Decennial Census: Methods for Collecting and Reporting Hispanic Subgroup Data Need Refinement
Published: 2003-01-17T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: To help boost response rates of both the general and Hispanic populations, the U.S. Census Bureau (Bureau) redesigned the 2000 questionnaire, in part by deleting a list of examples of Hispanic subgroups from the question on Hispanic origin. While more Hispanics were counted in 2000 compared to 1990, the counts for Dominicans and other Hispanic subgroups were lower than expected. Concerned that this was caused by the deletion of Hispanic subgroup examples, congressional requesters asked us to investigate the research and management activities behind the changes.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: In both the 1990 and 2000 census, Hispanics could identify themselves as Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, or other Hispanic. Respondents checking off this latter category could write in a specific subgroup such as "Salvadoran." The "other" category in the 1990 Census included examples of subgroups to clarify the question. For the 2000 Census, the Bureau removed the subgroup examples as part of a broader effort to simplify the questionnaire and help improve response rates. The Bureau removed unnecessary words and added blank space to shorten the questionnaire and make it more readable. Although the Bureau conducted a number of tests on the sequencing and wording of the race and ethnicity questions, and sought input from several expert panels, no Bureau tests were designed specifically to measure the impact of the questionnaire changes on the quality of Hispanic subgroup data. According to Bureau officials, because federal laws and guidelines require data on Hispanics but not Hispanic subgroups, the Bureau targeted its resources on research aimed at improving the overall count of Hispanics. Bureau evaluations conducted after the census indicated that deleting the subgroup examples might have confused some respondents and produced less-than-accurate subgroup data. A key factor behind the Bureau's release of the questionable subgroup data was its lack of adequate guidelines governing the quality needed before making data publicly available. As part of its planning for the 2010 Census, the Bureau intends to conduct further research on the Hispanic origin question, including a field test in parts of New York City. However, until research on a new version of the question is finalized, Bureau officials said that other census surveys will continue to use the 2000 Census format of the Hispanic origin question.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Collecting data on race and ethnicity is among the federal government’s  most complex and controversial data collection efforts.  The decennial  census has collected these data in various forms beginning with the very  first national headcount in 1790.  Since the 1960s, race and ethnicity  data  have been used to monitor and enforce compliance with a number of civil  rights laws, including those governing equality in employment, voting,  housing, mortgage lending, health care services, and education.  Over time,  in response to changing federal mandates, demographics, and its own  operational requirements, the U.S. Census Bureau (Bureau) has changed  the format and sequence of the race and ethnicity questions.  The Bureau  made one such change for the 2000 Census when, in an effort to improve  the count of Hispanics and simplify the questionnaire, it redesigned the  question on Hispanic origin and dropped a list of examples of Hispanic  subgroups.
As soon as the Hispanic and Hispanic subgroup data from the 2000 Census  were released in May 2001, questions were raised about the counts for  specific Hispanic subgroups.  For example, the reported count of  Dominican Hispanics was significantly lower than the counts reported in  other Bureau surveys.  Concerned that the lower-than-expected Hispanic  subgroup counts were the result of dropping the list of example write-in  Hispanic subgroups from the 2000 questionnaire, you asked us to  investigate the research and management activities behind this change.  As  agreed with your offices, we reviewed (1) the decision-making process  behind the Bureau’s removal of the example subgroups, (2) the research  the Bureau conducted to aid in that decision, and (3) the Bureau’s future  plans for collecting Hispanic subgroup data.
This report parallels our recent study addressing congressional concerns  about how the Bureau reported data on people counted at emergency and  transitional shelters, a segment of the population that includes, among  others, the homeless.  Both reports are part of our ongoing series on  lessons learned from the 2000 Census that can help inform the planning  effort for 2010.  (See the Related GAO Products section for the reports  issued to date).
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: While the decennial census has long collected data on race and ethnicity, a  specific question on Hispanic origin was first added to the 1970 Census in  response to the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which required the data to ensure  equality in voting.   Today, antidiscrimination provisions in a number of  statutes require census data on race and Hispanic origin in order to monitor  and enforce equal access to housing, education, employment, and other  areas.  The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), through its Federal  Statistical Policy Directive No. 15, sets the standards governing federal  agencies’ collection and reporting of race and ethnicity data.
