Motivating Non-English-Speaking Populations for 

Census and Survey Participation 

 Nancy Bates and Yuling Pan1 

U.S. Census Bureau 

Nancy.A.Bates@census.gov 

Yuling.Pan@census.gov 

Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology 2009 

Washington, DC, November 2-4 

1. Introduction

One method used by survey organizations to encourage survey participation is the provision of advance survey materials to 

potential respondents. Advance survey materials usually include pre-notification letters and information materials. Such 

advance materials alert households that a survey is coming, and convey messages about its purpose, data usages, and/or the 

legal authority under which data are collected. These messages help to establish the legitimacy of a survey and act as 

additional contact with potential respondents. Previous studies have demonstrated that pre-notification has been an effective 

technique to improve response rates (e.g., Fox, Crask and Kim 1988, Yammarino, Skinner and Childers 1991, Dillman 1991). 

As a result, survey organizations routinely send out pre-notification materials in an effort to reduce household nonresponse 

(Groves 1989). The U.S. Census Bureau has a standard practice of sending out pre-notification letters for its surveys and 

decennial censuses, and has continuously carried out research to investigate the needs and effectives of advance survey 

materials. For example, Landreth (2001 and 2003) used cognitive interviewing techniques to explore respondents’ 

interpretations of legally required messages embedded in survey letters. Griffin et al. (2004) and Raglin et al (2004) reported 

the results from a split-panel experiment with pre-notification letters of the American Community Survey and showed that 

survey messages crafted in a plain and “respondent friendly” language achieved small but significant differences in mail 

response rates compared to the standard version. 

To meet the growing demand of including non-English-speaking populations in its decennial censuses and demographic 

surveys, the Census Bureau has recently expanded its effort to produce survey materials in multiple languages. However, 

much of the literature reporting the effectiveness of pre-notification is based on studies of English-speaking populations, 

except some studies on Spanish language advance letters (e.g., Carley-Baxter, et al. 2007). The Census Bureau has also used 

a Spanish cover letter as part of its 2007 National Census Test for the Census bilingual form study (see Govern and Reiser, 

2007). Still, little is known concerning how speakers of languages other than English react to survey pre-notifications and 

whether the messages contained in survey materials have the same motivating effect on non-English-speaking populations as 

they do on English-speaking populations. 

This study attempts to fill in this knowledge gap by investigating whether non-English-speaking populations differ from 

English-speaking populations in their perception of and motivation for census and survey participation. This study will focus 

on four groups: English-speaking Hispanics, non-English-speaking Hispanics, English-speaking Asians, and non-Englishspeaking Asians in the United States. The goal of the study is to better understand barriers in communicating survey 

messages across language groups and to identify survey messages that can motivate non-English-speaking populations to 

participate in censuses and government sponsored surveys. 

2. Background

1 This report is released to inform interested parties of ongoing research and to encourage discussion of work in progress. The 

views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily of the U.S. Census Bureau. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.1 American Community Survey messages 

In an effort to meet the challenge of obtaining high-quality data from the increasingly multi-lingual and multi-ethnic universe 

of respondents, the Census Bureau developed translations of multiple survey documents for its American Community Survey, 

including two survey letters and two information brochures. These survey materials provide important messages, such as the 

purpose of the ACS, uses for the data, confidentiality assurances, mandatory nature of the survey, and the legal authority 

under which data will be collected. These materials were translated from English into ten target languages2

. Two studies were 

conducted by the Census Bureau, in collaboration with RTI International, in 2006 and 20083 to cognitively test the translated 

materials with speakers of the ten target languages. 

2.2 Cognitive testing results of the translated messages 

In these two cognitive testing studies, a total of 256 interviews were conducted with monolingual speakers of the ten target 

languages, with 24 interviews in each target language group, and 16 interviews in English as a comparison group. Cognitive 

testing of the translations of these documents with respondents of the target languages has shown that while some survey 

messages were well received by the target populations, some were not well received or not effective (Pan, Hinsdale, Park, 

and Schoua-Glusberg, 2006; Pan, Landreth, Hinsdale, Schoua-Glusberg, and Park, 2007; Pan and Landreth 2009). There 

were a number of challenges for successful communication of key messages contained in the survey documents. Besides 

translation issues, which include erroneous translations or inappropriate usage in terminology and expressions, there were 

underlying challenges that came from misinterpretation or misunderstanding of messages due to cultural norms or social 

practices surrounding the event of censuses and surveys. 

