2010 Census: Operational Changes Made for 2010 Position the U.S. Census Bureau to More Accurately Classify and Identify Group Quarters
Released: 2010-02-22T00:00:00

Letter

Background

A complete and accurate address list, along with precise maps, form the foundation of a successful census. An accurate address list is critical because, among other reasons, it identifies households that are to receive a census questionnaire. Precise maps are critical for counting the population in their proper locations—the basis of congressional apportionment and redistricting. The Bureau’s database of the nation’s approximately 134 million addresses is called the Master Address File. It consists of two types of dwellings: housing units such as single-family homes, apartments, and mobile homes, and what the Bureau refers to as group quarters. According to Bureau data nationwide, more than 7.7 million people, or approximately 3 percent of the population, lived in group quarter facilities during the 2000 Census. Of Brooklyn’s population of approximately 2.5 million residents at that time, around 39,300 (1.6 percent) lived in group quarters.

In concept, it would appear that an accurate enumeration of group quarters residents would be a relatively straightforward task—after all, dormitories, nursing homes, and prisons tend to be obvious, have fixed addresses, and do not move. Nevertheless, for a variety of reasons, counting the group quarters population can be difficult.

For example, group quarters are sometimes hard to distinguish from conventional housing units (see fig. 1), or the address of an administrative building might be in a separate geographic location than where the residents actually live, as was sometimes the case with prison complexes. In prior work, we found that the population count of Cameron, Missouri, was off by nearly 1,500 people because the population of the state’s Crossroads Correctional Center was inadvertently omitted from the town’s headcount. Similarly, North Carolina’s population count was reduced by 2,828 people, largely because the Bureau had to delete duplicate data on almost 2,700 students in 26 dormitories (see fig. 2) at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC). Precision is critical because, in some cases, small differences in population totals could potentially impact apportionment, redistricting decisions, or both.

Operational Changes Made for 2010 Position the Bureau to More Accurately Classify and Identify Group Quarters

The Bureau developed and tested new procedures to address the difficulties it had in identifying and counting this population during the 2000 Census. For example, the Bureau moved from manual to GPS- generated map spots, which should reduce the chance of human error and of group quarters populations being counted in the wrong jurisdiction; moved from a telephone interview to a field verification approach, which should increase accuracy; and combined the housing unit and group quarters address lists into a single address list, which should reduce the chance of double counting. In addition, following a test of certain census- taking procedures in 2004 that was conducted in Queens, New York, among other locations, we recommended that the Bureau revisit group quarters procedures to ensure that this population was properly located and counted. The Bureau implemented our recommendation and revised its group quarters procedures to clearly instruct census workers to properly correct and delete addresses. Further, to better ensure a more accurate group quarters count, the Bureau employed a three-pronged effort consisting of those operations shown in table 1.

The Bureau’s three-pronged approach had temporary census workers visit each group quarters and interview its manager or administrator using a short questionnaire during Group Quarters Validation. As stated above, the goal was to determine whether the dwelling was a group quarters or some other type of residence. If the dwelling was in fact a group quarters, it was then determined what category it fit under (e.g., boarding school, correctional facility, health care facility, military quarters, residence hall or dormitory, etc.), and its correct geographic location was confirmed. Accurate classification of group quarters is important to ensure that the correct enumeration methodology is used and the data are tabulated correctly.

This is followed by the Group Quarters Advance Visit operation, which is currently underway. During the advance visit, census workers verify the location of the group quarters and identify contact officials, schedule the date and time of the actual enumeration, and collect other information to help conduct the actual enumeration.

The actual count of group quarters residents is conducted during Group Quarter Enumeration. The effort includes an operation known as Service- Based Enumeration, during which people commonly referred to as homeless are counted. While this count is always important, the large number of home foreclosures the nation has experienced adds to the operation’s significance in 2010. Military bases and military/maritime vessels are also enumerated as part of group quarters.

