[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 231 (Tuesday, December 2, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71377-71381]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28247]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

 Census Bureau


Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; 2015 National 
Content Test

AGENCY: U.S. Census Bureau, Commerce.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort 
to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public 
and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on 
proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 
3506(c)(2)(A)).

DATES: To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on 
or before February 2, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental 
Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th 
and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet 
at [email protected]).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or 
copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions 
should be directed to Erin Love, Census Bureau, HQ-3H154E, Washington, 
DC 20233; (301) 763-2034 (or via email at [email protected]).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Abstract

    The 2015 National Content Test (NCT) is part of the research and 
development cycle leading up to the re-engineered 2020 Census. The 2015 
NCT will help the Census Bureau achieve one of its Strategic Goals--
developing a census that is cost-effective, improves coverage, and 
reduces operational risk.
    The first objective of this test is to evaluate and compare 
different census content, including race and Hispanic origin, 
relationship, and within-household coverage. This will be the primary 
mid-decade opportunity to compare different content strategies prior to 
making final decisions about the content in the 2020 Census. The test 
will include a reinterview to further assess the accuracy and 
reliability of the question alternatives for race, origin, and within-
household coverage.
    The second objective is to test different contact strategies for 
optimizing self-response. This includes nine different approaches to 
encouraging households to respond and, specifically, to respond using 
the less costly and more efficient Internet response option. These 
approaches include altering the timing of the first reminder, use of 
email as a reminder, altering the timing for sending the mail 
questionnaire, use of a third reminder, and sending a letter in place 
of a paper questionnaire to non-respondents.
    The third objective is to test different options for offering non-
English materials. The goal is to provide language support for 
respondents with limited English proficiency. Options being explored 
include online Spanish questionnaires, dual-language English and 
Spanish paper questionnaires and letters, and additional questionnaire 
options and support in non-English languages.
    Regarding the first objective, the classification of racial and 
ethnic responses to the decennial census by the Census Bureau adheres 
to the U.S. Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) October 30, 1997 
``Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on 
Race and Ethnicity'' (see www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg_1997standards). 
There are five minimum categories for data on race: ``White,'' ``Black 
or African American,'' ``American Indian or Alaska Native,'' ``Asian,'' 
and ``Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.'' There are two 
minimum categories for data on ethnicity: ``Hispanic or Latino'' and 
``Not Hispanic or Latino.'' The OMB standards advise that respondents 
shall be offered the option of selecting one or more racial 
designations. The OMB standards also advise that race and ethnicity are 
two distinct concepts; therefore, Hispanics or Latinos may be any race.
    The minimum categories for data on race and ethnicity for Federal 
statistics, program administrative reporting, and civil rights 
compliance reporting are defined by OMB as follows:
     American Indian or Alaska Native--A person having origins 
in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including 
Central America), and who maintains tribal affiliation or community 
attachment.
     Asian--A person having origins in any of the original 
peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent 
including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, 
Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.
     Black or African American--A person having origins in any 
of the black racial groups of Africa. Terms such as ``Haitian'' or 
``Negro'' can be used in addition to ``Black or African American.''
     Hispanic or Latino--A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, 
Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, 
regardless of race. The term, ``Spanish origin,'' can be used in 
addition to ``Hispanic or Latino.''
     Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander--A person having 
origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other 
Pacific Islands.
     White--A person having origins in any of the original 
peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.
    The 1997 OMB standards state the minimum categories that must be 
used to collect and present federal data on race and ethnicity. 
Additionally, the 1997 OMB standards permit the collection of more 
detailed information on population groups, provided that any additional 
groups can be aggregated into the minimum standard set of categories. 
Currently, the Census Bureau collects additional detailed information 
on Hispanic or Latino groups, American Indian and Alaska Native tribes, 
Asian groups, and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander groups.
    For example, responses to the race question such as ``Navajo 
Nation,'' ``Doyon,'' and ``Mayan'' are collected and tabulated in 
Census Bureau censuses and surveys, and can be aggregated into the 
total American Indian or Alaska Native population. Detailed responses 
to the race question such as ``Chinese,'' ``Asian Indian,'' and 
``Vietnamese'' are collected and tabulated, and can be aggregated into 
the total Asian population. Responses to the ethnicity question such as 
``Mexican,'' ``Puerto Rican,'' and ``Cuban'' are collected and 
tabulated in Census Bureau censuses and surveys, and can be aggregated 
into the total Hispanic or Latino population. Responses to the race 
question such as ``Native Hawaiian,'' ``Chamorro,'' or ``Fijian'' are 
collected and tabulated, and can be aggregated into the total

