2010 Census
Census Bureau Should Refine Recruiting and Hiring Efforts and Enhance Training of Temporary Field Staff Gao ID: GAO-07-361 April 27, 2007The 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.
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. 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.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-07-361, 2010 Census: Census Bureau Should Refine Recruiting and Hiring Efforts and Enhance Training of Temporary Field Staff
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-361
entitled '2010 Census: Census Bureau Should Refine Recruiting and
Hiring Efforts and Enhance Training of Temporary Field Staff' which was
released on April 27, 2007.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
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. 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.
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:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-361, a report to congressional addresses
Why GAO Did This Study:
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.
What GAO Found:
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.
Figure: 2010 Census Recruiting Timeline:
[See PDF for Image]
Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data.
[End of figure]
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.
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.
[Hyperlink, http://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.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
The Bureau Should Revise the Recruiting and Hiring of Its Temporary
Field Staff:
The Bureau Has Not Changed Training Delivery or Content for Temporary
Field Staff to Fully Address Known Challenges:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Commerce:
GAO Comments:
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Table:
Table 1: Results of OPM's 1997 Evaluation of Competencies Needed for
Different Field Staff:
Figures:
Figure 1: The Bureau's Planned Temporary Field Infrastructure for the
2010 Census, Numbers at Peak:
Figure 2: The Bureau's Recruiting and Hiring Timeline for Temporary
Field Staff during the 2010 Census:
Figure 3: Visual Created by Harris for Use in Training:
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.
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,[Footnote 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;[Footnote 2] evaluating and identifying critical skills
needed by an agency facing a changing environment;[Footnote 3] using
employee insights to develop responsive human capital
practices;[Footnote 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.[Footnote
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.
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.[Footnote 6] For example, one
key principle is that agencies should consider refinements to human
capital initiatives, including training, in light of changing
organizational needs.[Footnote 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.
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."
* 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.
* The Map and Address File Modernization will update Bureau files with
geographic coordinates to provide more accurate location data on the
nation's households.
* 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:
* 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;
* 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;
* 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:
* 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 staff[Footnote 8] 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.
Figure 1: The Bureau's Planned Temporary Field Infrastructure for the
2010 Census, Numbers at Peak:
[See PDF for image]
Source: U.S. Census Bureau.
[End of figure]
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:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data.
[End of figure]
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:
* exercising the flexibility to raise pay rates at local census offices
that were encountering recruiting difficulties;
* 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;
* "frontloading," or hiring twice the number of people needed to do the
work in anticipation of high levels of turnover;
* launching a recruitment advertising campaign, which cost over $2.3
million for Census 2000; and:
* 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.
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.
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 test[Footnote 12] 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.
* 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.
* Also through the application form, the Bureau collects information on
the characteristics of every temporary employee, such as education
level and language skills.
* 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.
* 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.
* 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.
* 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.
* 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.
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.[Footnote 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.
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.[Footnote 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 crew leaders and not enumerators:
Creative thinking; Manages and organizes information; Leadership;
Teaching others; Managing human resources; Managing diverse workforce;
Geography;
Competencies rated as important for enumerators and not crew leaders:
Number manipulation; Arithmetic; Perceptual speed; Visual
identification; Foreign language.
Source: GAO analysis of OPM data.
[End of table]
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.
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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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:
* they did not have the skills necessary to perform the duties required
in that position,
* they did not feel comfortable providing training to enumerators and
asked their assistants to deliver the training,
* they did not have the appropriate leadership skills, and:
* 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.
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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.
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.[Footnote 22] Moreover, in 2004, the OIG suggested the Bureau
explore the use of interactive training methods, as the Bureau does for
other nondecennial surveys.[Footnote 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,[Footnote 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.
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:
[See PDF for image]
Source: The Harris Corporation.
[End of figure]
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.[Footnote 25] The OIG found that some trainees had
trouble following the verbatim instructions and might have benefited
from the use of visual aids.[Footnote 26] Finally, an external
contractor that reviewed the Bureau's training in 2004 recommended that
the Bureau develop visual aids for use during training.[Footnote 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.
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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.
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.[Footnote 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.
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.[Footnote 31] This sentiment was also
mentioned in the Bureau's debriefing following the operation.[Footnote
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.
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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.
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:
* 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.
* 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.
* 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.
* 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.
* Prior to the 2010 Census, incorporate into training visual aids
illustrating how to conduct census work.
