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. ***