Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Congressional Members

P.O. Box 610

Suitland, MD 20752

(301) 457-5080

www.cmbc.gov

email: feedback@cmbc.gov

U.S. CENSUS MONITORING BOARD

Field Observations of the New York and Dallas Regional 

and Local Census Offices, Alaska Enumeration,

 and Household Matching Training.

Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Presidential Members

4700 Silver Hill Road

Suite 1250

Suitland, MD 20746

(301) 457-9900

www.cmbp.gov

email: comments@cmbp.census.gov
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

THE U.S. CENSUS MONITORING BOARD

In November 1997, Congress established the eight-member Census 

Monitoring Board: four members appointed by Congress, four by 

the President, charged “to observe and monitor all aspects of the 

preparation and implementation of the 2000 Decennial census.” The 

issue is the Census Bureau’s plan to count over 275 million 

Americans in 2000 – a process which will determine both 

Congressional apportionment and the allocation of billions of 

federal dollars.

The members of the Census Monitoring Board welcome your input. 

Congressional Members can be reached via e-mail at 

feedback@cmbc.gov. Presidential Members can also be reached via 

e-mail at comments@cmbp.census.gov. For more information on 

the census, or to download this or other reports, visit our web sites at 

www.cmbc.gov and www.cmbp.gov.

A NOTE ON THE REPORT

This is the third in a series of joint Reports to Congress. Earlier 

joint reports were released in April 1999 and October 1999, and 

interim reports have been issued separately by the Congressional 

and Presidential Members. Additional reports are scheduled 

through September 2001.
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

April 1, 2000

The Honorable Albert Gore

President

United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert

Speaker

United States House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. President and Mr. Speaker:

Pursuant to P.L. 105-119, the Members of the U.S. Census Monitoring board 

hereby transmit the following joint report to the Congress. As you are aware, 

the Monitoring Board is a bi-partisan body established by the Congress in 1997 

to monitor the Census Bureau’s efforts to plan and carry out the 2000

decennial census.

This report details the findings from a series of joint field observations

conducted in recent months. Specifically, the Board has undertaken case

studies of Bureau operations in both the Dallas and New York census regions, 

conducted observations of critical training sessions at the Census Bureau’s

National Processing Center in Jeffersonville, Indiana, and sent staff to observe

census operations in the state of Alaska.

With some exceptions detailed in the following report, and subject to their

relatively limited scope, our observations indicate the planning for census

operations and community relations is generally proceeding well in the

regional offices and local census offices we visited.

Our report notes that the Local Census Offices (LCOs) we examined, with one 

exception, have been provided with good facilities and are well-equipped with

furniture, forms, maps and other supplies. The exception is the New York

Northwest LCO, located in the Harlem section in Manhattan. Significant

problems were noted with the office space provided for the LCO.

U.S. Census 

Monitoring

Board

4700 Silver Hill Road

Suite 1240

Suitland, MD 20746

CONGRESSIONAL MEMBERS

Phone: (301) 457-5080

Fax: (301) 457-5081

J. Kenneth Blackwell

Co-Chair

David Murray

A. Mark Neuman

Joe D. Whitley

Fred Asbell

Executive Director

PRESIDENTIAL MEMBERS

Phone: (301) 457-9900

Fax: (301) 457-9901

Gilbert F. Casellas

Co-Chair

Cruz M. Bustamante

Everett M. Ehrlich

Lorraine Green

Mark Johnson

Executive Director
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

ES - ii

CENSUS OPERATIONS UPDATE

At the time of the drafting of this report, several major census operations were already

underway and others were scheduled to begin shortly. The report summarizes the most 

current operational data available to the Monitoring Board as of March 23, 2000. 

Remote Alaska Enumeration

Enumeration efforts began on January 19, 2000 with the Remote Alaska Enumeration. 

This operation begins well in advance of Census Day in order to count residents of

remote villages before the change of seasons prompts many to leave their communities to 

hunt, fish, or engage in other employment. For details on the Monitoring Board’s

observations of this operation, see Section IV of this report.

Advance Notice Letter

On March 6, 2000, the Bureau mailed advance notice letters announcing that Census

2000 questionnaires would be arriving soon and that non-English census forms are

available. Although an addressing error caused concerns, the Postal Service provided the 

Bureau with assurances that the letters would be successfully delivered. There are

indications that the advance letter has had a positive effect. As of March 20, 2000

roughly 1.5 million non-English forms had been requested via return of the advance

letter.1

Enumeration Operations

Update/Leave operations (in which enumerators hand-deliver questionnaires in rural

areas while simultaneously updating the address lists) began on March 3, 2000 and were 

scheduled to end on March 30, shortly after this report will go to press. List/Enumerate 

operations, used in remote and sparsely populated areas where enumerators will directly

interview residents rather than dropping off questionnaires for Mailback, began on March

13, 2000 and are scheduled to continue until May 1, 2000. In addition, Urban

Update/Enumerate operations, targeted at areas with historically high or potentially high

undercounts, were scheduled to begin on March 20, 2000, as this report was being

prepared, and are scheduled to be completed by May 30, 2000.

Mailout/Mailback

On March 13, 2000, the Bureau mailed out roughly 98 million forms to households as

part of its Mailout/Mailback effort. As of March 21, 2000, just under 15 million

households had returned their forms, and the Bureau’s four Data Capture Centers (DCCs) 

had processed 7.3 million of them.2

 

1 Dr. Kenneth Prewitt, Director, U.S. Census Bureau, March 21, 2000 press briefing.

2

 Ibid.
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

ES - iii

Recruiting

Recruiting efforts aimed at filling the more than 535,000 staff positions3 the Bureau will

need at peak operations were on track at the national level, although some local offices 

lagged behind. On March 21, 2000 the Bureau Director announced that the Bureau had 

recruited an applicant pool of 2.2 million qualified individuals. This is roughly 91

percent of the national recruiting goal, and was reached just under one month prior to the 

April 19, 2000 recruiting deadline.

The Board agrees that a successful census depends on meeting recruiting and hiring

needs of individual communities and neighborhoods across the country, as opposed to

simply meeting national goals. The Board has different perspectives on the Bureau’s

current efforts in local areas. A discussion of those views begins on page four.

Partnerships and Outreach

Efforts to form partnerships with state and local governments and community

organizations to promote the census continue. As of March 21, 2000, the Bureau

reported more than 102,000 partnerships across the country.4 A total of 27,000 sites for 

Questionnaire Assistance Centers (QACs) and more than 21,000 sites at which to place 

forms and materials for the Be Counted effort, had been identified.5 QAC startups began 

on March 8, 2000 and these centers are scheduled to remain open until April 14, 2000. 

Telephone Questionnaire Assistance

Problems were initially reported with the Telephone Questionnaire Assistance (TQA)

system designed to provide assistance to individuals with questions about the census

form, but according to the Bureau Director have now been resolved. The TQA system

had logged a total of 1.8 million calls as of March 18, 2000. Roughly 15 percent of these 

calls were to the Spanish language line.6 Telephone assistance is available in English,

Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Korean and Tagalog. 

 

3 Census 2000 Field Staffing Requirements at Peak Operation, U.S. Bureau of the Census, December 12, 1999.

4

 Reported by the Monitoring Board’s Census Bureau liaison, March 23, 2000.

5

 Ibid.

6

 Dr. Kenneth Prewitt, Director, U.S. Census Bureau, March 21, 2000 press briefing.
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

ES - iv

Special Population, Transient and Group Quarters Enumeration

Shortly after this report went to press, the Bureau is scheduled to carry out operations to 

count special, transient and often hard-to-enumerate populations in certain locations:

March 27, 2000 Transitional and Emergency Shelters

March 28, 2000 Soup Kitchens and Mobile Food Vans

March 29, 2000 Targeted Non-Shelter Outdoor Locations

March 31, 2000 Transient Locations (campgrounds, parks, carnivals and marinas)

April 1, 2000 Group Quarters (dormitories, nursing homes, prisons)

Non-Response Follow-Up

Finally, on April 27, 2000, the Bureau will begin a massive Non-Response Follow-Up 

(NRFU) operation, deploying enumerators across the nation to count those individuals

who did not return forms following the mailout/mailback or update/leave operations. The 

ultimate size of this operation remains unclear. Much will be determined by the mailback 

response rate – the greater the number of forms returned by mail, the fewer the

households which must be contacted during NRFU.

NRFU efforts are scheduled to be carried out in the field from April 27 to July 7, 2000. 

The Monitoring Board will be closely following the progress of this critical operation in

the coming months.

FIELD OBSERVATIONS

In order to assess the progress of the Census Bureau’s planning in several key areas, the 

Presidential and Congressional Members of the Monitoring Board have undertaken a

series of field observations in recent months. This report summarizes this joint field

work.

These visits provide static observations of a large, dynamic process. They are intended to 

illustrate operations at the time of interview, in relatively few areas, and should not be

used to infer general conclusions about regional or national census operations.

In reporting these results, the Board would like to acknowledge the efforts of the Census 

Bureau in accommodating these site visits. Each of these field observations required the 

expenditure of significant resources to arrange briefings and site visits for Board staff. In 

particular, we would like to thank the staffs of the Regional Census Centers and Local

Census Offices with whom staff met. These site visits took place at a time of

extraordinary activity for Census Bureau staff across the nation. The time and effort

expended on arranging these informative field visits are greatly appreciated.
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

ES - v

Dallas Regional Case Study

In late February 2000, staff from the Presidential and Congressional Members of the

Monitoring Board visited the Dallas Regional Census Center and two Local Census

Offices (LCOs) in the region to review the status of enumeration planning at the regional

and local levels. The LCOs visited were located in El Paso and in Dallas County.

The Board was impressed by the efforts devoted to enumeration planning and outreach at 

the Dallas Regional Census Center, as well as the high degree of motivation and

dedication evidenced by its management and staff. The El Paso and Dallas County South 

LCO visits showed local efforts well-positioned to carry out the field work necessary to 

generate the best possible count: hard to enumerate (HTE) areas had been identified and 

solid plans developed to carry out the enumeration in each. In particular, we note the

extensive efforts to reach the populations living in the colonias in Texas. These

communities pose tremendous enumeration challenges, and we were impressed by the

Bureau’s efforts to reach them.

At the time of interview, both the RCC and the LCOs we visited were meeting their goals 

for enumerator recruiting. The Region was at 84.5 percent of its 276,415 applicant

recruiting goal, well in excess of the 70 percent goal established by the Bureau for the

time period. This applicant pool will be used to fill a total of 55,105 positions. Efforts 

by the RCC and LCOs to secure a sufficient pool of bilingual enumerator applicants

appeared to be succeeding.

The LCO staffs have been provided with good facilities, and reported no problems in

securing needed supplies and materials to carry out their work.

In regard to delivery of questionnaires in linguistically isolated communities (such as the

Spanish colonias located in the Dallas Region), the Board agrees that delivering nonEnglish questionnaires where appropriate would be of great benefit to a full enumeration. 

However, members disagree on the feasibility of implementing this policy during the

2000 census. For full discussion of this issue, see page 25. 

New York Regional Case Study

Staff from the Presidential and Congressional Members of the Monitoring Board traveled 

to the New York Region on February 22 and 23, 2000. Meetings were held with the 

Regional Census Center (RCC) and with the management of two LCOs, located in

Harlem and Flushing, Queens.

The New York Region, although geographically the smallest of the Bureau’s 12 regions, 

presents unique challenges for a successful enumeration effort. Most of the world’s

languages are spoken in the region, and the rich ethnic, religious and cultural diversity of

the population requires an equally diverse outreach program. At the time of interview,
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

ES - vi

the RCC reported roughly 3,000 partnerships with local governments and community

organizations. Significant time and effort had been invested in fostering and coordinating

partnership efforts, and the Board agrees that these efforts are invaluable to conducting a 

successful census.

The New York Region was exceeding its overall employee recruiting goal at the time of

our visit. The RCC had reached 90 percent of its total recruiting goal by February 25. 

The March 1 goal established by the Bureau required reaching 70 percent of the total. 

The RCC had tested a total of 219,526 job applicants to fill 41,345 positions.

Site visits to the New York Northwest (in Harlem) and Queens Northeast LCOs showed 

the offices to be staffed by knowledgeable, dedicated management and staff. In both

cases, staff demonstrated a detailed knowledge of the areas and communities which they

will be required to enumerate. Extensive enumeration planning had been conducted,

drawing heavily on the expertise of LCO staff and the Planning Database provided by the 

Bureau.

In both cases, recruiting was meeting or exceeding the goals established for the time

frame. The New York Northwest LCO had already reached 105 percent of its total

recruiting goal. The Queens Northeast LCO had met the 70 percent interim recruiting

goal for late February. 

LCO staff in Queens Northeast reported successful recruiting drives for bilingual

enumerators, aided by pre-testing exercises conducted in Korean, Chinese and Greek. 

The Harlem LCO staff was conducting aggressive recruiting efforts, but remained

concerned about meeting the enumeration needs of the large Mexican American

community in its jurisdiction. 

Although the Queens Northeast LCO staff reported no complaints about the office space 

they have been provided, New York Northwest LCO staff reported significant problems. 

Access for persons with disabilities, and the delivery of needed furniture and supplies,

were hampered by a non-functioning elevator. (The office is located on the third floor.) 

The building had no running water on the day of the interview, the third interruption in

the water supply since the LCO opened in October 1999. One such outage lasted nine 

days. Trash pickup was reportedly inadequate. The lack of curtains or blinds required 

staff to tape paper over windows to reduce glare on computer screens.