[[Page 71378]]

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander population.
    The 2015 NCT will test ways to collect and tabulate detailed 
information for all groups, including data for White groups, such as 
German, Irish, and Lebanese, and data for Black groups, such as African 
American, Jamaican, and Nigerian, which have not been tabulated 
previously from the question on race. Responses to the race question 
such as ``African American,'' ``Jamaican,'' or ``Nigerian'' will be 
collected and tabulated, and can be aggregated to the total Black or 
African American population. Responses to the race question such as 
``German,'' ``Irish,'' or ``Lebanese'' will be collected and tabulated, 
and can be aggregated into the total White population.
    The 2015 NCT will also test a separate ``Middle Eastern or North 
African'' category and the collection of detailed groups such as 
``Lebanese,'' ``Egyptian,'' and ``Iranian.'' Following the current OMB 
standards, Middle Eastern and North African responses are classified as 
``White.''
    The results of the 2015 NCT will guide future collection and 
tabulation of detailed information for all race and ethnicity groups.
    Plans for the 2020 Census call for the use of less costly and more 
efficient web-based response options to collect information, as opposed 
to a previous predominant reliance on paper-based questionnaires. One 
benefit of the online response mode is that it allows for more 
functionality and greater flexibility in designing questions compared 
to paper, which is constrained by space availability. With the 
advantage of new technology, the 2015 National Content Test will 
utilize web-based technology, such as internet, smart phone, tablet, 
and telephone to improve question designs and optimize reporting of 
detailed racial and ethnic groups (e.g., Samoan, Iranian, Blackfeet 
Tribe, Filipino, Jamaican, Puerto Rican, Irish, etc.).
    The web-based designs provide much more utility and flexibility for 
using detailed checkboxes and write-in spaces to elicit and collect 
data for detailed groups than traditional paper questionnaires, and 
will help collect data for both the broader OMB categories, as well as 
detailed responses across all groups.

Components of the Test

A. Race and Origin Content
    The Census Bureau conducted an extensive research undertaking as 
part of the 2010 Census--the 2010 Census Race and Hispanic Origin 
Alternative Questionnaire Experiment (AQE) (for details, see 
www.census.gov/2010census/news/press-kits/aqe/aqe.html). The 2010 AQE 
examined alternative strategies for improving the collection of data on 
a race and Hispanic origin, with four goals in mind:
    1. Increasing reporting in the standard race and ethnic categories 
as defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget;
    2. Decreasing item non-response for these questions;
    3. Increasing the accuracy and reliability of the results for this 
question; and
    4. Eliciting detailed responses for all racial and ethnic 
communities (e.g., Chinese, Mexican, Jamaican, etc.).
    The results of the AQE supported all of these objectives. 
Additionally, many individuals across communities liked the combined 
question approach. They believed it presented equity to the different 
categories. Some of the findings from this research include:
     Combining race and ethnicity into one question did not 
change the proportion of people who reported as Hispanics, Blacks, 
Asians, American Indians and Alaska Natives, or Native Hawaiians and 
Other Pacific Islanders.
     The combined question yielded higher response rates.
     The combined question increased reporting of detailed 
responses for most groups, but decreased reporting for others.
     The combined question better reflected self-identity.
    The successful strategies from the AQE research have been employed 
in the design of the Census Bureau's mid-decade research. Four key 
dimensions of the questions on race and Hispanic origin are being 
tested in the 2015 NCT. These include question format, response 
categories, wording of the instructions, and question terminology.

