    2010 Census: Census Bureau Should Refine Recruiting and Hiring
    Efforts and Enhance Training of Temporary Field Staff (27-APR-07,
    GAO-07-361).

    The success of the 2010 Census depends, in part, upon the U.S.
    Census Bureau's (Bureau) ability to recruit, hire, and train over
    half a million temporary workers at peak. Under the Comptroller
    General's authority, GAO reviewed the extent that the Bureau's
    (1) recruiting and hiring processes for these staff are
    consistent with selected human capital principles and (2)
    training delivery and content take into account known challenges.
    To answer these questions, GAO analyzed relevant reports and past
    recommendations to select principles for evaluating these
    activities, reviewed related Bureau documents, observed the 2006
    Census Test in South Dakota and Texas, and interviewed Bureau
    officials.
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-07-361
        ACCNO:   A68856
      TITLE:     2010 Census: Census Bureau Should Refine Recruiting and
    Hiring Efforts and Enhance Training of Temporary Field Staff
         DATE:   04/27/2007
      SUBJECT:   Census
    	     Data collection
    	     Employee training
    	     Federal employees
    	     Hiring policies
    	     Human capital
    	     Performance measures
    	     Policy evaluation
    	     Strategic planning
    	     Temporary employment
    	     Training utilization
    	     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-07-361

         * [1]Results in Brief
         * [2]Background
         * [3]The Bureau Should Revise the Recruiting and Hiring of Its Te

              * [4]The Bureau Plans Improvements to Its Recruiting and Hiring
              * [5]Opportunities Exist for the Bureau to Refine Its Recruiting
              * [6]The Bureau May Modify Some Tools and Processes to Hire Staff
              * [7]The Bureau Gives Little Consideration to Previous Performanc

         * [8]The Bureau Has Not Changed Training Delivery or Content for

              * [9]Bureau's Training Content Largely Unchanged Despite Recommen

         * [10]Conclusions
         * [11]Recommendations for Executive Action
         * [12]Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
         * [13]GAO Comments
         * [14]GAO Contact
         * [15]Acknowledgements
         * [16]GAO's Mission
         * [17]Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

              * [18]Order by Mail or Phone

         * [19]To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
         * [20]Congressional Relations
         * [21]Public Affairs

    Report to Congressional Addressees

    United States Government Accountability Office

    GAO

    April 2007

    2010 CENSUS

    Census Bureau Should Refine Recruiting and Hiring Efforts and Enhance
    Training of Temporary Field Staff

    GAO-07-361

    Contents

    Letter 1

    Results in Brief 4
    Background 6
    The Bureau Should Revise the Recruiting and Hiring of Its Temporary Field
    Staff 11
    The Bureau Has Not Changed Training Delivery or Content for Temporary
    Field Staff to Fully Address Known Challenges 23
    Conclusions 32
    Recommendations for Executive Action 33
    Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 34
    Appendix I Comments from the Department of Commerce 39
    GAO Comments 55
    Appendix II GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 59
    Related GAO Products 60

    Table

    Table 1: Results of OPM's 1997 Evaluation of Competencies Needed for
    Different Field Staff 18

    Figures

    Figure 1: The Bureau's Planned Temporary Field Infrastructure for the 2010
    Census, Numbers at Peak 9
    Figure 2: The Bureau's Recruiting and Hiring Timeline for Temporary Field
    Staff during the 2010 Census 10
    Figure 3: Visual Created by Harris for Use in Training 26

    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.

    Abbreviations

    OIG Department of Commerce Office of Inspector General
    OPM Office of Personnel Management

    United States Government Accountability Office
    Washington, DC 20548

    April 27, 2007

    The Honorable Thomas R. Carper
    Chairman
    Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information,
      Federal Services, and International Security
    Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
    United States Senate

    The Honorable Henry A. Waxman
    Chairman
    The Honorable Tom Davis
    Ranking Member
    Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
    House of Representatives

    The Honorable Wm. Lacy Clay
    Chairman
    The Honorable Michael Turner
    Ranking Member
    Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National Archives
    Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
    House of Representatives

    The success of the U.S. Census Bureau's (Bureau) constitutionally mandated
    task of counting the nation's population every 10 years is contingent in
    part upon its ability to recruit, hire, and train a peak workforce of more
    than 500,000 temporary field staff needed to collect data through various
    operations. Of the $11.3 billion that the Bureau expects to spend for the
    2010 Census, it estimates that over $2 billion will be used to employ
    temporary field staff for its major field operation--nonresponse
    follow-up--where enumerators visit households that did not return the
    mailed census forms to collect that data in person. It also plans to spend
    over $350 million to employ staff for another large field operation,
    address canvassing, where field workers verify the addresses of all
    housing units. These field staff contribute to the Bureau's efforts to
    produce data to be used to reapportion the seats of the U.S. House of
    Representatives; realign the boundaries of the legislative districts of
    each state; allocate hundreds of billions of dollars in federal financial
    assistance; and provide a social, demographic, and economic profile of the
    nation's people to guide policy decisions at each level of government. The
    success of the U.S. Census Bureau's (Bureau) constitutionally mandated
    task of counting the nation's population every 10 years is contingent in
    part upon its ability to recruit, hire, and train a peak workforce of more
    than 500,000 temporary field staff needed to collect data through various
    operations. Of the $11.3 billion that the Bureau expects to spend for the
    2010 Census, it estimates that over $2 billion will be used to employ
    temporary field staff for its major field operation--nonresponse
    follow-up--where enumerators visit households that did not return the
    mailed census forms to collect that data in person. It also plans to spend
    over $350 million to employ staff for another large field operation,
    address canvassing, where field workers verify the addresses of all
    housing units. These field staff contribute to the Bureau's efforts to
    produce data to be used to reapportion the seats of the U.S. House of
    Representatives; realign the boundaries of the legislative districts of
    each state; allocate hundreds of billions of dollars in federal financial
    assistance; and provide a social, demographic, and economic profile of the
    nation's people to guide policy decisions at each level of government.

    Despite a historically tight national labor market during Census 2000, the
    Bureau met its recruiting goals to hire field staff it could train for the
    decennial. However, the Bureau has the same daunting task of meeting its
    recruiting, hiring, and training goals for the 2010 Census, while faced
    with significant challenges. These challenges include demographic shifts
    whereby the population is increasingly diverse and difficult to locate, as
    well as newer challenges, such as the Bureau's reengineered approach,
    which incorporates the use of handheld computers for data collection in
    the field.

    Because the effectiveness of field workers is critical to the success of
    the census, we reviewed, under the Comptroller General's statutory
    authority to initiate evaluations, the Bureau's recruiting, hiring, and
    training processes for temporary field staff during the 2010 Census. As
    agreed with your offices, we are providing this report to you because it
    contains information that will be useful for your oversight
    responsibilities. Specifically, we reviewed the extent to which the
    Bureau's (1) recruiting and hiring processes for temporary field staff are
    consistent with selected human capital principles and (2) training
    delivery methods and training content take into account known challenges
    as observed and recorded in previous decennial operations.

    To determine whether the Bureau's recruiting and hiring practices in the
    field are consistent with selected human capital principles, we reviewed
    reports on leading human capital practices from a variety of sources,
    including our strategic human capital model,1 as well as documents from
    external sources, such as the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). We
    then identified and selected principles to use as criteria that we
    determined to be relevant and applicable to the Bureau's efforts to
    recruit and hire a temporary field staff based on our reports and that of
    the Department of Commerce (Commerce) Office of Inspector General (OIG),
    which made recommendations based on experiences during Census 2000 and
    tests in preparation for the 2010 Census. These principles include
    developing human capital strategies that can be implemented with the
    resources reasonably expected to be available;2 evaluating and identifying
    critical skills needed by an agency facing a changing environment;3 using
    employee insights to develop responsive human capital practices;4 and
    matching the right people to the right jobs in such a way that would allow
    agencies to maximize economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the face of
    finite resources.5 We also reviewed Bureau documents on recruiting and
    hiring, including scripts used by recruiting staff, selection tests for
    temporary workers, and recruiting reports developed for local offices. We
    interviewed recruiting staff and other temporary field staff about their
    experiences with the recruiting and hiring process during the Bureau's
    2006 Census Test, conducted at the Cheyenne River Reservation in South
    Dakota and in parts of Austin, Texas, in Travis County. We also obtained
    and analyzed personnel data on recruiting and hiring from the 2006 Census
    Test. Finally, we spoke with Bureau officials regarding our observations
    in the field and about plans for conducting recruiting and hiring during
    the upcoming 2008 Dress Rehearsal and the 2010 Census.

    1GAO, A Model of Strategic Human Capital Management, [22]GAO-02-373SP
    (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 15, 2002).

    2GAO, Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic Workforce
    Planning, [23]GAO-04-39 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11, 2003).

    To determine whether training for temporary field staff takes into account
    known challenges, we reviewed prior recommendations on training that we,
    the Bureau, OIG, and others made. We also reviewed our guide for strategic
    training and other human capital reports for principles relevant to the
    Bureau's training efforts.6 For example, one key principle is that
    agencies should consider refinements to human capital initiatives,
    including training, in light of changing organizational needs.7 We
    attended training sessions at both 2006 test sites and spoke with field
    staff about their impressions of training. We also accompanied field staff
    as they conducted their work to observe whether they were following the
    Bureau's prescribed protocol. We reviewed Bureau training manuals, scripts
    for instructors, and workbooks used by field staff during Census 2000 and
    the 2006 test. We also spoke with Bureau officials about our observations
    of training and operations in South Dakota and Texas. We obtained
    information about plans for the 2008 Dress Rehearsal and the 2010 Census
    as well as actions taken as a result of previous recommendations. Finally,
    we interviewed project staff at the Harris Corporation
    (Harris)--contracted by the Bureau to develop handheld computers for field
    operations and training materials for those handheld computers. We
    obtained and reviewed Harris's planning documents and samples of materials
    being developed for the 2008 Dress Rehearsal and 2010 Census.

    3 [24]GAO-04-39 .

    4GAO, Human Capital: A Self-Assessment Checklist for Agency Leaders,
    [25]GAO/OCG-00-14G (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 2000).

    5 [26]GAO/OCG-00-14G .

    6See, for example, GAO, Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing Strategic
    Training and Development Efforts in the Federal Government,
    [27]GAO-04-546G (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2004) and [28]GAO-02-373SP .

    7 [29]GAO-02-373SP .

    We conducted our work from March 2006 through April 2007 in accordance
    with generally accepted government auditing standards.

    This report contains recommendations to the Secretary of Commerce to
    improve the Bureau's recruiting, hiring, and training of its temporary
    field staff. This report is also the latest in a series of evaluations
    that we have issued on the Bureau's preparations for the 2010 Census. See
    the Related GAO Products section at the end of this report for a list of
    selected reports we have issued to date.