As a follow-up study, Pan and Landreth (2009) carefully examined the cognitive interview data collected in the two cognitive 

testing studies and identified the types of messages that were very problematic and the reasons behind them. It was found that 

the problematic messages include the survey purpose message, the mandatory nature of the ACS, confidentiality, and the 

survey participation request message. They outlined three main factors for the difficulties in successfully conveying these 

messages in languages other than English. These factors are linguistic rules, cultural norms, and social practice. Linguistic 

rules refer to the sentence structure or discourse convention of a language that is different from the English language, which 

can result in different presentation of a survey message in the target language. Cultural norms refer to the ways of doing 

certain things in a given culture, such as appropriate level of politeness in expressing a message. Social practice here refers to 

the practice of survey research as a means for data collection in a society. Their follow-up study shows that most 

monolingual speakers of the target language groups had difficulty in understanding these survey messages because of the 

lack of survey experience or unfamiliarity with survey practice. 

In another study, Chan and Pan (to appear) used cognitive interview data to explore the effectiveness of an ACS multilingual 

brochure and found that Asian respondents appeared less survey literate than their Russian-, Spanish- and English-speaking 

counterparts. This is one of the main barriers for Asian respondents to participate in the American Community Survey. 

2.3 The Census Barriers Attitudes and Motivators Survey 

The aforementioned studies have shown some revealing findings concerning the reaction to survey messages across different 

language groups. However, they were qualitative studies based on cognitive interview data. In the current study, we 

expanded this research effort by taking a quantitative approach. We used data collected from a survey called the Census 

Barriers, Attitudes and Motivators Survey (CBAMS) to gauge the perception of and reaction to selected messages between 

the English-speaking and non-English-speaking populations. 

The CBAMS was conducted by Macro International in July-August 2008 as part of the research for the 2010 Census 

communications campaign. The objective of the research was to understand potential barriers and motivators to 2010 Census 

participation. The CBAMS was a multi-mode survey that included both random digit dial (RDD) telephone interviews and 

personal visit interviews. The target population was all residents of the U.S. with a special emphasis on hard to count (HTC) 

populations. To reach various levels of HTC populations, the survey sample was stratified into 8 strata. These strata were 

defined as high density Spanish-speaking tracts, high density Asian-language speaking tracts, American Indian Reservations, 

rural high poverty tracts, cell phone users, and high, medium and low HTC tracts. Personal visit interviews were conducted 

2 The ten languages are Spanish, Chinese, Korean, Russian, Vietnamese, Arabic, French, Portuguese, Polish, and Haitian Creole. 

3

 See Pan, Hinsdale, Park, and Schoua-Glusberg, 2006, and Hinsdale, Schoua-Glusberg, Saleska, and Park, 2008. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

on reservations, in rural poverty tracts, and areas with high linguistic isolation. RDD interviews were conducted among the 

remaining sample cases. For the cell phone strata, Macro randomly generated telephone numbers from known cell phone 

exchanges. 

In-person interviews were conducted in English, Spanish, Chinese and Korean. Telephone interviews were conducted in 

English and Spanish. For the sample that could be matched to an address, Macro mailed pre-notice letters alerting residents 

they were in-sample for the survey4

. The survey instrument measured constructs such as Census knowledge, attitudes and 

awareness, self-reported propensity to participate in the Census, ranking of potential Census messages, and barriers and 

motivators to participation5

. The survey took approximately 25-30 minutes to administer. 

Macro collected 4,064 completed interviews including 2,701 landline telephone interviews, 300 cell phone interviews, and 

1,063 in-person interviews. The combined response rate was 37.9% (in-person 59.4%; landline 31.3% and cell phone 

22.4%).6 Sampling variances for CBAMS were calculated using Taylor series linearization to adjust for the complex sample 

design. Because our study required a large number of statistical difference tests, p-values were adjusted using the False 

Difference Rate procedure for testing multiple hypotheses (Westfall, et al, 1999). For a more detailed description of the 

methodology, questionnaire, sample design and weighting approach see the CBAMS Methods Report (Macro, 2008). 

3. Methodology and Research questions

3.1 Methodology

Using data from the CBAMS, we focused on four groups: English dominant-speaking Hispanics, non-English dominantspeaking Hispanics, English dominant-speaking Asians, and non-English dominant-speaking Asians. We defined the “nonEnglish dominant” groups as those who indicated they spoke a language other than English at home. Table 1 illustrates the 

weighted and unweighted sample counts for the four groups. 

