Background

A complete and accurate address list, along with precise maps, form the  foundation of a successful census. An accurate address list is critical  because, among other reasons, it identifies households that are to receive  a census questionnaire. Precise maps are critical for counting the  population in their proper locations—the basis of congressional  apportionment and redistricting. The Bureau’s database of the nation’s  approximately 134 million addresses is called the Master Address File. It  consists of two types of dwellings: housing units such as single-family  homes, apartments, and mobile homes, and what the Bureau refers to as  group quarters. According to Bureau data nationwide, more than 7.7  million people, or approximately 3 percent of the population, lived in  group quarter facilities during the 2000 Census. Of Brooklyn’s population  of approximately 2.5 million residents at that time, around 39,300 (1.6  percent) lived in group quarters.
In concept, it would appear that an accurate enumeration of group  quarters residents would be a relatively straightforward task—after all,  dormitories, nursing homes, and prisons tend to be obvious, have fixed  addresses, and do not move. Nevertheless, for a variety of reasons,  counting the group quarters population can be difficult.
For example, group quarters are sometimes hard to distinguish from  conventional housing units (see fig. 1), or the address of an administrative  building might be in a separate geographic location than where the  residents actually live, as was sometimes the case with prison complexes.  In prior work, we found that the population count of Cameron, Missouri,  was off by nearly 1,500 people because the population of the state’s  Crossroads Correctional Center was inadvertently omitted from the town’s  headcount. Similarly, North Carolina’s population count was reduced by  2,828 people, largely because the Bureau had to delete duplicate data on  almost 2,700 students in 26 dormitories (see fig. 2) at the University of  North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC). Precision is critical because, in  some cases, small differences in population totals could potentially impact  apportionment, redistricting decisions, or both.

		Operational Changes Made for 2010 Position the Bureau to More Accurately Classify and Identify Group Quarters

The Bureau developed and tested new procedures to address the  difficulties it had in identifying and counting this population during the  2000 Census. For example, the Bureau moved from manual to GPS- generated map spots, which should reduce the chance of human error and  of group quarters populations being counted in the wrong jurisdiction;  moved from a telephone interview to a field verification approach, which  should increase accuracy; and combined the housing unit and group  quarters address lists into a single address list, which should reduce the  chance of double counting. In addition, following a test of certain census- taking procedures in 2004 that was conducted in Queens, New York,  among other locations, we recommended that the Bureau revisit group  quarters procedures to ensure that this population was properly located  and counted. The Bureau implemented our recommendation and revised  its group quarters procedures to clearly instruct census workers to  properly correct and delete addresses. Further, to better ensure a more  accurate group quarters count, the Bureau employed a three-pronged  effort consisting of those operations shown in table 1.
The Bureau’s three-pronged approach had temporary census workers visit  each group quarters and interview its manager or administrator using a  short questionnaire during Group Quarters Validation. As stated above, the  goal was to determine whether the dwelling was a group quarters or some  other type of residence. If the dwelling was in fact a group quarters, it was  then determined what category it fit under (e.g., boarding school,  correctional facility, health care facility, military quarters, residence hall or  dormitory, etc.), and its correct geographic location was confirmed.  Accurate classification of group quarters is important to ensure that the  correct enumeration methodology is used and the data are tabulated  correctly.
This is followed by the Group Quarters Advance Visit operation, which is  currently underway. During the advance visit, census workers verify the  location of the group quarters and identify contact officials, schedule the  date and time of the actual enumeration, and collect other information to  help conduct the actual enumeration.
The actual count of group quarters residents is conducted during Group  Quarter Enumeration. The effort includes an operation known as Service- Based Enumeration, during which people commonly referred to as  homeless are counted. While this count is always important, the large  number of home foreclosures the nation has experienced adds to the  operation’s significance in 2010. Military bases and military/maritime  vessels are also enumerated as part of group quarters.
For the 2010 group quarters operations, the Bureau drew from a number of  sources to build its list of potential group quarters addresses including  data from the 2000 Census, address submissions provided by state and  local governments, Internet-based research, and group quarters located  during door-to-door address canvassing. During the first of the three group  quarters operations (Group Quarters Validation), approximately 25,000  temporary workers identified over 240,000 group quarters facilities from a  workload of over 2 million potential group quarters in both the United  States and Puerto Rico. The remaining approximately 1.76 million  addresses were identified during Group Quarters Validation as  conventional housing units, transitory locations, nonresidential,  nonexistent, or duplicates. All addresses that were verified as housing  units or transitory locations were added to the appropriate address  extracts for subsequent enumeration operations. In addition, over 7,000  addresses from the Group Quarters Validation workload could not be  properly processed in the Bureau’s database because they were returned  with insufficient information. However, a contingency plan was  implemented to ensure that these locations were included in the census.
To further ensure an accurate group quarters count, the Bureau employs a  number of quality assurance procedures. For example, key quality  assurance procedures for the completed Group Quarters Validation  operation included field observations of workers’ performance by  supervisors known as crew leaders. Crew leaders also reviewed workers’  completed assignments each day, while Quality Control Clerks conducted  additional reviews. Similar quality assurance procedures are planned for  the actual enumeration of group quarters.
The changes made to group quarters operations appear promising, and the  Bureau plans to evaluate coverage of the group quarters population.  However, the Bureau will not individually evaluate each of the three group  quarters operations’ effectiveness, cost, or value added. Such evaluations  could be useful in improving the operations, identifying possibly  duplicative operations, and identifying potential cost savings for 2020. For  example, given the large number of nongroup quarters included in the  workload for Group Quarters Validation (about 88 percent), the Bureau  may want to consider ways to begin the operation with a more concise  initial workload. Additionally, in both Group Quarters Validation and  Group Quarters Advance Visit operations, census workers personally visit  group quarters, verify the facility contact information, provide  confidentiality information, and collect occupancy numbers. Because  these activities appear to be duplicative, the Bureau may want to  reexamine the need to conduct both operations.