Question Format

    The 2015 NCT will evaluate the use of two alternative question 
format approaches for collecting data on race and ethnicity. One 
approach uses two separate questions: the first about Hispanic origin 
and the second about race (``separate questions''). The other approach 
combines the two items into one question about race and origin 
(``combined question''). The 2015 mid-decade research will test the 
approaches with new data collection methods, including internet, 
telephone, and in-person response.
    1. Separate race and origin questions: This is a modified version 
of the race and Hispanic origin format used in the 2010 Census. Updates 
since the 2010 Census include added write-in spaces and examples for 
the ``White'' and ``Black or African Am.'' response categories, removal 
of the term ``Negro,'' and an instruction to select one or more boxes 
in the Hispanic origin question.
    2. Combined question with checkboxes and write-ins on same screen: 
This is a modified version of the combined question approaches found to 
be successful in the 2010 AQE. Checkboxes are provided for the U.S. 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) standard categories (per the 1997 
Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity) 
with a corresponding write-in space for each checkbox category. In this 
version, all write-in spaces are visible at all times. Each response 
category contains six example origins, which represent the diversity of 
the geographic definitions of the OMB category. For instance, the 
``Asian'' category examples of Chinese, Filipino, Asian Indian, 
Vietnamese, Korean, and Japanese represent the six largest detailed 
Asian groups in the United States, reflecting OMB's definition of Asian 
(``A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far 
East, Southeast Asia, and the Indian subcontinent.''). Respondents do 
not have to select an OMB checkbox, but may enter a detailed response 
in the write-in space without checking a category.
    a. Combined question with checkboxes and write-ins on separate 
screens (Internet-only): In this version, the detailed origin groups 
are solicited on subsequent screens after the OMB response categories 
have been selected. On the first screen, the OMB checkbox categories 
are shown along with their six representative example groups. Once the 
OMB categories have been selected, one at a time, subsequent screens 
solicit further detail for each category that was chosen (e.g., Asian), 
using a write-in space to collect the detailed groups (e.g., Korean and 
Japanese). The intent is to separate mouse click tasks (checkbox 
categories) and typing tasks (write-ins) in an attempt to elicit 
responses that are more detailed. The same version was used as one of 
three race and origin Internet panels in the 2014 Census Test.
    3. Combined question branching with detailed checkbox screens 
(Internet-only): This version is an alternative method of soliciting 
detailed origin groups using separate screens, detailed checkboxes, and 
write-in spaces. On the first screen, the OMB checkbox categories are 
shown along with their six representative example groups. Once the OMB 
categories have been selected, one at a time, subsequent screens 
solicit

[[Page 71379]]

further detail for each category, this time using a series of 
additional checkboxes for the six largest detailed groups (e.g., 
Chinese, Filipino, Asian, Indian, Vietnamese, Korean, and Japanese) 
with a write-in space also provided to collect additional groups.

Race Response Categories

    The 2015 National Content Test will evaluate the use of the Middle 
Eastern or North African (MENA) category in the race question. There 
will be two treatments for testing this dimension:
    1. Use of MENA category: This treatment tests the addition of a 
MENA checkbox category to the race question. The MENA category is 
placed within the current category lineup, based on estimates of 
population size, between the categories for Native Hawaiians and Other 
Pacific Islanders and ``Some other race.'' With the addition of this 
new category, the ``White'' example groups are revised. The Middle 
Eastern and North African examples of ``Lebanese'' and ``Egyptian'' are 
replaced with the European examples of ``Polish'' and of ``French.'' 
The MENA checkbox category will have the examples of ``Lebanese, 
Iranian, Egyptian, Syrian, Moroccan, Algerian, etc.'' All other 
checkbox categories and write-in spaces remain the same.
    2. No separate MENA category: This treatment tests approaches 
without a separate MENA checkbox category, and represents the current 
OMB definition of White (``A person having origins in any of the 
original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.''). Here 
we will provide examples of Middle Eastern and North African origins 
(``Lebanese'' and ``Egyptian'') with European origin groups as part of 
the ``White'' racial category.

Wording of the Instructions

    1. ``Mark [X] one or more boxes'': The current paper version of the 
instructions on paper states, ``Mark [X] one or more boxes AND print 
your specific origin(s).''
    2. ``Mark all that apply/You may mark multiple groups'': In this 
version, the instruction is modified to ``Mark all boxes that apply AND 
print the specific [origin(s)/ethnicities] in the spaces below. Note, 
you may report more than one group.'' Recent qualitative focus groups 
and cognitive research (e.g., 2010 AQE research; 2013 Census Test 
research) found that respondents frequently overlook the instruction to 
``Mark'' [X] one or more boxes. The research found that some 
respondents may have stopped reading the instruction after noticing the 
visual cue [X] and proceeded directly to do just that--mark a box--
overlooking the remainder of the instruction. The new instruction 
(``Mark all boxes that apply'') is an attempt to improve the clarity of 
the question and make it more apparent that more than one group may be 
selected.

