    Decennial Census: Lessons Learned for Locating and Counting
    Migrant and Seasonal Farm Workers (03-JUL-03, GAO-03-605).

    One of the U.S. Census Bureau's (Bureau) long-standing challenges
    has been counting migrant farm workers. Although the Bureau goes
    to great lengths to locate these individuals, its efforts are
    often hampered by the unconventional and hidden housing
    arrangements, distrust of outsiders, and language and literacy
    issues often associated with this population group. To help
    inform the planning for the 2010 Census, we were asked to review
    the adequacy of the Bureau's procedures for locating migrant farm
    workers and their dwellings during the 2000 Census, and the
    steps, if any, that the Bureau can take to improve those
    procedures.
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-03-605
        ACCNO:   A07460
      TITLE:     Decennial Census: Lessons Learned for Locating and
    Counting Migrant and Seasonal Farm Workers
         DATE:   07/03/2003
      SUBJECT:   Migrant or seasonal worker programs
    	     Data collection
    	     Data integrity
    	     Internal controls
    	     Strategic planning
    	     Census
    	     Census Bureau Master Address File
    	     2000 Decennial Census
    	     2010 Decennial Census

    ******************************************************************
    ** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
    ** GAO Product.                                                 **
    **                                                              **
    ** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
    ** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
    ** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
    **                                                              **
    ** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
    ** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
    ** document's contents.                                         **
    **                                                              **
    ******************************************************************
    GAO-03-605

                                           A

    Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Government Reform,
    House of Representatives

    July 2003 DECENNIAL CENSUS Lessons Learned for Locating and Counting
    Migrant and Seasonal Farm Workers

    GAO- 03- 605

    Contents Letter 1

    Results in Brief 1 Background 3 Scope and Methodology 4 The Bureau*s
    Listing Operations Addressed Some of the Barriers to

    Locating Migrant and Seasonal Farm Workers but Significant Challenges
    Remain 6 Greater Use of Partnership Program and Innovative Practices Could

    Improve the Bureau*s Ability to Locate Migrant Farm Workers in the Future
    18 Conclusions 22 Recommendations for Executive Action 22 Agency Comments
    and Our Evaluation 23

    Appendixes

    Appendix I: Comments from the Secretary of Commerce 25

    Appendix II: Related GAO Products on the Results of the 2000 Census and
    Lessons Learned for a More Effective Census in 2010 27

    Table Table 1: Listing Operations Addressed Only Some of the Challenges
    Associated With Locating Migrant Farm Workers*

    Dwellings 11 Figures Figure 1: Barriers to Locating and Counting Migrant
    Farm Workers 4

    Figure 2: Be Counted Forms in a California Grocery Store 9 Figure 3:
    Timeline of Address List Building Operations 10 Figure 4: Habitable
    Dwellings Could be Hard to Identify 13 Figure 5: Single or Multi- unit
    Dwelling? 14 Figure 6: Migrant Labor Camp 15 Figure 7: Migrant Labor Camps
    Were Sometimes Fenced- in and

    Difficult to Access 16 Figure 8: Training Materials in McAllen, Tex.,
    Arrived Too Late to Be Used 17

    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.

    Letter

    July 3, 2003 The Honorable Henry A. Waxman Ranking Minority Member
    Committee on Government Reform House of Representatives Dear Mr. Waxman:
    One of the U. S. Census Bureau*s (Bureau) long- standing challenges has
    been counting migrant and seasonal farm workers. Although the Bureau takes
    extra steps to count these individuals, its efforts are hampered by the
    frequent moves, temporary and unconventional housing arrangements,
    overcrowded dwellings, and language barriers that often accompany this
    population.

    A cost- effective count of migrant farm workers, like all population
    groups, begins with an accurate address list and precise maps. Together,
    they help ensure that questionnaires are properly delivered; unnecessary
    and costly follow- up efforts at vacant or nonexistent residences are
    reduced; and people are counted in their usual place of residence, which
    is the basis for congressional reapportionment and redistricting.
    According to the Bureau, dwellings not on the address list at the time of
    questionnaire delivery are less likely to be counted.

    The Bureau is currently developing and testing its operations for the 2010
    Census, and plans to design specific operations for locating migrant farm
    workers and their dwellings later in the decade. At your request, to help
    inform those efforts, we reviewed the adequacy of the Bureau*s operations
    for locating migrant farm workers and their dwellings during the 2000
    Census, and the steps, if any, that the Bureau can take to improve those
    operations as it plans for the next national head count in 2010. This
    report is the latest in a series of evaluations on the results of the 2000
    Census and the Bureau*s plans for 2010. It is also one of several that we
    have issued on

    the Bureau*s efforts to build a complete and accurate address list. (See
    app. II for the list of reports issued to date.)

    Results in Brief The Bureau used over a dozen operations to help ensure
    the maps and Master Address File (MAF) used for the 2000 Census were as
    complete and

    accurate as possible. To the extent they were properly implemented, the
    operations appear to have been adequate for overcoming the challenge of

    identifying the hidden dwellings in which many migrant farm workers live,
    such as illegally converted apartments and labor camps.

    The operations were generally not as well suited to overcoming other
    challenges associated with locating migrant farm workers. For example,
    many migrant farm workers speak little or no English, which made it
    difficult for them to provide address information to census workers. The
    Bureau was better able to surmount these challenges by relying on local
    advocacy groups and other members of the community who knew where and how
    migrant farm workers lived, and could facilitate the Bureau*s access to
    those areas because the migrant farm workers trusted them.

    The Bureau also experienced sporadic difficulties implementing operations
    used to build the MAF, which created various inefficiencies. For example,
    at some local census offices, materials used to train census workers on
    how to update the address list and enumerate people were delivered late.
    This created extra work for some regional and local census offices when
    they had to print the materials from e- mail messages.

