S. HRG. 99-213

STATUS OF BUREAU OF THE CENSUS PLANNING

FOR THE 1990 DECENNIAL CENSUS

HEARINf

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE 0!

ENEKGY, NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION, AND

GOVERNMENT PROCESSES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL

AFFAIRS

UNITED STATES SENATE

NINETY-NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JULY 17, 1985

Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

52-631 O WASHINGTON : 1985
\

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

WILLIAM V. ROTH, JR., Delaware, Chairman

TED STEVENS, Alaska THOMAS F. EAGLETON, Missouri

CHARLES McC. MATHIAS, JR., Maryland LAWTON CHILES, Florida

WILLIAM S. COHEN, Maine SAM NUNN, Georgia

DAVID DURENBERGER, Minnesota JOHN GLENN, Ohio

WARREN B. RUDMAN, New Hampshire CARL LEVIN, Michigan

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ALBERT GORE, JR., Tennessee

JOHN M. DUNCAN, Staff Director

MARGARET P. CRENSHAW, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY, NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION, AND GOVERNMENT PROCESSES

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, Chairman

WILLIAM S. COHEN, Maine JOHN GLENN, Ohio

JAMES H. LOFTON, Staff Director

LEONARD WEISS, Minority Staff Director

CHRISTINA WEST, Chief Clerk

(ID

V5'6>cl3//7
i

ftp

U

CONTENTS

Opening statements: Page

Senator Cochran 1

Senator Glenn 2

WITNESSES

V) WEDNESDAY, JULY 17, 1985

to

^ John Keane, Director, Bureau of the Census, accompanied by Peter Boun-

.' pane, Assistant Director for Demographic Censuses:

Testimony 6

*l Prepared statement 22

ft" Responses to written questions 39

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

' "Fact Sheet: Illegal Aliens and the Decennial Censuses," Bureau of the

,> Census, July 18, 1985 91

^V"Making Decisions About the Census," by Daniel Melnick, specialist in Amerflrt ican National Government, Government Division, Congressional Research

Service, July 16, 1985 95

(in)

STATUS OF BUREAU OF THE CENSUS PLANNING

FOR THE 1990 DECENNIAL CENSUS

WEDNESDAY, JULY 17, 1985

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY, NUCLEAR

PROLIFERATION AND GOVERNMENT PROCESSES,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met at 1:37 p.m., in room SD-342, Dirksen

Senate Office Building, Hon. Thad Cochran (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Cochran and Glenn.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COCHRAN

Senator COCHRAN. The subcommittee will please come to order.

Today, we are pleased to have with us officials of the Bureau of the

Census to testify on planning which is now under way for our Nation's bicentennial census.

Of course, the census is required by the Constitution to determine the apportionment of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. However, census data is an invaluable tool for all levels of

government, as well as private industry and the academic community. Approximately $100 billion in Federal and State funds are

distributed on the basis of the census data. Therefore, the accuracy

and timeliness of the data published by the Bureau are extremely

important and affect all of us.

Beyond its use in distribution of funds, the data provided by the

Census Bureau serves as a basis for many important decisions and

policies adopted by all levels of government. The detailed characteristics of the population, its housing, income, and ethnic origin

help to determine where there are human needs so that we in the

Congress and the administration can attempt to address them.

Census data also provides us with information on national trends

in migration of the population, its age and standard of living. In

effect, we can use census data to paint a statistical picture of the

various components of our population and the changes since the

previous census data was compiled and tabulated.

The 1990 census will be the 21st census in an unbroken chain

since our first census was taken in 1790. If the Bureau's plans are

implemented, it will be a highly automated and statistically sophisticated operation.

Data that will be derived from the 1990 census will serve as a

basis for decisions that will take this country into the 21st century.

(l)
The Bureau has a long history of performing its difficult and critical tasks very well. I applaud them for this legacy and look forward to working with them as preparations for 1990 are made. I

hope the witnesses today will provide us with an understanding of

their plans for the 1990 census and how these plans will improve

the accuracy of the data and ensure that everyone is counted.

I would like to welcome Dr. John Keane, who is Director of the

Bureau of the Census. He is accompanied today by Mr. Peter Bounpane, Assistant Director for Demographic Censuses. He is the man

who has direct responsibility, as I understand it, for the conduct of

the 1990 census.

Dr. Keane, I appreciate very much your providing me with a prepared statement in advance of the hearing. It will be included in

full in the record.

We appreciate your cooperation with the subcommittee.

I also appreciate having the senior Democratic member of the

subcommittee, Senator John Glenn, my friend from Ohio, here.

Senator, do you have any opening statement or comments?

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR GLENN

Senator GLENN. I do, indeed, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin my

brief remarks, I just want to commend you for having these hearings, chairing our Senate Subcommittee on Energy, Nuclear Proliferation, and Government Processes, which is what this topic falls

under, of course. We have a broad mandate on this committee, one

that is very interesting. I certainly look forward to a very good

working relationship with the chairman, and his staff and pledge

my full cooperation to carrying out the committee's legislative

mandate, including this one.

I must say, I have a sense of sort of deja vu, I guess, about the

hearing today, because about 10 years ago, give or take a year in

that estimate, we had a similar meeting. I hate to admit that I

have been here that long. I am on my 11th year, but I hadn't been

here all too long, and we were having a very similar hearing on

getting ready for the 1980 census.

I know I thought that would be a very uncomplicated and very

mundane type of operation. The more we got into it, the more interesting it became because of some of the things that the chairman has already mentioned.

Preparing to have a census is not a big, sexy, attention-getting

issue. But it is so important for the future of the country, and I

don't say that lightly. It truly is. The population count required by

the Constitution is extremely important because it is used to apportion seats among the States in the House of Representatives, No. 1;

it is also used to provide the very essential data to determine congressional districts and potential redistricting of State legislatures.

The census is just more than a population count, also. It responds to a wide range of social and economic information needs in

both the public and private sectors.

For example, census data help identify where the markets are,

how many people need schools, jobs, housing, and transportation.

Population and other socioeconomic data, such as personal income
statistics, are used to distribute billions upon billions of Federal

and State dollars through formula grant programs.

Those people don't realize that we are talking about the implementation of the formulas that we vote out here trying to do good

things for people wherever they may be around this country. But

most of the allocations are done on the basis of census data. It is so

important that this thing be done right and be done properly.

I did have some experience in the past involvement on this subcommittee, and I can appreciate the challenges involved in collecting and processing, compiling this massive amount of material. For

the most part, the Census Bureau deserves our full praise for a job

well done in executing the 1980 census.

Data was collected from over 226 million people in 88 million

housing units in this country. There were some major problem

areas that came up during the census of 1980. In certain cases, significant delays were experienced and the public dissemination of

data collected. You can give us chapter and verse on that, I am

sure.

Census type of information quickly becomes outdated in our everchanging society. Government policymakers and private sector

businesses relying on dated figures are susceptible to erroneous decisions. Another problem concerns the accuracy of the Census

Bureau population counts, particularly with respect to minorities,

and that, of course, led to several legal challenges. I'm not sure we

are through all those yet, are we? Do we still have some cases in

the courts on that?

Mr. KEANE. Some are still pending.

Senator GLENN. In my own State of Ohio, the city of Cincinnati

and the Scioto County Board of Commissioners have challenged the

court on those issues. I don't think those are still hanging fire. At

least I haven't heard recently.

Mr. KEANE. The one in Scioto is. It is part of a consolidation.

Senator GLENN. OK.

It is paramount to have reliable figures available in a reasonable

timeframe. I repeat that, reliable figures in a reasonable timeframe so that Federal and State•because many States rely on

these figures, also•assistance allocation formulas can be effectively determined.

So I will be interested in learning how the Census Bureau plans

to rectify both of these issues in the 1990 census. They are issues

that need to be corrected, reliable figures in a reasonable timeframe.

Besides these problems, there are a host of other decisions which

must be undertaken very soon to prepare for the upcoming census.

I think the report for the subcommittee prepared by the CRS, the

Congressional Research Service, highlights a number of these

issues. The chairman already referred to that and pointed out its

significance.

One question I think we have to pay close attention to, and I'm

sure you will get into it today, is, how come 10 years later we are

now able to utilize better automated data processing technologies

to reduce the manual and labor-intensive duties required in collecting and handling and processing the wealth of information.
4

The General Accounting Office has indicated that a greater use

of devices such as microcomputers and optical scanners and bar

coding machines could achieve significant cost savings while reducing time lags. In making a decision as to what types of automated

systems are most advantageous to their needs, the Census Bureau

must consider the machines' compatibility with the questionnaire

form to be used. That gets into a whole other area. I am sure the

questionnaire is always at issue when we have a census: Are you

getting into too much of violating the privacy of the individual in

trying to collect enough information so that we have the information we need?

Moreover, while the functional structure of the questionnaire

must be addressed, a larger issue surrounds the quality content of

the questions to be asked and how those questions are framed, because we may get different answers depending on how the question

is framed.

I know there are a number of options under study, and I will be

following these as time goes by, and I am sure as the chairman and

the other members of the committee will be, too. As I understand

it, you are going to make some test runs over the next couple of

years. You did that before, and there were some variable answers

that came out of those test runs. You interpreted them several

ways. I hope we learned from the last census how better to do our

test runs this time around and let them serve as lab experiments

with the new methodologies and technologies. If successful, these

innovative mechanisms, then, could result in a census that is more

precise, more expeditious, and more cost-effective than its 1980

predecessor. It would, indeed, be quite an achievement worthy of

its bicentennial status. So we look forward to your testimony.

Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I am involved in the conference

between the Senate and the House on the Defense Authorization

Bill and will not be able to stay too long, but I did want to be here,

certainly, to welcome our witnesses today here, and I just want to

pledge my support along with you to these people in trying to work

out in advance the very best we can do on this upcoming census.

I would welcome that earlier on a basis through committee

action or committee staff here, or I am sure the chairman will join

me in welcoming personal contacts with us so that we can help out.

We want to help out in this country. We are not here to jump on

you all the time. Let's work out the problems here and let us help

you at this end of the avenue, if there is anything we can do to

help. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Senator Glenn's prepared statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR GLENN

Before I begin my brief remarks, I would like to commend my distinguished colleague from Mississippi for holding what is his first hearing in his capacity as

Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Energy, Nuclear Proliferation, and Government Processes. I look forward to a healthy working relationship with the Chairman and his staff and pledge my full cooperation in carrying out the Subcommittee's legislative mandate.

The decennial population count, required by the Constitution, is extremely important because it is used to apportion seats among the States in the House of Representatives and also to provide essential data to determine Congressional districts

and potential redistricting of State legislatures. However, the census is much more

than just a population count. It responds to a wide range of social and economic
information needs in both the public and private sectors. For example, census data

help identify where markets are, how many people need schools, jobs, housing, and

transportation. Population and other socio-economic data, such as personal income

statistics, are used to distribute billions of Federal and State dollars through formula grant programs.

As one familiar with the census operations from my past involvement on this Subcommittee, I can appreciate the challenges involved in collecting, processing, and

compiling this massive amount of material. For the most part, the Census Bureau

deserves our praise for a job well-done in executing the 1980 census. Data was collected from over 226 million people in 88 million housing units. Nevertheless, there

were a couple of major problem areas. In certain cases, significant delays were experienced in the public dissemination of data collected. Since this type of information

quickly becomes outdated in our ever-changing society, government policymakers

and private sector businesses relying on dated figures are susceptible to erroneous

decisions. Another problem concerned the accuracy of Census Bureau population

counts, particularly with respect to minorities, leading to several legal challenges.

In my own State of Ohio, the City of Cincinnati and the Scioto County Board of

Commissioners have been involved in such lawsuits. It is certainly paramount to

have reliable figures available in a reasonable timeframe so that Federal (and State)

assistance allocation formulas can be effectively determined. I will be interested in

learning how the Census Bureau plans to rectify both of these issues in the 1990

Census.

Besides these problems, there are a host of other decisions which must be undertaken soon to prepare for the upcoming census. I think that the report for the Subcommittee prepared by the Congressional Research Service highlights a number of

these issues and their significance.

One question that I will pay close attention to is the utilization of automated data

processing technologies to reduce the manual and labor-intensive duties required in

collecting, handling, and processing the wealth of information. The General Accounting Office has indicated that a greater use of devices such as microcomputers,

optical scanners, and bar-coding machines could achieve significant cost-savings

while reducing time lags. In making a decision as to what types of automated systems are most advantageous to their needs, the Census Bureau must consider the

machines' compatibility with the questionnaire form to be used. Moreover, while the

functional structure of the questionnaire must be addressed, a larger issue surrounds the quality content of the questions to be asked. Again, I know there are a

number of options under study and I will be monitoring the Census Bureau's actions

on these items.

The test runs to be conducted in the next two years will serve as laboratories to

experiment with new methodologies and technologies. If successful, these innovative

mechanisms could result in a census more precise, more expeditious, and more costeffective than its 1980 predecessor. It would indeed be quite an achievement worthy

of its Bicentennial status.

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you very much, Senator, and we appreciate very much you being here and participating as you are in the

work of this subcommittee.

Before recognizing and calling on Dr. Keane for a statement to

the subcommittee, let me reiterate and emphasize the sentiment

expressed by Senator Glenn about the role of this subcommittee in

connection with the taking of the 1990 census.

We have legislative jurisdiction over the Bureau of the Census in

this subcommittee, and if there are any changes in the authority

granted by the Congress to the Census Bureau for the purpose of

taking the census, making it accurate, making it reliable, then we

need to know about your reaction to it, your thoughts concerning

the legal authorities that currently exist and whether or not there

are any changes that need to be made.

I notice, for instance, that in a review of your statement and

some of the background material which I have read prior to the

hearing, the 1990 census is going to fall on a Sunday. Do we need

to change that? Are we going to have problems because of the fact

that traditionally here in America, that is the day that a lot of
people are going to be setting aside for things other than responding to a census?

Is that a problem? We need to know about these things well in

advance so we can work in a cooperative way with you and make

sure that this thing is a success, and we can't waste a lot of money

taking the census. Last time, the census cost $1.08 billion. That is a

lot of money. Maybe we didn't spend enough. Maybe that is too

much. We need to know whether we are getting our money's

worth; whether we are taking advantage of all the efficiencies that

we can possibly have in the system.

That is why this hearing is being conducted, to acquaint us

better with the processes and to see what we need to do to make

sure we get the job done and done right.

I guess my first question, after I hear from you is, do you know

of anybody in the Government who can count? [Laughter.]

If you do, we ought to hire them, get them working right now in

preparing for this 1990 census.

Senator GLENN. That rules out Congress. [Laughter.]

Senator COCHRAN. That means you can't hire any of us, well,

some of us, up until 1990. I am up then.

When are you up, John?

Senator GLENN. Next year, Senator. Contributions? [Laughter.]

Senator COCHRAN. Post Office box? [Laughter.]

We have a full statement from you, Dr. Keane. It will be made a

part of the record, as I said, in full. Let me encourage you to make

such summary comments as you care to so we will have a chance

to ask you some questions.

You may proceed.

TESTIMONY OF JOHN KEANE, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF THE

CENSUS, ACCOMPANIED BY PETER BOUNPANE, ASSISTANT

DIRECT FOR DEMOGRAPHIC CENSUSES

Mr. KEANE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to join Senator Glenn in commending you for holding this hearing. I endorse

this sentiment. He just beat me to it.

We are particularly pleased at the Census Bureau that you in

your chairmanship role and Senator Glenn would come here and

show your interest in the most telling kind of way. Since you have

my statement, I thought it might be appropriate if I just gave kind

of a 6 to 8 minute overview of some of the highlights, especially

talking about the 1980 census: what was good about it, what was

not so good about it, and the implications for doing a better job in

the 1990 census.

The 1980 census had some notable successes. Among other

things, it had broad public support, very critical to a good census.

The count was improved. We made our legally mandated reports

on time.

For some of the others, the timing needs to be improved. We produced more date products than ever before, and particularly for

areas where there was notable improvement, small geographic

areas I am talking about.

By the same token, we ought to acknowledge problems, and we

did have some. There were the delays that have already been cited
in disseminating some of our data reports. There were delays and

inconsistencies in our geographic materials. Maps are vital to doing

a census, and we didn't turn them out as fast nor as well as we

hope to do in the future, and are taking steps to do.

And we do have certain temporary office problems that are of

concern to us. We know what they are, and we can talk about

those perhaps later.

Now recognizing that overview, we have approached the 1990

census planning in a three-pronged way. We held extensive internal reviews, a series of studies on the most vital areas. We have

extensive external consultations, so we have looked outside, particularly among the user communities, and there is no more important user community than you in the Congress, and of course, you

are our legislative authority.

Finally, test censuses. Test censuses aren't just a test here or

there. They are a program of test censuses so that one relates to

another; and sometimes we test the same thing two or three times.

Following the test censuses•there is a National Content Test in

1987•comes a full dress rehearsal, which, in an analagous kind of

way, is just that.

Now, then, what the planning process develops, and what it has

already, is that there are a number of alternative approaches by

which we might improve on the decennial census. So how do we

decide among those alternative approaches that are suggested in

this census?

I suggest that these are the criteria that we are using, and there

are six: One, of course we have to meet the legal mandates for releasing census data, and these are essentially two. By December 31,

1990, the Census Bureau Director must report the count for the

Nation to the President. By April 1, 1991, the Census Bureau must

report the individual State counts to the State. So we are driven by

those two dates. We honored those in 1980 and, of course, will in

1990.

Two, dissemination of the other 1990 census counts and reports

in a timely manner.

Three, you have already raised the issue of cost. Adjusted for inflation, to not permit the unit cost to go above 1980.

Four, maintain that high level of accuracy that we had. It is not

the overall level of accuracy that seems to be the concern of those

who watch the Census Bureau, observe us, and of us inside, so

much as to reduce the difference between one population sector

versus another, what we refer to as the "differential undercount";

to reduce the differences between sectors. So that is a form of the

census goal.

Five, strike the proper and practical balance between the data

needs on one hand and the time required for respondent cooperation on the other hand. If we ask too many questions or we ask

them in a complicated way, it will take too long, and perhaps otherwise turn off our respondents.

Six, and finally, maintain confidentiality. There is no more important goal to the 1990 census than to maintain confidentiality,

and I would share with you that there is no more shared value

within the culture of the Census Bureau than confidentiality. It

runs broadly; it runs deep; it runs recurring.
8

So that leads us, then, to the 1990 plans, which, of course are not

finalized at this point. Were they to be finalized at this point•and

I could tell you so and what they were•you would have legitimate

reason for questioning how well we have done our planning and

whether or not we have not foreclosed on some options that we

ought not to have.

I will talk about three areas under the 1990 plans. The first is

automation. It is an obvious area for the Census Bureau to seek

and to utilize, and we are.

The backdrop is that there was too much paper and too much

people involvement in the censuses in the past, and that includes

the 1980 census. So we are looking for automation. We want to

begin earlier; we want to use more of it. Precisely where and when

are issues that still have to be resolved, and they are tied to the

test censuses that we are doing, as well as some other studies.

In the procedures area of our 1990 plans, first, is the Jersey City

test that is just winding down now. We tested a two-stage sample, a

two-stage census. In other words, a questionnaire goes to all the

households in the country that asks the items that we want everyone to answer, the so-called 100 percent count, and then rather

than asking, sending at the same time a questionnaire to a smaller

portion of the population which would ask more questions, we send

that portion of the population a second questionnaire later to see if

it would work better; to look for a better way to accomplish the

same goal.

Another area we are testing is new procedures for improved mail

delivery. Next year, in our east-central Mississippi test census, that

will be one of the focal areas.

Finally, I might mention the area of personnel. Of course, we retained, we had positions for something in excess of 300,000 temporary people in connection with the 1980 census. That is a tremendous challenge, and we are looking for better ways, as we mount

our 1990 plans, to recruit those people, hiring, training and especially to retain them.

Finally, the questionnaire content. The content is that delicate

balance, again, between the information needs on one hand and so

many constituencies with such legitimate interests and wanting us

to ask either more questions, additional questions, or new questions

and always cognizant of the lengthy questionnaire. NASA is not

the only one in the space business. So is the U.S. Census Bureau,

and that questionnaire is a very, very precious instrument, and as

those respondents are a value to us. We know we have so much

time, and how to make the best use of that time in a national interest is an abiding concern.

Of course, we are essentially limited by some constraints that are

key, and I will mention the most key and acknowledge what has

been acknowledged already. That there are certain mandated data,

that are necessary to administer the national, State and local government programs that are tied to Census Bureau data.

Of course, then, we want to retain, from a continuity standpoint,

the most important characteristic of the population and of the

housing stock.

So by way of a wind-up, a closing sentiment, we have come a

long way since that first census in 1790. That was the one that
Thomas Jefferson was in charge of, and George Washington said he

didn't believe that there were only 3,929,000 people in the country.

He thought for sure there were 4 million. So perhaps that was the

first of the alleged undercount observations.

As you pointed out, this is an unbroken chain. There is not a

major country in the world that can cite an unbroken chain, nor

one as long as this, as we know a modern day census. It is something to think about, but I know to the two of you that I don't have

to emphasize this. Your sentiments have already expressed that.

We find that very reassuring, and it will be helpful to all of us.

An eminent statistician of world class named William Kruskal,

of the University of Chicago, in one reference talked about the decennial census in the United States as understanding our national

self and it led us, then, to act more wisely with reliable information. Perhaps our plans and surely this kind of review are likely to

contribute to that sentiment.

With my colleague, Mr. Bounpane, we are ready to address any

questions that you might have, and certainly any comments.

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you very much.

I noticed that you referred to some litigation that resulted from

the 1980 census, and I know one of the lawsuits was filed because

of some adjustments that were allegedly responsible for Florida

getting an extra Member of Congress. Indiana felt aggrieved because of the fact that the adjustment had that result.

Is this one of the lawsuits still pending, or have they resolved

that now? Indiana had a lot of problems in trying to find out not

only how many Congressmen, but who the Congressmen are.

Mr. KEANE. Being a native of Indiana, there are some Members

of Congress finding that out who asked me in an earnest kind of

way. It has been resolved, and rather recently, and favorable to the

Census Bureau.

Senator COCHRAN. What about the people of Florida and Indiana? Is it favorable to them, too? [Laughter.]

Your decision stood? The court did not disturb the decision made

by the Bureau of the Census? Is that right?

Mr. KEANE. The results sustained our position.