		Challenges and Opportunities for Counting Group Quarters Residents in Brooklyn

Nationally, the enumeration of group quarters is a difficult task for the  Bureau, and Brooklyn presents its own challenges as well as  opportunities. For example, a planning database the Bureau developed to  help it target its resources placed Brooklyn third on a list of top 50 U.S.  counties with the highest number of people living in hard-to-count areas,  based on data from the 2000 Census. Specifically, around two-thirds of  Brooklyn’s (Kings County) total population of 2.5 million people were  found to be living in hard-to-count areas. Demographic factors that  contribute to the hard-to-count designations include poverty levels, low  educational attainment, unemployment, and complex household  arrangements, as well as housing indicators such as a high percentage of  renters and vacant units, multi-unit buildings, and crowded housing.
Moreover, according to the 2000 Census, 37.8 percent of the borough’s  approximately 2.5 million residents were foreign born and about 46.7  percent spoke a language other than English at home. Overcoming  language barriers and other obstacles that have historically come with  enumerating ethnically diverse populations will be important for the  Bureau.
Recognizing that New York City would present challenges for the 2010  Census, the Bureau selected Queens, New York, as one of two sites to test  its Group Quarters Validation operation in 2004. The test was designed,  among other things, to address the difficulties the Bureau had in trying to  identify and count this population during the 2000 Census, and to refine its  definitions of the various types of group quarters to make it easier to  accurately categorize them. The Bureau determined that the test was a  success based on follow-up interviews. Out of the 38 follow-up addresses  in Queens, 34 were classified correctly (89.5 percent).
Nevertheless, the counting of group quarters is still a challenging task. In  addition to some of the demographic challenges noted above, our  observations of the Group Quarters Validation operation highlighted other  potential trouble spots. For example, we observed that while the effort  generally proceeded as planned, some temporary census workers were  concerned that working with paper maps and time cards was time  consuming and inefficient, and some had difficulties identifying a manager  or administrator from whom to obtain necessary information about the  facility. Importantly, our observations were limited and we do not know  how pervasive these and other issues might have been, if at all.
More recently, a senior New York City official told us about some of the  local challenges in counting group quarters, including complex housing  arrangements. He noted that the city has buildings with a large number of  apartments, where part of the building consists of conventional housing  units and the other part is group quarters. Such situations occur, for  example, in housing people with special needs or buildings with assisted- living occupants. When this occurred, during door-to-door address  canvassing, the temporary census workers removed the building from the  list of conventional housing units and added it to dwellings to be visited  during the Group Quarters Validation operation.
In addition to these mixed-use building situations, the New York City  official told us that in cases where buildings have a large number of  occupants and have been subdivided into various configurations, it can be  very difficult to determine whether the building is a housing unit or group  quarters dwelling. While this is an issue for all of New York City, it is  particularly problematic in Queens and Brooklyn. The official told us that  with some buildings, it is extremely difficult to draw a line as to where the  occupation of apartments in a building by an extended family ends and a  group home situation begins. This is especially true where language  barriers and fear of government may be commonplace.
In hiring census workers, the Bureau attempts to employ people familiar  with local living conditions and who possess the language skills needed for  particular communities. Further, the Bureau has translated questionnaires  into 5 different languages and has language assistance guides available in  59 different languages to help people complete their questionnaires. Other  tools to help those with limited English proficiency, such as telephone  questionnaire assistance, are available as well.
In light of these demographic and housing challenges, a successful group  quarters count will, at a minimum, depend on how well the Bureau  executes the following activities:      Complete remaining group quarters activities on schedule. Indeed, the  entire census is run on an extremely tight timeline, and as the  enumeration proceeds, there is little room for operational delays.  Implement the group quarters quality assurance procedures as  planned, and closely monitor key performance metrics to ensure that  the group quarters count proceeds on track and quickly address any  glitches.
Ensure that census workers have knowledge of neighborhood culture  and living arrangements and possess the language skills to reach out to  residents with limited English proficiency.