* 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.
* 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.
Signed by:
Mathew J. Scirč:
Director:
Strategic Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Commerce:
Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
end of this appendix.
The Deputy Secretary Of Commerce:
Washington, D.C. 20230:
April 4, 2007:
Mr. Mathew J. Scire:
Acting Director:
Strategic Issues:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Scire:
The U.S. Department of Commerce appreciates the opportunity to comment
on the United States Government Accountability Office's draft report
entitled 2010 Census: Census Bureau Can Refine Recruiting and Hiring
Efforts and Enhance Training for Temporary Field Staff (GAO-07-361). I
enclose the Department's comments.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
David A. Sampson:
Enclosure:
U.S. Department of Commerce Comments on the United States Government
Accountability Office Draft Report Entitled 2010 Census: Census Bureau
Should Refine Recruiting and Hiring Efforts and Enhance Training for
Temporary Field Staff (GAO-07-361) March 2007:
The U.S. Census Bureau appreciates the United States Government
Accountability Office's (GAO) efforts to review our recruiting, hiring,
and training plans for the 2010 Census and this opportunity to review
the draft report.
The Census Bureau agrees that the application of key human capital
principles is essential to the effective accomplishment of an agency's
mission. This is especially true for the decennial census, because an
exceptionally large and dispersed temporary workforce plays a large
role. The broad, generally accepted human capital management principles
that the GAO, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and others have
identified provide a useful framework for shaping specific human
capital management programs. These principles are necessarily broad
since they are designed to have applicability across the entire
spectrum of missions and human capital needs of the federal government.
The principles must be general enough to help guide efforts in a
variety of circumstances. They must also apply across a highly diverse
set of occupations: nuclear physicists, seasonal park rangers, cemetery
managers, information technology professionals, fire jumpers, border
patrol agents, nurses, and so forth.
Within that context, the Census Bureau believes that the decennial
census presents unique human capital management needs and challenges
that require very different strategies and solutions than those that
would be appropriate with a permanent workforce and ongoing function.
This is not to say that we discount the principles of good human
capital management when dealing with these challenges; it is simply
that we have adapted the principles of human capital management to
address the unique requirements associated with carrying out our
mission.
As the report shows, for peak operations during 2010-making personal
follow-up visits to households that do not return their census
questionnaire by mail-the Census Bureau estimates it will need to
recruit 2.5 million applicants, train over 1 million, and hire over
500,000 field staff to work on a job that will last only a few months.
This temporary workforce is nearly 100 times that of the Census
Bureau's ongoing permanent workforce.
For that permanent workforce, the Census Bureau believes it already has
implemented strategies relating to the human capital principles
highlighted by the GAO. Both our Field Division and our Human Resources
Division are involved with the recruiting, hiring, training, and
management of that permanent workforce (as well as of the temporary
workforce for the decennial census) and have recommend using similar
strategies for the decennial census as well, to the extent they are
feasible and cost-effective. Finally, although the GAO and others have
recognized that we met our unique challenges and successfully achieved
our recruiting, hiring, and training objectives for Census 2000, this
report states that our overall plan to use much-the same approach for
the 2010 Census will not be sufficient, particularly in light of our
plans for increased use of automation for field data collection
activities. However, the purpose of the Census Bureau's testing in 2004
and 2006 was to answer just the opposite question. Namely, the
objective was to determine if the temporary workforce we traditionally
are able to recruit, hire, train, and supervise would be capable of
using the automated equipment. If the tests had shown this was not the
case, we were fully prepared to drop plans to automate these activities
because of the much higher costs and risks of having to find and hire a
significantly different temporary workforce for this major undertaking.
Fortunately, our tests showed that the people we know how to recruit
and hire for these temporary positions will be able to do the jobs, so
we have proceeded with our automation plans. As part of these plans, we
have stressed to our field data collection automation contractor that
we need simple, user-friendly applications and devices so that we do
not have to recruit for special skills.
Additional details can be found below in our comments regarding the
recommendations that begin on page 45:
GAO Recommendation 1:
"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 include employee prior
work experience and employment status. Determine the best way to
measure employee performance for the purpose of this analysis. The
Bureau should also consider these findings for better targeting
applicants in subsequent decennial operations. This effort should 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."