Table 1. CBAMS weighted and unweighted sample counts - Asians and Hispanics by 

English spoken at home versus another language7

Race/Ethnicity 

Asian Hispanic 

Unweighted Counts Speak English at home 53 204 

Speak another language at home 219 226 

Weighted Counts Speak English at home 95 252 

Speak another language at home 36 246 

3.2 Research questions

In the analysis, we compared the responses among the four groups to four series of questions: (1) intent of Census 

participation, (2) Census awareness, (3) legal requirement for the Census, and (4) knowledge of Census data uses. The set of 

questions that we attempted to answer are as follows: 

1. Are the four groups similar or different on these issues? 

2. What is each group’s level of knowledge of the Census? 

3. What is each group’s perception of and reaction to the legal requirement of participating in the Census? 

4. What is each group’s perception of and reaction to Census data uses? 

5. What is each group’s belief regarding confidentiality of Census data? 

4

 Advance materials were English language only. 

5 The CBAMS instrument drew upon previous Census Bureau surveys measuring Census awareness, knowledge and attitudes. For example, 

the 1980 Knowledge Attitudes and Practices Survey, the 1990 Outreach Evaluation Survey, and the 2000 Partnership Marketing and 

Program Evaluation Survey.

6 Response rate calculated using AAPOR RR3 (AAPOR, 2008). 

7 Of the 219 Asian-spoken-at-home households, 105 interviews were conducted in an Asian language (88 in Chinese and 17 in Korean). Of 

the 226 Spanish-spoken at home households, 147 interviews were conducted in Spanish. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6. How likely is each group to participate in the Census? 

One point worth mentioning is that the CBAMS focused on knowledge, barriers, and motivators in the context of the 

Decennial Census. Our current study attempted to gain an understanding of reaction to and perception of some key survey 

messages among the four groups. Consequently, we focused on the series of questions that assessed Census knowledge levels 

in general and ones that conveyed similar survey messages to those in the ACS survey notices. We believe by examining 

responses to these four series of questions, we will be able to identify what messages motivate survey participation among the 

four groups. 

4. Findings

4.1 Census knowledge

At the highest level, the CBAMS assessed Census knowledge by asking if respondents had ever heard of the Census. The 

survey asked both an unaided and aided question: 

[UNAIDED] Have you ever heard of the Census of the U.S?

[AIDED] If no -- The Census is the count of all people who live in the U.S. Have you ever heard of that before?

Table 2 presents the percentage of respondents who answered “no” to both questions (broken out by the four race/ethnicity 

and language segments). Previous research labelled this subgroup as the “Unacquainted” mindset (Bates, et al., 2009). This 

group is completely unfamiliar and unaware of the Census. Prominent in this group are recent immigrants, those with limited 

English speaking abilities, and those with lower education levels. 

Table 2. Percentage of CBAMS respondents reporting “never heard of Census of U.S.” 

by race/ethnicity and language spoken at home (standard errors in parentheses) 

Hispanics: 

English 

spoken at 

Home 

Hispanics: 

Spanish 

spoken at 

Home 

Asians: 

English 

spoken at 

Home 

Asians: 

Non-English 

lang. spoken 

at Home 

Overall 

Sample* 

% Unacquainted 

Mindset 9.9% (4.5) 25.6% (6.1) 9.8% (7.1) 43.8% (22.2) 6.9% (0.9) 

* This includes all races/ ethnicities and language groups. 

As Table 2 indicates, over four out of ten Asians who report speaking an Asian language at home fell into the Unacquainted 

group (43.8%). While this percentage is not statistically different from the total sample, it is nonetheless a clear indication 

that Census knowledge barriers are high for this subpopulation. Members of this group are likely not aware of basic Census 

facts such as: it occurs every ten years, it comes in the mail around April 1, and households need to complete and mail it back. 

Hispanics who reported speaking Spanish at home also had a noticeably higher percentage in the Unacquainted mindset 

compared to the total population (and this difference is statistically significant). Hispanics and Asians who reported 

speaking English at home had around 10 percent in this group (which was not significantly higher than the overall sample). 

This suggests that language at home may be a covariate with Census familiarity, regardless of race/ethnicity. 

Of respondents who answered “yes” to either the aided or unaided Census awareness question, the CBAMS asked a sequence 

of Census knowledge questions to create a summary index (items found in Table 3). Each question had a yes/no format 

whereby “yes” was the correct answer for some items while “no” was correct for others. The items quizzed respondents on 

level of knowledge regarding various uses of Census data (some true and some false). To arrive at the 0-10 index we simply 

summed the number of correct answers. We also looked for the tendency to answer “don’t know” (D.K.) to gauge admitted 

lack of knowledge about the nature of Census uses and purposes. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3. Census Knowledge Items 

People have different ideas about what the Census is used for. I am going to read some of

C4 them to you. As I read each one, please tell me by indicating yes or no whether you think 

that the Census is used for that purpose. Is the Census used ...