    The Bureau*s plans for the 2010 Census include an ambitious program to
    modernize the MAF and the Bureau*s database that supports its mapping
    efforts, called the Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and
    Referencing (TIGER) system. Although these efforts are steps in the right
    direction, additional improvements are needed to help the Bureau better
    locate migrant farm workers and their dwellings.

    We identified several innovative practices in this regard that regional
    and local census offices employed during the 2000 Census that, with
    refinements, show promise for nationwide use in 2010. For example, during

    the 2000 Census, a regional census office accepted address information
    from a migrant farm worker advocacy group that contained more than 3,000
    housing units that were not already on the Bureau*s address list.

    However, the Bureau lacked protocols governing when and how to use address
    information from outside sources. Moreover, while the Bureau had an active
    partnership program with state and local governments, community groups,
    and other organizations to support key census- taking activities, it was
    not fully staffed until after most of the address list development
    operations had taken place, which limited the extent to which the
    partnership program could add value to those efforts. Using census,
    address, and other data strategically to help plan operations and target
    resources to those areas where migrant farm workers are prevalent could
    also help the Bureau better locate this population group.

    With this in mind, to help improve the Bureau*s ability to locate migrant
    farm workers and their dwellings, we recommend that the Secretary of
    Commerce direct the Bureau to explore the feasibility of implementing
    these innovative practices nationwide, take steps to resolve the various

    implementation difficulties the Bureau experienced, and make better use of
    census and other available data to identify areas with large numbers of
    migrant farm workers to better plan operations and target resources more
    efficiently.

    The Secretary of Commerce forwarded written comments from the Bureau of
    the Census on a draft of this report. The comments are reprinted in
    appendix I. The Bureau generally agreed with our conclusions and will work
    towards implementing the recommendations in the report.

    Background The foundation of a successful census is a complete and
    accurate address list and the maps that go with it. The Bureau*s MAF is an
    inventory of the nation*s roughly 120 million living quarters and serves
    as the basic control for the census in that it is used to deliver
    questionnaires as well as organize the collection and tabulation of data.
    The Bureau develops its maps from its TIGER database, which contains such
    information as housing unit

    locations, zip codes, streets, geographic borders, census tract and block
    boundaries, railroads, airports, and schools. The Bureau goes to great
    lengths to develop a quality address list and maps, working with the U. S.
    Postal Service; federal agencies; state, local, and tribal governments;
    local planning organizations; the private sector; and nongovernmental
    entities. The Bureau also sends thousands of temporary census workers into
    the field to verify address information on site. For the 2000 Census, the
    Bureau spent around $390 million on its address list compilation
    activities, which was about 6 percent of the $6.5 billion spent on the
    census, or about $3.33 for each housing unit.

    Despite these efforts, the Bureau has historically encountered
    difficulties locating the dwellings of migrant farm workers because of a
    variety of obstacles ranging from workers* literacy levels to their legal
    status (see fig. 1). The net result is that migrants* places of residence
    may not get included in the MAF, which decreases their chances of being
    counted in the census.

    Figure 1: Barriers to Locating and Counting Migrant Farm Workers 1.
    Distrust of outsiders. As some migrant farm workers lack proper legal
    status, they often fear

    talking to strangers, especially those representing the government.

    2. Unconventional housing arrangements. Migrant housing often consists of
    employer- provided dormitories, cabins, and trailers arrayed in labor
    camps. In some cases, the camps are illegal and unregistered, and thus
    would not appear on any official listings. In other cases, the camps might
    be legal, but might not be registered in time for the census. Some camps
    are remote from main roads and lack street addresses, while others have
    blocked access roads, barbed wire fences, locked gates, and *No
    Trespassing* signs. Although landlords are legally required to let census
    workers onto their property, employers* concerns over reduced
    productivity, as well as being penalized for hiring undocumented workers
    and violating housing codes, may make them less than fully cooperative.
    Migrant workers are also known to reside in motels, and *hidden*
    dwellings, such as sheds, illegally converted basement apartments,
    makeshift campgrounds,

    and cars.

    3. Language and literacy. Many migrant farm workers know little, if any,
    English. Others have low education levels, little or no reading skills,
    and may have difficulty completing official forms and speaking to census
    workers who do not speak their language. As a result, making forms and
    outreach material available in the workers* native language may, in some
    instances, have a limited impact.

    4. Mobility. Migrant farm workers regularly move in response to the
    seasonal demands of the growers who employ them. They also return to visit
    their home countries. Their transient nature increases the chances of
    being missed by the census. Source: Compiled from Census- Bureau-
    sponsored research, 1992- 1997, unvetted or verified by GAO.

    Ensuring that migrant farm workers are included in the census is important
    for at least two reasons. First, the Bureau is legally required to count
    all persons who reside in the United States on Census Day, regardless of
    their citizenship status or whether they are here legally or illegally.
    Second, according to the Bureau, migrant and seasonal farm workers have
    unique

    health, job safety, training, education, and other requirements. Federal,
    state, and local governments as well as other organizations use census
    data to plan and fund many of the programs that address these needs. Scope
    and

    Our objectives were to (1) review the adequacy of the Bureau*s operations
    Methodology

    for locating migrant farm workers and their dwellings during the 2000
    Census, and (2) identify how, if at all, the Bureau can improve those
    operations for the next decennial census in 2010. Because the Bureau does
    not keep data on how well its address list development operations located
    the dwellings of specific population groups such as migrant farm workers
    (the operations were developed to locate dwellings regardless of who might
    live in them), to meet our two objectives we examined relevant