Census Bureau Response:
The proposed report repeatedly emphasizes that the Census Bureau needs
to refine its recruiting and hiring approach to enhance the quality of
candidates. The report appears to assume that our current selection
practices are inadequate for recruiting, hiring, training, and
retaining one of the largest peacetime mobilizations of workers in the
nation. However, we believe our selection tools are being developed to
ensure that they meet all legal and professional standards for reliable
and valid employee hiring requirements, while allowing us to select the
large number of persons needed to complete the census in all
communities across the country. Our previous and current job analyses
have allowed us to identify those factors that are most likely to
predict success on the job, and these factors currently are represented
in our selection tools and procedures. Our priority is to reach out as
broadly as possible to the diverse communities in the country, because
in order to hire hundreds of thousands of temporary workers, we must
attract several million applicants.
A new selection aid currently is being evaluated to see if it is a
better tool than the. one that was used successfully in Census 2000 and
in the 2004 and 2006 Census Tests. We have always depended on our
ability to adequately train employees who have the skills for the job.
This limits our restriction on the recruiting pool to location and
availability.
GAO Recommendation 2:
"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. "
Census Bureau Response:
The GAO suggests several strategies to modify our assessment process;
however, there is nothing in the report to suggest that a significantly
large portion of rehired employees are poor performers, or that any
studies or assessments by the Census Bureau, the Office of Inspector
General (OIG), or GAO have identified this as a significant problem.
The Census Bureau has taken steps to prevent poor performers from being
rehired. Every enumerator's production is monitored and assessed on a
daily basis. The crew leaders and field operations supervisors are
instructed to terminate employees who have not performed at an
acceptable level, which eliminates them from consideration for future
operations. We will continue to emphasize the need for these types of
actions.
The suggestions concerning performance appraisal and evaluation are
relevant in most agencies and in most relatively stable work
environments. Performance management is undeniably important. But,
given the sheer number of employees the Census Bureau hires for the
decennial census, the temporary nature of these appointments, the time-
consuming nature of a performance management system, and the lack of
time allowed for managers to develop these employees, a performance
management system for the decennial census is not feasible.
Gathering performance data after the address canvassing operation has
been completed would have the effect of creating a formal performance
appraisal system, in which the employees being assessed were not
involved. Unlike a performance, conduct action, or termination, the
employee would have no knowledge that any assessment had been made that
could prevent their subsequent employment. If such assessments were
made, it would create a potentially large set of administrative and
legal problems. Veterans, in particular, would have a strong basis for
appeal under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights
Act and under the requirements of veterans' preference.
GAO Recommendation 3:
"Modify recruiting and hiring tools including the skills tests and
phone interview that better differentiate applicants with the skills
and competencies needed by crew leaders from those who would be better
suited for other field positions. "
Census Bureau Response:
The Census Bureau agrees that hiring tools need to be evaluated and
currently is working with a contractor to do this. For the crew leader
position, we continue to research methods to identify and test for
these skills that are within legal and professional best practice
employee selection guidelines. We note that there are currently five
different guides that are used for selections for various local census
office (LCO) positions, including crew leaders. These guides were
reviewed and altered based on recommendations from the regional offices
(ROs) or LCOs. Within the selection guides, there is variance based on
the operation for which the applicant is being interviewed. These
guides will be reviewed and reevaluated before they go into production
for the 2010 Census.
GAO Recommendation 4:
"Evaluate the effectiveness of alternative 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."
Census Bureau Response:
The Census Bureau continues to explore methods, within the constraints
of time and funding, for providing standardized training to a national,
diverse staff. Some of the constraints are the volume of simultaneous
training sessions (more than 40,000) and limitations on the types of
space we can obtain, as well as the cost to provide equipment, such as
projectors, television, videos, and the like. At this point, it is cost-
prohibitive to either rent or purchase the audiovisual equipment needed
for the number of simultaneous training sessions for Nonresponse Follow-
up (NRFU). We will continue to explore use of technology, as well as
continue to improve the traditional methods of training. As an example,
for the NRFU training for the 2008 Dress Rehearsal, we are reevaluating
the purely verbatim training approach to include more interactive
activities and employing more visual aids as described in response to
Recommendation 5.
GAO Recommendation 5:
"Prior to the 2010 Census, incorporate into training visual aids
illustrating how to conduct census work"
Census Bureau Response:
The Census Bureau is using visual aids in several field operations,
such as the following:
* Address Canvassing (AC)--We can provide GAO with five poster-size
screen shots of the application on the hand-held computer that will be
used to aid in training staff for this operation. These larger size
sheets will be included in each Lister training kit and will be posted
on the wall during training. In addition, AC provides a quick reference
guide to each Lister.
