WHY WAS THIS FUNDED?

The U.S. Constitution requires a national census every 10 years to count the population, and Congress funds the Census Bureau to carry it out. The Census Bureau hired Maximus to handle the large-scale public assistance operation that the agency could not run entirely on its own.

WHAT PUBLIC PROBLEM IS IT TRYING TO SOLVE?

Many Americans have difficulty filling out the census on their own due to language barriers, limited internet access, or confusion about the questions. This contract aimed to make sure as many people as possible were counted by providing help through phone, online, and other support channels.

WHO BENEFITS?

All Americans benefit from an accurate census count because it determines how federal money is distributed to states and communities for schools, hospitals, roads, and other services. Thousands of call center workers hired to staff the assistance lines also directly benefited through employment.

WHAT ARE THE RISKS?

A contract of this size carries risks of cost overruns, inefficiency, or underperformance, especially when managing large temporary workforces across multiple years. Oversight is critical to ensure taxpayer money was spent effectively and that the assistance services actually reached underserved communities.

WHAT HAPPENS IF FUNDING IS REMOVED?

Without this contract, the Census Bureau would have lacked the call center and public assistance capacity needed to help millions of households complete their census forms. This could have led to a significant undercount, which would have reduced federal funding and political representation for many communities.

ARGUMENTS FOR

• •An accurate census is required by the Constitution and directly affects how billions of dollars in federal aid are allocated to states and cities each year.
• •Outsourcing large-scale call center operations to a specialized firm can be more cost-effective than building that infrastructure entirely within the government.
• •Providing multilingual and accessible assistance helps ensure historically undercounted groups, such as immigrants and rural residents, are included in the count.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST

• •At $911 million, this is a very large contract, and critics may question whether the government received full value for that spending or whether costs could have been reduced.
• •Relying on a private contractor for a core constitutional function raises questions about accountability and whether public oversight was strong enough.
• •Some argue that money spent on contractor overhead and profit margins could have been better used to hire and train federal workers directly.