GAO-01-208R Enumerator Productivity

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548

January 5, 2001

The Honorable Henry A. Waxman

The Honorable Carolyn B. Maloney

House of Representatives

Subject: Decennial Censuses: Historical Data on Enumerator Productivity Are

 Limited

This letter responds to your request for data on enumerator productivity levels from

the 1940 through the 2000 Censuses. In your respective capacities as the Ranking

Minority Member, Committee on Government Reform, and the Ranking Minority

Member, Subcommittee on the Census, you asked us to develop this information to

better clarify the relationship between the Bureau of the Census’ field data collection

workload, and the time and labor force needed to complete it. These factors—used

to calculate productivity—are some of the largest drivers of census costs, and the

Bureau developed its budget for the 2000 Census using a model that contained key

assumptions about expected workload and enumerator productivity. 1

We reviewed historical data to obtain information for the 1940 through 1990

Censuses; and, for the 2000 Census, we examined preliminary data contained in the

Bureau’s Cost and Progress database, a management information system the Bureau

uses to track the status of the census. We also interviewed officials from the

Bureau’s 2000 Decennial Management Division and history office to obtain

information on (1) how the data were developed, (2) their limitations, and (3) the

extent of their comparability.

On December 11, 2000, we requested comments on a draft of this letter from the

Secretary of Commerce. However, comments were not provided in time to be

included in this letter. We performed our work between June and December 2000, in

Washington, D.C., and Bureau headquarters in Suitland, MD, in accordance with

generally accepted government auditing standards.

Results in Brief

We could not calculate productivity levels for the 2000 Census and most of the earlier

censuses included in our review because data were largely unavailable, incomplete,

or not comparable. With respect to enumerator productivity for the 2000 Census,

 

1

2000 Census: Analysis of Fiscal Year 2000 Amended Budget Request (GAO/GGD-99-291, Sept. 22,

1999).
Page 2 GAO-01-208R Enumerator Productivity

Bureau officials said that they could not assure the reliability of this data until

planned reliability assessments are completed in early 2001.

Moreover, definitional differences in how the Bureau counted the number of

enumerators who worked on the census, and variations in census-taking

methodologies, limited the comparability of productivity data from one census to the

next. Given the importance of productivity information for validating assumptions

the Bureau used to develop its budget for the 2000 Census, and the role that this

information can play in planning for the 2010 Census, we recommend that the

Secretary of Commerce ensure that the Bureau refines available productivity data as

planned; identify the extent and nature of any anomalies, as well as the impact they

have on data quality; and determine the extent to which the data can be compared by

local census office type (rural versus urban).

Background

The decennial census is the nation’s largest and most expensive data gathering

program. For the 2000 Census, the Bureau estimated that it would need to collect

information on more than 270 million residents living in about 119 million housing

units, at a cost of at least $6.8 billion. Although the majority of census questionnaires

were to be returned by mail, the Bureau hired over half a million enumerators to

follow up on the more than 42 million households that did not respond.

To develop its budget for the 2000 Census, the Bureau used a cost model that

consisted of an extensive set of interrelated software spreadsheets. The model was

built on cost data and workload history from the 1990 Census, and research

conducted for the 2000 Census, to develop cost estimates of census operations for

2000.

According to the Bureau, in addition to being the foundation for the budget process,

the 2000 Census cost model also provided planning and scheduling justifications

within the Bureau and to external oversight groups, and was used to conduct “whatif” studies for alternative census scenarios. The 2000 cost model contains numerous

formulas and assumptions developed by program managers that were generally based

on either third-party evidence, such as independent studies, or senior management’s

judgment.

Two key assumptions in the cost model were expected workload and enumerator

productivity. Past experience has shown that these variables are two of the largest

drivers of census costs and in fact, as we noted in our September 1999 report,2

 the

Bureau’s request for an additional $1.7 billion for fiscal year 2000 census operations

was based largely on changes in assumptions related to increased workload and

reduced employee productivity.

 

2

 GAO/GGD-99-291.
Page 3 GAO-01-208R Enumerator Productivity

Historical Data on Enumerator Productivity Are Limited

For the 2000 Census, we could not calculate actual enumerator productivity levels

because Bureau officials told us that they have not assessed, and therefore cannot

assure, the reliability of productivity data for any of its field operations. For example,

the Bureau is still refining data on the number of hours enumerators worked on

collecting census information from nonresponding households. According to Bureau

officials, a preliminary examination indicates that in some local census offices, a

significant number of individuals on enumerator applicant lists were hired instead as

crew leader assistants—a different position. In some instances, the position change

was not reflected in the Bureau’s personnel/payroll system. To the extent this

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

enumerators actually worked. Bureau officials also said that they are uncertain about

the extent to which enumerators working on more than one census operation

charged an operational code other than nonresponse follow-up. They noted,

however, that while a certain level of mischarging occurs with any census operation,

there is no evidence that this took place to a greater degree in the 2000 Census

compared to past censuses or other Bureau surveys.