In fairness, it should be noted that the General Services Administration (GSA)

experienced significant difficulties in obtaining a site for the New York Northwest LCO, 

despite exhaustive efforts to obtain adequate space. However, the Board remains

concerned about the conditions faced by the New York Northwest LCO staff as they

prepare to enumerate one of the most challenging areas in the nation. Senior regional

staff assured the Monitoring Board that steps were being taken to remedy the problems 

with the New York Northwest LCO facilities.
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

ES - vii

Alaska Enumeration

In January 2000, staff from the Presidential and Congressional members of the

Monitoring Board traveled to Alaska to observe the Remote Alaska Enumeration

operation and to meet with the staff of the Anchorage LCO. Board staff accompanied

Bureau personnel for meetings with community leaders, enumeration interviews, and for

an aerial map-spotting operation.

The Board is impressed with the dedicated efforts of the Bureau’s Alaska staff, and the 

degree of cultural sensitivity they have shown to the Native population in the state. 

Native leaders expressed their congratulations on the Bureau’s efforts. Board staff noted 

that the LCO’s successful partnership work has shown similar successes outside the

state’s Native community, as well.

The Board believes that the strategies employed by the Bureau in Alaska benefit the

count in remote villages and address concerns regarding the undercount of native

communities throughout the state. The positive results seen so far highlight the Alaska

effort as an instructive example for Bureau operations in other areas of the country.

Household Matching Training

In January 2000, staff from the Presidential and Congressional members of the

Monitoring Board traveled to the Census Bureau’s National Processing Center in

Jeffersonville, Indiana to monitor training for clerical staff who will conduct the Before

Follow-Up (BFU) matching operation. The BFU procedures will be used to match the

address list developed for the traditional enumeration with the list developed as part of

the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation (ACE) survey.

The training provided for clerical level staff was well-executed to familiarize clerical

staff with the Bureau guidelines to housing unit matching.

Given the importance of the various matching operations to be used by the Bureau in its 

effort to measure the expected undercount and possibly adjust the 2000 census, the Board 

plans to observe the Person Matching training scheduled for the fall of 2000. We will

transmit the results of those observations in a subsequent report.

Participation in the census is one of the most basic civic responsibilities. The results of

the 2000 census will, for the next ten years, affect every aspect of American life. The

results will guide the allocation of political representation at the federal, state and local

levels, determine funding for schools, hospitals, roads, bridges, and utilities, and guide

vital decisions to address some of our most pressing social problems. In the private

sector, businesses will rely on these numbers to decide where to invest, and where to

build stores, factories and bank branches and housing.
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

ES - viii

This census has seen its share of political controversy. But for all the debate, we join

unanimously to urge every resident of the United States to complete and return their

census forms, and to cooperate with the Census Bureau’s enumerators when they begin

their efforts to find those who have been missed.

Sincerely,

Gilbert F. Casellas J. Kenneth Blackwell

Co-Chair, Presidential Members Co-Chair, Congressional Members

 

Cruz M. Bustamante David W. Murray

Presidential Member Congressional Member

Everett M. Ehrlich A. Mark Neuman

Presidential Member Congressional Member

Lorraine A. Green Joe D. Whitley

Presidential Member Congressional Member

cc: Members of the 106th Congress

The Honorable William Daley, U.S. Secretary of Commerce

The Honorable Kenneth Prewitt, Director, U.S. Bureau of the Census
INTENTIONALLY BLANK 
ES - x

INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Table of Contents

Table

Of 

Contents

I. Introduction 1

II. New York Regional Case Study 10

A. New York Northwest, LCO #2236 13

B. Queens Northeast, LCO #2240 19

III. Dallas Regional Case Study 23

A. Dallas County South, LCO #3035 33

B. El Paso, LCO #3036 36

IV. Alaska Enumeration 41

V. Household Matching Training 49
INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Page 1 of 54

Section

I

After years of preparation, Census Day 2000 has finally arrived. In

preparing for this day, the Census Bureau, state and local governments,

and thousands of partners in the private and public sectors have taken

steps to ensure the success of Census 2000.

This report details the findings from a series of joint field observations

conducted in recent months. Specifically, the Board has undertaken case

studies of Bureau operations in both the Dallas and New York census

regions, conducted observations of critical training sessions at the Census

Bureau’s National Processing Center in Jeffersonville, Indiana, and sent

staff to observe census operations in the state of Alaska.

With some exceptions detailed in the following report, and subject to their 

relatively limited scope, our observations indicate the planning for census

operations and community relations is generally proceeding well in the

regional offices and local census offices we visited.

Participation in the census is one of the most basic civic responsibilities. 

The results of the 2000 Census will, for the next ten years, affect every

aspect of American life. The results will guide the allocation of political

representation at the federal, state and local levels, determine funding for

schools, hospitals, roads, bridges, and utilities, and guide vital decisions to 

address some of our most pressing social problems. In the private sector, 

businesses will rely on these numbers to decide where to invest, and where 

to build stores, factories and bank branches and housing.

This census has seen its share of political controversy. But for all the

debate, we join unanimously to urge every resident of the United States to 

complete and return the census forms they have received and to cooperate 

with the Census Bureau’s enumerators when they begin their efforts to

find those who have been missed.

CENSUS OPERATIONS UPDATE

Following is a brief summary of major census operations. As with any

undertaking of such massive scale, there have been operational problems

to date and there likely will be more before the Census Bureau concludes 

its field operations later this year. 

INTRODUCTION
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Page 2 of 54

It should be noted that the largest and most vital operations, the Mailout

and return of census questionnaires by mail and the field effort to follow

up on non-responding households, are either still underway or yet to

begin. These observations about census operations must, therefore, be

considered preliminary.

Remote Alaska Enumeration

Enumeration efforts began on January 19, 2000 with the Remote Alaska 

Enumeration. This operation begins well in advance of Census Day in

order to count residents of remote villages before the change of seasons

prompts many to leave their communities to hunt, fish, or engage in other 

employment. For details on the Monitoring Board’s observations of this

operation, see Section IV of this report.

Advance Notice Letter

On March 6, 2000, the Bureau mailed advance notice letters announcing

that Census 2000 questionnaires would be arriving soon. The letter was

sent to approximately 112 million households nationwide. In addition to

announcing the arrival of the census forms, the letter announced the

availability of census forms in Spanish, Korean, Japanese, Vietnamese,

Chinese or Tagalog. By checking off a selection on the letter and

returning via an enclosed envelope, households could receive a form in

one of these six languages.

A significant printing error on the letters was discovered after they had

been shipped to U.S. Postal Service facilities for delivery. The contractor 

hired by the Government Printing Office (GPO) to print the letters

inadvertently inserted an extra digit as the first character in the street

address line of the address. The Bureau’s quality control procedures failed 

to detect the error.

The Postal Service provided the Bureau with assurances that the letters

would be successfully delivered despite the error, and the Monitoring

Board would like to thank the Postal Service for their efforts to ensure this 

important operation was carried out. 

There are indications the advance letter has had a positive effect. As of

March 20, 2000 roughly 1.5 million non-English forms had been requested 

via return of the advance letter. In addition, on March 21, 2000, the
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Page 3 of 54

Bureau Director reported the results of the Inter-Survey (a survey funded 

by private donations but coordinated with the Bureau) which found that

the number of respondents who understood that the census is primarily a

Mailback operation climbed from 58 percent prior to the letter’s delivery 

to 84 percent afterward.7

Update/Leave Enumeration

The Update/Leave enumeration efforts (in which enumerators handdeliver questionnaires in rural areas while simultaneously updating the

address lists) began on March 3, 2000 and were scheduled to end on 

March 30, shortly after this report went to press. List/Enumerate

operations, used in remote and sparsely populated areas where

enumerators will directly enumerate residents rather than delivering

questionnaires for Mailback, began on March 13, 2000 and are scheduled 

to continue until May 1, 2000.

Mailout/Mailback Operations

On March 13, 2000, the Bureau mailed out roughly 98 million forms to

households as part of its Mailout/Mailback effort. The Bureau had

previously verified that the printing error on the advance letters was not

duplicated on the forms. As of March 21, 2000, just under 15 million

households had returned their forms, and the Bureau’s four Data Capture

Centers (DCCs) had processed 7.3 million of them.8

Urban Update/Enumerate Operations

Urban Update/Enumerate operations were scheduled to begin on March

20, 2000, and are scheduled to be completed by May 30, 2000. The

Bureau intends to use the Urban Update/Enumerate strategy in selected

areas with historically high or potentially high undercounts. Enumerators

will update the census address list and directly interview residents of

selected areas’ households, rather than dropping off questionnaires and

awaiting a reply by mail.

 

7

 It should be noted that the nationwide paid media campaign, carried out by Young & Rubicam under a Bureau 

contract, was operating in the same time period as the advance letter delivery. 

8

 Dr. Kenneth Prewitt, Director, U.S. Census Bureau, March 21, 2000 press briefing.
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Page 4 of 54

Recruiting

Recruiting efforts aimed at filling the more than 535,000 staff positions9

the Bureau will need at peak operations were on track at the national level. 

On March 21, 2000 the Bureau Director announced that the Bureau had 

recruited an applicant pool of 2.2 million qualified individuals. This is

roughly 91 percent of the national recruiting goal, and was reached just

under one month prior to the April 19, 2000 recruiting deadline. The

Bureau’s 520 Local Census Offices (LCOs) were open and operating. For 

details on the Monitoring Board’s findings on recruiting and LCO

operations in the Dallas and New York census regions, see Sections II and 

III of this report.

Enumerators fluent in the language of the community are essential to a

successful count in linguistically isolated communities. The Board will

continue to monitor the effect of English proficiency tests – required of all 

enumerators in the lower 49 states and the District of Columbia – on

hiring in these areas. We are encouraged by the reports from local offices 

detailed in this report, which indicated the English proficiency test had not 

been a barrier to recruiting a suitable workforce.

Congressional Members’ Position

Initial reporting of the Bureau’s recruiting progress has focused on

national, not local, recruiting goals. The Congressional Members of the 

Monitoring Board believe that neighborhood hiring levels – not national 

goals – are the appropriate measure of recruiting success. Reporting on 

the national or aggregate level can mask the issue that there may be 

neighborhoods, particularly hard-to-count neighborhoods, where

indigenous recruiting and hiring is not successful.

Based on conversations and interviews with local leaders across the

country, the Congressional Members are still concerned that the Bureau’s 

national plans to recruit and hire locally may not be realized in some 

hard-to-enumerate areas. We will continue our efforts to monitor local 

hiring in the field, through observation and interview with both local 

census offices and local partners.

The Congressional Members agree that the best enumerator is a person 

who looks like and sounds like the person answering the door. 

 

9 Census 2000 Field Staffing Requirements at Peak Operation, U.S. Bureau of the Census, December 12, 1999.
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Page 5 of 54

Neighborhood residents have the knowledge of their own communities –

something altogether different than verbatim training and operational

directive. The Congressional Members believe the best way to reduce the 

undercount in hard-to-count neighborhoods is to ensure local residents 

are hired to take the census in their own neighborhoods.

For example, enumeration in Miami’s Little Haiti depends on hiring

Haitian residents of Little Haiti; and enumeration in nearby Little Havana 

depends on employing Cuban residents of Little Havana.

In 1990, differential pay scales were first used to meet this challenge. The 

differential pay scales meant that people living in urban neighborhoods 

could effectively be hired. This was an important first step that the Bureau 

has continued in 2000.

The public statements of the Secretary of Commerce and the Director of 

the Bureau of the Census share this view. Secretary of Commerce William 

M. Daley stated, “the ideal census taker for us is a person who lives in a 

neighborhood. It is someone who knows the territory and knows the 

families in the area in which they live...it is someone who knows where the 

children are and how many children there may be in the building.”10 

The Director of the Census Bureau publicly echoed this commitment,

saying, “our goal is to have a pool of local people who are familiar with 

their communities and committed to a successful count in their own

neighborhoods.”11 While these statements are encouraging, the Board 

does not have sufficient information to affirm that stated goals are being 

implemented in the neighborhoods and on the streets in the hard-to-count 

communities.

We recognize the Bureau is fully capable of incorporating cultural

sensitivity and adaptability in their hiring practices. The current

enumeration operations in Remote Alaska illustrate this, and should be 

used as a model for other communities throughout America that are the 

hardest-to-count: colonias, vast sections of public housing, and remote 

rural areas such as the Mississippi Delta. For example, in the Native 

Alaska communities of Remote Alaska, the Bureau has waived the hiring 

 

10 Department of Commerce, Secretary William M. Daley, White House Briefing: Welfare to Work and the 2000 

Census (Washington, DC: National Press Club, 28 September 1999).

11 Damon Adams, “Census Bureau Counting on Local Hiring,” Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, Sunday, 16 

January 2000, Broward Edition P1, sec. B.
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Page 6 of 54

test requirement and solicits the input of Tribal Leaders when they hire 

village residents as enumerators.

Presidential Members’ Position

The Presidential Members join the Congressional Members in reaffirming 

the importance of local recruiting and hiring to a successful enumeration. 

However, we note that the Census Bureau has long incorporated local 

recruiting and hiring as an integral part of its planning for Census 2000 –

a commitment which pre-dates the establishment of the Monitoring Board 

and one which was documented in the Board’s joint report on April 1, 

1999.

The importance of local recruiting, hiring and assignment has been

repeatedly stressed by the Secretary of Commerce, the Director of the 

Census Bureau, and by all the regional and local census office officials 

with whom we spoke in the process of researching this report.

Each LCO visited during the preparation of this report had made the 

recruiting of local residents a priority. Their dedicated efforts to ensure 

that recruiting reaches into hard to enumerate neighborhoods are

documented in this report. In particular, our visit to the New York 

Northwest LCO confirmed that the LCO staff was aware of the challenges 

they were facing in recruiting sufficient staff to enumerate the Mexican 

American community in their jurisdiction. We saw no lack of commitment 

by the LCO to ensuring those recruiting challenges are met.