* Group Quarter Validation, which is a paper-based operation, will
provide four large maps in each trainee kit, marked for easy
identification, to make map training more efficient and easier to
understand.
* Nonresponse Follow-up, which is an automated operation utilizing the
hand-held computers, will continue to use visual aids during the
enumerator training. The Nonresponse Follow-up training materials are
still in the planning stage, but will incorporate similar visual aids.
We can provide copies of the currently developed visual aids for GAO
review.
GAO Recommendation 6:
"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 such
respondents to participate. "
Census Bureau Response:
As mentioned under our response to Recommendation 5, we are
reevaluating our training to identify areas in need of a different or
enhanced approach, such as providing additional tips and techniques to
counteract reluctant respondents. It should be noted that there are
numerous constraints that must be considered that affect training,
including the significant cost of longer training.
GAO Recommendation 7:
"Prepare training modules addressing prototypical location-specific
challenges that may be selected and used by region 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 developed by Bureau officials to ensure the
consistency and quality of such models. Local or regional officials
could then select those modules most appropriate to the local area for
use in training. "
Census Bureau Response:
Our training prepares for extensive national operations like AC and
NRFU so that all data collection is conducted in a standardized and
consistent manner for all areas of the country. At the same time, the
Census Bureau recognizes that there is a need for some location-
specific training. In order to meet this need, Field Division
headquarters staff work with the decennial managers in each Regional
Census Center to customize a location-specific training module for the
Local Census Offices. Field Division staff also provide guidance on how
long and at what point during the training the location-specific
training should be presented.
Other comments and concerns about the report:
Page 6:
"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. "
Census Bureau Response:
The report suggests that the Census Bureau has made little effort to
improve its recruiting and hiring processes since 2000, when, in fact,
we have been quite proactive. As part of our research program to
improve the employee selection processes, the Census Bureau has held
numerous focus groups to identify which recruiting strategies are most
effective with diverse populations. Anticipating that the move to
automation might impact needed skill sets, we hired a contractor in
2004 to do a preliminary examination of the impact of the hand-held
computers on the crew leader and crew leader assistant positions. These
results were used to develop a statement of work for hiring a
contractor for the 2006 test to complete a job analysis for all LCO
positions and to use the job analysis information to examine the
continued validity of its selection tools. The job analysis identified
which attributes are most highly associated with success on the various
jobs. As reported to GAO, both employee debriefings and exit surveys
have been used by the Census Bureau to help identify factors that might
impact turnover and job tenure. Future work will examine correlations
between job success, tenure, and performance on selection tools. During
the 2008 Dress Rehearsal, the Census Bureau also plans to use exit
survey data to gain additional insight into workers' decisions to leave
before an operation is completed.
Page 6:
"Further, the Bureau has not differentiated its hiring tools-written
test and phone interview administered to each qualified applicant-to
reflect skills needed by people serving as crew leaders from those
skills needed by other staff. "
Census Bureau Response:
There are five different guides that are used for selections for
various LCO positions, which were reviewed and altered based on
recommendations from the ROs or LCOs. These guides will again be
reviewed before they go into production for the 2010 Census. Within the
selection guides, there is variance based on the operation for which
the applicant is being interviewed. The guides are DX-269A, Selection
Guide for Enumerator; DX-269B, Selection Guide for Crew Leader; DX-
269C, Selection Guide for Office Clerk; DX-269D, Selection Guide for
Supervisors; and DX-269E, Selection Guide for Recruiting Assistant. The
Census Bureau currently has a contractor to examine whether there is a
need to revise/replace our current selection tools for all LCO
positions, including crew leaders. This includes evaluating both the
written test and the current interview guides used for selection. The
decision on the appropriateness of tools for the various positions,
including the crew leader position, will be made once the contractor
completes its research.
Page 6:
"Moreover, while Bureau policies dictate 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. "
Census Bureau Response:
The Census Bureau recommends hiring experienced employees before
inexperienced employees. Successful work by a census enumerator is
difficult to judge by our temporary crew leaders, and it cannot be
measured by production rates alone. For example, due to the variety of
enumeration areas and the complexity of some cases, employees who are
the best workers often are given the most challenging assignments,
which in turn would be reflected in a lower production rate.
