plays a significant role in providing public access to Census Bureau boundary data. The GUPS, along with its accompanying spatial data files, is available for download from the Census Bureau’s RDP internet site. The Census Bureau also provides the GUPS software and RDP materials to state participants on DVD. State RDP partners also provide their responses electronically. A state partner may report a “no change” response through email. In addition, a partner must send in their boundary and data updates electronically through the Secure Web Incoming Module (SWIM).

4. Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar information already available cannot be used or modified for use for the purposes described in Question 2.

The Census Bureau is the designated federal agency steward for the Governmental Units and Administrative and Statistical Boundaries Data Theme through OMB Circular A-16. There is no similar federal boundary data collection occurring on a consistent national basis.

5. If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities, describe any methods used to minimize burden.

To reduce the burden on respondents, the Census Bureau provides the program software and spatial files to participants. The Census Bureau provides the GUPS software for use by state participants during the RDP geographic update phases.

The Census Bureau also offers states participating in the Boundary Quality Assessment and Reconciliation Project and BAS the opportunity to report legal boundary updates along with their feature changes in order to reduce the burden on local governments and avoid duplication of effort.

6. Describe the consequence to Federal program or policy activities if the collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to reducing burden.

The RDP must continue to complete all five phases needed to meet the P.L. 94-171 mandate for the 2020 Census and to successfully prepare for the 2030 RDP. Due to COVID-19-related delays and prioritizing the delivery of the apportionment results, the Census Bureau completed delivery of the redistricting data to all states and state equivalents on August 12, 2021 and again (in more usable formats) on September 16, 2021.

7. Explain any special circumstances that would cause an information collection to be conducted in a manner:

• requiring respondents to report information to the agency more often than quarterly;

• requiring respondents to prepare a written response to a collection of information in fewer than 30 days after receipt of it;

• requiring respondents to submit more than an original and two copies of any document;

• requiring respondents to retain records, other than health, medical, government contract, grant-in- aid, or tax records for more than three years;

• in connection with a statistical survey, that is not designed to produce valid and reliable results that can be generalized to the universe of study;

• requiring the use of a statistical data classification that has not been reviewed and approved by OMB;

• that includes a pledge of confidentiality that is not supported by authority established in statute or regulation, that is not supported by disclosure and data security policies that are consistent with the pledge, or which unnecessarily impedes sharing of data with other agencies for compatible confidential use; or

• requiring respondents to submit proprietary trade secret, or other confidential information unless the agency can demonstrate that it has instituted procedures to protect the information's confidentiality to the extent permitted by law.

• There are no special circumstances in RDP that require participants to report to the Census Bureau more often than quarterly.

• There are no special circumstances that require participants to prepare a written response in fewer than 30 days from the start of RDP.

• There are no special circumstances in RDP that require participants to submit more than an original and two copies of any document they submit.

• There are no special circumstances in RDP that require participants to retain records for more than three years.

• There are no special circumstances because RDP is not a statistical survey.

• There are no special circumstances in RDP that require the use of a statistical data classification that has not been reviewed and approved by OMB.

• There are no special circumstances in RDP that violate confidentiality.

• There are no special circumstances in RDP that require the inclusion of proprietary trade secrets or other confidential information.

In summary, there are no special circumstances for this collection.

8. If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number of publications in the Federal Register of the agency's notice, required by 5 CFR 1320.8 (d), soliciting comments on the information collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public comments received in response to that notice and describe actions taken by the agency in response to these comments. Specifically address comments received on cost and hour burden.

Consultation with representatives of those from whom information is to be obtained or those who must compile records should occur at least once every 3 years - even if the collection of information activity is the same as in prior periods. There may be circumstances that may preclude consultation in a specific situation. These circumstances should be explained.

The RDP 60-day notification was published on Friday, May 07, 2021, Vol. 86, No. 87, pages 24582-24584. The public comment period closed on Tuesday, July 06, 2021. The Census Bureau received one comment during the public comment period. This comment was determined to be outside of the scope for the RDP.