While we agree that measuring the success of these efforts will be an 

important evaluation, and will continue to examine the Bureau’s progress, 

we find no basis for questioning the Census Bureau’s commitment to this 

recruiting strategy.
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Page 7 of 54

Food Stamps, Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance Program

(CHIP) and Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) Waivers

Effective hiring at the neighborhood level in economically disadvantaged

communities will often mean hiring residents who receive public

assistance such as Food Stamps, Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance

Program (CHIP) and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). 

Until recently the fear of losing government assistance for taking a

temporary census job was a concern for the Census Bureau and for

residents in low-income communities. 

In 1990, the Census Bureau addressed this concern through a series of

cooperative agreements with the Federal agencies that manage the most

important government assistance programs. However, the waiver process

has proved significantly more complex for 2000. The Welfare Reform

Act has transferred much of the responsibility for administering social

services to the states. 

As a result, for Census 2000, the Census Bureau and partners in Congress 

have worked to secure waivers at both the national level and in individual

states.

On December 29, 1998, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development announced a waiver for recipients of Section 8 housing 

assistance. Since the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced the

availability of a similar waiver for Food Stamp recipients in early

February 2000, 46 states have approved the waiver.

Similarly, under a waiver announced by the U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services, 25 states have announced waivers for recipients of

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Twenty-eight states

have announced that they will exclude census earnings from eligibility

calculations for Medicaid, and 25 have announced the same policy for

CHIP eligibility.

The waiver program remains an important recruiting tool for Census 2000, 

especially in communities which may be experiencing a shortage of

qualified applicants in hard-to-enumerate areas.
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Page 8 of 54

Congressional Members’ Position

The Congressional Members commend the Bureau for their work in

advocating this issue, as well as those Senators who intervened directly 

with the Secretary of Agriculture to encourage him to reverse the

Department’s initial rejection of the waiver proposal.

Partnership

Efforts to form partnerships with state and local governments and

community organizations to promote the census continue. As of March

21, 2000, the Bureau reported more than 102,000 partnerships across the 

country.12

Questionnaire Assistance Centers and Be Counted Sites

The 12 Regional Census Centers, and the LCOs in their jurisdictions, had 

identified a total of 27,000 sites for Questionnaire Assistance Centers

(QACs) and more than 21,000 sites at which to place forms and materials 

for the Be Counted effort.13 QAC startups began on March 8, 2000. 

These centers are scheduled to remain open until April 14, 2000, shortly

before Non-Response Follow-Up operations begin.

Telephone Questionnaire Assistance

Problems were initially reported with the Telephone Questionnaire

Assistance (TQA) system designed to provide assistance to individuals

with questions about the census form. (Telephone assistance is available

in English, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Korean and Tagalog.) 

According to Census Bureau Director Kenneth Prewitt, the initial

incoming call volume exceeded predictions, which were based on the

timing of calls to the 1990 Census telephone assistance system. As a

result, calls came in before the system was operating with its full staffing

complement of 9,100. Director Prewitt later reported the problem seemed 

resolved once all the planned operators were in place. The TQA system

had logged a total of 1.8 million calls as of March 18, 2000. Roughly 15 

percent of these calls were to the Spanish language line.14

 

12 Reported by the Monitoring Board’s Census Bureau liaison, March 23, 2000.

13 Ibid.

14 Dr. Kenneth Prewitt, Director, U.S. Census Bureau, March 21, 2000 press briefing.
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Page 9 of 54

Special Population, Transient and Group Quarters Enumeration

Bureau operations to enumerate special, and often hard-to-enumerate, 

populations were scheduled for late March (shortly after this report went

to press). On March 27, 2000 the Bureau planned to send enumerators to 

transitional and emergency shelters to count residents of those facilities. 

On March 28, enumerators were scheduled to canvass soup kitchens and 

mobile food vans for those who may be missed by other census

operations. On March 29, teams of enumerators were scheduled to count 

homeless persons living in outdoor areas, and on March 31, persons

without a permanent address living at transient locations (including parks,

fairgrounds, carnivals and marinas) were to be enumerated. On April 1,

2000, the enumeration of group quarters is scheduled to take place. This 

operation will count residents of nursing homes, college dormitories,

residential treatment facilities and prisons.

Non-Response Follow-Up

Finally, on April 27, 2000, the Bureau will begin a massive Non-Response 

Follow-Up (NRFU) operation, deploying enumerators across the nation to 

count those individuals who did not return forms following the

mailout/mailback or update/leave operations. The ultimate scope of this

operation remains unclear. Much will be determined by the mailback

response rate – the greater the number of forms returned by mail, the

fewer the households which must be contacted during NRFU.

NRFU field operations are scheduled from April 27 to July 7, 2000. The 

Monitoring Board will be closely following the progress of this critical

operation in the coming months.
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Page 10 of 54

Section

II

REGIONAL CENSUS CENTER

On February 22 and 23, 2000, Board staff visited the New York Regional

Census Center (RCC) and the New York Northwest and Queens Northeast 

local census offices (LCOs). The RCC visit lasted about three hours, and

each LCO visit lasted one to three hours, which covered a briefing, tour and 

question and answer period.

The New York RCC is located in a federal government building in southern

Manhattan. The 9

th floor office includes sufficient space for the staff. Staff

observed separate office areas for all divisions: recruiting, geography,

partnership, automation, and payroll. Areas for a receptionist, top

management, and assistants were also adequate. 

In order to insure that pay is distributed accurately and on time, the RCC had 

recently added extra pay facilitator positions. Computers and office space

had been provided for up to seven clerks to work full time on payroll support. 

In some divisions, such as Geography (which produces maps for

enumerators), two or more work shifts are being employed. 

Monitoring Board staff were briefed by the senior officials of the Census 

Bureau’s New York Region, including the Regional Director, RCC Manager, 

Recruiting Manager, Partnership Manager, Geography Coordinator, and

Automation Coordinator. Additional regional staff also participated.

Most households in the New York Region are designated as

mailout/mailback. That is, they will receive (and are asked to return) a

census questionnaire via the U.S. Postal Service. Other housing units in the 

region will be enumerated by update/leave or urban update/enumerate. 

During update/leave, enumerators update the Bureau address list while

NEW YORK REGIONAL CASE STUDY

STRATEGY NUMBER OF

HOUSEHOLDS

PERCENT OF 

TOTAL

Mailout/Mailback 6,482,355 93.8%

Update/Leave 69,045 1.0%

Urban 

Update/Enumerate 360,612 5.2%

New York Region Enumeration Strategies
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Page 11 of 54

delivering questionnaires to households in rural areas. Respondents are asked 

to complete the forms and return them by mail. Urban update/enumerate is

employed in certain targeted areas, and involves updating address lists and

the simultaneous enumeration of households.

The New York RCC administers 39 LCOs centered around the New York 

City metropolitan area. Twenty-two LCOs are in New York City, while six

are just north of the City and 11 are located in New Jersey.

According to the New York Regional Director, the region is unique in a few

important respects. It leads the nation in population concentration and multiunit dwellings. It also contains the largest number of urban HTE areas. The 

Regional Director emphasized New York City’s unparalleled diversity,

including representatives of virtually every language and culture from around

the world.

The New York region has one significant advantage over others: it covers the 

smallest geographic area (only 309 square miles). This allows regional or

partnership staff to make relatively quick visits to and from many of the

region’s LCOs.

Partnership

Due to the New York region’s small size, it elected to distribute Partnership 

Specialist responsibilities by race or ethnicity across the region, rather than

assign one specialist to each LCO. The Regional Director noted limitations

to this approach: race and ethnic groups far outnumber the 50 Partnership

Specialists in the region. The region does not have sufficient personnel to

cover each of the languages and cultures represented in New York City. 

However, the Regional Director indicated that assigning Partnership

Specialists by race or ethnic focus allows the New York RCC to cover a

broader range of races and ethnicities than individual LCO assignments.

Resources may be strained in some key areas, due to the complexity of the 

partnership workload. For example, managers at New York Northwest

reported poor coordination with the partnership staff (see page 14). 

According to the Regional Director, developing partnerships with

government and various private sector entities has been the greatest task

facing the New York RCC. This is the first census in which the Census
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Page 12 of 54

Bureau has actively sought such a broad range of partners, and the workload 

has been heavier than expected. 

The Board agrees that partnership with local leaders is invaluable to a

successful census. Outside partners, particularly community-based 

organizations, are best able to motivate residents to participate in the census. 

Time spent developing local partnerships is therefore a necessary investment,

particularly in hard-to-enumerate areas.

The Regional Director noted some partnerships, such as those with the State 

and City of New York, initially required considerable attention from the

RCC, and now function effectively as an independent partner. Other

examples cited require more “handholding” from the RCC. With

approximately 3,000 partnerships, the RCC cannot work closely with them

all.

According to the Regional Director, partnership and outreach efforts had

consumed a significant amount of top management resources. He also stated 

the time demands of meeting with political leaders and oversight groups

(including the Monitoring Board) had been significant. 

Recruiting and Staffing

At the time of interview, the New York Region had exceeded its overall

employee recruiting goal of 70 percent. As of March 1, 2000, the nationwide 

goal was 70 percent of the total applicants needed. By February 25, the New 

York region had recruited 90 percent of applicants needed. 

The Bureau tracks the pass/fail rates for the employment test administered to 

applicants for enumerator positions. At the time of interview, 86 percent or 

120,573 of 140,399 applicants tested had passed. No LCO reported less than 

a 75 percent passing rate.

AREA GOAL

New Jersey 11,605

New York State 7,385

New York City 22,155

Total 41,345

New York Region Hiring Goals
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Page 13 of 54

The Bureau does not have a policy of contacting applicants after they have

taken the test. Regional staff reported complaints from applicants who were 

not notified of failing the test, and responded with a regional policy. The

region sent letters to all applicants who had not passed, informed them of

their status, and encouraged them to re-take the test (which may be re-taken 

indefinitely).

At the time of interview, recruiting was largely successful across the region,

with some pockets of concern. Of the region’s 39 offices, 28 were ahead of 

their recruiting goals, and 11 lagged behind. The region had employed the

Bureau’s standard measures to escalate recruiting efforts where necessary.

Recruiting materials are generated at the RCC as well as the LCOs and by

headquarter-contracted printing locations.

NEW YORK NORTHWEST, 2236

Congressional and Presidential Monitoring Board staff met with the

management of the New York Northwest local census office (LCO) for

approximately two hours during the morning of February 23, 2000. The

LCO manager, assistant managers for administration, field operations, and

recruiting were present, as well as the office’s automation technician. Also

present were the New York Assistant Regional Census Manager (ARCM),

and the Regional Technician responsible for the office. The Census

Monitoring Board liaison was in attendance.

New York Northwest is responsible for enumerating the historic

neighborhood of Harlem. The almost wholly-minority area includes African,

African American, Caribbean, Mexican and Puerto Rican households. The

1990 population was 308,453, living in 154,588 housing units.15 Mistrust of 

government, linguistic and cultural isolation, and socioeconomic conditions

contribute to the area’s hard-to-enumerate designation. The office also faces 

operational challenges: apparently poor coordination with partnership staff,

slow delivery of supplies, and inadequate physical facilities.

Despite these challenges, the dedicated staff had surpassed recruiting goals. 

At the time of interview, recruiting a sizable pool of job applicants was the

major operational focus of LCOs nationwide. Census Bureau records as of

 

15 Source: December 1999 Planning Database. Data may not reflect regional updates. The December 1999 PDB 

was provided to the Monitoring Board. The PDB assigns each census tract to an LCO using an LCO code. For

example, all census tracts in the New York Northwest area have the code 2236. Discussions with regional staff 

suggest regional updates to LCO coding are not reflected in the file provided to the Board. As a result, population 

and housing unit totals may differ from regional data.
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Page 14 of 54

February 24, 2000, show New York Northwest at 105 percent of the

recruiting goal, with 4,825 qualified applicants.16

Opened in October 1999, this office arguably has one of the most difficult

assignments among the Census Bureau’s 520 LCOs. Harlem is actually split 

into two distinct communities: West and East Harlem, or Black Harlem and

El Barrio, respectively. West Harlem’s population includes African

American, African and Caribbean households. There is a small but growing

French African population. El Barrio, which used to be almost entirely

Puerto Rican, is now also home to a rapidly-growing Mexican community,

which LCO staff have identified as particularly hard-to-count. The large

Spanish-speaking population creates a demand for in-language recruiting and 

promotional materials. It also requires a substantial number of Spanish-fluent 

enumerators.

Hard-To-Enumerate Planning

Census and survey coverage is generally lower than average in Black and

Latino neighborhoods in dense urban areas, which puts Harlem at risk for

extreme undercounts in Census 2000. Most of the census tracts in the area 

have been identified as hard-to-enumerate (HTE) by the Bureau’s

demographers, using data from the 1990 Census.

In addition, the management team – consisting wholly of Harlem residents –

demonstrated detailed knowledge of different aspects of the community. 

Staff combined local knowledge with the Bureau’s Planning Database (PDB)

to develop special enumeration plans for HTE tracts. These HTE action

plans, referred to as “Hot Tracts,” were provided to the Regional Census

Center (RCC) two weeks prior to interview.17

LCO staff cited blitz and pair enumeration among the strategies planned for

Hot Tracts.18 Monitoring Board staff requested copies of the plan, which

would provide greater detail of the Bureau’s efforts to improve enumeration

in areas at risk of extreme undercounts, and were refused by the Monitoring

Board liaison.19

 

16 Census 2000 Recruiting Status, New York LCOs, U.S. Bureau of the Census, February 25, 2000.

17 During Autumn 1999, each of the 520 LCOs was required to prepare an HTE action plan; special enumeration 

strategies for census tracts identified as HTE.

18 Blitz and pair enumeration are two special-enumeration strategies included in the “toolkit” of options provided by 

Bureau headquarters. Both involve sending multiple enumerators to an assignment area, instead of a single 

enumerator.

