a

GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to the Ranking Minority Member, 

Committee on Government Reform, 

House of Representatives

July 2003 DECENNIAL CENSUS

Lessons Learned for 

Locating and Counting 

Migrant and Seasonal 

Farm Workers

GAO-03-605
The Bureau used over a dozen operations to ensure a complete address list 

and accurate maps for the 2000 Census. To the extent that the operations 

were properly implemented, their design appears to have been adequate for 

identifying the hidden dwellings in which some migrant farm workers live, 

such as basement apartments. However, the operations were not as well 

suited to overcoming other difficulties associated with locating migrant farm 

workers such as language and literacy issues and a distrust of outsiders. 

These challenges were surmounted more effectively by relying on local 

advocacy groups and others in the community who knew where and how 

migrant farm workers lived, and could facilitate the Bureau’s access to those 

areas. 

The Bureau’s plans for the 2010 Census include an ambitious program to 

make its maps more accurate. However, additional steps will be needed. 

Local and regional census offices employed innovative practices during the 

2000 Census that could help improve the Bureau’s ability to locate migrant 

farm workers in 2010. They include partnering with state and local 

governments earlier in the decade when many address-listing operations 

take place (during the 2000 Census, the Bureau’s partnership program was 

used largely to get people to participate in the Census, but these activities 

took place after the Bureau had completed most of its address list 

development activities). Other innovations included making use of address 

information from local advocacy groups to help find migrant farm workers, 

and using census and other demographic data strategically to plan 

operations and target resources to those areas with high numbers of migrant 

farm workers. 

Migrant Farm Worker Dwelling is Hidden Behind a House 

One of the U.S. Census Bureau’s 

(Bureau) long-standing challenges 

has been counting migrant farm 

workers. Although the Bureau 

goes to great lengths to locate 

these individuals, its efforts are 

often hampered by the 

unconventional and hidden housing 

arrangements, distrust of outsiders, 

and language and literacy issues 

often associated with this 

population group. To help inform 

the planning for the 2010 Census, 

we were asked to review the 

adequacy of the Bureau’s 

procedures for locating migrant 

farm workers and their dwellings 

during the 2000 Census, and the 

steps, if any, that the Bureau can 

take to improve those procedures. 

The Secretary of Commerce should 

direct the Bureau to (1) study the 

feasibility of staffing partnership 

efforts at higher levels earlier in the 

decade to support address-listing 

activities, (2) consider developing 

protocols to allow the Bureau to 

take advantage of the address 

information kept by advocacy 

groups while preserving the 

confidentiality and integrity of the 

Bureau’s master address list, and 

(3) explore integrating census and 

other data to help plan operations 

and target resources to those areas 

with large migrant farm work 

populations. In commenting on a 

draft of this report, the Bureau 

stated that it generally agreed with 

our conclusions and will work 

toward implementing our 

recommendations. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-605.

To view the full report, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Patricia A. 

Dalton at (202) 512-6806 or 

daltonp@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-03-605, a report to the 

Ranking Minority Member, Committee on 

Government Reform 

July 2003

DECENNIAL CENSUS

Lessons Learned for Locating and 

Counting Migrant and Seasonal Farm 

Workers 
Page i GAO-03-605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 1

Background 3

Scope and Methodology 4

The Bureau’s Listing Operations Addressed Some of the Barriers to 

Locating Migrant and Seasonal Farm Workers but Significant 

Challenges Remain 6

Greater Use of Partnership Program and Innovative Practices Could 

Improve the Bureau’s Ability to Locate Migrant Farm Workers in 

the Future 18

Conclusions 22

Recommendations for Executive Action 22

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 23

Appendixes

Appendix I: Comments from the Secretary of Commerce 25

Appendix II: Related GAO Products on the Results of the 2000 Census and 

Lessons Learned for a More Effective Census in 2010 27

Table Table 1: Listing Operations Addressed Only Some of the Challenges 

Associated With Locating Migrant Farm Workers’ 

Dwellings 11

Figures Figure 1: Barriers to Locating and Counting Migrant Farm 

Workers 4

Figure 2: Be Counted Forms in a California Grocery Store 9

Figure 3: Timeline of Address List Building Operations 10

Figure 4: Habitable Dwellings Could be Hard to Identify 13

Figure 5: Single or Multi-unit Dwelling? 14

Figure 6: Migrant Labor Camp 15

Figure 7: Migrant Labor Camps Were Sometimes Fenced-in and 

Difficult to Access 16

Figure 8: Training Materials in McAllen, Tex., Arrived Too Late to 

Be Used 17
Contents

Page ii GAO-03-605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-03-605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

July 3, 2003 Letr

The Honorable Henry A. Waxman

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Government Reform

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Waxman:

One of the U.S. Census Bureau’s (Bureau) long-standing challenges has 

been counting migrant and seasonal farm workers. Although the Bureau 

takes extra steps to count these individuals, its efforts are hampered by the 

frequent moves, temporary and unconventional housing arrangements, 

overcrowded dwellings, and language barriers that often accompany this 

population. 

A cost-effective count of migrant farm workers, like all population groups, 

begins with an accurate address list and precise maps. Together, they help 

ensure that questionnaires are properly delivered; unnecessary and costly 

follow-up efforts at vacant or nonexistent residences are reduced; and 

people are counted in their usual place of residence, which is the basis for 

congressional reapportionment and redistricting. According to the Bureau, 

dwellings not on the address list at the time of questionnaire delivery are 

less likely to be counted.