Bureau officials estimate that it will take them several months to review the Bureau’s

productivity data for potential problems and complete the data for release. They told

us that to determine whether particular time charges are correct or in need of an

adjustment, the Bureau will review productivity information from several computer

databases, as well as from time and motion studies the Bureau conducted during

nonresponse follow-up at selected sites.

According to Bureau officials, even when the Bureau completes its review, the

productivity data will only be comparable at the national and regional census office

levels. Bureau officials said that the data would allow for comparisons to be made

among the Bureau’s four types of local census offices—which differ by enumeration

methods used and geographic makeup (urban versus rural)—but not among

individual local census offices. The officials said that they expect to have reliable

data on enumerator productivity available in the January to March 2001 time frame,

at which time we plan to evaluate the data.

Some data on enumerator productivity levels, based on actual nonresponse follow-up

cases completed per hour, were available for the 1990 and 1980 Censuses. According

to data reported by the Bureau, enumerators completed 1.56 cases per hour for the

1990 Census nonresponse follow-up operation. During the 1980 Census nonresponse

follow-up effort, enumerators completed 1.09 cases per hour at “centralized” offices

and 1.26 cases per hour at “decentralized” offices. (Centralized offices were located

in urban areas, and decentralized offices were located primarily in suburban and rural

areas.) Combined national-level data were unavailable for the 1980 Census. As a

result, productivity information for the two censuses are not comparable.

With respect to the earlier censuses (1940 through 1970), we could not calculate

enumerator productivity because needed data on staffing levels and hours worked

were unavailable, incomplete, or not comparable. For example, the Census of
Page 4 GAO-01-208R Enumerator Productivity

Agriculture was conducted as part of the 1940 and 1950 Censuses, and available data

include enumerators who worked on both operations—thus potentially overstating

the number of enumerators working on the census of population and housing.

Moreover, available data on staffing levels did not count enumerators in the same

way from census to census. For the 1950 and 1960 Censuses, staff figures are based

on total enumerator positions planned for, but not necessarily filled, while staffing

data from later censuses count the total number of enumerators actually hired.

Further, for the 1940 through 1970 Censuses, available historical data lacked

information on the number of hours enumerators worked. According to Bureau

officials, this was because enumerators were paid on a piece-rate as opposed to an

hourly basis and, as a result, the Bureau did not collect data on the number of hours

enumerators worked.

More generally, the comparability of enumerator productivity data from one census

to the next would be limited because of changes in the way the census was

conducted. Most significantly, until the 1970 Census, enumerators visited each

housing unit to obtain census information. Starting in 1970, questionnaires were

mailed out to designated segments of the population for completion and mailed back,

and the Bureau’s field enumeration efforts largely consisted of following up with

those housing units that did not mail back their questionnaires.

Conclusion

Data on enumerator productivity will be important for evaluating the validity of some

of the key assumptions used in the Bureau’s 2000 Census cost model, as well as for

informing the Bureau’s planning and budgeting processes for the 2010 Census. As

previously noted, the Bureau cannot yet assure the reliability of data on staffing

levels and the number of hours enumerators worked on the census. Because these

two variables are used to calculate productivity, it will be important for the Bureau to

assess their reliability as currently planned.

In addition, because of differences in the way the Bureau measured staffing levels

and hours worked from census to census, such data could not be compared from one

census to the next. As a result, the extent to which enumerator productivity had

increased or decreased over time could not be accurately determined. As the Bureau

plans for the 2010 Census, it will be important for the Bureau to develop a consistent

set of key enumerator productivity indicators that could be used to compare

enumerator productivity data from the 2000 Census and any future censuses that use

the same basic census-taking method as was used in 2000.

Recommendations for Executive Action

To help ensure that the Bureau has the enumerator productivity data it needs to

develop accurate budget, planning, and scheduling justifications for the 2010 Census,

we recommend that the Secretary of Commerce ensure that the Bureau refines

available productivity data from the 2000 Census as planned. At a minimum, the
Page 5 GAO-01-208R Enumerator Productivity

Bureau should identify the extent and nature of any anomalies, the impact they have

on data quality, and the extent to which the data can be compared by type of local

census office. Where necessary, the Bureau should adjust the data accordingly and

describe any actions taken in this regard. Moreover, to help ensure the comparability

of data for the 2000 and future censuses, the Bureau should fully document how its

enumerator productivity rates are calculated and report productivity data by type of

local census office.

- - - - -

We are sending copies of this letter to Representative Dan Burton, Chairman of the

Committee on Government Reform; Representative Dan Miller; the Honorable

Norman Y. Mineta, Secretary of Commerce; and the Honorable Kenneth Prewitt,

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

request. Robert Goldenkoff and Victoria E. Miller made major contributions to this

letter. If you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact me at (202)

512-6806.

J. Christopher Mihm

Director

Strategic Issues

(410589)