U.S. Department of Commerce 

Office of Inspector General 

June 11, 2010 

Program/Operation: Nonresponse Follow-up 

Risk Area: Performance/Quality 

Early Observations Indicate That Some Nonresponse Follow-up 

Procedures Are Not Being Followed and Others Are Lacking (OAE19893-01) 

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) is overseeing Census’s Nonresponse Follow-up (NRFU), the 

largest and most expensive Decennial Census operation. To complete NRFU, Census is operating 494 

local Census offices (LCOs) nationwide and has hired over 600,000 temporary enumerators to determine 

the status of households that received questionnaires in March but did not mail them back. 

We are conducting fieldwork for the duration of NRFU, which is scheduled to end on July 27, 2010. The 

following observations are the result of fieldwork conducted between April 23 and May 14, during 

which time OIG staff visited and conducted office interviews at 22 LCOs and observed 115 enumerators 

conducting 480 enumerations. To allow Census to take timely action, we communicated the information 

in this report to bureau officials during the week of May 17. Based on our fieldwork, we identified the 

following six areas of concern and made five recommendations. These findings are limited to our 

observations of field procedures. 

Procedures for Asking Race and Ethnicity Questions Are Not Being 

Followed 

To ensure that the more than 600,000 enumerators across the nation collect data in a consistent manner, 

enumerators are trained to follow standard procedures. During our nationwide fieldwork, we observed 

enumerators not following procedures by incorrectly completing the race and Hispanic-origin questions 

on the questionnaires. Enumerators are required to provide respondents with a form that contains 

Census’s confidentiality notice and response categories for the questions on household residency, 

relationship to the reference person, Hispanic origin, and race. This form is available in both English and 

Spanish. We observed 43 enumerators incorrectly communicating the race question to 108 respondents, 

and 28 enumerators incorrectly communicating the Hispanic-origin question to 63 respondents. Errors 

we witnessed included not providing or referring to the information sheet and its categories, not asking 

if respondents wanted the question’s categories read aloud, and documenting the responses based on the 

enumerators’ assumptions rather than asking respondents themselves the questions. 

Commerce OIG 1 OAE-19893-01 
Completed Enumeration Questionnaires Are Not Being Tracked 

The enumerators’ supervisors, referred to as crew leaders, are responsible for collecting and reviewing 

the completed enumeration questionnaires (EQs) daily. After the crew leader accepts the completed EQs 

from the enumerator, he or she provides them to the LCO or to the field office supervisor, who in turn 

submits them to the LCO. Due to existing data-entry backlogs, the completed EQs are stored at the LCO 

for an indefinite time period until they are processed. EQs are not tracked during this time, making it 

difficult to later locate lost questionnaires. We identified several instances in which field staff 

implemented ad-hoc controls in the field. For instance, some enumerators wrote case identification (ID) 

numbers on a form that the crew leader would sign and provide to the field operations supervisor; other 

enumerators and crew leaders initialed the completed cases in the address register; and others listed 

completed case IDs in a notebook. Because these activities are ad hoc and initiated by individual staff 

members, they cannot be relied upon to systematically track the EQs. Although it is still too early in the 

enumeration process to ascertain whether any completed EQs have been misplaced, should this occur, 

another enumeration will be required, which will incur additional cost and further burden respondents. 

Use of Public Database Information Raises Title 13 Confidentiality Issues 

and Could Lead to Over-reliance on ‘Proxy’ Information 

According to enumerators we observed, they were searching external sources to find respondent and 

proxy contact information. (Proxies are neighbors, leasing agents, or others with knowledge of 

respondents who are not at home when enumerators visit; Census rules allow enumerators to query 

proxies for the household information.) For instance, enumerators, in their efforts to obtain telephone 

numbers and proxy information, said they used Title 13 address information to conduct Internet reverse 

searches on online directories, online county tax Web sites, and the Multiple Listing Service used by real 

estate professionals. (Under Title 13 of the United States Code, individuals may be fined up to $5,000 

and imprisoned not more than 5 years for disclosing Census Bureau data. 13 U.S.C. § 214.) The 

enumerator manual does not discuss using the Internet to obtain respondent information. While such a 

practice may be viewed as practical and even one showing initiative, Census needs to develop a policy 

for the appropriate use of Internet information given the potential for compromise of Title 13 

information and falsification of data. 

In particular, this approach could reduce the accuracy of 2010 Census results if enumerators too often 

substitute this more convenient information source for actual respondent interviews. Almost one-third of 

the enumerations we observed were proxy interviews. In most cases, Census procedures require three inperson visits before using a source other than a household respondent. One-third is a high proportion for 

the start of the operation. Minimizing the use of proxy information is important because of its higher 

potential for providing inaccurate and incomplete—or falsified—data. For example, during the second 

week of June, OIG staff observed Census field supervisors identifying alleged cases of fraudulent 

enumerations made by employees who are suspected of using the Internet as the source for the 

information placed on the questionnaire. 