Senator COCHRAN. I am interested in that. I think it is interesting to observe that the Constitution mandates this count be made

and the report be given to the President. The provision is that all

inhabitants should be counted, and the apportionment of House

seats in the U.S. House of Representatives is made on the basis of

the counting of inhabitants in each State.

Some may think that only citizens who are present within the

boundaries of the United States are counted to determine how

many representatives a State will have in Congress, but that is not

really accurate; it is how many inhabitants. We are talking about

illegal aliens; we are talking about citizens. Every person, every

human being within the boundaries of the State is counted for that

purpose; is that correct? Is my understanding accurate on that?

Mr. KEANE. Your understanding is accurate.

Senator COCHRAN. When you do make the count, then, do you

present a report to the President that includes both the number of

inhabitants as well as the number of citizens, or just the number of

inhabitants?
10

Mr. KEANE. We give the count for the country, total inhabitants.

Senator COCHRAN. YOU don't make any distinction? Do you ask

people as you count them whether they are citizens or not?

Mr. KEANE. We do not, not in the census.

Senator GLENN. Would the Senator yield?

Senator COCHRAN. I would be happy to.

Senator GLENN. TO be blunt about it, how do you watch inhabitants? People avoided being counted in the last census because it

might show up they were illegal in the country. We wound up with

several million people along our southwestern borders who didn't

want to be counted. They avoided the census. I don't know how you

take care of that, but do you have plans to deal with that this

time?

Mr. KEANE. It is an ongoing challenge that is getting a lot of our

attention. More specifically, it is getting specific study groups that

address it. I might say that in our post census studies on 1980, on

the basis of that, we estimate that we counted about 2 million undocumented aliens.

I think my associate would perhaps like to add a clarifying comment or two.

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Bounpane?

Mr. BOUNPANE. Yes. Thank you, Senator. You were correct. We

don't ask everyone, "Are you here illegally or are you not here illegally," and the counts that are transmitted to the President are

total inhabitant counts.

But on the questionnaire that is asked of a sample of the people,

there is a question that says, "Is this person a naturalized citizen

of the United States?" And there is another question about "When

did you come, and in what foreign country were you born?"

If you take that kind of information and summarize it, compare

it to records you have elsewhere in terms of people who have come

into the country, from immigration records, that is how you arrive

at the number that Dr. Keane just mentioned that we think about

2 million people who were not here legally, who were enumerated

within the decennial census last time.

Senator COCHRAN. TO carry the practical side of that one step

further, if one State has an unusually large number of illegal

aliens in it on the basis of the count of inhabitants that is made, it

will be eligible to have a larger number of Representatives in Congress, would it not, than other States?

Mr. BOUNPANE. Yes, that is correct.

Senator COCHRAN. Because the representation in the Congress is

based on the number of inhabitants; is that right?

Mr. BOUNPANE. That is correct.

Mr. KEANE. Right.

Senator COCHRAN. Is this factor a constitutional situation? In

other words, if we wanted to change that, if Senator Glenn and I

decided to cosponsor legislation to require that the apportionment

of Members of Congress be based upon the number of citizens

within a State rather than the number of inhabitants, would we

have to amend the Constitution, or could we simply enact a change

in the statute and get that result?

Mr. BOUNPANE. Neither of us being

Senator COCHRAN. YOU don't know the answer?
11

Mr. KEANE. I'm not sure whether or not that would require a

change in the Constitution or not.

Senator COCHRAN. DO you think we have to amend the Constitution?

Mr. KEANE. I am not sure. We will find out and follow up with

you.1

Senator COCHRAN. It is an interesting question. It happened to

occur to me as I went through this. The 2 million figure that you

gave us as your estimate of the number of illegal aliens you uncovered or discovered or counted in the 1980 census leads me to believe that probably some State has about four Congressmen it

wouldn't otherwise have were it not for the counting of those illegal aliens as inhabitants. Is that not right?

Mr. BOUNPANE. That could be the case.

Senator COCHRAN. It could be, if they were all in one State, like

California. [Laughter.]

Senator GLENN. I want my two back in Ohio. [Laughter.]

Mr. BOUNPANE. Senator, may I say something about that?

Senator COCHRAN. Sure.

Mr. BOUNPANE. Whether it is the Constitution or a law that

needs to be changed could be determined. One thing about it,

though, we would have a problem with it. I think this goes back to

the comment Senator Glenn was just making.

If you had to identify each individual person as to their status

here, legally, illegally or some other reason, then our census-taking

job might be a little harder, and it would be something to be considered.

You asked the question, how do we get these illegals to participate in the census. That is very difficult. We have to convince them

that putting themselves in the census will be safe to them; that we

will not turn their names over to the INS; the INS will then not

show up the next day and deport them or something like that; that

they won't lose their job.

If the census gets too specific in identifying a particular person's

status here, I think there is some risk about how people will participate in the census. That would need to be considered in the decision as well as the general policy issue of should or should not

those people be included in the apportionment.

Senator COCHRAN. I have one other question, and then I am

going to defer to Senator Glenn. I know he needs to be in this conference in the House and Senate on the Armed Services authorization. Let me just ask you this. I know you hire a lot of people. You

have to, to do the work necessary to discharge the duties of the

census. By its very nature, a lot of these are going to be people who

are otherwise out of work. How do you go about recruiting and

identifying competent people to do this kind of work upon whom

you can rely for compiling accurate information and reliable data?

Mr. KEANE. I would like my colleague to answer, but I would like

to say before he does that you are so right in identifying the challenge. It is somewhat akin to hiring the personnel, the total

number of employees in IBM. That is about the same, only you

1 See p. 91.
12

don't do it over the lifetime of a corporation; you do it over 3

months. Not only that, there were a number of the 300,000 positions that we had to fill twice for 1980, so that we had to screen

over 1 million to find the required 300,000.

So I am very encouraged to see that you have such a grasp of the

size of the problem to begin with. To be more specific, Pete?

Mr. BOUNPANE. Just a few words to add to that. You have identified something that is very key to us. Up to about 1970, in general,

hiring from the work force you mentioned was not generally difficult. We were able to find people available. Come 1980, the number

of people available to be hired by us didn't seem to be as many or

of the same caliber.

That is probably because of a change in our society, where many

wives are now working rather than being at home in the afternoon

and things like that.

So we did experience difficulties finding enough temporary employees out of the universe you mentioned, and we haven't solved

that yet. We need some help there, and some suggestions.

A couple of things we are considering is more use of part-time

employees. In the past, we have traditionally gone after full-time

people. Perhaps that was incorrect, not to look for people otherwise

employed who might be able to work on the census.

For example, people who have a job and might want to work on

the census and donate their salaries to a charitable organization,

or perhaps school teachers, or perhaps even military reservists.

These suggestions have all been made to us, and they need some

investigation.

Senator COCHRAN. I wonder; you know, in times past, a lot of the

hiring has been left up to political patronage groups. I may know

more than I understand about this, but my observation is that in

the past, when the Republicans have been in power, you pretty

much let the county chairman or the State party office work on the

census. When the Democarats were in charge in 1980, I guess they

did that.

Is that what is going to happen in 1990? Are you going to let the

politicians, the political party professionals hire all these people? If

so, do you think that this is the best way to go about staffing up for

this job?

Mr. KEANE. It is not a prospect now unless the civil service laws

change. As I understand it, there is a Government civil service law,

and therefore, political referrals are essentially precluded.

Senator COCHRAN. Was this the case in 1980?

Mr. KEANE. It was not or was it?

Mr. BOUNPANE. It was. Senator, a change in the civil service law

prior to the 1980 census, precluded us from using the political referral system that had been used in the past. Therefore, we requested an exception to the law to use that system in 1980 and it

was granted, and we used it again.

What Dr. Keane was pointing out is that our best judgment

today is not to request that change for 1990 because of the difficulties we had with the kind of people that were referred to us and

the fact that they may have had more interest in their political

background than in working on the census.
13

Senator GLENN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We tried to get away

from that in the 1980 census. The law was passed prior to 1980,

and if I recall correctly, there were some charges of exactly what

the chairman is talking about. They were investigated. I don't

know what the outcomes of those investigations were, but I think

you are pretty well covered under the civil service law now in

being able to avoid just the political referrals; is that not correct?

Mr. BOUNPANE. That is correct, Senator.

Mr. KEANE. Yes.

Senator GLENN. I would like to get into, how do you plan to go

about these tests? What percent is going to be mailed? What percent will be personal interview? Do you plan personal interviews as

well as mail on both these tests and where will they be run? Because different areas of the country have different problems involved? Manhattan in New York has a different problem than El

Paso, TX, for instance, as far as running an accurate census.

Where are you going to run these things? What percent will be

mailed; what personal? Can you give us a little detail?

Mr. BOUNPANE. Yes, I can.

Senator GLENN. I guess maybe even start before that. Do you

have a special group working on the questionnaires itself, so we

simplify that as much as possible?

Mr. BOUNPANE. The 1990 questionnaire?

Senator GLENN. Yes.

Mr. BOUNPANE. Yes. There is already a process in place to put

together the 1990 questionnaire. If you would like, I could go back

to that as well, or would you like to go to that first issue?

Senator GLENN. NO; just go ahead and comment generally on

how you are going to run these tests. I think that is where we

turned up a lot of difficulties last time, but one of the difficulties

last time, too, some of the problems that turned up in the tests

were not translated into changes. It occurred during the census

process itself. So we didn't utilize all the things we supposedly

learned how to test.

I am interested in how the tests are going to be run and how you

are going to do that this time.

Mr. BOUNPANE. I think you are correct about the tests prior to

the last census, and we did two things to try to change that. The

first thing we did was to move the testing schedule up one full

year. Prior to the last census, we began our testing in 1976. This

time, we have begun our testing in 1985.

The second thing we did is we moved the tests a full year apart.

Some of the tests prior to the 1980 census were only 6 months

apart. We found that we could not learn from one before we began

a second. This time, by spacing them a full year apart, we have the

opportunity to learn from our experience of the first one before a

second round of tests occurs. These two changes, we think, will

help.

The third thing we did was to try and identify key objectives of

each test and make them stick and make the tests solely aimed at

those key objectives, even though we do many other things, as well.

We perhaps tried to do too much each time in the tests prior to

1980.
14

How we are going to do those tests now, versus before? In the

last census, about 95 percent of the last population was covered by

the mail-out-mail-back census; only 5 percent of the population was

covered by the direct, door-to-door enumeration, the so-called conventional census approach. The last area, of course, is much different.

Senator GLENN. Did you find substantial differences between the

mail and the interview process as far as the results you got?

Mr. BOUNPANE. Generally, we find that coverage, that is, in the

number of people counted in the census, is better in the mail-outmail-back census approach than in the direct, door-to-door approach. That is because of the many checks we have done in the

mail-out-mail-back census that don't exist in the traditional doorto-door census.

You are likely to miss a whole housing unit in that traditional

method of enumerating a census. Because we give an enumerator a

map and a book with a blank page, and we say, "Travel every

street in this area outlined on the map. Write down every house,

and enumerate every one of those houses."

It is really quite that simple.

Well, it is easy to skip a housing unit in that system, and that

tends to happen. Whereas in the mail-out-mail-back system, we develop a mailing list in advance of the census. We do several checks

to make sure it is correct. And then we are fairly sure we have a

good coverage of every unit. That is used as a control during the

census to make sure we get a questionnaire back from every family

we should.

Senator GLENN. In your tests, do you do duplicate runs? In other

words, do you do a mailing and see what kind of results you get

and go in with an interview process to see what kind of results you

get from the two systems?

Mr. BOUNPANE. We have never done that in the same place, only

in a pair of places, and then you can make a comparison.

Senator GLENN. OK.

Mr. BOUNPANE. There were some more things about the tests.

Would you like me to continue with that? I can tell you about

where they are. In 1985, we had two tests censuses. One was in

Jersey City, NJ. That was an attempt to get a place similar to a

New York City-type area. The other was in Tampa, FL.

In 1986, we will be conducting a test census in central Los Angeles County, which is a very varied ethnic area, a lot of non-English

speaking people, et cetera, and in eight counties in Mississippi will

be the other test site in the spring of 1986.

We do not yet have the sites selected for our 1987 testing cycle,

and then we are also planning to do what we call dress rehearsal

censuses in 1988•which are shake-downs to make sure we have

the process finally in place•and we don't have those sites selected

either.

In the early tests, we tried experimental procedures to see

whether or not they should be considered further for 1990. As we

get closer to 1988, we try to hone in on them.

Senator GLENN. I don't want to cut you short here. I welcome

any lengthier testimony you have, and I will be sure to read the

record here when we get done, and staff will do the same thing.
15

There is one area I would like you to comment on, if you could.

That is, how you are moving in the area of data processing and

that sort of thing? I know the GAO report that came out in 1983 on

one of the pages in there it says that, "Based on the Bureau's current schedule approximate processing time for the 1980 census will

require about 3V2 years and $271 million, dollars" and it goes on

with some of the details of that as to how that was going to be

done.

Another paragraph later on, "The 88 million questionnaires were

checked, edited and accounted for manually. Logging in and editing

questionnaires cost $48.8 million; editing required about 37,000

clerks to check each questionnaire for complete and consistent entries," and on and on and on here with quite impressive statistics

of the huge workload that is generated with a census.

You have another paragraph later on here entitled "Potential for

More Automation." This is commenting on the past 1980 census, of

course. It talks about how there could be more; much has been

learned since the 1980 census was planned about data processing

and microcomputers, related equipment, they talk about here,

large scale computers, et cetera, et cetera.

Are you moving in that area so that we use some of this data

processing equipment in designing your questionnaires nearly right

from the start so you can do that?

Mr. BOUNPANE. Yes, we are, sir. I would say a few words about

that and try to be quick so you can leave.

In the first one you mentioned there, that is checking in to make

sure that one, someone mails it back; you check it off against this

list. That was done manually in 1980, which meant just what you

said, someone sat with a stack of questionnaires and a list and

manually checked them off.

We have automated the address list. We have put bar codes on

the mailing packages so that now when they are returned, they are

simply run through a machine, the bar code is read, and they are

automatically checked in. That alleviated one of the clerical operations from 1980.

The other one mentioned there•we also agreed with the GAO

comment there, as well•that to manually edit this questionnaire,

means someone peruses each page and circles a missing item.

Eighty-eight million questionnaires were handled that way by hand

in 1980. That is obviously a difficult and error-prone task.

To have a machine do that would be very advantageous, as well.

We are planning to try and do that. The difficulty is to convert the

information that is on a paper questionnaire into computer-readable form very quickly so that the computer can do this for you.

We expect about 106 million questionnaires in 1990, and those

questionnaires would have to be converted to computer readable

form in about 5 to 6 weeks to allow the machine to do the editing

that was done manually in 1980.

We think we can achieve that. How we get there is the question

that some people are very involved in, and we have still many options to be decided about that, which machinery will be used, what

placement of offices will be used to have that accomplished in 1990.

But we are aiming for that. We expect to get there.
16

Senator GLENN. If you go to that additional automation•Mr.

Chairman, I am going to have to run to the conference so this will

be my last question. But if you want to move in that direction, is it

going to cost us a bundle to set up to do this with computer technology? Or can you rent the computers for this? Do you have a

price tag that we are going to get faced with one of these days to do

it that way?

Mr. BOUNPANE. We don't have a precise price tag on that. Yes,

there will be some upfront costs to change to this system over the

system used in 1980. But we feel we can still do that under the

overall guideline that Dr. Keane set out, which is to conduct the

1990 census at no more than the per unit cost that the 1980 census

was conducted.

Senator GLENN. Again, you are going to stay within budget as

you see it right now, the same budget we had in 1980.

Mr. BOUNPANE. Adjusted for inflation, yes.

Senator GLENN. And still be able to shift over to more automation?

Mr. BOUNPANE. We think we can do that, yes.

Senator GLENN. We ought to put you in charge of several programs. [Laughter.]

Mr. KEANE. That is the same budget per enumerated rated unit.

In other words, we had 88 million units to enumerate in 1980 and

approximately 105 to 106 million in 1990.

Senator GLENN. SO instead of 226, if we came up with 250 million, there would be an additional cost of processing. You are

saying the per unit cost per person would remain the same?

Mr. BOUNPANE. Per housing unit, Senator.

Senator GLENN. Per housing unit?

Mr. BOUNPANE. Per housing unit.

Senator GLENN. Per housing unit.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to repeat, Mr. Chairman,

this is something that is going to get a lot more attention as we go

along here. You will have a lot more problems. We want to work

with you. We don't want to see this come down. In some respects,

last time, this came down to where we were coming to the 1980

census and we were having a whole series of hearings, as I recall,

trying to resolve how this thing was going to occur. There were a

lot of loose ends hanging out when we were getting not very far

away from sending people out into the field and mailing out the

questionnaires. I hope this time we have this all ironed out.

As you say, you are starting a year sooner. That is good. I congratulate you for that. I just pledge you our support here for trying

to help you work out whatever problems there are down the road.

Thank you, and I am sorry I can't stay for the entire hearing.

Mr. KEANE. Thank you.

Mr. BOUNPANE. Thank you.

Senator COCHRAN. Let me followup on Senator Glenn's question

about automation. We know that you are going to have to obtain

terminals and all kinds of other hardware in order to conduct the

more sophisticated and accurate census in 1990. This is going into

some expense and probably considerable expense. What do you do

with the hardware after you finish taking the census in 1990? You
17

won't have to use it again until 10 years later. What are you going

to do with the hardware?

Mr. BOUNPANE. We don't quite know the answer to that, yet,

Senator. It is a very good question. In coming to grips with what

system we will actually use, we have to answer that question

before making a decision of what to do.

There really are three alternatives open to us, or some combination of them.

One of these is direct data entry; simply have someone sit at a

key station and key the information on a questionnaire. That

would require a huge number of key stations and people. But that

is the kind of thing that perhaps could be leased or borrowed.

Another approach is to use what we used in 1980, that is, to film

the questionnaires and then use the machines we have developed

that directly convert the microfilm into computer-readable form.

That will not require nearly as much hardware. We can probably

build or purchase most of those and use them for other census operations.

Yet a third alternative that may be open to us is to use optical

mark reading technology, the kind of thing that is used on standardized testing. That skips the filming stage. The page goes directly

into the computer by going through a reader.

We have tried that, and there are some things to work out there.

That would require a large number of machines, and so perhaps we

have to talk about leasing those or sharing them with another Government agency or something like that. I think you put your finger

on something that is very important that we have yet to solve.

Mr. KEANE. Might I add an observation, Senator?

Senator COCHRAN. Please, Dr. Keane.

Mr. KEANE. Congress did pass a law authorizing us to do a middecade census. That would be a 10-year version, only in years

ending in 5 instead of 0, and did appropriate funds, and we did do

work in 1979 and in 1980. Were Congress to fund that activity in

the future and, of course, the next one would be for 1995, that

would certainly require a lot of the hardware we are talking about,

and perhaps could go a long way toward justifying the purchase of

additional equipment.

Senator COCHRAN. I hope you have a better experience than the

Internal Revenue Service had. They bought a computer that devoured tax returns, apparently, rather than counting them or reading them. We don't want to do it with our people. We don't have

that many.

Mr. BOUNPANE. We hope we don't have that problem, as well.

Senator COCHRAN. I know in connection with this automation,

you are going to be using some of this technology in the pretesting

so that you will have a dry run so to speak. I think that in the one

you are doing in Mississippi in the eight counties there, you will be

using some of this technology. Can you tell us a little bit more

about the technology that you are going to be experimenting with

there and how many people you are going to be employing, a little

more of the details of that?

Mr. KEANE. We intend to employ around 500 people and spend

about $1.4 million. For the specific detail beyond that, my colleague.
18

Mr. BOUNPANE. In Mississippi, we are going to try what we call a

self-contained office. That means that all of the census operations,

that is, the collection of the information from the respondents and

the processing of the data will all take place in one office. So it will

be a string of microcomputers put together in the office and key

stations to enter the data into these computers.

We are considering using that arrangement in places where the

census office covers a relatively large land area. The reason that

self-contained process makes sense in an office that covers a large

land area is that you want to minimize the amount of traveling

that has to be done with people, with paper, et cetera, so that if

you could do the whole task in one centralized location there, it

would be very advantageous. That is what will be tried there.

Just as background, in the 1985 test, we tried the optical marker

reader in Tampa, FL, and we tried direct data entry in Jersey City.

Senator COCHRAN. YOU are also going to be doing some pretesting

in Los Angeles, as I understand it. Will that be a different kind of

technology that you will be employing there? Would it be similar

in any way to the work you will be doing in Mississippi?

Mr. BOUNPANE. It is going to be different, Senator. In Los Angeles, we are going to try the film-to-tape approach that was used in

1980, the difference being the cameras and the so-called FOSDIC

machine that actually converts the film to computer-readable film

will be located in Los Angeles. So it is decentralized film to tape,

which parallels what we did in 1980 but on a centralized basis.

Senator COCHRAN. What are you going to be filming?

Mr. BOUNPANE. We will film the actual questionnaire itself.

There are cameras that actually sweep this page.

Senator COCHRAN. YOU are not going out and taking a picture of

the countryside or anything. [Laughter.]

Mr. BOUNPANE. Right.

Senator COCHRAN. You will be doing this with people who will be

going door-to-door? How are you physically going to be putting this

together?

Mr. BOUNPANE. The census in Los Angeles will be mail-out-mailback, and those that are returned go to a specific office which is

solely set up to do this microfilming operation and to develop the

film right there and then convert the film into computer readable

form.

Senator COCHRAN. Some people have suggested that maybe what

we ought to do is to get to a system of sampling. Polling has

become so sophisticated now that you don't have to count everybody to know how many there are. You don't have to ask everybody how they are going to vote. You can find out by just asking a

few, if you select them in a careful way, a scientific way.

What is your reaction to that suggestion? You may be overdoing

it, in other words, in the way you are going about it.

Mr. KEANE. We have to, by law, do it the way we are doing it;

that is count everybody, and then sample.

Senator COCHRAN. What law tells you that you have to do it that

way?

Mr. BOUNPANE. Title XIII, which is our enabling legislation, says

that we have the right to do sampling except for the purpose of determining the count for use of reapportioning the House.
19

Senator COCHRAN. The point is, you can count everybody that

way, but then can't you sample and find out the answer to all

these other questions?

Mr. BOUNPANE. Yes, Senator, that can be done. Actually, that is

what we do.