The Bureau is currently developing and testing its operations for the 2010 

Census, and plans to design specific operations for locating migrant farm 

workers and their dwellings later in the decade. At your request, to help 

inform those efforts, we reviewed the adequacy of the Bureau’s operations 

for locating migrant farm workers and their dwellings during the 2000 

Census, and the steps, if any, that the Bureau can take to improve those 

operations as it plans for the next national head count in 2010. This report 

is the latest in a series of evaluations on the results of the 2000 Census and 

the Bureau’s plans for 2010. It is also one of several that we have issued on 

the Bureau’s efforts to build a complete and accurate address list. (See app. 

II for the list of reports issued to date.) 

Results in Brief The Bureau used over a dozen operations to help ensure the maps and 

Master Address File (MAF) used for the 2000 Census were as complete and 

accurate as possible. To the extent they were properly implemented, the 

operations appear to have been adequate for overcoming the challenge of 
Page 2 GAO-03-605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

identifying the hidden dwellings in which many migrant farm workers live, 

such as illegally converted apartments and labor camps. 

The operations were generally not as well suited to overcoming other 

challenges associated with locating migrant farm workers. For example, 

many migrant farm workers speak little or no English, which made it 

difficult for them to provide address information to census workers. The 

Bureau was better able to surmount these challenges by relying on local 

advocacy groups and other members of the community who knew where 

and how migrant farm workers lived, and could facilitate the Bureau’s 

access to those areas because the migrant farm workers trusted them.

The Bureau also experienced sporadic difficulties implementing operations 

used to build the MAF, which created various inefficiencies. For example, 

at some local census offices, materials used to train census workers on 

how to update the address list and enumerate people were delivered late. 

This created extra work for some regional and local census offices when 

they had to print the materials from e-mail messages. 

The Bureau’s plans for the 2010 Census include an ambitious program to 

modernize the MAF and the Bureau’s database that supports its mapping 

efforts, called the Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and 

Referencing (TIGER) system. Although these efforts are steps in the right 

direction, additional improvements are needed to help the Bureau better 

locate migrant farm workers and their dwellings. 

We identified several innovative practices in this regard that regional and 

local census offices employed during the 2000 Census that, with 

refinements, show promise for nationwide use in 2010. For example, during 

the 2000 Census, a regional census office accepted address information 

from a migrant farm worker advocacy group that contained more than 

3,000 housing units that were not already on the Bureau’s address list. 

However, the Bureau lacked protocols governing when and how to use 

address information from outside sources. Moreover, while the Bureau had 

an active partnership program with state and local governments, 

community groups, and other organizations to support key census-taking 

activities, it was not fully staffed until after most of the address list 

development operations had taken place, which limited the extent to which 

the partnership program could add value to those efforts. Using census, 

address, and other data strategically to help plan operations and target 

resources to those areas where migrant farm workers are prevalent could 

also help the Bureau better locate this population group. 
Page 3 GAO-03-605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

With this in mind, to help improve the Bureau’s ability to locate migrant 

farm workers and their dwellings, we recommend that the Secretary of 

Commerce direct the Bureau to explore the feasibility of implementing 

these innovative practices nationwide, take steps to resolve the various 

implementation difficulties the Bureau experienced, and make better use 

of census and other available data to identify areas with large numbers of 

migrant farm workers to better plan operations and target resources more 

efficiently.

The Secretary of Commerce forwarded written comments from the Bureau 

of the Census on a draft of this report. The comments are reprinted in 

appendix I. The Bureau generally agreed with our conclusions and will 

work towards implementing the recommendations in the report.

Background The foundation of a successful census is a complete and accurate address 

list and the maps that go with it. The Bureau’s MAF is an inventory of the 

nation’s roughly 120 million living quarters and serves as the basic control 

for the census in that it is used to deliver questionnaires as well as organize 

the collection and tabulation of data. The Bureau develops its maps from 

its TIGER database, which contains such information as housing unit 

locations, zip codes, streets, geographic borders, census tract and block 

boundaries, railroads, airports, and schools. 

The Bureau goes to great lengths to develop a quality address list and maps, 

working with the U.S. Postal Service; federal agencies; state, local, and 

tribal governments; local planning organizations; the private sector; and 

nongovernmental entities. The Bureau also sends thousands of temporary 

census workers into the field to verify address information on site. For the 

2000 Census, the Bureau spent around $390 million on its address list 

compilation activities, which was about 6 percent of the $6.5 billion spent 

on the census, or about $3.33 for each housing unit. 

Despite these efforts, the Bureau has historically encountered difficulties 

locating the dwellings of migrant farm workers because of a variety of 

obstacles ranging from workers’ literacy levels to their legal status (see fig. 

1). The net result is that migrants’ places of residence may not get included 

in the MAF, which decreases their chances of being counted in the census. 
Page 4 GAO-03-605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

Figure 1: Barriers to Locating and Counting Migrant Farm Workers

Ensuring that migrant farm workers are included in the census is important 

for at least two reasons. First, the Bureau is legally required to count all 

persons who reside in the United States on Census Day, regardless of their 

citizenship status or whether they are here legally or illegally. Second, 

according to the Bureau, migrant and seasonal farm workers have unique 

health, job safety, training, education, and other requirements. Federal, 

state, and local governments as well as other organizations use census data 

to plan and fund many of the programs that address these needs. 

Scope and 

Methodology

Our objectives were to (1) review the adequacy of the Bureau’s operations 

for locating migrant farm workers and their dwellings during the 2000 

Census, and (2) identify how, if at all, the Bureau can improve those 

operations for the next decennial census in 2010. Because the Bureau does 

not keep data on how well its address list development operations located 

the dwellings of specific population groups such as migrant farm workers 

(the operations were developed to locate dwellings regardless of who 

might live in them), to meet our two objectives we examined relevant 

1. Distrust of outsiders. As some migrant farm workers lack proper legal status, they often fear 

talking to strangers, especially those representing the government.