For the 2010 group quarters operations, the Bureau drew from a number of sources to build its list of potential group quarters addresses including data from the 2000 Census, address submissions provided by state and local governments, Internet-based research, and group quarters located during door-to-door address canvassing. During the first of the three group quarters operations (Group Quarters Validation), approximately 25,000 temporary workers identified over 240,000 group quarters facilities from a workload of over 2 million potential group quarters in both the United States and Puerto Rico. The remaining approximately 1.76 million addresses were identified during Group Quarters Validation as conventional housing units, transitory locations, nonresidential, nonexistent, or duplicates. All addresses that were verified as housing units or transitory locations were added to the appropriate address extracts for subsequent enumeration operations. In addition, over 7,000 addresses from the Group Quarters Validation workload could not be properly processed in the Bureau’s database because they were returned with insufficient information. However, a contingency plan was implemented to ensure that these locations were included in the census.

To further ensure an accurate group quarters count, the Bureau employs a number of quality assurance procedures. For example, key quality assurance procedures for the completed Group Quarters Validation operation included field observations of workers’ performance by supervisors known as crew leaders. Crew leaders also reviewed workers’ completed assignments each day, while Quality Control Clerks conducted additional reviews. Similar quality assurance procedures are planned for the actual enumeration of group quarters.

The changes made to group quarters operations appear promising, and the Bureau plans to evaluate coverage of the group quarters population. However, the Bureau will not individually evaluate each of the three group quarters operations’ effectiveness, cost, or value added. Such evaluations could be useful in improving the operations, identifying possibly duplicative operations, and identifying potential cost savings for 2020. For example, given the large number of nongroup quarters included in the workload for Group Quarters Validation (about 88 percent), the Bureau may want to consider ways to begin the operation with a more concise initial workload. Additionally, in both Group Quarters Validation and Group Quarters Advance Visit operations, census workers personally visit group quarters, verify the facility contact information, provide confidentiality information, and collect occupancy numbers. Because these activities appear to be duplicative, the Bureau may want to reexamine the need to conduct both operations.

Challenges and Opportunities for Counting Group Quarters Residents in Brooklyn

Nationally, the enumeration of group quarters is a difficult task for the Bureau, and Brooklyn presents its own challenges as well as opportunities. For example, a planning database the Bureau developed to help it target its resources placed Brooklyn third on a list of top 50 U.S. counties with the highest number of people living in hard-to-count areas, based on data from the 2000 Census. Specifically, around two-thirds of Brooklyn’s (Kings County) total population of 2.5 million people were found to be living in hard-to-count areas. Demographic factors that contribute to the hard-to-count designations include poverty levels, low educational attainment, unemployment, and complex household arrangements, as well as housing indicators such as a high percentage of renters and vacant units, multi-unit buildings, and crowded housing.

Moreover, according to the 2000 Census, 37.8 percent of the borough’s approximately 2.5 million residents were foreign born and about 46.7 percent spoke a language other than English at home. Overcoming language barriers and other obstacles that have historically come with enumerating ethnically diverse populations will be important for the Bureau.

Recognizing that New York City would present challenges for the 2010 Census, the Bureau selected Queens, New York, as one of two sites to test its Group Quarters Validation operation in 2004. The test was designed, among other things, to address the difficulties the Bureau had in trying to identify and count this population during the 2000 Census, and to refine its definitions of the various types of group quarters to make it easier to accurately categorize them. The Bureau determined that the test was a success based on follow-up interviews. Out of the 38 follow-up addresses in Queens, 34 were classified correctly (89.5 percent).

Nevertheless, the counting of group quarters is still a challenging task. In addition to some of the demographic challenges noted above, our observations of the Group Quarters Validation operation highlighted other potential trouble spots. For example, we observed that while the effort generally proceeded as planned, some temporary census workers were concerned that working with paper maps and time cards was time consuming and inefficient, and some had difficulties identifying a manager or administrator from whom to obtain necessary information about the facility. Importantly, our observations were limited and we do not know how pervasive these and other issues might have been, if at all.