The Census Bureau discusses the purpose, methodology, and challenges of the RDP with state and local officials, plus a network of frequent users of Census Bureau data during periodic national and local meetings including the annual National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL) legislative summits. These meetings explain the RDP, the design of the 2020 Geographic Programs, and the expected field activities. Discrepancies in maps are periodically discussed with state and local officials during problem resolution. As stakeholders in the accuracy of boundary information and the resulting funding allocations, state respondents are cooperative and willing to provide RDP information. The following is a representative sample of the individuals we have consulted with during the five phases of the 2020 Census RDP.

Ms. Wendy Underhill Program Director—Elections and Redistricting National Conference of State Legislatures 7700 E. First Place Denver, CO 80230 303-856-1379 wendy.underhill@ncsl.org	Ms. Karin MacDonald Director - Statewide Database University of Berkeley Elections Administration Research Center 2850 Telegraph Avenue, Suite 500 Berkeley, CA 94705 510-642-9086 karin@cain.berkeley.edu
Mr. Jerry Howe Managing Policy Analyst Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel Utah State Capitol Complex House Building - Suite W210 350 North State Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5210 801-538-1032 jdhowe@le.utah.gov	Ms. Gina Wright Executive Director Legislative & Congressional Reapportionment Coverdell Legislative Building Suite 407 18 Capitol Square, SW Atlanta, GA 30334 404-656-5063 gina.wright@legis.ga.gov
Mr. Clark Bensen President- Polidata Inc. 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA 22193 703-690-4066 clark@polidata.org	Mr. Kimball Brace President - Election Data Services 6171 Emerywood Court Manassas, VA 20112-3078 202-607-5857 KBrace@electiondataservices.com

9. Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than renumeration of contractors or grantees.

The Census Bureau does not pay respondents or provide them with gifts for responding to this survey.

10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy. If the collection requires a systems of records notice (SORN) or privacy impact assessment (PIA), those should be cited and described here.

The Privacy Act does not apply to the RDP. All information requested in this survey is public information of a non-sensitive nature and is available to any person requesting it from participating officials.

11. Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior or attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private. This justification should include the reasons why the agency considers the questions necessary, the specific uses to be made of the information, the explanation to be given to persons from whom the information is requested, and any steps to be taken to obtain their consent.

There are no questions of a sensitive nature included in the RDP.

12. Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information.

• Indicate the number of respondents, frequency of response, annual hour burden, and an explanation of how the burden was estimated. Unless directed to do so, agencies should not conduct special surveys to obtain information on which to base hour burden estimates. Consultation with a sample (fewer than 10) of potential respondents is desirable. If the hour burden on respondents is expected to vary widely because of differences in activity, size, or complexity, show the range of estimated hour burden, and explain the reasons for the variance. Generally, estimates should not include burden hours for customary and usual business practices.

• If this request for approval covers more than one form, provide separate hour burden estimates for each form and aggregate the hour burdens.

• Provide estimates of annualized cost to respondents for the hour burdens for collections of information, identifying and using appropriate wage rate categories. The cost of contracting out or paying outside parties for information collection activities should not be included here. Instead, this cost should be included under ‘Annual Cost to Federal Government’ (Item #14).

Estimated Annualized Respondent Burden Hours

RDP Phase	Type of Respondent (e.g., Occupational Title)	# of Respondents (a)	Annual # of Responses/ Respondent (b)	Total # of Annual Responses (c) = (a) x (b)	Burden Hours/ Response (d)	Total Annual Burden Hours (e) = (c) x (d)
Phase 4	State and State Equivalent Liaisons	52	1	52	8	416
Phase 5	State and State Equivalent Liaisons	52	1	52	2	104
						520

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: ((520 hours*$30.17)/3 years) = $5,229.

Participants should not incur any cost other than staff time. The Census Bureau estimates the cost burden by multiplying the respective hour burden of 520 by the average hourly wage $30.17 and dividing by three years (length of requested extension for information collection). No special hardware or accounting software or system is necessary to provide answers to this information collection.

The information requested is of the type and scope normally contained in department offices and city and county government planning and tax assessing agencies. Therefore, respondents should not incur any start-up costs or system maintenance costs in responding. Further, purchasing of outside accounting or information collection services, if performed by the respondent, is part of usual and customary business practices and not specifically required for this information collection.

*Source: https://www.bls.gov/bls/blswage.htm

13. Provide an estimate for the total annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers resulting from the collection of information. (Do not include the cost of any hour burden already reflected on the burden worksheet).