2. Unconventional housing arrangements. Migrant housing often consists of employer-provided 

dormitories, cabins, and trailers arrayed in labor camps. In some cases, the camps are illegal 

and unregistered, and thus would not appear on any official listings. In other cases, the camps 

might be legal, but might not be registered in time for the census. Some camps are remote from 

main roads and lack street addresses, while others have blocked access roads, barbed wire 

fences, locked gates, and “No Trespassing” signs. Although landlords are legally required to let 

census workers onto their property, employers’ concerns over reduced productivity, as well as 

being penalized for hiring undocumented workers and violating housing codes, may make them 

less than fully cooperative. Migrant workers are also known to reside in motels, and “hidden” 

dwellings, such as sheds, illegally converted basement apartments, makeshift campgrounds, 

and cars.

3. Language and literacy. Many migrant farm workers know little, if any, English. Others have 

low education levels, little or no reading skills, and may have difficulty completing official forms 

and speaking to census workers who do not speak their language. As a result, making forms 

and outreach material available in the workers’ native language may, in some instances, have a 

limited impact.

4. Mobility. Migrant farm workers regularly move in response to the seasonal demands of the 

growers who employ them. They also return to visit their home countries. Their transient nature 

increases the chances of being missed by the census.

Source: Compiled from Census-Bureau-sponsored research, 1992-1997, unvetted or verified by GAO.
Page 5 GAO-03-605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

Bureau program and research documents. We also interviewed key Bureau 

headquarters officials who were responsible for planning and 

implementing the address list development operations. 

Moreover, to obtain a local perspective on how the Bureau implemented its 

address list development operations and tried to overcome the challenges 

of locating the dwellings of migrant farm workers, we interviewed Bureau 

officials from 4 of its 12 regional offices (i.e., Atlanta, Charlotte, Dallas, and 

Los Angeles). We also interviewed former local census workers in Central 

California and Florida who helped conduct local address listing. We 

selected these areas primarily for their geographic dispersion and 

demographic diversity, and because these areas were identified before the 

2000 Census as having a large number of migrant farm workers. Because of 

the small sample size, the results of our visits cannot be generalized to the 

Bureau’s MAF-building efforts as a whole, but they do provide useful 

lessons and innovative practices that the Bureau could consider for 2010. 

We also included the results of our earlier work that consisted of on-site 

observations of block canvassing—an operation the Bureau used to verify 

the accuracy of “city-style” addresses.1

 We made these observations when 

the operation was underway in the spring of 1999 in Dallas, Tex; Los 

Angeles, Calif.; Paterson, N.J.; and Long Island, N.Y., which we chose for 

their geographic and demographic diversity.2

We also included the results of our survey of a stratified random sample of 

250 local census office managers in which we obtained responses from 236 

managers (about a 94 percent overall response rate). The survey—which 

asked local census office managers about the implementation of a number 

of key field operations—can be generalized to the 511 local census offices 

located in the 50 states. All reported percentages are estimates based on 

the sample and are subject to some sampling error as well as nonsampling 

error. In general, percentage estimates in this report for the entire sample 

have a sampling error ranging from about +/- 4 to +/- 5 percentage points at 

the 95 percent confidence interval. In other words, if all local census office 

managers in our population had been surveyed, the chances are 95 out of 

1

City-style addresses are those where the U.S. Postal Service uses house-number and streetname addresses for mail delivery. Non-city-style addresses include post office boxes, rural 

route addresses, etc.

2

U.S. General Accounting Office, Decennial Census: Information on the Accuracy of 

Address Coverage, GAO/GGD-00-29R (Washington D.C: Nov. 19, 1999).
Page 6 GAO-03-605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

100 that the result obtained would not differ from our sample estimate in 

the more extreme cases by more than +/- 5 percent.

To provide further local context, we interviewed representatives of farm 

worker and other advocacy groups that worked with the Bureau to develop 

accurate address lists in Florida, Georgia, and California, as well as 

representatives of local governments who provided local address 

information to the Bureau. Moreover, we interviewed growers in Florida to 

discuss how they worked with the Census Bureau. In addition to these field 

locations, we performed our audit work at Bureau headquarters in 

Suitland, Md., as well as in Washington, D.C. 

We performed our audit work for this report from September 2001 through 

April 2003, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. We requested comments on a draft of this report from the 

Secretary of Commerce. On June 2, 2003, the Secretary forwarded the 

Bureau’s written comments on the draft (see app. I), which we address in 

the “Agency Comments and Our Evaluation” section of this report.

The Bureau’s Listing 

Operations Addressed 

Some of the Barriers to 

Locating Migrant and 

Seasonal Farm 

Workers but Significant 

Challenges Remain

The Bureau used more than a dozen operations to help ensure a complete 

and accurate address list. Although the operations were designed to locate 

various types of dwellings, not population groups as a whole, if properly 

implemented their design appears to have been adequate for identifying the 

hidden living arrangements in which a number of migrant and seasonal 

farm workers live. However, the operations were generally not as well 

suited to overcoming language and other challenges associated with 

locating these population groups. Moreover, various implementation 

problems hampered the Bureau’s activities at certain locations. 

