2010 Census: Counting Americans Overseas as Part of the Census Would Not Be Feasible
Published: 2004-09-14T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The U.S. Census Bureau (Bureau) has typically excluded from the census private citizens residing abroad, but included overseas members of the military, federal civilian employees, and their dependents (in the 1990 and 2000 Censuses, these individuals were included in the numbers used for apportioning Congress). The Bureau recently tested the practicality of counting all overseas Americans. GAO was asked to testify on the test's initial results. Our statement is based on our published reports, one of which is being released at today's hearing.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The test results suggest that counting all American citizens overseas as part of the census would require enormous resources, but still not yield data at the level of quality needed for purposes of congressional apportionment. Participation in the test was poor, with just 5,390 questionnaires returned from the three test sites. Moreover, as the Bureau's experience during the 2000 Census shows, securing better participation in a global count might not be practical. The Bureau spent $374 million on a months-long publicity campaign that consisted of television and other advertising that helped produce a 72-percent return rate. Replicating the same level of effort on a worldwide basis would be difficult, and still would not produce a complete count. Further, the low participation levels in the test made the unit cost of each response relatively high at around $1,450. The test results highlighted other obstacles to a cost-effective count including the resources needed to address country-specific problems and the difficulties associated with managing a complex operation from thousands of miles away. The approach used to count the overseas population in the 2004 test--a voluntary survey that largely relies on marketing to secure a complete count, lacks the basic building blocks of a successful census such as a complete and accurate address list and the ability to follow-up with nonrespondents. As the Bureau already faces the near-daunting task of securing a successful stateside count in 2010, having to simultaneously count Americans abroad would only add to the challenges it faces.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I am pleased to be here today to discuss the feasibility of counting  Americans residing abroad.  As you know, last year we named the 2010  Census a major management challenge and program risk because of the  numerous operational and other questions facing a cost-effective head  count, the price tag of which now exceeds $11 billion, according to U.S.  Census Bureau (Bureau) estimates.
The issue of whether and how to count overseas Americans are two such  questions.  How they get resolved could have implications for the cost and  quality of the 2010 Census, as well as for the various purposes for which the  data are used, congressional apportionment among them.
Advocates of an overseas census believe that better demographic data on  Americans abroad would be useful for a variety of policy-making and  business purposes, and would make their unique interests more visible to  Congress.  The Constitution and federal statutes give the Bureau discretion  over whether to count Americans abroad.  With few exceptions, the Bureau  has historically counted only “federally affiliated” individuals, a group  consisting of members of the military, federal civilian employees, and their  dependents.
Following the 2000 Census, in response to congressional direction and the  concerns of various private organizations, the Bureau launched a test  enumeration to assess the practicality of counting both private and  federally affiliated U.S. citizens abroad.  The key part of this effort, the data  collection phase, took place between February and July 2004 in three  countries:  France, Kuwait, and Mexico.  The cost of the test—from initial  planning in 2003 through final evaluations in 2005—will be about   $7.8 million, according to Bureau estimates.
At the Subcommittee’s request, we have evaluated the test’s design and  execution, and have published two reports on the subject, the latest of  which we are releasing this afternoon.  My remarks today summarize the  results of our research.   Our findings are based on our on-site observations  in Paris, France, and Guadalajara, Mexico; as well as our analysis of  applicable planning, legal, and other documents, and interviews with  Bureau officials and representatives of private organizations who helped  the Bureau promote the census at the three test sites.  We conducted our  audit work from June 2003 through July 2004, in accordance with generally  accepted government auditing standards.
Although the complete results of the test will not be available until next  year when the Bureau expects to finalize its evaluations, two important  findings have already emerged.
First, the 2004 overseas test was an extremely valuable exercise in that it  revealed the numerous obstacles to counting Americans abroad via the  decennial census.  The tools and resources the Bureau has available to  enumerate this group, largely for reasons of practicality, cannot cost- effectively surmount these obstacles, and it is unlikely that any refinements  or additional resources would generate substantially better data, and  certainly not at the level of quality needed for purposes of congressional  apportionment.  Consequently, Congress may wish to consider eliminating  funding for any additional research and testing related to counting this  group as part of the decennial headcount, including tests planned for 2006  and 2008 (although funding for completing the evaluation of the 2004 test  should continue as planned).