C4a To decide how much money communities will get from the government? 

C4b To decide how many representatives each state will have in Congress? 

To see what changes have taken place in the size, location and characteristics of the people C4c in the U.S.? 

C4d To determine property taxes? 

C4e To help the police and FBI keep track of people who break the law? 

C4f To help businesses and governments plan for the future? 

C4g To locate people living in the country illegally? 

C4h To determine income tax rates? 

C4i To count both citizens and non-citizens? 

C4j To determine the rate of unemployment? 

Table 4. Mean Census Knowledge Score by Race/Ethnicity and 

Language Spoken at Home (standard error in parenthesis)* 

Hispanics: 

English spoken 

at Home 

Hispanics: 

Spanish spoken 

at Home 

Asians: 

English spoken 

at Home 

Asians: 

Non English 

Lang. Spoken 

at Home 

Overall 

sample** 

Knowledge 

Mean Score 

(0-10) 

5.9 (.33) 3.8 (.34) 6.2 (.49) 2.9 (1.5) 6.1 (.08) 

Mean 

“D.K.” score 

(0-10) 

0.7 (.21) 0.8 (.26) 0.4 (.17) 1.4 (.63) 0.7 (.04) 

* Table excludes those in the “Unacquainted” mindset. This subset was not administered the

 Census knowledge items. 

** Overall sample column includes all race/ethnicities and language groups. 

In Table 4, we see delineation in knowledge level according to English versus non-English at home households. Both 

Hispanic and Asian English speakers scored around a mean of 6 correct answers on the knowledge index of (5.9 and 6.2, 

respectively). Neither score is significantly different from the overall sample mean. Conversely, Asians who speak an Asian 

language at home scored the lowest (2.9) and Hispanics who speak Spanish at home scored 3.8. Both scores are significantly 

lower than the overall sample. Asians who reported speaking a non-English language at home also had the absolute highest 

“Don’t Know” score on the knowledge index. These findings regarding knowledge have implications for motivating nonEnglish speaking populations to cooperate in Censuses -- no awareness combined with little knowledge means they have no 

real reason to participate. Education may be key to pushing past this barrier. 

4.2. Familiarity with legal requirements 

Two sets of questions were asked in the CBAMS to get at the familiarity with legal requirements. The first set of questions 

asked about whether the Census answers are legally mandated and kept confidential. The second set of questions asked a 

battery of opinion questions about the Census. 

4.2.1 Legal requirements of the Census. Two of the survey questions inquired about the legal requirements of the Census. 

The first asked about the mandatory nature of Census response: 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As far as you know, does the law require you to answer the Census questions?

The second item asked about the confidential nature of data collected by the Census Bureau: 

As far as you know, is the Census Bureau required by law to keep information confidential? 

We see some variation in the notion of whether answering the Census is required by law (see Table 5). Overall, a majority of 

respondents stated that they do not believe the Census is manadatory but, interestingly, around half of the Hispanics who 

reported speaking Spanish at home believe that Census participation is legally required (50.3%). This is significantly higher 

than the total sample. The percentage of Asian-language at home Asians who said they “don’t know” if Census is 

mandatory was quite high at 38.9 percent. This may be indicative of non-English speaking Asians’ lack of Census knowledge 

and tendency to respond “don’t know” (as opposed to wagering a guess). 

Table 5. Familiarity with Legal Requirements by Race/Ethnicity and 

Language Spoken at Home (standard errors in parentheses)* 

Hispanics: 

Speak 

English at 

Home 

Hispanics: 

Speak Spanish 

at Home 

Asians: Speak 

English at Home 

Asians: Speak 

Non-English 

Lang. At 

Home 

Overall 

sample** 

Does law 

require? 

Yes 19.4% (4.2) 50.3% (8.0) 24.6% (11.2) 29.3% (18.9) 27.9% (1.4) 

No 72.7 (4.8) 46.6 (8.4) 63.2 (13.7) 31.8 (15.0) 57.9 (1.6) 

DK 7.9 (2.7) 3.1 (1.4) 12.2 (7.1) 38.9 (21.6) 14.2 (1.1) 

Does Census 

keep 

answers 

confidential? 

Yes 78.3% (5.2) 85.4% (4.4) 93.4% (4.4) 90.0% (5.6) 84.3% (1.1) 

No 14.7 (4.4) 10.9 (3.3) 2.4 (2.0) 7.0 (3.8) 9.2 (0.8) 

DK 7.1 (3.2) 3.8 (3.4) 4.5 (3.8) 2.3 (2.1) 6.5 (0.8) 

* Table excludes those in the “Unacquainted” mindset. This subset was not administered these items. 