The Bureau’s Operations 

Could Not Overcome 

Certain Challenges 

The MAF consists of two types of dwellings: housing units such as singlefamily homes, apartments, and mobile homes and what the Bureau calls 

“special places and group quarters.” A special place is an entity with which 

a group quarter is linked. For example, a university is a special place and a 

dormitory is a group quarter linked to the university. 

To build the master address list for the 2000 Census, the Bureau employed 

over a dozen operations nationwide between 1997 and 2000. Each 

operation was geared toward locating either housing units or special 

places, although both address types could be added to the MAF by most of 
Page 7 GAO-03-605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

the operations. The Bureau enhanced these “standard” address list 

development operations with supplemental procedures for use in areas 

with large migrant farm worker populations that directed Bureau 

employees to, among other actions, check vehicles for evidence of 

habitation. 

Operations aimed at locating and verifying the existence of housing units 

included, among others:

• United States Postal Service File Transfer (November 1997), where the 

Postal Service electronically shared with the Bureau the address lists it 

uses to deliver mail. The MAF was updated periodically by the Postal 

Service data between November 1997 and January 2000. 

• Local Update of Census Addresses (May 1998–June 2000), where local 

and tribal government officials reviewed and updated the Bureau’s 

address lists and maps. Participating governments could submit their 

changes in paper or electronic form. 

• Address Listing (July 1998–May 1999), a field operation where census 

workers traveled the roads in areas with mail delivery systems that are 

not predominately based on street names and street addresses, 

identifying housing units and updating census maps as necessary. 

• Block Canvassing (January–July 1999), a field operation where census 

workers verified the addresses of all the housing units in areas with mail 

delivery systems that are predominately based on street names and 

street addresses, and updated census maps as necessary.

• Update/Leave and Update/Enumerate (March–July 2000), field 

operations where census workers either distributed a census 

questionnaire to be returned by mail (update/leave) or, in certain areas, 

attempted to enumerate the household. The address list would be 

updated at the same time.

• Nonresponse Follow-up (April–June 2000), where temporary census 

workers attempted to enumerate households for which a questionnaire 

was not returned by mail. Any dwellings not on the workers’ assignment 

lists were also to be enumerated and possibly added to the MAF.

Operations meant to locate primarily special places and group quarters 

included, among others:
Page 8 GAO-03-605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

• Advance Visit and Facility Questionnaire operations (November 

1998–March 2000), where temporary census workers personally visited 

with officials of special places to identify locations and specific 

dwellings. 

• Special Places Local Update of Census Addresses (December 1999–May 

2000), where local government officials reviewed and updated the 

Bureau’s list of special places. 

• Local Knowledge Update (January–February 2000), where local census 

office staff reviewed the Bureau’s list of special places and added, 

deleted, or corrected special place names and addresses as appropriate. 

If all of these operations failed to find a dwelling, people could still be 

included in the census through the Be Counted program, which the Bureau 

developed to enumerate people who believed they did not receive a census 

questionnaire, or were otherwise not included in the census. The program 

also allowed people with no usual residence on Census Day such as 

migrants, seasonal farm workers, and transients to get counted in the 

census. The Bureau placed Be Counted forms (specially modified shortform questionnaires) in community centers, churches, groceries, and other 

locations where the targeted groups were thought to congregate (see 

fig. 2).
Page 9 GAO-03-605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

Figure 2: Be Counted Forms in a California Grocery Store

As shown in figure 3, the MAF-building operations were sequential and 

took place between 1997 and 2000, which helped ensure that an address 

missed in one operation could be found in a subsequent operation. For 

example, if an unconventional dwelling was not recognized as habitable 

during an early operation such as address listing, it could be found during a 

later operation, such as update/leave.
Page 10 GAO-03-605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

Figure 3: Timeline of Address List Building Operations 

Overall, to the extent that they were properly implemented, the design of 

the Bureau’s MAF-building operations appears to have been adequate for 

identifying the hidden and unconventional dwellings in which many 

migrant farm workers reside. Indeed, of the 11 operations below, 9 involved 

on-site verification by census workers or input from knowledgeable local 

officials, which made it more likely that hidden dwellings would be found 

(see table 1). The two that do not are the Postal Service file transfer and the 

Be Counted program.

MAF-building operation 1997 1998 1999 2000

Postal Service file transfer

Local update of census 

addresses

Address listing

Block canvassing

Supplemental procedures 

Update/leave and 

upate/enumerate 

Be Counted program

Nonresponse follow-up 

Advanced visit/facility 

questionnaire 

Special places local 

update of census 

addresses

Local knowledge update

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Census Bureau documents.

ON D J F MA M A J J SONJ DJ FM J AM J ASONDJ F M MA J J AS ON D
Page 11 GAO-03-605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

Table 1: Listing Operations Addressed Only Some of the Challenges Associated 

With Locating Migrant Farm Workers’ Dwellings

9= Generally addressed challenge of locating migrant and seasonal farm workers’ dwellings

Source: GAO analysis of Census data.

However, most of these operations were not as well suited to overcoming 

other challenges to locating migrant farm workers, such as a distrust of 

outsiders and language and literacy issues. The Bureau appeared to do a 

better job surmounting these challenges when it worked with local people 

who knew where and how migrant farm workers lived, and could help 

facilitate the Bureau’s access to those communities. Indeed, at the time of 

the later operations, local and regional census offices could hire qualified 

noncitizens to help locate dwellings.