19 The Associate Director for Field Operations has yet to authorize the release of any HTE action plans to the 

Monitoring Board. The stated reason is that the plans are not in final form. However, we note the plans are 

intended to be “living documents.” They will not be in final form until census operations are complete.
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Page 15 of 54

Facilities

The ability of New York Northwest’s staff to meet enumeration challenges

may be impaired by poor working conditions. On the day of interview, the 

office had no running water. This was the third such occasion since the

October opening. Management reported one previous interruption of service 

had lasted nine days. During these occasions, the office staff (about 40

employees at the time of interview) was forced to solicit nearby businesses

for use of the facilities.

Management’s greatest physical concern is the building’s elevator, which had

not worked since the LCO opening. The office space is located on the third 

floor, and is not accessible to persons with disabilities. This also inhibits

deliveries of supplies for the office or field staff. (For example, delivery of

several hundred pounds of desks and chairs was delayed due to

inaccessibility. LCOs also receive a large volume of various forms for

administration and enumeration.)

Other space concerns include leaking plumbing, rodents, fire code violations,

inadequate trash pickup and no window treatments (staff had taped paper

over windows to reduce glare on computer monitors).

The ARCM ended further discussion of facilities, although LCO staff and the 

Regional Technician indicated there were additional problems in this area. 

Senior regional staff later assured the Monitoring Board they were aware of

the facilities problems in New York Northwest, and were working closely

with the General Services Administration (which procured space for all

LCOs) to remedy all problems. Regional staff cited extreme difficulty

obtaining a lease for suitable space in this LCO area. Reportedly, exhaustive 

efforts to obtain space, including soliciting aid from Congressional

Representatives in the area, produced no suitable facilities.

This visit did not provide sufficient information for a full evaluation of the

cause, effect and remedy of the facilities problems in New York Northwest, 

nor does the Monitoring Board have resources to perform such an evaluation. 

Nevertheless, these problems – and their impact on the staff – are clearly

cause for concern.
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Page 16 of 54

Recruiting and Staffing

Despite the challenges described above, recruiting has been successful. 

According to Bureau records, New York Northwest had reached 105 percent 

of its goal for qualified job applicants as of February 24, 2000. Management 

reports word-of-mouth and community “blitzing” (handing out fliers at

community events) have been effective recruiting tactics, and the local

churches have been prominent recruiting partners. However, staff reports

that the strongest incentive for many Harlem residents is the substantial pay:

$19.50 an hour.20

From January 1, 1998 through February 22, 2000, 2236 had 7,672 job

applicants. A majority were Black and Latino women. As of February 22, 

100 applicants were working and 29 had been offered a position (hiring

enumerators for non-response follow-up, the most labor-intensive operation,

was scheduled to begin three weeks after the interview, on March 13). The 

applicant file listed 4,451 total persons available, with the remainder

ineligible or under review.21

Although mail response will determine precise staffing levels and

composition, New York Northwest anticipates hiring approximately 800 –

1,000 enumerators. The crew leader-to-enumerator ratio will be 1:20.22 

Management estimated needing approximately 350 Spanish-fluent 

enumerators. Staff anticipated potential problems in hiring enough

enumerators in linguistically and culturally isolated Mexican neighborhoods. 

In particular, recruiters cited difficulty in receiving necessary identification

from recent immigrants.

The LCO established 24 testing centers. Five were identified with the help of 

the partnership specialist. One center, located on East 14th Street, was

established exclusively for the Mexican community: testing of Mexican

applicants, conducted by Mexican local partners (the Latino Advisory

Committee).

 

20 At the time of interview, the Assistant Manager for Field Operations noted a concern that census income counted 

against TANF and Medicaid eligibility. The potential loss of benefits had discouraged some local applicants who 

might be valuable enumerators. In March 2000, the state of New York opted into the TANF and Medicaid waiver 

programs (see page six for further discussion).

21 PAMS/ADAMS Applicant Background Profile Report, February 22, 2000. The Assistant Manager for Field 

Operations noted a concern that census income counted against TANF and Medicaid eligibility.

22 This ratio includes the Bureau’s practice of “frontloading:” hiring two people for each position in anticipation of 

turnover.
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Page 17 of 54

English Proficiency Test

Although the enumerator test can be administered in Spanish, Spanish

applicants must also pass an English proficiency test, since training is

conducted in English. Staff reported the English-proficiency test did not

appear prohibitive: out of 74 tests administered in the prior week, 70 were

passed.

However, anticipating that they may need some flexibility in this area, there

is a contingency plan to employ the Spanish-language training materials in

use in Puerto Rico, conduct training in Spanish, and waive the English

requirement, if necessary.

Monitoring Board staff requested a breakdown of the applicant file by

language ability. Although the Bureau tracks this information, the RCC

declined to provide it to the Board.

Pre-Appointment Management System and Automated Decennial

Administrative Management System (PAMS/ADAMs)

Management reported considerable frustration with the PAMS/ADAMS

system and the recently installed PAMS/ADAMS Data Entry (PADE) 

software. There was some concern that the new data-entry software required 

additional time and auditing by clerks, and that efficiency was actually

reduced. However, New York Northwest management has prioritized timely

payment, and had received no complaints for late payment.

There was also concern about the ability to hire experienced employees at the 

appropriate pay scale. Specifically, the Assistant Manager for Field

Operations wished to hire a woman, who had performed exceptionally as a

lister during address listing, as a crew leader. Accepting the position, the

woman received her first paycheck at the enumerator wage. Upon

investigation, it was confirmed that PAMS/ADAMS would not permit an

experienced employee to be hired at a higher rate – they must be hired at their 

previous wage. Bringing this to the attention of Bureau headquarters, the

RCC and the LCO were told to hire people at the lower pay rate, and increase 

it the following week. Both the LCO staff and the ARCM indicated this was 

an insufficient measure.
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Page 18 of 54

Partnership

One partnership specialist has been assigned to coordinate with New York

Northwest since the October 1999 opening. Another specialist was recently

hired at the prompting of the Latino Advisory Committee, to work primarily 

with the Mexican community. Staff suggest the partnership specialist

position would be more effective if it answered directly to the LCO, rather

than the RCC.

LCO staff reported coordination with the partnership specialist had been

poor. The specialist had little or no input in recruiting efforts, Hot Tract

planning, QAC and Be Counted site placement, or community outreach in

this particular LCO.

Office staff reported conducting their own outreach with local churches, and

meeting frequently with the Latino Advisory Committee and the Harlem

Complete Count Committee (CCC). Partnership activities include miniawareness days and church events. The Latino Advisory Committee meets

weekly at the LCO.

Questionnaire Assistance Centers (QACs) and Be Counted Sites

LCO staff have selected 45 QAC sites, expanded from an original 25. 

Partnership specialist and local partners did not have input in site selection. 

Additional Be Counted sites had not been determined at the time of

interview, although Be Counted forms had been delivered to the LCO.

Materials and Training

Management reported frustration in obtaining materials of any kind: office

supplies, promotional materials, enumeration and in-language forms. In

addition to the physical space difficulties noted above, all staff reported

consistent shortages and delays in receiving materials, with the exception of

maps.

Enumeration and administration training manuals, although lengthy, were

cited as effective reference materials. There was concern that the

PAMS/ADAMS manuals contain some misleading or superfluous instruction

in some areas.
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Page 19 of 54

In addition, the ARCM described “just in time” training sessions: detailed

training or “refresher” courses, conducted by area managers, dealing with

imminent operations. Management agreed these were valuable sessions.

QUEENS NORTHEAST, 2240

Congressional and Presidential Monitoring Board staff met with the

management of the Queens Northeast local census office (LCO) for

approximately one hour during the afternoon of February 23, 2000. The

LCO manager, assistant managers of administration, field operations, and

recruiting were present, as well as the office’s special places enumeration

coordinator. Also present were the Deputy Regional Director, an Assistant

Regional Census Manager, an Area Manager, and the Census Monitoring

Board liaison.

Queens Northeast is responsible for enumerating a largely white population,

with a substantial Asian community. The 1990 population was 308,453,

living in 154,588 housing units.23 

The LCO staff reported no problems, and had surpassed recruiting goals at

the time of interview. The only major concern discussed was the area’s

tightly-knit Korean and Chinese communities, which would be at risk for

major undercounts without sufficient in-language materials, local

enumerators, and partnership with community leaders. The office reported

actively pursuing all these goals with considerable success. However, the

Deputy Regional Director indicated that the enumeration of these hard-tocount communities represents a significant challenge.

Facilities

Queens Northeast officially opened its doors on October 29, 1999. The

office facilities were a sharp contrast from New York Northwest. The office 

was clean, well-lit and spacious. There were no complaints from the staff

regarding the facilities. Each department had plenty of space to operate.

 

23 Source: December 1999 Planning Database. Data may not reflect regional updates. The December 1999 PDB 

was provided to the Monitoring Board. The PDB assigns each census tract to an LCO using an LCO code. For 

example, all census tracts in the Queens Northeast area have the code 2240. Discussions with regional staff suggest 

regional updates to LCO coding are not reflected in the file provided to the Board. As a result, population and 

housing unit totals may differ from regional data.
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Page 20 of 54

Recruiting and Staffing

Recruitment seems to have been successful up to the time of interview. Staff

reported high recruitment numbers, reaching close to 70 percent of the

needed 9,000-person applicant pool. At peak operations, Queens Northeast 

expects to have 85 staff members in its office.

Fourteen recruiting assistants are responsible for hiring 800 to 1000

enumerators. This staffing level is based on an assumed mail response of 52 

percent (anticipated from the 1990 rate). The LCO estimated reaching 80

percent of the recruitment goal by March 1. Staff attributed recruiting

successes to pre-testing exercises conducted in Korean, Chinese and Greek, 

although the actual tests were only conducted in Spanish and English. The

LCO found that a sufficient number of applicants were Asian-language fluent 

and English proficient. The bulk of the first round of non-response follow-up 

(NRFU) hiring will be done by mid-April, and NRFU will begin April 27.

Management reported the main problem encountered in recruitment has been

the lack of proper identification credentials from applicants. Most of the time 

applicants simply forgot to bring them and had to return another day. In

some cases, applicants did not have the proper identification.

The pay scale for this LCO is at the high end; clerks will be paid from $14.00 

to $21.50, enumerators will be paid $18.80/hour, and crew leaders will be

paid $20.00/hour.

Hard-To-Enumerate Planning

The Planning Database (PDB), using 1990 Census data and response rates to 

identify hard-to-enumerate (HTE) areas, was supplemented with local

knowledge to develop an HTE Action Plan.

The largest minority populations in the area are Chinese, Korean and Hindu

Indians. The LCO goal is to recruit 30 people per census tract. According to 

the PDB (and confirmed by office staff), Queens Northeast has HTE

neighborhoods in only two zip codes, each with concentrations of Korean and 

Chinese residents.

Office staff reported preparing an action plan to enumerate HTE areas, and

submitting it to the Regional Census Center. Monitoring Board staff

requested copies of the plan, which would provide greater detail of the
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Page 21 of 54

Bureau’s efforts to improve enumeration in areas at risk of extreme

undercounts, and were refused by the Monitoring Board liaison.24

Pre-Appointment Management System and Automated Decennial

Administrative Management System (PAMS/ADAMS)

Queens Northeast reported no problems with PAMS/ADAMS, or the

recently-installed user interface, PAMS/ADAMS Data Entry (PADE).

Partnership

Two partnership specialists have been actively coordinating with the office

since the October 1999 opening. Staff reported a partnership specialist would 

generally be in the office for at least a short time on any given day.

Given the demographics of Queens Northeast, the LCO has formed an

invaluable partnership with the 80-member Queens Area Asian American

Coalition. The Coalition has developed an outreach plan for the Korean,

Chinese and Hindu communities. Management reported the Coalition

scheduling an all-day Census Awareness Conference at the Flushing Library,

which will target these communities.

The Korean Task Force, a member of the Queens CCC, has also been very 

helpful, working closely with the Korean Partnership Specialist. Both

organizations worked together to place a full-page ad in the Mandarin

Chinese newspaper alerting its readership of the Advance Letter and the

opportunity to request an in-language census form should it be needed.

Questionnaire Assistance Centers (QACs) and Be Counted Sites

Bureau records indicate 25 Questionnaire Assistance Centers (QACs) located 

in the Queens Northeast LCO area. The QAC sites were placed in

neighborhoods meeting the following criteria: identification as HTE;

identification of language barriers among residents; and a high proportion of

low-income families. The QACs were intended to be staffed by paid

employees and volunteers, although the volunteer pool had not been

determined at the time of interview. In addition, staff reported 25 partnership 

organizations submitted input on site selections.

 

24 The Associate Director for Field Operations has yet to authorize the release of any HTE action plans to the 

Monitoring Board. The stated reason is that the plans are not in final form. However, we note the plans are 

intended to be “living documents.” They will not be in final form until census operations are complete.
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Page 22 of 54

Materials

Promotional and outreach materials were translated and distributed by the

Queens Area Asian American Coalition and the Korean Task Force.

Staff expected delivery of Be Counted forms on February 25, and had

received the displays already. Management indicated that the employee

manuals were very helpful and that the field manuals were easy to sift

through. Staff also indicated no problems securing the necessary resource

materials.
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Page 23 of 54

Section

III

REGIONAL CENSUS CENTER

Staff from both sides of the Census Monitoring Board visited the Dallas

Regional Census Center (RCC) and two local census offices in the region

– Dallas County South and El Paso, Texas February 28 – 29, 2000. Senior 

management officials of the RCC briefed the staff for approximately four

hours. Conducting the briefing were the Dallas Regional Director, Deputy

Regional Director, Area Regional Census Managers, Regional Recruiters,

the Regional Media Specialist, and the Regional Partnership Coordinator.