Once you have to make the effort to get to the household, there

is some advantage in collecting other information, as well. The

marginal costs of the increased information is small. That is why,

for everybody, we ask just the basic seven questions. That is not

much different than determining that there is a person there,

whereas all the additional information was only collected from

samples of people which, in 1980, was one in six of the population.

Mr. KEANE. And there are 39,000 governmental units dependent

upon census data, so that if we were to go to only a sampling kind

of a mode, we would probably have so thin a sample that the data

reliability and accuracy would be subject to real questioning.

Senator COCHRAN. There has been some suggestion that because

of educational deficiencies that there are a lot of people who didn't

get counted and who don't get included in the census. This was particularly directed in areas where you have high concentrations of

low-income persons who may not have access to the information

about how you respond to the census, or it may come to the address

and nobody can read there, or maybe they inaccurately fill out the

information and send it back, and this distorts that actual number

of persons who are in the household or who are in the neighborhood, even.

I know my State, which is a very poor State, it has been suggested to me by mayors and country officials that they thought that

they had large numbers of persons who just weren't included in the

1980 census. This particularly was true when it came time to look

at the numbers who were considered to be in poverty. Because of

that basis, grant funds were allocated to the State or title I education funds were allocated, and I know it was our experience that

we ended upon with a lot less money out of some of* the Federal

programs than we had had in the past because the census people

said we didn't have as many poor people as we used to.

We were glad to hear that, but we weren't sure whether to believe it or not.

The reason for my question is, a lot of people think that the

census didn't count a lot of poor people the last time; that they

didn't count a lot of minorities. Are you going to be finding out,

through the efforts you are making in Los Angeles and Mississippi

and in Jersey City and wherever else you are making these dry

runs, doing the pretesting, whether or not you are getting an accurate count of underprivileged persons or maybe people who can't

read or poor people?

Mr. KEANE. I would like to make a general statement about that

and then ask my colleague to continue.

If you look at the thing overall, that is, the 1980 census overall•

and we can't say precisely just how accurate it was•just generally

speaking, within 1 percent of the count, and you then compare that

with other countries, other countries seem to be quite satisfied in

the 2 to 4 percent range and look at our country with some envy

and often consult with us on how to do a better job there.
20

You have correctly identified the problem, that is, when you look

at certain sectors, be they ethnic groups, be they geographic areas,

be they age groups, be they income groups and others. So that the

concerns of the people who have the focus of those certain sectors

are very real and sometimes they criticize us about that alleged undercount because of what it means.

So that problem has our focus, and a number of aspects of that

are part of a number of the test censuses focused at ways to improve the "differential" undercount.

Senator COCHRAN. I know that in one of the areas, you are going

to eight counties in Mississippi as an example. I think in Meridian

is one town where I was told that we had some bad numbers as a

result of the 1980 census.

Now, I don't know whether it was inaccurate or whether it was

accurate, but that was the perception, anyway, by local officials,

that everybody didn't get counted. I guess we will find out maybe a

little bit more after the pretesting, but we do want to be sure, and I

know you share this view, that we do count everybody, and that

whether you are poor or not or whether you are a minority or not,

you ought to be counted in the census.

Let me ask you this. Is there a need for an education program or

some kind of program that may advertise the fact that the census

is going to be taken and that this is what it is and this is why it is

important and you ought to participate in it and cooperate with

the census takers, maybe giving some helpful hints on if you have

questions and you don't know the answers to them, somebody you

can go to, a referral service or an information place in the community to satisfy yourself that you are doing this right? Is there any

need for maybe that kind of program to be undertaken?

Mr. KEANE. Yes, there is, and we have had programs in the past,

but we will do a larger job, a better job, and an earlier job in connection with 1990.

For instance, there is a volunteer group called the Advertising

Council which does work. You have probably seen Smokey the

Bear ads, for instance, and so forth.

The Government agency, in our case, would pay for the production costs, but the ad council volunteers the creative effort and the

space and the time. We signed on with them just about a year

before the 1980 census. We have already approved•and they have

approved•to do work with us beginning January 1, next year.

But it needs to extend beyond that. It is hard to imagine how we

could possibly overvalue favorable awareness of the Census Bureau

and especially our No. 1 activity, the decennial census. In that

regard, any public service announcement that you might want to

do in connection with our east-central Mississippi test census next

year or anything that you might even spread among your colleagues in Congress about the importance and the confidentiality

and the usefulness of a good census would be most appreciated by

us, and by extension by the country.

Senator COCHRAN. I think that is something that we all have a

responsibility to improve, and that is, the willingness on the part of

the public to participate, to cooperate and to help make the census

a success. I think Members of Congress are peculiarly situated to

participate in a constructive way to help in that regard.
21

So I think that is a good suggestion, and maybe we ought to talk

about it further and get into some specifics and work on the details

of how we do a more effective job of communicating with the general public on this subject. Because it is extremely important. I know

school districts; my parents are both former schoolteachers. They

are retired now, so I am very sensitive to the amount of money

that was allocated to the schools. We had school districts that

think that they got shortchanged as a result of inaccurate counting

of those who would otherwise have been counted for the purpose of

figuring the poverty numbers in the schools to qualify for funding

under title I of the elementary and secondary education.

There are other programs, of course, that we are familiar with

that are also important.

I think we have hit the high points, and we have touched on

some important areas today that need the attention of the Congress. We haven't identified any subject that needs to be the subject of any legislation at this point, I don't think.

We do want to continue to work with you and maintain a line of

communication, though, to be sure that questions that do arise are

addressed and that we have a successful and an accurate census in

1990.

We may have some additional questions which we would want to

submit to you in writing. We can ask questions for the heck of it or

to fill out a hearing record. That is not what we are here for, but

we may submit to you some questions that I may not have asked

that I should have. Some may occur to other Senators on the subcommittee who weren't able to be here. We hope that you will be

able to respond to those in a timely way. They will be included in

the record of the hearing.

Thank you for your cooperation with the subcommittee.

[Mr. Keane's prepared statement and responses to written questions follow:]
STATOCKT OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF THE CEKSUS

John G. Keaf*»

Before the Subcommittee on Energy, Nuclear Proliferation,

and Government Processes

Committee on Governmental Affairs

U.S. Senate

July 17. 1985

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to present an overview of

Census Bureau plans for the 1990 census. Hy statement covers four

topics: the 1980 census experience; the 1990 planning process; our

goals for the 1990 census; and what we are planning to do to correct

1980 problems and meet 1990 goals.

1980 Census Experience

I will begin by listing some of the accomplishments that made the 1980

census a success:

First, estimates show improvement in coverage over the 1970 census.

Second, we delivered the counts for reapportionment and redistricting

by the legally mandated deadlines.

Third, the public information and outreach programs were highly

successful, helping us achieve an 83-percent mail return rate and

good coverage.

Fourth, we produced more data, particularly for small areas.
2

This is not to say there were no problems with the 1980 census and I would

like to share some of those with you.

First, there were delays in the release of some of the census data products,

particularly those containing data from the sample or long-form questionnaire.

Second, maps and other geographic materials were produced in separate

clerical operations, leading to delays and inaccuracies that we had to

correct before releasing the data products.

Third, many of the temporary census offices experienced problems in hiring

and retaining workers.

Fourth, there were concerns about the accuracy of the 1980 census which

led to several legal challenges. In some cases, these challenges forced

temporary census offices to remain open longer than planned.

Taking a census is an exciting and tremendous challenge. Enumerating and

collecting detailed characteristics for over 226 million people and 88 million

housing units, as we did in 1980, were not simple tasks. This is particularly

true given the highly mobile nature of the American people and the diverse

conditions and situations in which we live. Our task will be more difficult

in 1990, when we estimate that there will be about 24 million more people

and about 18 million more housing units.

Adding to the challenge is the fact that the Census Bureau must count not only

the majority of us who live in houses, apartments, condominiums, trailers,

and so on, but also those who live in group quarters • such as military

barracks, college dormitories, penal institutions, long-term hospitals, and

migrant farm camps • and even those without any home.
24

We have directed our planning efforts over the past several years at

recognizing the problems 1n the last census, identifying their causes,

and taking steps to prevent those difficulties so that we can conduct

a still better census in 1990.

1990 Planning Process

Mr. Chairman, I now will describe our process for planning the 1990 census.

Basically, this process Involved gathering Information through internal

review and consultation with data users, selecting ideas that require

testing, and conducting test censuses. By the fall of 1986, based on our

test experiences we must make several key decisions related to automating

the census and to the basic methodology to be used in the census. By

1988, when we conduct our dress rehearsal census, plans for 1990 must be

essentially complete.

To gather the information we need to make improvements for 1990, we began

with our own internal review of the 1980 experience. Even before the

1980 census concluded, we established working groups to look at various

aspects of the 1980 census and to suggest possible changes for 1990. The

results of this effort were to focus our attention on priority Issues.

We also have been, and plan to continue, consulting with a broad range of

data users to get their advice on our 1990 census plans. These include

other Federal agencies, state and local officials, planners and academics,

business and private organizations, minorities, and other interested data

users.
25

4

Of course, the Congress is the source of our legislative authority to take

the census and a prime data user. We, therefore, welcome this opportunity

to review our plans with you at this early date and we look forward to

future opportunities.

Through review and consultation, we have, thus far, identified several key

issues that we will need to address in our test censuses. Among these issues

are: automation, geography, accuracy of the counts, the need for more cooperation

with local jurisdictions, promotion, and staffing.

The test censuses are laboratories for actually trying out, under census-like

conditions, different options and approaches that have surfaced in our

internal review and consultation with data users.

Last year we conducted a test of procedures for compiling our address lists.

We are conducting test censuses this year of census procedures and automation

in Jersey City, New Jersey, and Tampa, Florida, and will conduct further tests

of procedures and automation next year in 20 communities in central Los

Angeles County, California, and in 8 counties 1n east central Mississippi.

We also will conduct a national test of questionnaire content items next year.

We will hold additional test censuses in 1987 and will conduct a

full dress rehearsal for the 1990 census in 1988. Our intention 1s to make

the dress rehearsal a true dry run of census procedures for 1990. We do not

want to make many changes after the dress rehearsal, only fine-tune the

census process based on dress rehearsal results.

1990 Census Goals

We will obtain the information we need to make correct decisions for the

1990 census from three sources: internal review, consultation with data

users, and the test censuses. In many instances, though, we may find that
26

5

there is not one right answer or one perfect solution. That is because

several approaches may have merit. To help us make these choices, we

have established several criteria, which are our goals for the 1990

census.

First, we must meet our constitutional and legal mandates to deliver

apportionment counts to the President by December 31, 1990, and the

counts for redistrictlng to the states by April 1, 1991. Any changes

1n the census process for 1990 must enhance the Census Bureau's ability

to meet these deadlines.

Second, we want to produce all data products from the 1990 census 1n a

more timely manner than ever before.

Third, we want to keep the total cost of the census reasonable. The aim

for 1990 is to keep the per-unit cost (adjusted for inflation) no higher

than it was for 1980.

Fourth, we want to maintain the high level of accuracy of past censuses,

particularly in the area of coverage. This a real challenge: we want to

make the census faster and keep costs reasonable, but we also must maintain

the accuracy of the census data.

Fifth, in deciding what questions we will ask, we must strike a proper

balance between the need for information and the time it takes respondents

to complete the questionnaire. There will be more and more legitimate

demands for data but we must keep the length of the questionnaire

reasonable while meeting basic data needs.

Sixth, we must maintain the strictest confidentiality of each respondent's

answers. Though I mention this criterion last, it is one of the major

considerations for 1990. The success of the census depends directly upon
27

6

the willingness of the public to cooperate, and their trust in our pledge

of confidentiality is one basis for that willingness.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to outline what we are doing to solve the

problems of the 1980 census and to meet our goals for 1990.

Automation

Let's look first at the area of automation. Automating many of the census

tasks performed clerically during the 1980 census and beginning automated

processing earlier than in 1980 will help us meet our legal mandates and

release all other data products in a more timely manner. Increasing

automation in the census also can improve the accuracy of the data, lead

to greater cost-efficiencies, and give us more control over the entire

census process.

Traditionally, most of the activities associated with collecting and processing

the census questionnaire (e.g., checking incoming questionnaires against

an address control list, editing of questionnaires for completeness, and

coding of handwritten responses) have been paper- and people-intensive

tasks. The use of automated equipment can help us deal with the mountains

of paper and the thousands of clerical tasks in a much more efficient and

controlled way.

We have identified a number of areas that are candidates for automation,

and have started testing some of them. I will discuss only three

of these areas in detail today: the geographic.support system, the

address control file, and the early conversion of questionnaire data into

computer-readable form.
28

First, let us look at geography. Geographic materials are essential to

a successful census for two reasons: First, having correct and legible

maps helps our enumerators find every housing unit so that we have a

complete count; and second, having correct boundaries and geographic

information helps us assign each housing unit and the people who live

there to the appropriate land area. I mentioned earlier that one of our

problems in the 1980 census was that our geographic materials, including

the maps, were produced in separate operations involving a great deal of

clerical work. For 1990 we are automating our geographic support system,

which we are calling TIGER (Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding

and Referencing system). TIGER will integrate into one file all the geographic information that was produced in separate operations in 1980.

This will allow us to produce the geographic products and services for

1990 from one consistent data base, and will help us avoid some of the

1980 census delays and inaccuracies. Having the computer generate maps

that match the geographic areas in our tabulations will be a big improvement

over the clerical operations of the 1980 and earlier censuses.

Another improvement planned for the 1990 census is the development of an automated

address control file. In 1980, although the initial control list of addresses

was computerized, changes to the address file during the census were made

manually. For 1990, we will have continuous access to the automated

address control file so that we can keep the list current. We have

already implemented an automated address control file successfully in our

1985 test censuses, and will conduct further testing.

With an automated address file, it will be much easier to determine whether

or not we included a specific address in the file. It will be possible

to update the file where we missed an address in earlier operations.
29

8

We can use bar-code technology for computer check-In of the questionnaires.

As a result, 1t will be easier for our enumeration staff to identify the

addresses for which questionnaires have not been returned, and we could

send reminder notices to those addresses, thus reducing further the

number of nonresponding housing units where we need to send enumerators.

Finally, with an automated address list, we can update the 11st and use

it in future Census Bureau operations.

One of the most promising ways to take advantage of automation in the census,

and our biggest challenge, is to convert the data on the questionnaires

into a computer-readable format earlier in the census process than in past

censuses. This approach is essential if we are going to take full advantage

of automation and release data products quicker. For 1980, the data conversion

did not begin until after the temporary census offices closed and shipped

their questionnaires to one of three automated processing centers. For

the 1990 census, we want to begin converting data simultaneously with the

collection phase. This early start (5-7 months ahead of the 1980 schedule)

will allow more time for review and correction and will enable the computer

to assist in certain census operations. It will contribute to tighter control

of field followup assignments and allow early identification of enumeration

problems. Also, computer records of questionnaires could serve as backups

to the original questionnaires in case they are accidently destroyed.

Although there is agreement that we should implement earlier automated

processing for the 1990 census, there are two major questions we still

must answer. Where will the automated processing be conducted, and what

technology will be used to convert the questionnaire data into computer

readable form?

52-631 0-85-2
30

9

With regard to the first question, it is helpful to consider two broad

scenarios for accomplishing this early data conversion. Under one scenario,

there would be combined district and processing offices, which would

carry out both automated processing activities and field followup. It is

very unlikely we would use "combined" offices for the entire country

because of difficulties building, installing, integrating, and monitoring 500

separate data processing systems. We will be testing a "combined" office

in our 1986 test census in Mississippi.

Under the other scenario, we would have separate processing and district

offices. Here, the processing offices would receive the mail-returned

questionnaires from the public, check them in automatically, convert the

data to machine-readable format, and perform automated editing of the

questionnaires. The district offices would be responsible only for

contacting households to follow up missing or incomplete questionnaires.

We tested this plan 1n our 1985 test censuses, with collection offices in

Jersey City, New Jersey, and Tampa, Florida, and processing in our permanent

processing office in Jeffersonville, Indiana. In our 1986 test census in

Los Angeles County, we will use separate district and processing offices

where the processing office is withinthe same metropolitan area as the

district office. It is unlikely we would use "separate" offices for the

entire country because of the communications and logistics problems that

arise when the processing office 1s a large distance away from the district

office.

Having combined processing/district offices in parts of the country with

low population density and separate processing and district offices in

other parts is the most likely option for the 1990 census.
31

10

In addition to deciding where to convert the data to computer-readable

format for 1990, we must also determine how to do so. In 1980, after we

completed collection activities we entered the data from the questionnaires

onto computer tapes by microfilming the questionnaires (after clerically

coding write-in responses), and then reading the microfilm with an optical

scanning device (FOSDIC•film optical sensing device for input to computer).

The choices for 1990 are basically among three technologies or various

combinations thereof. We can continue to use the film-to-tape process

like 1980, but with newer and better equipment. We can try to eliminate

the microfilming step and read the questionnaires directly as college

aptitude tests are processed using optical mark recognition technology.

Or we can enter the data by keying. Keying for all data conversion in

all processing locations is unlikely, but we will need to use it extensively

for entering into the computer address information and the written answers

on the questionnaires. In our 1985 test censuses, we used the optical

mark reader and keying approaches. Although there were some problems,

the optical mark reader worked well enough for us to consider the possibility

of testing it further in 1986, along with keying and the film-to-tape

method.

The issue of data conversion methodologies is related to, but not dependent

on, the office structures discussed above. A decision on equipment also

involves many other considerations such as the content and appearance of

the questionnaires and the ease with which people can complete them; the

reliability and availability of the equipment; the staffing requirements

imposed by the equipment both in terms of numbers of people needed and

the technical sophistication those people must have; and the cost and

maintainability of the equipment.
11

We must make decisions on these two major questions (where and how) related

to data conversion by September 1986, so that we can begin the process of

procuring equipment. Some have suggested that we should make these decisions

earlier, but we beleive it is important to learn as much as possible from our

test census experiences before making such major decisions.

Some of the other areas we are investigating as automation possibilities are:

computerized editing of the questionnaire for completeness and consistency,

automated coding of write-in answers, improved tabulation and publication

systems, and more automated (and, therefore, more timely and accurate)

t

management reports, such as cost and progress reports.

Census Procedures

Now I would like to turn to the subject of the procedures we use to take the

census. We must choose procedures for 1990 that will help us meet our

goals, particularly those related to accuracy, cost, and timing.

As in 1980, we plan to use the basic mail-out/mail-back method for most of

the country in 1990. We will mail questionnaires to every household on

our mailing 11st, after taking great effort to assure that the list is

as complete as possible. We will ask householders to fill out their

questionnaires and mail them back. We will contact only those housing

units for which a questionnaire is not returned or for which additional

information is needed. In sparsely populated areas of the country where

mall procedures are not appropriate, we will visit every housing unit.

In all areas, we will devise procedures for enumerating special places

(such as college dormitories) and we will implement quality checks and

coverage-improvement procedures to make the census as accurate as possible.
33

12

For the 1990 census, we are Investigating possible modifications or

refinements to the procedures used in the 1980 census. For example, in

Jersey City we tested a two-stage census approach. Under this approach,

we collected basic information first and 2 months later collected the

additional information from a sample of persons. In 1980, we collected

both types of information at one time. Some believed that the two-stage

approach might improve the census in hard-to-enumerate urban areas.

However, the speculated advantages for the two-stage approach did not

materialize and the mail-return rate for the second stage was so low

that we discontinued followup for this stage. In the test census in

Tampa we tested mail reminder cards. We wanted to see whether we could

improve mail-return rates and reduce costly personal visits by sending

reminder cards a few days after questionnaire mail out to households that

had not yet returned their questionnaires. This test indicated that

reminder cards can be cost effective and we will use them again in our

1986 tests.

We will continue to refine census procedures in our 1986 tests. In

Jersey City and Los Angeles County we are examining ways to minimize

problems caused by mail-delivery in multi-unit apartment buildings where

apartments sometimes are not well defined. In Mississippi we will work

on problems related to getting questionnaires to the correct households

in rural-route delivery areas. One option we will test in Mississippi is

having census enumerators, rather than the Postal Service, deliver the

questionnaires. We also will examine some of our enumeration procedures

for American Indian reservations on the Choctaw Reservation in Mississippi.
34

13

Special coverage-Improvement procedures are an Important part of taking a

good census. In 1980, these included several operations to improve our

address list, a recheck of "vacant" units to see if they were occupied,

list-matching, a "were you counted" campaign, and so on. For 1990, we

will evaluate the 1980 census coverage improvement procedures to see

which should be repeated, and we will test refinements in these procedures.

One coverage-improvement procedure I will discuss further today is the

Local Review Program.

In 1980, for the first time, we gave local officials in over 39,000 jurisdictions an opportunity to review census counts before the temporary census

offices closed. Local officials noted any discrepancies between these

counts and their own data and we checked the counts and made corrections,

as necessary. For 1990, we want to improve this program. We are working

on a design that will give local officials an opportunity to review

address counts before Census Day and actual census field counts before the

offices close. They would have more time to prepare their data and

review our counts. We expect to begin contacting local officials earlier

than in 1980 and we are considering holding training sessions, in cooperation

with state agencies, to help the localities get ready for the program.

In addition to improving census procedures in order to make the census

more accurate, we will continue to examine different undercount measurement

and adjustment techniques to determine whether we can develop a valid

procedure for adjusting the census counts. Methods of making adjustments

to the counts must not only be statistically sound, they must be legally

and politically acceptable. They also must be practical to implement

in time to meet our legal deadlines. The 1986 census in Los Angeles
35

14

County will test the feasibility of quickly measuring coverage so that we

could adjust data, if necessary, in a timely manner.

As a final note on census procedures, I want to add that while designing a

workable census system is important, we must also have a good work force

to get the job done. In some areas in 1980, we had problems hiring and

retaining enough good census workers. This was due in part to our pay

rates (which may not have been competitive in all areas), the temporary

nature of the jobs, and the fact that census work, particularly the

personal visits to nonresponding households, can be very difficult.

We are giving special attention to finding new ways to recruit, hire, and

retain our temporary census work force for 1990. In future test censuses,

we will examine different methods of paying our enumerators, such as

hourly rates, piece rates, performance bonuses, and cost reimbursement.

Still, we must provide additional types of non-monetary motivation.

