a

GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

October 2001 2000 CENSUS

Better Productivity 

Data Needed for 

Future Planning and 

Budgeting

GAO-02-4

Page 1 GAO-02-4 Census Productivity Follow-up

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

October 4, 2001

The Honorable Henry A. Waxman

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Government Reform

House of Representatives

The Honorable Carolyn B. Maloney

House of Representatives

Nonresponse follow-up was the most expensive and labor-intensive of all 

Census 2000 operations. According to the Bureau of the Census, it cost 

$1.2 billion (about 29 percent of the $4.1 billion spent on decennial 

activities in fiscal year 2000) and required over 500,000 enumerators to 

obtain census information from about 42 million nonresponding 

households in under 10 weeks. Because of this colossal workload, even 

small variations in productivity can have significant cost implications. For 

example, if enumerators had needed as little as half a day more to complete 

their workloads, it would have added over 2 million staff hours and at least 

$16 million to the cost of the operation, assuming everyone worked at the 

Bureau’s minimum pay rate of about $8.25 per hour.1

 Not surprisingly, 

workload and enumerator productivity have historically been two of the 

largest drivers of census costs, and the Bureau developed its budget for the 

2000 Census using a model that contained key assumptions about these 

two variables. 

In our January 2001 response to your request for information on 

enumerator productivity, we reported that productivity data for the 2000 

Census was unavailable because the Bureau had not yet assessed its 

reliability.2

 Since then, the Bureau completed its reliability assessment and 

made certain refinements. As agreed with your offices, this report follows 

up on that earlier request and presents information on (1) enumerator 

productivity rates by type of local census office and (2) the Bureau’s 

methodology for refining the productivity data. 

1

Enumerator wage rates ranged from about $8.25 to $18.50 depending on location.

2

Decennial Censuses: Historical Data on Enumerator Productivity Are Limited (GAO-01-

208R, Jan. 5, 2001).
Page 2 GAO-02-4 Census Productivity Follow-up

We obtained information on enumerator productivity rates by analyzing 

Bureau productivity data and the underlying assumptions used to calculate 

them. To obtain information on the Bureau’s methodology for refining the 

data and factors that could improve the collection and analysis of 

productivity data in the future, we interviewed officials from the Bureau’s 

Decennial Management Division and reviewed, but did not audit, relevant 

Bureau documents. On August 20, 2001, we requested comments on a draft 

of this report from the Secretary of Commerce. In his September 18, 2001, 

written response, the Secretary of Commerce informed us that Department 

of Commerce and Bureau of the Census officials generally agreed with the 

report and had no specific comments on its content or recommendations. 

We performed our work from April through July 2001, in Washington, D.C., 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Results in Brief Nationally, enumerators completed their nonresponse follow-up workload 

at a rate of 1.04 housing units per hour—slightly exceeding the Bureau’s 

expected rate of 1.03 housing units per hour. Productivity varied for the 

four primary types of local census offices, ranging from 0.90 housing units 

per hour in inner-city and urban areas, to 1.10 cases per hour in rural areas. 

In refining the data thus far, the Bureau corrected for what it believes was 

the most significant discrepancy: a misclassification of certain employees’

time charges that overstated the number of hours worked by nonresponse 

follow-up enumerators and understated enumerator production rates. The 

Bureau has not yet made any adjustments for a second problem identified 

in the data--employees who worked on both earlier census operations and 

nonresponse follow-up and who charged their time to codes for those 

earlier activities rather than nonresponse follow-up. Better application of 

the Bureau’s quality assurance procedures could have produced more 

reliable data initially and eliminated the need to correct the data once 

nonresponse follow-up was completed.

Accurate productivity information is important for future planning 

decisions. At the same time, the complexity and importance of 

nonresponse follow-up requires that the Bureau place a premium on 

completing the enterprise according to its operational plan. Nevertheless, 

with proper planning, the two functions could be complementary, since the 

Bureau’s personnel/payroll and management information systems already 

collect the raw data needed to assess enumerator productivity. Therefore, 

as the Bureau plans for 2010 nonresponse follow-up, to ensure that the 

Bureau develops a baseline of reliable productivity data for informing 
Page 3 GAO-02-4 Census Productivity Follow-up

future planning decisions consistent with the operational demands of 

nonresponse follow-up, we recommend that the Secretary of Commerce 

direct the Bureau to (1) determine the productivity measures needed to 

gauge nonresponse follow-up and (2) design procedures, information 

systems, and quality control mechanisms to reliably capture and analyze 

those measures in accordance with nonresponse follow-up’s operational 

requirements. 