At least seven cabinet-level government departments, the Federal Reserve,  every state government, and a number of public and private organizations  use Hispanic data.  Although not required by federal legislation or OMB  standards, Hispanic subgroup data are also used for many of these same  purposes.  In addition, subgroup data are especially important to  communities with rapidly growing and diverse Hispanic populations.
Collecting data on race and ethnicity has been a persistent challenge for the  Bureau.  Race and ethnicity are subjective characteristics, which makes  measurement difficult.  Moreover, the Bureau has found that some  Hispanics equate their ethnicity—Hispanic—with race, and thus find it  difficult to classify themselves by the standard race categories that include,  for example, white, black, and Asian.
The Bureau’s preparations for the 2000 Census included an extensive  research and testing program to improve the Hispanic count.  In 1990, the  Bureau estimated that it did not enumerate 5 percent of the Hispanic  population.  Further, the ethnicity question, which was posed to all  respondents, appeared to confuse both Hispanics and non-Hispanics.  For  example, many non-Hispanics, thinking the question only pertained to  Hispanics, did not answer the question.  Overall, 10 percent of respondents  failed to answer the 1990 Hispanic question—the highest of any short form  item in 1990.  As a result, the Bureau made improving the Hispanic count a  major priority for the 2000 Census.
section_title: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: Our objectives were to review (1) the Bureau’s decision-making process  that led to its dropping the list of subgroup examples from the Hispanic  question on the 2000 Census form, (2) the research conducted by the  Bureau to aid in this decision, and (3) the Bureau’s future plans for  collecting Hispanic subgroup data.
To address each of these objectives, we interviewed key Bureau officials  and examined Bureau, OMB, and other documents, including planning  materials and internal memos.  To obtain a local perspective of how  municipal governments and community leaders use Hispanic subgroup  data, we met with data users in New York City, including representatives of  the New York Department of Planning and the Dominican and Puerto Rican  communities.  We also attended a meeting of the Dominican American  National Round Table, a Dominican American advocacy group that  discussed issues relating to the 2000 Census count of Dominican Hispanics.   We also attended meetings of the Census Advisory Committee on Race and  Ethnicity that addressed the issue of the quality of the Hispanic subgroup  data.
Finally, to examine the research behind the Bureau’s decision to remove  the example subgroups from the 2000 questionnaire, we reviewed the  results of the Bureau’s National Content Survey, Targeted Race and  Ethnicity Test, and other research conducted throughout the 1990s in  preparation for the 2000 Census.  Additionally, we reviewed information  from the Bureau’s meetings with its Advisory Committee on the Decennial  Census and its Advisory Committee on Race and Ethnicity.  We also  examined relevant materials from OMB’s Interagency Committee for the  Review of the Racial and Ethnic Standards.
To review the Bureau’s future plans for collecting Hispanic subgroup data,  we attended meetings of the National Academy of Science Panel on Future  Census Methods, the Decennial Census Advisory Committee, and the  Census Advisory Committee on Race and Ethnicity.  We also discussed  these plans with Bureau officials.
Our audit work was conducted in New York City and Washington, D.C., and  at the Bureau’s headquarters in Suitland, Maryland, from January through  September 2002.  Our work was done in accordance with generally  accepted government auditing standards.
We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Secretary of  Commerce.  On November 27, 2002, the Secretary forwarded the U.S.  Census Bureau’s written comments on the draft.  The comments are  reprinted in appendix I.  We address these comments at the end of this  report.
section_title: Efforts to Simplify Questionnaire Led Bureau to Delete List of Example Hispanic Subgroups
paragraphs: Collecting accurate ethnic data has challenged the Bureau for over 30  years.  Since the 1970 Census, when the Bureau first included a question on  Hispanic origin, every census has had comparatively high Hispanic  undercounts that reduced the quality of the data.  As a result, the Bureau  has modified the Hispanic question on every census since then as part of a  continuing effort to improve the Hispanic count. (See fig. 1.)  In addition, a  Spanish language version of the census form has been available upon  request since 1980.
For the 2000 Census, Hispanics could identify themselves as Mexican,  Puerto Rican, Cuban, or “other Spanish/Hispanic/Latino.”  Respondents  who checked off this last category could write in a specific subgroup such  as “Salvadoran.”  Although this approach was similar to that used for the  1990 Census, as shown in figure 1, the “other” category in the 1990 Census  included examples of other Hispanic subgroups.  The Bureau deleted these  examples as one of several changes to the Hispanic question for the 2000  Census.  Other changes included (1) adding the word “Latino” to the  designation Spanish/Hispanic, (2) dropping the word “origin” from the  question, and (3) moving the location of instructions on writing in an  unlisted subgroup.  According to Bureau officials, these latter three  changes were made to improve the Hispanic count.