** Overall sample column includes all race/ethnicities and language groups. 

Differences among the four groups were less pronounced regarding whether the Census Bureau is required to keep Census 

data confidential. A large majority of all groups reported that they believe that Census data are kept confidential as required 

by law. This is reassuring but we wonder if a more recent survey would yield different findings given recent public debate 

about uses of Census data, undocumented residents, and a proposed boycott of the Census by certain advocacy groups since 

the CBAMS was fielded (Nasser 2009). 

4.2.2 Belief in Confidentiality, Census Skepticism, and Belief in Collective Opportunity/Duty. 

In addition to asking the two items about whether the Census answers are legally mandated and kept confidential, the 

CBAMS asked a battery of opinion questions about the Census (see Table 6). Respondents were instructed to indicate if they 

agreed or disagreed with each statement.8 

8 Respondents answered along a 4 point scale where 4 = Strongly Agree, 3 = Agree, 2 = Disagree, and 1 = Strongly Disagree. Neither/No 

Opinion was available but was not offered aloud. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 6. CBAMS Items for Skepticism, Collective Opportunity/Duty and Census Confidentiality Indices 

Skepticism Duty Confidentiality 

a. The Census is an invasion of privacy. X 

b. It is important for everyone to be counted in the Census. X 

c. The Census Bureau would never let another government agency see 

my answers to the Census. X 

d. People’s answers to the Census cannot be used against them. X 

e. Taking part in the Census shows I am proud of who I am. X 

f. Filling out the Census form will let the government know what my 

community needs. X 

g. I just don’t see that it matters much if I personally fill out the 

Census form or not. X 

h. It is a civic responsibility to fill out the Census form. X 

i. The Census Bureau’s promise of confidentiality can be trusted. X 

j. I am concerned that the information I provide will be misused. X 

k. I prefer to stay out of sight and not be counted. X 

l. The government already has my personal info. like tax returns, so I 

don’t need to fill out a Census form. X 

n. It takes too long to fill out the Census information, I don’t have 

time. X 

Using factor analysis to create uncorrelated constructs, we arrived at three indices created by summing items that loaded 

highly with one another. These roughly translated into Census Skepticism, Belief in Confidentiality, and Collective 

Opportunity/Duty (see Bates, et al. 2009 for detailed description of indices). Table 7 contains the index means by 

race/ethnicity and language spoken at home. 

Table 7. Mean Index Scores by Race/Ethnicity and 

Language Spoken at Home (standard errors in parentheses)* 

Hispanic 

English/Home 

Hispanic 

Spanish/Home 

Asian 

English/Home 

Asian 

Asian/Home 

Overall 

Sample** 

Confidentiality 

Belief Score 

(0-3) 

2.4 (.18) 1.9 (.23) 2.7 (.39) 1.2 (.38) 2.5 (.04) 

Census Skepticism 

Score 

(0-6) 

2.7 (.21) 1.8 (.23) 2.2 (.32) 1.3 (.54) 2.4 (.05) 

Collective 

Opportunity/Duty 

Score (0-4) 

3.1 (.19) 2.4 (.25) 3.3 (.32) 1.5 (.58) 3.2 (.04) 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* Table excludes those in the “Unacquainted” mindset. This subset was not administered these items. Overall sample 

column includes all race/ethnicities and language groups. 

**Overall sample column includes all race/ethnicities and language groups. 

Regarding the concept of confidentiality, the data in Table 7 provide somewhat different inferences from the single question 

posed earlier in Table 5. For example, whereas in Table 5 we saw few differences among the groups and generally high 

agreement that Census data is kept confidential by law, in Table 7 we see larger variation regarding confidentiality belief 

between groups that speak English at home versus those who speak another language at home. In both cases, households that 

reported speaking a non-English language at home had lower scores to the Confidentiality Belief index compared to their 

English-speaking counterpart households (however, this difference was statistically significant only between Asian 

households, not Hispanics). 

The second construct, Skepticism, reflects cynicism, privacy concerns, and a general sense that the Census is unnecessary 

and irrelevant. Here again, we see differences between English speakers at home versus non-English native language 

speakers. In this case, both Spanish-speaking households and Asian-speaking households had significantly lower scepticism 

score compared to their English-speaking counterparts. 