    Results in Brief

    The Bureau has taken some steps that are consistent with selected human
    capital principles, such as identifying the critical skills its field
    staff need to properly use handheld computers in the reengineered census
    and using employee insights to improve its recruiting and hiring
    processes. Overall, the Bureau plans to use an approach similar to the one
    it took during Census 2000 to recruit and hire its temporary workers for
    the 2010 Census. During Census 2000, that approach allowed the Bureau to
    recruit 3.7 million qualified applicants. The recruiting expenditures for
    fiscal years 1998 through 2000 were estimated to be $250 million, or about
    $66 per applicant. However, opportunities exist for the Bureau to improve
    and refine its recruiting and hiring of temporary workers for the 2010
    Census. Specifically, the Bureau could better target its recruiting and
    hiring through an analysis to identify the characteristics of employees
    who are successful at census work and less likely to leave census work
    before an operation ends. This evaluation would allow the Bureau to seek
    workers with the skills, interests, and likelihood to be successful at
    census work. Employing such field staff could reduce or better control
    operational costs as well as recruiting and hiring expenditures. Further,
    the Bureau has not differentiated its hiring tools--written tests and
    phone interviews administered to each qualified applicant--to distinguish
    skills needed by people serving as crew leaders from those skills needed
    by other staff. Moreover, while Bureau policies recommend that former
    employees are rehired first before selecting individuals without prior
    census experience, the Bureau does not fully consider the past performance
    of these individuals. Rehiring, in this case, applies to field staff who
    left their positions--due to the end of an operation or for other
    reasons--but then were rehired for a subsequent operation in the same
    decennial. The Bureau does not use certain information that could help
    assess these applicants' competence nor does it prepare employee
    performance evaluations that could be used later when considering rehiring
    former employees. Bureau officials explained that, in their view,
    recruiting and hiring was effective in Census 2000 and will be effective
    again during the 2010 Census. However, refinements to the Bureau's
    approach for the 2010 Census could help it more efficiently recruit and
    hire.

    The Bureau has taken some actions to examine or enhance the delivery and
    content of the training it provides to temporary field staff to address
    challenges previously identified by the Bureau, us, and the OIG. The
    Bureau is providing some computer-based training on using the handheld
    computers for the nonresponse follow-up and address canvassing operations
    and will include visual aids to enhance training on using the handheld
    computers. Nonetheless, the Bureau's standardized approach to delivering
    training, including reading training scripts word-for-word over the course
    of several days, has remained largely unchanged. The Bureau has not
    evaluated alternate training delivery approaches, such as providing video
    segments, as has been recommended by us and the OIG. While, the Bureau
    will be including visuals created by a contractor that show how to use the
    handheld devices, it has not otherwise incorporated visual aids, such as
    posters or pictures, to enhance training on census work, as the Bureau and
    the OIG have recommended. Finally, the Bureau has not provided adequate
    training on the challenges field workers are likely to face, such as
    dealing with reluctant respondents and location-specific issues. The
    Bureau already collects data it can use to assess ways in which reluctance
    to respond to the census is increasing and areas where additional content
    may be necessary given location-specific conditions, but the Bureau has
    not used these data to enhance its training. Bureau officials stated that
    their training is effective and that their approach is necessary to ensure
    the consistency of training nationwide. However, the Bureau has not
    evaluated the effectiveness of its approach to training in comparison with
    alternate approaches, nor does its emphasis on consistency prepare staff
    for situations they are likely to face in the geographic areas in which
    they are working.

    We are making seven recommendations to the Secretary of Commerce to
    improve the Bureau's recruiting, hiring, and training processes. These
    recommendations are (1) refining its recruiting and hiring approach by
    collecting and analyzing information on the factors that explain worker
    success, such as worker characteristics and performance evaluations; (2)
    determining the best way to gather and use field staff performance data
    that could be collected during the address canvassing operations of the
    2010 Census and that could be used to inform hiring decisions for
    subsequent operations; (3) modifying recruiting and hiring tools to better
    identify applicants with the skills needed to serve as crew leaders; (4)
    evaluating the effectiveness of alternate approaches to training, such as
    the use of video segments; (5) incorporating visual aids illustrating
    decennial concepts; (6) modifying or revising training content to enhance
    material on dealing with reluctant respondents; and (7) preparing training
    modules that reflect prototypical location-specific challenges.

    The Deputy Secretary of Commerce forwarded written comments from the
    Bureau on a draft of this report dated April 4, 2007. The comments are
    reprinted in their entirety in appendix I. Commerce generally either
    pointed to actions that it is taking that are consistent with the
    recommendations, or questioned the need for taking action. It agreed fully
    with one of our recommendations. We believe that additional refinements to
    its overall recruiting and hiring approach, such as collecting information
    to better target its efforts, could help the Bureau better identify the
    workers it needs for the 2010 Census. Further, we continue to believe that
    enhancements to the delivery and content of the Bureau's training, such as
    considering alternate approaches to delivering training--as has been
    previously recommended by us, OIG, and the Bureau itself--would better
    prepare staff to collect data in the field. We reflected Commerce's
    comments in the report and, where appropriate, provided additional
    context.

    Background

    For the 2010 Census, the Bureau has reengineered its approach to
    collecting census data by developing three interlinked strategies, which
    it refers to as a "three-legged stool."

               o The American Community Survey will collect long-form from
               250,000 housing units each month and will provide such data on an
               annual basis, eliminating the need for a long-form as part of the
               decennial census.
               o The Map and Address File Modernization will update Bureau files
               with geographic coordinates to provide more accurate location data
               on the nation's households.
               o The 2010 Census will survey the nation for the upcoming
               decennial using a short-form-only census, enhanced by handheld
               computers and electronic maps for key operations to promote
               increased responsiveness and reduce costs.

    The Bureau estimates the 2010 Census to cost $11.3 billion, an increase
    from the $6.5 billion it took to carry out Census 2000. The Bureau
    believes that its reengineering will help contain the cost of the 2010
    Census. It expects to increase the response rate, thereby reducing the
    cost of nonresponse follow-up, through a short-form-only census. The use
    of handheld computers for nonresponse follow-up and address canvassing is
    also expected to yield cost savings. In the past, field staff collected
    data on housing units and nonresponding households using cumbersome
    pencil-and-paper processes. According to the Bureau, handheld computers
    will allow its field workers to more quickly collect information for each
    housing unit and reduce costly data collection activities. The handheld
    computers will also eliminate the need to visit households that return
    their questionnaires late because the cases can be deleted from the
    workload on a real-time basis. The Bureau has a testing and development
    program to hone these new methods for the 2010 Census. It included field
    tests in Georgia and New York during its 2004 Census Test, as well as
    field tests in Texas and South Dakota for the 2006 Census Test. The Bureau
    plans to hold the 2008 Dress Rehearsal in California and North Carolina,
    which is to be a demonstration of the operations and systems planned for
    the 2010 Census. The Bureau has already started to recruit and hire in the
    two dress rehearsal locations for the address canvassing operation, which
    is scheduled to begin in May 2007.

    Although the census is a national undertaking, it is locally implemented
    by a temporary workforce hired to complete work. To gather data from all
    households, the Bureau opens temporary offices across the country and
    employs several different data collection methods. Local census offices
    are opened for approximately 2 years and all field staff employed in these
    offices are considered temporary, with jobs as long as the entire 2-year
    period or as short as a few weeks. Some field staff work on several
    different operations during the decennial. For example, one could work on
    address canvassing, an early operation, and be rehired again to work on
    the nonresponse follow-up operation later on in the decennial.

    Operations for the 2010 Census will begin in April 2009, with address
    canvassing, a field operation for verifying and correcting addresses for
    all households and street features contained on decennial maps. Almost a
    year later, the Bureau will mail census questionnaires to the majority of
    the population in anticipation of Census Day, April 1, 2010. Those
    households that do not respond will be contacted by field staff through
    the nonresponse follow-up operation to determine the number of people
    living in the house as of Census Day, among other information. In addition
    to address canvassing and nonresponse follow-up, the Bureau conducts other
    operations, for example, to gather data from residents of group quarters,
    such as prisons or military bases. The Bureau also employs different
    enumeration methods in certain settings, such as remote Alaska
    enumeration, when people living in inaccessible communities must be
    contacted in January 2010 in anticipation of the spring thaw, which makes
    travel difficult, or update/enumerate, a data collection method involving
    personal interviews and used in communities where many housing units may
    not have typical house number-street name mailing addresses. The Bureau
    has a quality control (or reinterview) process that involves rechecking a
    sample of completed work performed by an individual and rectifying that
    work if significant problems are detected. Approximately 5 to 10 percent
    of the work is to be checked during the quality control process.

    Some positions in local census offices include

               o field operations supervisors who coordinate, supervise, and
               oversee the work performed by crew leaders, crew leader
               assistants, and enumerators, as well as train assigned crew
               leaders;
               o crew leaders who supervise and train a crew of enumerators or
               listers and meet daily with the crew to distribute work
               assignments, monitor progress, and review finished work for
               accuracy and completeness;
               o crew leader assistants who help crew leaders in guiding and
               directing the work of a group of enumerators or listers engaged in
               field data collection; and
               o enumerators or listers who perform field activities in and
               around their respective neighborhoods, including verifying
               addresses, canvassing and listing addresses, and interviewing.

    Conducting the census is a tremendous task given the hundreds of thousands
    of field staff8 the Bureau hires and trains in just a few weeks. (See fig.
    1.) Further, field workers often have little or no prior census
    experience, and are expected, after just a few days of training, to do
    their jobs with minimal supervision, under sometimes difficult and
    dangerous conditions. Moreover, crew leaders are usually recent hires
    themselves, with little, if any, experience as instructors or with
    decennial issues. Overall, few, if any, organizations face the hiring and
    training challenges that confront the Bureau with each decennial
    population count.

    8Throughout this report, we use the term field staff to refer to crew
    leaders, crew leader assistants, enumerators, and listers--the frontline
    staff collecting data for the Bureau.

    Figure 1: The Bureau's Planned Temporary Field Infrastructure for the 2010
    Census, Numbers at Peak

    The census is the nation's largest peace-time mobilization. For the 2010
    Census, the Bureau plans to recruit and test 3.8 million applicants and
    hire nearly 600,000 field staff for address canvassing and nonresponse
    follow-up. During Census 2000, the Bureau also hired about half a million
    enumerators at peak, which temporarily made it one of the nation's largest
    employers, surpassed by only a handful of big organizations, such as
    Wal-Mart and the U.S. Postal Service. For the 2010 Census, the Bureau
    expects to hire almost 75,000 temporary workers during address canvassing
    to verify and identify the addresses of an estimated 130 million living
    quarters over the course of about 6 weeks in 2009. During nonresponse
    follow-up, the Bureau expects to hire almost 525,000 temporary workers to
    visit an estimated 39 million housing units over the course of 12 weeks in
    2010. (See fig. 2.)

    Figure 2: The Bureau's Recruiting and Hiring Timeline for Temporary Field
    Staff during the 2010 Census

    Each regional census center creates a recruiting plan based on a template
    developed by headquarters, which allows for variations to reflect
    characteristics of different regions. The Bureau has developed a Planning
    Database that local and regional offices use to prepare recruiting plans.
    The Bureau expects those offices to use the database to identify areas
    where field staff are more difficult to recruit and other areas where
    certain skills--such as foreign language abilities--are needed. The Bureau
    will update the Planning Database for every census tract in the United
    States for the 2010 Census, using many variables from Census 2000. These
    variables include Census 2000 mail return rates; household size; median
    household income; percentage of persons living in poverty; number of
    single person households; highest level of education achieved; percentage
    of linguistically isolated households (i.e., where no person 14 or over
    speaks English at least "very well"); and percentage of persons on public
    assistance.

    The Bureau has employed essentially the same approach to training since
    the 1970 Census. To conduct training, the Bureau solicits free or low-cost
    training spaces from local organizations, such as churches or libraries.
    Training classes typically include 15 to 20 students. Crew leaders usually
    train their crews, with the help of at least one crew leader assistant,
    using a verbatim training approach, whereby crew leaders read training
    scripts word-for-word over the course of several days. Similarly, the crew
    leaders were themselves trained by their supervisors in a
    "train-the-trainers" approach. The length of training varies by operation;
    for nonresponse follow-up, training took almost 42 hours over the course
    of 6 days during the 2006 test.

    The Bureau Should Revise the Recruiting and Hiring of Its Temporary Field Staff

    For the 2010 Census, the Bureau plans to use a similar approach to recruit
    and hire workers as it used during Census 2000. Some broad approaches the
    Bureau will take in the 2010 Census that it successfully implemented
    during Census 2000 include

               o exercising the flexibility to raise pay rates at local census
               offices that were encountering recruiting difficulties;
               o recruiting five times more applicants than the needed number of
               field workers to ensure a considerable depth in the applicant pool
               from which to hire;
               o "frontloading," or hiring twice the number of people needed to
               do the work in anticipation of high levels of turnover;
               o launching a recruitment advertising campaign, which cost over
               $2.3 million for Census 2000; and
               o working with federal, state, local, and tribal officials who
               manage existing government programs to obtain waivers that will
               expand the pool of applicants by making census jobs available and
               attractive to certain populations, such as allowing individuals to
               simultaneously work two federal jobs and obtaining exemptions from
               state governments so that individuals receiving Temporary
               Assistance for Needy Families, Medicaid, and selected other types
               of public assistance would not have their benefits reduced when
               earning census income.

    We have noted that these strategies, in part, made the Bureau a more
    attractive employer to prospective candidates and helped to ensure a
    steady stream of applicants during Census 2000, when the Bureau was able
    to recruit 3.7 million qualified applicants.9 In particular, the
    flexibility to raise pay rates at those local census offices that were
    encountering recruitment difficulties helped local offices obtain the
    staff they needed. Bureau officials found that being able to set
    competitive, locally-based pay was the Bureau's most important strategy
    during Census 2000.10 We have identified the recruitment advertising
    campaign as another key ingredient of Census 2000's recruitment efforts as
    it emphasizes the ability to earn good pay, work flexible hours, learn new
    skills, and do something important for one's community.11 This message was
    conveyed in a variety of languages through traditional outlets, such as
    newspapers, as well as more novel media, including Internet banners and
    messages on utility and credit card bills. The Bureau's recruiting and
    hiring approach allowed it to surpass its recruitment goals in Census 2000
    and officials believe it could be successfully used in the 2010 Census as
    well.

    9GAO, 2000 Census: Best Practices and Lessons Learned for More
    Cost-Effective Nonresponse Follow-up, [30]GAO-02-196 (Washington, D.C.:
    Feb. 11, 2002).

    The Bureau Plans Improvements to Its Recruiting and Hiring

    The Bureau is making changes to how it will recruit and hire its temporary
    workforce during the 2010 Census. While still employing frontloading,
    Bureau officials said they plan to exercise caution in this approach, in
    part because census funding could result in more limitations in 2010 than
    in 2000. According to Bureau documents, local offices may not necessarily
    invite twice the number of needed staff to training as they did in 2000;
    however, these final numbers have not yet been determined. According to
    Commerce in its response to a draft of this report, the Bureau is also
    preliminarily examining whether varying recruitment goals by area is a
    viable alternative to its current fixed goal. Using recruiting and hiring
    data from its 2004 and 2006 Census Tests, the Bureau plans to determine
    whether a variable recruiting goal for each local census office
    participating in the tests would have produced enough qualified applicants
    to complete the census workload.

    The Bureau has also conducted and incorporated information collected from
    employee debriefings that could improve its recruiting and hiring
    processes. During the 2006 Census Test, the Bureau collected information
    from employees to evaluate its operations, including the effectiveness of
    its recruiting and hiring processes, by (1) debriefing field staff at the
    end of each operation to gain a broader understanding of their thoughts on
    operations and procedures and (2) conducting exit interviews to understand
    why certain enumerators, crew leaders, and crew leader assistants left
    before field tests were completed. Bureau officials said that feedback
    from employees could be helpful in evaluating and refining its recruiting
    and hiring processes and intend to incorporate some of that information
    for the 2008 Dress Rehearsal. For example, the Bureau intends to include
    in its recruiting manuals the strategy of better utilizing the recruiting
    staff by establishing and assigning specific groups--like faith-based
    groups and community-based organizations--for recruiters to focus on, as
    was suggested to the Bureau during a debriefing. Bureau officials said
    that they plan to conduct these debriefings and exit interviews during the
    2008 Dress Rehearsal as well. Specifically, information from exit
    interviews will be used to gain additional insight into why employees
    leave before an operation was completed. Finally, officials also told us
    that a small amount of money was allocated to improve their recruiting
    efforts, for example, through conducting focus groups on diversity.

    10Janet Cummings, Census 2000: Staffing the Nation's Largest Data
    Collection Workforce, (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau, Aug. 2001).

    11 [31]GAO-02-196.

    Opportunities Exist for the Bureau to Refine Its Recruiting and Hiring Efforts

    Opportunities exist for the Bureau to hone its recruiting efforts to
    identify individuals who would be more likely to be effective at census
    work and willing to continue working throughout an operation. Presently,
    the Bureau casts a wide net to recruit its temporary workforce to ensure
    it has a large enough applicant pool from which to hire. The Bureau
    selects field staff on the basis of how well they score on the
    standardized hiring test each applicant takes. The written test consists
    of basic cognitive skills required for the job, such as clerical skills,
    number skills, and organizational skills. Additional points are provided
    to applicants with veteran's preference. Applicants who score 70 or above
    on the written test12 and pass a Federal Bureau of Investigation
    background check are interviewed on the phone by office clerks. This
    interview assesses the extent to which the applicant can speak and
    understand English. Additionally, the applicant's availability, access to
    transportation and phone lines, willingness to travel from house to house
    to gather data, and other logistical questions of this nature are asked
    during the interview. Other than applicants achieving a passing score on
    its written test, however, the Bureau has not targeted its recruitment
    toward approaches that are likely to hire successful employees willing to
    complete a census operation.

    We understand that when recruiting and hiring for so many positions, it is
    a challenge to assess an applicant's potential success or willingness to
    work. However, Bureau officials have also stated that refining this
    approach could allow them to recruit more efficiently. To do so, the
    Bureau could evaluate the factors associated with and predictive of
    employee acceptance of census work, performance on the job, and commitment
    to completing census operations. The Bureau possesses much of the
    information needed to identify the factors that would characterize an
    employee who would be successful at census work and willing to work
    throughout an operation.

    12Local census offices experiencing difficulties in recruiting applicants
    are able to lower the cutoff score on the written test.

               o Through the employment application form, the Bureau collects
               information about how field staff learn about census work to
               understand the most effective ways to reach out to potential
               applicants.
               o Also through the application form, the Bureau collects
               information on the characteristics of every temporary employee,
               such as education level and language skills.
               o As previously described, the Bureau's Planning Database will be
               updated for every census tract in the nation for the 2010 Census,
               using such variables as Census 2000 mail return rates, household
               size, and percentage of linguistically isolated households, among
               others. The database might allow the Bureau to adjust its analysis
               of employee productivity across locations by holding constant
               factors that affect productivity in different areas.
               o Through its personnel database, the Bureau knows whether
               employees completed the operation they were hired for, which could
               provide information about commitment of field staff and
               willingness to work in the census.

    The Bureau could collect or extract other data to evaluate factors to help
    determine the likely success of an applicant.

               o The Bureau does not have data about the attrition rates of its
               field staff, which could provide information on what type of
               workers are more likely to commit to census employment and thereby
               would stay long enough to complete census operations. However, the
               Bureau already gathers personnel data during each of its tests,
               including dates of the hiring and termination of each applicant,
               and plans to collect them for the 2008 Dress Rehearsal and 2010
               Census. Attrition data could be extracted from an analysis of
               those data.
               o The Bureau does not have a direct measure of an employee's
               effectiveness. However, the Bureau could begin collecting such
               information as early as the 2008 Dress Rehearsal. Further, the
               Bureau also could compile information about individual performance
               using data collected from its quality control operation.13 The
               Bureau does collect productivity data, which indicate the number
               of housing units for which a field worker successfully collected
               data from each hour, and could be an indicator of employee
               performance.14 However, Bureau officials said this information
               does not adequately reflect worker performance because the
               situations in which workers do their jobs vary considerably.
               Nevertheless, information from the Planning Database may allow the
               Bureau to adjust these data for differences in employee
               productivity between locations. With this adjustment, productivity
               data might better inform the Bureau about employee performance
               after controlling for location-specific differences.
               o The Bureau does not have information about other characteristics
               of field staff, such as employment status and history. However,
               these data can be collected on the application form workers
               complete when they apply for census work, as well as before the
               employees leave the Bureau's employment.

    Analysis of these data would allow the Bureau to refine its recruiting and
    hiring strategy. Multiple regression or other statistical methods can be
    employed to analyze these data to determine likely predictors for
    successful field staff. Although local and regional factors can affect how
    successful a worker will be, such as working in urban or rural settings
    and unemployment rates, information from the Planning Database and other
    such data may be useful in controlling for these variations. In addition,
    analyses can be conducted at the regional or local level to further tailor
    recruiting and hiring. There are several ways that the Bureau can define a
    successful worker. Productivity data and attrition rates can be used to
    measure employee success. But there may be better measures of performance
    that could be identified by using information collected in the quality
    control operation. However, without conducting such analysis, the Bureau
    does not know what types of workers are more likely to be successful at
    census work.

    The Bureau noted that it has done or plans some analyses of worker
    effectiveness and turnover. For example, during the 2006 Census Test, a
    contractor examined the Bureau's selection tools to see which employee
    attributes are most highly associated with success, tenure, and
    performance. However, the Bureau could not produce the results of the
    contractor study at the time of this report. The Bureau also plans to
    identify factors that might affect turnover and job tenure from its
    employee debriefings and exit surveys.

    13As stated earlier, the quality control process involves rechecking a
    sample of completed work an individual performed and correcting it if
    significant problems are detected. Approximately 5 to 10 percent of work
    completed is checked in all operations.

    14Officials said productivity data are primarily collected and used for
    budgetary purposes.

    Officials provided various reasons for why the Bureau's recruiting and
    hiring processes remain substantially unchanged. First, they said the
    Bureau focused on achieving cost containment through the reengineering of
    the census, including a short-form census and use of handheld computers,
    which left few funds to make improvements in other areas, such as
    recruiting and hiring. Second, in commenting on a draft of this report,
    Commerce noted that it does not believe that significant cost savings
    could be achieved through refining its recruiting and hiring approach.
    Third, Bureau officials said that the recruiting and hiring during Census
    2000 was a success and the same approach will be effective during the 2010
    Census. Lastly, Commerce noted in its comments that making any changes to
    the Bureau's current approach would reduce its ability to find the people
    needed to complete operations within the statutory deadlines. We agree
    that the Bureau needs to recruit and hire staff in time to meet these
    deadlines; however, Bureau officials told us that they have not invested
    resources into making recruiting and hiring more effective.

    Regarding evaluating factors that would allow the Bureau to target
    potential applicants and hence improve recruiting practices, Bureau
    officials said that doing this could prevent the Bureau from forming
    community-based census crews that, in their view, are more likely to be
    familiar with the local environment, build trust with nonrespondents, and
    hence elicit their participation in the census more easily than would
    other field staff. However, the Bureau has not conducted analyses to
    indicate that targeting recruitment would preclude it from hiring
    community-based field staff.

    Moreover, according to Bureau officials, having a large applicant pool
    provides the Bureau with assurance that it can meet its recruiting goals;
    however, they agree that this approach may not be the most cost-effective.
    Specifically, in an evaluation of the Census 2000 recruiting effort, a
    contractor found that the goal of creating an applicant pool of five
    individuals for each needed field staff position was more than adequate
    for staffing the nonresponse follow-up operation.15 The contractor
    suggested that the Bureau develop methods to recruit for the 2010 Census
    without the resulting applicant pool exceeding the number it plans to hire
    by such large amounts. Nevertheless, the Bureau does not plan to modify
    this approach and will continue to recruit five times as many individuals
    as it plans to hire. Officials told us that as a result of the Bureau's
    inability to hire enough field staff during the 1990 Census--which delayed
    the address canvassing operation--the Bureau would rather overrecruit than
    underrecruit. The statistical analysis discussed above would be one method
    the Bureau could use to target its recruiting, thereby potentially
    decreasing both the size of the applicant pool and the number of persons
    who would need to be hired.

    15Westat, Inc., Factors Affecting Census 2000 Recruiting (Rockville, Md.:
    Jan. 7, 2002).

    A more targeted approach to recruiting and hiring for the 2010 Census
    could allow the Bureau to recruit and hire staff with the necessary skills
    and interests for census work, and identify applicants who would be more
    likely to commit to completing an operation and be successful throughout
    census operations. Having these workers could help reduce or better
    control operational costs as well as recruiting and hiring expenditures.
    Better performing workers could complete fieldwork more expediently,
    thereby potentially decreasing the time needed to complete operations.
    During Census 2000, the recruiting expenditures for fiscal years 1998
    through 2000 were estimated to be $250 million, about $66 per applicant.
    Efforts to target applicants likely to continue throughout an operation
    could decrease the need to recruit and hire additional workers. Improving
    recruiting and hiring could also reduce training costs to replace staff
    who have quit, which add to the Bureau's training expenses. For example,
    during the 2006 test, the Bureau paid each enumerator in Texas $605 to
    participate in 1 week of training.

    The Bureau May Modify Some Tools and Processes to Hire Staff with the Right
    Skills, but Should Also Differentiate Those Tools for Various Field Positions

    The Bureau uses the same set of hiring tools--written tests and phone
    interviews administered to each qualified applicant--to hire individuals
    for crew leader and other field positions, although the skills needed for
    those positions differ. The Bureau hired a contractor to assess whether
    the tools used during the 2006 Census Test selected individuals with the
    skills necessary to conduct fieldwork using handheld computers. According
    to comments provided by Commerce, this contractor plans to conduct a
    comprehensive study to review the validity and reliability of new
    selection tools during the 2008 Dress Rehearsal to assess whether they
    appropriately address the new skills needed in the reengineered census
    environment. While updated hiring tools may be implemented during the 2010
    Census, Bureau officials said that, overall, they do not expect major
    changes to be made. Changes made to the hiring process will be to account
    for the automation of field data collection, and not to differentiate
    hiring tools for crew leaders and other field positions.

    In 1997, OPM found that the competencies needed by a crew leader were
    different from those required in other field positions.16 For example,
    while it was important for field staff working in the nonresponse
    follow-up operation to have arithmetic and visual identification skills,
    crew leaders need skills such as management, leadership, and creative
    thinking (see table 1). Bureau officials stated that crew leaders are also
    responsible for providing on-the-job training where necessary and will
    accompany workers who are facing problems. Further, with the reengineering
    of the 2010 Census, crew leaders are responsible for troubleshooting the
    handheld computers that other field staff use to collect census data.

    Table 1: Results of OPM's 1997 Evaluation of Competencies Needed for
    Different Field Staff

    Competencies rated as important for    Competencies rated as important for
    crew leaders and not enumerators       enumerators and not crew leaders
    Creative thinking                      Number manipulation

    Manages and organizes information      Arithmetic

    Leadership                             Perceptual speed

    Teaching others                        Visual identification

    Managing human resources               Foreign language

    Managing diverse workforce

    Geography

    Source: GAO analysis of OPM data.

    Applicants interested in census fieldwork take one of two hiring tests, a
    supervisory or nonsupervisory one. Individuals who wish to be considered
    for field operations supervisor or office operations supervisor take the
    supervisory test. Those people interested in all other positions,
    including crew leaders, enumerators, and clerks, take the nonsupervisory
    test. Individuals that score highest on this test are supposed to be
    selected as crew leaders. A selection guide for crew leaders is used to
    conduct phone interviews with qualified applicants, but the two sets of
    additional questions asked of individuals applying for the crew leader
    position do not assess the specific skills needed of crew leaders. During
    their phone interviews, crew leader applicants are asked to broadly
    describe the nature and scope of their leadership responsibilities,
    including organizing materials, scheduling activities, and leading others.

    16Office of Personnel Management, A Test Validation Study of the Bureau of
    the Census: Decennial Census Non-Supervisory and Supervisory Selection
    Aids, PRDC-97-02 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 1997).

    OPM also examined whether the Bureau's hiring tools adequately identified
    individuals with the abilities needed for those positions during Census
    2000. It found that the hiring tools adequately assessed the cognitive
    competencies of field staff but were limited in assessing interpersonal
    competencies. OPM validated the hiring tools for use in Census 2000 but
    suggested that the Bureau incorporate interpersonal assessments into the
    hiring tools.

    We reviewed the Bureau's hiring tools during the 2006 test and found that
    they do not differentiate between crew leaders and other field positions.
    Bureau officials said they do not expect to revise these tools for the
    2010 Census because the selection guide used during phone interviews has
    two sets of questions for the crew leaders. However, these two sets of
    questions do not specifically ask whether applicants have experience in
    providing training or using computers. One set of questions asked
    candidates if they were familiar with the area in which they live and the
    second set of questions asked about their leadership experiences and
    willingness to lead others. Officials told us that the selection tools the
    Bureau plans to use in the 2010 Census will be largely unchanged from
    those used in Census 2000 and the 2004 and 2006 tests. That is, the Bureau
    does not plan to hone its tools to target the skills needed by crew
    leaders, a key position for decennial field activities.

    During the 2004 Census Test, the OIG reported that Bureau officials said
    the multiple-choice test does not capture the technical or supervisory
    skills needed by crew leaders. Several field operations supervisors also
    commented that enumerators in training were more managerially and
    technically competent to be crew leaders than the crew leaders who were
    training them.17 Furthermore, during debriefings conducted with field
    staff (including field operations supervisors, crew leaders, and
    enumerators) during the 2006 test, participants commented about the
    ability of crew leaders to carry out their duties.18 There were a few
    comments that were positive, such as one that noted that crew leaders were
    able to resolve their problems about census procedures immediately.
    However, most other comments regarding crew leaders remarked upon the need
    for them to be better skilled or prepared. The following observations were
    made about individuals in the crew leader position:

    17Department of Commerce, Office of Inspector General, Improving Our
    Measure of America: What the 2004 Census Test Can Teach Us in Planning for
    the 2010 Decennial Census, OIG-16949 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 2004).

               o they did not have the skills necessary to perform the duties
               required in that position,
               o they did not feel comfortable providing training to enumerators
               and asked their assistants to deliver the training,
               o they did not have the appropriate leadership skills, and
               o they should not be hired based on their test scores but based on
               whether they possess specific skills needed for that position.

    Without using hiring tools that distinguish between skills needed for the
    crew leader position, the Bureau does not have assurances that it is
    selecting crew leaders who can best perform duties like providing
    training, managing other field staff, and troubleshooting handheld
    computers. In commenting on a draft of this report, Commerce noted that a
    contractor hired by the Bureau is examining whether there is a need to
    replace the current written tests and interview selection guides used for
    hiring all field positions, including crew leaders. Depending upon the
    contractor's finding, the Bureau may modify these selection tools.
    Nevertheless, the Bureau still does not collect information about the
    performance of individual crew leaders nor does it collect information on
    turnover of crew leaders. Without this information, the Bureau is limited
    in its ability to assess the effectiveness of its hiring tools in
    selecting able crew leaders for the 2010 Census.

    18These sessions aimed to obtain information that will improve Bureau
    procedures, including training. We reviewed summaries of debriefings
    conducted for three operations--nonresponse follow-up, update/enumerate,
    and address canvassing. The Bureau's debriefing documents did not specify
    how many participants were included during debriefings for
    update/enumerate and address canvassing. During nonresponse follow-up
    debriefings, Bureau officials spoke with 3 field operations supervisors, 9
    crew leaders, 5 crew leader assistants, and 18 enumerators. These
    statements reflect the opinions of a sample of individuals who completed
    the operation. Field workers who left the census before the end of the
    operation were not included in these debriefings.

    The Bureau Gives Little Consideration to Previous Performance When Rehiring
    Former Workers

    When hiring, Bureau policies recommend that former employees are rehired
    first before selecting individuals without prior census experience. Over
    the course of the 2006 Census Test, almost 15 percent of all field staff
    were rehired. In other words, these individuals left their field
    position--due to the end of an operation or for other reasons--but then
    were rehired for a subsequent operation of the 2006 test. However, the
    Bureau does not fully consider past performance. When rehiring field
    staff, the Bureau does not use certain information that could help assess
    an applicant's competence, nor does the Bureau prepare employee
    performance evaluations that could be used later when considering rehiring
    former employees. Bureau officials say they try not to rehire those
    individuals who were terminated for cause. In comments on a draft of this
    report, Commerce noted that OPM has exempted most of the Bureau's
    statutory field staff from its requirement that all federal employees
    undergo a performance evaluation.

    The Bureau rehires former employees using the same procedures it uses to
    hire those with no prior census experience. Office clerks conduct
    telephone interviews of former employees using the same hiring scripts
    used to assess all other applicants. Individuals who could comment on the
    performance of an individual, such as crew leaders, field office
    supervisors, or local office managers, are not consulted during the
    rehiring process. Bureau officials said that they try to exclude rehiring
    former employees who were terminated for cause. The actions that would
    result in a worker being terminated for cause are severe conduct or
    performance problems--such as striking another person or selling alcohol
    or drugs on Bureau premises.

    Commerce also stated that the Bureau's Decennial Applicant Personnel and
    Payroll System contains termination data about each applicant--such as
    whether a worker left an operation due to cause, resignation, or lack of
    work--and have controls that do not allow employees who were terminated
    for cause to be rehired. However, officials we interviewed during the 2006
    Census Test told us that not all employees with conduct problems or who
    performed poorly were terminated. Further, the OIG found that during
    Census 2000, managers were reluctant to terminate poor-performing workers,
    but instead would refrain from assigning them new work. Some of these
    managers were concerned that separated employees would be unable to find
    new jobs; others were put off by the amount of time and paperwork involved
    in terminating workers. In addition to collecting termination data, the
    Bureau also collects productivity data on field workers. According to
    officials, the Bureau does not use this information when rehiring former
    employees, because productivity data do not adequately describe the
    performance of a temporary worker, as the situations in which workers do
    their jobs vary considerably.

    Despite the limitations of using productivity data discussed above, the
    Bureau does not collect other data that could allow it to quickly evaluate
    the prior performance of applicants reapplying for census work, such as
    individual performance evaluations that could be prepared at the
    completion of employment. Bureau officials said that the policies for
    rehiring former employees should be sufficient to hire and maintain a
    competent workforce because the process worked during Census 2000.
    Furthermore, they said that the pace of the decennial, particularly the
    nonresponse follow-up operation, is such that local census officials have
    insufficient time to consider past performance in making hiring decisions.
    Bureau officials do not prepare performance evaluations of employees
    because field operations supervisors do not have the time to conduct this
    assessment and crew leaders do not have the training needed to provide a
    relatively objective assessment of field staff.

    Although officials believe they lack sufficient time to consider past
    performance when rehiring, we believe that the Bureau does have enough
    time. For example, performance data could be collected during the address
    canvassing operation to be used to assess previous workers for the
    nonresponse follow-up operation, which occurs nearly a year later.
    Moreover, during the 2006 Census Test, information from supervisors on the
    performance of their workers was readily available, as crew leaders we
    spoke with were able to identify the relative strengths of their crew
    members; however, that information is neither collected nor used. Bureau
    officials believed that such information is inherently subjective.
    Nonetheless, the Bureau appears to recognize the value of collecting such
    information. Specifically, the contractor validating the hiring tests
    intends to collect similar information during the 2008 Dress Rehearsal by
    asking supervisors, "Would you be willing to rehire this individual for
    the next operation?" Collecting and using responses to a question as
    simple as this could inform the Bureau about the performance of former
    employees and help ensure that rehired workers are competent.

    If 15 percent of the field staff were to be rehired during the 2010
    Census, as was the case during the 2006 Census Test, the Bureau would not
    have performance data to meaningfully evaluate whether to rehire
    approximately 90,000 individuals. Without preparing employee performance
    information, the Bureau cannot ensure that the weakest performers are not
    rehired.

    The Bureau Has Not Changed Training Delivery or Content for Temporary Field
    Staff to Fully Address Known Challenges

    The Bureau is providing some computer-based training on using the handheld
    computers in key operations. However, overall, the Bureau has made limited
    changes to the approach it uses to deliver training and has not evaluated
    alternate approaches to providing training. In addition to having trainers
    read a script verbatim, nonresponse follow-up training in 2006 included
    (1) scripted role play exercises, where trainers and trainees read from
    prepared materials; (2) a few hours of practice in the field with actual
    housing units and residents, although not all field staff we spoke with
    had this opportunity; (3) opportunities for enumerators to answer scripted
    questions from the crew leader, though instructions for trainers
    discouraged class discussion because such discussions would disrupt the
    training schedule; and (4) limited use of visual aids, created by crew
    leaders rather than the Bureau or local census office staff. Although in
    commenting on a draft of our report, Commerce stated its commitment to
    continuously improving training through the incorporation of trainee
    self-assessment and practice questions, role-playing, and focusing on
    practical applications it has largely retained its verbatim approach.
    Bureau officials stated this was to preserve the consistency of the
    training it delivers nationwide. Additionally, officials stated that a
    verbatim approach is necessary because crew leaders, who usually provide
    their crews' training, may have been employed only a few weeks and have no
    practical decennial experience in the field. Commerce also pointed to the
    challenge of holding 40,000 training sessions simultaneously.

    Many field staff we spoke with during the 2006 test said their overall
    impression of training was generally positive. Nonetheless, many said that
    videos or visuals would or might improve training. Further, according to
    Bureau summaries of debriefings it conducted, field staff indicated that
    the verbatim training was slow-paced and redundant; they said training
    would have been improved by videos or other media.19 These comments are
    bolstered by observations during the 2004 and 2006 tests, which showed
    that field staff may have missed important parts of training. When
    Harris--the contractor developing the handheld computers--observed
    training during the 2006 test, it saw students playing games on their
    handheld computers during training.20 Moreover, in 2004, OIG observers
    found students not paying attention and even falling asleep during class
    and concluded that some enumerators may have failed to learn how to
    conduct census operations.21 The OIG attributed some enumerator
    deficiencies to the Bureau's verbatim training method, as enumerators they
    spoke with said training was slow and uninteresting and that lapses in
    their concentration occurred.

    19These sessions aimed to obtain information that will improve Bureau
    procedures, including training. We reviewed summaries of debriefings
    conducted for three operations--nonresponse follow-up, update/enumerate,
    and address canvassing.

    20The handheld computers developed by Harris will not include software
    that will allow field staff to play games during training.

    The Bureau and others, including us, have reported that the Bureau should
    consider alternate approaches to training delivery. Our review of the 2004
    Census Test found that, as a result of the demographic and technological
    changes that have taken place since 1970, the Bureau might want to explore
    alternatives to its verbatim approach to training.22 Moreover, in 2004,
    the OIG suggested the Bureau explore the use of interactive training
    methods, as the Bureau does for other nondecennial surveys.23
    Specifically, the OIG noted that the Bureau should consider using
    multimedia or computer-based training. The Bureau has also conducted, or
    contracted for, several evaluations of its nonresponse follow-up training,
    though none of these evaluations assessed whether alternate delivery
    approaches would improve training. Bureau officials claim the training
    they provide is effective so evaluations comparing alternate approaches
    are not necessary. Officials indicated that the primary criterion they
    used to judge the effectiveness of training was whether operations were
    completed on time. However, timeliness does not take into account the
    quality of data collected by these field staff and therefore is not an
    appropriate measure of training effectiveness. In an evaluation of
    training for nonresponse follow-up in Census 2000, for example, the Bureau
    found that field staff struggled to read questions as worded, show
    flashcards to respondents, and consistently ask questions about Hispanic
    origin and race.

    Our guide for strategic training recommends that agencies compare various
    training approaches by weighing their estimated costs and anticipated
    benefits,24 but Bureau officials said they did not explore alternate
    approaches because they could not think of any feasible improvements. In
    particular, Bureau officials explained that audiovisual equipment was not
    always available at training sites, so video segments could not be
    scheduled during training. Further, they said wealthy areas are more
    likely to have greater access to video equipment, which may lead to
    better-prepared field staff in those neighborhoods. However, the Bureau
    has not collected data to show that video equipment was unavailable at
    training locations during Census 2000 or either of the tests conducted in
    2004 and 2006. In fact, for some training sites in the reengineered
    environment, the Bureau has increased requirements such as having
    sufficient electrical outlets to power trainees' handheld computers and a
    dedicated phone line for transmitting census and payroll data. As a result
    of having to meet increased Bureau requirements, training sites may be
    more likely to have audiovisual technology.

    21OIG-16949.

    22GAO, 2010 Census: Basic Design Has Potential, but Remaining Challenges
    Need Prompt Resolution, [32]GAO-05-9 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 12, 2005).

    23OIG-16949.

    24 [33]GAO-04-546G .

    Commerce's comments also cited concerns about the cost of buying or
    renting audiovisual equipment. However, several options exist that could
    allow video content to be used more broadly without renting or purchasing
    new technology. Further, evaluations could show that video segments are
    more efficient than verbatim training, thus reducing the time needed for
    training and mitigating the cost of audiovisual equipment. One option the
    Bureau could pursue is providing video content to its field staff to watch
    during their self-study as homework assignments. In an OIG report on the
    2004 Census Test, Bureau officials agreed that distributing videos as a
    homework assignment might be beneficial and feasible, as a large number of
    homes now have VCRs or DVD players, but did not distribute this type of
    content in the 2006 test. Alternatively, given increased Internet access,
    Web-based material may be a practical way to present video content. If
    only a few training sites lack access to audiovisual technology, crews
    could be invited into the local census office to view video segments. If
    more training sites lack such technology or the local census office is
    located a great distance from the training site, field operations
    supervisors, who we observed visiting each of their crews every day during
    training, could show video segments on their laptops. However, the Bureau
    has not evaluated whether any or all of these options would be feasible.
    Officials explained that they could not know the extent to which
    technology is available prior to opening local census offices, but this
    information could be compiled during early operations for use during
    nonresponse follow-up training, which occurs more than a year after the
    local census offices open.

    Regardless of whether the Bureau considers alternate approaches to
    training, training could be enhanced by the addition of visual aids to
    illustrate census concepts. In fact, the Bureau has shown support for
    using visual aids during training, as it will incorporate visual aids
    developed by Harris that will help illustrate how to use the handheld
    computers (see fig. 3).

    Figure 3: Visual Created by Harris for Use in Training

    A Bureau evaluation of nonresponse follow-up training in Census 2000
    recommended creating additional media, such as flip charts or posters, for
    use in training.25 The OIG found that some trainees had trouble following
    the verbatim instructions and might have benefited from the use of visual
    aids.26 Finally, an external contractor that reviewed the Bureau's
    training in 2004 recommended that the Bureau develop visual aids for use
    during training.27 During our observations of the 2006 test, we also noted
    instances where visual aids might enhance training. For example, field
    staff had difficulty distinguishing between vacant and occupied housing
    units in rural South Dakota. Training materials suggested field staff
    speak with a knowledgeable person and observe some visual cues, such as
    uncut grass or boarded-up windows. In that regard, a series of pictures
    illustrating such features might enhance the ability of field staff to
    make judgments about vacant houses consistently.

    25U.S. Census Bureau, 2003.

    26Department of Commerce, Office of Inspector General, Valuable Learning
    Opportunities Were Missed in the 2006 Test of Address Canvassing,
    OIG-17524 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2006).

    Bureau's Training Content Largely Unchanged Despite Recommendations Calling for
    Change

    The content of the Bureau's training for field staff has not changed
    substantially since Census 2000, despite the fact that collecting data
    from the nation's population has become increasingly complex, as people
    become more reluctant to participate in the census and the nation has
    continued to become more diverse. According to Bureau officials, the
    Bureau is finding it increasingly difficult to locate people and get them
    to participate in the census. Field workers we spoke with during the 2006
    test noted two related issues on which they had not received sufficient
    training--dealing with reluctant respondents and handling
    location-specific challenges.

    Field staff may not be sufficiently prepared to encourage reluctant
    respondents to participate in the census. In 2004, the OIG found that
    field staff complained they felt unprepared to deal with reluctant
    respondents and the report recommended the Bureau consider adding content
    to enhance training on this topic.28 In 2006, the Bureau included one
    role-play example of a reluctant respondent in nonresponse follow-up
    training in Texas, but none in update/enumerate--the comparable operation
    conducted at the more rural South Dakota test site. Despite this
    improvement, dealing with these reluctant respondents continued to be a
    problem for field staff in 2006. For example, an enumerator in Texas told
    us that the Bureau should more directly explain that most respondents are
    likely to be reluctant. She said she was surprised by how many reluctant
    respondents she encountered. During the debriefing discussions the Bureau
    held with field staff, many participants indicated that respondent
    reluctance was challenging.29 When asked, enumerators at the debriefings
    said respondent refusals were something they were least prepared to handle
    after training. Crew leaders echoed this sentiment when asked about it
    during the debriefing, saying that overcoming respondent reluctance was
    the most difficult task enumerators faced.

    27Eagle International, Inc., 2004 Census Test: Review and Evaluation of
    Training Efficacy (Rochester, N.Y.: Oct. 21, 2005).

    28OIG-16949.

    The nonresponse follow-up training provided in 2006 has more material on
    how to deal with reluctant respondents than did the Census 2000
    nonresponse follow-up training. However, much of the new material concerns
    how enumerators enter data on the handheld computers and not about
    training field staff on how to best elicit cooperation. A relatively small
    portion of training time is dedicated to working with reluctant
    respondents and this section begins "most of the people you have to
    interview will cooperate." Officials explained to us that households in
    nonresponse follow-up have already chosen not to participate--by not
    mailing in their surveys--and therefore may be more likely to be reluctant
    to respond when field staff visit their homes. Finally, as the OIG noted
    in 2004, training materials generally advised field staff to be prepared
    to explain why the census was necessary and how data would be used, but
    offered no special guidance for convincing respondents to cooperate.30
    This kind of guidance was also not contained in training materials for the
    2006 test.

    Although data are available to help the Bureau refine its material on
    reluctant respondents, the Bureau is not making use of this resource. The
    Bureau's Planning Database, used mainly for recruiting purposes and
    enumeration planning, highlights areas where the Bureau believes it would
    be hard to enumerate, such as where many migrant workers reside or where
    there is a large number of public assistance households. Those conditions
    could be used to assess whether the responsiveness of households to
    respond to the census over time indicates a need to increase training on
    handling reluctant respondents. For example, reasons for respondent
    reluctance could vary based on whether the population of migrant workers
    or people living in public assistance housing has increased. The necessary
    changes to training should vary based on how the population has changed.
    Bureau officials said that they had not used the database to inform
    changes made to training.

    29As previously discussed, these sessions aimed to obtain information that
    will improve Bureau procedures, including training. We reviewed summaries
    of debriefings conducted for three operations--nonresponse follow-up,
    update/enumerate, and address canvassing.

    30OIG-16949.

    The increasing reluctance of the nation to participate in the census makes
    it important for field staff to be trained in the skills needed to
    complete census work accurately and effectively. We also saw a notice
    created by an enumerator that informed residents they needed to provide
    census data or federal marshals would come to arrest them, which local
    officials told us will not happen. Without adequate preparation, field
    staff may develop their own strategies when confronted with these
    difficult situations, resulting in inconsistent and sometimes
    inappropriate data collection methods. For example, when unable to contact
    respondents, one Texas enumerator we observed looked up respondent
    information online, tried to find a phone number for another respondent
    from a neighborhood cat's collar, and even illegally went through
    residents' mail. Another enumerator told us she sat in front of housing
    units for hours waiting for residents to come home from work. Bureau
    procedures as outlined in training indicate that field staff should make
    six attempts to contact residents, either in person or by phone, before
    seeking another knowledgeable person from which to obtain data.

    Another issue on which field staff said they needed additional training
    was with challenges that were specific to their local areas. In South
    Dakota, for example, an enumerator told us that Abbotsville, Oklahoma--the
    hypothetical city the Bureau used for role playing and other exercises in
    the training class--did not reflect the rural conditions of the Cheyenne
    River Reservation.31 This sentiment was also mentioned in the Bureau's
    debriefing following the operation.32 Field staff participating in these
    meetings also commented on the challenges related to enumerating empty
    mobile home sites and working under dangerous rural road conditions. In
    Austin, Texas, on the other hand, one crew leader explained that training
    spent a lot of time on mobile homes--which did not exist in his area--but
    very little time on apartment buildings, which are common there. Other
    field staff mentioned problems collecting data from the large college
    student population in Austin--which had already vacated their Census Day
    residences for summer vacation by the start of nonresponse follow-up. In
    debriefings from the nonresponse follow-up operation in Texas, field staff
    also mentioned a need for additional information on obtaining data in
    apartment buildings and dealing with large families.

    31The example of Abbotsville, Oklahoma, was not used in nonresponse
    follow-up training. It was used to train field staff in South Dakota to
    carry out the update/enumerate operation. That operation targets
    communities with special enumeration needs and where most housing units
    may not have house number and street name mailing addresses. These areas
    include resort areas with high concentrations of seasonally vacant housing
    units and selected American Indian reservations. The training provided for
    this operation is different from that provided during nonresponse
    follow-up.

    32As previously discussed, these sessions aimed to obtain information that
    will improve Bureau procedures, including training. We reviewed summaries
    of debriefings conducted for three operations--nonresponse follow-up,
    update/enumerate, and address canvassing.

    To address these kinds of location-specific challenges, the Bureau works
    with regional offices to develop 10-minute training modules for specific
    locations. For example, in 2000, Bureau officials said enumerators in Los
    Angeles were trained to look for small, hidden housing units, such as
    apartments in converted garages. Commerce's comments on a draft of this
    report stated that the Bureau also provides guidance on how long these
    modules should be and at what point they should be presented. However,
    officials told us they were not sure how often this kind of training took
    place, nor had they allocated time during training to present specialized
    information. On the basis of observations of the 2004 test, we suggested
    that the Bureau supplement the existing training with modules geared
    toward addressing the particular enumeration challenges that field staff
    are likely to encounter in specific locales.33 The National Academy of
    Sciences also recommended in 2004 that the Bureau develop special
    enumeration methods for locations that might face unique challenges, such
    as irregular urban areas, gated communities, rural areas, and
    colonias--unincorporated and low-income residential subdivisions lacking
    basic infrastructure and services along the border between the United
    States and Mexico.34

    The Planning Database may be helpful in determining whether modules
    focused on particular enumeration challenges may be needed, in that it
    includes detailed information on small geographic areas. For example, the
    database contains information on the prevalence of difficult terrain,
    student populations, and trailer parks, among other variables. However,
    the Bureau has not used information from the Planning Database to
    determine where a local census office may need to use location-specific
    training modules nor taken any steps to develop this type of module
    centrally to ensure the consistency of content.

    33 [34]GAO-05-9 .

    34The National Academies Press, Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and
    Challenges (Washington, D.C.: 2004).

    Bureau officials offered several explanations as to why they have made
    limited changes to enhance training on reluctant respondents and
    location-specific challenges. They said the Bureau lacks the time and
    budget to make systematic changes to its training, and they believe that
    the content of training is already effective. They also said that the
    Bureau has made changes to training "iteratively" over time, citing
    increases to the content on reluctant respondents since Census 2000.
    Officials noted that while fieldwork in various locations can be
    different, a consistent nationwide approach is necessary and that local
    differences were handled by the 10-minute modules that could be created by
    regional offices. Further, officials explained that creating
    location-specific modules centrally would be time-consuming and expensive.
    Finally, officials were opposed to including any additional material on
    dealing with reluctant respondents because longer training is costly.
    However, as field staff told us, the training contains material on issues
    they did not face in their local areas. For example, as we stated earlier
    in this section, much time was spent on training on mobile homes in
    Austin, Texas, although they are not prevalent in the area. The inclusion
    of this material in a standard nationwide training reduces the time
    available for other issues, such as strategies for addressing reluctant
    respondents.

    Developing modules for different types of locations centrally, while
    potentially costly, would allow the Bureau to control the consistency and
    quality of training throughout the nation and therefore control the cost
    of local operations. For example, headquarters staff could centrally
    develop modules covering enumeration strategies in a variety of
    situations, such as mobile homes, large apartment buildings, and migrant
    worker dwellings, which local officials can selectively insert into their
    training if there is a need to train their field staff on that topic. In
    Census 2000, the Bureau did not know where location-specific modules
    created by regional offices were used, nor the quality of instruction
    provided in those modules. For example, to collect data from colonias in
    2000, the Denver Regional Office provided field staff information about
    the layout of the colonias, while the Dallas Regional Office decided to
    use a different enumeration method for these housing units. Targeting
    training to address those issues field staff are likely to face could also
    save time during training by deleting topics that are not needed by field
    staff. Moreover, targeted training could enhance the effectiveness of
    trainers and field staff by giving greater attention to the challenges
    they do face.

    Conclusions

    For the 2010 Census, the Bureau faces difficulties in enumerating a
    changing society, whereby the population is increasingly diverse and hard
    to locate. The Bureau has responded to challenges with a reengineered
    approach that relies to a much greater extent on new technologies, such as
    handheld computers. In addition, it is important that the Bureau evaluate
    and improve how it recruits and hires temporary field workers and trains
    them on the skills needed to successfully complete the 2010 Census.

    The Bureau's overall approach to recruiting and hiring is focused on
    ensuring that it recruits and hires a sufficient number of field staff.
    However, a more targeted and considered approach would help the Bureau to
    more effectively identify the workers it needs. Conducting an analysis of
    the characteristics of applicants likely to become effective census
    workers or analyzing information about field staff turnover could allow
    the Bureau to recruit and hire staff more likely to be successful
    throughout census operations and thereby reduce or better control
    operational costs, as well as recruiting and hiring expenditures. The
    Bureau is making efforts to revise its tools to better identify staff with
    the necessary skills in light of the new automated environment. However,
    its hiring tools have not adequately differentiated between crew leaders
    and their field staff. During the reengineered 2010 Census, crew leaders
    will be responsible for training and supervising field staff as well as
    troubleshooting the handheld computers used to collect data in the field.
    By using the same hiring tools for positions that need different skills,
    the Bureau cannot ensure that crew leaders have the skills needed to
    fulfill the requirements of those key positions. Finally, the Bureau does
    not prepare employee performance evaluations that can be used to make
    informed decisions when rehiring former employees, who may be given
    preference during hiring for later operations. Such performance
    information may also be useful in assessing the characteristics of
    applicants likely to be successful at census work.

    The Bureau has decades of experience in training field workers, but we and
    others made recommendations following Census 2000 and subsequent field
    tests that could improve the delivery and content of training. The Bureau
    has not evaluated alternate approaches to training like using video
    content, nor has the Bureau evaluated the feasibility of such
    alternatives. Without these evaluations, Bureau decision makers lack
    information they need to determine the best way to deliver training.
    Moreover, while the Bureau will be incorporating visual aids on how to use
    the handheld computers, it has not developed other visual aids that could
    improve the ability of field staff to conduct census operations.

    With respect to the content of training, some field staff said they need
    more training on how to deal with reluctant respondents. Bureau officials
    said that this content has increased since Census 2000, but we found that
    field staff still lacked a clear idea of how likely they were to encounter
    reluctance and also needed strategies to convince such respondents to
    cooperate. Likewise, although the Bureau permits regional or local offices
    to provide a very small amount of training specific to their areas, it has
    not centrally developed modules on topics field staff are likely to face
    in certain areas--such as apartment buildings and mobile homes--for those
    offices to incorporate into their standard training. These modules could
    improve the training on these situations and increase the consistency of
    training content. Without evaluating the way training is delivered,
    developing visual aids to enhance training, and making appropriate
    modifications to improve content on reluctant respondents and
    location-specific situations, the Bureau's temporary field staff may be
    less than fully prepared to do their work.

    Recommendations for Executive Action

    We recommend that the Secretary of Commerce direct the Director of the
    U.S. Census Bureau to take the following seven actions to improve the
    Bureau's recruiting, hiring, and training of temporary field staff. The
    Bureau should

               o To refine its approach to recruiting and hiring, evaluate the
               factors that are associated with and predictive of employee
               interest in census work, performance, and commitment. These
               factors may include prior work experience and employment status.
               The Bureau should determine the best way to measure employee
               performance for the purposes of this analysis. The Bureau should
               also consider these findings for better targeting applicants in
               subsequent decennial operations. This effort could be conducted
               during address canvassing and other early operations during the
               2008 Dress Rehearsal and during the 2010 Census. The resulting
               information will be useful when recruiting and hiring for the
               Bureau's largest decennial operation, nonresponse follow-up, and
               subsequent operations.
               o Determine the best way to gather employee performance data
               during the address canvassing operation in the 2010 Census to
               inform rehiring decisions during subsequent operations.
               o Modify recruiting and hiring tools, including the skills test
               and phone interview, to better differentiate applicants with the
               skills and competencies needed by crew leaders from those who
               would be better suited for other field positions.
               o Evaluate the effectiveness of alternate approaches for
               delivering training, including the use of video content, as
               compared to the current verbatim approach. If new approaches are
               found to be more effective, evaluate the feasibility of delivering
               this type of training during subsequent operations.
               o Prior to the 2010 Census, incorporate into training visual aids
               illustrating how to conduct census work.
               o Revise or modify training to enhance material on reluctant
               respondents so that field staff are provided with a realistic
               impression of the prevalence of respondent reluctance and
               strategies for convincing these respondents to participate.
               o Prepare training modules addressing prototypical
               location-specific challenges that may be selected and used by
               regional or local census offices. For example, modules on
               situations localities may face--such as enumerating apartment
               buildings or dealing with empty mobile home sites--could be
               centrally developed by Bureau officials to ensure the consistency
               and quality of such modules. Local or regional officials could
               then select those modules most appropriate to the local area for
               use in training.

    Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

    We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of Commerce for his
    review and comment. We received comments from Commerce's Deputy Secretary.
    Overall, Commerce agreed with the importance of the key human capital
    principles reflected in the draft report, noting that the Bureau believes
    it already has implemented strategies relating to those principles for its
    permanent workforce, and that, internally, the Bureau has recommended
    using similar strategies for the decennial census as well. Commerce
    incorrectly asserts that we find the Bureau's overall approach for
    recruiting, hiring, and training to be insufficient. Rather, as the report
    title indicates, we believe the Bureau can refine its recruiting and
    hiring efforts and enhance training. Commerce agreed with one of the
    report's recommendations and in commenting on the remaining
    recommendations, either pointed to actions that it is taking that are
    consistent with the recommendation or questioned the need for taking
    action. We describe Commerce's response to the report's recommendations
    below. Commerce also provided other comments and concerns, including
    technical corrections and suggestions where additional context was needed.
    We revised the report to reflect these comments as appropriate. Our
    response to these comments and Commerce's letter appear in appendix I.

    In response to our recommendation that the Bureau refine its overall
    approach to recruiting and hiring, Commerce noted that the Bureau's
    selection tools are developed to ensure that all legal and professional
    standards for hiring employees are met, while allowing it to select the
    large number of persons needed to complete the census. Commerce also
    stated that the Bureau's previous and current job analyses would allow the
    Bureau to identify the factors most likely to predict success on the job
    and that those factors are currently represented in the Bureau's selection
    tools and procedures. We agree that the Bureau's recruiting approach
    should be designed to ensure it may select a sufficient number of persons
    to complete the census. However, we do not agree that the Bureau's
    analyses identify the factors most likely to predict applicants' success
    and are incorporated in selection tools and procedures. In fact, the
    Bureau has no documentation to indicate that it has identified and
    analyzed these factors. As a result, we concluded that the Bureau could
    refine its recruiting and hiring tools to better understand what makes
    applicants successful and thereby minimize operating costs. Our
    recommendation calls for the Bureau to use a fact-based approach to
    developing selection criteria. We believe that without a usable measure of
    performance and analysis of attrition, the Bureau cannot fully measure
    success in terms of performance and turnover. Such analysis would permit
    the Bureau to target recruitment to applicants who are not only more
    likely to perform well, but also continue throughout an operation.
    Recruiting such applicants could help reduce or better control operational
    costs as well as recruiting and hiring expenditures by decreasing the need
    to recruit and hire additional workers.

    Regarding our second recommendation that the Bureau determine the best way
    to gather performance data to inform rehiring decisions, Commerce stated
    that our report does not have evidence that a significantly large portion
    of rehired employees are poor performers. It also noted that the Bureau
    has taken steps to prevent the rehiring of poor performers. While agreeing
    that performance appraisal and evaluation are relevant in most agencies,
    Commerce added that such a system would not be practical for the Bureau
    given the sheer number of workers hired during the decennial, their
    temporary employment, and the time-consuming nature of performance
    management systems. Our draft report in no way suggested that either a
    "significantly large" or even a "large" portion of the employees are poor
    performers. To the contrary, neither we nor the Bureau has information
    regarding the performance of its temporary workers, other than whether an
    employee has been terminated for cause. Further, we disagree that our
    suggested appraisal system would create a large administrative burden. We
    are not recommending that the Bureau develop a complex, time-consuming and
    formal appraisal system in the course of obtaining performance
    information; instead, we suggest that local census offices obtain limited
    information, such as whether a crew leader would be willing to rehire a
    worker for a later operation. As we noted in the report, these data could
    be systematically collected upon a worker's termination to assess whether
    to rehire that individual. In commenting on the report, Commerce noted
    that crew leaders and other field office supervisors are instructed to
    terminate workers who are not performing at an acceptable level, thus
    eliminating them from consideration for future operations. However, the
    OIG found that during the Census 2000, managers were reluctant to
    terminate workers, but instead would refrain from assigning them new work.
    Officials we interviewed during the 2006 test told us that not all poor
    performers were terminated. We conclude that the Bureau could do more to
    determine whether an employee should be considered for rehiring, such as
    through recording the crew leader's or field office supervisor's overall
    assessment prior to an employee leaving operations. Without such
    information, the Bureau cannot know whether it is rehiring poor performers
    who had not been terminated due to conduct problems or unsatisfactory
    performance. We added additional context in our report about how
    poor-performing workers are not always terminated. By failing to terminate
    weak performers, local census offices cannot identify those workers if
    they reapply for census work in a subsequent operation. Finally, we do not
    believe that a performance assessment system would create a large set of
    legal problems because it is unlikely that taking such information into
    account would negatively affect the Bureau's compliance with the Uniformed
    Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act and veterans' preference
    requirements.

    Commerce agreed with our third recommendation that recruiting and hiring
    tools should be modified to better differentiate applicants with the
    skills and competencies needed by crew leaders and noted that the Bureau
    is working with a contractor to do so.

    In its comments on our fourth recommendation--that the Bureau evaluate the
    effectiveness of alternate approaches to delivering training--Commerce
    noted that the Bureau continues to explore methods for providing training
    within the constraints of time and funding, and that it intends to
    reevaluate the purely verbatim training approach. Commerce commented that
    renting or purchasing additional audiovisual equipment needed for
    nonresponse follow-up training would be cost-prohibitive. However, Bureau
    officials have told us that they have not studied the prevalence of
    audiovisual equipment in training locations; therefore, the Bureau cannot
    know the cost of providing such equipment. Further, we are not
    recommending that the Bureau rent or purchase this equipment. Instead, we
    call for the Bureau to evaluate the effectiveness of these alternative
    approaches, including audio-visual equipment. The internal process of
    reviewing previous training schedules and topics to identify areas needed
    for modification and emphasis is commendable; however, the Bureau does not
    have any documentation of this effort. Further, while the Commerce also
    asserts that it is not feasible to provide training content through
    audiovisual technology, in our report, we outline several ways the Bureau
    could provide this content using technology already available. Moreover,
    without studying whether alternate approaches are more efficient or
    effective; the Bureau cannot know whether or not it is worth making an
    investment in such approaches. Therefore, we continue to recommend that
    the Bureau study alternate approaches to delivering training.

    Regarding our fifth recommendation--that the Bureau incorporate into
    training visual aids that illustrate how to conduct census work--Commerce
    explained that the Bureau will be using visual aids in address canvassing
    and nonresponse follow-up training. Commerce offered to provide us with
    the visual aids that would be used during the dress rehearsal; however,
    when we asked for these visual aids, the Bureau informed us that they have
    not been completed and could not be provided. We believe that introducing
    this material during the dress rehearsal is an excellent first step and
    commended the Bureau taking this step. As our report pointed out, however,
    the visuals proposed for address canvassing and nonresponse follow-up were
    technical in nature, illustrating how to use the handheld devices.
    Commerce also pointed out that the Bureau would use large maps during
    training in another operation. These maps will also likely enhance
    training for this operation. Nonetheless, in our audit work, we found that
    additional visuals, such as pictures illustrating the difference between
    vacant and occupied housing units, would have helped field staff better
    understand census work. We, therefore, believe the Bureau could do more to
    incorporate visual aids into training.

    In response to our sixth recommendation, where we recommended revising or
    modifying training on reluctant respondents, Commerce explained that
    efforts to reevaluate training are ongoing. It mentioned that adding
    material to training would make training longer and thereby costlier. In
    recognition of the costs of additional training time, we specifically
    recommended that the Bureau revise or modify its approach to providing
    training on reluctant respondents, rather than simply providing more
    training. Overall, we found that continued attention to providing adequate
    training on reluctant respondents is important, especially given that the
    Bureau believes reluctance among the nation's public has been increasing.

    Finally, Commerce noted that the Bureau acknowledged that
    location-specific training was necessary in some cases, as was suggested
    by our seventh recommendation. The comments provided outlined the Bureau's
    procedures for providing location-specific training modules through the
    efforts of regional census offices. We incorporated some additional
    details into our report to better characterize the role of headquarters
    staff in developing the modules used in specific local census offices.
    However, as we state in the report, developing modules for different types
    of locations centrally would allow the Bureau to control the consistency
    and quality of training throughout the nation.

    We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Commerce,
    Commerce's Office of Inspector General, the Director of the U.S. Census
    Bureau, and other interested congressional committees. We will make copies
    available to others upon request. This report will also be available at no
    charge on our 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 sciremj@gao.gov . Contact
    points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may
    be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major
    contributions to this report are listed in appendix II.

    Mathew J. Scire
    Director Strategic Issues

    Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Commerce

    Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
    end of this appendix.

    Now on page 33.

    See comment 2.

    See comment 1.

    Now on page 4.

    Now on page 4.

    See comment 5.

    See comment 4.

    See comment 3.

    Now on pages 4-5.

    Now on page 5.

    Now on page 11.

    See comment 7.

    See comment 6.

    Now on page 14.

    Now on page 16.

    See comment 8.

    Now on page 16.

    Now on page 17.

    See comment 11.

    See comment 10.

    See comment 9.

    Now on pages 16-17.

    Now on pages 17-18.

    Now on page 21.

    See comment 3.

    See comment 12.

    Now on page 20.

    See comment 2.

    Now on page 19.

    See comment 14.

    See comment 15.

    See comment 13.

    Now on page 21.

    Now on page 21.

    Now on page 22.

    See comment 18.

    See comment 17.

    See comment 16.

    Now on page 22.

    Now on page 24.

    Now on page 25.

    See comment 2.

    See comment 20.

    See comment 19.

    Now on page 27.

    Now on pages 27-28.

    Now on page 32.

    See comment 21.

    See comment 3.

    Now on page 32.

    Now on page 32.

    The following are GAO's comments on the Department of Commerce's
    (Commerce) "other comments and concerns about the report" section of the
    letter dated April 4, 2007.

    GAO Comments

    1. This report does not, as stated in this comment, suggest that the U.S.
    Census Bureau (Bureau) made "little effort to improve its recruiting and
    hiring practices." In fact, we commend the Bureau for taking steps such as
    identifying critical skills for its field staff in using the handheld
    computer and using employee insights to improve its recruiting and hiring
    practices. We provided additional context in our report related to the
    Bureau's future work to examine correlations between job success, tenure,
    and performance on selection tools. Further, we also added the Bureau's
    plans during the 2008 Dress Rehearsal to use exit survey data to gain
    additional insights on why a worker left before an operation was
    completed. Such evaluations and insights may help the Bureau improve its
    recruiting and hiring processes for the 2010 Census.

    2. As noted in the report, we reviewed each of these selection guides
    described in Commerce's comments. We found that these tools do not
    specifically ask whether the applicants have experience in providing
    training or using computers--critical skills needed for individuals in the
    crew leader position. We note in the report that the Bureau has a
    contractor that will examine the current selection tools during the 2008
    Dress Rehearsal, including those used to select crew leaders.

    3. We have revised the report to reflect the Bureau's clarification that
    it "recommends" hiring experienced employees before inexperienced ones.

    4. We have revised our report to reflect the Bureau's stated commitment to
    continuously improving training, including the use of self-assessment and
    practice questions, role-playing, and focusing on the practical
    applications of what is being taught. Further, we incorporated additional
    information about the unique challenges faced by the Bureau in training
    its temporary field staff.

    5. We incorporated the clarifying information Commerce provided that the
    Bureau is working with federal, state, local, and tribal officials to
    obtain waivers that will help expand the pool of potential applicants.

    6. We have added to the report additional explanation of how the Planning
    Database may provide useful information in understanding productivity. The
    report describes how this information would be useful in designing a
    multiple regression or other statistical method for determining likely
    predictors for successful field staff. Such information would be helpful
    in designing a recruiting strategy and not for making individual rehiring
    decisions. We include in the report additional explanation of how the data
    would assist in such an analysis.

    7. Commerce states that adding more complexity to the recruiting, testing,
    hiring, training, and supervision efforts will not produce significant
    cost savings. We revised the report to further reflect Commerce's views on
    this matter. However, without adequately evaluating its existing
    recruiting, hiring, and training practices, the Bureau risks unnecessarily
    hiring too many employees without the right skills and commitment to
    completing key operations. As we note in our report, a more targeted
    approach could allow the Bureau to identify applicants who would be more
    likely to commit to long-term employment and be successful throughout
    census operations. Having these workers could help reduce or better
    control operational costs as well as recruiting and hiring expenditures.
    Better-performing workers could also complete fieldwork more expediently,
    thereby potentially decreasing the time needed to complete operations.

    8. We agree with Commerce's comments. The draft described the advantages
    of forming community-based census crews.

    9. We have clarified our report to reflect that the Bureau is taking a
    preliminary look at whether varying recruiting goals by area is a viable
    alternative. However, we have not received documents related to this
    effort.

    10. We agree with Commerce's comment that the positions the Bureau
    recruits and hires for are not longterm. We have clarified the report to
    refer to workers who complete an operation and may stay on to work for
    later decennial operations.

    11. We clarified our report to reflect Commerce's comments about the
    contractor's current study to address the validity and reliability of its
    selection tools.

    12. Commerce noted that in Bureau evaluations of staff preparedness, field
    staff said they were adequately prepared to do their jobs. Further, crew
    leaders indicated in Bureau debriefings that they felt adequately prepared
    although there were areas where they would like more training. However, in
    this instance, we are not critiquing the Bureau's training of crew
    leaders. Rather, we have found that during the hiring phase--before
    training occurs--the Bureau does not have appropriate hiring tools to
    identify and select crew leaders with the needed skills for that position,
    such as skills for instructing crews and troubleshooting computers.
    Commerce also noted that a 2006 contractor found that field staff were
    adequately prepared to do the tasks associated with their jobs. However,
    this evaluation assesses whether training effectively prepared crew
    leaders, their assistants, and enumerators to use the handheld computers.

    13. We appreciate Commerce's concern that it is impractical and
    cost-prohibitive to conduct formal performance evaluations for temporary
    field positions. However, a system that the Bureau could use does not need
    to be complex or time-consuming. As we noted in the report, information
    from supervisors on the performance of their workers was readily
    available. Such information could be systematically collected upon a
    worker's termination to assess whether to rehire that individual.

    14. We revised the report to state that, according to Bureau officials,
    its Decennial Applicant Personnel and Payroll System does not allow it to
    rehire employees terminated for cause.

    15. See our response to Commerce's comments on the second recommendation
    in our evaluation of the agency's comments on page 35 of the report.

    16. Our analysis of hiring data from the 2006 Census Test found that
    almost 15 percent of field staff were rehired for a later operation. These
    data included field staff from all field operations conducted during the
    2006 test, including update/leave and group quarters enumeration.
    Therefore, this figure takes into account potential workers that the
    Bureau could rehire in all operations, and not just address canvassing and
    nonresponse follow-up.

    17. We acknowledge the differences between the decennial and other Bureau
    operations, but nonetheless believe, as the OIG suggested in 2004, that
    some lessons could be learned from the Bureau's overall experiences with
    survey training.

    18. The options provided in our report were not intended to be exhaustive,
    nor did we suppose that any of them would work in all field situations.
    Throughout the report, we were cognizant of the constraints and costs
    facing the Bureau, including those associated with training sites and
    equipment rental and purchases. We revised our report to reflect the
    Bureau's concerns about the costs of buying and renting audiovisual
    equipment; however, we offered various options as a way of illustrating
    that the Bureau should consider innovative ways to provide training
    outside the context of a verbatim approach. We commend the Bureau's
    efforts to incorporate visual aids and computer-based training into
    training for address canvassing and nonresponse follow-up.

    19. We agree with the Bureau's position that conversation with a
    knowledgeable person is also important and have incorporated this into the
    report. As our draft report indicated, however, understanding such visual
    cues would serve as an additional source of information for field workers.

    20. The Bureau's efforts to explore more formal ways to assist the
    regional census offices to identify location-specific issues that might
    require unique information is a positive step. We have incorporated
    additional information into the report to acknowledge the Bureau's role in
    assisting regional census offices. However, we believe that the efforts
    the regional census offices would be enhanced if the Bureau prepared
    training modules addressing prototypical location-specific challenges that
    the regional census offices may use.

    21. See our response to Commerce comments on our fourth and fifth
    recommendations starting on page 36 of the report.

    Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

    GAO Contact

    Mathew J. Scire (202) 512-6806 or sciremj@gao.gov

    Acknowledgements

    In addition to the contact name above, Ernie Hazera, Assistant Director;
    Betty Clark; Shirley Hwang; Krista Loose; and Scott Purdy made key
    contributions to the report. Thomas Beall, Catherine Hurley, Andrea
    Levine, and Donna Miller provided significant technical support.

    Related GAO Products

    2010 Census: Design Shows Progress, but Managing Technology Acquisitions,
    Temporary Field Staff and Gulf Region Enumeration Require Attention.
    [38]GAO-07-779T . Washington, D.C.: April 24, 2007.

    2010 Census: Redesigned Approach Holds Promise, but Census Bureau Needs to
    Annually Develop and Provide a Comprehensive Project Plan to Monitor
    Costs. [39]GAO-06-1009T . Washington, D.C.: July 27, 2006.

    2010 Census: Census Bureau Needs to Take Prompt Actions to Resolve
    Long-standing and Emerging Address and Mapping Challenges. [40]GAO-06-272
    . Washington, D.C.: June 15, 2006.

    2010 Census: Costs and Risks Must Be Closely Monitored and Evaluated with
    Mitigation Plans in Place. [41]GAO-06-822T . Washington, D.C.: June 6,
    2006.

    2010 Census: Census Bureau Generally Follows Selected Leading Acquisition
    Planning Practices, but Continued Management Attention Is Needed to Help
    Ensure Success. [42]GAO-06-277 . Washington, D.C.: May 18, 2006.

    2010 Census: Planning and Testing Activities Are Making Progress.
    [43]GAO-06-465T . Washington, D.C.: March 1, 2006.

    Census Bureau: Important Activities for Improving Management of Key 2010
    Decennial Acquisitions Remain to be Done. [44]GAO-06-444T . Washington
    D.C.: March 1, 2006.

    Data Quality: Improvements to Count Correction Efforts Could Produce More
    Accurate Census Data. [45]GAO-05-463 . Washington, D.C.: June 20, 2005.

    Information Technology Management: Census Bureau Has Implemented Many Key
    Practices, but Additional Actions Are Needed. [46]GAO-05-661 . Washington,
    D.C.: June 16, 2005.

    2010 Census: Basic Design Has Potential, but Remaining Challenges Need
    Prompt Resolution. [47]GAO-05-9 . Washington, D.C.: January 12, 2005.

    Data Quality: Census Bureau Needs to Accelerate Efforts to Develop and
    Implement Data Quality Review Standards. [48]GAO-05-86 . Washington, D.C.:
    November 17, 2004.

    American Community Survey: Key Unresolved Issues. [49]GAO-05-82 .
    Washington, D.C.: October 8, 2004.

    2010 Census: Counting Americans Overseas as Part of the Decennial Census
    Would Not Be Cost-Effective. [50]GAO-04-898 . Washington, D.C.: August 19,
    2004.

    2010 Census: Overseas Enumeration Test Raises Need for Clear Policy
    Direction. [51]GAO-04-470 . Washington, D.C.: May 21, 2004.

    2010 Census: Cost and Design Issues Need to Be Addressed Soon.
    [52]GAO-04-37 . Washington, D.C.: January 15, 2004.

    2000 Census: Lessons Learned for Planning a More Cost-Effective 2010
    Census. [53]GAO-03-40 . Washington, D.C.: October 31, 2002.

    (450477)

    GAO's Mission

    The Government Accountability 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 GAO Reports and Testimony

    The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
    is through GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts
    newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To
    have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
    www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

    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. Government Accountability 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, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

    Contact:

    Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail:
    fraudnet@gao.gov Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
    512-7470

    Congressional Relations

    Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
    Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
    D.C. 20548

    Public Affairs

    Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
    U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
    Washington, D.C. 20548

    www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-361 .

    To view the full product, including the scope
    and methodology, click on the link above.

    For more information, contact Mathew J. Scire at (202) 512-6806 or
    sciremj@gao.gov.

    Highlights of [61]GAO-07-361 , a report to congressional addresses

    April 2007

    2010 CENSUS

    Census Bureau Should Refine Recruiting and Hiring Efforts and Enhance
    Training of Temporary Field Staff

    The success of the 2010 Census depends, in part, upon the U.S. Census
    Bureau's (Bureau) ability to recruit, hire, and train over half a million
    temporary workers at peak. Under the Comptroller General's authority, GAO
    reviewed the extent that the Bureau's (1) recruiting and hiring processes
    for these staff are consistent with selected human capital principles and
    (2) training delivery and content take into account known challenges. To
    answer these questions, GAO analyzed relevant reports and past
    recommendations to select principles for evaluating these activities,
    reviewed related Bureau documents, observed the 2006 Census Test in South
    Dakota and Texas, and interviewed Bureau officials.

    [62]What GAO Recommends

    GAO is recommending to the Secretary of Commerce that the Bureau refine
    its recruiting and hiring efforts and enhance training for field staff in
    the 2010 Census. These recommendations include using collected information
    to better target recruiting and hiring, collecting performance data on
    workers, and evaluating alternate approaches to delivering training. In
    commenting on a draft of this report, the Deputy Secretary of Commerce
    identified actions the Bureau would take on some of the recommendations
    but questioned the need to act on others. These stated actions partially
    respond to our recommendations.

    For the 2010 Census, the Bureau plans to recruit 3.8 million applicants
    and hire nearly 600,000 temporary field staff from that applicant pool for
    two key operations: address canvassing, where staff verify the location of
    all housing units; and nonresponse follow-up, where they visit households
    that do not return census forms to collect data in person. Meeting these
    goals will be difficult because, since Census 2000, the Bureau is facing
    increased challenges, including the automation of its field data
    collection and long-standing demographic shifts, whereby the population is
    increasingly diverse and hard to locate. For the 2010 Census, the Bureau
    plans to use a recruiting and hiring approach like the one it used in
    2000, which Bureau officials considered a success. That approach is
    designed to ensure a sufficient pool of qualified applicants from which to
    hire, but the Bureau could recruit and hire more efficiently.

    2010 Census Recruiting Timeline

    Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data.

    Opportunities exist for the Bureau to improve and refine recruiting and
    hiring processes for the 2010 Census. It could better target its
    recruiting and hiring by analyzing the characteristics, such as education
    and work status, of employees more likely to be successful at census work
    and less likely to leave. This would allow it to seek workers with the
    skills, interests, and likelihood for success. Also, the Bureau does not
    collect performance data needed to rehire former workers, to whom it may
    give hiring priority. Officials said they try to exclude those terminated
    for cause. Conduct problems, such as selling drugs or striking another
    worker or unsatisfactory performance, can result in such terminations.

    The Bureau's training approach for temporary field staff, consisting
    primarily of verbatim lectures, is largely unchanged from previous
    decennials. The Bureau is providing some computer-based training on using
    the handheld computers in key operations. However, despite findings that
    we and others have made suggesting that the Bureau consider alternatives
    to its verbatim approach, it has not done so. Further, although the Bureau
    has found that its field staff face an increasingly reluctant population
    and other location-specific challenges, it has not substantially changed
    the content of training.

    References

    Visible links
      22. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-373SP
      23. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-39
      24. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-39
      25. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/OCG-00-14G
      26. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/OCG-00-14G
      27. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-546G
      28. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-373SP
      29. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-373SP
      30. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-196
      31. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-196
      32. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-9
      33. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-546G
      34. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-9
      38. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-779T
      39. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-1009T
      40. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-272
      41. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-822T
      42. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-277
      43. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-465T
      44. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-444T
      45. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-463
      46. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-661
      47. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-9
      48. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-86
      49. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-82
      50. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-898
      51. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-470
      52. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-37
      53. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-40
      61. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-361
    *** End of document. ***