Second, to the extent that better data on overseas Americans might be  useful for various policy-making and other nonapportionment purposes  that do not need as much precision, such information does not need to be  collected as part of the decennial census.  It will be important for Congress,  the Bureau, and stakeholders to work together to explore the feasibility of  counting overseas Americans using alternatives to the decennial census  such as a separate survey and/or administrative records.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Historically, the census has focused on counting people stateside, although  various overseas population groups have been included in the census at  different times.  For example, as shown in table 1, over the last century, the  Bureau has generally included federally affiliated individuals and their  dependents, but except for the 1960 and 1970 Censuses, has excluded  private citizens such as retirees, students, and business people. In addition,  only the 1970, 1990, and 2000 Censuses used counts of federally affiliated  personnel for purposes of apportioning Congress.  As a result, although  estimates exceed four million people, the precise number of Americans  residing abroad is unknown.
The Constitution and federal statutes give the Bureau discretion over  whether to count Americans overseas.  Thus, Congress would need to  enact legislation if it wanted to require the Bureau to include overseas  Americans in the 2010 Census.  Nevertheless, in recent years, the Bureau’s  policy of excluding private citizens from the census has been questioned.   For example, advocates of an overseas census claim that better data on this  population group would be useful for a variety of policy-making and other  purposes.  Moreover, the overseas population could, in some instances,  affect congressional apportionment.
More generally, the rights and obligations of overseas Americans under  various federal programs vary from activity to activity.  For example, U.S.  citizens residing overseas are taxed on their worldwide income, can vote in  federal elections, and can receive Social Security benefits, but they are  generally not entitled to Medicare benefits, or, if they reside outside of the  United States for more than 30 days, Supplemental Security Income.
section_title: Cost-Effectiveness Would be Problematic
paragraphs: The initial results of the overseas census test suggest that counting  Americans abroad on a global basis would require enormous resources and  still not yield data that are comparable in quality to the stateside count.   Indeed, participation in the test was low and relatively costly to obtain, and  on-site supervision of field activities proved difficult.  The test made clear  that the current approach to counting Americans abroad—a voluntary  survey that relies largely on marketing to get people to participate—by  itself cannot secure a successful head count.
subsections: section_title: Securing an Acceptable Response Rate Would Be Challenging and Costly
paragraphs: To promote the overseas census test the Bureau relied on third parties— American organizations and businesses in the three countries—to  communicate to their members and/or customers that an overseas  enumeration of Americans was taking place and to make available to U.S.  citizens either the paper questionnaire or Web site address where  Americans could complete their forms via the Internet.
Still, the response to the overseas census test was disappointing.  The 5,390  responses the Bureau received from the three test countries was far below  what the Bureau planned for when it printed the questionnaires.  While the  Bureau ordered 520,000 paper forms for the three test sites, only 1,783  census forms were completed and returned.  Of these, 35 were Spanish  language forms that were made available in Mexico.  The remaining 3,607  responses were completed via the Internet.  Table 2 shows the number of  census questionnaires that the Bureau printed for each country and the  number of responses it actually received in both the paper format and via  the Internet.
In May, to help boost the lagging participation, the Bureau initiated a paid  advertising campaign that included print and Internet ads in France, and  print and radio ads in Mexico.  (See fig. 1 for examples of the ads used in  the paid advertising campaign).  According to a Bureau official, the ads had  only a slight impact on response levels.
Moreover, the Bureau’s experience during the 2000 Census suggests that  securing a higher return rate on an overseas census would be an enormous  challenge and may not be feasible.  The Bureau spent $374 million on a  comprehensive marketing, communications, and partnership effort for the  2000 Census.  The campaign began in the fall of 1999 and continued past  Census Day (April 1, 2000).  Specific elements included television, radio,  and other mass media advertising; promotions and special events; and a  census-in-schools program.  Thus, over a period of several months, the  American public was on the receiving end of a steady drumbeat of  advertising aimed at publicizing the census and motivating them to  respond.  This endeavor, in concert with an ambitious partnership effort  with governmental, private, social service, and other organizations helped  produce a return rate of 72 percent.
Replicating this level of effort on a worldwide basis would be impractical,  and still would not produce a complete count.  Indeed, even after the  Bureau’s aggressive marketing effort in 2000, it still had to follow-up with  about 42 million households that did not return their census forms.
section_title: Unit Costs Were High
paragraphs: Because the overseas test had such low participation levels, the unit cost of  each response was high—roughly $1,450 for each returned questionnaire,  based on the $7.8 million the Bureau spent preparing for, implementing,  and evaluating the 2004 overseas test.  Although the two surveys are not  directly comparable because the 2000 Census costs covered operations not  used in the overseas test, the unit cost of the 2000 Census—which was the  most expensive in our nation’s history--was about $56 per household.