    Bureau program and research documents. We also interviewed key Bureau
    headquarters officials who were responsible for planning and implementing
    the address list development operations. Moreover, to obtain a local
    perspective on how the Bureau implemented its address list development
    operations and tried to overcome the challenges of locating the dwellings
    of migrant farm workers, we interviewed Bureau officials from 4 of its 12
    regional offices (i. e., Atlanta, Charlotte, Dallas, and Los Angeles). We
    also interviewed former local census workers in Central California and
    Florida who helped conduct local address listing. We selected these areas
    primarily for their geographic dispersion and

    demographic diversity, and because these areas were identified before the
    2000 Census as having a large number of migrant farm workers. Because of
    the small sample size, the results of our visits cannot be generalized to
    the

    Bureau*s MAF- building efforts as a whole, but they do provide useful
    lessons and innovative practices that the Bureau could consider for 2010.
    We also included the results of our earlier work that consisted of on-
    site observations of block canvassing* an operation the Bureau used to
    verify the accuracy of *city- style* addresses. 1 We made these
    observations when the operation was underway in the spring of 1999 in
    Dallas, Tex; Los

    Angeles, Calif.; Paterson, N. J.; and Long Island, N. Y., which we chose
    for their geographic and demographic diversity. 2

    We also included the results of our survey of a stratified random sample
    of 250 local census office managers in which we obtained responses from
    236 managers (about a 94 percent overall response rate). The survey* which
    asked local census office managers about the implementation of a number of
    key field operations* can be generalized to the 511 local census offices
    located in the 50 states. All reported percentages are estimates based on
    the sample and are subject to some sampling error as well as nonsampling
    error. In general, percentage estimates in this report for the entire
    sample

    have a sampling error ranging from about +/- 4 to +/- 5 percentage points
    at the 95 percent confidence interval. In other words, if all local census
    office managers in our population had been surveyed, the chances are 95
    out of

    1 City- style addresses are those where the U. S. Postal Service uses
    house- number and streetname addresses for mail delivery. Non- city- style
    addresses include post office boxes, rural route addresses, etc.

    2 U. S. General Accounting Office, Decennial Census: Information on the
    Accuracy of Address Coverage, GAO/ GGD- 00- 29R (Washington D. C: Nov. 19,
    1999).

    100 that the result obtained would not differ from our sample estimate in
    the more extreme cases by more than +/- 5 percent.

    To provide further local context, we interviewed representatives of farm
    worker and other advocacy groups that worked with the Bureau to develop
    accurate address lists in Florida, Georgia, and California, as well as
    representatives of local governments who provided local address
    information to the Bureau. Moreover, we interviewed growers in Florida to
    discuss how they worked with the Census Bureau. In addition to these field
    locations, we performed our audit work at Bureau headquarters in Suitland,
    Md., as well as in Washington, D. C.

    We performed our audit work for this report from September 2001 through
    April 2003, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
    standards. We requested comments on a draft of this report from the
    Secretary of Commerce. On June 2, 2003, the Secretary forwarded the
    Bureau*s written comments on the draft (see app. I), which we address in

    the *Agency Comments and Our Evaluation* section of this report. The
    Bureau*s Listing

    The Bureau used more than a dozen operations to help ensure a complete
    Operations Addressed

    and accurate address list. Although the operations were designed to locate
    various types of dwellings, not population groups as a whole, if properly
    Some of the Barriers to

    implemented their design appears to have been adequate for identifying the
    Locating Migrant and

    hidden living arrangements in which a number of migrant and seasonal
    Seasonal Farm

    farm workers live. However, the operations were generally not as well
    suited to overcoming language and other challenges associated with Workers
    but Significant locating these population groups. Moreover, various
    implementation Challenges Remain problems hampered the Bureau*s activities
    at certain locations.

    The Bureau*s Operations The MAF consists of two types of dwellings:
    housing units such as singlefamily

    Could Not Overcome homes, apartments, and mobile homes and what the Bureau
    calls

    Certain Challenges *special places and group quarters.* A special place is
    an entity with which

    a group quarter is linked. For example, a university is a special place
    and a dormitory is a group quarter linked to the university. To build the
    master address list for the 2000 Census, the Bureau employed over a dozen
    operations nationwide between 1997 and 2000. Each operation was geared
    toward locating either housing units or special

    places, although both address types could be added to the MAF by most of

    the operations. The Bureau enhanced these *standard* address list
    development operations with supplemental procedures for use in areas with
    large migrant farm worker populations that directed Bureau employees to,
    among other actions, check vehicles for evidence of

    habitation. Operations aimed at locating and verifying the existence of
    housing units included, among others:

     United States Postal Service File Transfer (November 1997), where the
    Postal Service electronically shared with the Bureau the address lists it
    uses to deliver mail. The MAF was updated periodically by the Postal
    Service data between November 1997 and January 2000.

     Local Update of Census Addresses (May 1998* June 2000), where local and
    tribal government officials reviewed and updated the Bureau*s address
    lists and maps. Participating governments could submit their changes in
    paper or electronic form.  Address Listing (July 1998* May 1999), a field
    operation where census

    workers traveled the roads in areas with mail delivery systems that are
    not predominately based on street names and street addresses, identifying
    housing units and updating census maps as necessary.  Block Canvassing
    (January* July 1999), a field operation where census

    workers verified the addresses of all the housing units in areas with mail
    delivery systems that are predominately based on street names and street
    addresses, and updated census maps as necessary.  Update/ Leave and
    Update/ Enumerate (March* July 2000), field

    operations where census workers either distributed a census questionnaire
    to be returned by mail (update/ leave) or, in certain areas, attempted to
    enumerate the household. The address list would be updated at the same
    time.