Along these lines, we will investigate job enrichment efforts that would

allow temporary workers to see and participate in more tasks. We also

will consider new strategies to recruit more motivated and skilled people

by seeking active support from community, nonprofit, civic, and volunteer

groups.

Questionnaire Content

Now, I would like to make a few comments about the census questionnaire.

Since the purpose of the census is to meet data needs for at least a

decade, a major part of census planning is selecting the census questionnaire

content.
36

As we consult with data users, we are hearing many more requests for data

than we can reasonably satisfy. Most of these requests reflect legitimate

needs for a wide variety of data to describe our complex society. But

one of our goals for the 1990 census 1s to balance the needs for information

against the length of the questionnaires. This balance is necessary

because public cooperation is essential for a successful census. Such

cooperation could be undermined by questionnaires that the public finds

too lengthy. In practical terms, this means that there can be no

significant growth in the size of the questionnaires for the 1990 census.

In making the final choices about which subjects to include 1n the

questionnaires we will follow six standards:

First, we will collect only required data•those needed for

constitutional or legislati-ve reasons, those needed specifically to

administer Federal, state, and local programs, and those needed to

describe the most important aspects of the American population and

housing stock.

Second, the census must meet small-area data needs. If the data are

needed for small geographic areas (for example, census tracts with an

average population size of 4,000), then the census is an appropriate

tool. If the data are required only for larger areas (such as the

Nation, regions, states, and large metropolitan statistical areas),

sample surveys might be more appropriate.

Third, we will consider the need to collect data for small and

dispersed population groups. The census is more appropriate for

this purpose than a nationwide sample survey where there is not

adequate coverage of these groups to yield any statistically significant

data about them.

15
37

Fourth, the questions must lend themselves to self-response and not

impose unrealistic requirements for data processing. The questions

generally will be answered directly by respondents without an

enumerator present. So, the questions must be easy to understand and

the terminology widely accepted by the public. In addition, the

responses must be translatable, with reasonable efforts, to machinereadableform.

Fifth, we will not consider any question that we believe is intrusive,

offensive, or widely controversial. The Census Bureau needs public

cooperation for the census to work. It cannot risk losing that

cooperation through improper questions.

Sixth, many of the subject areas to be asked in 1990 will have

been asked in 1980 and earlier censuses. Answers in 1990 to questions

asked previously can provide trend data needed to analyze vital

socioeconomic and housing characteristics. This criterion does not

mean that just because we asked a question in the last census, it

will be asked again or that we will not ask new questions. We will

consider, however, the need to provide continuity and comparability

between data gathered during each census.

This fall, we will complete our series of local public meetings where

data users from across the country are advising us on questionnaire data

items, data products, and census geographic areas. We are holding at

least one meeting in each state. We also are now completing meetings

with the Federal agencies to determine which data they need to administer

Federal programs.

16
38

We must make the many decisions about census content in the next 2-3 years.

Indeed, we are now planning our National Content Test for 1986, our main

vehicle for testing new questions and question wordings. By law, we are

obligated to report to the Congress on the subject areas for the census by

April 1, 1987, and on the actual questions that we will ask by April 1,

1988.

Closing

Mr. Chairman, let me summarize what I have discussed here today. I

have reviewed some of the successes and problems we experienced in the

1980 census. I have described our process of consulting with data users

and of conducting test censuses for the 1990 census. And I shared with

you our goals for the 1990 census. Then I briefly described the steps

we are taking in the areas of automation, census procedures, and

questionnaire content to meet our goals for the 1990 census.

In closing, I want to mention that the 1990 census will be the Bicentennial

Census of the United States. For 200 years the census has chronicled the

growth of our Nation from a backward young republic of 4 million people

in 1790 to a world power of 226 million people in 1980. Professor William

Kruskal, a noted statistician and former Dean of the Division of the Social

Sciences at the University of Chicago, has called the census a national

ceremony and "a constructive, benign activity that helps us understand

our National self and act more wisely on the basis of solid information."

I have reviewed today some of the issues we face in planning the 1990

census. Our goal is to develop a census that will help us to understand

our national self and give us reliable information to make wise decisions.

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with this committee in its review

of census plans. I think that working together, we can make the 1990

census the best ever. Thank you.
8/1/85

QUESTION 1: In your listing of the goals for 1990, you state that the Census

Bureau aims to keep the per-unit cost of the census (adjusted

for inflation) no higher than it was in 1980. Why can't you

reduce this cost?

ANSWER: The cost could be reduced, but only at the risk of reducing the

quality and usefulness of data from the census. We did not set

the goal for 1990 at the same per unit cost as 1980 lightly, in

fact, we consider it a serious challenge to meet that goal.

There are many reasons for that. There is some evidence to

indicate that taking the census in 1990 will be more difficult

than in the past, and that may call for extra resources. In

addition, we plan to make many improvements in the census such

as an expanded redistricting program and earlier availability of

data products, and there are resource implications for that. In

addition, implementing automation (a goal everyone agrees is

worthwhile) requires a large up-front investment. In effect, to

take the census in the anticipated environment and to make the

planned improvements in accuracy and timeliness means we will

actually be more cost efficient in the 1990 census by conducting

it at the same per unit cost as the 1980 census.

We should also add that the cost estimate for the 1990 census

is based upon several assumptions whose validity will not be

known for several years and that have a major effect on the

total cost of the census. Some uncertainties can be reduced

as we test, evaluate, and make decisions. Other uncertainties

will remain with us until Census Day, 1990. For example:

What will be the mail return rate? How many housing units
40

2

will there be? How efficient will our workforce be? How

long will it take to find and count everyone and every housing

unit? These uncertainties make it very difficult to commit up

front to a goal of reduced per unit cost.
41

8/1/85

QUESTION 2: The Constitution requires that the U.S. population be enumerated

once every 10 years for the purpose of apportioning congressional

representation among the states. For this purpose, what questions

must be asked of the Nation's inhabitants?

ANSWER: We must ask enough questions to determine that a person exists

and to differentiate that person from another person. It is

difficult to say precisely which questions are required to do

that, but at the very least, they would include name, age, and

sex, in addition to address. The other questions we ask on the

short form • relationship, marital status, race, and Spanish

origin -- are also useful in identifying persons in the household

and in helping us control the enumeration to make sure we have

counted everyone.

QUESTION 3: What changes do you anticipate in the topics covered or

questions to be asked on the 1990 short form?

ANSWER: We anticipate at this time that the population topics and

questions will be substantially the same as in 1980, except

that we are examining re-wording of the question on race and

Spanish origin. We are considering moving housing topics such

as the availability of plumbing facilities from the short-form

to the long-form questionnaire. These are-still only preliminary

plans; there have been no final decisions as yet.
42

8/1/85

QUESTION 4: GAO has advocated the use of a two-stage census. I know that

the Census Bureau tested its concept of a two-stage census

during its test census in Jersey City, New Jersey. However,

GAO has advised the Subcommittee that its specific recommendation

was not tested because the short form used in this test census

was not a truly short form requesting only minimal data necessary

for apportionment. Wouldn't such a form encourage a quick and

complete mail-back response? Why wasn't it tested?

ANSWER: Basically a "short" short form was not tested in Jersey City

because we did not feel that such a form would be viable in 1990.

We feel that all of the seven population questions are necessary

on a 100-percent basis. Perhaps some of the housing questions

could have been left off, but it was so early in the testing cycle,

we did not have adequate information to make appropriate changes to

the housing questions.

We do not believe that reducing the short form from 7 to 3 or 4

population questions (see question 2) would have dramatically increased the mail return rate. The size of the form would not have

been much smaller because we would still need to provide for answers

from up to 7 persons and we would still have to design the form for

automatic (machine-readable) processing. We also do not believe

that separating the 100-percent housing questions from the 100-percent

population questions would make much difference. The housing questions are only asked once•not for each person. Once we spend the

initial cost to get to a household, the incremental cost of asking

a few more questions is marginal. Conversely, having to go back to

every household a second time to collect housing data would be

extremely costly.
43

8/1/85

QUESTION 5: What are your reactions to the use of a greatly simplified short

questionnaire, perhaps a postcard, which includes only the

minimum questions to enumerate the population for apportionment?

ANSWER: If the mission of the census were merely to collect basic data

for apportionment purposes, then a greatly simplified census form

might be feasible, although there is some doubt about how many

questions are needed to simply count a person (see question 2).

But since the modern census must meet all of the Nation's important

data requirements, we believe it is more cost-effective to collect

as much data as possible the first time we contact a household.

Once we spend the initial money to get to a household, the incremental cost of asking a few additional questions is marginal.

We are also concerned that mail return rates and data quality would

suffer in a second stage of the census, because respondents would

not want to cooperate a second time. The Jersey City test bore this

out. In Jersey City, we used a split panel approach. In one panel,

we mailed out the short- and long-forms at the same time, as in 1980.

In this panel, the mail return rate for persons who received the long

form was about 31 percent. In the other panel, we mailed long forms

in a second stage about 2 months after short forms were mailed. Here

the mail return rate was very low•about 15 percent.
44

8/1/85

QUESTION 6: Why don't you test the postcard concept in one of your test censuses?

ANSWER: Because of limited funds and test opportunities, we must choose

judiciously among the many ideas that surface as potential test

objectives. We chose not to use the "postcard" concept as the

short form in our two-stage census test because we do not believe

it is feasible for 1990 (see questions 4 and 5). Furthermore,

there are other questions that need to be considered. Could a

"postcard" be automatically processed? Would it be so small that

it would be lost or ignored?
45

8/1/85

QUESTION 7: What were the goals and objectives for the Jersey City test census?

ANSWER: Our Jersey City test census focused on testing a two-stage census

approach and comparing it to a 1980 approach to find out if it

would improve the census in hard-to-enumerate urban areas. For

the two-stage approach, we mailed and collected short-form or

100-percent information first; 2 months later we mailed and

collected sample forms with both 100-percent and sample questions

from a sample of persons. For the 1980 method, we collected both

types of information at the same time. A major objective of this

test was to see if first collecting just the basic 100-percent

information in an area like Jersey City could expedite the overall

census process.

We also examined two techniques to improve identification of

individual units within multiunit apartment buildings. In one

procedure, the U.S. Postal Service attempted to list for us the

exact apartment designations for all multiunit buildings. In a

second procedure, the Census Bureau inspected each multiunit

building to verify our addresses on a unit-by-unit basis.

In Jersey City, as in Tampa, we tested new concepts in automation•

an automated address list, automated questionnaire check-in using

a unique bar code for each address, and a distinct separation of

district office and processing office functions where questionnaires

were mailed directly to the Jeffersonville, Indiana processing office

for immediate processing.
46

8/1/85

QUESTION 8: I understand that the Census Bureau had some very disappointing

results in its response rates during the Jersey City test. What

were the results?

ANSWER: The overall mail response rate for the 1985 test census of

Jersey City, New Jersey was 38.3 percent. 1/ The national mail

return rate for areas like Jersey City in 1980 was 75.6 percent.

1/ Mail response rate measures the proportion of mail returns out of the

total questionnaires mailed out. This rate should not be confused with

the return rate which is the proportion of occupied housing units that

return a questionnaire.
47

8/1/85

QUESTION 9: To what do you attribute the apparent failure of the Jersey City

residents to respond?

ANSWER: Traditionally, mail response rates in hard-to-enumerate inner

city areas are lower than other areas. Mail response rates during

census tests are also lower than mail response rates in the same

area during the census itself. The m#-W response from Jersey City

is quite similar to the response rates in our 1978 dress rehearsal

in lower Manhattan. (For detailed comparisons, see the attached

chart.)

In a test census, where only a small portion of the audience will

be asked to participate in the test, the media may choose not to

air public service announcements or may choose to air fewer than

they would during a decennial. Because Jersey City is only a small

segment of the much larger metropolitan New York electronic media

market, radio and television publicity was limited. This may decrease

the impact of census publicity efforts and, consequently, the mail

response rate.

To further investigate why housholds did not return their census

questionnaires, we conducted a small survey of 200 nonresponding

households in both Jersey City and Tampa. In general, we found

that lack of response was not from lack of knowledge about the

census. Even though our publicity efforts were limited, most

respondents admitted they were exposed to census publicity. What

we need to do is go the next step and make our publicity address

the concerns of the public. Although the source and type of publicity varied by demographic groups, it appears that our future
48

2

publicity efforts need to emphasize more strongly confidentiality, the legal requirement to participate, and to

improve the understanding of how census results are used.

Such changes in the publicity messages may help to motivate

people to take the test census seriously and participate.

Other factors that may have contributed to the low mail response

rate in Jersey City include indifference because of growth of

surveying in general and possible confusion with the mayoral

campaign that was conducted at the same time as the test census.
49

II

u|

|EH

i
50

-1/85

QUESTION 10: Even though the response rate was disappointing in Jersey City,

what knowledge has the Census Bureau gained from the results of

that test census?

ANSWER: We have learned a great deal from the Jersey City test and,

therefore, we consider our 1985 test census in Jersey City to

be successful. The operations that went well show us that we

are on the right track and where to refine our efforts in later

tests. The operations that had problems show us options that

are not viable or need much more work.

We were able to develop an automated address control file. This

file allowed us to do automated check-in using bar-code technology.

Also, while we did not formally test key data entry equipment, we

learned that it functions smoothly and efficiently in a census

environment.

We also learned that we are able to begin processing earlier in

a location that was separate from the district office. (The

processing office was in Jef fersonvil le, Indiana). The effect of

this is to remove the paper from the district office as soon as

possible. Alnost everyone agrees that is a major advantage over

the 1980 procedure.

Turning to census methodology, we learned that a two-stage census

is probably not viable. We tested a two-stage census in Jersey City

to see if first collecting just the basic 100-percent data in a hardto-enumerate urban area could expedite the overall census process.
51

2

As expected, the mail response rate 1/ for the 100-percent

information forms was higher than the mail response rate for

the sample questionnaire; namely, 38.7 percent as compared to

31.4 percent (modified 1980 system). However, the mail response

rate on the second stage mailing of the sample questionnaire

was extremely low, only 15 percent. At this point, it does

not appear that the two-stage method will produce an improvement

over the 1980 method. The small initial gain in the short-form,

or first stage, mail response would be more than offset by the

difficulty of finishing the second stage if this kind of second

stage response were typical.

We learned that we can implement a two-phase local review program

and that the two-phase approach is better than the one-phase

approach used in 1980. In 1985 we took our first step toward

improving our 1990 Local Review Program. We expanded our review

process to include a precensus local review in addition to a

postcensus local review, as in 1980. Adding the precensus phase

was successful and made the postcensus local review go better as

well.

1/ Mail response rate measures the proportion of mail returns out of the

total questionnaires mailed out. This count should not be confused with

the return rate which is the proportion of occupied housing units that

return a questionnaire.
52

3

We learned that we must do much more in publicity and outreach

in order to obtain a high mail return rate. We found overall

mail response rates were low, so we conducted a survey of nonresponding households to find out why. Even though our publicity

efforts were limited, most respondents admitted that they were

exposed to census publicity. What we need to do is go the next

step and make our publicity address the concerns of the public.

It appears that our future publicity efforts need to emphasize

more strongly confidentiality, the legal requirement to participate,

and to improve the understanding of how census results are used so

that people will take the test census seriously and be motivated

to participate.

We learned that we have to work much harder to obtain an

adequate workforce. We experienced some difficulties 1n

hiring enumerators and we will be working to Improve this

situation in future tests. We have just instituted a Census

Bureau-wide task force chaired by the Chief of the Field

Division to address this problem.

We also learned that we need to improve our methods to provide

foreign language assistance. The procedures for distributing

Spanish questionnaires were similar to those used in the 1980

census except that delivery was controlled from the processing

office rather than in the collection office. While we modified

the 1980 procedures to reflect this change, we found that we

need to refine them further in later tests. We also will

experiment with new ways to provide foreign-language assistance

such as establishing store front census offices in multi-lingual

neighborhoods.
53

8/1/85

QUESTION 11: I understand that the Census Bureau has planned a survey to

interview nonrespondents in Jersey City and Tampa to determine

why people did not respond to the questionnaires. Was the survey

ever completed? What were the results?

ANSWER: We conducted a small survey of 200 nonrespondi ng households in

both sites to find out why people did not respond to the questionnaires. The survey yielded the following general information.

1. There was some evidence that the census forms were thrown

away by respondents who did not open the envelopes.

2. There was no indication that respondents were turned off by

the Jef fersonvil le return address.

3. The number of cases was too small to know whether respondents

were turned off or intimidated by the design of the form.

In general, we found that respondents were exposed to publicity

about the census, but not through multiple sources. More specific

information about the nature of the publicity could not be obtained

within the time constraints of the survey.

Although thirty-eight percent of the households interviewed said

that they did not receive a questionnaire, we have no evidence to

believe that the postal service failed to deliver questionnaires

at that level. Previous research has shown us that a large number

of persons, for a number of reasons, report nonreceipt of the census

forms, when we know that the forms were delivered. For example, we

did a tightly controlled research project following the 1980 census

in which 31 percent of the persons interviewed stated they had not

received questionnaires.

The results of the 1985 study are attached for your information.
54

REPORT ON

RESULTS OF THE NONRESPONSE FOLLOWUP SUPPLEMENT IN THE

1985 TEST CENSUSES OF JERSEY CITY AND TAMPA

by

Michael P. Massagli and Theresa J. DeMaio

NOTE: The data in this report are preliminary and tentative in nature. Users

of the research memoranda should understand that these documents are prepared

for internal office use, with the aim of circulating information among Census

Bureau staff members as quickly as possible. These memoranda, therefore, do

not undergo the careful review and clearance normally associated with published

census documents. Conclusions and recommendations contained herein essentially

reflect the thoughts of certain staff members at the time of publication and

should not be interpreted as statements of Census Bureau position.
55

I. BACKGROUND

The Nonresponse Followup Supplement was planned and executed after the 1985

Test Censuses of Jersey City, New Jersey and Tampa, Florida were underway.

Its purpose was to gather data from census nonrespondents about behaviors

thought to affect the disappointing level of mail return of the census

self-enumerative forms.

Four explanations were initially offered for the low rates of mail return

in the 1985 Test Censuses. They were:

1. census forms were thrown away;

2. respondents were turned off by the Jeffersonville return address;

3. respondents were turned off or intimidated by the design of the

census form; and

4. we had the wrong kind of publicity, which was unable to overcome

respondent apathy.

The Nonresponse Followup Supplement collected information about each of

these hypothesized explanations. Attachment A is a copy of the questionnaire.

II. SUMWRY

Tabulation of the results of the Nonresponse Followup Supplement yields

some suggestions about why people did not mail back their census forms.

However, these should not be taken as conclusive results, or as representative of any population other than the survey respondents themselves. This

is the case because there were problems with data collection that yielded

a final database which is smaller than intended, which does not reflect

the original sample design, and which was not selected randomly. With

these caveats in mind the following statements related to the hypotheses

that prompted the Supplement to be conducted can be made.

1. There appears to be some evidence that census forms were thrown

away by respondents who did not open the envelope.

2. There is no indication that respondents were turned off by the

Jeffersonville return address.

3. The number of cases is too small to know whether respondents

were turned off or intimidated by the design of the form.

4. In general, respondents were exposed to publicity about the

census, but not through multiple sources, ttjre specific information about the nature of the publicity could not be obtained

within the time constraints of the Nonresponse Followup

Supplement interview.
- 2

In addition, these interviews suggest that nonreceipt of a census form may

be a large contributor to nonmail return. Thirty-eight percent of the

people interviewed said the form was not received; in approximately twofifths of these (16 percent of the entire sample) there was some ambiguity

about whether census forms may have been received in these households.

The ambiguity was introduced because no household members other than the

initial respondent were contacted in the survey. However, fully 22 percent

of the people interviewed said that they definitely did not receive a form

and that there was no one else who might have seen the envelope.

III. SURVEY DESIGN AND DATA COLLECTION

In the Nonresponse Followup Supplement, the mail response process was

defined as having four stages: receipt of the census form, opening the

envelope, starting to fill out the census form, and mailing it back.

The Supplement contained a series of questions designed to ascertain which

of these stages was responsible for dropout from the mail response process.

In addition, questions that would shed light on the initial hypotheses

about reasons for dropout were included. The questionnaire was designed

to be administered in a two-minute interview.

Data for the Supplement were collected simultaneously with the beginning

of Nonresponse Followup (hence the name). The sample was selected from the

areas of the test census that had the lowest mail return rates. Twelve

interviewer assignments were created in each test site: in Tampa, one

followup assignment was selected at random from each of the twelve Census

Block Numbering Areas (CBNAs) with the lowest mail return rates. In Jersey

City, the six CBNAs with the lowest mail return rates were selected, and two

followup assignments were selected within each one; the first was randomly

selected from the twostage panel and the second was randomly selected

from the modified 1980 panel. Interviewing was to continue within these

assignments until 200 completed interviews had been obtained in each site.

In each of the selected assignments, an experienced interviewer was supposed

to accompany a Nonresponse Followup enumerator and, at the end of each followup enumeration, to conduct the Supplement interview. In Tampa the interviewing was done by Group Quarters enumerators who had been hired to participate

in an earlier census operation; in Jersey City the interviewing was done by

followup enumerators and telephone questionnaire assistance enumerators, who

had no interviewing experience prior to the beginning of Nonresponse Followup.

Data collection began on April 10 and continued until April 12 in Tampa and

April 19 in Jersey City. No response rates were calculated for the survey,

due to the quota nature of the sample.

In Tampa, 167 interviews were completed in nine enumerator assignments, but

correct assignment could be verified (both were correct) for only two of

nine interviewers. In Jersey City, 137 interviews were completed in nine

of the twelve sampled enumerator assignments, and 29 interviews were completed In out-of-sample enumerator assignments.

No field edit was performed in the collection offices and Interviewers had

numerous problems in following the skip patterns in the questionnaire. As

a result, nine cases were deleted in Tampa because of problems such as
57

- 3

inconsistent responses within the questionnaire. In Jersey City, 57 cases

were deleted because of problems with the work of one enumerator who conducted over 40 percent of the total completed interviews, and whose interviews all had the same basic response pattern. To increase the number of

cases for analysis, and in view of the already distorted sampling plan,

the 29 out-of-sample interviews were included in the database.

Thus, the total database for these tabulations includes 267 cases: 158 from

Tampa and 109 from Jersey City. Of these, 146 respondents from Tampa lived

at the sampled address on Census Day, as did 105 respondents from Jersey City.