section_title: Ensuring a Smooth Enumeration Could Stretch the Bureau’s Resources
paragraphs: Not surprisingly, as with any operation as complex as the overseas  enumeration test, various unforeseen problems arose.  The difficulties  included grappling with country-specific issues and overseeing the  contractor responsible for raising public awareness of the census at the  three test sites.  While the Bureau was able to address them, it is doubtful  that the Bureau would have the ability to do so in 2010 should there be a  full overseas enumeration.
subsections: section_title: Country-specific Issues Created Implementation Problems
paragraphs: The Bureau encountered a variety of implementation problems at each of  the test sites.  Although such difficulties are to be expected given the  magnitude of the Bureau’s task, they underscore the fact that there would  be no economy of scale in ramping up to a full enumeration of Americans  abroad.  In fact, just the opposite would be true.  Because of the  inevitability of country-specific problems, rather than conducting a single  overseas count based on a standard set of rules and procedures (as is the  case with the stateside census), the Bureau might end up administering  what amounts to dozens of separate censuses—one for each of the  countries it enumerates—each with its own set of procedures adapted to  each country’s unique requirements.  The time and resources required to do  this would likely be overwhelming and detract from the Bureau’s stateside  efforts.
For example, addressing French privacy laws that restrict the collection of  personal data such as race and ethnic information took a considerable  amount of negotiation between the two countries, and was ultimately  resolved after a formal agreement was developed.   Likewise, in Kuwait,  delivery of the census materials was delayed by several weeks because  they were accidentally addressed to the wrong contractor.
section_title: On-site Supervision of Contractor Was Problematic
paragraphs: The Bureau hired a public relations firm to help market participation in the  test.  Its responsibilities included identifying private companies, religious  institutions, service organizations, and other entities that have contact with  Americans abroad and could thus help publicize the census test.  Although  the public relations firm appeared to go to great lengths to enlist the  participation of these various entities—soliciting the support of hundreds  of organizations in the three countries—the test revealed the difficulties of  adequately overseeing a contractor operating in multiple sites overseas.
For example, the public relations firm’s tracking system indicated that  around 440 entities had agreed to perform one or more types of  promotional activities.  However, our on-site inspections of several of these  organizations in Paris, France, and Guadalajara, Mexico, that had agreed to  display the census materials and/or distribute the questionnaires,  uncovered several glitches.  Of the 36 organizations we visited that were  supposed to be displaying promotional literature, we found the information  was only available at 15.   In those cases, as shown in Figure 2, the  materials were generally displayed in prominent locations, typically on a  table with posters on a nearby wall.
However, at 21 sites we visited, we found various discrepancies between  what the public relations firm indicated had occurred, and what actually  took place.  For example, while the firm’s tracking system indicated that  questionnaires would be available at a restaurant and an English-language  bookstore in Guadalajara, none were present.
Likewise, in Paris, we went to several locations where the tracking system  indicated that census information would be available.  None was.   In fact,  at some of these sites, not only was there no information about the census,  but there was no indication that the organization we were looking for  resided at the address we had from the database.
section_title: Overseas Census Design Does Not Have the Capacity to Overcome Enumeration Obstacles
paragraphs: The Bureau’s longstanding experience in counting the nation’s stateside  population has shown that specific operations and procedures together  form the building blocks of a successful census.  The design of the overseas  test—a voluntary survey that relies heavily on marketing to secure a  complete count—lacks these building blocks largely because they are  impractical to perform in other countries.  Thus, the disappointing test  results are not surprising.  What’s more, refining this basic design or adding  more resources would probably not produce substantially better outcomes.   The building blocks include the following:  Mandatory participation:  Under federal law, all persons residing in the  United States regardless of citizenship status are required to respond to  the stateside decennial census.  By contrast, participation in the  overseas test was optional.  The Bureau has found that response rates to  mandatory surveys are higher than the response rates to voluntary  surveys.  This in turn yields more complete data and helps hold down  costs.
Early agreement on design:  Both Congress and the Bureau need to  agree on the fundamental design of the overseas census to help ensure  adequate planning, testing and funding levels.  The design of the census  is driven in large part by the purposes for which the data will be used.   Currently, no decisions have been made on whether the overseas data  will be used for purposes of congressional apportionment, redistricting,  allocating federal funds, or other applications.  Some applications, such  as apportionment, would require precise population counts and a very  rigorous design that parallels the stateside count.  Other applications,  however, could get by with less precision and thus, a less stringent  approach.
