My Two Census

Here is yet another anonymous Census Bureau employee who wishes to tell his tale (the following does not reflect the opinions of MyTwoCensus or Stephen Robert Morse)…

I was a QC Enumerator for the address validation phase in San Marcos/Escondido CA area.  I used the HHC and was relatively pleased with the results.  One of the things that did trouble me was the absolute accuracy demanded when map-spotting.  For instance, we were practically forbidden to map-spot a mobile home at its mailbox or driveway, but had to go to the front door first, even though most of the front doors were under metal awnings which blocked the satellite. When the front door failed we had to back away until we were at the mailbox or driveway before you picked up the YAH (You-are-here) indicator.  This took about two minutes each time where it should have taken five seconds.  Even separate houses where we could walk down a sidewalk and mark a house in a second, we had to disturb the resident by going to the front door, knock or ring a doorbell, get the dogs barking and wake the child, give them a Confidentiality Notice just tell them to ignore us.  This usually occurred about a week after the original address canvasser had also done it.  This was supposed to instill confidence in Census?

After all that, the first thing they told us when we began the GQV training was that we weren’t going to use the HHC’s.  I immediately thought what a waste of time all that map-spotting was, but the second thing we were told is that we now had to do map-spotting manually! What the hell for?  It would seem to me that a map-spot coordinate is useful to follow a GPS device, but is of limited use to try and follow manually.  But, the government has made expensive computer generated maps that have thousands of map-spots on them.  I thought it would even be more foolish to spend hours trying to place by hand a guessed, at best, pencil map spot on an already crowded map.  I was right, but we spent four hours learning how to do it.  I can’t imagine the expense the Bureau spent on generating progressively detailed map-spotted maps and will now spend to update them with manually estimated map-spots.

I guess my biggest complaint is the seemingly “one size fits all” that creeps into and detracts from all government endeavors.  The training for both phases was excruciatingly boring and rote!  It could have been done in half the time if the trainees weren’t treated like fourth graders and the instructors weren’t forced to read every word from a book. We were told at the beginning of GQV that we would not be doing military or penal quarters, but spent over four hours on how to do it because it was in the “book” and the “book” couldn’t be deviated from. I live in and would canvas southern California yet was subject to long discussions on “black ice” safety and how to approach/avoid “moose” especially during their rutting season!

The questionnaire is a disaster!!  It is a 44 page, die-cut monstrosity that attempts to cover ever scenario that a lister would ever encounter.  The lister must start at its beginning and read it verbatim to whomever they are interviewing.  This requirement became an embarrassing block to a successful interview.  Before we could do solo interviews we had to be observed and “certified” by our crew leader.  For three days, I and my crew leader unsuccessfully tried to complete one interview and each time I was forced to read qualifying questions such as “Is this a drug abuse treatment center?” or “Is this a correctional facility?” I would be stopped by an angry owner and asked to leave.  It was so unbelievable that I finally resigned.  In a total of three days, I logged two hours of billable time, but was expected to standby the phone and wait for the crew leader to call to schedule another certification try.  The last I heard, three of the original class of fourteen were certified and everybody else has left.

The final direction that stuck with me was the homelessness directive. We were told to submit an info form every time we saw an apparent homeless person even if we saw the same person everyday.  When asked why, we were told that homeless people tend to stay in the same area and the census takers would know where to go during the actual Census 2010 (Six months later!).  With logic like that, I look forward to the results!

Check out a solid article from Eve Conant of Newsweek about gay marriage and the 2010 Census (full article HERE):

“Sarah,” an active-duty soldier in Iraq, can hardly be questioned for her patriotism or courage. But when it comes to filling out her 2010 census form, her primary emotion is fear. “I keep real quiet about my partner,” she tells NEWSWEEK. “Even this conversation is a violation of the law, but I’ve stepped away from the other soldiers so I’m not ‘a threat to morale.’ ” Sarah is tired of the subterfuge and wishes she could use her real name for this article without getting fired under “don’t ask, don’t tell” legislation. She’s anxious because she knows this census is a watershed moment for the entire lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) community, as it is for gay soldiers. “A lot of people don’t want to believe there are 60,000 of us in the military. I don’t believe it either. I think that number is bigger.”