     Nonresponse Follow- up (April* June 2000), where temporary census
    workers attempted to enumerate households for which a questionnaire was
    not returned by mail. Any dwellings not on the workers* assignment lists
    were also to be enumerated and possibly added to the MAF.

    Operations meant to locate primarily special places and group quarters
    included, among others:

     Advance Visit and Facility Questionnaire operations (November 1998*
    March 2000), where temporary census workers personally visited with
    officials of special places to identify locations and specific dwellings.

     Special Places Local Update of Census Addresses (December 1999* May
    2000), where local government officials reviewed and updated the Bureau*s
    list of special places.

     Local Knowledge Update (January* February 2000), where local census
    office staff reviewed the Bureau*s list of special places and added,
    deleted, or corrected special place names and addresses as appropriate. If
    all of these operations failed to find a dwelling, people could still be

    included in the census through the Be Counted program, which the Bureau
    developed to enumerate people who believed they did not receive a census
    questionnaire, or were otherwise not included in the census. The program
    also allowed people with no usual residence on Census Day such as
    migrants, seasonal farm workers, and transients to get counted in the
    census. The Bureau placed Be Counted forms (specially modified shortform
    questionnaires) in community centers, churches, groceries, and other
    locations where the targeted groups were thought to congregate (see fig.
    2).

    Figure 2: Be Counted Forms in a California Grocery Store

    As shown in figure 3, the MAF- building operations were sequential and
    took place between 1997 and 2000, which helped ensure that an address
    missed in one operation could be found in a subsequent operation. For
    example, if an unconventional dwelling was not recognized as habitable
    during an early operation such as address listing, it could be found
    during a later operation, such as update/ leave.

    Figure 3: Timeline of Address List Building Operations MAF- building
    operation 1997 1998 1999 2000

    OND J FMAM JJ A SON JD JFM A M J JAS ON DJF M A M JJ ASO ND Postal Service
    file transfer Local update of census addresses

    Address listing Block canvassing Supplemental procedures Advanced visit/
    facility questionnaire

    Special places local update of census addresses

    Local knowledge update Update/ leave and upate/ enumerate

    Be Counted program Nonresponse follow- up Source: GAO analysis of U. S.
    Census Bureau documents.

    Overall, to the extent that they were properly implemented, the design of
    the Bureau*s MAF- building operations appears to have been adequate for
    identifying the hidden and unconventional dwellings in which many migrant
    farm workers reside. Indeed, of the 11 operations below, 9 involved on-
    site verification by census workers or input from knowledgeable local
    officials, which made it more likely that hidden dwellings would be found
    (see table 1). The two that do not are the Postal Service file transfer
    and the

    Be Counted program.

    Tabl e 1: Listing Operations Addressed Only Some of the Challenges
    Associated With Locating Migrant Farm Workers* Dwellings

    MAF- building operation

    Postal Service file transfer

    Local update of census addresses Supplemental Advance visit/ facility
    Special places local update of census

    Local knowledge Update/ leave and Be Counted Nonresponse Hidden and

    unconventional Distrust of housing Address listing

    lived and could speak their language, and could thus ease the Bureau*s
    access to those areas. Local offices in the Dallas census region hired
    residents of the colonias (small, rural, unincorporated communities along
    the U. S.- Mexico border) as cultural facilitators to accompany temporary
    census employees on their assignments. Their presence helped reduce
    barriers that would have prevented the census employees from obtaining a

    successful interview. However, cultural facilitators were not deployed
    during the two major MAF development operations, address listing and block
    canvassing. Instead, the Bureau used cultural facilitators for later
    operations that could add or delete addresses from the MAF, but were
    geared toward enumeration.

    If deployed during block canvassing and address listing, cultural
    facilitators could accompany census workers and, because of their
    knowledge of local living conditions, help them determine whether any of
    the sheds, cars, boxes, and other potential shelters they might encounter
    were in fact habitable dwellings. This would be important because although
    the Bureau took steps to train workers to look for extra mailboxes,
    utility meters, and other signs of habitation, decisions on what was a
    habitable dwelling were often subjective-- what was habitable to one
    worker may have been uninhabitable to another. Even with the Bureau*s
    guidelines and training, deciding whether a house is unfit for habitation
    or

    merely unoccupied and boarded- up can be very difficult. An incorrect
    decision on the part of the census worker could have caused the dwelling
    and its occupants to get missed by the census. Conversely, if the dwelling
    was listed as habitable when it was not, it could have received a
    questionnaire and follow- up visits during the enumeration phase, thus
    increasing the cost of the census. Nationally, 8. 2 percent of the roughly
    120 million housing units on the Bureau*s address list at the start of
    Census 2000 were later determined to be nonexistent.

    We observed this challenge first- hand on one of our site visits, where a
    representative of a farm worker advocacy group showed us a housing unit
    that he said was not on the Bureau*s address list. As can be seen below,
    the housing unit in question was a small wooden structure behind a larger
    house that could have easily been mistaken for a storage shed (see fig.
    4).

    Figure 4: Habitable Dwellings Could be Hard to Identify

    Census workers would have needed a fair amount of cultural sensitivity and
    knowledge of local living conditions to recognize the structure as a
    potential residence. Although census workers were instructed to make every
    effort to make contact with adult farm workers who lived in the area,

    the farm workers did not always tell the truth because the dwellings were
    sometimes illegal or the inhabitants undocumented.

    Living quarters were difficult to identify in other ways. For example, as
    shown in figure 5, what appears to be a small, single- family house could
    contain an illegal apartment as suggested by its two doorbells.

    Figure 5: Single or Multi- unit Dwelling?