Some local census offices also hired “cultural facilitators”-- people with ties 

to a particular community who knew where specific population groups

MAF-building 

operation 

Hidden and 

unconventional 

housing

Distrust of 

outsiders

Language and 

literacy Mobility

Postal Service file 

transfer 

Local update of 

census addresses 

Address listing 9

Block canvassing 9

Supplemental 

procedures 9

Advance visit/facility 

questionnaire 9

Special places local 

update of census 

addresses 9

Local knowledge 

update 9 9

Update/leave and 

update/enumerate 9 9 9

Be Counted 

program 9 9 9 9

Nonresponse 

follow-up 9 9 9
Page 12 GAO-03-605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

lived and could speak their language, and could thus ease the Bureau’s 

access to those areas. Local offices in the Dallas census region hired 

residents of the colonias (small, rural, unincorporated communities along 

the U.S.-Mexico border) as cultural facilitators to accompany temporary 

census employees on their assignments. Their presence helped reduce 

barriers that would have prevented the census employees from obtaining a 

successful interview. However, cultural facilitators were not deployed 

during the two major MAF development operations, address listing and 

block canvassing. Instead, the Bureau used cultural facilitators for later 

operations that could add or delete addresses from the MAF, but were 

geared toward enumeration. 

If deployed during block canvassing and address listing, cultural 

facilitators could accompany census workers and, because of their 

knowledge of local living conditions, help them determine whether any of 

the sheds, cars, boxes, and other potential shelters they might encounter 

were in fact habitable dwellings. This would be important because 

although the Bureau took steps to train workers to look for extra 

mailboxes, utility meters, and other signs of habitation, decisions on what 

was a habitable dwelling were often subjective--what was habitable to one 

worker may have been uninhabitable to another. Even with the Bureau’s 

guidelines and training, deciding whether a house is unfit for habitation or 

merely unoccupied and boarded-up can be very difficult. An incorrect 

decision on the part of the census worker could have caused the dwelling 

and its occupants to get missed by the census. Conversely, if the dwelling 

was listed as habitable when it was not, it could have received a 

questionnaire and follow-up visits during the enumeration phase, thus 

increasing the cost of the census. Nationally, 8.2 percent of the roughly 120 

million housing units on the Bureau’s address list at the start of Census 

2000 were later determined to be nonexistent.

We observed this challenge first-hand on one of our site visits, where a 

representative of a farm worker advocacy group showed us a housing unit 

that he said was not on the Bureau’s address list. As can be seen below, the 

housing unit in question was a small wooden structure behind a larger 

house that could have easily been mistaken for a storage shed (see fig. 4). 
Page 13 GAO-03-605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

Figure 4: Habitable Dwellings Could be Hard to Identify

Census workers would have needed a fair amount of cultural sensitivity 

and knowledge of local living conditions to recognize the structure as a 

potential residence. Although census workers were instructed to make 

every effort to make contact with adult farm workers who lived in the area, 

the farm workers did not always tell the truth because the dwellings were 

sometimes illegal or the inhabitants undocumented.

Living quarters were difficult to identify in other ways. For example, as 

shown in figure 5, what appears to be a small, single-family house could 

contain an illegal apartment as suggested by its two doorbells. 
Page 14 GAO-03-605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

Figure 5: Single or Multi-unit Dwelling?

Implementation Difficulties 

Added to the Bureau’s 

Challenges in Finding 

Migrant and Seasonal Farm 

Workers 

Implementation and logistical problems at some locations also hampered 

the Bureau’s efforts to locate migrant and seasonal farm workers. They 

included the following: 

• Accessing labor camps and farms was often difficult. We found the 

migrant labor camp and farm shown in figure 6 off of a state road on one 

of our site visits. Although this particular camp was readily visible and 

the farm owner was willing to have census workers come onto his land, 

this was not always the case at other farms. 
Page 15 GAO-03-605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

Figure 6: Migrant Labor Camp 

Indeed, as shown in figure 7, some dormitories were fenced-in and posted 

with “No Trespassing” signs, while others were in remote locations away 

from main roads. Although property owners are required by law to allow 

census workers onto their land to enumerate residents, owners sometimes 

created an unwelcome and intimidating atmosphere. For example, a census 

worker at one of our site visits told us that one farm with worker housing 

on its premises was patrolled by armed guards.
Page 16 GAO-03-605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

Figure 7: Migrant Labor Camps Were Sometimes Fenced-in and Difficult to Access

• Training materials for MAF-building and enumeration operations 

arrived late. Local and regional Bureau staff we contacted reported 

that, for a variety of reasons, training materials often arrived later than 

they had planned and, in some cases, so late that extra steps had to be 

taken by local offices to ensure that training could take place on 

schedule. 

For example, at one office we visited, the late materials created 

unnecessary staff work when an official from the McAllen, Tex., local 

census office reported that he had to drive 142 miles to the Laredo, Tex., 

local census office to obtain copies of needed training materials. As 

shown in figure 8, the boxes of training kits arrived too late to be used. 

Other local census office managers said that they received multiple 

revisions of the same training materials, which caused confusion. 

Bureau officials told us that special place and group quarters 

procedures were of a lower priority than other procedures and, 

therefore, the procedures and training materials were not finalized until 

very late. Local census office managers in the Bureau’s Atlanta and Los 

Angeles regions reported that they had to print training materials from 
Page 17 GAO-03-605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

e-mail attachments finalized and received the night before training was 

scheduled to begin. Bureau guidance encouraged trainers to collect, 

organize, and study the training materials well in advance of their 

training session, but the late receipt of these materials impeded their 

ability to do so. According to one regional office official, the late arrival 

of training materials resulted in some local office officials being 

unprepared to run field operations. 

Figure 8: Training Materials in McAllen, Tex., Arrived Too Late to Be Used

• The system for managing field operations confused local census staff. 

The Bureau used an automated system to track field operations. 