or the first time in the centuries-long history of the census, the number of same-sex couples who self-identify as married—license or no license—will be tabulated and released to the public. The move is seen as both a friendly nod to the gay community—which had pinned its hopes on President Obama and has, at least in some quarters, been frustrated by a perceived slow response to gay-rights issues—and a boost to policy fights, from challenging laws that limit gay adoptions to the nationwide legalization of gay marriage.The release of the data also marks a major shift in the evolution of the Census Bureau. In 1990 it edited the answers of self-identified gay husbands and wives to make them appear as opposite-sex partners; in 2000, instead of editing the sex of a gay spouse it edited the data to describe the same-sex couples as “unmarried partners.” While the Census Bureau doesn’t make policy, its data will be instrumental to inform it. “This will not be a count of the gay population of the U.S., but it will be the biggest, most profound data set that anyone has ever had,” says Timothy Olson, assistant division chief in the U.S. Census Field Division. “There will finally be good data for policymakers to engage in the issues with facts, not speculations.”

“Sarah,” an active-duty soldier in Iraq, can hardly be questioned for her patriotism or courage. But when it comes to filling out her 2010 census form, her primary emotion is fear. “I keep real quiet about my partner,” she tells NEWSWEEK. “Even this conversation is a violation of the law, but I’ve stepped away from the other soldiers so I’m not ‘a threat to morale.’ ” Sarah is tired of the subterfuge and wishes she could use her real name for this article without getting fired under “don’t ask, don’t tell” legislation. She’s anxious because she knows this census is a watershed moment for the entire lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) community, as it is for gay soldiers. “A lot of people don’t want to believe there are 60,000 of us in the military. I don’t believe it either. I think that number is bigger.”

For the first time in the centuries-long history of the census, the number of same-sex couples who self-identify as married—license or no license—will be tabulated and released to the public. The move is seen as both a friendly nod to the gay community—which had pinned its hopes on President Obama and has, at least in some quarters, been frustrated by a perceived slow response to gay-rights issues—and a boost to policy fights, from challenging laws that limit gay adoptions to the nationwide legalization of gay marriage.

The release of the data also marks a major shift in the evolution of the Census Bureau. In 1990 it edited the answers of self-identified gay husbands and wives to make them appear as opposite-sex partners; in 2000, instead of editing the sex of a gay spouse it edited the data to describe the same-sex couples as “unmarried partners.” While the Census Bureau doesn’t make policy, its data will be instrumental to inform it. “This will not be a count of the gay population of the U.S., but it will be the biggest, most profound data set that anyone has ever had,” says Timothy Olson, assistant division chief in the U.S. Census Field Division. “There will finally be good data for policymakers to engage in the issues with facts, not speculations.”

That upsets some conservatives, who argue that by releasing the data, the bureau is violating the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). “Federal law states that marriage is between a man and woman,” says Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women of America. “This is a denial of federal law.” But she and other family-values leaders lost that argument this summer when Obama reversed the Bush’s administration’s refusal to release the figures. Since DOMA applied only to policymaking agencies, and since the census asks only if a person is a husband or a wife, not if they are “married,” the census, the Obama administration argued, does not violate DOMA.

Nonetheless, some conservatives predict the census will do more harm than good for the gay-rights movement. “There are early indications from states that have allowed such unions that their numbers are not growing,” says Wright. “The census count may end up being a bit of an embarrassment for gay activists.” A 2008 census poll of 3 million households showed that 150,000 same-sex couples used the terms “husband” or “wife” to describe their partner (about 27 percent of the estimated 564,743 same-sex couples living in the U.S.). Yet only 35,000 marriage licenses had been issued by the end of 2008 in Massachusetts, California, and Connecticut, according to the Williams Institute, a UCLA law-school think tank dedicated to sexual-orientation law and public policy. So even without a license, many couples count themselves as married.

This has angered gay-marriage opponents, who say gay couples are falsely boosting their numbers. But gay advocates are not swayed. “You can decide what lying is,” says the Williams Institute’s Gary Gates. “The census questionnaire doesn’t ask if you are legally married; it asks [about] relationships, such as husband or wife. So you could have been married in a church or in a commitment ceremony but have no license.” In part to resolve questions such as this, the census has asked specialists like Gates to advise a follow-up project to improve data collection, including ways to track legal relationships like civil unions or domestic partnerships.

Even if the data will not be a full count of all gays in America, the census is expected to shed light on underreported issues like gay poverty, especially given the common perception that gay couples are predominantly white and wealthy. According to recent research by the Williams Institute and the University of Massachusetts, some 20 percent of children belonging to gay couples live in poverty, compared with 10 percent of children of heterosexual couples. “The census,” predicts Gates, “will be a boon for challenging stereotypes.”

H/t to Ed O’Keefe of The Washington Post for the following:

What will the government do with the millions of 2010 Census questionnaires once it’s done counting them next year? Shred them, sell the recyclable scraps and then give the money to federal childcare facilities, according to Census Director Robert Groves.

Groves shared the details during an interview broadcast Monday on Federal News Radio.

The National Processing Center in Indiana shreds and bales the paper once Census Bureau computers have scanned the data on the paper questionnaires, according to the agency. The General Services Administration then sells the bales of paper to contractors. The proceeds go back to the Commerce Department, which by law must use the money for environmental or employee wellness programs, including its child care facilities.

Incidentally, the Government Printing Office prints the 600 million questionnaires on 30 percent recycled paper. The Census Bureau has already printed roughly 425 million questionnaires for mailing next Spring.

A government agency with a beautiful web site is rare, and only when the Obama Administration redesigned and modernized WhiteHouse.gov were the American people able to get access to the sort of web site that should be standard for online government publications. Building off the success of the Obama ‘08 campaign’s successful use of social media, we are glad to see that the Census Bureau has, as of yesterday, gone above and beyond 21st century governmental web site norms by redesigning 2010.Census.gov. The new site embraces the Obama rhetoric that advocates interactivity and transparency even further than WhiteHouse.gov. 

From a practical perspective, one of the best features of this new site will be the ability to track census questionnaire response rates of individual states and locales as the data results come in. (We hope that Steve Jost and the communications team at the Census Bureau will make it a priority to update this data on a daily basis.) If nothing else, this feature will motivate states, municipalities, and other regional districts to improve their participation numbers before the non-response follow up period ends. This part of the new site will also encourage friendly rivalries between politicians, states, and municipalities which will likely result in free and positive press for the Census Bureau. We also hope that Dr. Groves and other bloggers for the 2010 Census site continue to provide new information at frequent intervals. 

While the idea of a new and improved web site is wonderful, if few people are viewing it, then it won’t have the impact it needs. MyTwoCensus urges the Census Bureau to release the analytics data detailing the number of unique users per day on its new web site, particularly as it compares to the analytics data of the old web site. We hope to see the numbers of viewers for each individual page of the web site as well. This is the only way that MyTwoCensus and other watchdog/non-profit organizations will be able to accurately track the success of the redesign. Additionally, if the Census Bureau’s site redesign becomes a statistical success, then perhaps other government agencies will follow suit by improving their interactivity and transparency, which will be a great step forward for American society.

It should be noted that the redesign of 2010.Census.gov was a combined effort of the Census Bureau with private sector advertising firm Draftfcb.

During the week when we were preparing questionnaires and field staff were being trained it was becoming clearer that there were only about 1,500 unique OLQs. With over two hundred field employees if each lister conducted a couple of ten minute interviews they would be completed in a matter of days. By the time the office knew what hit them the field operation winded down. It was only the first week.

But for those in the office the nightmare was just beginning. In the first few days the twelve office clerks were so inundated with checking in work from the field that we could not keep up and were backlogged for days. Census headquarters overestimated the productivity of quality control clerks who had no field training and had to review every questionnaire using a four page checklist and write every corresponding non-survivor 14 digit bar code manually on a sheet of paper. The initial office review of each questionnaire, manual transcribing of non-survivor labels and final office review of the work was so slow that none of the work could be shipped to the National Processing Center (NPC) in Jeffersonville, Indiana fast enough.

When the field work dwindled we did bring in a few listers who were familar with the procedures and they simplified everything for us. But the office managers (LCOM, AMQA, AMFO and some guy with a German accent) who knew nothing about procedures, sat around, twiddled their thumbs, raised their voices and continuously talked down to us for not processing work fast enough. At first we began processing non survivor labels by placing them on a single non-survivor label page. However since headquarters overestimated the number of OLQs they produced too many 44 page questionnaires and not enough non-survivor label pages. Since each questionnaire and non survivor label page had a unique bar code used for scanning at the NPC we could not photocopy these pages. So when we ran out of single label pages to put labels on, the new nationwide procedure was to slap these labels on the full 44 page questionnaires. So we started mailing full 44 page questionnaires with only two pages filled out back to NPC.