    Implementation Difficulties Implementation and logistical problems at some
    locations also hampered

    Added to the Bureau*s the Bureau*s efforts to locate migrant and seasonal
    farm workers. They Challenges in Finding

    included the following: Migrant and Seasonal Farm

     Accessing labor camps and farms was often difficult. We found the
    Workers migrant labor camp and farm shown in figure 6 off of a state road
    on one

    of our site visits. Although this particular camp was readily visible and
    the farm owner was willing to have census workers come onto his land, this
    was not always the case at other farms.

    Figure 6: Migrant Labor Camp Indeed, as shown in figure 7, some
    dormitories were fenced- in and posted with *No Trespassing* signs, while
    others were in remote locations away from main roads. Although property
    owners are required by law to allow census workers onto their land to
    enumerate residents, owners sometimes created an unwelcome and
    intimidating atmosphere. For example, a census worker at one of our site
    visits told us that one farm with worker housing on its premises was
    patrolled by armed guards.

    Figure 7: Migrant Labor Camps Were Sometimes Fenced- in and Difficult to
    Access

     Training materials for MAF- building and enumeration operations arrived
    late. Local and regional Bureau staff we contacted reported that, for a
    variety of reasons, training materials often arrived later than they had
    planned and, in some cases, so late that extra steps had to be taken by
    local offices to ensure that training could take place on schedule. For
    example, at one office we visited, the late materials created

    unnecessary staff work when an official from the McAllen, Tex., local
    census office reported that he had to drive 142 miles to the Laredo, Tex.,
    local census office to obtain copies of needed training materials. As
    shown in figure 8, the boxes of training kits arrived too late to be used.
    Other local census office managers said that they received multiple
    revisions of the same training materials, which caused confusion. Bureau
    officials told us that special place and group quarters

    procedures were of a lower priority than other procedures and, therefore,
    the procedures and training materials were not finalized until very late.
    Local census office managers in the Bureau*s Atlanta and Los Angeles
    regions reported that they had to print training materials from

    e- mail attachments finalized and received the night before training was
    scheduled to begin. Bureau guidance encouraged trainers to collect,
    organize, and study the training materials well in advance of their
    training session, but the late receipt of these materials impeded their
    ability to do so. According to one regional office official, the late
    arrival of training materials resulted in some local office officials
    being unprepared to run field operations.

    Figure 8: Training Materials in McAllen, Tex., Arrived Too Late to Be Used

     The system for managing field operations confused local census staff.

    The Bureau used an automated system to track field operations. However,
    one of its shortcomings was that it did not show a group quarters (e. g.,
    a dormitory) that was in one local census office*s jurisdiction, if the
    group quarters was linked to a special place (a

    college) in another office*s jurisdiction. In addition, the two sets of
    instructions that told workers how to handle these situations conflicted
    with one another. One set of instructions stated that the local census
    office in which the special place resides *must handle all operations
    associated with the special place,* while a second set of instructions
    noted that local census offices were responsible for enumerating all group
    quarters within their area.

    Additionally, to avoid this shortcoming, regional census office officials
    told us that local census office staff, when keying data into the
    automated system, sometimes gave the group quarters located outside of
    their area an address that was inside their office*s jurisdiction so that
    the group quarters would show up as part of the office*s workload. Because
    this group quarters then had an incorrect address, its residents

    wound up being counted in the wrong geographic location. Greater Use of

    Bureau officials told us that because it is relatively early in the
    decade, its Partnership Program

    plans for locating and enumerating migrant farm workers are still being
    developed. However, the Bureau has launched an ambitious MAF/ TIGER and
    Innovative

    modernization program. As part of this effort, the Bureau plans to correct
    Practices Could

    the locations of streets and other map features; work with state, local,
    and Improve the Bureau*s tribal governments to obtain better geographic
    information; and modernize its geographic data processing operations. The
    Bureau*s longer term plans Ability to Locate

    include equipping census workers with Global Positioning System Migrant
    Farm Workers

    receivers that use satellites to help them determine the precise locations
    of housing units and group quarters and validate the accuracy of each in
    the Future address.

    If successfully implemented, the Bureau*s enhancements could produce more
    accurate maps that would pinpoint individual dwellings. However, for these
    initiatives to work effectively for migrant farm workers, the Bureau must
    first know where to look for migrant and seasonal farm workers* dwellings
    and be able to overcome challenges to identifying where they live. In the
    course of our review, we identified several practices from the

    2000 Census that show promise in this regard for 2010.  Leverage
    partnerships. The Bureau partnered with state, local, and

    tribal governments as well as religious, media, educational, and other
    community organizations to improve participation in the 2000 Census and to
    mobilize support for other operations. The partnership program stemmed
    from the Bureau*s recognition that local people know the characteristics
    of their communities better than the Census Bureau. 3 The city of Los
    Angeles (L. A.), for example, directed Department of

    Water and Power employees, sanitation, and many other city workers to 3
    For more information on the Bureau*s partnership program, see U. S.
    General Accounting Office, 2000 Census: Review of Partnership Program
    Highlights Best Practices for Future Operations, GAO- 01- 579 (Washington,
    D. C.: Aug. 20, 2001).

    identify dwellings that the Bureau may have missed as part of its address-
    list development operations. The city selected these employees because
    they went door- to- door as part of their work, and could thus help find
    nonstandard dwellings. L. A. *s Information Technology Agency developed a
    10- minute video that described the importance of the effort and how to
    find unconventional housing. According to city representatives, the
    employees found over 38,000 nonstandard dwellings.

    The partnership program was also important for the Be Counted campaign as
    partnership staff worked with local governments, community organizations,
    and other groups to help identify the best places to put Be Counted forms,
    including undercounted and nonEnglish- speaking neighborhoods.