Page 7:
"The Bureau has taken limited 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 has not evaluated alternate approaches, such as
providing video segments, to training delivery, as has been recommended
by us and the OIG. "
Census Bureau Response:
The Census Bureau does not believe these statements accurately reflect
its commitment and implementation of continuous training improvements.
The magnitude of the decennial census, with more than 40,000
simultaneous training sessions, creates many challenges to
incorporating suggestions, such as using video segments. These include
the cost of equipment, the limitation of training space, which is
mostly donated at no cost to the government, and the logistics of
temporary staff setting up and moving audiovisual equipment. The Census
Bureau has used results of past training evaluations to make continuous
updates and improvements to its training, reflecting best practices in
adult learning and employee training. Some of these include use of
frequent self-assessment and practice questions, role-playing, and
focusing on the practical applications of what is being taught.
Page 16:
". . . working within existing government personnel systems to make
census jobs available and attractive to certain populations..."
Census Bureau Response:
The Census Bureau is working with federal, state, local, and tribal
officials who manage existing government programs and regulations to
obtain waivers that will help expand the pool of potential applicants.
Most of these programs involve social services and are not government
personnel systems.
Page 19:
"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 for differences
in employee productivity between locations. "
Census Bureau Response:
The Planning Database is a useful tool for several purposes, but, as we
explained in our discussions with GAO, adjusting for differences in
employee productivity between locations is not one of them. One of the
uses of the Database is to help plan work loads and, in turn, inform
recruiting goals. Elements cited above, such as mail return rates, help
us anticipate where we may need to hire larger or smaller staff, but
they do not give us the type of information implied in the GAO report
that could be used in adjusting enumerator performance data in making
decisions about rehiring a particular individual. Information about
linguistically isolated households is useful in helping to inform the
language skills we may need our employees to possess in a particular
location, but not how the productivity of an employee with those skills
working in such an area should be adjusted in making a rehire decision.
Many of the best workers are given the most difficult assignments and
may appear to be less productive. Therefore, penalizing these
individuals for low productivity rates would be counterproductive.
Page 21:
"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 little funds to make
improvements in other areas such as recruiting and hiring. "
Census Bureau Response:
The Census Bureau agrees that in trying to meet its reengineering
objective of containing costs for the 2010 Decennial Census Program, it
focused on those things most likely to produce significant cost
savings. By far the most expensive task of the census is NRFU. The best
way to reduce the costs of that operation is to reduce the work load
through improvements that will increase the mail response rate
(including using hand-held computers so that late mail returns can be
removed from the NRFU work load after the operation begins). The second
best way to reduce the costs of NRFU is to minimize the amount of paper
(questionnaires, maps, payroll forms) needed for that operation, along
with the attendant space and staff needed to control and process all
that paper. Thus, these are the areas where we focused our
reengineering efforts-in particular, automating field data collection
and use of a replacement questionnaire mailing to increase mail
response rates.
We did not believe, and still do not believe, that adding more
complexity to the recruiting, testing, hiring, training, and
supervision efforts are likely to produce significant cost savings.
Furthermore, we are extremely adverse to making any changes likely to
reduce our ability to find all the people we need to complete these
tasks in the time constrained by two legal deadlines. Title 13 of
United States Code requires that Census Day be April 1, 2010, and that
within nine months of April 1, the Secretary of Commerce must deliver
the apportionment counts to the President.
Page 22:
"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. "
Census Bureau Response:
The census is a national event, but it is a local activity. Local
governments, community-based organizations, and other local
organizations and groups expect that their residents, clients, and/or
constituents will have a role in taking the census. These entities
support the Census Bureau's efforts to recruit and hire an indigenous
workforce to take the census in every political jurisdiction and in
every neighborhood in the United States and Puerto Rico. The Census
Bureau has found that hiring people to work in the neighborhoods in
which they live literally opens doors. Hiring locals also gives us
staff who have a more detailed knowledge of the specific area. This
familiarity helps them locate housing units more easily and can afford
them easier access to areas that outsiders would not have (for example,
hiring someone who lives in a gated community to enumerate that
community). Enumerators' duty stations are their homes. They are paid
mileage and time from the moment they leave their homes to begin
assignments. Therefore, hiring people from the neighborhoods in which
they work helps to reduce cost and improve response rates.
Page 22:
"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. 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."
Census Bureau Response:
The second part of the statement is inaccurate. The Census Bureau is
taking a preliminary look at whether varying recruiting goals by area
is a viable alternative.