• The cost estimate should be split into two components: (a) a total capital and start-up cost component (annualized over its expected useful life) and (b) a total operation, maintenance, and purchase of services component. The estimates should consider costs associated with generating, maintaining, and disclosing or providing the information. Include descriptions of methods used to estimate major cost factors including system and technology acquisition, expected useful life of capital equipment, the discount rate(s), and the time period over which costs will be incurred. Capital and start-up costs include, among other items, preparations for collecting information such as purchasing computers and software; monitoring, sampling, drilling and testing equipment; and record storage facilities.

• If cost estimates are expected to vary widely, agencies should present ranges of cost burdens and explain the reasons for the variance. The cost of purchasing or contracting out information collections services should be a part of this cost burden estimate. In developing cost burden estimates, agencies may consult with a sample of respondents (fewer than 10), utilize the 60-day pre-OMB submission public comment process and use existing economic or regulatory impact analysis associated with the rulemaking containing the information collection, as appropriate.

• Generally, estimates should not include purchases of equipment or services, or portions thereof, made: (1) prior to October 1, 1995, (2) to achieve regulatory compliance with requirements not associated with the information collection, (3) for reasons other than to provide information or keep records for the government, or (4) as part of customary and usual business or private practices.

There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this information collection.

14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government. Also, provide a description of the method used to estimate cost, which should include quantification of hours, operational expenses (such as equipment, overhead, printing, and support staff), and any other expense that would not have been incurred without this collection of information.

Agencies may also aggregate cost estimates from Question 12, 13, and 14 in a single table.

The estimated cost to conduct the RDP Phase 4 collection of congressional and state legislative districts alongside the Phase 5 evaluation of the 2020 RDP and plan for the 2030 RDP is approximately is $1.5 million for each clearance year for FTEs and $75,000 for travel and conference activities.

15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in ROCIS.

The workloads performed for Phase 4 and Phase 5, as covered under this clearance request, are conducted by 3 total staff members in the Redistricting and Voting Rights Data Office and limited support from other areas of the Census Bureau. This reduction in staffing and cost is due to the simplified collection process for these two phases and is reflected in the reduced burden hours for participants.

16. For collections of information whose results will be published, outline plans for tabulation and publication. Address any complex analytical techniques that will be used. Provide the time schedule for the entire project, including beginning and ending dates of the collection of information, completion of report, publication dates, and other actions.

Phase 1: Block Boundary Suggestion Project was conducted and completed in fiscal years 2015 through 2017.

Phase 2: The Voting District Project was conducted and completed in fiscal years 2018 through 2020.

Phase 3: Delivery of the 2020 Decennial Census Redistricting Data was originally scheduled for completion on April 1, 2021. Due to COVID-19-related delays and prioritizing the delivery of the apportionment results, the Census Bureau delivered the redistricting data to all states and state equivalents on August 12, 2021 and again in more usable formats on September 16, 2021.

Phase 4: Collection of Post Census Redistricting Data Plans. Between January 2022 and July 2022, the Census Bureau will solicit from each state the newly drawn 118^th Congressional Districts and State Legislative Districts. This effort will occur every two years in advance of the 2030 Census to update these boundaries with new or changed plans. An initial delineation cycle plus a verification cycle will occur with each biennial update.

Phase 5: Review of the 2020 Census RDP and Recommendations for the 2030 Census RDP (2020 post-data collection). As the final phase of the 2020 Census RDP, the Census Bureau will work with the states to conduct a thorough review of the RDP. The intent of this review, and the final report that results, is to provide guidance to the Secretary and the Census Bureau Director in planning the 2030 Census RDP.

17. If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection, explain the reasons that display would be inappropriate.

The agency plans to display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection on all instruments.

18. Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in “Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions."

The agency certifies compliance with 5 CFR 1320.9 and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3).

Appendix A

Documents Included in the RDP OMB Package

ID	Description or Title
Phase 4	Invitation Letter
P4-02	118th CD Verification Form
P4-03	2022 SLD Verification Form
P4-04	2022 SLD Verification Form (DC)
P4-05	2022 SLD Verification Form (PR)
P4-06	2022 SLD Verification Form (NE)

Page | 7