    However, the full complement of partnership program staff did not come on
    board until after October 1, 1999, when the Bureau filled the remaining
    202 (34 percent) of the 594 positions authorized for the initiative. As
    shown in figure 3, this was several months after the Bureau completed the
    bulk of its address list- building activities. Had the full complement of
    partnership specialists been available to support the listing operations
    in 1998 and 1999, they could have encouraged greater participation on the
    part of local governments and community groups in building a better
    address list for the 2000 Census, much like they did later on in the
    census to increase local awareness of the census and boost response rates.

    For example, partnership specialists could reach out to local governments
    and encourage greater participation in the Local Update of Census
    Addresses (LUCA) program. During the 2000 Census, of the 17,424 eligible
    city- style jurisdictions the Bureau invited to participate in what was
    known as *LUCA 1998*, 9,263 (about 53 percent) volunteered to participate.
    Ultimately, about 36 percent of eligible jurisdictions reviewed the
    material and returned something to the Bureau. Partnership specialists
    could have followed up with the nonresponding localities to determine why
    they did not return material to the Bureau and, if necessary, encourage
    their participation in LUCA. 4

    4 For more information about the LUCA program, see U. S. General
    Accounting Office, 2000 Census: Local Address Review Program Has Had Mixed
    Results to Date, GAO/ T- GGD- 99- 184 (Washington, D. C.: Sept. 29, 1999).

     Make use of address information from local organizations. As part of its
    partnership efforts, the Bureau frequently obtained information about
    special places and group quarters from local advocacy and community
    groups. In one instance, the Bureau*s Los Angeles regional office
    partnered with the California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA) Corporation, a
    nongovernmental migrant farm worker advocacy group,

    to improve coverage of housing units in areas populated by many migrant
    farm workers.

    Carrying forms similar to those used by census workers during the block
    canvassing and address- listing operations, CRLA staff canvassed
    communities where they knew migrant farm workers lived. Because the staff
    were familiar with the types of structures migrant farm workers used as
    dwellings and were known by many of the workers, they were able to locate
    housing units that the Bureau might have missed. According to data
    provided by the Bureau, but not audited by GAO, CRLA staff identified over
    4,000 addresses of which 3,076 (about 73

    percent) the Bureau accepted as valid. The Bureau added these addresses to
    its list of housing units to be visited during census followup operations.
    Bureau officials we spoke with knew of no other instances where the

    Bureau accepted address data from nongovernmental sources, and there were
    no protocols for doing so. Headquarters officials said they were not aware
    of the Los Angeles Region*s reliance on CRLA, but that

    they would not necessarily have objected if the region had included the
    information within other tested and approved procedures.

     Use Census data strategically to help plan and manage address listing
    operations. Following each census, the Bureau has a wealth of data on the
    social and demographic characteristics of each and every census block in
    the nation. However, for a variety of reasons the Bureau does not always
    use that information strategically to help inform, plan, and administer
    operations in the subsequent census.

    For example, in its initial plan for the 2000 Census, the Bureau conceived
    of a planning database that would capture data down to very small
    geographic levels and would be continuously updated over the decade for a
    number of census purposes. The Bureau envisioned a system that, among
    other functions, would have enabled it to target areas where language
    resources were needed and identify neighborhoods where enumeration and
    recruiting could be difficult.

    However, a Bureau official said the effort was suspended in the mid1990s
    for budgetary reasons. According to this official, while the Bureau
    revived the planning database later in the decade, it was never completely
    developed or used to the fullest extent possible.

    Although the Bureau used labor force data on agricultural workers to help
    target its supplemental MAF- building procedures, some of the data was
    from 1992 and may not have been current enough to be accurate, thus
    highlighting the importance of up- to- date information. For example,
    employees of the Bureau*s Atlanta and Charlotte regional offices told us
    that the migrant populations in some locations in their regions had grown
    noticeably during the latter half of the 1990s, and the Charlotte
    employees said that they used the supplemental procedures in many areas
    that had not been previously identified by the Bureau.

    In those instances where the Bureau was more successful in using
    demographic information to plan subsequent census- taking activities, the
    potential payoff is clear. As we noted in our report on lessons learned
    for more cost- effective follow- up with nonrespondents, 5 the Bureau
    called on local and regional census offices to develop action plans that,
    among other things, identified hard- to- enumerate areas

    within their jurisdictions, such as immigrant neighborhoods, and propose
    strategies for dealing with those challenges. The strategies included such
    methods as paired and team enumeration for high- crime areas, and hiring
    bilingual enumerators. We concluded that this advance planning contributed
    to the timely completion of nonresponse followup.

    If similar advance planning and geographic databases are integrated into
    the MAF- building process early on, the Bureau could produce thematic maps
    that use colors and symbols to show areas where migrant and seasonal farm
    workers and other hard- to- enumerate groups and housing are located. The
    result* a geographic information system consisting of *hard- to- list*
    areas* could help the Bureau target its MAF- building, partnership,
    hiring, and other efforts far more

    efficiently. 5 U. S. General Accounting Office, 2000 Census: Best
    Practices and Lessons Learned for More Cost- Effective Nonresponse Follow-
    Up, GAO- 02- 196 (Washington, D. C.: Feb. 11, 2002).