The Bureau removed the subgroup examples as part of a broader effort to  simplify the questionnaire and thus help reverse the downward trend in  mail response rates that had been occurring since 1970.  Indeed,  evaluations of the 1990 Census indicated that the overall design of the form  was confusing to many and contributed to lower response rates,  particularly among some hard-to-enumerate groups such as Hispanics.  In  redesigning the questionnaire, the Bureau added as much white space as  possible, and removed unnecessary words to make the questionnaire  shorter and more readable.  As shown in figure 2, the 2000 questionnaire  appears more “respondent-friendly” compared to the 1990 questionnaire.
The Bureau initially proposed removing the example write-in subgroups  during 1990 through 1992.  A first version of the questionnaire without the  example subgroups was used in the 1992 National Census Test.  However,  as discussed in the next section, testing continued from 1992 to 1996 to  ensure that removing the write-in example groups did not harm the overall  count of Hispanics.  From 1995 to 1997, after testing showed that removal  of the write-in example groups would not harm the overall Hispanic count,  the Bureau finalized its decision to remove the example subgroups.
Although federal law and OMB standards only require information on  whether an individual is Hispanic, Bureau officials told us they collect  subgroup data to help improve the overall Hispanic count.  According to  the Bureau, many Hispanics do not view themselves as Hispanic, but  identify instead with their country of origin or with a particular Hispanic  subgroup.  State and local governments, academic institutions, community  organizations, and marketing firms, among other organizations, also use  Hispanic subgroup data for a variety of purposes.  For example, officials in  the New York City Department of Planning told us that they need accurate  information on the number and distribution of Hispanic subgroups in  planning the delivery of numerous city services.
According to a Bureau official, no data are available on the precise impact  the questionnaire redesign had on overall response rates in part because it  was made in conjunction with other efforts to improve the response rate,  such as a more aggressive outreach and promotion campaign.  However,  the initial mail response rate was 64 percent, 3 percentage points higher  than the Bureau’s expectations, and comparable to the similar 1990 mail  response rate.
Moreover, evaluations conducted since the 2000 Census by the Bureau  indicate that the Bureau obtained a more complete count of Hispanics in  the 2000 Census than it did in 1990.  For example, Bureau data show that  the 2000 Census missed an estimated 2.85 percent of the Hispanic  population compared to an estimated 4.99 percent in 1990—a 43 percent  reduction of the undercount.  The Bureau credits the improvement in part  to the changes it made to the questionnaire.  However, as discussed in the  next section, removing the examples of Hispanic subgroups may have  reduced the completeness of data on individual segments of the Hispanic  population.
subsections: section_title: No Bureau Tests Were Designed Specifically to Measure the Impact of Questionnaire Changes on Hispanic Subgroup Data
paragraphs: Bureau guidance requires that any changes to the census form must first be  thoroughly tested.  For example, according to Bureau officials, before  changing a question, the Bureau must first conduct research studies,  cognitive tests, and field tests to determine how best to sequence and word  the question, and to see if the proposed changes are likely to achieve the  desired results.  Additionally, the census questionnaire is to be reviewed by  a variety of census advisory groups, OMB, and Congress before it is  finalized.
Nevertheless, while the Bureau conducted a number of tests of the  sequencing and wording of the race and ethnicity questions, according to  Bureau officials, it did not specifically design any tests to determine the  impact of the changes on the quality of Hispanic subgroup data.  Because  OMB standards do not require data on Hispanic subgroups, Bureau officials  said that the Bureau targeted its resources on testing and research aimed at  improving the overall count of Hispanics.
Throughout the 1990s, in revising the race and ethnicity questions, the  Bureau sought input from several expert panels, including the Interagency  Committee formed by OMB and the Census Advisory Committee on Racial  and Ethnic Populations, one of several panels with which the Bureau  consulted to help it plan the 2000 Census.  In addition, the Bureau  conducted several tests of the questionnaire to assess respondents’  understanding of the questions and their ability to complete them properly.  They included the  1992 National Census Test, which field tested potential questions for the   1996 National Content Survey, which examined a number of issues to  improve race and ethnic reporting; and   1996 Race and Ethnic Targeted Test, which tested alternative formats  for asking race and ethnic questions.
