According to the Bureau, no accurate estimate exists of the total number of Americans living abroad. The Constitution and federal law give the Bureau discretion to decide whether to count American citizens living abroad. In prior censuses, the Bureau has generally included “federally affiliated” groups—members of the military and federal employees and their dependents—but has excluded private citizens residing abroad from all but the 1960 and 1970 Censuses. The 2000 Census, using administrative records, found 576,367 federally affiliated Americans residing overseas, including 226,363 military personnel, 30,576 civilian employees, and 319,428 dependents of both groups. In response to congressional direction and the concerns of various private organizations, the Census Bureau launched a research and evaluation program to assess the practicality of counting both private and federally affiliated U.S. citizens residing abroad. The key part of this effort, the enumeration, took place from February 2004 through July 2, 2004, in France, Kuwait, and Mexico. 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. Currently, the Bureau is processing and analyzing the overseas questionnaire data and plans to complete an evaluation of the test results in early 2005. The Bureau estimates that it will have spent approximately $7.8 million in fiscal years 2003 through 2005 to plan, conduct, and evaluate the 2004 test. The Bureau has requested additional funds for fiscal year 2005 to plan for further testing scheduled for 2006. The Bureau also plans to include overseas testing in the 2008 dress rehearsal if it were to receive the necessary funding. In May 2004 we reported on the design of the overseas enumeration test and concluded that because of various methodological limitations, the test results will only partially answer the Bureau’s key research objectives concerning feasibility (as measured by such indicators as participation and number of valid returns), data quality, and cost. Further, we noted that the Bureau should not decide on its own whether or not to enumerate Americans overseas, and in fact would need congressional guidance on how to proceed. As shown in figure 1, the key decisions facing Congress in this regard include, in addition to the threshold question of whether American residing overseas should be counted, how the data should be used and whether to enumerate this population group as part of the decennial census. We also recommended that if further testing were to occur, that the Bureau resolve the shortcomings of the design of the 2004 test and better address the objectives of an overseas enumeration. As agreed with your offices, our objectives for this report were to assess (1) whether the Bureau implemented the test consistent with its design, and (2) the initial lessons learned from the test results and their implications for future overseas enumerations. To assess the first objective, we interviewed Bureau officials and compared the Bureau's test plans with what was actually done at the three test sites. We visited Paris, France, and Guadalajara, Mexico, to obtain the views of 12 private, civic, and other organizations on the implementation of the overseas census test, and/or to confirm at 36 organizations the availability of census material. In addition, to a more limited extent, we interviewed officials from third party organizations in Kuwait via the telephone or e-mail. We judgmentally selected these organizations because they had agreed to display census promotional materials and, in some cases, had also agreed to do one or more of the following activities: make available paper copies of the census questionnaire, publish information in a newsletter, post a link to a Web site, send outreach e-mail to members, and/or create speaking opportunities to discuss the census. The results of these visits are not necessarily representative of the larger universe of third-party organizations. To assess the implications of the test results on future overseas enumerations and the 2010 census, we obtained from Bureau officials preliminary results of the overseas census by test site and response mode as well as cost data. We also interviewed officials from the Bureau and third-party organizations to determine what lessons were learned from the test and the implications on future overseas enumeration efforts. The Bureau’s design for the 2004 overseas enumeration test was generally implemented as planned and completed on schedule. The Bureau’s design had four key components: the mode of response, the questionnaire designed specifically for Americans living overseas, three test sites, and an outreach and promotion program designed to communicate and educate Americans abroad that a test census was being conducted. Table 1 describes each of these components in greater detail. However, while the test was generally implemented as designed, our earlier report pointed out several methodological limitations with the design, such as not being able to calculate response rates because the universe of Americans is unknown or not being able to measure the quality of data because of the impracticality of developing an address list. As we discuss later in this report, it is these methodological limitations that impede the Bureau’s ability to implement a successful overseas enumeration. Although the 2004 overseas enumeration test ended in early July 2004 and the Bureau has just begun evaluating the results, the response levels were poor, and very expensive to obtain on a per unit basis. The response level to the overseas enumeration suggests that the current approach to counting overseas Americans—a voluntary survey that relies heavily on marketing to get people to participate—by itself cannot secure a successful head count. Further, obtaining the additional resources needed to produce substantially better results may not be feasible, and still not yield data that are comparable in quality to the stateside enumeration. The 5,390 responses the Bureau received for this test were far below what the Bureau planned for when printing up materials and census forms. While the Bureau ordered 520,000 paper forms for 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 below shows the number of census questionnaires that the Bureau printed for each country and the number of responses they actually received in both the paper format and via the Internet. Because of the low response levels, in early April 2004, the Bureau reversed its decision to not use paid advertising and in May 2004 initiated a paid advertising campaign in France and Mexico. This included print and Internet ads in France and print and radio ads in Mexico. See figure 2 for examples of the ads used in the paid advertising campaign. A Bureau official told us the ad campaign for the 2004 overseas test cost about $206,000. This official said there were surplus funds available in the project budget to use for this purpose due to lower than expected processing and postage costs for the overseas test. While the Bureau saw some increase in the number of responses after the paid advertising campaign began, this official said the increase was slight. Not only were response levels low, they were extremely expensive to obtain on a unit basis—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. In contrast, the unit cost of the 2000 Census was about $56 per household. Although the two surveys are not directly comparable because the 2000 Census costs covered operations not used in the overseas test, the 2000 Census was still the most expensive census in our nation’s history. The main reason for the high unit cost is the low return rate. However, significantly boosting participation levels may not be feasible. The Bureau’s experience in the 2000 Census highlights the level of effort that was needed to raise public awareness about the census and get people to complete their forms. For the 2000 decennial, the Bureau spent $374 million on a comprehensive marketing, communications, and partnership effort. The campaign consisted of a five-part strategy conducted in three waves beginning in the fall of 1999 and continuing past Census Day (April 1, 2000). The effort helped secure a 72-percent return rate. 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. The Bureau also filled 594 full-time partnership specialist positions. These individuals were responsible for mobilizing support for the census on a grassroots basis by working with governmental entities, private companies, and religious and social service groups, and other organizations. 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. Moreover, because there are no reliable figures on the number of Americans residing overseas, the Bureau would not have a good measure of the number of people that did not participate, or the overall quality of the data. The Bureau’s experience in conducting the 2004 overseas test underscored the difficulties of administering a complex operation from thousands of miles away. Not surprisingly, as with any operation this complex, various challenges and unforeseen problems arose. While the Bureau was able to resolve them, its ability to do so should there be a full overseas enumeration as part of the 2010 Census, would be highly questionable as far more resources would be required. This was particularly evident in at least two areas: grappling with country-specific issues and overseeing the contractor responsible for raising public awareness of the census at the three test sites. The Bureau encountered a variety of implementation problems at each of the test sites. In some cases the problems were known in advance, in others, glitches developed at the last minute. Although such difficulties are to be expected given the magnitude of the Bureau’s task, a key lesson learned from the test is that there would be no economy of scale in ramping up to a full enumeration of Americans abroad.