Background In our January 2001 review, we described how the Bureau planned to 

assess and refine its data on enumerator productivity because a significant 

number of individuals on enumerator applicant lists at some local census 

offices were hired instead as crew leader assistants—a different position.3

In some instances, the position change was not reflected in the Bureau’s 

personnel/payroll system. To the extent that this occurred, Bureau officials 

said that it would overstate the number of hours that enumerators actually 

worked and understate productivity (it did not, however, affect actual 

payments to employees because enumerators and crew leader assistants 

were paid at the same wage rate). Bureau officials also had questions 

concerning the extent to which enumerators who worked on more than 

one census operation charged the codes for these earlier operations rather 

than the code for nonresponse follow-up. Our review also noted that 

enumerator productivity rates could not be calculated for the 1940 through 

1990 censuses because needed data on staffing levels and hours worked 

were unavailable, incomplete, or not comparable.4

Because productivity information will be important for informing the 

Bureau’s planning and budgeting processes for the next national head 

count in 2010,5

 we recommended that the Secretary of Commerce ensure 

that the Bureau, in refining its productivity figures, identify the extent and 

nature of any data anomalies, the impact they have on data quality, and the 

extent to which the data can be compared by type of local census office. 

To help ensure the comparability of data for the 2000 and future censuses, 

we also recommended that the Bureau fully document how it calculates 

enumerator productivity rates, and report the data by type of local census 

3

GAO-01-208R.

4

GAO-01-208R.

5

GAO-01-208R.
Page 4 GAO-02-4 Census Productivity Follow-up

office. In response to our recommendations, as part of its analysis of 

enumerator productivity data, the Bureau included information on 

enumerator production rates at the local office and national levels. This 

information included an explanation of the extent and nature of certain 

anomalies in the data, the impact they had on data quality, and the 

adjustments made for them. In addition, the Bureau’s analysis included a 

detailed methodology that documented how these rates were adjusted and 

calculated. 

Enumerator 

Productivity Rates

The Bureau issued preliminary enumerator productivity data in May 2001. 

Nationally, enumerators completed 1.04 housing units per hour—slightly 

exceeding the 1.03 housing units per hour that the Bureau estimated for 

budgetary purposes. The Bureau calculated productivity by dividing its 

nonresponse follow-up workload (42.4 million housing units nationally) by 

enumerator production hours (40.7 million hours nationally). The Bureau 

derived this information from its personnel/payroll and management 

information systems. 

Enumerator production hours refer to the total time enumerators spent in 

the field collecting data and meeting with supervisors, and covers the 

actual duration of the operation (April 24 through July 2, 2000). The hours 

exclude time spent in training and conducting follow-up activities after the 

Bureau completed the initial operation. The Bureau also said it excluded 

subsequent fieldwork that it believes was inadvertently charged to the 

nonresponse follow-up code after its completion. Bureau officials noted 

that the productivity rates are subject to minor change as the Bureau 

further refines its data, in part by conducting a comprehensive analysis of 

payroll and personnel data. 
Page 5 GAO-02-4 Census Productivity Follow-up

According to the Bureau, productivity varied by type of local office--

ranging from 0.90 to 1.21 housing units per hour. For the 2000 Census, the 

Bureau had four primary types of local census offices (referred to as types 

A, B, C, and D)--which differed by enumeration methods used and 

geographic makeup. Type A offices, located in the hardest-to-enumerate, 

inner-city, and urban areas, used mailout/mailback and urban/update leave 

enumeration methodologies. 6

 Type B offices, located in urban and 

metropolitan areas, also used mailout/mailback and urban/update leave 

methodologies. Type C offices, located in suburban areas, small and 

medium-size cities, towns, and rural areas, used update/leave, 

mailout/mailback, and rural update/enumerate methodologies.7

 Type D 

offices, located in more rural areas, used list/enumerate, update/leave, and 

some mailout/mailback methodologies.8

 Type E offices—a fifth office 

type—were located in Puerto Rico and used update/leave methodology.