The final index reflects the belief that the Census is a collective social opportunity as well as a civic duty. Previous CBAMS 

analysis has noted that this concept may be particularly motivating and relevant among Asian subgroups (MACRO 2009). 

We see that both Hispanics and Asians that speak English at home are closely aligned to the total population mean for this 

index. However, both groups that speak a non-English language at home scored significantly lower than the total population. 

Again, this may speak to the larger fact that monolingual non-English populations simply have far less knowledge about 

Census purpose and what part it plays in US society and governance. 

4.3 Likelihood to participate 

The final construct used to profile the language groups was intent to participate in the Census. The exact wording was:

If the Census were held today, how likely are you to participate? By participate we mean fill out and mail back a 

Census form.

Admittedly, this measure is a flawed indicator at best in terms of predicting actual behavior in Census 2010. In fact, an 

evaluation of the 2000 Census communication campaign found a very weak correlation between self-reported participation 

by mail (as measured in a survey) and actual mailback behavior (as measured by Census operational data see Wolter et Al. 

2002). To try and improve this measure for CBAMS, a new question was asked: 

How likely are you to recommend participating in the Census to a family member or friend?

While this measure also has obvious weaknesses, we hoped it might somewhat lesson the social desirability bias and provide 

a closer indicator of self-response propensity. Alternatively, it may also be construed as a measure of Census “advocacy,” 

that is, how inclined a respondent would be to advocate on behalf of the Census by word of mouth and social networks. We 

use these measures as proxies to further profile each group’s self-reported intent. 

Table 8 presents both mean scores regarding self-intent to participate (or tell others) grouped by the race/ethnicity and 

language at home. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 8. Intent to Participate in Census - Mean Scores by Race/Ethnicity and 

Language Spoken at Home (standard errors in parentheses) 9 

Hispanics: 

Speak English 

at Home 

Hispanics: 

Speak Spanish 

at Home 

Asians: 

Speak 

English at 

Home 

Asians: 

Speak nonEnglish lang. 

at Home 

Overall 

Sample 

Self-Intent to 

Participate * 

(1-5) 

4.2 (.14) 4.2 (.14) 3.9 (.49) 3.3 (.55) 4.3 (.03) 

Intent to 

Tell Others ** 

(1-5) 

4.1 (.10) 4.3 (.15) 4.1 (.35) 3.5 (1.0) 4.0 (.03) 

* Item includes the “Unacquainted” mindset respondents. 

** Item excludes cases in the “Unacquainted” mindset. This subset was not administered this question. 

Asians who spoke an Asian language at home had the lowest score regarding self-reported intention to mail back a Census 

form and this score was significantly lower than the overall sample mean. This comes as little surprise given the previous 

findings that this group is the most unacquainted with the Census. Regarding likelihood to recommend the Census 

participation to a friend or family member, none of the individual group scores were significantly different from the overall 

sample. 

5. Discussion 

Analysis from the CBAMS confirmed several important findings from the qualitative research. First, the two non-English 

speaking populations studied here have very low knowledge about the Census – over 40 percent of Asian-language speaking 

households had never heard of the Census and over one-quarter of the Spanish-speaking households never had. And while 

these data are specific to the decennial Census, there is no reason to believe these subgroups are any more familiar with the 

ACS. Chances are that different data collections by the Census Bureau are not easily discriminated by the general public 

(and particularly among non-English speakers). As such, awareness of the decennial Census is probably as good an indicator 

as any. 

Second, a sizable percentage of the Asian-language speaking group admitted they “don’t know” about the legal requirements 

of Census participation (over 40%). This is in line with the findings from the previous ACS cognitive testing studies. One 

finding from the ACS cognitive studies suggests that Asian-language-speaking respondents have very different perceptions of 

legal requirements due to the differences in legal systems between the United States and their home countries. One of such 

differences is the concept of law. Tamahana (2004) maintains that the Western conception of rule of law emphasizes the 

ways in which law limits the power of the government and increases individual autonomy and freedom; while the Asian 

concept tends to associate law as enhancing the power of the government. As shown in our cognitive testing studies, Englishspeaking respondents tended to view society as being governed by law, whereas Asian-language-speaking respondents in our 

sample acknowledged that there were given laws on the one hand, but on the other hand, society was not necessarily operated 

by law, but by other socially accepted mechanisms (such as human relationships, behaviour norms, etc.). This explains why 

stress on law does not help much with Asian-language-speaking respondents. On the contrary, it might cause fear and doubt 

(Pan et al. 2006). 

Third, compared with the total population, the Asian-language-speaking group had a lower self-reported likelihood to 

participate in the Census. This is likely due to their low level of familiarity, awareness, and knowledge about the Census. 