In addition, the Bureau analyzed the results of Hispanic data from the 1990  Census (which led to its conclusions about the undercount), but did not  conduct any specific evaluations of the quality of the 1990 Hispanic  subgroup data. The consultation, research, and testing played a key role in  the Bureau’s decisions to place the ethnicity question before the race  question and make several other changes discussed earlier in this report.
The test results also indicated that the example subgroups could produce  conflicting results.  On the one hand, the Bureau found that providing the  example subgroups could help prevent respondents’ confusion over how to  describe their ethnicity.  On the other hand, the Bureau found that  removing the example subgroups could help reduce the bias caused by the  example effect, which occurs when a respondent erroneously selects a  response because it is provided in the questionnaire.
Although the Bureau conducted a dress rehearsal for the 2000 Census in  1998 in order to test its overall design, the dress rehearsal did not identify  any problems with the Hispanic subgroup question.  According to Bureau  officials, this could have been because none of the three test sites—the city  of Sacramento, California; Menominee County, Wisconsin, including the  Menominee American Indian Reservation; and the city of Columbia, South  Carolina, and its 11 surrounding counties—had a large and diverse enough  Hispanic population for the problems to become evident.
section_title: Questions Raised about the Quality of Reported Hispanic Subgroup Data
paragraphs: In May 2001, the Bureau released data on Hispanics and Hispanic  subgroups as part of its first release summarizing the results of the 2000  Census, called the SF-1 file.   The Bureau also published The Hispanic  Population, a 2000 Census brief that provided an overview of the size and  distribution of the Hispanic population in 2000 and highlighted changes in  the population since the 1990 census.  For the first time, the Bureau  released data on Hispanic subgroups as a part of its release of the full count  SF-1 data even though it had not fully tested the impact of questionnaire  changes on the subgroup data and provided little discussion of the  potential limitations of the data.
Following the initial release of the Hispanic data, local government officials  and Hispanic advocacy groups raised questions about the accuracy of the  counts of Hispanic subgroups listed as examples on the 1990 census form,  but not the 2000 form.  The 2000 Census showed lower counts of several  Hispanic subgroups than analysts had expected based on their own  estimates using a variety of information sources such as vital statistics,  immigration statistics, population surveys, and other data.   In New York  City, local government officials and representatives of Hispanic subgroups  who partnered with the Bureau to improve the enumeration of Hispanics  told us that they were particularly concerned about low subgroup counts in  their communities in part because they needed accurate numbers to plan  and deliver specialized services to particular subgroups.  Moreover, they  said that because “official census numbers” are often considered definitive,  problems with the released Hispanic subgroup numbers could lead to  faulty decision making by data users.
section_title: Questionnaire Modifications May Have Led to Problems with Hispanic Subgroup Data
paragraphs: Since the release of the 2000 Census Hispanic data, the Bureau has  conducted evaluations of the data that provided more information on how  removing the subgroup examples may have affected the quality of Hispanic  subgroup data.  One key evaluation was the Alternative Questionnaire  Experiment, in which the Bureau sent out 1990-style census forms to a  sample of individuals as part of the 2000 Census.  As shown in figure 3, the  Bureau’s research indicates that the 1990-style form elicited more reports  of specific Hispanic subgroups than the 2000-style questionnaire.  Indeed,  93 percent of Hispanics given the 1990-style form reported a specific  subgroup, compared to 81 percent of Hispanics given the 2000-style form.   Moreover, virtually every subgroup reported in the 2000-style form  composed a smaller percentage of the overall Hispanic count than the 1990- style form.  Thus, while the Bureau reported what respondents checked off  on their questionnaires, because of respondents’ confusion over the  wording of the question, the 2000 subgroup data could be misleading.
Figure 3 also suggests that one possible reason for this might be that many  respondents did not understand what they were supposed to write in, as  many more people on the 2000-style form wrote in “Hispanic,” “Spanish,” or  “Latino” (as opposed to a specific subgroup) compared to the 1990-style  questionnaire.  Additionally, a higher percentage of the respondents did not  provide codeable (useable) responses.
