	Background

For the 2020 Census, the Bureau intends to limit its per-household cost to  not more than that of the 2010 Census, adjusted for inflation. To help control costs  and maintain accuracy, the 2020 Census design includes new procedures  and technology that have not been used extensively in earlier decennials,  if at all. While these innovations show promise for a more cost-effective  head count, they also introduce new risks. The 2016 test was the latest major test of NRFU in the Bureau’s testing  program. According to Bureau officials, they are not certain  why there were so many non-interviews for the 2016 Census Test and  are researching potential causes. While the 2016 Census Test interview rate is not necessarily a  precursor to the 2020 non-interview rate, because of its relationship to the  cost and quality of the census, it will be important for the Bureau to better  understand the factors contributing to it. At the  same time, improving certain enumeration procedures and  communicating better could produce additional efficiencies by enabling  the Bureau to be more responsive to situations enumerators encounter in  the course of their follow-up work. Enumerators were unable to access recently closed incomplete  cases. Bureau officials acknowledged that closing cases in this fashion  represented a missed opportunity and plan to test greater flexibilities as  part of the 2018 End-to-End Test. Programming some flexibility into the  mobile device—if accompanied with adequate training on how and when  to use it—should permit some interviews to be completed without having  to deploy staff to the same case on subsequent days. This in turn could  reduce the cost of follow-up attempts and improve interview completion  rates. Enumerators did not understand procedures for visits to property  managers. In response to problems observed during the Bureau’s 2014 and 2015  Census tests and to complaints from property managers about multiple  uncoordinated visits by enumerators, the Bureau’s 2016 Census Test  introduced specific procedures to conduct initial visits to property  managers in large multi-unit apartment buildings. According to the Bureau, the 2016 Census Test demonstrated that vacant  units could quickly be removed from the NRFU workload using these  procedures in cases where a property manager was readily available;  however, in other cases the procedures caused confusion. Furthermore, without the knowledge of which units  were vacant, enumerators may have unnecessarily visited these units  and increased the cost and the time required to complete NRFU. The Bureau Can Better Leverage Enumerator- Collected Information on Respondent Availability

During our field visits, we encountered several instances where  enumerators had been told by a respondent or otherwise learned that  returning at a specific time on a later date would improve their chance of  obtaining an interview from either a household respondent or a property  manager. As a result, the Bureau’s 2016 Census Test and automated  case management system did not have an efficient way to leverage that  information. Attempting to contact non-responding households at times  respondents are expected to be available can increase the completion  rate and reduce the need to return at a later date or rely on proxy  interviews as a source of information. Determine the cause(s) for non-interviews experienced during the  non-response follow-up operation and revise and test what, if any,  changes need to be made to operational procedures, training, or both,  including making contact with proxy respondents. 2. 3. Revise and test operational procedures and relevant training materials  for initial property manager visits to ensure procedures and training  material are communicated to and understood by enumerators and  their supervisors. 4. Revise and test procedures on how to better leverage enumerator- collected information on the best time or day to conduct interviews,  and ensure enumerators are properly trained on these procedures. Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of the Department of  Commerce for comment. The Census Bureau also provided technical  comments that we incorporated, as appropriate.
Why GAO Did This Study

With a life-cycle cost of about $12.3 billion, the 2010 Census was the most expensive enumeration in U.S. history. To help control costs and maintain accuracy, the 2020 Census design includes new procedures and technology that have not been used extensively in earlier decennials, if at all. While these innovations show promise for a more cost-effective head count, they also introduce risks. As a result, it will be important to thoroughly test the operations planned for 2020.
The objective of this report is to assess key NRFU operations performed during the 2016 Census Test to identify any lessons learned that could have a potential impact on pending design decisions for the 2020 Census. To assess NRFU operations GAO visited both test locations and observed enumerators conducting NRFU interviews, and reviewed relevant documents including the test plan and enumerator training manuals.

What GAO Found

The Census Bureau (Bureau) recently completed its 2016 Census Test in Los Angeles County, California, and Harris County, Texas. One primary focus of the test was to assess the methodology for non-response follow-up (NRFU), where enumerators personally visit households that do not self-respond to the census. GAO found that during the 2016 Census Test, NRFU generally proceeded according to the Bureau's operational plan. However, data at both test sites indicate that the Bureau experienced a large number of non-interviews. Non-interviews are cases where either no data or insufficient data are collected. Bureau officials are not certain why there were so many non-interviews for the 2016 Census Test and are researching potential causes. Going forward, it will be important for the Bureau to better understand the factors that contributed to the non-interview rate because of its relationship to the cost and quality of the census.
GAO also found that refining certain enumeration procedures and training enumerators better could produce additional efficiencies by enabling the Bureau to be more responsive to situations enumerators encounter on the ground. For example, enumerators, by design, were unable to access on the mobile device recently closed, incomplete cases. Bureau officials acknowledged that closing cases in this fashion represented a missed opportunity and plan to test greater flexibilities as part of the 2018 End-to-End Test. Programming some flexibility into the mobile device—if accompanied with adequate training on how and when to use it—should permit enumerators to complete some interviews and reduce the cost of follow-up attempts. Further, enumerators did not always understand procedures for visiting property managers in multi-unit buildings. Specifically, the 2016 Census Test demonstrated that vacant units could quickly be removed from the NRFU workload where a property manager was readily available to provide that information; however, in other cases the procedures confused enumerators and they did not understand how to proceed. Without the knowledge of which units were vacant, enumerators may have unnecessarily visited some vacant units and thereby increased the cost of NRFU.
During GAO's field visits, GAO encountered several instances where enumerators learned that returning at a specific time on a later date would improve their chance of obtaining an interview from either a household respondent or a property manager. However, the Bureau's 2016 Census Test and automated case management system did not have an efficient way to leverage that information. Attempting contact at non-responding households at times respondents are expected to be available increases the completion rate and reduces the need to return.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends the Secretary of Commerce direct the Bureau to: (1) determine causes for non-interviews, and revise and test what, if any, changes need to be made to operational procedures and training; (2) revise and test procedures and training on accessing closed cases, (3) revise and test procedures and training for initial property manager visits; and (4) revise and test procedures and training for how to use enumerator-collected data on the best time or day to conduct an interview. The Department of Commerce agreed with GAO's recommendations, and the Bureau provided technical comments that were incorporated, as appropriate.