Moving forward, it makes sense to find and test messages that might be more effective in motivating non-English speaking 

groups to participate in Censuses and surveys. The CBAMS attempted to measure this concept in the context of the 

decennial Census by presenting respondents with a list of statements about the Census. For each one, respondents were asked 

9 Both measured along 5 point scales 1 – Definitely not 2 – Probably not 3 – might or might not 4 – Probably will 5 – Definitely will. 
 

 

to indicate if knowing this information would make them more or less likely to participate, or would have no affect (See 

Table 9). 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 9. Percent Indicating Message Would Make More Likely to Participate by 

Race/Ethnicity and Language Spoken at Home (standard errors in parenthesis)* 

Does knowing [message] make you more likely to participate in the Census, less likely or wouldn’t affect participation? 

Race/Ethnicity and Language Spoken At Home

Potential Messages Hispanics: 

Speak 

English at Home 

Hispanics: 

Speak 

Spanish at Home 

Asians: 

Speak 

English at Home 

Asians: 

Speak nonEnglish Lang at 

home 

Census allocates 

$300 billion in funds 78.8% (5.3) 82.6% (5.0) 97.0% (1.8) 63.9% (16.5) 

Census determines 

Congressional Reps 66.1% (5.6) 62.7% (10.6) 93.0% (3.4) 57.0% (16.9) 

Law requires 

answering Census 59.7% (6.1) 72.4% (8.4) 89.8% (6.4) 38.0% (16.9) 

Helps communities 

get programs 85.6% (3.6) 88.0% (5.9) 99.2% (0.6) 56.2% (17.0) 

Helps governments 

plan for future 83.9% (3.9) 83.1% (5.6) 97.9% (1.2) 81.7% (6.7) 

If not counted, 

community might 

not get fair share 71.8% (5.9) 76.5% (5.9) 74.2% (17.7) 58.8% (16.9) 

Census tracks 

changes in US 

population 74.0% (4.9) 65.0% (6.7) 80.0% (12.7) 50.9% (17.6) 

Sensitive questions 

not asked in Census 50.6% (6.1) 69.8% (5.3) 72.6% (13.1) 52.2% (17.8) 

More accurate if 

everyone 

participates 82.8% (4.2) 81.9% (7.3) 96.3% (2.1) 84.4% (6.8) 

Jail term for 

interviewers if 

answers disclosed 55.9% (6.4) 63.2% (7.2) 78.5% (12.7) 73.9% (11.4) 

Saves millions if 

you mail back the 

form 73.9% (5.8) 69.8% (6.4) 92.2% (4.0) 81.8% (7.3) 

 * Table includes the “Unacquainted” mindset respondents. 

Using the percentages from Table 9 we performed an admittedly unscientific and exploratory look at which messages might 

“rise to the top” in terms of motivating populations to participate. We note a few obvious conclusions. First, that the top four 

ranked messages (indicated in bold) were the similar across most groups. Hispanics (regardless of language at home) and the 

English-dominant language Asian group all ranked messages about Census being used to allocate $300 billion; Census being 

most accurate if everyone participates; Census data being used to help the government plan for the future; and Census data 

used to get community programs among the top 4. However, in addition to two of these messages, two different messages 

resonated among Asian language speaking households. These included a message about Census employees being subject to 

jail term or fine for disclosing information and a message about millions of taxpayer dollars saved by mailing back a form. It 

would be interesting to test these message variants more empirically by way of a controlled test targeted toward non-English 

monolingual speakers. 

6. Conclusion

In this study we compared and contrasted four groups’ perception of censuses and motivation to participate in the Censuses 

and surveys. Our results suggest that the main barrier for census and survey participation for non-English-speaking 

households is the low level of knowledge of United States Censuses and a lack of familiarity with survey practice. Therefore, 
 

 

 

 

 

in addition to promoting messages that are better received by the non-English speaking groups, more efforts are needed to 

enhance the knowledge and familiarity with the censuses and surveys among these groups. It is also important that Census 

Bureau survey documents or pre-notifications address this barrier by providing relevant context and background information 

about the censuses and surveys. This will help to encourage Census and survey participation from non-English-speaking 

populations. Future research is also needed to investigate the best mode of data collection from this segment of the U.S. 

population. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

American Association for Public Opinion Research. (2008). Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions and Case Codes and 

Outcome Rates for Surveys. Lenexa, Kansas: AAPOR. 