A complete and accurate address list:  The cornerstone of a successful  census is a quality address list.  For the stateside census, the Bureau  goes to great lengths to develop what is essentially an inventory of all  known living quarters in the United States, including sending census  workers to canvass every street in the nation to verify addresses.  The  Bureau uses this information to deliver questionnaires, follow up with  nonrespondents, determine vacancies, and identify households the  Bureau may have missed or counted more than once.  Because it would  be impractical to develop an accurate address list for overseas  Americans, these operations would be impossible and the quality of the  data would suffer as a result.
Ability to detect invalid returns:  Ensuring the integrity of the census  data requires the Bureau to have a mechanism to screen out invalid  responses.  Stateside, the Bureau does this by associating an  identification number on the questionnaire to a specific address in the  Bureau’s address list, as well as by field verification.  However, the  Bureau’s current approach to counting overseas Americans is unable to  determine whether or not a respondent does in fact reside abroad.  So  long as a respondent provides certain pieces of information on the  census questionnaire, it will be eligible for further processing.  The  Bureau is unable to confirm the point of origin for questionnaires  completed on the Internet, and postmarks on a paper questionnaire only  tell the location from which a form was mailed, not the place of  residence of the respondent.  The Bureau has acknowledged that  ensuring such validity might be all but impossible for any reasonable  level of effort and funding.
Ability to follow up with non-respondents:  Because participation in the  decennial census is mandatory, the Bureau sends enumerators to those  households that do not return their questionnaires.  In cases where  household members cannot be contacted or refuse to answer all or part  of a census questionnaire, enumerators are to obtain data from  neighbors, a building manager, or other nonhousehold member  presumed to know about its residents.  The Bureau also employs  statistical techniques to impute data when it lacks complete information  on a household.  As noted above, because the Bureau lacks an address  list of overseas Americans, it is unable to follow-up with  nonrespondents or impute information on missing households, and  thus, would never be able to obtain a complete count of overseas  Americans.
Cost model for estimating needed resources:  The Bureau uses a cost  model and other baseline data to help it estimate the resources it needs  to conduct the stateside census.  Key assumptions such as response  levels and workload are developed based on the Bureau’s experience in  counting people decade after decade.  However, the Bureau has only a  handful of data points with which to gauge the resources necessary for  an overseas census, and the tests it plans on conducting will only be of  limited value in modeling the costs of conducting a worldwide  enumeration in 2010.  The lack of baseline data could cause the Bureau  to over- or underestimate the staffing, budget, and other requirements of  an overseas count.
Targeted and aggressive marketing campaign:  The key to raising  public awareness of the census is an intensive outreach and promotion  campaign.  As noted previously, the Bureau’s marketing efforts for the  2000 Census were far-reaching, and consisted of more than 250 ads in 17  languages that were part of an effort to reach every household, including  those in historically undercounted populations.  Replicating this level of  effort on a global scale would be both difficult and expensive, and the  Bureau has no plans to do so.
Field infrastructure to execute census and deal with problems:  The  Bureau had a vast network of 12 regional offices and 511 local census  offices to implement various operations for the 2000 Census.  This  decentralized structure enabled the Bureau to carry out a number of  activities to help ensure a more complete and accurate count, as well as  deal with problems when they arose.  Moreover, local census offices are  an important source of intelligence on the various enumeration  obstacles the Bureau faces on the ground.  The absence of a field  infrastructure for an overseas census means that the Bureau would have  to rely heavily on contractors to conduct the enumeration, and manage  the entire enterprise from its headquarters in Suitland, Maryland.
Ability to measure coverage and accuracy:  Since 1980, the Bureau has  measured the quality of the decennial census using statistical methods  to estimate the magnitude of any errors.  The Bureau reports these  estimates by specific ethnic, racial, and other groups.  For  methodological reasons, similar estimates cannot be generated for an  overseas census.  As a result, the quality of the overseas count, and thus  whether the numbers should be used for specific purposes, could not be  accurately determined.
section_title: Policy and Conceptual Questions Need Resolution
paragraphs: So far I’ve described the logistical hurdles to counting overseas citizens as  part of the census.  However, there are a series of policy and conceptual  questions that need to be addressed as well.  They include:  Who should be counted?  U.S. citizens only?  Foreign-born spouses?
Children born overseas?  Dual citizens?  American citizens who have no  intention of ever returning to the United States?  Naturalized citizens?
What determines residency in another country?  To determine who  should be included in the stateside census, the Bureau applies its “usual  residence rule,” which it defines as the place where a person lives and  sleeps most of the time.  People who are temporarily absent from that  place are still counted as residing there.  One’s usual residence is not  necessarily the same as one’s voting residence or legal residence.