Question Terms

    1. ``Origin'' term: The current version of the race and Hispanic 
origin questions use the terms ``race'' and/or ``origin'' to describe 
the concepts and groups in the question stem, instructions, and 
examples. For instance, in the combined race and Hispanic origin 
approach, the question stem is ``What is your race or origin?'' In 
addition, prior to each write-in field, respondents are instructed to 
``Print specific origin(s), for example . . .''
    2-3. Alternative terms: Recent qualitative focus groups and 
qualitative research (e.g., 2010 AQE research; 2013 Census Test 
research; cognitive pre-testing for 2016 American Community Survey 
Content Test) found that the term ``origin'' is confusing or misleading 
to many respondents, who may think it is asking about where they 
immigrated from or where they were born. Two alternative options are 
being explored in cognitive testing and usability research. One 
approach tests the use of the term ``ethnicities'' along with ``race'' 
(e.g., ``Print the specific races(s) and/or ethnicities . . .''). The 
other approach tests the removal of the terms altogether from the 
question stem, instructions, and examples. Instead, a general approach 
asks, ``Which categories describe this person?'' The exact terminology 
to be used for the alternative version is pending cognitive testing and 
usability results later this year, which will inform the wording to be 
used in the 2015 NCT.
B. Relationship Content
    Two versions of the relationship question will be tested. Both 
versions are the same as those used in a split-sample in the 2014 
Census Test, with no changes. The new relationship categories have also 
been tested in other Census Bureau surveys including the American 
Housing Survey, American Community Survey, and the Survey of Income and 
Program Participation (currently used in production). Although research 
to date has been informative, leading to the development of the revised 
relationship question, additional quantitative testing is needed. Since 
the incidence of some household relationships--such as same-sex 
couples--is relatively low in the general population, the revised 
question needs to be tested with large, representative samples prior to 
routinely including them in the 2020 Census questionnaire.
    The first version uses the 2010 Census relationship question 
response options, but in a new order, starting with ``husband or wife'' 
and then the ``unmarried partner'' category. This version also re-
introduces the foster child category, which was removed from the 2010 
Census form due to space issues.
    The second version includes the same basic response options as the 
2010 Census version, but modifies/expands the ``husband or wife'' and 
``unmarried partner'' categories to distinguish between same-sex and 
opposite-sex relationships.
C. Coverage Content (Internet Only)
    The 2012 National Census Test experimented with several methods to 
improve accurate within-household coverage for Internet respondents. 
One benefit of the online response mode is that it allows for more 
functionality and greater flexibility in designing questions compared 
to paper, which is constrained by space availability. The 2012 test 
included a coverage follow-up reinterview to evaluate the different 
Internet design options, but some results were inconclusive. In the 
2015 NCT, two designs will be tested to compare different approaches 
for helping respondents provide a more accurate roster of household 
residents.
    The first approach is the ``Rules-Based'' approach, and will allow 
us to see whether the presence of a question asking the number of 
people in the household along with the residence rule instructions 
helps respondents create an accurate roster. This is similar to the 
approach used across all modes in Census 2000 and the 2010 Census, 
where the respondent was expected to understand our residence rules and 
apply them to their household. This is followed by a household-level 
question that probes to determine if any additional people not listed 
originally should be included for consideration as residents of the 
household (several types of people and living situations are shown in a 
bulleted list).
    The ``Question-Based'' approach allows us to ask guided questions 
to help improve resident information. Respondents are not shown the 
residence rule instructions and are only asked to create an initial 
roster of people they consider to be living or staying at their address 
on Census Day. This is followed by several short household-level 
questions about types of people and living situations that might apply 
to

[[Page 71380]]