The Dallas Regional Census Center is responsible for conducting the

decennial in three states – Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. The

combined population of these three states is estimated at 24 million people 

living in approximately 11,455,000 housing units. There are 7 American

Indian Reservations and over 6,000 governmental units. The region

contains twenty-five cities with over 100,000 people and vast stretches of

rural counties. To assist in counting this area of over 350,000 square

miles, the Bureau opened 46 Local Census Offices. Thirty-two are in

Texas, 9 are in Louisiana, and 5 are in Mississippi.

Due to the diverse geography of the region, the Dallas RCC will employ

five different enumeration strategies: mailout/mailback, update/leave,

urban update leave, update/enumerate, and list/enumerate. 

Mailout/Mailback describes the method where the Bureau mails out a

census form and expects a form back in the mail. Update/leave is when

the Bureau updates its address list while delivering questionnaires in rural

areas and expects the form back in the mail. Urban update/leave is the

same operation as update/leave but in urban areas. Update/enumerate is 

used in targeted areas with historically or potentially high non-response 

DALLAS REGIONAL CASE STUDY

STRATEGY PERCENT OF TOTAL

Mailout/Mailback 75.9%

Update/Leave and 

Urban Update/Leave 23.2%

Update/Enumerate 0.8%

List/Enumerate 0.1%

Dallas Region Enumeration Strategies
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Page 24 of 54

rates by updating the address list while conducting door-to-door 

enumeration. List/enumerate is used in remote and sparsely populated

areas to create an address list and conduct door-to-door enumeration.

Hard-To-Enumerate Planning

RCC Managers used the Planning Database (PDB) developed by Census

Headquarters to help identify hard-to-enumerate areas, areas of potentially

low mail return rates, placement of Questionnaire Assistance Centers

(QACs) and/or Be Counted sites, areas that need special outreach and

promotion activities and where additional recruitment activities are needed

in the Dallas Region. The PDB evaluates and arranges 1990 census data 

and mail response rates to generate a Hard to Enumerate (HTE) score for 

each census tract in the country. Furthermore, the RCC worked with the 

Texas State Data Center and the Attorney General’s Office to pre-identify 

HTE areas and shared the findings with local government officials and

planners. In order to raise awareness early in HTE areas, meetings

between census officials and from state and local governments took place 

in the fall of 1999. In these meetings, the PDB was updated with changes 

from the last 10 years, some tracts were added and some were removed 

from the HTE list.

The Regional Director sent a memo in April 1999 asking each Early

[Opening] Local Census Office (ELCO) to “check” the PDB to determine 

its HTE areas and develop an action plan for the areas by July 1, 1999.25 

The plans were, and are, subject to change. According to the April memo, 

“[the Bureau] cannot guarantee that all aspects of a plan will be

implemented. There are obstacles, such as budgetary constraints, that may

be limiting factors.”26

As LCOs opened, the new PDB spreadsheets that listed HTE tracts were 

shared with the office. The spreadsheet included suggested strategies to

count the pre-identified hard to count areas. Such strategies include

pair/team enumeration, blitz enumeration, bilingual enumeration, guides

or local facilitators, Be Counted site location, QAC location, and use of

update/enumerate and urban update/leave delivery strategies. Relying on

local knowledge, the LCOs were able to locate the pre-identified HTE

tracts and decide the appropriate enumeration tool to use in that particular 

 

25 Early Local Census Offices (ELCOs) were the first wave of local census offices opened in 1999.

26 Dallas Regional Census Center Technical Memorandum No. 99-26. “Development of Plans for Hard to 

Enumerate Areas.” From Alfonso Mirabal, Regional Director to ELCO Managers, Partnership Specialists, 

Media Specialists and Field Regional Technicians.
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Page 25 of 54

area. LCOs also further refined and continue to update the PDB to reflect 

local changes.

Colonias

The Dallas RCC has taken proactive steps in one of the most undercounted 

areas of the country in the 1990 census – colonias. Colonias are small, 

rural, unincorporated communities primarily along the Texas/Mexico

border. These communities often lack basic services such as water, paved 

streets, and sewage systems.

According to the Texas Water Development Board, in 1996, there were a 

total of 1,512 colonias. The highest concentration of colonias is found in

Hidalgo, Cameron, Starr and El Paso Counties.27

The Census Bureau is expending extra attention to these traditionally

undercounted communities. In 1990, colonias were not considered census 

designated places. As a result, data from colonias were combined with

data from adjacent non-colonia areas. The former Attorney General of

Texas, Dan Morales, and the Dallas Regional Census Center worked

together with colonia leaders, local governments, planning agencies and

Councils of Governments to ensure that in the 2000 census, colonias

would be listed as census designated places. This designation allows the

Bureau to compile data specifically for colonia areas.

The Bureau plans to hire 900 bilingual enumerators and colonia cultural

facilitators in Starr, Cameron, Hidalgo and El Paso counties. Recruiting

and testing for enumerators in the colonias is in Spanish. Cultural

 

27 Briefing book prepared by the Dallas Regional Census Center for the Staff of the Census Monitoring Board, 

“Colonias.” February 28, 2000.

COUNTY

NUMBER

OF

COLONIAS

Cameron 111

El Paso 151

Hidalgo 867

Maverick 44

Starr 124

Webb 43

Source: Dallas Regional Census Center Briefing to the Monitoring Board
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Page 26 of 54

facilitators will not be required to take the enumerator test and will be paid 

separately from the PAMS/ADAMS payroll system.

To conduct the actual enumeration in 70 percent of the colonias, the

Dallas RCC will employ an update/enumerate questionnaire delivery

strategy in El Paso, Hidalgo, Cameron, and Starr Counties. Beginning in

late March and continuing through May, a local census enumerator

accompanied by a cultural facilitator will visit each colonia household and

assist residents in completing an English-language census questionnaire. 

Enumerators and cultural facilitators will employ Spanish language guides

during this operation, but Spanish questionnaires will not be used.

The Bureau is also working with Texas A&M’s colonia program. Texas

A&M is employing the colonias’ promotoras – local community leaders –

to conduct home visits with small groups to build awareness about the

census and provide any assistance residents might need. An

update/enumerate strategy will also be used on all 7 of the American

Indian Reservations located within the region.

In extremely rural areas which lack residential mail delivery, census

enumerators will list and map housing units and enumerate occupants on

the same visit. Bilingual enumerators will be used for this operation.

In the remaining 30 percent of the colonia areas, the Dallas RCC will use 

the update/leave method. The Bureau will drop off an English language

questionnaire along with a Spanish language questionnaire assistance

guides. Regional staff reported the decision to deliver English language

forms to all areas, including monolingual Spanish areas such as some

colonias, was a decision made early in the decennial process by the

Bureau’s national headquarters. Questionnaire Assistance Centers are in

place with paid and volunteer staff.

Congressional Members’ Position

The Congressional Members of the Monitoring Board are skeptical of the 

Census Bureau’s assertion that limited and targeted distribution of

Spanish language census forms was impossible for Census 2000. We 

believe the Bureau has made a mistake that may reduce response rates in 

the linguistically isolated, hard-to-count Hispanic communities.
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Page 27 of 54

This is not a belief solely held by the Congressional Members of the

Monitoring Board. The Board has been informed throughout the past two 

years by many stakeholders that there are a limited number of hard-tocount communities throughout the United States, especially in the

Southwest and Texas, that are completely linguistically isolated. The

Bureau’s Planning Database and local offices corroborate this fact. 

These communities, we have been told on numerous occasions, need to 

get a their census forms in Spanish. Benito Juarez, an immigrant and 

community leader working in the immigrant community in Texas, told the 

Monitoring Board “we believe that instead of sending this form in English 

to Spanish speakers, they should send a form in Spanish. So in that way 

people will be able to understand better what it is about and feel more 

confident in filling out and participating in the census.”28 

The Bureau has consistently resisted targeted distribution of census

questionnaires in these communities. The Bureau has held steadfast to 

their plan, requiring residents in these linguistically isolated communities 

to receive a letter written in English to then request a Spanish language 

questionnaire. However, senior Bureau officials indicated Regional

Census Centers have the discretion to deliver notices in Spanish in these 

neighborhoods. Despite frequent staff visits to colonias and surrounding 

areas, the Congressional Members have been unable to confirm delivery 

of Spanish-language notices. 

Moreover, in the colonias of South Texas – areas the Bureau knows to be 

monolingual Spanish – the Bureau is delivering English language

questionnaires in update/enumerate and list/enumerate areas. This is

particularly unsettling because, unlike mailout/mailback areas where the 

Postal Service delivers the questionnaire through regular mail service, 

these are areas where a Census 2000 employee will hand-deliver a

questionnaire. We believe this attitude toward the hard-to-count, 

linguistically isolated communities should change. The Census Bureau 

and the Regional Census Centers, in particular the Dallas and Los 

Angeles Regional Census Centers, should deliver Spanish language 

questionnaires in these linguistically isolated communities, including 

the colonias.

 

28 US Census Monitoring Board, Congressional Members, Benito Jaurez, Undercount Summit (Washington, 

DC: National Press Club, 29 October 1999).
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Page 28 of 54

Presidential Members’ Position

The Presidential Members of the Board agree that distribution of nonEnglish forms to residents who wish to receive them is an excellent goal. 

We note that the Census Bureau explored the possibility of distributing 

non-English forms for Census 2000, but were unable to overcome the 

operational difficulties involved.

We believe the subject is worthy of further study for possible inclusion in 

the 2010 census. However, at this late date, we do not believe it is feasible 

for the Census Bureau to alter its questionnaire delivery strategies for 

Census 2000. Update/Leave operations are well underway and the

mailout of forms has already occurred.

Steps have been taken in the field to reach non-English speaking residents. 

In particular, we note the efforts of the Dallas Regional Census Center 

and the LCOs we examined in the Dallas Region to reach the residents of 

the colonias along the Texas/Mexico border. In those areas, a Spanish 

language assistance guide will be hand delivered with each questionnaire.

Questionnaire delivery operations that involve door-to-door delivery by 

hand, such as Update/Leave, may provide an excellent opportunity for 

enumerators to deliver non-English forms to residents in selected

neighborhoods.

However, there are serious challenges to the idea of incorporating nonEnglish forms in the mailout/mailback operation. In order to mail nonEnglish forms to a given neighborhood, the Bureau must effectively

assume that all residents of that neighborhood in fact speak the targeted 

language. This may be a difficult assumption to justify; it is doubtful that 

any neighborhood in the nation is entirely monolingual in a language 

other than English. In addition, the fact that the census occurs only once 

per decade may make precise targeting difficult, if not impossible.

We do not conclude that these barriers are insurmountable. However, 

additional study is needed before such a major change to census

operations is undertaken. Given that questionnaire delivery operations 

are already underway, such a major change to field procedures might well 

do more harm than good.
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Page 29 of 54

Recruiting and Staffing

In line with the Bureau’s national recruiting plan to recruit five people for 

every census position, the Dallas Region plans to recruit over 276,415

people to fill 55,105 positions. As of February 18, 2000, the region as a 

whole had reached 84.5 percent of its recruiting goal – well above the

national benchmark of 70 percent. The RCC was at 74.3 percent of its 

recruiting goal in Louisiana, 83.6 percent in Mississippi, and 84.5 percent

in Texas.

At the time of interview, the major operation underway nationally was

recruiting. The Dallas RCC had 500 full-time recruiting positions. In

addition, management encouraged all staff to act as recruiters. Staff

attribute recruiting success to aggressive strategies, including mailing 2.4

million “Census Jobs” post cards to zip codes where recruiting was low, 

providing recruiting materials and testing in Spanish, and offering

competitive pay.

The Bureau’s policy of recruiting five times as many people as are needed 

and training twice as many people to fill temporary positions is meant to

offset turnover. In order to recruit such a volume of applicants, the

Bureau is testing applicants months before they are needed. While this

method allows the Bureau a large number of people from which to draw, it 

also creates some frustration among early applicants because the Dallas

Regional Office has not implemented a method of notifying applicants

whether they will be offered a job. Radio, television, and print

solicitations for additional applicants may have confused or discouraged

those who had already applied, but were not notified of their status.

OPERATION TIME POSITIONS

TOTAL

RECRUITING

GOAL

Update / Leave March 7,617 38,975

Update / Enumerate March 942 4,710

Non-Response 

Follow-Up

April 27 

through June 46,546 232,7307

Source: Dallas Regional Census Center Briefing to the Monitoring Board
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Page 30 of 54

The Monitoring Board recommends that, for the 2010 Census, the 

Bureau establish a process of routine follow-up with job applicants. 

After testing, applicants should be notified as to whether they passed,

and when the Bureau plans to begin filling positions.

The Dallas Regional Office printed a pamphlet informing applicants they

would not hear from the Bureau until mid-April (when most census jobs 

are offered.) These pamphlets were distributed at testing sites. While this 

is a positive informational tool, a routine follow-up notice would prevent

some applicant frustration. Nationally, the Bureau expects to recruit 2.5

million people to fill census jobs – a gesture of professional courtesy could 

prevent some public relations problems. (The New York City Region has 

been able to mitigate some of these criticisms by sending a post card to

those who do not pass the enumerator test. Since applicants can re-test 

repeatedly, the notice encourages re-testing.) 

The Bureau had a national goal to hire 4,000 welfare recipients by

September 1999 with more to be hired this year. Each LCO developed 

Welfare-to-Work recruiting goals. At the time of interview the Dallas

Region had hired 434 welfare recipients.

As of March 15, all states in the region had applied for federal waivers

that would allow income from temporary census employment to be

exempt from the public assistance income eligibility caps. That is, people 

on public assistance could work for the census without the risk of losing

benefits.

The RCC is monitoring the recruitment process closely. The Recruiting

Managers at the RCC receive weekly updates on available test sites and

monitor closely the number of welfare-to-work test sites and applicants. 