Bates, N., Conrey, F., Zuwallack, R., Billia, D., Harris,V., Jacobsen, L. and White, T. (2009). “Messaging to America: 

Results from the Census Barriers, Attitudes and Motivators Survey (CBAMS).” Paper presented at the 64th Annual 

Conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR). Hollywood, Florida, May 14-17, 

2009. 

Carley-Baxter, Lisa R., Michael W. Link, David Roe, and Rosanna Quiroz. 2007. “Does Context Really Matter? Results 

form a Spanish Language Advance Letter Pilot.” American Association for Public Opinion Research, Anaheim, 

California. May 17–20, 2007. 

Chan, A. Y. and Pan, Y. (to appear). “The Use of Cognitive Interviewing to Explore the Effectiveness of Advance 

Supplemental Materials among Five Language Groups.” Journal of Field Methods.

Dillman, D. A. 1991. “The Design and Administration of Mail Surveys.” Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 17, pp. 225-249. 

Fox, R. J., Crask, M. R. and Kim, J. (1988). “Mail Survey Response Rate: A Meta-Analysis of Selected Techniques for 

Inducing Response.” The Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 52(4) pp. 467-491. 

Govern, Kelly A., Reiser, Courtney N. 2007. “National Census Test (Census Bilingual Form Study)” 2010 Census Test 

Memoranda Series. U.S. Census Bureau. 

Griffin, G., Broadwater, J., Leslie, T., McGovern, P., and Raglin, D. 2004. “Meeting 21st Century Demographic Data Needs – 

Implementing the American Community Survey Report II: Testing Voluntary Methods – Additional Results.” U.S. 

Census Bureau, Washington, DC. 

Groves, R. (1989). Survey Errors and Survey Costs. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, John & Sons, Inc. 

Hinsdale, M., Schoua-Glusberg, A., Saleska, E., and Park, H. (2008). "Final Report on Cognitive Testing of Translations of 

ACS CAPI Materials in Multiple Languages.” RTI International. 

Landreth, A. 2001. “SIPP advance letter research: Cognitive interview results, implications, and letter recommendations.”

Statistical Research Division Study Series, #2001-01. U.S. Census Bureau. 

Landreth, A. 2003. “Results and recommendations from cognitive interviews with selected materials accompanying the 

American Community Survey.” Statistical Research Division Study Series, #2003-10. U.S. Census Bureau. 

Macro International, Inc. (2009). Census Barriers, Attitudes and Motivators Survey Methodology Report. 2010 Census 

Integrated Communication Research Memorandum Series: No. 8. U.S. Census Bureau. January 6, 2009. 

Nasser, H. E. (2009, April 15). Hispanic groups call for Census boycott. USA Today. 

Pan, Y. and Landreth, A. 2009. “Conveying Translated Informed Consent Concepts: Effects of Language and Culture on 

Interpretation of Legally Required Messages.” In Joint Statistical Meeting Proceedings, Alexandria, VA: American 

Statistical Association. 

Pan, Y., Hinsdale, M., Park, H., and Schoua-Glusberg, A. (2008). "Cognitive Testing of ACS Multilingual Brochures." In 

Statistical Research Division's Research Report Series (RSM#2008/06). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pan, Y., Hinsdale, M., Park, H., and Schoua-Glusberg, A. (2006). "Cognitive Testing of Translations of ACS CAPI Materials 

in Multiple Languages." In Statistical Research Division's Research Report Series (RSM#2006/09). Washington, DC: 

U.S. Census Bureau. 

Pan, Y, Landreth, A., Hinsdale, M., Schoua-Glusberg, A., and Park, H. (2007). “Effects of Language and Culture on 

Interpretation of Translated Confidentiality” and “Mandatory” Survey Messages.” Paper Presented at the Federal 

Committee on Statistical Methodology Research Conference Arlington, VA, November 5-7, 2007. 

Raglin, D, Leslie, T., and Griffin, D. (2004). “How is the Propensity to Respond for Different Data Collection Modes 

Affected by a Mailing Package and Mandatory/Voluntary Status?” Internal report, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, 

DC. 

Tamahana, Brian Z. (2004). On the Rule of Law: History, Politics, Theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 

Westfall, P. H. et al (1999) Multiple Comparisons and Multiple Tests Using SAS. SAS Institute, Cary, NC. 

Wolter, K., Calder, B., Malthouse, E., Murphy, S., Pelow, S., and Porras, J. (2002). “Partnership and Marketing Program 

Evaluation: Final Report.” Census 2000 Evaluation, July 17, 2002. 

Yammarino, F. J., Skinner, S., and Childers, T. L. (1991). “Understanding Mail Survey Response Behavior.” Public Opinion 

Quarterly, Vol 55:613-639.