More recently, a senior New York City official told us about some of the local challenges in counting group quarters, including complex housing arrangements. He noted that the city has buildings with a large number of apartments, where part of the building consists of conventional housing units and the other part is group quarters. Such situations occur, for example, in housing people with special needs or buildings with assisted- living occupants. When this occurred, during door-to-door address canvassing, the temporary census workers removed the building from the list of conventional housing units and added it to dwellings to be visited during the Group Quarters Validation operation.

In addition to these mixed-use building situations, the New York City official told us that in cases where buildings have a large number of occupants and have been subdivided into various configurations, it can be very difficult to determine whether the building is a housing unit or group quarters dwelling. While this is an issue for all of New York City, it is particularly problematic in Queens and Brooklyn. The official told us that with some buildings, it is extremely difficult to draw a line as to where the occupation of apartments in a building by an extended family ends and a group home situation begins. This is especially true where language barriers and fear of government may be commonplace.

In hiring census workers, the Bureau attempts to employ people familiar with local living conditions and who possess the language skills needed for particular communities. Further, the Bureau has translated questionnaires into 5 different languages and has language assistance guides available in 59 different languages to help people complete their questionnaires. Other tools to help those with limited English proficiency, such as telephone questionnaire assistance, are available as well.

In light of these demographic and housing challenges, a successful group quarters count will, at a minimum, depend on how well the Bureau executes the following activities: Complete remaining group quarters activities on schedule. Indeed, the entire census is run on an extremely tight timeline, and as the enumeration proceeds, there is little room for operational delays. Implement the group quarters quality assurance procedures as planned, and closely monitor key performance metrics to ensure that the group quarters count proceeds on track and quickly address any glitches.

Ensure that census workers have knowledge of neighborhood culture and living arrangements and possess the language skills to reach out to residents with limited English proficiency.

Concluding Observations

Mr. Chairman, with little more than a month remaining until Census Day, the Bureau’s efforts to enumerate group quarters generally appear to be on track and more robust compared to similar efforts for the 2000 Census, better positioning the Bureau for a complete and accurate headcount. In the coming weeks and months ahead, we will continue to monitor the Bureau’s progress in counting group quarters, as well as the implementation of the census as a whole, on behalf of the Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman and members of this Subcommittee, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to respond to any questions that you might have at this time.

GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments

If you have any questions on matters discussed in this statement, please contact Robert N. Goldenkoff at (202) 512-2757 or by e-mail at goldenkoffr@gao.gov. Other key contributors to this testimony include Peter Beck; Dewi Djunaidy; Richard Hung; Kirsten Lauber; Andrea Levine; Signora May; Catherine Myrick; Lisa Pearson; and Timothy Wexler.

Related GAO Products

2010 Census: Efforts to Build an Accurate Address List Are Making Progress, but Face Software and Other Challenges. GAO-10-140T. Washington, D.C.: October 21, 2009. 2010 Census: Census Bureau Continues to Make Progress in Mitigating Risks to a Successful Enumeration, but Still Faces Various Challenges. GAO-10-132T. Washington, D.C.: October 7, 2009. 2010 Census: Communications Campaign Has Potential to Boost Participation. GAO-09-525T. Washington, D.C.: March 23, 2009. 2010 Census: Fundamental Building Blocks of a Successful Enumeration Face Challenges. GAO-09-430T. Washington, D.C.: March 5, 2009. 2010 Census: The Bureau’s Plans for Reducing the Undercount Show Promise, but Key Uncertainties Remain. GAO-08-1167T. Washington, D.C.: September 23, 2008. 2010 Census: Census Bureau’s Decision to Continue with Handheld Computers for Address Canvassing Makes Planning and Testing Critical. GAO-08-936. Washington, D.C.: July 31, 2008. 2010 Census: Census at Critical Juncture for Implementing Risk Reduction Strategies. GAO-08-659T. Washington, D.C.: April 9, 2008. 2010 Census: Basic Design Has Potential, but Remaining Challenges Need Prompt Resolution. GAO-05-9. Washington, D.C.: January 12, 2005.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. The published product 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.