The Managers also watch each LCO progress towards their recruiting goal 

and make personal visits to LCOs experiencing recruiting difficulty. By

maintaining weekly updates, the Recruiting Managers are able to send a

biweekly bulletin to the region’s recruiters, Fast-Breaking Recruiting

News Briefs. 

At the time of interview, the Dallas RCC had tested more than 3,000

applicants in Spanish. Staff reported more than 90 percent of applicants

scored the requisite 70 or higher on the census test.
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Page 31 of 54

Training

The bulk of the Bureau’s hiring – enumerators to conduct Non-Response 

Follow-Up (NRFU) – will begin in mid-April. At the time of interview, 

the RCC had hired 230 Managers, 22 Regional Technicians and 55

Partnership Specialists. Each LCO had 5 managers: the Local Census

Office Manager, the Assistant Manager for Field Operations, the Assistant 

Manager for Administration, the Assistant Manager for Recruiting and the

Automation Technician. Regional technicians are responsible for a

subsection of the region and the Partnership Specialists are responsible

primarily to the Regional Office.

Each manager went through extensive training for 4-5 days in October and 

December of 1999. The RCC provides job-specific training and just-intime training as a refresher before major operations, such as special places 

enumeration and the implementation of QAC/Be Counted sites. These

sessions started in December of 1999 and will continue through July 10,

2000. Just-in-time training will also take place before the update/leave,

update/enumerate, list/enumerate, non-response follow-up operations. 

LCO Managers receive media training, including instruction in

maintaining confidentiality of census records. This training proved

helpful in the El Paso office when an FBI agent sought enumerator 

credentials, thus creating a potential public relations problem. The LCO

manager followed Bureau policy of maintaining strict confidentiality and

did not share any census information with the FBI agent – even when

threatened with a potential warrant.29

Partnership

For the 2000 Census, the Bureau reports relying heavily on its Partnership 

Specialists and local partners to improve the response rate, reduce the

differential undercount and increase the public awareness of the census

and census jobs. 

The Dallas Region has 48 Partnership Specialists – 33 in Texas, 6 in

Mississippi and 9 in Louisiana. Partnership Specialists are based in local

census offices but report to the Regional Office. In Texas and Mississippi, 

two local census offices have two partnership specialists working in their

areas while the rest of the local census offices have one. In some cases, 

 

29 This incident was reported in the El Paso Times on February 16, 2000. 
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Page 32 of 54

the partnership specialist is responsible for a vast geographic area. For

example, the Dallas County South LCO’s partnership specialist covers the 

southern half of Dallas County, while the El Paso LCO’s specialist is

responsible for 10 counties. 

All partnership activities are coordinated out of the Dallas RCC through

the Partnership/Recruiting Assistant Regional Census Manager (ARCM)

and two Partnership Coordinators, one for Texas and one for Louisiana

and Mississippi. Each state in the region has sponsored a web site to

promote the census.

In Texas, the Dallas RCC was able to coordinate a joint letter sent by the 

Director of the Dallas Regional Office and the Governor in January to 500 

Complete Count Committees in Texas thanking them for their

participation and announcing the State’s own promotional efforts. The

State also has six ombudspersons working in the colonias promoting the

census. The State Attorney General’s office hired a Census 2000

Outreach Coordinator, sent Spanish language radio ads to every Spanishlanguage radio station in Texas, and sent census reminders in drivers’

license notice mailers.

The Bureau held 10 informational and promotional conferences in Texas

and Mississippi. Regional staff reported Louisiana has not been as

aggressive at promoting the census as the other two states in the region. 

However, the Governor did three public service announcements about the 

census and discusses the census during his weekly radio broadcast.

The Regional Office has an African American Initiative, an American

Indian Tribal Program, a Religious Initiative, supports Complete Count

Committees, encourages Census in the Schools and participates in the

national road tour. The RCC also has solicited support from regional

business to supplement census promotion. For example, Coca-Cola in

Louisiana and Mississippi will place sleeves on two-liter bottles

promoting the census and including a coupon for a local baseball game. A 

Texas statewide grocery chain, HEB, will place the census tagline and the 

census logo on grocery bags in Spanish and English. The Midland

Reporter-Telegram printed and distributed a census coloring book in

English and Spanish. 

The Partnership Program was able to develop supplemental RCC Spanishlanguage fact sheets in addition to those provided by headquarters. These 
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Page 33 of 54

included fliers listing QAC locations and census awareness posters. Also, 

partnership staff arranged translation of the enumerator test into Spanish. 

These materials are generated at the RCC and then sent to the LCOs.

DALLAS COUNTY SOUTH, 3035

Congressional and Presidential Monitoring Board staff met with the

management of the Dallas County South local census office (LCO) for

approximately two hours during the morning of February 23, 2000. The

LCO manager, assistant managers of administration, field operations, and

recruiting were present, as well as the office’s automation technician. Also 

present were the Assistant Regional Census Manager (ARCM), the

Partnership Specialist and the Media Specialist responsible for the office. 

Representatives of the Bureau of the Census Decennial Communications

Division and the Department of Commerce Economic Affairs Office were 

in attendance.

Dallas County South includes the southern third of Dallas County,

including six small cities south of the city of Dallas. The population is a

mix of Anglo, African American, and Hispanic residents, and includes

substantial communities of Mexican immigrants. Office staff noted a

relatively small Asian/Pacific Islander population in Pleasant Grove. The

LCO area has several trailer parks, and approximately 8,000 housing units 

that were scheduled to receive questionnaires through update/leave

operations in March. Of 107 census tracts in the area, 75 were identified 

as hard-to-enumerate (HTE) by the Bureau’s Planning Database (PDB),

using demographic data and response rates from the 1990 Census.

At the time of interview, Dallas County South appeared extremely wellorganized, and thoroughly prepared for the upcoming enumeration. Staff

cited an emphasis on early and thorough training, and were pleased with

the Region’s approach, new for this decennial, of training management as 

a team. The emphasis on teamwork and training continued at the LCO,

with the management team meeting every morning. Partnership

specialists were included in these meetings.

Perhaps most significantly, the office has the benefit of an LCO manager

with more than 30 years of experience at the Bureau, including work on

three decennials. Actively recruited out of retirement by the Dallas

Regional Director, the office manager clearly has the respect of the

Regional Office, and of his staff. Operating with considerable autonomy, 

the manager has employed his experience (including an extensive network
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Page 34 of 54

of Bureau contacts) and thorough knowledge of the area to train a

motivated, organized team of managers, and position Dallas County South

for a successful enumeration.

Hard-to-Enumerate Planning

The LCO Manager demonstrated little familiarity with the Bureau’s

Planning Database (PDB), and the large maps that papered many of the

office walls were not generated by the Dallas Region’s geography

division. Instead, store-bought maps in several work stations and common 

areas were covered with neatly-labeled, hand-drawn recruiting and

coverage districts. Hard-to-count neighborhoods were identified by name, 

testing sites, Questionnaire Assistance Centers (QACs) and Be Counted

sites were carefully pinned into place. Other than to reference mail

response rates, Dallas County South appeared to have little need of the

PDB. A detailed strategy to enumerate the area, the product of years of

census experience combined with local knowledge, was clearly integrated

into office operations.

Questionnaire Assistance Centers (QACs) and Be Counted Sites

LCO staff had selected 20 QACs and 70 Be Counted sites. Partnership 

specialists and local partners had input in site selection. Be Counted

forms were already at the LCO.

Recruiting and Staffing

Dallas County South had surpassed recruiting goals at the time of

interview. Bureau records show 6,048 qualified applicants as of February

24, 2000: 124 percent of the goal.30

At the time of interview, 95 people were on the payroll. For non-response 

follow-up (NRFU), the most labor-intensive census operation, Dallas

County South anticipates hiring five field operation supervisors (FOS), 40

crew leaders, and 900 enumerators. The LCO manager estimates three or 

four of every 10 enumerators will be fluent in Spanish.

Recruiting had been carefully planned by census tract, and the LCO area 

split into eight recruiting districts. Each district included between 10 and

 

30 Census 2000 Recruiting Status, Dallas LCOs, U.S. Bureau of the Census, February 25, 2000.
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Page 35 of 54

20 tracts. Ten assistants oversaw recruiting: one to each district, with two 

“floaters.” 

The Assistant Manager for Recruiting maintained a database of recruiting

sources. Many also provided space for testing and training. Sources

included churches, recreation centers and schools, among several others. 

The office also directed special efforts to partner with and recruit local

firefighters. According to the LCO manager, emergency workers often

make outstanding enumerators, due to their knowledge of the area,

community involvement, and schedules providing several days off-duty.

There were 67 test sites and 40 training sites established. The partnership 

specialist assisted in locating space for test sites. Staff reported that the

total time for testing, including filling out employment forms and taking

the half-hour timed test, may last between an hour and 90 minutes. Crew 

leader training is five days straight, on evenings and Saturdays.

Partnership

Staff reported consistent and helpful coordination with the partnership

specialist assigned to the LCO, who assisted in planning and locating test 

sites and QACs. Three active area Complete Count Committees (CCCs) 

were cited: Dallas, Grand Prairie and DeSoto.

A partnership was established with Potter’s House, an area church with a 

Sunday congregation between 15,000 and 30,000 members. Every

Sunday a video message is played, encouraging the congregation to fill out 

and return their census forms. 

In addition, the LCO manager sent letters to all area cities in September

1999, requesting to meet with the City Council and Chief of Police. 

During these meetings, the LCO manager described upcoming census

operations, what the local officials could expect and when, and whom to

call with questions or concerns. “I wanted to put a face with a name,” he 

reported, “To say, ‘I’m responsible. If there’s a problem, please talk to 

me.”
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Page 36 of 54

Facilities and Materials

Dallas County South reported no problems receiving materials. All types

of promotional materials and posters were available. Congressional staff

noted some materials not seen in other areas of the region.

The PAMS/ADAMS system was up and running with no problems. Staff

reported the recently-installed PADE data-entry software was much more 

user-friendly than entering data directly into the database.

Dallas County South exhibited excellent working conditions, with plenty

of open space to accommodate storage of a large volume of forms and

materials. They also reported sufficient space to conduct update/leave,

special places enumeration, and NRFU in separate areas. (The lessor,

unable to lease the remaining space, essentially gave the office several

hundred square feet of extra space.) Facilities are centrally located in an

area shopping center.

EL PASO, 3036

Congressional and Presidential Monitoring Board staff met with the

management of the El Paso local census office (LCO) for approximately

two hours during the morning of February 29, 2000. The LCO manager, 

assistant managers of administration, field operations, and recruiting were 

present, as well as the office’s automation technician. Also present were

the Dallas Assistant Regional Census Manager (ARCM), the Partnership

Specialist and the Media Specialist responsible for the office. 

Representatives of the Bureau of the Census Decennial Communications

Division and the Department of Commerce Economic Affairs Office were

in attendance.
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Page 37 of 54

A PROFILE OF THE HARD-TO-COUNT: 

COLONIAS

The official definition of the colonia, “a

residential subdivision lacking essential

facilities such as water and wastewater

services and paved roads,” only begins to 

describe life in a colonia. 

Colonias are found in the states along the USMexican border – Arizona, California, New

Mexico and Texas. Most of the US colonias 

are in Texas – over 1200 colonias with

approximately 300,000 residents. Almost 90

percent of the colonias in Texas are located in 

Hidalgo, El Paso, Starr, Cameron, Maverick, 

Webb and Zavala counties – 251,032 persons 

who are 90 percent Hispanic and often recent 

immigrants. 

Cameron Park, one of the oldest colonias and 

featured on national news programs, has

become a “model” colonia. Due to the

advocacy of the community, the roads in

Cameron Park are paved, water is available 

and there are services available in the colonia. 

In fact, within the maze of streets there is a 

community health center, several businesses 

and a community center. 

Yet, Cameron Park is not illustrative of the 

main. Most colonias are like Del Mar

Heights, La Paloma, Blanca Juarez, Sunny

Side, Huecho, Montana Vista, Rio Bravo and 

Basham 23. The residents of these colonias 

are geographically, culturally and

linguistically isolated and struggle to obtain 

water for their daily needs and even to travel 

beyond the colonia. 

El Paso is responsible for

enumerating a vast area on

the western edge of the

Texas / Mexico border. The 

area includes 10 counties

covering 25,855 square

miles. Terrel County, the

most distant county in the

LCO area, is 300 air miles

from the El Paso office. The 

1990 census population was

616,713.31 

This area includes a large

and growing immigrant and

Spanish-speaking 

population, including

monolingual Spanish

communities and colonias

(see box). The large

Spanish-speaking population

creates a demand for inlanguage recruiting and

promotional materials, as

well as enumerators fluent in

Spanish. In addition, El Paso 

has recruited and plans to

hire cultural facilitators to

accompany enumerators in

monolingual Spanish areas. 

The office has developed

extensive plans and

partnerships to improve

enumeration in colonias.

 

31 Source: El Paso Local Census Office Partnership Activity Report. Aggregate LCO statistics in the December 

1999 Planning Database, provided upon request by Bureau headquarters, differ slightly from the local records. 

El Paso planning materials likely include updates to the assignment of census tracts to LCO areas.
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Page 38 of 54

Hard-to-Enumerate Planning

Census and survey coverage is frequently depressed in Latino

neighborhoods, particularly in immigrant and monolingual Spanish

communities. In addition, El Paso is classified as a “Type D” office,

responsible for enumerating largely rural geography. Language and

cultural barriers, difficulties of enumerating a large area, as well as underdeveloped colonias, present formidable challenges to the El Paso

enumeration. The Planning Database (PDB), using data from the 1990

census, identifies 50 of the office’s 118 census tracts as hard-to-enumerate 

(HTE).32 However, much of the area has experienced high growth and

immigration in the last decade. In particular, many of the HTE immigrant 

communities and colonias did not exist ten years ago. As such, 1990 data 

is not likely to provide an accurate picture of local areas, particularly those 

at greatest risk of high undercounts.