Page 23:
"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 interest for census work, and identify applicants who would
be more likely to commit to long-term employment and be successful
throughout census operations. "
Census Bureau Response:
Census positions are temporary. The majority of the positions exist for
6-8 weeks. Although individuals who may be employed in June 2009 may be
rehired in December 2009 and again in June 2010, this is not long-term
employment. Well-qualified individuals who are interested in longer
term employment are hired as managers or to replace experienced staff
who have vacated their permanent positions to work on the decennial for
a limited period of time.
Page 24:
"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 that will be made to the hiring process will be to
account for the automation of field data collection, and not for
differentiating hiring tools for crew leaders and other positions. "
Census Bureau Response:
The Census Bureau is examining all of its selection tools, and
decisions about needed revisions and replacement of these tools will be
made when the research is completed. While one of the major purposes
for soliciting a comprehensive review of census selection tests by a
contractor was to examine the impact of the automation on required job
skills, the contractor has also been tasked with conducting a
comprehensive study that will address the validity and reliability of
all selection tools. The Census Bureau notes that none of the analyses
to date have indicated that current selection tools are neither valid
nor reliable for selecting any LCO positions. In addition, an OPM study
of census selection tests and procedures prior to Census 2000 concluded
that the selection tools were indeed valid, and that most competencies
required for the various field staff jobs were the same. The OPM did
recommend that a test component be added to address interpersonal
skills, and during 2000, an experiment was conducted for this using an
off-the-shelf personality test. Work in this area continues with the
current contractor.
Page 26:
"Bureau officials said they do not expect to revise these tools for the
2010 Census because the phone interview has two sets of questions for
the crew leaders. 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. "
Census Bureau Response:
The Census Bureau recognizes that the CL position requires many skills,
such as training, supervision and organization, and continues to
research methods to identify these skills that are within the approved
guidelines. As stated previously, there are three different selection
guides that are used for selections for various LCO positions: the DX-
269A, Selection Guide for Enumerator; the DX-269B, Selection Guide for
Crew Leader; and the DX-269D, Selection Guide for Supervisors (which
includes information for field and office supervisors). These guides
were reviewed and altered based on recommendations from the ROs or LCOs
and will be reviewed before they go into production for the 2010
Census. Within the selection guides, there is variance based on the
operation for which the applicant is being interviewed.
Page 27:
"The following observations were made about individuals in the crew
leader position: they did not have the skills necessary to perform the
duties required in that position; they did not feel comfortable
providing training to enumerators and asked their assistants to
deliver; they did not have the appropriate leadership skills; and.
needed for that position."
Census Bureau Response:
These observations are not consistent with the results of the Census
Bureau's-sponsored evaluations of staff preparedness following training
and on-the-job performance. For example, a 2006 study conducted by a
contractor found that field staff were adequately prepared to do the
tasks associated with their jobs. Our debriefing results also indicate
that CLs felt they were adequately prepared, although there were areas
where they would like more training.
Page 28:
"When hiring, Bureau policies dictate that former employees are rehired
first..."
Census Bureau Response:
The Census Bureau recommends, not dictates, hiring experienced
employees before inexperienced employees.
Page 28:
"Nor does the Bureau prepare employee performance evaluations that
could be used later when considering rehiring former employees. "
Census Bureau Response:
Due to the short-term nature of decennial census employment, the Census
Bureau believes it is impractical and cost-prohibitive to conduct
formal performance evaluations for these positions. Furthermore, OPM
recognizes this and has exempted the Census Bureau from this
requirement to conduct evaluations for all temporary Schedule A
employees (this includes the enumerators, crew leaders, as well as
other field staff) and managerial staff serving in the LCOs under a one-
year temporary appointment.
This does not mean that the Census Bureau does not evaluate
performance. As noted in the GAO report, the Census Bureau monitors
productivity on a daily basis and corrects or terminates poor
performers, as necessary.
Pages 28/29:
"Bureau officials said that they try to exclude rehiring former
employees who were terminated for cause. Bureau officials say they try
not to rehire those individuals that were terminated for cause. "
Census Bureau Response:
The Census Bureau does not rehire former employees who were terminated
for cause. The Decennial Applicant Personnel and Payroll System does
not allow for the rehire of employees who were terminated for cause.
Page 30:
"Although officials believe they lack sufficient time to consider past
performance when rehiring, we believe that the Bureau does have enough
time. "
Census Bureau Response:
Please see our comments in response to Recommendation 2.