However, one of its shortcomings was that it did not show a group 

quarters (e.g., a dormitory) that was in one local census office’s 

jurisdiction, if the group quarters was linked to a special place (a 

college) in another office’s jurisdiction. In addition, the two sets of 

instructions that told workers how to handle these situations conflicted 

with one another. One set of instructions stated that the local census 

office in which the special place resides “must handle all operations 

associated with the special place,” while a second set of instructions 

noted that local census offices were responsible for enumerating all 

group quarters within their area. 
Page 18 GAO-03-605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

Additionally, to avoid this shortcoming, regional census office officials 

told us that local census office staff, when keying data into the 

automated system, sometimes gave the group quarters located outside 

of their area an address that was inside their office’s jurisdiction so that 

the group quarters would show up as part of the office’s workload. 

Because this group quarters then had an incorrect address, its residents 

wound up being counted in the wrong geographic location.

Greater Use of 

Partnership Program 

and Innovative 

Practices Could 

Improve the Bureau’s 

Ability to Locate 

Migrant Farm Workers 

in the Future

Bureau officials told us that because it is relatively early in the decade, its 

plans for locating and enumerating migrant farm workers are still being 

developed. However, the Bureau has launched an ambitious MAF/TIGER 

modernization program. As part of this effort, the Bureau plans to correct 

the locations of streets and other map features; work with state, local, and 

tribal governments to obtain better geographic information; and modernize 

its geographic data processing operations. The Bureau’s longer term plans 

include equipping census workers with Global Positioning System 

receivers that use satellites to help them determine the precise locations of 

housing units and group quarters and validate the accuracy of each 

address. 

If successfully implemented, the Bureau’s enhancements could produce 

more accurate maps that would pinpoint individual dwellings. However, for 

these initiatives to work effectively for migrant farm workers, the Bureau 

must first know where to look for migrant and seasonal farm workers’ 

dwellings and be able to overcome challenges to identifying where they 

live. In the course of our review, we identified several practices from the 

2000 Census that show promise in this regard for 2010. 

• Leverage partnerships. The Bureau partnered with state, local, and 

tribal governments as well as religious, media, educational, and other 

community organizations to improve participation in the 2000 Census 

and to mobilize support for other operations. The partnership program 

stemmed from the Bureau’s recognition that local people know the 

characteristics of their communities better than the Census Bureau.3

The city of Los Angeles (L.A.), for example, directed Department of 

Water and Power employees, sanitation, and many other city workers to 

3

For more information on the Bureau’s partnership program, see U.S. General Accounting 

Office, 2000 Census: Review of Partnership Program Highlights Best Practices for Future 

Operations, GAO-01-579 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 20, 2001).
Page 19 GAO-03-605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

identify dwellings that the Bureau may have missed as part of its 

address-list development operations. The city selected these employees 

because they went door-to-door as part of their work, and could thus 

help find nonstandard dwellings. L.A.’s Information Technology Agency 

developed a 10-minute video that described the importance of the effort 

and how to find unconventional housing. According to city 

representatives, the employees found over 38,000 nonstandard 

dwellings.

The partnership program was also important for the Be Counted 

campaign as partnership staff worked with local governments, 

community organizations, and other groups to help identify the best 

places to put Be Counted forms, including undercounted and nonEnglish-speaking neighborhoods.

However, the full complement of partnership program staff did not 

come on board until after October 1, 1999, when the Bureau filled the 

remaining 202 (34 percent) of the 594 positions authorized for the 

initiative. As shown in figure 3, this was several months after the 

Bureau completed the bulk of its address list-building activities. Had 

the full complement of partnership specialists been available to support 

the listing operations in 1998 and 1999, they could have encouraged 

greater participation on the part of local governments and community 

groups in building a better address list for the 2000 Census, much like 

they did later on in the census to increase local awareness of the census 

and boost response rates. 

For example, partnership specialists could reach out to local 

governments and encourage greater participation in the Local Update 

of Census Addresses (LUCA) program. During the 2000 Census, of the 

17,424 eligible city-style jurisdictions the Bureau invited to participate 

in what was known as “LUCA 1998”, 9,263 (about 53 percent) 

volunteered to participate. Ultimately, about 36 percent of eligible 

jurisdictions reviewed the material and returned something to the 

Bureau. Partnership specialists could have followed up with the 

nonresponding localities to determine why they did not return material 

to the Bureau and, if necessary, encourage their participation in LUCA.4

4

For more information about the LUCA program, see U.S.General Accounting Office, 2000 

Census: Local Address Review Program Has Had Mixed Results to Date, GAO/T-GGD-99-

184 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 29, 1999).
Page 20 GAO-03-605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

• Make use of address information from local organizations. As part of 

its partnership efforts, the Bureau frequently obtained information 

about special places and group quarters from local advocacy and 

community groups. In one instance, the Bureau’s Los Angeles regional 

office partnered with the California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA) 

Corporation, a nongovernmental migrant farm worker advocacy group, 

to improve coverage of housing units in areas populated by many 

migrant farm workers. 

Carrying forms similar to those used by census workers during the block 

canvassing and address-listing operations, CRLA staff canvassed 

communities where they knew migrant farm workers lived. Because the 

staff were familiar with the types of structures migrant farm workers 

used as dwellings and were known by many of the workers, they were 

able to locate housing units that the Bureau might have missed. 

According to data provided by the Bureau, but not audited by GAO, 

CRLA staff identified over 4,000 addresses of which 3,076 (about 73 

percent) the Bureau accepted as valid. The Bureau added these 

addresses to its list of housing units to be visited during census followup operations. 