someone in the household that was not listed originally.
D. Optimizing Self Response
    The nine proposed contact strategies for optimizing self response 
(OSR) are summarized as follows:
    Internet Push (Control): This is the standard Internet Push 
strategy used in the most recent series of self response tests, 
including the 2014 Census Test. This panel will serve as a control 
panel against which to compare the experimental strategies. There will 
be nine treatments as part of the OSR test.
    Internet Push With Early Postcard: The motivation for this panel is 
to study the timing of reminders. The hypothesis is that sending the 
first reminder sooner (closer to the initial Internet push) would 
provide for a better connection between the two mailings, and could 
increase response. A side benefit is that this could also reduce the 
volume of later targeted mailings since responses may be quicker 
overall.
    The motivation for the following sequence of three panels is based 
on recent American Community Survey (ACS) research, which has found 
depressed self response rates among certain respondents/areas with 
lower Internet usage. Testing the delivery of the paper questionnaires 
at various points in the response process will allow us to have 
complete response measures under several scenarios for the cost/benefit 
analysis needed to inform 2020 Census planning. Although these 
strategies may not make sense for everyone in 2020, using a responsive 
design and tailoring the contact strategy for certain geographic areas 
or populations may be beneficial.
     Internet Push With Early Questionnaire: questionnaire sent 
at third mailing, one week sooner
     Internet Push With Even Earlier Questionnaire: 
questionnaire sent at second mailing, two weeks sooner
     Internet Choice: questionnaire sent at first mailing, 
providing a choice of Internet or paper from the beginning
    Internet Push With Postcard as Third Reminder: The motivation for 
this panel is to further encourage self response, after the 
questionnaire mailing, prior to nonresponse follow-up. Numerous survey 
research studies have concluded that, while there is a point of 
diminishing returns, further reminders will inevitably increase self 
response rates.
    Internet Push Postcard: The motivation for this panel is to study 
the impact of sending a postcard at the first mailing instead of a 
letter. There are two potential benefits. First is the possible cost 
savings of printing and mailing a postcard compared to the envelope 
package (with letter and instruction card). Second is the potential for 
increased self response because reading a postcard requires less effort 
by a respondent. In this panel, we send a letter at the third contact 
(sent to non-respondents only), in place of a postcard, to vary the 
types of contacts received.
    Internet Push With Early Postcard and Second Letter Instead of Mail 
Questionnaire: The motivation for testing an approach in which we do 
not send a mail questionnaire is to address the high-level goal of 
greatly reducing paper responses in the 2020 Census. By testing an 
approach in which we send an Internet push letter in place of a paper 
questionnaire at the fourth mailing, we will have a more robust set of 
response measures for informing cost/benefit analyses.
    Internet Push With Postcard and Email as 1st Reminder (same time): 
The motivation for this panel is to determine if we can take advantage 
of the email addresses in the supplemental contact frame maintained by 
the Center for Administrative Records Research and Applications. The 
hypothesis is that by sending a postcard and email at the same time, we 
may be able to elicit increased response.
E. Language
    In the two mailings that contain a letter for each Optimizing Self 
response strategy, three different methods will be used to encourage 
response. In particular, by altering the language support provided in 
the letter, the goal is to increase response for respondents with 
limited English proficiency.
    The control panel is similar to the 2014 Census Test design, in 
which the mailing materials are in English with a single Spanish 
sentence directing respondents to the Web site or the telephone 
assistance line.
    One of the goals of language research is to maximize the number of 
non-English speakers that receive the same message as English speakers 
prior to going online to respond. Two panels provide equality between 
the English and Spanish content in the letter and test whether one 
method is better at eliciting Spanish responses. The swim-lane design 
has been used in the past, such as with the bilingual questionnaire in 
the 2010 Census. The dual-sided letter provides English content on one 
side and Spanish content on the other side. In addition, because 
research has shown that Spanish-speaking respondents do not always open 
the mailings because they may not know that language resource 
information is provided inside, the outgoing envelope for both panels 
will include the census test Web site URL and a brief message in both 
languages.
    This test will also explore additional options for non-English 
speakers to complete the questionnaires.
F. Content Reinterview
    A sub-sample of respondents from the 2015 NCT will be selected for 
a content reinterview, focused on race and origin and within-household 
coverage, with a goal of assessing accuracy and reliability of the 
different designs. Reinterviews are conducted with a sub-sample of 
respondents, by asking more detailed questions on question topics, in 
order to assess the accuracy of the responses.

II. Method of Collection

    The initial mail-out is planned for late August 2015. This contact 
will explain why we are conducting the mandatory 2015 NCT, assure 
respondents that their answers are confidential, and inform them of the 
measures we take to keep their personal information secure. The second 
mail-out is considered a reminder and is sent to all housing units. All 
contacts after the second mailing are sent to non-respondents only.
    Respondents are encouraged to respond to the 2015 NCT by Internet 
but may also be able to provide information by phone. Many will also 
receive a paper questionnaire at some point in the mail-out strategy. 
The test will be conducted nationally in all 50 U.S. states, the 
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.

III. Data

    OMB Control Number: None.
    Form Number: TBD.
    Type of Review: Regular submission.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1.3 million households. (1.2 
million initial response + 100,000 reinterview).
    Estimated Time per Response: 10 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 216,667.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: There is no cost to respondents except 
for their time to respond.
    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.
    Legal Authority: Title 13 U.S.C. 141 and 193.

IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of 
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of 
the agency, including whether the information shall have

[[Page 71381]]

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the 
burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of 
information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of 
the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of 
the collection of information on respondents, including through the use 
of automated collection techniques or other forms of information 
technology.
    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized 
and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information 
collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: November 25, 2014.
Glenna Mickelson,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-28247 Filed 12-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-07-P