     Train census workers in languages other than English. The material used
    to train census workers was printed only in English (the exception to this
    was Puerto Rico, where training kits were available in Spanish). However,
    to better prepare census workers* some of whom spoke Spanish as their
    first language* to locate migrant farm workers and other hard- to- count
    groups, a local census office in the Los Angeles region conducted a
    training session in Spanish. Because the trainer had only English language
    materials, she simultaneously translated these

    materials verbally during the training session. Since the trainees had
    been recruited to help locate and enumerate dwellings in largely Spanish-
    speaking areas, the staff we spoke with believed that presenting

    the training in Spanish directly improved their effectiveness. Conclusions
    The Bureau went to great lengths to build its MAF and locate the dwellings

    of migrant farm workers, using a series of complementary and sometimes
    overlapping operations spanning several years. Together, the operations
    formed a safety net that helped ensure that dwellings missed in one
    operation would be found in a subsequent procedure. Nevertheless, while
    the various MAF- building operations appeared to be adequate for locating
    the hidden housing arrangements in which some migrant farm workers live,
    surmounting barriers such as language and literacy issues proved to be
    more problematic. Combating these challenges will be critical to a more

    complete count of migrant and seasonal farm workers and a more accurate
    census in 2010.

    Based on the Bureau*s experience during the 2000 Census, this challenge
    might be addressed more successfully by using its own data more
    strategically to target resources, and starting its partnership program
    earlier to support address list development operations, rather than with a
    new or improved MAF- building procedure. At the same time, it will be
    important for the Bureau to address the implementation problems that
    occurred as these operations were carried out. Although they appeared to

    be sporadic in nature, they added inefficiencies to an already difficult
    task. Recommendations for To ensure a more complete count of migrant and
    seasonal farm workers, Executive Action

    we recommend that the Secretary of Commerce direct the Bureau to take the
    following actions as part of its planning process for the 2010 Census.

     Identify best practices and lessons learned from the 2000 Census and
    ensure that they are incorporated into planning efforts for the 2010
    Census.

     Study the feasibility of staffing partnership efforts at higher levels
    earlier in the decade to support key address list development efforts.

     Consider developing protocols that would allow the Bureau to take
    advantage of housing unit information kept by advocacy and other
    responsible groups, while preserving the confidentiality and integrity of
    the Bureau*s master address list.

     Explore integrating census, MAF/ TIGER, and other data to produce a
    geographic information system and thematic maps that would identify those
    areas with large migrant farm worker and other hard- to- count populations
    in order to better plan operations and target resources.

     Consider providing training materials in languages other than English to
    targeted areas.  Ensure that the link between Special Places and Group
    Quarters is clear

    to those implementing the operations and that responsibility for ensuring
    each group quarter is enumerated is clearly delegated.

     Ensure that MAF- building operations are properly tested and integrated
    with other census operations, and are adequate for locating migrant and
    seasonal farm workers and other hard- to- count groups.

    Agency Comments and The Secretary of Commerce forwarded written comments
    from the Census Our Evaluation Bureau on a draft of this report on June 2,
    2003, which are reprinted in

    appendix I. The Bureau generally agreed with the conclusions of the report
    and said it will work towards implementing our recommendations. The Bureau
    also suggested some minor technical corrections and clarifications, which
    we have incorporated.

    In addition, the Bureau noted that our report states that, *the full
    complement of partnership program staff did not come on board until after
    October 1, 1999. . .* and that, *had partnership specialists been
    available to support these earlier operations, they could have encouraged
    greater participation.* The Bureau maintains that partnership specialists
    were in

    fact in place and actively involved in supporting address list development
    activities.

    Our report did not state that partnership specialists did not support
    address list development activities. In fact, earlier in the report we
    noted how the Bureau partnered with the city of Los Angeles to help find
    nonstandard dwellings. Rather, our point was that they were thinly spread
    as around a third of the partnership specialist positions were not filled
    until fiscal year

    2000, after the Bureau had completed its key address list development
    procedures. We revised the text to clarify this.

    As agreed with your office, unless you announce its contents earlier, we
    plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after its
    issuance date. At that time, we will send copies of the report to other
    interested congressional committees, the Secretary of Commerce, and the
    Director of the U. S. Census Bureau. Copies will be made available to
    others upon request. This report will also be available at no charge on
    GAO*s Web site at http:// www. gao. gov.

    If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please
    contact me on (202) 512- 6806 or by e- mail at daltonp@ gao. gov or Robert
    Goldenkoff, Assistant Director, on (202) 512- 2757 or by e- mail at
    goldenkoffr@ gao. gov. Key contributors to this report were Benjamin
    Crawford, Ty Mitchell, Corinna Wengryn, Timothy Wexler, and Christopher
    Miller.

    Sincerely yours, Patricia A. Dalton Director Strategic Issues

    Appendi Appendi xes x I Comments from the Secretary of Commerce

    Related GAO Products on the Results of the 2000 Census and Lessons Learned
    for a More

    Appendi x II

    Effective Census in 2010 2000 Census Coverage Measurement Programs*
    Results, Costs, and Lessons Learned. GAO- 03- 287. Washington, D. C.:
    January 29, 2003.

    Decennial Census: Methods for Collecting and Reporting Hispanic Subgroup
    Data Need Refinement. GAO- 03- 228. Washington, D. C.: January 17, 2003.

    Decennial Census: Methods for Collecting and Reporting Data on the
    Homeless and Others without Conventional Housing Need Refinement.

    GAO- 03- 227. Washington, D. C.: January 17, 2003.

    2000 Census: Complete Costs of Coverage Evaluation Programs Are Not
    Available. GAO- 03- 41. Washington, D. C.: October 31, 2002.

    2000 Census: Lessons Learned for Planning a More Cost- Effective 2010
    Census. GAO- 03- 40. Washington, D. C.: October 31, 2002.

    The American Community Survey: Accuracy and Timeliness Issues. GAO- 02-
    956R. Washington, D. C.: September 30, 2002.

    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 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.

    Decennial Census: Information on the Accuracy of Address Coverage. GAO/
    GGD- 00- 29R. Washington, D. C.: November 19, 1999.