Incorrect Information on Notice of Visit Forms 

Our observations also identified several problems with how enumerators filled out the form left at 

households where no one answered the door. The Notice of Visit form is used to inform occupants of the 

enumerator’s visit and provides instructions for contacting the enumerator. Inconsistencies in 

Commerce OIG 2 OAE-19893-01 
Commerce OIG 3 OAE-19893-01

completing the form are most likely caused by insufficient instruction during training. Enumerators were 

to record their own telephone numbers on the form, or that of the LCO. Understandably, some 

enumerators preferred not to list their personal telephone numbers. However, some LCOs did not have 

an adequate number of staff or a process in place to receive calls from respondents who were instructed 

on the form to call the LCO; in at least one instance, the LCO told the enumerators not to leave the 

office number. Further, some enumerators recorded their employee ID numbers in the “ID No.” section, 

rather than the case ID, while others did not enter any information there at all. Consequently, the EQ 

associated with the visit form may not be easily identified, preventing the appropriate questionnaire 

from being completed if the LCO or enumerator did receive a callback. Lastly, for apartment buildings 

with common public areas, one enumerator documented the entire address or personally identifiable 

information on the form, rather than just an apartment number. Census needs to define a standard 

approach for the follow-up contact of respondents and ensure that the ID number on the Notice of Visit

form refers to the case ID and not the enumerator’s ID. 

Inconsistent Handling of Update/Leave Questionnaires 

Update/Leave is conducted in areas of the United States where the questionnaire may not be received by 

the intended housing unit through normal mail delivery. During update/leave, enumerators verify, make 

corrections, or delete addresses already on the address list, as appropriate; add any newly discovered 

living quarters missing from the list; and update Census maps. A 2010 Census questionnaire is left at 

every housing unit for the respondent to complete and mail back to the Census Bureau. We noted 

discrepancies across the country regarding the disposition of update/leave questionnaires, which were 

left hanging on doors when enumerators revisited nonresponding housing units. The enumerator manual 

does not address the action that should be taken. In some cases, enumerators were instructed to collect 

the forms, to be shredded at the LCO; in other cases, enumerators were instructed to leave the 

questionnaires at the housing units. Census should devise a standard procedure and provide guidance to 

its enumerators on how to handle questionnaires from the update/leave operation found at housing units. 

Enumerators Unable to Obtain Complete Responses On One Military Base 

Respondents and proxies at one Army military base did not want to provide detailed information to 

Census enumerators. Citing the Privacy Act, respondents and base family-housing personnel provided 

only the total number of people living in the housing unit, rather than information on each individual. 

This could result in an undercount and a lack of information for that geographical area. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

NOTE: The issues described in this report were conveyed to the Census Bureau on May 21. Although 

the bureau responded rapidly to most of our recommendations, the impact of its corrective actions has 

been limited because less than half of the NRFU workload remained. 

To help ensure an accurate count and contain costs, Census should do the following: [Census’s response 

follows each recommendation.] 

1. Reiterate the enumeration procedures and the importance of ensuring that the respondent 

understands and answers the race and Hispanic-origin questions. 
 

On May 25, Census issued a notice to the regional offices requesting that LCO staff 

“reinforce this information to all field staff that all questions on the D-1(E), Enumerator 

questionnaire, must be asked as worded and that no enumerator is to assume the answer for 

anyone.” The message also instructed enumerators to provide all respondents with the 

information sheet and allow them time to read it. 

2.	 Establish and implement a standard process for documenting and tracking completed and 

returned enumeration questionnaires to the LCO. 

Census stated that the current field procedures assure that every address visited during 

NRFU has evidence of a final disposition in the address register or completed enumeration 

questionnaire. Census stated that at this point in the operation, it was infeasible to add a 

"chain of custody" procedure to track questionnaires in the field, but will consider this 

concern when planning for the 2020 Census. 

3.	 Take action to ensure that Census information is properly protected. For enumerators with a 

high number of questionnaires that showed occupied housing units but who went straight to 

proxies for information, consider taking additional steps to monitor the quality of their 

work. Such actions could include adding the questionnaires to the re-interview or coverage 

follow-up operations. 

On May 26, Census issued a notice to the regional Census centers and local field offices to 

remind field staff of the inappropriate use of online sources for proxies. 

4.	 Provide a consistent set of instructions for correctly completing the Notice of Visit form, 

including how to fill out the enumerator-use-only portion and telephone number. In 

addition, provide guidance for handling remaining update/leave questionnaires. 

On May 26, Census sent a notice to the regional Census center and local field offices on 

with detailed instructions for filling out the Notice of Visit form and receiving incoming 

telephone calls at the local office. The bureau also plans to strengthen this area for the 2020 

Census. 

5.	 Take steps to ensure that military installations are cooperating with the census. 

Census followed up with the appropriate regional office and local office and does not 

believe that there are any particular problems with either base officials or with households 

refusing to participate. At the time these inquiries were made, 48 percent of the base 

housing units had been enumerated. 

The Office of Inspector General has been identifying risk areas related to the 2010 Census that require continuing oversight. This flash 

report is meant to communicate issues in a prompt manner, affording Census the opportunity for rapid corrective action. 

Our work was performed in accordance with the Quality Standards for Inspections (rev. January 2005) issued by the President’s Council 

on Integrity and Efficiency and under authority of the IG Act of 1978, as amended, and Department of Commerce Organization Order 10-

13 (August 31, 2006). 

Commerce OIG 4 OAE-19893-01