Moreover, based on its analysis of the Census 2000 Supplementary  Survey—an operational test for collecting long-form-type data based on a  nationwide sample of 700,000 households—the Bureau estimated that  there were about 150,000 more Dominican Hispanics than were counted in  the 2000 Census.   Some attribute the discrepancy to the fact that many  respondents to the supplementary survey provided their answers by  telephone, where enumerators were able to help them better understand  the question on Hispanic subgroups.
section_title: The Bureau Plans to Conduct Targeted Research on Hispanic Subgroups in the Future
paragraphs: Because of concerns relating to the 2000 Census counts of Hispanic  subgroups, Bureau officials said that they plan to focus testing and  research on these questions in preparation for the 2010 Census.  In  particular, they stated that the Bureau would examine the likely impact of  including Hispanic subgroup examples in the question again, as well as  other aspects of the question that caused problems for some respondents.   Before deciding on a new version of the Hispanic question, the Bureau  must finish evaluating the results of the 2000 Census, conduct a number of  cognitive tests, and field-test proposed changes to the question.  The  Bureau plans to begin testing the Hispanic question in 2003 and, as part of a  field test in 2004, to administer the questionnaire in parts of Queens, New  York, which the Bureau selected for its racial and ethnic diversity.  The  Bureau intends to complete its testing and decide on changes to the  Hispanic question from 2006 through 2008.
Any changes to the Hispanic question are relevant not only for the 2010  Census, but also for other Bureau questionnaires, such as the proposed  ACS.  Bureau officials told us that they expect that the ACS will continue  to use the 2000 Census Hispanic question until research and testing on a  new version is complete.
subsections: section_title: The Bureau Lacks Clearly Written, Transparent Guidelines for Releasing Data
paragraphs: While continued research could help the Bureau collect better-quality  Hispanic subgroup data, it will also be important for the Bureau to address  what led it to release data that could mislead users.  A key factor in this  regard is that the Bureau lacks adequate guidelines for making decisions  about how data quality considerations affect the release of data to the  public.  Had such guidelines been in place prior to releasing the Hispanic  subgroup data, they could have (1) prompted the Bureau to apply more  rigorous quality checks on the Hispanic subgroup data, (2) provided a basis  for either releasing, delaying, or suppressing the data, and (3) informed  decisions on how to describe any limitations to data released.
This is not the first time that the lack of Bureau-wide guidelines on the level  of quality needed for census results to be released to the public has created  difficulties for the Bureau and data users.  As we noted in our companion  report on the Bureau’s methods for collecting and reporting data on the  homeless and others without conventional housing, one cause of the  Bureau’s shifting position on reporting those data and the resulting public  confusion appears to be its lack of documented, clear, transparent, and  consistently applied guidelines on the level of quality needed to release  data to the public.  With the Hispanic subgroup data, the Bureau released  the information as planned before it could properly assess its quality,  identify problems, and report its limitations.  More rigorous guidelines  could help ensure that decisions about the quality of all census data the  Bureau releases are more consistent and better understood by the public.
In 2000, the Bureau initiated a program aimed at documenting Bureau-wide  protocols designed to ensure the quality of data it collected and released.   Because this effort is still in its early stages, we could not assess it.   However, Bureau officials believe that the program is a significant first step  in addressing the Bureau’s lack of data quality guidelines.  As the Bureau  develops its protocols further, it will be important that they be well  documented, transparent, clearly defined, consistently applied, and  properly communicated to the public.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Throughout the 1990s, the Bureau went to great lengths to improve  response rates to the 2000 Census in general, and participation of Hispanics  in particular.  Although the unique contributions of the individual  components of the Bureau’s efforts cannot be determined, the mail  response rate was similar to the 1990 level, and the Bureau’s preliminary  data suggest that the 2000 Census count of Hispanics was an improvement  over the 1990 count.  However, the counts of Hispanic subgroups do not  appear to have been improved and, in fact, there is concern that some of  these subgroup counts may be less accurate than the 1990 counts.   Moreover, the Bureau’s experience in simplifying the questionnaire in part  by removing the examples of the Hispanic subgroups shows the challenge  the Bureau faces in trying to improve one component of the census count  without adversely and unintentionally affecting other aspects of the census  count.  In light of these findings, it will be important for the Bureau to  continue with its planned research on how best to enumerate Hispanic  subgroups.