The Bureau has developed guidelines, which it prints on the stateside  census form, to help people determine who should and should not be  included.  The Bureau has not yet developed similar guidance for  American citizens overseas.  Thus, what should determine residency in  another country?  Duration of stay?  Legal status?  Should students  spending a semester abroad but who maintain a permanent residence  stateside be counted overseas? What about people on business or  personal trips who maintain stateside homes?  Quality data will require  residence rules that are transparent, clearly defined, and consistently  applied.
How should overseas Americans be assigned to individual states?  For  certain purposes, such as apportioning Congress, the Bureau would  need to assign overseas Americans to a particular state.  Should one’s  state be determined by the state claimed for income tax purposes?   Where one is registered to vote?  Last state of residence before going  overseas?  These and other options all have limitations that would need  to be addressed.
How should the population data be used?  To apportion Congress?  To  redistrict Congress?  To allocate federal funds?  To provide a count of  overseas Americans only for general informational purposes?  The  answers to these questions have significant implications for the level of  precision needed for the data and, ultimately, the enumeration  methodology.
section_title: Alternatives to an Overseas Census
paragraphs: Congress will need to decide whether or not to count overseas Americans,  and how the results should be used.  These decisions, in turn, will drive the  methodology for counting this population group.  As I’ve already  mentioned, no decisions have been made on whether the overseas data will  be used for purposes of congressional apportionment, redistricting,  allocating federal funds, or other applications.  Some uses, such as  apportionment, would require precise population counts and a very  rigorous design that parallels the stateside count.  Other applications do  not need as much precision, and thus a less rigorous approach would  suffice.
The basis for these determinations needs to be sound research on the cost,  quality of data, and logistical feasibility of the various options.  Possibilities  include counting Americans via a separate survey, administrative records  such as passport and voter registration forms; and/or records maintained  by other countries such as published census records and work permits.
The Bureau’s initial research has shown that each of these options has  coverage, accuracy, and accessibility issues, and some might introduce  systemic biases into the data.  Far more extensive research would be  needed to determine the feasibility of these or other potential approaches.
In summary, the 2004 overseas census test was an extremely valuable  exercise in that it showed how counting Americans abroad as an integral  part of the decennial census would not be cost-effective.  Indeed, the tools  and resources available to the Bureau cannot successfully overcome the  inherent barriers to counting this population group, and produce data  comparable to the stateside enumeration.  Further, an overseas census  would introduce new resource demands, risks, and uncertainties to a  stateside endeavor that is already costly, complex, and controversial.   Securing a successful count of Americans in Vienna, Virginia, is challenging  enough; a complete count of Americans in Vienna, Austria, and in scores of  other countries around the globe, would only add to the difficulties facing  the Bureau as it looks toward the next national head count.  Consequently,  the report we released today suggests that Congress should continue to  fund the evaluation of the 2004 test as planned, but eliminate funding for  any additional tests related to counting Americans abroad as part of the  decennial census.
However, this is not to say that overseas citizens should not be counted.   Indeed, to the extent that Congress desires better data on the number and  characteristics of Americans abroad for various policy-making and other  nonapportionment purposes that do not need as much precision, such  information does not necessarily need to be collected as part of the  decennial census, and could, in fact, be acquired through a separate survey  or other means.
To facilitate congressional decision-making on this issue, our report  recommends that the Bureau, in consultation with Congress, research such  options as counting people via a separate survey; administrative records  such as passport data; and/or data exchanges with other countries’  statistical agencies subject to applicable confidentiality considerations.    Once Congress knows the tradeoffs of these various alternatives, it would  be better positioned to provide the Bureau with the direction it needs so  that the Bureau could then develop and test an approach that meets  congressional requirements at reasonable resource levels.  The Bureau  agreed with our conclusions and recommendations.
Successfully counting the nation’s population is a near-daunting task.  As  the countdown to the next census approaches the 5-year mark, the  question of enumerating Americans overseas is just one of a number of  issues the Bureau needs to resolve.  On behalf of the Subcommittee, we will  continue to assess the Bureau’s progress in planning and implementing the  2010 Census and identify opportunities to increase its cost-effectiveness.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement.  I would be pleased  to respond to any questions that you or other Members of the  Subcommittee might have.
section_title: Contacts and Acknowledgments
paragraphs: For further information regarding this testimony, please contact Patricia A.  Dalton on (202) 512-6806, or by e-mail at daltonp@gao.gov.
Individuals making contributions to this testimony included Jennifer Cook,  Robert Goldenkoff, Ellen Grady, Andrea Levine, Lisa Pearson, and Timothy  Wexler.
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.