Bureau officials we spoke with knew of no other instances where the 

Bureau accepted address data from nongovernmental sources, and 

there were no protocols for doing so. Headquarters officials said they 

were not aware of the Los Angeles Region’s reliance on CRLA, but that 

they would not necessarily have objected if the region had included the 

information within other tested and approved procedures. 

• Use Census data strategically to help plan and manage address listing 

operations. Following each census, the Bureau has a wealth of data on 

the social and demographic characteristics of each and every census 

block in the nation. However, for a variety of reasons the Bureau does 

not always use that information strategically to help inform, plan, and 

administer operations in the subsequent census. 

For example, in its initial plan for the 2000 Census, the Bureau 

conceived of a planning database that would capture data down to very 

small geographic levels and would be continuously updated over the 

decade for a number of census purposes. The Bureau envisioned a 

system that, among other functions, would have enabled it to target 

areas where language resources were needed and identify 

neighborhoods where enumeration and recruiting could be difficult. 
Page 21 GAO-03-605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

However, a Bureau official said the effort was suspended in the mid1990s for budgetary reasons. According to this official, while the Bureau 

revived the planning database later in the decade, it was never 

completely developed or used to the fullest extent possible. 

Although the Bureau used labor force data on agricultural workers to 

help target its supplemental MAF-building procedures, some of the data 

was from 1992 and may not have been current enough to be accurate, 

thus highlighting the importance of up-to-date information. For 

example, employees of the Bureau’s Atlanta and Charlotte regional 

offices told us that the migrant populations in some locations in their 

regions had grown noticeably during the latter half of the 1990s, and the 

Charlotte employees said that they used the supplemental procedures in 

many areas that had not been previously identified by the Bureau. 

In those instances where the Bureau was more successful in using 

demographic information to plan subsequent census-taking activities, 

the potential payoff is clear. As we noted in our report on lessons 

learned for more cost-effective follow-up with nonrespondents,5

 the 

Bureau called on local and regional census offices to develop action 

plans that, among other things, identified hard-to-enumerate areas 

within their jurisdictions, such as immigrant neighborhoods, and 

propose strategies for dealing with those challenges. The strategies 

included such methods as paired and team enumeration for high-crime 

areas, and hiring bilingual enumerators. We concluded that this advance 

planning contributed to the timely completion of nonresponse followup. 

If similar advance planning and geographic databases are integrated 

into the MAF-building process early on, the Bureau could produce 

thematic maps that use colors and symbols to show areas where 

migrant and seasonal farm workers and other hard-to-enumerate 

groups and housing are located. The result—a geographic information 

system consisting of “hard-to-list” areas—could help the Bureau target 

its MAF-building, partnership, hiring, and other efforts far more 

efficiently.

5

U.S. General Accounting Office, 2000 Census: Best Practices and Lessons Learned for 

More Cost-Effective Nonresponse Follow-Up, GAO-02-196 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 11, 2002).
Page 22 GAO-03-605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

• Train census workers in languages other than English. The material 

used to train census workers was printed only in English (the exception 

to this was Puerto Rico, where training kits were available in Spanish). 

However, to better prepare census workers—some of whom spoke 

Spanish as their first language—to locate migrant farm workers and 

other hard-to-count groups, a local census office in the Los Angeles 

region conducted a training session in Spanish. Because the trainer had 

only English language materials, she simultaneously translated these 

materials verbally during the training session. Since the trainees had 

been recruited to help locate and enumerate dwellings in largely 

Spanish-speaking areas, the staff we spoke with believed that presenting 

the training in Spanish directly improved their effectiveness. 

Conclusions The Bureau went to great lengths to build its MAF and locate the dwellings 

of migrant farm workers, using a series of complementary and sometimes 

overlapping operations spanning several years. Together, the operations 

formed a safety net that helped ensure that dwellings missed in one 

operation would be found in a subsequent procedure. Nevertheless, while 

the various MAF-building operations appeared to be adequate for locating 

the hidden housing arrangements in which some migrant farm workers 

live, surmounting barriers such as language and literacy issues proved to be 

more problematic. Combating these challenges will be critical to a more 

complete count of migrant and seasonal farm workers and a more accurate 

census in 2010. 

Based on the Bureau’s experience during the 2000 Census, this challenge 

might be addressed more successfully by using its own data more 

strategically to target resources, and starting its partnership program 

earlier to support address list development operations, rather than with a 

new or improved MAF-building procedure. At the same time, it will be 

important for the Bureau to address the implementation problems that 

occurred as these operations were carried out. Although they appeared to 

be sporadic in nature, they added inefficiencies to an already difficult task. 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

To ensure a more complete count of migrant and seasonal farm workers, 

we recommend that the Secretary of Commerce direct the Bureau to take 

the following actions as part of its planning process for the 2010 Census.
Page 23 GAO-03-605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

• Identify best practices and lessons learned from the 2000 Census and 

ensure that they are incorporated into planning efforts for the 2010 

Census. 

• Study the feasibility of staffing partnership efforts at higher levels 

earlier in the decade to support key address list development efforts. 

• Consider developing protocols that would allow the Bureau to take 

advantage of housing unit information kept by advocacy and other 

responsible groups, while preserving the confidentiality and integrity of 

the Bureau’s master address list.

• Explore integrating census, MAF/TIGER, and other data to produce a 

geographic information system and thematic maps that would identify 

those areas with large migrant farm worker and other hard-to-count 

populations in order to better plan operations and target resources. 

• Consider providing training materials in languages other than English to 

targeted areas.