LCO staff combined local knowledge with the Bureau’s PDB to develop

special enumeration plans for HTE areas. They partnered extensively with

city, county and state governments, and drew on resources of Texas A&M 

University to collect detailed, recent demographic and geographic

information.33 The result is a systematic plan anticipating and locating

specific barriers to enumeration, and listing the LCO enumeration

strategies customized to overcome each barrier. This plan was developed 

in June 1999 (ahead of the national schedule for HTE action plans).

Specific examples of strategies cited during interview included locating a

Questionnaire Assistance Center in each HTE tract, employing cultural 

facilitators in monolingual Spanish neighborhoods, using pair and team

enumeration, and establishing aggressive efforts to hire bilingual

enumerators.

Monitoring Board staff requested copies of the plan, which would provide 

greater detail of the Bureau’s efforts to improve enumeration in areas at

risk of extreme undercounts, and were refused by the representative of the 

Bureau of the Census Decennial Communications Division.34

 

32 Aggregate LCO statistics in the December 1999 Planning Database, provided upon request by Bureau 

headquarters, differ slightly from the local records.

33The El Paso Partnership Specialist was uniquely qualified and effective in these efforts. A former city planner 

with more than 30 years experience working with geographic information systems and demographic data, his 

services were actively pursued by the Regional Director. 

34 The Associate Director for Field Operations has yet to authorize the release of any HTE action plans to the 

Monitoring Board. The stated reason is that the plans are not in final form. However, we note the plans are 

intended to be “living documents.” They will not be in final form until census operations are complete.
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Page 39 of 54

In the colonias, questionnaires will be hand-delivered to each household

by an enumerator during the Update/Enumerate, Update/Leave, or

List/Enumerate operation. These three operations comprise approximately

15 percent of the LCO workload. Cultural facilitators will accompany

enumerators in colonias.

El Paso management has identified monolingual Spanish communities

where it would be appropriate to deliver a Spanish – rather than English –

questionnaire. However, the Bureau’s national policy is to distribute

English questionnaires to all households, unless an in-language 

questionnaire is specifically requested. As a result, during Update/Leave,

scheduled to begin March 3, 2000, El Paso enumerators were to distribute 

English-language questionnaires, and Spanish Language Assistance

Guides. The Update/Leave operation comprises 7 percent of the LCO

workload.

During Update/Enumerate, scheduled from mid-March to May, a local

census enumerator accompanied by a cultural facilitator will visit each

colonia household and assist residents in completing an English-language 

census questionnaire. Enumerators and cultural facilitators will employ

Spanish language guides during this operation, but Spanish questionnaires

will not be used.

The Board agrees that delivering non-English questionnaires where

appropriate would be of great benefit to a full enumeration. However,

members disagree on the feasibility of implementing this policy during the

2000 census. For full discussion of this issue, see discussion beginning on

page 25.

Recruiting and Staffing

El Paso had surpassed recruiting goals at the time of interview. Bureau

records show 6,048 qualified applicants as of February 24, 2000: 124

percent of the goal. For non-response follow-up (NRFU), the most laborintensive census operation, El Paso anticipates hiring 600 enumerators.

In addition, El Paso plans to hire local residents as cultural facilitators in

colonias to accompany enumerators. Management reported recruiting 200 

cultural facilitators at the time of interview. Cultural facilitators will not
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Page 40 of 54

be required to take the enumerator test and will be paid separately from

the PAMS/ADAMS payroll system.

Partnership

El Paso’s Partnership Specialist has worked closely with LCO

management on most aspects of planning. The formidable outreach

campaign includes contact with city, county and state officials, media,

academic institutions, businesses, and professional, community-based and

religious organizations. Partnership has been especially active in

coordinating local partners to develop HTE action plans.

Documentation provided to the Board details more than 1,000 contacts via 

presentation, site visits, phone, meetings and other channels. Contacts

resulted in an estimated 2,350 commitments from local partners, each

listed under nearly 30 categories. Types of commitment include

endorsements, recruiting assistance, donation of free space, volunteers,

and service as Questionnaire Assistance Centers and Be Counted sites.

As of February 1, 2000, El Paso listed nine Complete Count Committees 

(CCCs) as active or created in the area. Partnerships had been established 

with the Texas A&M Colonias Program, El Paso County, the local

Catholic Diocese, the Displaced Workers Volunteer Group, the Islera

Tribe, McDonalds and local radio and television.

El Paso’s partnership efforts have succeeded despite some unique

logistical challenges. The size of the El Paso LCO area, and the lack of air 

routes within that area, present major barriers. Partnership and LCO staff

conduct “Round Robins”: road trips with stops throughout the LCO area. 

A Round Robin might cover several counties, and several hundred miles,

in two days.

Questionnaire Assistance Centers (QACs) and Be Counted Sites

LCO staff selected 41 QACs. Most, 37, are located in El Paso County, 

where the vast majority of the area’s population is concentrated. The

partnership specialist and local partners assisted in site selection. QACs

were scheduled to open March 8 and will have paid and volunteer staff. 

Due to the hand-delivery of questionnaires to colonias, no Be Counted

sites were planned for those areas. Management reported no problems

receiving materials.
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Page 41 of 54

Section

IV

Put simply, Alaska is unique. Given its harsh climate, limited

infrastructure, transient population, and the vast distances between

communities, the challenge the Bureau faces in this state is truly daunting. 

Alaska’s estimated 1999 population of 619,500 is spread out over some

586,412 square miles – equivalent to one-fifth the land area of the lower 

48 states and twice the size of Texas. Yet, the population is close to that 

of the District of Columbia – a city of only 68 square miles. While the

state can rightfully boast of several major – and thoroughly modern –

urban areas such as Anchorage and Fairbanks, thousands of its residents

live in scattered communities that are inaccessible by road. Travelers to 

these communities rely on prop-aircraft, utility vehicles – even dogsleds –

to reach their destinations.

Monitoring Board staff journeyed to Alaska in late February 2000 to visit 

the Anchorage LCO and observe the Bureau’s Remote Enumeration

efforts. Throughout their visit, the two Board staffers were accompanied

by the Seattle RCC Deputy Regional Director, whose zone of

responsibility includes Alaska. In addition, staff had the opportunity to be 

briefed by Anchorage’s LCO manager and other LCO staff.

Bureau operations in Alaska began well in advance of Census Day (April

1, 2000), though all questions have been or will be asked in relation to it. 

In fact, Director Kenneth Prewitt enumerated the first American of this

year’s census on January 19, 2000 in the remote village of Unalakleet. 

This special, expanded timetable enables the Bureau to work when

weather conditions are most conducive to field operations, and before the 

change of seasons prompts residents to leave their communities to hunt,

fish, or engage in other employment.

All operations in Alaska are run out of the Anchorage Local Census Office 

(LCO). One might characterize it as a “super-LCO,” given the scope of its 

responsibilities. The varied conditions in Alaska compel the LCO to

employ three separate enumeration methods and juggle several

simultaneous operations. 

ALASKA ENUMERATION
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Page 42 of 54

FIELD OBSERVATION

LCO Facilities

The Anchorage LCO is located in modern facilities in the Federal office

building at 222 West 8

th Street in Anchorage. Bureau employees

expressed no complaints about space or equipment shortages. The staff of 

approximately 120 appear to have the necessary resources at their disposal 

to conduct successful census.

Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau and Other Cities

Most Alaskans, about 75 percent of the population, will be enumerated

under the “standard” census plan—identical to the census procedures used 

throughout the rest of the United States. These include areas designated 

for the Mailout/Mailback procedures, Update/Leave procedures and

List/Enumerate Procedures. Areas of Alaska designated for these standard 

census procedure include Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, and their

surrounding areas, several other cities such as Cordova, Dillingham, and

Palmer, Portage, Seldovia, Sitka and Wasilla, as well as other so-called 

“hub” cities and communities.

Mailout/Mailback—This strategy, used for the majority of citystyle addresses in the nation, is planned for the urban and small

city areas of Alaska. Over 50 percent of the population will be 

enumerated through Mailout/Mailback procedures. 

The census plan in these areas is identical to the Mailout/Mailback 

strategies used in the rest of the United States. Census forms are 

CITY

1990

POPULATION

PERCENT

OF TOTAL*

Anchorage 226,338 41

College 11,249 2

Fairbanks 30,843 6

Juneau 26,751 5

Kenai 6,327 1

Total of 5 Cities 283,932 55

* Total 1990 Alaskan Population: 550,043

Largest Alaskan Cities Designated For Mailout-Mailback 

Procedures
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Page 43 of 54

mailed during March 2000 for the April 1 Census Day. Following 

the Mailout/Mailback period, Non-Response Follow-Up (NRFU)

activities – enumerator visits to each non-responding household –

will be used to complete the count in these areas. The census

activities for these areas will be concentrated in the late spring and 

early summer, accounting for enumeration and NRFU activities.

Update/Leave and List/Enumerate – These strategies will be used 

in the rural/remote areas that are predominantly close to

Anchorage, Fairbanks and Juneau and in the larger communities 

throughout the state and along the southeast coast of Alaska. 

These strategies will also be used to correct, update or create mapspots for the Master Address File (MAF).

One of the most significant differences between areas designated for

Mailout/Mailback and those designated for update/leave or list/enumerate

is that the housing units are already listed in the MAF for

Mailout/Mailback areas. In update/leave and in the list/enumerate areas,

the enumerator will update the MAF. In the update/leave areas an

enumerator will visit each household. At that time, the enumerator will

update the MAF and leave the census questionnaire. For the

list/enumerate designated areas, an enumerator will identify each housing

unit and will then “map-spot” (mark the housing unit on the assignment

area maps) and list the housing unit, with a description, on the address

register. At that point, the enumerator will either enumerate, or attempt to 

enumerate, the household.

Recruiting and Staffing

Aside from some challenges in Barrow, the Anchorage LCO has

encountered no significant recruiting difficulties. In fact, as of February

25, 2000, it stood at 176 percent of its goal. During the three days Board 

staff were in the office, they observed a steady stream of job applicants.
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Page 44 of 54

Questionnaire Assistance Centers (QACs) and Be Counted Sites

The LCO has located suitable space for 73 Questionnaire Assistance

Centers (QAC)35 and 5 Be Counted Sites. Funds to pay 20 FTEs36 have 

been budgeted and the QACs will be manned on a variable shift basis, 

allowing the 20 FTEs to satisfactorily cover all 73.

The QAC supervisor indicated that a “micro-sized” advertising budget

would have a positive effect on QAC traffic. She noted that even a few

hundred dollars could buy small advertisements in local “Penny Saver”

circulars that would effectively target those most in need of QAC services.

Given time considerations, it is not feasible for the Bureau to institute

widespread changes. However, advertising in circulars seems sensible and 

the Board recommends the Bureau consider allocating funds for such

purposes in 2010.

Hard-to-Enumerate Planning

There are approximately 200-230 remote villages throughout Alaska. 

Many of these villages have populations of less than 500. Remote villages 

are comprised of predominantly Alaska native residents, representing

several groups including Aleut, Athabascan, Inupiaq, Northwest Coast

Indians, Tlingit and Yupik. The LCO estimates approximately 10 percent 

or more of the state’s population live in these areas.

The census procedures used throughout most of remote Alaska differ

significantly from the census procedures used in the rest of the country. 

These procedures are geared specifically to meet the needs of Alaska’s

Native communities. Based on the experience of several past censuses,

the Bureau allows greater operational freedom at the regional and local

census office levels in Alaska. The result is a flexible and adaptive census 

operation.

Monitoring Board staff noted that one of the most important facets of

remote Alaska enumeration is the experience of the managers. Both the

Area Manager for Urban Field Operations and the Area Manager for

Remote Operations worked in Alaska during the 1990 census. The remote 

 

35 QACs will double as Be Counted sites.

36 Full-Time Equivalents.
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Page 45 of 54

field operation design specifically reflects experience, rather than

theoretical objectives.

In order to accommodate the geographic and climactic challenges in

Alaska, enumeration for remote Alaska takes place during the winter

months before “break-up,” or thaw. Prior to the break-up, frozen lakes 

and waterways allow access to remote villages that would be otherwise

isolated. Residents of subsistence fishing villages are also more likely to

be in the villages at that time.

According to the LCO in Anchorage, enumeration will take place in three 

waves.

Wave I (January) Southwest Alaska

Wave II (February) Aleutian and Central Alaska

Wave III (March) Far North Alaska

In addition to the unique timing of enumeration, remote Alaskan villages

will benefit from a flexible approach to enumeration. Due to the

demographic challenges for enumeration and obtaining a workforce in the

villages, enumerators are not required to take the Census Bureau’s test for 

field employment.

King Salmon

Board staff flew with the Deputy Director from Anchorage to King 

Salmon. There they met with the local Field Operations Supervisor and

the local team leader. Board staff had the opportunity to observe the final 

stages of operations in the King Salmon environs before accompanying

the local team leader to the Yupik Native Traditional Council. 

At the council center, staff observed the leader caucus with council

president Ralph Angasan about the housing unit count in a local activity

area (AA). After discussion and review of the AA address register, Mr. 

Angasan certified its accuracy by signing the register’s cover page. This

local sign-off, known officially as “tribal validation,” is unique to the

list/enumerate efforts in remote Alaska. The Bureau instituted the

protocol to encourage Native participation in the census and provide an

extra level of quality assurance. Mr. Angasan expressed his appreciation

of the consultative relationship, and both the local team leader and the
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Page 46 of 54

Deputy Director informed Board staff that the program has been an

unqualified success. 