As shown in table 1, according to the Bureau, actual enumerator 

productivity was 20 percent higher than expected at the Bureau's urban or 

type A offices. Productivity was about 11 percent lower than expected at 

rural or type D offices. A Bureau official told us that, as part of its 

evaluation of the 2000 Census, the Bureau is studying reasons for these 

variations.

6

For the mailout/mailback methodology, the Bureau used U.S. Postal Service (USPS) letter 

carriers to deliver questionnaires to the vast majority of housing units that had city-style 

addresses (house number and street name) for household members to mail back. For the 

urban update/leave methodology, in pre-identified census blocks in urban areas--where the 

USPS might usually deliver a quantity of questionnaires to a building lobby--enumerators 

delivered questionnaires to each unit and updated the address list. 

7

The Bureau conducted an update/leave methodology in areas with primarily non-city-style 

addresses. For this methodology, enumerators delivered questionnaires to housing units 

and updated their address list in their assignment areas at the same time. For the rural 

update/enumerate operation, in pre-identified census blocks, enumerators canvassed an 

area, updated the address list and associated maps, and completed census questionnaires 

for all occupied and vacant housing units. 

8

For the list/enumerate methodology, in very remote or very sparsely populated areas, 

enumerators visited every household to update census maps, conduct interviews, and list 

each address or location.
Page 6 GAO-02-4 Census Productivity Follow-up

Table 1: Enumerator Productivity During Nonresponse Follow-up Varied by Type of Local Census Office

N/A = Data was not available from the Bureau at the time of our review.

a

Preliminary data.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census data.

Bureau officials cautioned against comparing the productivity of individual 

offices because of location-specific circumstances. The officials said that 

the data are more reliable when aggregated by local census office type and 

at the national level. 

For the 1990 Census, the Bureau reported that enumerators completed 1.56 

housing units per hour. However, Bureau officials said the 1990 figure 

should not be directly compared to the 2000 rate because the Bureau does 

not have documentation on how the 1990 figure was calculated, and thus 

does not know if a direct comparison would be valid. 

How the Bureau 

Refined Its 

Productivity Data

According to Bureau officials, the Bureau made a “coarse” adjustment for 

what it considered to be the most significant anomaly--the misclassification 

of crew leader assistant hours. As noted earlier, some local census offices 

hired a substantial number of crew leader assistants from lists of applicants 

for enumerator positions. In some cases, the position change was not 

entered into the Bureau’s personnel/payroll system. To the extent this 

happened, Bureau officials said that it would overstate the number of hours 

that enumerators actually worked and thus understate enumerator 

productivity. 

To adjust for the misclassified crew leader assistant hours, the Bureau 

analyzed productivity rates to distinguish between those hours that 

Office type

Total

offices

Total housing

unit workload

Enumerator

production

hoursa

Budgeted

housing units

per hour

Actual housing

units per houra

Difference

between

budgeted

and actual

productivity

Percentage

difference

National level 520 42,382,492 40,698,936 1.03 1.04 0.01 0.97%

Type A 102 6,347,900 7,078,897 0.75 0.90 0.15 20

Type B 51 4,080,754 4,012,296 1.11 1.02 (0.09) (8.1)

Type C 316 28,008,736 26,073,280 1.11 1.07 (0.04) (3.6)

Type D 42 3,247,754 2,960,354 1.24 1.10 (0.14) (11.3)

Type E 9 697,348 574,109 N/A 1.21 N/A N/A
Page 7 GAO-02-4 Census Productivity Follow-up

belonged to crew leader assistants and those hours that belonged to 

enumerators. Based on its analysis of daily productivity rates at six local 

census offices (three that had reliable crew leader assistant data and three 

with no crew leader assistant data), employees with a production rate 

greater or equal to 0.2 cases per hour were considered to be enumerators, 

and their noncase hours (production in which no households were 

completed) were included in the Bureau’s adjusted production hour 

variable. Employees with a production rate less than 0.2 cases per hour 

were considered to be crew leader assistants, and their noncase hours 

were excluded from the adjusted production hour variable.

Compared to the original, unadjusted data, using the refined figures, 

enumerators completed nonresponse follow-up in 40.7 million production 

hours versus 44.3 million production hours, a difference of 3.6 million 

production hours or 8.1 percent. This revised estimate of production hours 

could be important for future budgeting and planning purposes. For 

example, using the lowest enumerator wage rate of about $8.25 per hour, 

the 3.6 million production hour difference would change the Bureau’s cost 

estimates by about $29.7 million.