• Ensure that the link between Special Places and Group Quarters is clear 

to those implementing the operations and that responsibility for 

ensuring each group quarter is enumerated is clearly delegated.

• Ensure that MAF-building operations are properly tested and integrated 

with other census operations, and are adequate for locating migrant and 

seasonal farm workers and other hard-to-count groups.

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

The Secretary of Commerce forwarded written comments from the Census 

Bureau on a draft of this report on June 2, 2003, which are reprinted in 

appendix I. The Bureau generally agreed with the conclusions of the report 

and said it will work towards implementing our recommendations. The 

Bureau also suggested some minor technical corrections and clarifications, 

which we have incorporated. 

In addition, the Bureau noted that our report states that, “the full 

complement of partnership program staff did not come on board until after 

October 1, 1999. . .” and that, “had partnership specialists been available to 

support these earlier operations, they could have encouraged greater 

participation.” The Bureau maintains that partnership specialists were in 
Page 24 GAO-03-605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

fact in place and actively involved in supporting address list development 

activities. 

Our report did not state that partnership specialists did not support address 

list development activities. In fact, earlier in the report we noted how the 

Bureau partnered with the city of Los Angeles to help find nonstandard 

dwellings. Rather, our point was that they were thinly spread as around a 

third of the partnership specialist positions were not filled until fiscal year 

2000, after the Bureau had completed its key address list development 

procedures. We revised the text to clarify this.

As agreed with your office, unless you announce its contents earlier, we 

plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after its issuance 

date. At that time, we will send copies of the report to other interested 

congressional committees, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Director of 

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

request. This report will also be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please 

contact me on (202) 512-6806 or by e-mail at daltonp@gao.gov or Robert 

Goldenkoff, Assistant Director, on (202) 512-2757 or by e-mail at 

goldenkoffr@gao.gov. Key contributors to this report were Benjamin 

Crawford, Ty Mitchell, Corinna Wengryn, Timothy Wexler, and Christopher 

Miller.

Sincerely yours,

Patricia A. Dalton

Director

Strategic Issues 
Page 25 GAO-03-605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

Appendix I

Comments from the Secretary of Commerce AAppenednxidexiIs
Appendix I

Comments from the Secretary of Commerce

Page 26 GAO-03-605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers
Page 27 GAO-03-605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

Appendix II

Related GAO Products on the Results of the 

2000 Census and Lessons Learned for a More 

Effective Census in 2010 ApendxiI

2000 Census Coverage Measurement Programs’ Results, Costs, and 

Lessons Learned. GAO-03-287. Washington, D.C.: January 29, 2003.

Decennial Census: Methods for Collecting and Reporting Hispanic 

Subgroup Data Need Refinement. GAO-03-228. Washington, D.C.: January 

17, 2003.

Decennial Census: Methods for Collecting and Reporting Data on the 

Homeless and Others without Conventional Housing Need Refinement. 

GAO-03-227. Washington, D.C.: January 17, 2003.

2000 Census: Complete Costs of Coverage Evaluation Programs Are Not 

Available. GAO-03-41. Washington, D.C.: October 31, 2002. 

2000 Census: Lessons Learned for Planning a More Cost-Effective 2010 

Census. GAO-03-40. Washington, D.C.: October 31, 2002.

The American Community Survey: Accuracy and Timeliness Issues.

GAO-02-956R. Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2002.

2000 Census: Refinements to Full Count Review Program Could Improve 

Future Data Quality. GAO-02-562. Washington, D.C.: July 3, 2002.

2000 Census: Coverage Evaluation Matching Implemented As Planned, 

but Census Bureau Should Evaluate Lessons Learned. GAO-02-297. 

Washington, D.C.: March 14, 2002.

2000 Census: Best Practices and Lessons Learned for More Cost-Effective 

Nonresponse Follow-Up. GAO-02-196. Washington, D.C.: February 11, 2002.

2000 Census: Coverage Evaluation Interviewing Overcame Challenges, 

but Further Research Needed. GAO-02-26. Washington, D.C.: December 31, 

2001.

2000 Census: Analysis of Fiscal Year 2000 Budget and Internal Control 

Weaknesses at the U.S. Census Bureau. GAO-02-30. Washington, D.C.: 

December 28, 2001.

2000 Census: Significant Increase in Cost Per Housing Unit Compared 

to 1990 Census. GAO-02-31. Washington, D.C.: December 11, 2001.
Appendix II

Related GAO Products on the Results of the 

2000 Census and Lessons Learned for a More 

Effective Census in 2010

Page 28 GAO-03-605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

2000 Census: Better Productivity Data Needed for Future Planning and 

Budgeting. GAO-02-4. Washington, D.C.: October 4, 2001.

2000 Census: Review of Partnership Program Highlights Best Practices 

for Future Operations. GAO-01-579. Washington, D.C.: August 20, 2001.

Decennial Censuses: Historical Data on Enumerator Productivity Are 

Limited. GAO-01-208R. Washington, D.C.: January 5, 2001.

2000 Census: Information on Short- and Long-Form Response Rates.

GAO/GGD-00-127R. Washington, D.C.: June 7, 2000.

Decennial Census: Information on the Accuracy of Address Coverage.

GAO/GGD-00-29R. Washington, D.C.: November 19, 1999.

2000 Census: Local Address Review Program Has Had Mixed Results to 

Date. GAO/T-GGD-99-184. Washington, D.C.: September 29, 1999.

(450074)
GAO’s Mission The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government 

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

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

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

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

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics.

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

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

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

list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to 

e-mail alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading.

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A check 

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

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

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

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

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

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Public Affairs Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Service Requested

Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00