Egegik

From King Salmon staff journeyed with the Deputy Director by singleengine prop aircraft to Egegik, a remote village on the Bering Sea with a 

90 percent Native population. In Egegik, staff met with the Native

Council President and observed the Census Team Leader during

enumeration. According to list/enumerate guidelines, the enumerator asks

the respondent each question and then records the responses in his/her

own hand. Such a method requires that the respondent have a high degree 

of confidence and comfort with the enumerator, especially if they are

being enumerated using the long form. According to the Deputy Director, 

enumerators have encountered few difficulties in soliciting the cooperation

and trust of respondents. Staff observations in the village confirmed the 

Bureau’s open and positive relationship with the community.

Aerial Map-Spotting

Before returning to Anchorage, staff went on an aerial map-spotting “ride 

along” in the Egegik region. Map-spotting is the process by which field 

staff verify and update housing unit information on area TIGER maps. 

2000 marks the first Census the Bureau has employed airplanes for this

purpose, and it seems certain to increase the accuracy of the count. Board 

staff participated in the spotting efforts undertaken by the Egegik AA

enumerator and the veteran prop-engine pilot contracted by the Bureau to 

provide air services throughout the Remote Enumeration operation. In the 

two hours they were aloft, more than twenty previously unknown housing

units were spotted and added to the Bureau’s records for follow-up. 

The LCO’s approach demonstrates the importance of being flexible,

without such flexibility it would be difficult to obtain census takers who

are residents of their respective villages. The premium placed on being

able to obtain native Alaskan census takers to count their own villages is 

designed to encourage a trusting relationship and to ensure that the census 

can take place effectively in these villages.
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Page 47 of 54

Partnership

Overall, the Bureau has established an effective alliance with the leaders

of the Alaskan Native community. One of the first steps toward this end 

was taken during the past two years when the Bureau invited 500 Native 

representatives to Anchorage to attend conferences intended to discuss the 

role of Alaskan Native communities in Census 2000. This event set the

stage for effective follow-up by the LCO’s four partnership specialists.

The Board is impressed with the level of cultural sensitivity – key to a

successful count – the LCO has shown in its interactions with the Native 

community. It has, for example, consulted Native leaders throughout the

hiring process and exhibited flexibility and understanding when tragedies

– requiring the temporary suspension of enumeration efforts to observe

traditional mourning rituals – have stuck communities. Native leaders

have not hesitated to express their satisfaction. As Nelson Angapak, Vice 

President of the Alaskan Federation of Natives, put it, “I have to

congratulate the Bureau [on its efforts] ... Our working relationship is

excellent.”

Fortunately, the Bureau’s successful partnerships are not limited to the

Native community. The LCO has formed positive relationships with the

Anchorage Complete Count Committee (CCC) and the Mayor’s office, 

amongst other entities. The State Demographer and the Lt. Governor were 

also cited as important “bridge builders” whose help the Bureau would be 

hard-pressed to do without.

Congressional Members’ Position

The Regional Census Center, the Local Census Office and the Remote 

Field Operations Team have developed a plan that is targeted and

tailored to the needs of Native Alaskan communities. This will improve 

the census in these communities. 

The villages in Remote Alaska, due to geographic and cultural isolation, 

share many of the same characteristics of hard-to-count communities 

throughout the United States. Yet, there are significant differences in the 

way that these villages will be enumerated in Census 2000 and the way 

that other hard-to-count communities will be enumerated. Because of the 

ability to be flexible and to accommodate cultural needs, the Regional 

Census Center, Local Census Office and the Remote Field Operations 
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Page 48 of 54

team for Alaska has a better chance of enumerating Alaska Natives and 

other remote village residents. Their plan, demonstrating greater

flexibility and regional autonomy than any other area in this decennial, is 

focused on a census inclusive of the residents and cognizant of the needs 

unique to Alaskan Native communities. Hiring enumerators based on the 

recommendation of tribal leaders, allowing those enumerators to be hired 

without taking the cumbersome hiring test, and maintaining the

involvement of the village throughout the census are unique Alaskan

initiatives in Census 2000.

The Congressional Members believe this community-centered approach 

improves the count in Remote Villages and addresses concerns regarding 

the undercount of Native Alaskan communities. Moreover, the

Congressional Members believe the Remote Alaska approach may offer 

important lessons that can be implemented in other hard-to-count 

communities during Census 2000 and future censuses.

Presidential Members’ Position

Across the board, the Bureau is doing an excellent job in Alaska. By all 

accounts, the Anchorage LCO has already met, or is on target to meet, the 

overwhelming majority of its goals. If, as we believe, the Bureau’s efforts 

to-date in this most challenging environment are any indication, the

Presidential Members believe the nation has ample reason to be confident 

about the prospect of a successful 2000 Census.
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Page 49 of 54

Section

V

In January 2000, a staff representative from each side of the Board

observed the Bureau’s Before Follow-Up (BFU) clerical matching training

at the National Processing Center in Jeffersonville, IN. This training is

key to the success of the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation (ACE)

survey. Accurately matching results from the census and the survey in

sampled areas is critical to the Bureau’s Dual-System Estimation. The

Bureau, accordingly, endeavored to make the training as authentic as

possible. Throughout, the trainees sat in the same rooms and at the same 

computers which will be used when the actual matching process begins

(the Bureau refers to this as the “production” as opposed to the “training” 

stage). Moreover, the software package which will be used in production

was used in training, and the block clusters the trainees worked were

drawn from available Sacramento, CA and Columbia, SC dress rehearsal

data.

The following is intended as an overview of the household matching

guidelines and training. It should not be considered an exhaustive

reference.

Address Listing and Coding

During the ACE listing phase, listers canvassed neighborhoods within the

ACE sample blocks and recorded address information in Independent

Listing Books (ILBs). This information will be entered into a megacomputer and compared to an extract of the Decennial Master Address

File (DMAF). Upon completion of the computer matching, four

categories of addresses will emerge: matched, possibly matched,

unlinked/non-matched census addresses, and unlinked/non-matched ACE

addresses. The computer-generated results will then be entered into a

database management system called the Housing Unit Matching Review

and Coding System (HUMaRCS) for clerical matching (HUMaRCS was 

developed by the Gunnison Group working in tandem with the Bureau’s

Decennial Statistical Studies Division). During this operation, known as

Before Follow-Up (BFU) matching, all ACE and census addresses that are 

not computer-matched in the previous operation will be reviewed and

assigned one of the following clerical match codes:

HOUSEHOLD MATCHING TRAINING
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Page 50 of 54

M The ACE and census addresses match.

P The ACE and census addresses possibly match. There is not

enough information to assign a match with confidence.

NI The ACE address does not match to a census address.

NE The census address does not match to an ACE address.

DI The ACE address is a possible duplicate with another ACE

address.

DE The census address is a possible duplicate with another census

address.

RV The match status is not clear. A review by a Technician or Analyst 

is needed to resolve status before sending to the field.

Once all of the block cluster addresses are clerically coded, they will be

sent to the next ACE operation, Housing Unit Field Follow-up (HUFF). 

During HUFF, ACE interviewers will visit addresses to obtain additional

information that will assist the clerical matchers in resolving the P, NI,

NE, DI, and DE addresses. The operation will then return to the clerical 

matcher for After Follow-up Housing Unit (AFUHU) coding. This

operation will result in the creation of the Preliminary Enhanced List

(PEL) of all ACE and census housing units at the time of the housing unit 

follow-up operation in the ACE sample area.

Next comes the Person Phase, which will establish a list of persons who

resided in the housing units listed on the Enhanced List, or EL (Before the 

Person Phase begins, large block subsampling will be used to reduce the

number of listed housing units on the PEL). ACE interviewers will then

conduct Computer Assisted Personal Interviews (CAPI) with the people

living at each of the addresses on the EL. Using information collected

during CAPI, a computer file containing ACE person data will be

compared with a census file containing person information collected for

Census Day. The computer matching employs the Bureau’s Primary

Selection Algorithm (PSA). Clerical matchers will then review ACE and

census person information that the computer is unable to match (as in the 

Housing Unit BFU stage) and identify any ACE or census person

requiring additional field information. At this point, such cases will be

sent to the field for follow-up before being returned to the clerical

matchers in the After Follow-up (AFU) matching phase.

Housing Unit matching will be revisited after the Person Phase is

completed; as the Housing Unit Phase will have been conducted before the 
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Page 51 of 54

inventory of census housing units is final. As a result, a final housing unit 

processing will be necessary in order to produce housing unit coverage

estimates. Once again, the computer-clerical matcher pattern will be

followed: the information will be fed into the computer, which will

identify those housing units that were added or deleted from the DMAF; a 

clerical review will be done on all ACE and census housing units

identified in the computer processing operation; and Final Housing Unit

follow-up interviews will be conducted, the results of which will be fed

back to the clerical matchers for After Follow-up (AFU) matching. Those 

housing units that are found to exist will be assigned the appropriate match 

code and those found not to have existed will be deleted. The ACE

Housing Unit file will then be updated.

Contractor

Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) was awarded the

clerical matching training contract by the Bureau. SAIC staff is well

versed in the particulars of the software, having conducted similar training

for the Dress Rehearsals. While the clerical matchers (a.k.a., “clerks”) are 

temporary decennial staff, the technicians and analysts who comprise the

supervisory and quality check levels in the process are career professionals 

with years of Bureau experience. They have all previously completed

intensive matching training, and conducted the actual matching of the

Dress Rehearsal data. 

Software

The HUMaRCS software divides the screen into roughly equal, scrollable

thirds. The top third contains those ACE and census addresses of a single 

block cluster that the computer linked/matched; the middle third contains

unlinked/unmatched ACE addresses; and the bottom third

unlinked/unmatched census addresses. Clerks review unmatched cases,

and attempt to identify matches. The software allows the user to display

images of both the ACE and census map-spotted maps to assist them in

their work. (Computer matches are not usually reviewed).

The matching software is advanced and easy to operate, but has little

flexibility. Standard features on Windows-compatible software, such as

sizable frames or “undo” options, are not available in HUMaRCS. Bureau 

staff noted this inflexibility is by design, in order to minimize error and

maximize uniformity in matching. This is a sensible precaution.
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Page 52 of 54

Matching Principles

Clerical matching operates on certain principles, the most important being

what might be called the principle of non-contradiction. That is, clerks are 

encouraged to link as many ACE and census addresses as possible – even 

if the information in the two addresses is not identical – as long as the

information in the addresses to be linked is not expressly contradictory. In 

short, the address matching guidelines can be loosely summarized as

follows:

AGREE if: The information in two addresses is identical

or contains only minor spelling differences.

NONCONTRADICTORY if: The information is supplied for only one

address; the information supplied is partially

complete in one or both addresses and that

which is present in one address does not

contradict information supplied for the

other; and differences in information result

from misspelling of householder’s last

name.

CONTRADICTORY if: Information from the two addresses cannot

be classified into either the agree or noncontradictory category.

NO MATCH FOUND if: No possible match for either the ACE or

census address is found.

Some examples: 415 Osborne Dr. and 415 Osbourn would, according to 

the guidelines, agree. 123 Main Ave. and 123 N. Main would be

considered non-contradictory, if no other version of Main exists in the

block cluster. 456 W. Frank St. and 456 E. Frank St. would be considered 

contradictory if both versions of Frank Street exist in the cluster.
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Page 53 of 54

Objective

The goal in the BFU stage is to produce a good address list for the followup interviewer. Board staff did not observe the Bureau pushing clerks to 

unequivocally match addresses. Rather, the clerks were instructed to

match addresses only if they have a strong sense that they match. The

Bureau, according to the trainer, is counting on the clerks growing 

progressively comfortable over time – i.e., as they gain experience and

familiarity, the clerks will grow more adept at resolving unmatched cases.

Presidential Members’ Position

Based on the training observations, the Presidential Members of the

Board do not believe there is cause to be concerned about an inordinate 

number of addresses being definitively, inaccurately matched. The

problem, in fact, may be a plethora of P coded addresses, at least initially. 

But given the importance of accuracy, we believe that the Bureau is right 

to err on the side of an abundance of P as opposed to M matched

addresses.

Congressional Members’ Position

The Congressional Members of the Board have concerns that attempts to 

match addresses are subject to a certain level of ambiguity, even with total 

fidelity to the matching guidelines. Given the sensitivity of the Dual 

System Estimation procedure planned by the Bureau, small errors in

matching a relatively few households in the sample could magnify into 

large errors when projecting the results to larger regions or the entire 

country.

To cite one example, multi-unit structures with poorly-marked unit

designations (often found in dense urban areas) are extremely difficult to 

match with certainty. Units could easily be mismatched during address 

listing, with two different apartments in the same building being given the 

same unit designation (i.e. Apt. A). Conceivably, the Bureau’s computer 

matching could code those two different apartments as a match, prior to 

clerical review. As noted above, computer matches are rarely reviewed by 

clerks or analysts.

At this time, the Board does not have sufficient information to assess the 

risk of this and other potential errors in matching, particularly since the 
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000

U.S. Census Monitoring Board

Page 54 of 54

Bureau has refused to provide the Dress Rehearsal evaluation report on 

the Primary Selection Algorithm. However, without further information 

and analysis, we cannot affirm the integrity of the household matching 

procedure.

Quality Check

DSSD has produced detailed quality assurance guidelines. In the early

production stages, 100 percent of clerical matching will be checked by

analysts and/or technicians. After that, work will be reviewed on a sample 

basis.

CONCLUSION

The training provided for clerical level staff was well-executed to

familiarize clerical staff with the Bureau guidelines to housing unit

matching.

Given the importance of matching to the integrity of the Accuracy

and Coverage Evaluation (ACE) survey, the Board plans to send

observers to the Person Matching training, scheduled for the fall, and 

transmit the resulting observations in a future report.
Report to Congress

April 1, 2000