These 251 Census nonrespondents who reported in the Nonresponse Followup

Supplement that on Census Day they lived at the address where the interview

occurred constitute the base of eligible respondents for the tables presented

in this report.

IV. RESULTS

Tabulations showing frequencies and percentages are presented and discussed

in the following section. Since some cell sizes are quite small and the

percentages not very stable, some of the discussion is in terms of the raw

numbers rather than percentages. Data are presented separately by test site

but are generally discussed only in total, because between-site comparisons

are generally unstable.

A. The Mai 1 Response Process

Table 1 and Figure 1 present the distribution of self-reported participation

in the mail response process. Twenty-three percent of the respondents interviewed said that they definitely did not receive a census form•that is, they

themselves did not see one and there were no other household members who

could have seen the form. An additional 16 percent of the respondents interviewed said they did not receive a census form; however, the receipt or nonreceipt of forms at these households is ambiguous either because there were

other household members who could have seen the envelope or because the

interviewer did not establish whether there were any other household members.

About 13 percent of respondents claim to have mailed back the forms. About

15 percent percent of respondents reported they received the form but did

not open the envelope; about 19 percent reported opening the envelope but

failing to start the form, and 15 percent reported starting to fill out

the form but never mailing it back. This distribution varied only slightly

between the Jersey City and Tampa sites.

The majority of respondents (72 percent) were Black. The proportion of

Blacks in Doth sites reporting nonreceipt of the form was slightly less than

the total proportion, as was also true with reports of mailback; therefore,

their proportion at other points in the response process is slightly greater

than that observed for the total sample (see Table 2, top panel).

The top panel of Table 3 shows that the majority of respondents resided in

multi-unit structures. However, there is little difference from the total

in the distribution of the response behaviors by housing type.

The majority of respondents reported knowledge of the census prior to contact with Nonresponse Followup interviewers. However, on'y slichtlv less
58

- 4 -

than 50 percent of the respondents who claimed no prior knowledge of the

census said they had not received a census form (see Table 4). The remainder

reported response behaviors that were inconsistent with their claim of no

prior knowledge ("before today") of the census, such as indicating receipt

of the census form but failure to fill the form and mail it back. Also,

some respondents reported prior knowledge of the census but no answers were

recorded for specific sources of information.

tost respondents who did report prior knowledge of the census indicated

only one source of information (see Table 5). No table of specific sources

mentioned by respondents is included. However, there were 212 sources

mentioned in total; 73 were mentioned by 63 respondents in Jersey City;

139 were mentioned by 90 respondents in Tampa. In both sites, most respondents mentioned only one source. In Jersey City, the most frequently

mentioned source was the newspaper (29), followed by people talking (19)

and TV (8). In Tampa, the most frequently mentioned source was TV (44),

followed by newspaper (24), radio (24), and people talking (19). Overall,

except for the mailback rates, there is little difference in response

behavior between those who said they knew of the census before Nonresponse

Followup and those who did not.

B. Nonreceipt of the Census failing Packet and Perception of the Envelope

Respondents who said they had not received a census form were asked whether

anyone else in the household might have seen the envelope. However, 1n the

interest of time, any other household members who might have seen it were

not questioned directly. Some ambiguity about whether the form was actually

received is apparent, and that ambiguity is categorized in Tables 6 and 7 as

"possibly received by other household member."

About 40 percent of persons interviewed did not definitely acknowledge

receiving a census form, i.e., they reported either not receiving the form

themselves or not being sure whether they received the form. As Table 6

shows, this figure does not vary by site. However, in about 13 percent of the

households there is a possibility that someone else may have receive a form

without the survey respondent's knowledge. In an additional eight cases

(3.2 percent of the eligible interviews) responses were not recorded to the

question about other household members, so we cannot distinguish between "not

received" and "possibly received by other household member" for these cases.

Table 7 shows that reports of definite receipt of the form were only slightly

higher in single family dwellings than in multi-unit structures.

Table 8 contains impressions of the appearance of the census envelope among

respondents who said they had not received a form in the mail. Among those

who had not definitely received the form, about 70 percent thought the

envelope looked important when the Nonresponse Followup Supplement interviewer

showed it to them. About 15 percent thought it looked like junk mail.

C. Receiving the Form, But Not Opening the Envelope

As Table 9 shows, about 75 percent of those who reported receiving the form

said they opened the envelope. The remaining 25 percent of respondents

who reported receiving the form did not open the envelope or proceed to

subsequent stages in the response process.
59

Respondents who reported not opening the envelope were asked what happened

to 1t and why they didn't open the envelope. About 35 percent of these

respondents reported doing nothing with the envelope and another 35 percent

thought it had been lost, destroyed, or thrown away (see Table 10). The

main reason respondents reported not opening the envelope was that they

"never got around to it" (35 percent) (Table 11).

0. Opening the Envelope, But Not Starting to Fill Out the Form

Table 12 shows that of those who reported opening the envelope, about

40 percent (45/116) reported not starting to fill out the form. About

15 percent more respondents in Tampa said they started the form than in

Jersey City.

Respondents who did not start filling out the form were asked what happened

to the form and why it was not started. About 55 percent of those respondents said they did nothing with the form, while about 35 percent said the

form was lost, thrown away, or accidentally destroyed (see Table 13).

About 35 percent of respondents said the reason they didn't start the form

was that they never got around to it. This reason was mentioned by about

50 percent of those interviewed in Jersey City, but only 20 percent of

those interviewed in Tampa. Only 5 of 47 persons who reported dropping

out at this point said the form looked too hard, but 4 of these were in

Tampa (Table 14). The majority of the remaining respondents reported

"other" reasons such as illness, language problems or loss of the form.

E. Starting to Fill Out the Form, But Not tailing It Back

Among those who started filling out the form, over half (about 54 percent)

failed to mail it back or didn't know if they had mailed it back. There

were 11 such respondents in Jersey City and 26 in Tampa (see Table 15).

None of these respondents indicated "never hearing of the Jeffersonville,

Indiana address" or "problems with the return envelope" as reasons for not

returning the form. Among respondents who reached this point in the response

process, most of the forms were lost, destroyed, left unfilled, or forgotten

about.

F. Perceptions of the Census Form

Among those who dropped out of the response process prior to filling the

form, about 13 percent thought the envelope or form looked like junk mail

(see Table 16). Those who said they had not received the form and were

shown the envelope by the interviewer gave this response more frequently

than those who said they received the form but aid not open it or start

filling it.

Respondents who reported not receiving the form or not opening the envelope

and who responded that the envelope looked like junk mail were asked about

the specific characteristics of the envelope that elicited the junk mail

response. Several alternatives were provided (e.g., Jeffersonville return

address, bulk rate stamp, address label, color, print, other, DK) and Interviewers were instructed to mark all that applied.
60

- 6 -

No table of detailed reasons mentioned is provided. However, the total

number of reasons mentioned by those who reported they had not definitely

received the mailing packet was 31, with 9 mentions by 9 respondents in

Jersey City and 22 mentions by 15 respondents in Tampa. Among these

respondents the Jeffersonville return address was not mentioned.

The bulk rate stamp, label, color, print, other and "DK" responses were

mentioned with about equal (albeit low) frequency.

The total number of reasons mentioned by those who reported they had not

opened the mailing packet was 4, with mentions by 3 respondents in Jersey

City and 1 mention by 1 respondent in Tampa. Among these respondents,

the bulk rate stamp was the only feature to be specifically mentioned.

The junk mall response is so infrequently observed that specific characteristics of the envelope" or form which elicited this response cannot be

studied with these data.
61

m

1/1

o>

u

o

u

CJ

1/1

c

c

Q.

t/>

d)

2

CD

<u

+->

l/>

</)

3

O

re

o

-o

<u J^

f• o

•^ «J

13 CO

s:

O LT)

O CM

o o

o -->

o «r

O ~H

•4

r-» .•.

• CM

CM CO

1.4%

12)

3.7%

20)

3 -o

CQ CJ

r•

-a •f•

01 KJ

4-> 2.

i_

fC •w

J-> O

IS) z

•c

•>-> Ol

3 J->

CO t_

H3

-o •t->

01 oo

c

a> •»-> »- o

a« »< »*

r- »-» LT> •* 00 •

• r-» • ^H • <o

*r en Q •"< r^ CM

s* ** *«

r-.• CTl -~ *J- ^-.

• r-» • CO • •«-

co n- •-> CM lO CM

r-l -^ CM ^H ^•'

+->

3 -3

CQ 0)

c

-o il

> a•*•

Ol •<->

u o

CO z

CC

**

• co • co • o

tn co r~- ••i co CM

in

a.

£-

O

Q.

4)

ce.

i

Si

1/1

+•» 3

Q. O

•<- 3

0) C7>

U •!-

CJ JD

CC E

*-> -o

O Ol

z >

E Oi (- u

O Ol

** X »*

Ol -^ «*• -•. CM -•

• O • CM ' CO

LO «• ^H ^-t cr> CM

s« X >«

i-~ .•. l£> -^ CM «-»

• r». • en • CO

CM Lfl r-» CM en CM

CM ^* CM »• ••H •**--

Ol

<XJ oo

in >,

«3

Q. Ein

r--

52-631 0 85
«-l-l

62

•:-4 •.•"I

tj-i in

a:

LIJ

Q_

LiJ zz

az

1-"-

»• CN

•To_n ii

111 !_•

i• U_

Ct' Oil a

1.1-1

a;
63

- 9

Table 2: Self-Reported Mail Response Behavior by Race/Ethnicity

BOTH SITES

Form Not

Received

Received

Not Ooer

But

ed

Opened But

Not Started

Started But

Not Mailed

Mailed

Back Total

All Eligible

Households

38.6%

(97)

15.1%

(38)

18.7%

(47)

14.7%

(37)

12.7%

(32)

100%

(251)

White

Not Hisp.

50.0%

(20)

• 7.5%

(3)

15.0%

(6)

10.0%

(4)

17.5%

(7)

100%

(40)

Black

Not Hisp.

36.lt

(65)

17.2%

(31)

19.4%

(35)

16.1%

(29)

11.1%

(20)

100%

(180)

Spanish/

Hisp.

40.9%

(9)

13.6%

(3)

18.2%

(4)

18.2%

(4)

9.1%

(2)

100%

(22)

Other 100%

(1)

100%

(1) (0) (3) (0)

100%

(2)

DK 28.6%

(2) (0)

28.6%

(2) (0)

42.3%

(3)

100%

(7)

JERSEY CITY

Form Not

Received

Received But

Not Opened

Opened But

Not Started

Started But

Not Mailed

Mailed

Back Total

All Eligible

Households

39.0%

(41)

17.1%

(18)

21.9%

(23)

10.5%

(11)

11.4%

(12)

100%

(105)

White

Not Hisp.

66.7%

(4) (0) (0) (0)

33.3%

(2)

100%

(6)

Black

Not Hisp.

37.6%

(32)

17.6%

(15)

22.4%

(19)

11.8%

(10)

10.6%

(9)

100%

(85)

Spanish/

Hisp.

45.5%

(5)

18.2%

(2)

27.3%

(3)

9.1%

(1) (0)

100%

(11)

Other

(0)

100%

(1) (0) (0) (0)

100%

(1)

OK

(0) (0)

50.0%

(1) (0)

50.0%

(1)

100%

(2)

TAMPA

Form Not

Received

Received But

Not Opened

Opened But

Not Started

Started But

Not Mailed

Mailed

Back Total

All Eligible

Households

38.4%

(56)

13.7%

(20)

16.4%

(24)

17.8%

(26)

13.7%

(20)

100%

(146)

White

Not Hisp.

47.1%

(16)

8.8%

(3)

17.6%

(6)

11.8%

(•)

14.7%

(5)

100%

(34)

Black

Not Hisp.

34.7%

(33)

16.8%

(16)

16.8%

(16)

20.0%

(19)

11.6%

(ID

100%

(95)

Spanish/

Hisp.

36.4%

(4)

9.1%

(1)

9.1%

(1)

27.3%

(3)

18.2%

(2)

100%

(11)

Other 100%

(1) (0) (0) (0) (0)

100%

(1)

OK 40 US

(2) (0)

21' W

(1) ;c;

••-0 r.%

12)

I3u*

is:
64

- 10 -

Table 3: Self-Reported Mail Response Behavior by Housing Type

BOTH SITES

Form Not

Received

Received

Not Oper

But

ed

Opened But

Not Started

Started But

Not Mailed

Mailed

Back Total

All Eligible

Households

38.6%

(97)

IS.IX

(38)

18.7%

(47)

14.7%

(37)

12.7%

(32)

100%

(251)

Single

Fam1ly

Dwelling

Unit

36.7%

(29)

•16.5%

(13)

20.2%

(16)

15.2%

(12)

11.4%

(9)

100%

(79)

Multi-unit

Structure

40.«

(65)

14.9%

(24)

17.4%

(28)

14.3%

(23)

13.0%

(21)

100%

(161)

Not Reported 27.21

(3)

9.1%

C)

27.2%

(3)

18.2%

(2)

18.2%

(2)

100%

(11)

JERSEY CITY

Form Not

Received

Received But

Not Opened

Opened But

Not Started

Started But

Not Mailed

Mailed

Back Total

All Eligible

Households

39.0%

(«1)

17.1%

(18)

21.9%

(23)

10.5%

(11)

11.4%

(12)

100%

(105)

Single

Family

Dwelling

Unit

38.9%

(1")

11.1%

(4)

25.0%

(9)

11.1%

(4)

13.9%

(5)

100%

(36)

MuHi-unit

Structure

39.71

(27)

20.6%

(W)

20.6%

(14)

8.8%

(6)

10.3%

(7)

100%

(681

Not Reported

(0) (0) (0)

100.0%

(1) (0)

100%

(1)

TAMPA

Form Not

Received

Received But

Not Opened

Opened But

Not Started

Started But

Not Mailed

Mailed

3ack Total

All Eligible

Households

38.4%

(56)

13.7%

(20)

16.4%

(24)

17.8%

(26)

13.7%

(20)

100%

(146)

Single

Family

Owelling

Unit

34.9%

(15)

20.9%

(9)

16.3%

(7)

18.6%

(8)

9.3%

(4)

100%

(43)

Multi-unit

Structure

40.9%

(38)

10.8%

(10)

15.1%

(14)

13.3%

(17)

15.1%

(H)

100%

(93)

Not Reported 30.0%

(3)

10.0%

(1)

30.0% '

(3)

10.0%

(1)

20.0%

(2)

100%

(10)
1/1

to

I

en

•• fB •' O

<t < (DC

a. -*• avi

IO O 10

m c 76

a> ••

-r -*.

O (£)

Ck. af -r f _.. wi m

•• (0 r> n> •

to < fl) c 3" -••

a. -* a t/> O <£) m o

n> C n> O. CT

i/i

** o 7* O 3C ••

3 3 (0 O •I

n o <

ro L* m

•fl> •. o m -<

n

Q. a. -*• a. w> O IQ

D rp C rt> a. cr

CD ••I ro 00

- ** «• u> r-*|

- -a -s

<« 3

so -n

<D O

Si

-00 ~-- CO

£? (t

» Cn t• -^J «-* -

SS I* o <

99 S9

~3 S•OP •* •

» •• ro •-•

w m

w. • 0J

0? ip

-•• a.

•«»• •-o ro c

~-~ o •Q •• ^

*4 »* *

8f!

r» c

• «*l »-• ««4

co of

III -..

• ••• '•CO •- 4k

00 cS

at -••

n •

~ -s ~s

<•* O «"» o •• o

O O L/l O i£> O

•- »« «- «4 l-O *« a* •«

O ••» o •o

«•"•« O to O OlO o o

o -• o •• o

«•. o u> o do

•• t* ox o **

ro o

in o
66

- 12 -

Table 5: Self-Reported Mall Return Behavior by Total Number of

Sources of Information about the Census

BOTH SITES

Form Not

Received

Received But

Not Ooened

Opened But

Not Started

Started But

Not Mailed

Mailed

Back Total

All Eligible

Households

38.61

(97)

15.lt

(38)

18.7%

(47)

14.7%

(37)

12.7%

(32)

100%

(251)

No Knowledge 41.8%

(•1)

14.3%

(14)

19.4%

(19)

11.2%

(in

13.3%

(13)

100%

(98)

1 source 38.H

(«) 14.3%

(16)

18.8%

(21)

15.2%

(17)

13.4%

(15)

100%

(112)

2 sources 29.01

(9)

19.4%

(6)

22.6%

(7)

19.3%

(6)

9.7%

(3)

100%

(31)

3+ sources 40.01

(4)

20.0%

(2) (0)

30.0%

(3)

10.0%

(1)

100%

(10)

JERSEY CITY

Form Not

Received

Received But

Not Opened

Opened But

Not Started

Started But

Not Mailed

Mailed

Back Total

All Eligible

Households

39 .OX

(41)

17.1%

(18)

21.9%

(23)

10.5%

(11)

11.4%

(12)

100%

(105)

No Knowledge 45.2%

(19)

16.7%

(7)

16.7%

(7)

9.5%

(4)

11.9%

(5)

100%

(42)

1 source 39.61

(21)

17.0%

(9)

22.6%

(12)

9.4%

(5)

11.3%

(6)

100%

(53)

2 sources 10.0%

(1)

20.0%

(2)

40.0%

(4)

20.0%

(2)

10.0%

(1)

100%

(10)

3* sources

(0) (0) (O) (0) (0)

100%

(0)

TAMPA

Form Not

Received

Received But

Not Opened

Opened But

Not Started

Started But

Not Mailed

Mailed

Back Total

All Eligible

Households

38.4%

(56)

13.7%

(20)

16.4%

(24)

17.8%

(26)

13.7%

(20)

100%

(146)

No Knowledge 39.3%

(22)

12.5%

(7)

21.4%

(12)

12.5%

(7)

14.3%

(8)

100%

(56)

1 source 37.3%

(22)

11.9%

(7)

15.3%

(9)

20.3%

(12)

15.3%

(9)

100%

(59)

2 sources 38.1%

(8)

19.0%

(4)

14.3%

(3)

19.0%

(4)

9.5%

(2)

100%

(21)

3+ sources 40.0%

(4)

20.0%

(2) (0)

30.0%

(3)

10.0%

(1)

100%

(10)
67

13

Table 6: Self-Reported Receipt Status

Definitely

Received

Possibly

Received

By Other

HH Member

12.7%

(32)

Not

Received

22.7%

(57)

Missing*

3.2%

(8)

Total

Both sites 61.4%

(154)

100%

(251)

Jersey City 61.0%

(64)

9.5%

(10)

27.6%

(29)

1.9%

(2)

100%

(105)

Tampa 61.6%

(90)

15.1%

(22)

19.2%

(28)

4.1%

(6)

100%

(146)

•Includes cases in which responses to determine presence of other household

members were not recorded, preventing classification into either "possibly

received by other household member" or "not received".
68

- 14 -

Table 7: Self-Reported Receipt Status by Housing Type

BOTH SITES

Definitely

Received

Possibly

Received

By Other

HH Member

15.2%

(12)

Not

Received

19.0%

(15)

Missing*

2.5%

(2)

Total

Single Family

Dwelling Unit

63.3%

(50)

100%

(79)

Multi-unit

Structure

59.6%

(96)

12.4%

(20)

24.2%

(39)

3.7%

(6)

100%

(161)

Missing 72.7%

(8) (0)

JERSEY

27.3%

(3)

CITY

(0)

100%

(11)

Definitely

Received

Possibly

Recei ved

By Other

HH Member

13.9%

(5)

Not

Received

22.2%

(8)

Missinq*

2.8%

(1)

Total

Single Family

Dwelling Unit

61.1%

(22)

100%

(36)

Multi-unit

Structure

60.3%

(41)

7.4%

(5)

30.9%

(21)

1.5%

(1)

100%

(68)

Missing 100%

(1) (0) (0) (0)

100%

(1)

TAMPA

Definitely

Received

Possibly

Received

By Other

HH Member

16.3%

(7)

Not

Received

16.3%

(7)

Missing*

2.3%

(1)

Total

Single Family

Dwelling Unit

65.1%

(28)

100%

(43)

Multi-unit

Structure

59.1%

(55)

16.1%

(15)

19.4%

(18)

5.4%

(5)

100%

(93)

Missing 70.0%

(7) (0)

30.0%

(3) (0)

100%

(10)

•Includes cases in which responses to determine presence of other household

members were not recorded, preventing classification into either "possibly

received by other household member" or "not received".
69

15 -

Table 8: Impressions of Envelope Appearance by •Re^poraterti '-Whr iliid

Not Report Receiving a Form in the Mail

Important Junk Mail Other SSL iWissing Total

Both sites 69.1%

(67)

16.5%

(16)

3JS 6.2% 5.1%

|S3

100%

(97)

Jersey City 70.7%

(29)

19.5%

(8) C<8

#.3tt *.9%

'(2)

100%

(41)

Tampa 67.9%

(38)

14.3%

(8)

5.4%

'(3) Ml

5.4%

(3)

100%

(56)

Table 9: Self-Reports of Opening the £r.)«lzipe Amomt) 'ripasaVDll'-ds Stat

Reported Receiving a form iti the Mail

Yes Tto OK Tntal

Both sites 75.3%

(116)

16V9%

(26)

7.8%

112)

3JS0S

U54)

Jersey City 71.9%

(46)

23.47.

(15)

4.7%

(3)

ES3%

<{54)

Tampa 77.8%

(70)

12.2%

(U)

10.0%

(9)

100%

1(90)
70

16 -

Table 10: Disposition Of Unopened Envelopes Among Households that

Reported Receiving a Form in the Mail

Save to Nothing;

someone Thrown Accidentally Left

to fill Lost Away Destroyed Unfilled Other OK Total

Both sites 2.61

(1)

10. St

(4)

21.0%

(8)

5.3*

(2)

36.81

(1»)

2.6*

(1)

5.3*

(2)

100*

(38)

Jersey City

(0)

5.61

(1)

22.21 11.IX

(2)

50.0*

(9) (0)

11.1*

(2)

1001

(18)

Taapa 5.0%

(1)

15.01

(3)

20.0%

M) W

25.0*

(5)

5.0*

(1) (0)

1001

(20)

Table 11: Reason For Not Opening The Envelope Among Households that

Reported Receiving a Form in the Mail

Looked

Like

Junk

Mail

Info. Is

None Of

The

Gov'ts.