Page 30:
"If I S 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. "
Census Bureau Response:
In 2010, there will not be 90,000 individuals with previous census
experience available for NRFU. At best, roughly 70,000 individuals are
employed for AC-the second largest operation the Census Bureau
conducts. The majority of those individuals will most likely not
reapply for subsequent temporary operations that are conducted a year
later. Even if 15 percent of them do so, this would only produce a pool
of about 10,000 experienced staff far short of the 500,000 enumerators
we believe will be needed for NRFU.
Page 33:
"In 2004, the OIG suggested the Bureau explore the use of interactive
training methods, as the Bureau does for other non-decennial surveys. "
Census Bureau Response:
Survey trainees are less than 1/50 the number of short-term decennial
employees. In addition, survey employees are expected to be long-term,
as opposed to the very short-term nature of decennial census
operations. It is not valid to compare the two types of trainees or
methods.
Pages 34 and 35:
"While there are training locations that will not have access to
audiovisual technology, several options exist that could allow video
content to be used more broadly. One option the Bureau could pursue is
providing video contents. to its field staff to watch during their self-
study as homework assignments. If only a few training sites. crews
could be invited into the local census office to view video segments.
If more training sites lack such technology ., field operations
supervisors, who we observed . could show video segments on their
laptops. "
Census Bureau Response:
The report appears to be confusing the techniques available to trainers
and trainees for our ongoing surveys with what is available to
decennial trainers and trainees. In most cases, decennial enumerators
do not have self-study materials. There are no approved criteria to
require that a trainee has a VCR or DVD, even though this equipment may
be widely available. Trainees who did not have the equipment would be
at a disadvantage in the classroom. The same applies to Internet
access. The suggestion to invite crews to the LCO disregards the
logistics of an LCO with more than 1,000 enumerators widely dispersed
throughout the boundaries of the LCO (sometimes living hundreds of
miles from their LCO). Also, each field operations supervisor has a
crew of approximately eight crew leaders, with up to 16 trainees in
each session. It is not logical to believe that trainees would receive
any benefit from crowding around a laptop screen.
The Census Bureau has not conducted a formal evaluation because basic
calculations of the costs and constraints of this strategy make it
unfeasible to effectively implement. Nevertheless, the Census Bureau
continues to seek ways to improve the traditional training by
reevaluating the presentations and use of visual aids. The HHC will
include screen shots as illustrated on page 35 of the GAO report. It
has been, and will continue to be, a part of the HHC applications.
Page 36:
"In that regard, a series of pictures illustrating features of vacant
housing units, such as uncut grass or boarded-up windows, might provide
field staff additional information to help them make these judgments
consistently. "
Census Bureau Response:
While the Census Bureau supports the use of visual aids, our procedures
instruct the Lister to not only rely on visual cues but also to talk
with a knowledgeable person in close proximity to the unit before
classifying it as vacant. We do not want enumerators to consider
Housing Units vacant based solely on visual cues.
Page 40:
(Summary) This page contains several examples of conditions in South
Dakota and Austin, Texas that might not apply to all areas of the
country in 2010.
Census Bureau Response:
The Census Bureau must prepare national training to incorporate as many
disparate examples as possible. In addition, the Census Bureau
encourages each RO to identify local conditions that might require
specific information. We will continue to explore more formal ways to
assist the ROs in this endeavor.
Page 44:
"However, its hiring tools have not adequately differentiated between
crew leaders and their field staff. "
Census Bureau Response:
As stated above, there are three different selection guides that are
used for selections for various LCO field positions. The DX-269A,
Selection Guide for Enumerator; the DX-269B, Selection Guide for Crew
Leader; and the DX-269D, Selection Guide for Supervisors (this guide
includes information for field and office supervisors). These guides
were reviewed and revised based on recommendations from the ROs or LCOs
and will be reviewed before they go into production for the 2010
Census. Within the selection guides, there is variance based on the
operation in which the applicant is being interviewed.
Page 44:
"Finally, the Bureau. when rehiring former employees, who are given
preference during hiring for later operations. "
Census Bureau Response:
The Census Bureau recommends, not dictates, hiring experienced
employees before inexperienced employees.