The Census Bureau managers seem to rely on panicking to make brash decisions that will skyrocket their costs. We are told that we are not to work overtime without supervisor approval but they’ll then offer everyone overtime, pay for New Jersey people to commute half a day and fly people from across the country to help us finish the operation. I’m disappointed that no one at the local office, regional or even at headquarters caught this error that could of possibly saved us thousands of dollars. We could of simply hired just fifty listers to work the full four weeks and saved at least $100,000. Instead we trained 228 listers for a week to work just a week.

Today was the first day of the fourth week of the operation and we finished the operation last night after two weeks of twelve hour days. While I’m glad to have gotten overtime pay I am a little saddened we are four days ahead of schedule and will all be let go for lack of work. I can’t imagine what the dent in the wallet of the federal government must of been not only in our office but across the country to print all those questionnaires and then have to ship them to NPC with only two pages filled out, not to mention the overtime.

During the operation, hearing listers speak about problems in the field were the best stories to pass the time doing repetitive work. We were getting hammered by mistakes made during address canvassing, including the entire high rise apartment building classified as OLQ and missed buildings in areas where they told listers to work quicker during address canvassing or risk losing their jobs. These missing buildings could only be missed if the lister didn’t go out into the field. Listers may have a problem with the outhouse or storage shed listed as an OLQ. But how do you deal with the high rise apartment building where the lister marked every unit an OLQ?  Then how do you slap thousands of labels on 44 page questionnaires, fill out the first and last page only and box them to ship to NPC?

At the very least Census didn’t train extra people during the operation and now they actually have a quality control system to prevent field employees from falsifying information. I suppose things are going better at this point but I am not even going to voice my concern to them because it will fall upon death ears. They are going to wipe their hands clean and say that we were told it would be about five weeks and we could be released earlier. Certainly the listers in the field didn’t expect to only be working just a few days in the worst recession since the Great Depression.

If you check out 2010.Census.gov between now and Monday,  you will find the Census Bureau’s new, more interactive web site that was designed as a collaborative effort between in-house creators and ad agency Draftfcb.  Please feel free to submit thoughts and comments about the differences between Census.gov and 2010.Census.gov.

Check out the letter from Rep. Patrick McHenry, ranking member on the subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National Archives that was sent to the Census Bureau on Monday: Cost Overrun Letter 10/19/09

Hi All,

Just wanted to let you know that I will be arriving in Washington within 20 minutes. Tomorrow afternoon, I will be meeting with Steve Jost, Stephen Buckner, and other Census Bureau officials. I’m not sure what we will discuss or if this meeting is on or off the record. But if you have any pressing questions that I should pass along, please submit them as comments to this post.

Best,
Stephen Robert Morse

H/t to Hope Yen of the AP:

WASHINGTON — The head of the Census Bureau on Wednesday expressed concern about cost overruns in preparations for next year’s high-stakes count, saying he was taking steps to help prevent the expenses from ballooning further.

Appearing before a House panel, Robert Groves said poor planning had resulted in added costs in the address canvassing operation that were $88 million higher than the original estimate of $356 million, an overrun of 25 percent.

Groves said the agency had made some faulty assumptions in how quickly it could get work done. The agency was now re-evaluating budget estimates for the entire census operation, which is projected to cost roughly $15 billion.

“Those budget overruns are intolerable,” he told a House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee.

H/t to USA Today for the following:

Turbulent political and economic times roiling the nation are expected to diminish initial participation by households in next year’s Census despite a $326 million marketing blitz that far outspends previous Census campaigns.

Mounting mistrust of government, rising identity theft and record numbers of foreclosures could discourage people from mailing back Census forms next year, according to the Census Bureau.

A Census analysis shows that about 64% of households are likely to mail in their forms without additional prodding from Census workers — down from 67% in 2000. That could mean 4 million more doors to knock on.

CENSUS STRATEGY: Reaching hard-to-count residents

CENSUS NUMBERS: Interactive look at 2008 data