Busn.

Never Got

Around To

It

Totally

Forgot

About It

Opposed

To

Surveys Other UK Missing Total

Both sites 7.9*

(3) (0)

34.2*

(13)

7.9*

(3) (0)

26.3*

(10)

13.1*

(5)

7.9*

(3)

1001

(38)

Jersey City 16.7

(3) (0)

33.3*

(«)

11.1*

(2) (0)

22.3*

w (0)

16.71

(3)

1001

(ie)

Tampa

"(0) (0)

35.0*

(7)

5.0*

(1) (0)

30.0*

(6)

25.0*

(5) (0)

1001

(20)
71

- 17 -

Table 12: Self-Reports of Starting to Fill Out the Form Among

Households that Reported Opening the Envelope

Yes No DK Total

Both sites 59.51

(69)

39.61

(46)

0.91

(1)

1001

(116)

Jersey City 50.01

(23)

47.8%

(22)

2.21

(1)

1001

(46)

Tampa 65.7%

(46)

34.3*

(24) (01

1001

(70)

Table 13: Disposition of Unstarted Forms Among Households that

Reported Opening the Envelope

Gave to

someone

to fill Lost

Thrown

Away

Accidentally

Destroyed

Nothing;

Left

Unfilled Missing Total

Both sites 8.51

(4)

12.81

(6)

12.81

(6)

10.61

(5)

55.31

(26)

4.21

(2)

1001

(47)

Jersey City 4.3

(1)

8.71

(2)

13.01

(3)

4.31

(1)

60.91

(14)

8.71

(2)

1001

(23)

Tampa 12.51

(3)

16.71

(4)

12.51

(3)

8.31

(4)

50.01

(12) (0)

1001

(24)
72

- 18 -

Table 14: Reasons For Not Starting to Fill Out the Form Among

Households that Reported Opening the Envelope

Looked

Too Hard

Would Take

Too Long

Looked

Like

Junk' Nail

Infor.

is None

of the

Gov'ts.

Busn.

Never

Got

Around

To It Forqot Other DK Total

Both sites 10.6%

(5)

4.2%

(2)

6.4%

(3)

2.1%

(1)

36.2%

(17)

6.4%

(3)

31.9%

(15)

2.1%

(1)

100%

(47)

Jersey City 4.3%

(1)

8.7%

(2)

4.3%

(1)

4.3%

(1)

52.2%

(12) (0)

26.1%

(6) (0)

100%

(23)

Tampa 16.7%

(4) (0)

8.3%

(2) (0)

20.8%

(5)

12.5%

(3)

37.5%

(9)

4.2%

(1)

100%

(24)

Table 15: Self-Reports of Hailing Back the Census Form Mallback Status

Among Households that Reported Starting to Fill out the Form

OK Total

Both sites 46.4%

(32)

49.3%

(34)

4.3%

(3)

100%

(69)

Jersey City 52.2%

(12)

39.1%

(9)

8.7%

(2)

100%

(23)

Tampa 43.5%

(20)

54.3%

(25)

2.2%

(1)

100%

(46)
73

- 19

TaDle 16: Perception Of Census Materials By Self-Reported Receipt Status

BOTH SITES

Total

Not Received

Received but

not opened

Opened but

not started

Total

Not Received

Received but

not opened

Opened but

not started

Total

Not Received

Received but

not opened

Opened but

not started

Looked Like

Junk Mail Other Total

12.6%

(22)

87.4

(152)

100%

(174)

' 17.4%

(16)

82.6%

(76)

100%

(92)

7.9%

(3)

92.1%

(35)

100%

(38)

6.8%

(3)

93.2%

(41)

100%

(44)

JERSEY CITY

Looked Like

Junk Mail Other Total

15.4%

(12)

34.6%

(66)

100%

(78)

25.6%

(8)

79.4%

(31)

100%

(39)

16.7%

(3)

83.3%

(15)

100%

(18)

4.8%

(1)

95.2%

(20)

100%

(21)

TAMPA

Looked Like

Junk Mail Other Total

10.4%

(10)

89.6%

(86)

100%

(96)

15.1%

(8)

84.9%

(45)

100%

(53)

(0)

100%

(20)

100%

(20)

8.7%

(2)

91.3%

(21) (23)
74

19«S

5/I^PL£

NONRESPONSE FOLLOWUP

SUPPLEMENT

1985 CENSUS

NOTICE • Response to thia inquiry !• raqulrad bv law itrtla 13. U.S.

Coda). Bv the (ami law. your report to the Centua Bureau it confidantlal

It may ba aeert ortty oy twom Census employees and may be utad only tor

Statistical purpotet. Tha law alto provides that copit* retained in your file*

are Immum from lag el precaia.

8. CO

I I I

b. IO

±_L Mil

J L_^ J L

f. Interviewer name 9* Assignment number

h. Outcome of this interview • Merit (XI ona bat

1 D Complete 2 G Partial i• Refusal

I. Outcome of enumerator's interview • Mark (XI one box

iD Complete 7 • Partial 3D Refuse)

1. War* you living her* on March 24,198$?

i n Ye* ft

2 • No - END INTERVIEW. SKIP to 'Jf and

complete without asking.

7 * Did anyone ever open the envelope?

i D Y*s - SKIP toll

3D No

»DDK

2 . A* far •• you know, did • certeue form com*to tMa

(houaa/apartmentl la at month•around tha 2 let?

i D Yea - SKIP to 7

• •OK

3 • Juat to be aura•did an anvelop* Ilka thia {Show envelope;

coma In th* mall recently?

iDYw- SKIP to 7

2D No

• DDK

8. As beet you can remember, whet happened to tha

form at that point?

1 D Gave to someone else to fill out

2 D Lost

3 D Thrown away

•(•Accidentally destroyed

sD Nothing; left unfilled

• D Other • Spmeify

«DDK

4 . Doae an envelop* Ilka this (Show envelope; look

Important or tike Junk mall to you 7

i D Important - SKIP to 6

2 D Junk mail

3 D Other • Specify

9D0K

9. Why didn't anyone open the anvelope r

1 D Looked like |unk mail • Continue with 10

10 Information is none of the gov'ti business

3 D Never got sround to it

4 G Totally forgot about it

5 D Opposed to surveys

sD Other - Spmi-ity

• DDK

• What le ft about the envelop* that (makee/could

make) ft look Ilka Junk mall to you ?

Mark (XI all that apply.

1 D Jet f arson villa return address

2 D Bulk rat* stamp

3 D Address label

* D Color

S D Print

e D Other - Specify

••OK

1 0. What la H about tha envelope that mad* K look Ilka

funk mall to you?

Mark (XI all that apply.

1D Jeffersonvilla return address

2 D BuiV rst* stamp

3D Address label

« D Color

i Q Prim

••Other - Specify

•GDK

6. le there aomeone alee who llvae her* who might

have ae«n th* envaiop* without your knowing It?

lol"} $K"'"'7

11. Did anyone alert to fill out tha form?

1 •Yes - SKIP to f4

2D No

BDOK

Pimaja TUftN page and continue. •
75

12. membar, wh«l happened to th*

i G Gave to lomtoni else to fill

I G Lost

3 G Thrown away

« G Accidentally destroyed

S G Nothing: left unfilled

« G Other - Specify •j

•GDK

13. Why didn't anyone etart to fill out the

i G Looked too herd

2 G Would take too long

3 G Looked like junk mail

» G Information is none of the

gov'U business

9 G Never got around to it

a G Totally forgot about it

TG Opposed to surveys

sC Census data had passed

IOO Other• Specify •»

SGDK

census form?

• COMPLETE FROM RESPONDENT'S ANSWERS

TO THE CENSUS ENUMERATOR

14. Did anyone m»il beck the form?

i G Yes - SKIP to 7 7

IGNO

• GDK

1 3. Whera have you seen ;. , j«rd thing* about :hi

eenaua?

Mark (XI all that sooty.

i G Newspaper

; l_J Magazine

3 G Radio

«GTV

5 O Poster/sign

e G Handout/flyers

TG At a meeting

IU People talking

loQOther - Specify •j

i G Oon't remember

1 9. Pace/Ethnicitv

i Q White, not Hispanic

3 G Black, not Hisparve

3 Q Spanish/Hispanic

4 G Asian, Pacific Islander

5 G American Indian

»GOK

20. Housing type

i G Single family dwelling unit

a G Muitiunit structure

15. As beet you can remember, what happened to the

. form at that point?

i G Save to somecne else to fill

3 G Gave to someone else to mail

3 G Lost

* Q Thrown away

3 G Accidentally destroyed

s G Nothing; left unfilled

. T G Riled, bu: not mailed

a Q Other • Specify ••

•GDK

1 6. Why didn't anyone mail back the census form?

1 G Too long

2 G Too herd

3 G Cidn't like the Questions

*Q Never heard of J'Ville, Ind. address

sC Problems with the return envelope

•G Other - Specify -,

tGOK

tQYes

3 Q No - END INTERVIEW, Compfeta items 13

through 22 by transcription.

21. Surname

9 G Not obtained in foilowup

22. Telephone number

9 G Not obtained in followuo
76

8A/85

QUESTION 12: What are the goals and objectives of your test census in

Mississippi?

ANSWER: Our main objective at the Mississippi site is to test new ways

for the Census Bureau to create and maintain address lists and

ensure accurate delivery of the questionnaires in rural areas

where some addresses have no house number or street name (such

as P.O. Box 4 or Frank Jones, Rural Route 2). First, the Census

Bureau will canvass the entire area to prepare an initial address

list. Next, the United States Postal Service (USPS) will check

the accuracy of that initial address list. The Census Bureau

will then reconcile the differences between Its list and the

USPS corrections. In half of the Mississippi site, the Census

Bureau will later do a further update of the address list and

then the questionnaires will be delivered by the USPS. In the

other half, the Census Bureau will deliver the questionnaires

itself and, at the same time, update the address list.

Other goals and objectives are to examine new techniques for automating questionnaire processing and management and control systems

using a combined district office/processing office configuration,

produce geographic products using a simulated TIGER system, test

new questions and wording and better design of the questionnaire

package, improve the Local Review Program, increase and improve

census promotion activities, and refine enumeration techniques for

American Indian reservations.
77

8/1/85

QUESTION 13: How many data entry machines will be used in the Mississippi

test? How much do these machines cost?

ANSWER: We are ordering 25 data entry stations for the Mississippi

test. Including printers, disks for data storage, and

other equipment needed with the data entry system the total

cost is about $85,000.
78

8/1/85

QUESTION 14: If this type of equipment is used 1n the 1990 census, how

many machines would be needed nationwide? What would be

the total cost for the equipment?

ANSWER: One cannot extrapolate from the number of stations ordered

for the Mississippi test to the number needed for the nation.

There are several reasons for this. First, this is our initial

try at a combined office with microcomputers. Second, we would

never expect to use this type of office throughout the United

States. Finally, we are still experimenting with timing requirements for various phases of enumeration and changes in these

requirements affect the number of machines required.

If this type of equipment is used to key the 1990 census, our

best estimates at this time are that the Census Bureau may need

from 14,000 to 21,500 stations. Using 1986 unit costs (and a

combination of rental and purchase), this equipment would cost

between $40 million and $65 million. Of course, we have other

equipment needs as well. (Also, one should keep in mind that

the minimum number of key stations we would need even if we used

F0SD1C or 0MR is 6,000 to 8,000.)
79

8/1/85

QUESTION 15: Would you provide the subcommittee with copies of the Census

Bureau's proposed test census questionnaires for both Los Angeles

and Mississippi?

ANSWER: As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, the Office

of Management and Budget (0MB) is now reviewing the proposed

Los Angeles and Mississippi test census questionnaires for

clearance. We will be glad to supply Subcommittee staff with

the draft questions. We should point out that, even if 0MB

approves these questions for the 1986 test census questionnaires,

this does not mean they will be included on the 1990 questionnaire.
80

8/1/85

QUESTION 16: Are any of your test census or other activities specifically

designed to find ways to reduce the size of the labor force

which census employed In 1980?

ANSWER: Many future test census activities are aimed at reducing the

large temporary labor force in the district offices while

improving the quality of census data. These activities include:

0 Automating check-In and edit procedures, map production and

cost and progress reporting, and other operations which were

done clerically 1n 1980.

* A publicity campaign which, coupled with the mail reminder

cards, will focus on maintaining or increasing the mail return

rates. An increase in mail return rate will potentially

decrease the need for a large temporary workforce to follow-up

on nonrespondents.

0

Improved productivity through using telephone follow-up rather

than personal visit for households that either did not mail in

their questionnaire or that did not complete the questionnaire

correctly.

• Improved productivity can also be achieved through better

training along with a bonus pay method which will enable us

to maintain an adequate workforce.
81

8/1/85

QUESTION 17: What was the cost of training this temporary work force in

1980? Do you have any cost projections for 1990 for this

activity?

ANSWER: In 1980, some 460,000 persons were hired to work in the

collection phase of the census with about 210,000 at the

peak of activities in April and May. In many instances,

training for operations was on-the-job training and the

cost cannot be segregated from office salaries. For some

of the large operations, however, we do have the following

training costs (in 1980 dollars):

Training

Edit

Nonresponse Follow-Up

Telephone Follow-Up

Special Place Enumeration

Cost

$ 2.4 million

$12.2 million

$ 7.6 mil lion

$ 2.8 million

At this time, we have not projected 1990 training costs for

specific district office operations. These costs will depend,

to some extent, on the degree of automation in the district

offices and the automation scenario we choose in the fall

of 1986.

QUESTION 18: Will these people be paid by the hour or by the piece? Has

this decision been made? When?

ANSWER: That decision has not been made yet, although we are currently

examining alternative methods of pay for temporary district

office employees. We expect to make a decision on this issue

by July of 1987.
8/1/85

QUESTION 19: Will you be able to hire local people with knowledge of each

community to facilitate the Census Bureau's efforts?

ANSWER: Yes, the Census Bureau's policy on this issue is to hire

individuals that are indigenous to a given area since these

individuals bring first-hand knowledge of their communities

to the enumeration process. In 1980, and in the 1985 tests,

we were generally successful at accomplishing this goal. We

are currently examining alternative recruiting sources and

methods for 1990 such as increasing publicity efforts and

extensive contact with various community-based organizations

to increase our chances of satisfying this goal in areas where

we have hiring problems.

QUESTION 20: What do you anticipate the cost of automation for the

1990 census to be?

ANSWER: We cannot answer that question specifically at this time

because plans are not yet finished. We can give some

general cost estimates for major aspects of automation such

as concurrent collection and processing or, in other words,

processing the census while enumerators are in the field.

At present, we estimate that the equipment needed to process

the census while enumerators are in the field will cost

between $70 million and $140 million (1985 dollars). These

estimates are based on a combination of estimates and 1986 test

census contract costs. Our current outyear ADP budget requests

are at the low end of this spectrum, and may be revised upward

later after decisions are made and technical uncertainties reduced.
83

8/1/85

QUESTION 22: If the automation plans are put in place by early 1987, wouldn't

the role of Congress in reviewing proposed census questionnaires

for subject in April 1987 and for question wording in April 1988

be severely limited, since any changes we recommend may disrupt

or delay the automation plan?

ANSWER: No. Unless the changes are massive (for example, requiring a large

number of questions with write-in responses), any changes could be

accommodated within the planned automation framework. Given the

fact that, through its ongoing oversight process, the Congress will

be reviewing and advising on both our automation plans and our

content plans, there will be ample opportunity for Congress to make

recommendations early.

QUESTION 21: In your statement you discuss the difficulty of automating

the recording of open-ended questions (that is, written

answers by respondents). Why do you have to ask questions

which require written answers?

ANSWER: Written entries are requested from respondents when the number

of possible responses are so numerous they cannot be listed on

the questionnaire. For example, in 1980 written entries were

required in the race item so that American Indians could identify

their tribal affiliations (over 400 possibilities).
84

8/1/85

QUESTION 23: Are you planning to adjust the final 1990 census count?

What are your cost projections for employing adjustment

procedures?

ANSWER: At this point, we do not know if we will recommend to the

Congress that the 1990 census count be adjusted. Ideally,

coverage in the 1990 census would be so good as to render

academic the issue of whether to adjust counts. Such an ideal

is unlikely to occur. We have embarked on a two-pronyed

strategy. On one front, we will try to improve the coverage

provided by the basic census counts. At the same time, we will

work to improve our methods of measuring coverage. Before the

census, we will establish a specific set of criteria that will

determine when and if the deficiencies of the counts will necessitate adjustment, and whether or not there is a statistically

acceptable procedure to adjust the counts to correct small area

deficiencies.

At that point (mid-1988), the Census Bureau will make its

recommendation to the Congress. Should the Census Bureau

recommend that we adjust census counts, and the Congress concur,

we estimate that the implementation of adjustment would cost as

much as $25 million. Implementation of adjustment will include

increased size of an evaluation sample to measure accuracy and

the specific actions that the Census Bureau will take after

measuring the accuracy of the census counts to adjust the census

count down to the block level.
85

8/1/85

QUESTION 24: If adjustments are used, will you make available to the Congress

the adjusted as well as the raw count?

ANSER: At this time, we do not know the answer to this question. The

answer is dependent on several factors -- our ability to develop

a reliable method to measure census coverage, our ability to

implement an adjustment technique in time to meet the legally

mandated delivery date for apportionment and redistricting counts,

and the opinion of data users, particularly the Congress. We are

concerned about the publication of two sets of official counts,

but we may not be able to adjust apportionment and redistricting

counts (even if we wanted to) in time to meet legal mandates. In

any case, if we adjust the figures, we will provide information on

how the adjusted counts were obtained.

QUESTION 25: I understand the importance of residency rules, (whom you count

and where you count them) and the difficulty in counting "mobile"

people such as students, vacationers, illegal aliens, people living

overseas, and others. Has the Census Bureau determined these rules

for 1990? If so, what are they?

ANSWER: As yet, we have not made final decisions on 1990 residency rules.

We are considering modifications to the 1980 rules in three areas:

enumeration of Americans overseas, naval personnel on ships, and

boarding school students. We will make the final Census Bureau

recommendations known to the Congress by this fall. By January

of 1987, in order to proceed with other detailed preparations, we

must decide the final residence rules. For your information, a

copy of 1980 residence rules is attached.
86

ATTACHMENT

1980 DECENNIAL CENSUS RESIOENCE RULES

College students•College students were counted as residents of the area in

which they were living while attending college, as they have been since 1950.

Children in boarding school below the college level were counted at their

parental home.

Citizens abroad•Americans who were overseas for an extended period (whether

in the Armed.Forces, working at a civilian job, going to school, retired,

and so forth) were not enumerated in the 1980 census. Counts of Armed Forces

and Federal civilian employees and dependents overseas were obtained from the

Department of Defense and the Office of Personnel Management but were not

used in the census. Americans who were temporarily abroad, on a vacation or

business trip, for example, were counted at their usual residence in the

United States.

Members of the Armed Services•Members of the Armed Forces living on a military

installation were counted, as in every previous census, as residents of the

area 1n which the installation was located. Armed Forces personnel not living

on a military installation were counted as residents of the area 1n which they

were living.

Each Navy ship was attributed to the municipality that the Department of the

Navy designated as its homeport, except for those ships which were deployed

to the 6th or 7th Fleet on Census Day. As was done in the 1970 census, naval

personnel aboard deployed ships were defined in the 1980 census as part of the

overseas population, because deployment to the 5th or 7th Fleet implies a

long-term assignment.

In homeports with fewer than 1,000 naval personnel assigned to ships, the

crews were counted aboard the ship. In homeports with 1,000 or more naval

Personnel assigned to ships, the naval personnel who indicated that they had

a usual residence within 50 miles of the hcmeport of their ship were attributed

to that residence.

when a homeport designated by the Navy was contained 1n more than one municipality, ships homeported and berthed there on Census Day were assigned by the

Bureau of the Census to the municipality in which the land immediately adjacent

to the dock or pier was actually located. Other ships attributed by the Navy

to that homeport, but which were not physically present and not deployed to

the 5th or 7th Fleet on Census Oay, were allocated to the municipality named

on the Navy's homeport 11st.

Persons with two homes•The decision as to which of two Residences to indicate

as "usual'' is generally left to the individual involved. If the person is not

sure which residence to indicate as usual, the person is instructed to indicate

the residence in which he or she spends the greater part of the year.
87

Page 2

Persons with two homes were not, per se separately Identified in the census.

However, counts of persons staying in housing units occupied entirely by

persons with a usual residence elsewhere were published in PC80-S1-6.

(Persons staying 1n the house of a "permanent" resident were not included

1n the report, nor were persons staying in hotels, motels, or campgrounds.)

Members of Congress•Members of the U.S. Congress were sent a letter asking

whether they wished to be enumerated as of their Washington residence or

their home state address. This was simply a formal extension of our usual

treatment of persons with two homes and not a unique residence rule.

Aliens, regardless of whether documented•Citizens of foreign countries

having their usual residence (legally or illegally) in the United States on

Census Day were included in the 1980 census enumeration. The only noncitizens

excluded were those temporarily visiting or traveling in the United States

or living on the premises of an embassy or consulate. There were no census

questions which dealt with visas, visa type, or other documentation.

Transients•Persons in hotels, motels, etc., on the night of March 31, 1980

were requested to fill out a census form, if they indicated that no one was

at their usual residence to report them in the census. This information was

then sent to the district office in which that residence was located. Persons

who indicated they had no usual residence other than where they were staying

were enumerated as of that place.

Street people•Although we did not separately identify "street people" as

such in 1980 census publications, there were procedures designed to ensure

their enumeration in the census. Two operations in particular were geared

towards the enumeration of low-income transient persons: the M-n1ght

operation and the casual count operation. The M-night operation held on

April 3th, was the night on which enumerators visited places such as flophouses, missions, and other places providing accommodations for $4 or

less per night. Persons enumerated 1n the M-n1ght operation were assumed

to have no other residence and were enumerated where located on M-n1ght.

The casual count operation was designated to enumerate low income transient

persons who might have been missed in other census operations. In certain

cities, persons at such places as employment offices, bus and train stations

(1f not covered in M-night), welfare offices, and certain street corners,

were approached by teams of enumerators who asked whether the person had

been counted In the census. If they Indicated they had not been counted

and had no usual residence, these persons were counted as of the casual

count operation location.
88

8/1/85

QUESTION 26: How did the Census Bureau count our overseas military personnel

1n 1980? Does the Census Bureau plan to include our overseas

military personnel in the count for 1990?