The Bureau’s release of Hispanic subgroup numbers raised questions about  the quality of the reported data and the Bureau’s decision to report these  data as a part of its release of the SF-1 data.  Although the specific  questions about the Hispanic subgroup data differed from those identified  in our review of the Bureau’s efforts to collect and report data on the  homeless and others without conventional housing, a common cause of  both sets of problems was the Bureau’s lack of agencywide guidelines for  its decisions on the level of quality needed to release data to the public.  As  we recommended in our report on homeless counts, the Bureau needs to  develop well-documented guidelines that spell out how to characterize any  limitations in the data, and when it is acceptable to suppress these data.   The Bureau should also ensure that these guidelines are documented,  transparent, clearly defined, consistently applied, and properly  communicated to the public.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To ensure that the 2010 Census will provide public data users with more  accurate information on specific Hispanic subgroups, we recommend that  the Secretary of Commerce ensure that the Director of the U.S. Census  Bureau implements Bureau plans to research the Hispanic question, taking  steps to properly test the impact of the wording, format, and sequencing on  the completeness and accuracy of the data on Hispanic subgroups and  Hispanics overall.  In addition, as we also recommended in our companion  report on the homeless and others without conventional housing, we  recommend that the Bureau develop agencywide guidelines governing the  level of quality needed to release data to the public, when and how to  characterize any limitations, and when it is acceptable to delay or suppress  data.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: The Secretary of Commerce forwarded written comments from the U.S.  Census Bureau on a draft of this report (see app. I).  The Bureau agreed  with our conclusions and recommendations and, as indicated in the letter,  is taking steps to implement them.  However, it expressed several general  concerns about our findings.  The Bureau’s principal concerns and our  response are presented below.  The Bureau also suggested minor wording  changes to provide additional context and clarification.  We accepted the  Bureau’s suggestions and made changes to the text as appropriate.
The Bureau took exception to our findings concerning the adequacy of its  data quality guidelines noting that it “conducted the review of the data on  the Hispanic origin population using standard review techniques for  reasonableness and quality.”  We do not question the Bureau’s commitment  to presenting quality data.  Rather, our point is that the Bureau needs to  translate its commitment to quality into well documented, transparent,  clearly defined guidelines to provide a basis for consistent decision making  on the level of quality needed to release data to the public, and on when  and how to characterize any limitations.  During our review, Bureau  officials, including the Associate Director for Methodology and Standards,  told us that the Bureau had few written guidelines, standards, or  procedures related to the quality of data released to the public.
A second general concern expressed by the Bureau dealt with our  characterization of problems with the Hispanic subgroup counts.  The  Bureau said that the data met an acceptable level of quality because they  accurately reflect what people reported and therefore cannot be  characterized as erroneous.  We agree with the Bureau on this specific  point.  However, we take a broader view of data quality.  Specifically, we  believe that questions about the accuracy of the Hispanic subgroup data  must also take into account problems that the respondents had in  understanding the meaning of the question.  The Bureau challenged our  assertion that the wording of the question “confused” some respondents,  preferring to say that some respondents may have “interpreted” the  question wording, instructions, and examples differently than expected.   We agree with the Bureau that additional research will be required to  understand the extent of this problem.  Nevertheless, we believe there is  sufficient evidence from the Bureau’s subsequent research and from  analysis of trends in the data to support our concerns about the accuracy of  Hispanic example subgroup counts in the 2000 Census.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents  earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from its  issue date.  At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Chairman  of the House Committee on Government Reform, the Secretary of  Commerce, and the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau.  Copies will be  made available to others on request.  This report will also be available at no  charge on GAO’s home page at http://www.gao.gov.
Please contact me on (202) 512-6806 or by E-mail at daltonp@gao.gov if you  have any questions.  Other key contributors to this report were Robert  Goldenkoff, Christopher Miller, Elizabeth Powell, Timothy Wexler, Ty  Mitchell, Benjamin Crawford, James Whitcomb, Robert Parker, and  Michael Volpe.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Decennial Census: Methods for Reporting and Collecting Data on the  Homeless and Others without Conventional Housing Need Refinement.  GAO-03-227. Washington, D.C.: January 17, 2003. 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 a 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. 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.
subsections: section_title: GAO’s Mission
paragraphs: The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, exists to  support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve  the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American  people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and  policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help  Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s  commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,  integrity, and reliability.
section_title: Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
paragraphs: 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 full- text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older  products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents  using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,  including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and  correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site  daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail this  list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading.
subsections: section_title: Order by Mail or Phone
section_title: To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
section_title: Public Affairs