	Concluding Observations

Mr. Chairman, with little more than a month remaining until Census Day,  the Bureau’s efforts to enumerate group quarters generally appear to be on  track and more robust compared to similar efforts for the 2000 Census,  better positioning the Bureau for a complete and accurate headcount. In  the coming weeks and months ahead, we will continue to monitor the  Bureau’s progress in counting group quarters, as well as the  implementation of the census as a whole, on behalf of the Subcommittee.
Mr. Chairman and members of this Subcommittee, this concludes my  statement. I would be happy to respond to any questions that you might  have at this time.

	GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments

If you have any questions on matters discussed in this statement, please  contact Robert N. Goldenkoff at (202) 512-2757 or by e-mail at  goldenkoffr@gao.gov. Other key contributors to this testimony include  Peter Beck; Dewi Djunaidy; Richard Hung; Kirsten Lauber; Andrea Levine;  Signora May; Catherine Myrick; Lisa Pearson; and Timothy Wexler.

Related GAO Products

2010 Census: Efforts to Build an Accurate Address List Are Making  Progress, but Face Software and Other Challenges. GAO-10-140T.  Washington, D.C.: October 21, 2009.  2010 Census: Census Bureau Continues to Make Progress in Mitigating  Risks to a Successful Enumeration, but Still Faces Various Challenges.  GAO-10-132T. Washington, D.C.: October 7, 2009.  2010 Census: Communications Campaign Has Potential to Boost  Participation. GAO-09-525T. Washington, D.C.: March 23, 2009.  2010 Census: Fundamental Building Blocks of a Successful  Enumeration Face Challenges. GAO-09-430T. Washington, D.C.: March 5,  2009.  2010 Census: The Bureau’s Plans for Reducing the Undercount Show  Promise, but Key Uncertainties Remain. GAO-08-1167T. Washington,  D.C.: September 23, 2008.  2010 Census: Census Bureau’s Decision to Continue with Handheld  Computers for Address Canvassing Makes Planning and Testing  Critical. GAO-08-936. Washington, D.C.: July 31, 2008.  2010 Census: Census at Critical Juncture for Implementing Risk  Reduction Strategies. GAO-08-659T. Washington, D.C.: April 9, 2008.  2010 Census: Basic Design Has Potential, but Remaining Challenges  Need Prompt Resolution. GAO-05-9. Washington, D.C.: January 12, 2005.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety  without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain  copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be  necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.

Summary:
Why GAO Did This Study

The U.S. Census Bureau (Bureau) is tasked with conducting an accurate count of people living in dwellings known as group quarters as part of the 2010 Census. Group quarters consist of college dormitories, prisons, nursing homes, and other facilities typically owned or managed by an entity providing housing, services, or both for the residents. During the 2000 Census, for a variety of reasons, group quarters were sometimes counted more than once, missed, or included in the wrong location. As requested, this testimony will focus on (1) the extent to which the Bureau has strengthened its procedures for counting group quarters compared to the 2000 Census, and (2) particular challenges and opportunities for an accurate group quarters count in Brooklyn. The testimony is based on previously issued and ongoing GAO work in New York and elsewhere.

What GAO Found

The Bureau developed and tested new procedures to address the difficulties it had in identifying and counting group quarters during the 2000 Census. For example, the Bureau moved from manual to GPS-generated map spots, which should reduce the chance of human error and of group quarters populations being counted in the wrong jurisdiction; moved from a telephone interview to a field verification approach, which should increase accuracy; and combined the conventional housing unit and group quarters address lists into a single address list, which should reduce the chance of double counting. Moreover, the Bureau implemented a three-pronged approach to locate and count group quarters. The approach consisted of Group Quarters Validation, where temporary census workers visited each group quarter and interviewed its manager or administrator to determine whether the dwelling was a group quarters or some other type of residence. If the dwelling was in fact a group quarters, it was then determined what category it fit under, and its correct geographic location was confirmed. This was followed by the Group Quarters Advance Visit, which is currently under way. Census workers are to verify the location of the group quarters; identify contact officials; and schedule the date, time and other information to help conduct the actual enumeration. The actual count of group quarters residents is conducted during the third phase of the approach, Group Quarter Enumeration from the end of March to mid-May. The effort includes an operation known as Service-Based Enumeration, during which people commonly referred to as homeless are counted. Additional procedures to ensure a complete count of group quarters include a series of quality assurance procedures, such as supervisory review of workers' assignments. Brooklyn presents challenges as well as opportunities. For example, a planning database the Bureau developed to help it target its resources placed Brooklyn on a list of top 50 U.S. counties with the highest number of people living in hard-to-count areas, based on data from the 2000 Census. Factors that contribute to the hard-to-count designation include poverty levels, high levels of non-English speakers, complex household arrangements, as well as a high percentage of rental and vacant units, multi-unit buildings, and crowded housing. In light of these demographic and housing challenges, a successful group quarters count will, at a minimum, depend on how well the Bureau executes the following activities: (1) complete remaining group quarters activities on schedule, (2) implement the group quarters quality assurance procedures as planned, and (3) closely monitor key performance metrics to ensure that the group quarters count proceeds on track and quickly address any glitches. It will also be important for the Bureau to ensure that census workers have knowledge of neighborhood culture and living arrangements, and possess the language skills to reach out to residents with limited English proficiency.