ANSWER: In 1970, Americans overseas were enumerated partly through the

use of an Overseas Census Report (a questionnaire) and partly by

administrative records. In 1980, we used the administrative

counts only for the military and Federal civilian employees and

their dependents. We are currently considering whether to enumerate the overseas population directly by questionnaire in 1990.

The alternative is to use only administrative records.

Although the overseas population has generally been counted. It

has generally not been included in the apportionment counts. The

overseas population will be considered in Congressional reapportionment or state redistricting only if Congress so directs. There

are, of course, numerous problems in assigning an overseas resident

to a state and it would be nearly impossible to accurately assign

the overseas population to sub-state residency.
8/1/85

QUESTION 27: Since the 1990 census may be highly automated and computerized,

could you tell us what steps you are taking to ensure that the

data collected in 1990 will be handled in a way that guards

against any violation of the public's privacy?

ANSWER: The Census Bureau will establish systems that will continue

to guarantee the confidentiality of census data and a clear

and consistent policy for the transmission of confidential

data through various levels of the system. We are examining

devices that may be used to avoid the theft of software and

hardware and prevent physical access as well as system access

to the equipment and files. Our mainframe computers are not

accessible by telephone lines from outside. We will limit

putting personal data on floppy disks since it is very easy to

steal or copy a disk. The computer storage media will be in

a physically secured area accessible only to those employees

responsible for them. Access to office sites will be carefully

controlled. System access will be controlled by the use of a

software system using unique identification numbers and passwords

1n conjunction with some state-of-the-art hardware, such as

devices to identify fingerprints, magnetic badges, and so forth.

Types of communications security include the use of dedicated

lines and encryption devices.

Senator COCHRAN. The hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, the subcommittee was recessed, subject to the call

of the Chair.]

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

'*'.» o« '

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of the Census

Washington. DC 20233

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR

FACT SHEET

Illegal Aliens and the Decennial Censuses

According to the Constitution, the decennial census is based on all persons:

o Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution, as amended by the Fourteenth

Amendment, specifically provides that "Representatives shall be apportioned

among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting

the whole number of.persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."

0 The most recent review of this issue by a court occurred in connection with

the 1980 census. The Three-Judge District Court opinion in Federation for

American Immigration Reform v. Klutznick says "It [the ConstitutionJ requires

the counting of the 'whole number of persons' for apportionment purposes, and

while illegal aliens were not a component of the population at the time the

Constitution was adopted, they are clearly 'persons'." [D.C.D.C. (1980)

486 F. Supp. 561] The appellate court affirmed the opinion; the Supreme

Court denied plaintiffs' request to review the decision. Relevant parts

of the District Court opinion are attached.

o During the 1931 debates in Congress concerning whether Congress should pass

legislation excluding aliens in the census, the Congressional Legislative

Counsel's Office concluded that such legislation would be unconstitutional.

[71 Cong. Rec. pp. 1821-1822] (This is referenced in the attached opinion.)

It was determined that "persons" as used in the Fourteenth Amendment and in

the basic Constitution meant all persons without exclusion. This conclusion

was drawn after a detailed analysis of the history of the Constitution and

the use of basic legal analysis.

o During a discussion in April 1940 on the floor of the House on the inclusion

of aliens. Congressman Emanual Cellar said "The Constitution says that all

persons shall be counted.... The only way we can exclude then would be to

pass a constitutional amendment." [86 Cong. Rec. 4372 (1940)] (The full

quote is shown in the attached opinion.)

o The Supreme Court addressed the requirement that apportionment of the House

of Representatives was to be based on total inhabitants. "The debates at

the Convention make at least one fact abundantly clear: that when the

delegates agreed that the House should represent 'people' they intended

that in allocating Congressmen the number assigned to each State should be

determined solely by the number of State's inhabitants. The Constitution

embodied Edmund Randolph's proposal tor a periodic census to ensure 'fair

representation of the people,' an idea endorsed by Mason as assuring that

'number of inhabitants' should always be the measure of representation in

the House of Representatives."" LWestberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 13 (1964)]

(Footnotes omitted, underscoring added.)

(91)
92

By law [Title 13, United States Code], the Congress requires the tabulation of

total population:

o From 1790 to the present, Congress has recognized that the total population

was to be included in the decennial census. The First Decennial Census

Act, adopted in 1790, says: "Be it enacted, that every person whose usual

place of abode shall be in any family on the aforesaid first Monday in August

next shall be returned as of such family."

o The current wording, "the tabulation of the total population by States",

was contained in the amendment to Title 13 passed by Congress on June 18,

1929. [46 Stat. 21]

The Census Bureau conducts the decennial census as mandated by the Constitution and

directed by the Congress:

o The decennial census is based on total population. The Census Bureau does

not exclude persons because of their legal status.

Attachment

Program and Policy Development Office

July 18, 1985

Opinion, Federation for American

Immigration Reform v. Klutznick

' -20- (D.C.O.C. 1980, 486 F Supp. 564)

Furthermore, at Jc.-.st XT. lit- ri=tr*:t, olii.ntiJ.fr:

case appears to be very weak on the merits. The language of thcCcnstitution is not ambiguous. It requires the counting of the

"whole number of persons" for apportionment purposes, and while

illegal aliens were not a component of the population at the time

the Constitution was adopted, they are clearly "persons." By taking

express provision for Indians and slaves, the Framers denonstratec

their awareness that without such provisions, the language chosen

would be all-inclusive. According to James Madison, the apportionment was to be "founded on the aggregate nur.ber of inhabitants" cf

each state. The Federalist, No. 54, at 369 (J. Cooke ed. 19C1), The

Framers must have been aware that this choice of words would include

women, children, bound servants, convicts, the insane -- and aliens,

since the same article of the Constitution grants Congress the pever

"to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Art. I, section B,

cl. 4. V.'e see little on which to base a conclusion that illeral

aliens should now be excluded, simply because persons with their

legal status were not an element of our population at the tine our

Constitution was written.
93

The defendants' interpretation of the constitutional

language is bolstered by two centuries of consistent interpretation.

The Census Bureau has always attempted to count every person residing

in a state on census day, and the population base for purposes of

apportionment has always included all persons, including aliens

both lawfully and unlawfully within our borders. The issue of

the inclusion of aliens in the apportionment base has received

explicit congressional attention, both at the time of the adoption

of the fourteenth amendment and more recently. See, e.g., Cong.

Globe, 39th. Cong., 1st Sess. 359 (1866) (remarks of Rep. Conkling) .

Although the language "the whole number of persons" finally

adopted in the fourteenth amendment is identical to the original

choice of words in Article 1, section 2, other options were considered and expressly rejected, after considerable debate, including

the options of "voters" or "citir.ens." While, as a political

matter, the reason seems to have been that any change would have

diluted the power of the New England States which had a large

number of women and aliens ineligible to vote, see Van Alstyne, ;ha

Fourteenth Amendment. The "P.icht* to Vote, and The Lnderstar.Lirg o;

The Thirty-Kinth Congress. 1965 S. Ct. Rev. 33 (1965), it was also

pointed out during debate that the "non-voting classes" have a

vital interest in the conduct of the Government. Cong. Globe, 39th

Cong., 1st Sess. 141 (1866) (remarks of Rep. Blaine) . In any case,,

it appears indisputable that Congress was aware of the all-inclusive

scope of the language i;. was adopting.

During the first half of this century, a variety of

proposals were made to exclude aliens from the apportionment base,

and it appears to have been generally acceDted that such a result

1*/ would require a constitutional amendment. See, for exa-.ple, the

1929 advice from the legislative counsel for the Senate, concluding

that statutory exclusion of aliens from the apportionment base

would be unconstitutional. 71 Cong. Rec. 1821 (1929). In 1940,

in the course of debate of the same issue, the subject of illegal

aliens was raised. Asked whether "aliens who are in this country

in violation of law have the right to be counted and represented,"

Representative Celler of New York responded:
94

The Constitution says that all persons shall

be counted. I cannot quarrel with the founding

fathers. They said that all should be counted.

He count the convicts who are just as dangerous

and just as bad as the Comunists or as the

Nazis, as those aliens here illegally, and I

vould not come here and have.the temerity to say

that the convicts shall be excluded, if the

founding fathers say they shall be included.

The only way we can exclude them would be to

pass a constitutional amendment.

86 Cong. Rec. 4372 (1940). The proposal to exclude aliens from

the population base wt-.s rejected.

15/ See, e.g., H.J. Res. 20, 71st Cong., 1st Sess. (1929); H.J. Res.

97, 72d Cor.g., 1st Sere. (1932).
95

MAKING DECISIONS ABOUT THE 1990 CENSUS

Daniel Melnick

Specialist in American National Government,

Government Division

Congressional Research Service

July 16, 1985

TIMETABLE FOR DECISION

Introduction

Although census day is more than 5 years -from now, key decisions about the 1990 census' content, coverage, procedures and

reports wi 11 be made be-fore the end o-f the 99th Congress. Practical considerations will make it increasingly difficult to

change the selected strategy a-fter the beginning o-f 1987.

Members who would like to have an impact on the plans for the

census might best -formulate their proposals in light of the long

lead times that are required to implement changes in modern

census techniques.
96

This report analyses the major issues that the Census

Bureau, the Congress and the Nation will -face in choosing

procedures to meet the need -for an accurate census. It reviews

the timetable -for decision making, highlights decisions that

affect concerns Members of Congress have expressed in the past,

and explains the constraints upon changes made shortly before

census day.

B. Sources

This report is based on information provided by the Bureau

o-f the Census1, as wel 1 as material suppl ied by the National

Academy of Sciences' Committee on National Statistics3. We also

relied on the reports of statisticians who work at numerous

universities as wel1 as testimony presented at congressional

*« We would particularly like to thank Peter Bounpane, Bruce

Johnson and Barbara Bailar.

a

. see Citro, Constance F.and Michael L. Cohen, eds.

Methodology for the Bicentennial Census: New Directions in 1990.

Washington, National Academy Press. 1985. in press.
97

CRS-4

hearings3. Papers presented at the 1985 meeting of the American

Association -for the Advancement o-f Science were also consulted1*.

C. Activities to Date

Census Bureau planners began working on the 1990 census two

years ago. Field tests o-f new and old procedures were held

during the spring o-f 1985 in Tampa, Florida and Jersey City, New

Jersey. More pretests &re planned in 1986 and 1987. A -full

dress rehearsal will be held in 1988.

Because o-f the need to test each procedure under circumstances that are as close as possible to an actual census,

inclusion o-f an alternative procedure in a test greatly increases

the likelihood that it may be selected -for the actual census.

Omission o-f an alternative makes it very unlikely that it will be

included in the census.

A committee o-f experts at the National Academy o-f Sciences

CNAS3 has reviewed the progress made to dates. The General

3

. U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Post 0-f-fice and

Civil Service. Subcommittee on Census and Population. Adjustment

Procedures for Census Undercount Used in 1980 Census. Hearings,

98th Cong., 2nd Sess., April 5,13,23, 1984. Washington, U.S.

Govt. Print Off., 1984.

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Post Office and Civil

Service. Subcommittee on Census and Population. Overview of the

Census Bureau. Hearing, 99th Cong.,1st Sess. April 18, 1985.

Washington, U.S. Govt. Print Off., 1985.

*. Benjamin King. Sampling in the Decennial Census, paper

prepared -for presentation at the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. May 1985. see also D.A.

Freedman and W.C. Navidi. Regression Models for Adjusting the

1980 Census. Technical Report No. 35 Department of Statistics.

University of California. Berkeley. December 1984.

a

. Citro and Cohen.

52-631 0-85-5
98

CRS-5

Accounting Office has presented testimony and also issued several

reports on the Bureau 's plans**. In 1982, at the request of the

Senate Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Energy, Nuclear

Prol i-feration and Governmental Processes, CRS held a conference

o-f about 100 experts to consider the issues pertinent to the

planning -for the 1990 census

7

. Census Bureau staff have also

held numerous public and private meetings with citizens, government agencies and business leaders0

. The Bureau and the Office

o-f Management and Budget have initiated a series o-f interagency

committees to promote the exchange o-f information among Executive

branch agencies.

D. Summary of the Timetable for Decisions

Decisions concerning the census will be made throughout the

next several years. Five major milestones can be identified.

Below we list them showing the dates when the Census Bureau

currently believes it must make its final recommendations

regarding each one. ^Highlights of the decisions to be made are

*« U.S. General Accounting Office- A $4 Billion Census in

1990? Timely Decisions on Alternatives to 1980 Procedures Can

Save Millions; Report to the Congress by the Comptroller General

of the United States. GGD-82-13,Feb.22,1982. Washington, 1982.

T

. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Governmental Affairs.

Subcommittee on Energy, Nuclear Proliferation and Government

Processes. Federal Statistics and National Needs. Committee

Print, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print Off.,

1984. (Prepared by the Congressional Research Service)

•« for example see, U.S. Bureau of the Census. Stakeholders'

Conference on Public Law 94-171 Program. October 1983.
99

CRS-6

also included. A more complete discussion of the issues f ol lows

in Part 11 o-f this report. 3

CRS-7

Each mi lestone marks a major turning point in census

planning and implementation. The deadlines pertain to:

1. Procedures and Content Included in the Pretests.

I September 19853

Any important innovations should be included in a

pretest where they can be compared to alternatives. The Bureau has already decided on the

detailed plan -for its 1986 pretests. Planning for

1987 is under way. The Bureau will decide upon

the location and subjects o-f the 1987 tests by

September 1985. Once these tests are fixed, it

will be difficult to propose major new changes in

census procedure or content.

The Automation Plan.

CSeptember 19863

Many of the planned procedures and improvements

will require advanced automation equipment. The

efficiency and success o-f the Bureau's plan will

depend upon this effort. When automation alterna•

tives are selected, some procedures will be

•foreclosed -for the 1990 census. The Census Bureau

plans to select its automation procedures by

September, 1986 and al1ow the Commerce Department

3 months to approve them. The significance o-f

this deadl ine -for Congress lies not in the

exceedingly technical matter of which automation

scheme to adopt, but rather in the other issues

that will be foreclosed by the selection. For

example, if the Bureau's plan calls for checking

census returns against lists of persons with

drivers licenses, the automation plan will have to

include provisions to enter the name of each

person enumerated into a computer file. If the

automation equipment purchased is not adequate for

this procedure it cannot be included in the final

plan.
100

CRS-8

The Dress Rehearsal

[Fall, 19863

The 1988 drees rehearsal will be a -full scale test

of the procedures that will be used in 1990. All

computer programming, data collection, and

•valuation procedures will be included in this

test in addition to the usual dry run of the

field and office procedures. The Bureau also

plans to simulate an adjustment of the counts and

report adjusted as well as raw results. Without

causing major disruptions in census procedures,

only minor changes can be made between the

dress rehearsal and the census. To allow for a

full test, printing and preparation of materials

must begin by the spring of 1987. Consequently,

the decisions about the procedures and questions

to be included in the 1988 dress rehearsal must be

made by the end of 1986.

4. The Final Questionnaire and Procedures.

CSeptember, 19B8]

Early in 1989, the questionnaire will be sent to

the printer and instructions to the temporary

census workers will be prepared. At that point,

all of the important procedures and questionnaire

content will have been decided. Changes in

procedure or question wording after this date will

lead to major dislocations in the process that

could slow the delivery of results or force

increased costs or cancellation of parts of the

Bureau's plan.

3. The Presentation of the Results Including Imputation and Adjustment.

[December 31, 19901

Under current law [section 141 of Title 13], the

Bureau is required to present the figures to be

used in reapportionment on December 31, 1990. By

this time, it must complete the compilation of

counts for each State. Because of the need to

maintain consistency, the counts for parts of

States and very small areas called 'blocks' will

also be compiled at the same time. Decisions

about corrections in the data [imputations], and
101

CRS-9

any statistical adjustment must be made in time to

meet this deadline.

While the Bureau has apparently already decided

that same -form of imputation will be used in 1990,

it is still considering whether to adjust the

numbers based on its coverage evaluation. Current

plans call -for the staff to prepare two versions

o-f the count • one with adjustment and the other

without it. The Director would receive these

shortly be-fore December 31, 1990. He would

decide at that time which set to certify based on

criteria that will be adopted in 1989 after

extensive consultation with the public and

Congress.
102

CRS-10

Each of these milestones depends upon the completion of

research and testi ng. Each must be made early enough to avoi d

disturbing the whole procedure. Each rests upon the completion

o-f the previous ones.

If congressional action is to be effective in promoting a

more accurate and useful census, it must come well before the

Bureau's deadlines which were established to allow the Bureau

time to implement decisions.

The rest of this paper discusses the timing of previous

censuses' decisions, provides background information about the

census and explains the implications of the timetable for

congressional consideration of the issues.

E- History of Decision Making

Some previous censuses were altered in the last 12 months

before they began. Until 1940, census planning occurred during

the last year before the census. Changes were made in the

questionnaire for the 1970 census after the printer had begun

producing millions of forms. In 1980, Members of Congress

advocated changes in the census procedure as late as one month

before census day. Hearings were held, but no further action was

taken. Full consideration of these proposals was not possible.

In testimony at the time, the Director of the Census Bureau cited
103

CRS-ll

the disruption that would be caused by proposals that otherwise

might have been adopted i-f they had been o-f-fered earlier'*'.

F. Longer Lead Times in 1990

Demands for more timely and accurate results have led the

Bureau to adopt a plan -for 1990 that requires earlier -field work

than in previous censuses. This has advanced the time when

procedures will be decided and introduced longer periods for

preparation prior to census day.

Users increasingly demand more precise census data.

They ask for more information about smaller groups of people.

The census is uniquely suited to col leeting information about

rare groups. For example, it provides the most detailed information about persons over age 90, those living in small towns,

sparsely populated areas, and city neighborhoods, CThere are too

few of them included in any sample survey of the general population to provide useful data.1

In 1976, the Census Act (Title 13 of the U.S. Code) was

amended to require the Bureau to issue population estimates of

9

. U.S. Congress. Senate, Committee on Governmental Affairs.

Subcommittee on energy, Nuclear Proliferation, and Federal

Services- 1980 Census : Counting Illegal Aliens. Hearing on

S.2366 96th Cong.,2nd Sess., March 26, 1980. Washington, U.S.

Govt. Print Off., 1980.

U.S, Congress. House. Commi ttee on Government Operations.

Commerce, Consumer and Monetary Affairs Subcommittee. Problems

with the 1980 Census. Hearing, 96th Cong., 2nd Sess., March IB,

1980. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980.
104

CRS-12

all governmental units every two years

10

. O-f the more than

39,000 entities, the majority have -fewer than 2500 people.

Experience with this estimates program has shown that other

sources a-f in-formatian may not be as good as census results for

these smaller governmental units. For example, the Bureau's

evaluation shows that -far a large proportion o-f these small

places, the 1970 census results were better indicators o-f

the 1980 population than its current estimates1x.

More sophisticated data collection procedures and more

power-ful and -flexible computers make it possible to respond to

these demands. To take -ful 1 advantage o-f these advances, the

Census Bureau plans to begin the actual census activities two

years be-fore census day. 0-fficials at the Census Bureau hope

that with careful planning, hard work and luck the 1990 census

could not only be more accurate than its predecessors, it could

be more e-f-ficient • costing less -for a given amount o-f accuracy.

The utility o-f census results could be increased by compiling,

editing and publ ishing the in-for mat ion more quickly.

Achieving each o-f these goals requires an early agreement on

the procedures to be implemented so that the Bureau will be le-ft

10

. Public Law 94-521

1 x

. David Galdi. Evaluation o-f 19B0 Subcounty Population

Estimates. Current Population Reports. Population Estimates and

Projections. Series p-25, No. 963. Department o-f Commerce.

Bureau o-f the Census. 19B5.
105

CRS-13

with enough time to test each procedure and position its resources to take maximum advantage o-f the avai 1 able efficiencies.

G. The Congressional Schedule for Considering Census Plans

Congressional review of the Bureau's plans occurs annually

in connection with the Bureau's request for appropriation.

Section 11 of USC Title 13 provides the Bureau with an open-ended

authorization. Oversight timing is left to the discretion of the

relevant committees and subcommittees [The House Census Subcommittee, the House Government Operations Subcommittee on

Commerce, Consumer, and Monetary Affairs, and the Senate Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Energy, Nuclear Proliferation, and

Government Processes have held hearings during the last decade on

decennial census plans,3

Section 141 of Title 13 requires the Bureau to report on the

topics it is considering including on the census in 1987 and the

question wording in 1988. During the 1970s', these points were

used to examine the rationale for including questions. Subsequently, changes in question wording, content and census procedures were then made12

.

1=

. U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Post Office and

Civil Service. Subcommittee on Census and Population. 1980

Census. Hearings, 95th Cong., 1977.

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Post Office and Civil

Servi ce. Subcommi ttee on Census and Populat i on. Di scussi on of

i960 Census Procedure. Hearing, 95th Cong., 2nd Sess., March 21,

1978- Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1978.
106

CRS-15

If the Bureau s plans for 1990 are adhered to, this timetable Mould have to be advanced. Key dates [such as the

deadline -for inclusion of material in the dress rehearsal, and

the deadl ine -for spec i-f ying the automation plan] precede scheduled congressional consideration.

II. ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

This section reviews some o-f the issues that are likely to

arise during the consideration of the plans for the 1990 census.

It is not intended to be exhaustive but concentrates on some o-f

the issues that have come up during past consideration o-f

decennial census pians.

A. To What Extent Should the 1990 Census Re-flect Past

Procedure as Opposed to New Innovations?

The 1990 census will draw upon the experience gained in 200

years o-f census taking. Some observers believe that proven

methods should be used because with U.S. censuses only.taken once

in 10 years, there is limited opportunity -for correcting mistakes. They argue -for the value o-f retaining comparablity by

•following known procedures.

Others say that a cautious approach limits the Bureau's

options in responding to changing demands. They cite the

controversies surrounding previous censuses, technical advances

in data gathering and improved processing procedures as wel1 as

the changing conditions of the Nation.

1. Arguments for Continuity

Statisticians are usually cautious about changing past

census procedures. They are concerned that innovations will fail

unless they are tested under the unique operational circumstances
107

CRS-17

that prevail while taking a census. It is the only governmental

activity that attempts to include every person and every dwelling

in the Nation. It requires a campaign to reach more than

100 mi 11 i on househol ds and obtai n i n -for mat i on -from each one.