The Bureau has not yet made any corrections for a second problem 

identified in its productivity data: employees who worked on earlier census 

operations who continued to charge their time to those codes rather than 

nonresponse follow-up. According to Bureau officials, the extent and 

impact of this problem is unknown. 

With both problems, better application of quality assurance procedures at 

the time the productivity data were collected could have produced more 

reliable data initially, and eliminated the need to correct the data later in 

the census cycle. Indeed, enumerators charged codes other than 

nonresponse follow-up despite the fact that supervisors were to review 

payroll forms to ensure that enumerators entered the correct task codes. 

Conclusions Accurate productivity information is important for gauging the 

performance of nonresponse follow-up, validating planning assumptions, 

preparing and justifying budgets, and devising more cost-effective censustaking techniques for the future. However, in past censuses, the Bureau 

has encountered problems obtaining complete and comparable 

productivity data, and the Bureau appears to have repeated this pattern in 

2000. As a result, the Bureau needed to spend additional resources to 
Page 8 GAO-02-4 Census Productivity Follow-up

refine the information, and even then, the adjustment was coarse and 

addressed just one of the two known problems. 

At the same time, given the size and decentralization of nonresponse 

follow-up, a certain amount of procedural error and unreliable data is 

unavoidable. Moreover, because of the complexity and importance of 

nonresponse follow-up, it is important for the Bureau to emphasize 

completing the endeavor according to its operational plan. 

As the Bureau develops nonresponse follow-up plans for the 2010 Census, a 

key challenge will be developing systems and procedures for collecting 

reliable productivity data needed for evaluation and planning, without 

detracting from higher-priority operational demands. However, these goals 

are not necessarily incompatible. In fact, as the Bureau’s personnel/payroll 

and management information systems already collect the raw data needed 

to assess enumerator productivity, with proper planning, the two functions 

can be complementary. Consequently, it will be important for the Bureau 

to (1) determine the productivity information it needs to evaluate 

nonresponse follow-up during the 2010 decennial and plan for future 

censuses and (2) integrate those evaluative requirements into its 

operational plans and management information systems. 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

To ensure that the Bureau develops a baseline of reliable productivity data 

for evaluating nonresponse follow-up and informing future planning 

decisions, we recommend that the Secretary of Commerce direct the 

Bureau to, as part of its planning effort for the 2010 Census, (1) determine 

the productivity measures needed to assess nonresponse follow-up and 

(2) design procedures, information systems, and quality control 

mechanisms to capture and analyze those measures consistent with 

nonresponse follow-up’s operational requirements. Possible measures 

include average number of hours worked by enumerators, cases completed 

per production hour, and number of cases completed per enumerator. The 

data should, at a minimum, support the analysis of variation in these 

measures by census region and type of local census office (type A, B, C, D, 

or E). 

We are sending copies of this report to the Chairman of the House 

Committee on Government Reform; Chairman and Ranking Minority 

Member of the Subcommittee on the Census, House Committee on 
Page 9 GAO-02-4 Census Productivity Follow-up

Government Reform; Secretary of Commerce; and Acting Director of the 

Bureau of the Census. Copies will be made available to others upon 

request. Robert Goldenkoff and Victoria E. Miller made major 

contributions to this letter. If you have any questions concerning this letter, 

please contact me at (202) 512-6806. 

J. Christopher Mihm

Director

Strategic Issues

(450066) Letr
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, exists to

support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help

improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the

American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal

programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other

assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding

decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values

of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents is through the

Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full-text files of

current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The

Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents using key words

and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and

other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO E-mail

this list to you every afternoon, go to our home page and complete the easy-to-use

electronic order form found under “To Order GAO Products.”

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A

check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents.

GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a

single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, D.C. 20013

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000

TDD: (301) 413-0006

Fax: (202) 258-4066

GAO Building

Room 1100, 700 4th Street, NW (corner of 4th and G Streets, NW)

Washington, D.C. 20013

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm,

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov, or

1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system).

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of

GAO Reports and

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone

Visit GAO’s Document

Distribution Center

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in

Federal Programs

United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00