    2000 Census: Local Address Review Program Has Had Mixed Results to Date.
    GAO/ T- GGD- 99- 184. Washington, D. C.: September 29, 1999.

    (450074)

    GAO*s Mission The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and
    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.

    Obtaining Copies of 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 fulltext GAO Reports and

    files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older
    Testimony

    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
    e- mail alerts* under the *Order GAO Products* heading. Order by Mail or
    Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are
    $2 each. A check

    or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO
    also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to
    a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

    U. S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D. C.
    20548 To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512- 6000 TDD: (202) 512- 2537 Fax:
    (202) 512- 6061

    To Report Fraud, Contact:

    Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E-
    mail: fraudnet@ gao. gov Federal Programs

    Automated answering system: (800) 424- 5454 or (202) 512- 7470 Public
    Affairs Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov (202) 512-
    4800 U. S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
    Washington, D. C. 20548

    a

    GAO United States General Accounting Office

    The Bureau used over a dozen operations to ensure a complete address list
    and accurate maps for the 2000 Census. To the extent that the operations
    were properly implemented, their design appears to have been adequate for
    identifying the hidden dwellings in which some migrant farm workers live,
    such as basement apartments. However, the operations were not as well
    suited to overcoming other difficulties associated with locating migrant
    farm workers such as language and literacy issues and a distrust of
    outsiders.

    These challenges were surmounted more effectively by relying on local
    advocacy groups and others in the community who knew where and how migrant
    farm workers lived, and could facilitate the Bureau*s access to those
    areas. The Bureau*s plans for the 2010 Census include an ambitious program
    to

    make its maps more accurate. However, additional steps will be needed.
    Local and regional census offices employed innovative practices during the
    2000 Census that could help improve the Bureau*s ability to locate migrant
    farm workers in 2010. They include partnering with state and local
    governments earlier in the decade when many address- listing operations
    take place (during the 2000 Census, the Bureau*s partnership program was
    used largely to get people to participate in the Census, but these
    activities took place after the Bureau had completed most of its address
    list development activities). Other innovations included making use of
    address information from local advocacy groups to help find migrant farm
    workers, and using census and other demographic data strategically to plan
    operations and target resources to those areas with high numbers of
    migrant farm workers.

    Migrant Farm Worker Dwelling is Hidden Behind a House

    One of the U. S. Census Bureau*s (Bureau) long- standing challenges has
    been counting migrant farm

    workers. Although the Bureau goes to great lengths to locate these
    individuals, its efforts are

    often hampered by the unconventional and hidden housing arrangements,
    distrust of outsiders, and language and literacy issues often associated
    with this population group. To help inform the planning for the 2010
    Census,

    we were asked to review the adequacy of the Bureau*s procedures for
    locating migrant

    farm workers and their dwellings during the 2000 Census, and the steps, if
    any, that the Bureau can take to improve those procedures.

    The Secretary of Commerce should direct the Bureau to (1) study the
    feasibility of staffing partnership efforts at higher levels earlier in
    the decade to support address- listing activities, (2) consider developing

    protocols to allow the Bureau to take advantage of the address information
    kept by advocacy groups while preserving the confidentiality and integrity
    of the Bureau*s master address list, and (3) explore integrating census
    and other data to help plan operations and target resources to those areas
    with large migrant farm work

    populations. In commenting on a draft of this report, the Bureau stated
    that it generally agreed with our conclusions and will work

    toward implementing our recommendations.

    www. gao. gov/ cgi- bin/ getrpt? GAO- 03- 605. To view the full report,
    including the scope and methodology, click on the link above. For more
    information, contact Patricia A. Dalton at (202) 512- 6806 or daltonp@
    gao. gov. Highlights of GAO- 03- 605, a report to the

    Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Government Reform

    July 2003

    DECENNIAL CENSUS

    Lessons Learned for Locating and Counting Migrant and Seasonal Farm
    Workers

    Page i GAO- 03- 605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

    Contents

    Page ii GAO- 03- 605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

    Page 1 GAO- 03- 605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers United States General
    Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548

    Page 1 GAO- 03- 605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

    A

    Page 2 GAO- 03- 605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

    Page 3 GAO- 03- 605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

    Page 4 GAO- 03- 605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

    Page 5 GAO- 03- 605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

    Page 6 GAO- 03- 605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

    Page 7 GAO- 03- 605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

    Page 8 GAO- 03- 605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

    Page 9 GAO- 03- 605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

    Page 10 GAO- 03- 605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

    Page 11 GAO- 03- 605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

    Page 12 GAO- 03- 605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

    Page 13 GAO- 03- 605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

    Page 14 GAO- 03- 605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

    Page 15 GAO- 03- 605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

    Page 16 GAO- 03- 605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

    Page 17 GAO- 03- 605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

    Page 18 GAO- 03- 605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

    Page 19 GAO- 03- 605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

    Page 20 GAO- 03- 605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

    Page 21 GAO- 03- 605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

    Page 22 GAO- 03- 605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

    Page 23 GAO- 03- 605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

    Page 24 GAO- 03- 605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

    Page 25 GAO- 03- 605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

    Appendix I

    Appendix I Comments from the Secretary of Commerce Page 26 GAO- 03- 605
    Locating Migrant Farm Workers

    Page 27 GAO- 03- 605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

    Appendix II

    Appendix II Related GAO Products on the Results of the 2000 Census and
    Lessons Learned for a More Effective Census in 2010

    Page 28 GAO- 03- 605 Locating Migrant Farm Workers

    United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548- 0001
    Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300 Address Service Requested

    Presorted Standard Postage & Fees Paid

    GAO Permit No. GI00
    *** End of document. ***