A large staff of temporary workers must be hired, trained

and set to their tasks in a short period o-f time- CMost receive

low wage^j. ] These workers constitute the government's -front line

forces charged wi th convi nc i ng someti mes reluctant householders

to comply with the request -far information.

With only one opportunity to try out changes every 10 years,

a high risk that changes will lead to -failure, and little chance

o-f being able to repeat -flubbed procedures, census planners have

traditionally erred on the side of caution.

Another frequently raised argument is that changes in census

procedure can reduce the utility of the results by making them

less comparable with previous censuses. Many statistical and

demographic procedures rely on the consistency between censuses.

For example, demographic estimates of the undercount are based

partly on a comparison of current census data with past data.

Similarly, the population estimates that the Bureau prepares in

the years between censuses rely on the consistency of results

from one census to another.
108

CRS-18

Some o-f the problems users encounter result -from changes

that are made in procedures -from one decade to the next. I-f

other col lectors o-f inf or mat ion have not kept up with new census

rules, there may be difficulties computing key rates. For

example, medical researchers who compute rates o-f i 1 Iness among

different parts o-f the population must -frequently combine

information collected by hospitals and doctors with census data.

If the definitions used to identify various population groups

differ, the rates are difficult to interpret,

2. Arguments for Change

On the other hand, critics of the Census Bureau as well as

some of the Bureau's staff and administrators have argued that

changes are required to meet the challenge of taking a census in

1990. They cite many reasons for making special efforts to

consider a wide range of ideas and proposals for improving the

census procedures that will be used.

Advocates of change argue that as the magnitude of the task

grows, more efficient techniques are required. For the first

time, it is likely that the US census will include more than 100

million households. Because the number of households is

increasing at a faster rate than the number of persons, the task

of conducting a census has become more difficult and costly. When

the number of persons in the average household goes down, the
109

CRS-19

Bureau must contact a larger number of households to enumerate

the same number of people. Therefore its work increases and, the

argument concludes, changes must be made in the procedure.

Another argument for changing census procedure is that the

results of the census are under greater scrutiny because they are

used more precisely than in the past. Since the 1960s, census

counts for very small geographic areas Ccalled blocks] have

become more available and more important. For example, the 'one

man one vote' decisions of the 1960's and the Voting Rights Act

require the State legislatures to meet more stringent standards

when delineating congressional and State legislative districts.

Those who favor change say that the new standard of precision

cannot be met without altered procedures13.

Those who favor change also say that census results have a

greater effect on our economy than in the past. Businesses which

sell to the public use census data Cor data derived from the

census] to plan their strategy. Television and radio stations,

department stores, fast food chains and real estate developers

use census data to decide how to commit their resources. These

interests argue that their decisions have profound impact on our

standard of living and that poorly collected, old or inaccurate

information can cause dislocations in the economic forces that

are important to each person in the Nation. For these uses,

13

. For a technical discussion of this topic, see Eugene P.

Ericksen and Joseph B. Kadane. Estimating the Population in a

Census Year: 1980 and Beyond. Journal of the American Statistical

Association.v.80, March 1985. p 98-108. Opposing arguments are

found in the comments that follow this article, see pages 109-128.
110

CRS-20

current and Accurate results could be more important than results

that are consistent with existing data series.

B. Should Adjustments be Made to Improve the Accuracy of

the Count?

Many of the controversies that give rise to calls -for

changes in census procedure result -from the reported undercount

of blacks and other minority groups. Some statisticians believe

that in 1980 other groups might have been overcounted1*. Any

error in the count contributes to uncertainty about the accuracy

of the results.

The amount of uncertainty at the National level is normally

less important than possible differences in the accuracy of the

count between regions, States, areas within States and groups of

the population.

Some statisticians argue that a superior alternative to

further increases in field operations might be to use information

from statistical evaluations of the census to "adjust " the

results'•. Adjustments might reduce the differences in coverage

of various groups, but critics of this approach argue that

statistical adjustments would require the Bureau to exercise

**. Ericksen and Kadane say "The fundamental flaw of the

coverage improvement model is that procedures designed to reduce

omissions not only fail to eliminate them but actually lead to

erroneous inclusions." Ericksen and Kadane, page 100.

*•. Ericksen and Kadane say "statistical estimation procedures should be used explicitly to adjust census counts and

tabulations." page 108 .
HI

CRS-21

judgement as to which procedure was superior1**. Such adjustment

decisions [including the decision not to adjust] will affect the

distribution o-f resources and political power. As such, they

have been subject to severe partisan attack o-f ten reaching the

courts1"

7

.

1. Census Bureau's Timetable for Adjustment Decision

The current plans call -for announcing the criteria -for

adjustment be-fore the census but deciding whether to adjust a-fter

the results are tabulated in various ways

119

. The Census Bureau

has announced that it will issue the criteria -for the adjustment

decision well be-fore census day. The Bureau plans to make a

draft o-f these standards avai lable to interested persons in

October, 1986. It wi11 formally publish draft standards in

October, 1987. It will seek formal Congressional oversight of

its proposal in May, 1988 and adopt the standards by April,

1989.

Currently, the Bureau is considering several passible

standards. Two important issues are being considered in this

regard. Fi rst, how much of an i mprovement does the adjustment

1A

. See for example, E<arbara A. Bailar. Comment on Ericksen

and Kadane. Journal of the American Statistical Association, page

109-114. Dr. Bailar writes " The bureau is committed to a

participative, not a stati stical, census for 1990."

l'r

. After the 1980 census the Bureau was sued by more than

50 local governments and States.

10

. The information in this section was provided by Howard

Hogan, Chief, Undercount Research Staff, Statistical Research

Division, U.S. Bureau of the Census.
112

CRS-22

have to add for it to be adopted? Second, how Mill we be able to

know the amount of improvement that is achieved?

One possibility is that these issues will be decided by

examining the success of the activities that are part of the

Bureau's evaluation. If they appear to be technically superior

to the count, they would be used as the basis for an adjustment.

Otherwise, no adjustment would be made.

2. Arguments for Adjustment

One alternative to adjustment would be to put more resources

into improving the quality of the direct count. This is the

strategy that was implemented in 1980. However some experts

believe that the limits of this strategy were reached then. Two

problems have been cited by some critics:

While procedures implemented before census

day were cost-effective, some of the added

checks that were performed were costly. One

procedure cost $75 for each person added to

the count1'.

Some critics have charged that the increased

followup and checks resulted in double

counting of persons who were less difficult

to find. If this is correct, the additional

expense might have increased rather than

reduced the problem.

Advocates of adjustment contend that it is

hard to see how even with unlimited resources, the Bureau could reach and persuade

members of all groups to actively participate

in the census. They say some way should

**. Citro and Cohen. Table 5.3. The report notes that data

for this table were provided by the Bureau of the Census.
113

CRS-23

be -found to account for people who do not

want to be count.

Advocates of adjustment argue that the

Bureau could with some effort make use of

existing or available information to complete

the adjustment in time for inclusion in the

counts reported to the Congress for Apportionment. However, they also sometimes

argue that if delays are necessary they

should be anticipated and the reporting

dates should be changed.

3. Arguments Against Adjustment

On the other hand, opponents of adjustment argue that it

would require the Bureau to make judgments that go beyond the

information that it has. They contend:

There are numerous procedures that could be used

to adjust the census counts. The decision about

which procedure to use would determine the outcome

and could be a mechanism for arbitrarily deciding

the number of Members of Congress different states

will have.

The Bureau's plan of having the Census

Director decide from among a number of

alternative sets of results places too much

power in his hands. By examining these

results before they are transmitted to

the President, the Director could have a

large influence on the distribution of

political power for the next ten years.

Because these critics argue that the Director

would have no clear technical basis on which

to make the choice, they believe that the

decision could be made on political rather

than statistical grounds.

If the public were to learn that the Bureau

might adjust the counts to make them more

accurate, there would be less incentive to

fully complete the census forms. By reducing

the accuracy of the original count, this

might make it more difficult to achieve an

adequate result [even with adjustment.]
114

CRS-24

• An adjusted set of -figures would be harder to

explain and de-fend. The Constitution

provides -for an 'actual enumeration'.

Adjusting would add households and persons

•for which there was no direct evidence. This

could reduce the authenticity of the result

and lead to numerous disputes.

• Opponents also argue that it is not reasonable to expect the Census Bureau to adjust

the counts in the period be-fore December 31,

1990. I-f adjustments were to occur a-fter

this date, they say, it might lead to two

sets o-f counts, one used -for apportionment

and another used -for other purposes. This

could open the apportionment counts to latter

challenge and might lead to public confusion.

4. Congressional Action Might be Needed for Adjustment

If the Census Bureau decides to use adjustments, there are

two points where Congressional action might authorise or forbid

them. The adjustment procedures being planned would require a

large sample survey. This project could be separated from the

census plan and funds could be appropriated for it separately

giving Members an opportunity to work their wi11 on the general

principle of adjustment without having to become involved in the

specific solution selected.

Another opportunity could come if the Bureau plans to use

sampling in its adjustment procedure and report the totals used

for apportionment based on this procedure. Section 195 of Title

13 reads:

Section 195. Use of Sampling

Except for the determination of population

for purposes of apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the several States,
/

115

CRS-25

the Secretary shal1, if he consi ders i t

feasible, authorize the use of the statistical method known as "sampling" in carrying

out the provisions of this title.

Advocates of adjustment argue that while Title 13 appears to

prohibit the use of sampling for apportionment, it could be

interpreted to mean that after an initial attempt to achieve a

100 percent count, the Bureau could use sampling to detect its

mistakes and correct them. Opponents of adjustment have argued

that section 195 prohibits the use of sampling in any aspect of

the enumeration used for apportionment. Congress may decide to

make its desires more specific by considering amendments to Title

that clarify whether sampling could be used as a part of a

/procedure to correct a 100 percent count.

C. Which counting rules should be used?

The rules about where to count people have a profound effect

on the result of the apportionment. That procedure is sensitive

to minor shifts in the population. Questions that have been

raised in the past include:

1. Where should students living away from home be

counted?

2. Where should persons living abroad [especially

members of the Armed Services] be counted?

3. Where should persons who have more than one

residence be counted?

4. Should undocumented aliens be included in the

count?
116

CRS-26

D- Questionnaire Content

The census not only results in a count of the population,

but has also been used as an occasion to collect information

about the population20. Because the census tries to reach every

household it can be used to collect information on very small

groups of people or people living in very small jurisdictions.

The impact of asking more questions on the cost and accuracy

of the count is a controversial topic. Some advocates of

collecting greater amounts of information argue that its marginal

cost is small compared to the cost of conducting a separate

survey to obtain needed information. Others respond that given

the size and complexity of the census, any additional task is

costly in time and attention even if it does not increase the

monetary cost of the census. Along these lines, during the past

four decades Congress has considered the following questions at

various times:

1. How many questions will be included on the long

and short forms?

2. Should the characteristics information be collected at the same time as the count or in a separate

operation?

3. Should detailed information about language ability

and ethnic identity be collected? If so, for which

groups?

4. How much and what kind of information should be

*°. John Keane. United States Decennial Census : Overview

and Preview. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the

American Association for the Advancement of Science. June, 1985.
117

CRS-27

collected -from householders about the structures

in which they 1ive?

5. What kind of income and occupational data should

be collected?

6. What kind o-f information about citizenship and

residency status should be collected?

7. Should the census collect i n-formati on about the

use o-f appZ iances such as televisions?

E. Timing o-f the Census Reapportionment and Redistricting

According to 13 USC 141, the Census Bureau is required

to deliver the count of the population o-f the states on December

31, 1990 and the counts needed by the states -for redistr i cti ng on

April 1, 1991. Representatives o-f state governments have asked

the Bureau to issue the state -figures at the same time as the

reapporti onment result«a*.

The times when the -figures are released have an impact on

the kinds o-f procedures that the Bureau can use to improve the

accuracy o-f the count. One possibility might be to release the

apportionment and redistricting numbers on March 1, 1991. This

would give the Bureau an additional 3 months to announce the

apportionment.

Another possibility would be to advance the date as of when

the Census is conducted. A special problem in 1990 might result

•from the -fact that April 1, 1990 is a Sunday. If the census were

held as of March 1, 1990 instead, the Bureau would have one

additional month to complete its tabulation.

21

. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Stakeholders' Conference on

Public Law 94-171. October 1983.
118

CRS-2B

F. Role of Patronage Jobs

In previous censuses, employment was regarded as a -form of

patronage. The Members of Congress who were of the same party as

the President recommended workers for census jobs. 400 of these

jobs were for middle management [district office directors].

However, most were for low paying positions.

P.L. 95-454 prohibited political affiliation as a consideration in the employment of federal employees including

temporary workers who work on the decennial census. But in 1979

the Bureau sought and obtained an exemption from this provision

to allow it to take advantage of political referral. Even then,

the Bureau had difficulty filling all of its jobs. Many workers

were hired regardless of political recommendation. The Bureau

has announced that it will not ask for an exemption from

P.L. 95-454 to cover its activities in 1990. It will thus end

the practice of political referral.

III. Appendix A

The Process of Taking the Census

To understand the decisions that ar& to be made regarding

the census, it is helpful to review the tasks that the census
119

CRS-29

takers must accomplish to deliver the results to the Nation.

The census has never involved a direct count o-f the population.

Be-fore 1850, only heads o-f household were listed on census -forms.

CQf course, a count o-f the number o-f people in the household

and thei r description was included]• Since then, the census

operations have relied on information provided by one person

living in each household. Soliciting the cooperation of these

informants is vital to the success of the enterprise.

Since I960, the Bureau has followed procedures that split

different tasks of enumeration into discrete steps requiring

advance preparation and separate processing. The current questions about alternative procedures relate to the way those tasks

are defined. All parties agree that dividing them is required if

the census is to be expeditiously completed.

A. Compile List of Dwellings

The skeleton of the census is a list of the places

where people live or could live. These dwellings are

the targets Df census workers whose efforts are

directed at accounting for each one. Before 1970,

census enumerators were responsible for making a list

of dwellings before census day as they walked around

their assigned territory. Since 1970, the Bureau has

implemented a procedure that is based on gathering

information about the dwellings before census day. The

information for the list comes from several sources.

In the past these have included:

• previous censuses,

• mailing lists that the Bureau

purchased from private vendors, and

• lists compiled by census workers.
120

CRB-30

Because the success of the census depends on the

cornpl eteness and accuracy o-f these 1 i sts, they have

been the focus of close scrutiny. Bureau officials

believe that these 1ists and the associated control

procedures that they have i mplemented, have great1y

reduced omissions due to missing housing units.

B. Prepare Maps That Can Be Used to Locate Each Housing

Unit in a Specially Defined Small Census Area.

The count of the entire population is not as important

as the count of people living in specific areas. To

accomplish this part of the census, each dwel1ing must

be located in a specific area. Because very detailed

locations are needed, problems were common in the

past- The Bureau is planning to completely automate

its map production in 1990aae. They believe that if

this new system can be put in place, much of the

confusion about local area counts can be corrected.

C. List the People Living in These Dwellings

Once the lists of dwellings are compiled, the next step

is to prepare a roster of the people who live in these

dwellings. In 1970 and 1980 most of the Nation was

included in a system that involved mai1ing census

questionnaires to households. This so-called 'mail

out/mail back' system relies on householders to

complete the form and mail it back to the Census Bureau

for processing. As the forms are received, they are

logged and enumerators approach householders who did

not respond or who only provided partial information.

The rest of the population is counted in the more

conventional way of having an enumerator visit each

household =

D. Collect Characteristics Information

As the listing of the population proceeds, the census

takers also compile information about the characteristics of the populati on. Householders are not only

asked to list the people living in their housing unit,

but are also asked to describe them- In the censuses

taken since 1940, the Bureau has asked a sample

**, Mar::, Robert W. Developing An Automated Geographic

System for Future Censuses. 1963 Proceedings of the Soci al

Statitics Section. Washington, American Statistical Association.

1983. p 36-41.
121

CRS-31

o-f the householders to provide more detailed information. The content o-f the questions asked determines

the kinds o-f information that will be available -for the

next decade. While other surveys can provide information about the Nation and its regions, the census

results can be used to describe States, cities, and

small towns.

E. Check Lists

As the lists are compiled, they ^re checked against

several other sources o-f in-formation. These include:

1. Post O-f-fice Review

The Census Bureau contracts with the Postal Service -for

a check o-f the addresses on its list. In fact, this

check is done at least twice, once before census day

and once at the time when forms are delivered. Postal

carriers check the addresses to be sure that they are

accurate and that they include all known addresses on

their delivery routes. In 1980, in some rural areas,

names of postal patrons were included on the lists that

the Bureau compiled because the address would have been

too vague without the names. In 1990, the Bureau is

planning to try to include names in some urban buildings where the post office distinguishes among residents based on their name rather than an apartment

number.

2. Non-household Sources

Because previous censuses were suspected to have

differentially undercounted certain groups of people,

the Bureau decided to initiate a new procedure in 1980

that involved checking lists of people likely to have

been missed against the census roster. The lists used

included driver's licence records for young people and

welfare records. Bureau reports show that this

program cost more than *75 for each person who was

added to the census roster. In 1990, the Bureau hopes

to reduce this cost by automating the procedures. But,

to do this will require that Bureau workers prepare a

computer record containing the name of every person

living in each household that returns a questionnaire.

Some statisticians argue that this process could

provide more accurate and less costly information if

sampling were used. Others argue that the complete
122

CRS-32

process is necessary to ensure accurate counts -for the

required small geographic areas.

3. Vacancy Recheck

When householders do not return census -forms, an

enumerator visits the building to try to locate a

respondent. I-f the dwelling is apparently vacant, the

followup enumerators are instructed to report it as

vacant. In 1970, the Bureau revisited 11,000 vacant

housing units and -found that about 8 percent o-f them

were in '-fact occupied. Based on this sample estimate,

corrections to the complete census were made; in 1980,

all o-f the dwellings originally -found to be vacant were

revisited. I-f the Bureau could base its corrections on

a sample, it could save money but:

* Bureau administrators believe that section

195 of Title 13 USC forbids them from doing

this. CThis provision was added to the law in

19763 and

* Bureau experts argue that the sampling

procedure might be erroneous if the rate at

which apparently vacant units were occupied

varied across the Nation.

4. Last Resort Information

During the followup, when enumerators cannot find a

householder to answer their questions, they are

instructed to ask neighbors or building superintendents

for information about the people who live in a housing

unit or whether it is occupied. This last resort

information is used because bureau statisticians

believe that is better than counting the housing units

as vacant. Some statisticians working outside of the

Bureau have argued that other estimation techniques

might be superior, but these would involve sampling or

modelB.

5. Local Review Program

In 19B0, the Bureau asked local officials to review the

interim counts of housing units. While this program

was not fully implemented in 1980, the Bureau is

planning a revised procedure for 1990. Its success

will depend upon obtaining specific information on

problems rather than general opinions about the

accuracy of the count. But, this type of information
123

CRS-33

is costly to compile and may limit the effectiveness o-f the program in reducing census errors.

6. Special Census Procedures Such as the Casual

Count

Recognizing that every person may not be attached to a

household an its list, or that the membership o-f a

person in a household may be in doubt, the Bureau has

used special procedures to -find people who dan ' t 1 i ve

in households. These include:

a. Enumerations o-f people living in institutions

b. A special check o-f people who move during the

census period

c. A count o-f people at hotels and other

temporary quarters

d. A "casual count" of people who Are likely to

be missed • such as those at welfare

offices, and unemployment lines.

F. Count People Living in Small Seographic Areas

The census takers next compile the counts for people

living in their assigned areas. This initial count was

performed in temporary district offices up to 1980.

Desk calculators were used to total the persons in each

area. The pi an for 1990 includes automating this

procedure and integrating it with the preparation of

the lists that enumerators will use during the followup.

G. Compile Totals

The next step is the compilation of the census results.

To do this, the information from census forms must be

entered into a computer. Processing is preceded by

editing which in past censuses was done by individual

workers examining each form for completeness and

consistency. The Bureau is experimenting with computer

controlled editing for 1990.

1. Process Forms

Once the forms are prepared, they must be entered into

the computer. The Bureau is experimenting with an

entry system that would process the forms as they were
124

CRS-34

edited rather than waiting -for the close of temporary

district o-f-fices as was done in previous censuses. I-f

successful, this could speed the processing a-f the data

and contribute to earlier results. But, will require a

system that can -find forms which are not stored by

area.

2. Imputation

When information cannot be obtained concerning some

potential dwel1ings or only partial information is

obtained, Bureau procedures call for imputing information. In this procedure, a small percentage of the

results are based on substitution of the responses of

one dwelling far the missed units. This procedure led

to a court case in 1980 when it resulted in the

shift of a Congressional House seat from Indiana to

Florida. The court has ruled that it is in the purview

of the Bureau under authority delegated by the Congress

to decide how to treat missing information.

3. Adjustment

Because past evaluations have shown that census

procedures are not perfect and some statisticians and

demographers think that combining census results with

other information could yield more complete answers,

these experts are advocating statistical adjustments.

Other experts question how results that are adjusted

will serve the need for descriptions of small geographic areas and rare populations33

. If the characteristics as wel1 as the counts are adjusted, the

impact on census operations could be substantial. On

the other hand, advocates argue that adjustment is

less expensive and more efficient than increased field

procedures. They contend that the 1980 census made use

of some procedures that added error and increased

the cast of census aperati ons.

H. Evaluate the Results

Good census procedure currently requires that results

should be evaluated. This involves examining the

possible sources of error and reporting on the extent

See above pages 16-20 for a more complete discussion of
125

CRS-35

to which they might affect uses of the inforntation2*.

Demographic methods are used to compare census results

to other inf ormation [such as birth, death, and

immigration statistics!!. Surveys are conducted

to compile additional information that can be used to

judge the meaning of the results. Users of census data

are guided by this information.

I. Provide Information to the Public

Census results are printed in the Bureau's reports,

issued on computer tape in the form of summary tables,

and also made available in micro-fiche form. Data is

shipped to state data centers, state governments,

federal agencies, depository 1ibraries as wel1 as being

sold to the public. It forms the basis of tables in

the Statistical Abstract.

•*. The Census Bureau has conducted formal evaluations of

the decennial results since the 1950 census.

o