Page 44:
"Moreover, while the Bureau will be incorporating visual aids on how to
use the hand held computers, it has not developed other visual aids
that could improve the ability of field staff to conduct census
operations. "
Census Bureau Response:
For the 2008 Dress Rehearsal, the Census Bureau has developed five
poster-size visual aids-for use in the AC. These are screen shots from
the HHC and will be moved in the training sessions. There is also a
Quick Reference Guide that has been developed for AC field staff use.
The Group Quarters Validation (GQV) operation, which is a paper-based
operation, has developed large-scale maps to assist in Lister training.
For DR, NRFU will continue to use an updated Quick Reference Guide that
was used in the 2006 test and will develop large-scale visual aids.
NRFU is not at the same point of training material development as AC
and GQV.
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.
[End of section]
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Mathew J. Scirč (202) 512-6806 or sciremj@gao.gov:
Acknowledgements:
[End of section]
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.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
2010 Census: Design Shows Progress, but Managing Technology
Acquisitions, Temporary Field Staff and Gulf Region Enumeration Require
Attention. 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. 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. 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. 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. GAO-06-277. Washington, D.C.: May 18,
2006.
2010 Census: Planning and Testing Activities Are Making Progress. 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. GAO-06-444T. Washington
D.C.: March 1, 2006.
Data Quality: Improvements to Count Correction Efforts Could Produce
More Accurate Census Data. GAO-05-463. Washington, D.C.: June 20, 2005.
Information Technology Management: Census Bureau Has Implemented Many
Key Practices, but Additional Actions Are Needed. GAO-05-661.
Washington, D.C.: June 16, 2005.
2010 Census: Basic Design Has Potential, but Remaining Challenges Need
Prompt Resolution. 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. GAO-05-86. Washington, D.C.:
November 17, 2004.
American Community Survey: Key Unresolved Issues. 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. GAO-04-898. Washington, D.C.:
August 19, 2004.
2010 Census: Overseas Enumeration Test Raises Need for Clear Policy
Direction. GAO-04-470. Washington, D.C.: May 21, 2004.
2010 Census: Cost and Design Issues Need to Be Addressed Soon. GAO-04-
37. Washington, D.C.: January 15, 2004.
2000 Census: Lessons Learned for Planning a More Cost-Effective 2010
Census. GAO-03-40. Washington, D.C.: October 31, 2002.
FOOTNOTES
[1] GAO, A Model of Strategic Human Capital Management, GAO-02-373SP
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 15, 2002).
[2] GAO, Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic
Workforce Planning, GAO-04-39 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11, 2003).
[3] GAO-04-39.
[4] GAO, Human Capital: A Self-Assessment Checklist for Agency Leaders,
GAO/OCG-00-14G (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 2000).
[5] GAO/OCG-00-14G.
[6] See, for example, GAO, Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing
Strategic Training and Development Efforts in the Federal Government,
GAO-04-546G (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2004) and GAO-02-373SP.
[7] GAO-02-373SP.
[8] Throughout 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.
[9] GAO, 2000 Census: Best Practices and Lessons Learned for More Cost-
Effective Nonresponse Follow-up, GAO-02-196 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 11,
2002).
[10] Janet Cummings, Census 2000: Staffing the Nation's Largest Data
Collection Workforce, (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau, Aug.
2001).
[11] GAO-02-196.
[12] Local census offices experiencing difficulties in recruiting
applicants are able to lower the cutoff score on the written test.
[13] As 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.
[14] Officials said productivity data are primarily collected and used
for budgetary purposes.
[15] Westat, Inc., Factors Affecting Census 2000 Recruiting (Rockville,
Md.: Jan. 7, 2002).
[16] Office 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).
[17] Department 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).
[18] 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. 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.
[19] 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.
[20] The handheld computers developed by Harris will not include
software that will allow field staff to play games during training.
[21] OIG-16949.
[22] GAO, 2010 Census: Basic Design Has Potential, but Remaining
Challenges Need Prompt Resolution, GAO-05-9 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 12,
2005).
[23] OIG-16949.
[24] GAO-04-546G.
[25] U.S. Census Bureau, 2003.
[26] Department 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).
[27] Eagle International, Inc., 2004 Census Test: Review and Evaluation
of Training Efficacy (Rochester, N.Y.: Oct. 21, 2005).
[28] OIG-16949.
[29] As 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.
[30] OIG-16949.
[31] The 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.
[32] As 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.
[33] GAO-05-9.
[34] The National Academies Press, Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks
and Challenges (Washington, D.C.: 2004).
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:
