Pretesting Results 1

PROOF OF CONCEPTS TEST
FIELD REPRESENTATIVE (FR) DEBRIEFING QUESTIONNAIRE

Q3:If you were dissatisfied with the amount of time your Field Supervisor and/or immediate
supervisor were able to spend with you during and/or prior to the POC test, please explain
below what caused the dissatisfaction.




RO Supervisors always seemed to be busy or out of reach.
SFR was very busy – sometimes the only time available was late in the evening
None - FS always called back or emailed within a reasonable time period.

Q7: If you felt your Field Supervisor was not helpful, please explain how your Field Supervisor
could have been more helpful? (Please print)

NO COMMENTS
Q9: If you felt your SFR/Program Supervisor(s) were not helpful, please explain how they could
have been more helpful?
NO COMMENTS
Q12: If you feel there was a change in how often you had to contact your Field Supervisor
during the POC test compared with how often you had to contact your SFR/Program
Supervisors prior to the POC test, please explain below why you think this occurred?


I spoke to my FS more during the POC because she was the only go-to person to discuss and resolve any
issues that we had.



I had to contact the FS more during the POC test to facilitate letters and supplies.



Telephone contact kept to a minimum; lots of emails



Pilot program – needed to get the kinks out



We were required to contact the supervisor every Friday & Monday unless our workload was finished, so
we had to contact them more often than before POC (sometimes also had to contact them in between as
well because of special case situations).



Because there were other circumstances, such as trouble with computer, payroll, etc., everything was
done through the FS.



I had to contact my FS much more often – could not call in for letters or get timely answers that I was
used to getting. My production time went up by at least 15%.
1 



Tighter bond.



She was the only person we could call. We could not call the office. I had a lot of questions and
could not call the different people in the office, but now I had just one person to answer all my
questions and handle my problems (on my cases, payroll, computer problems, questions about
ordering, office notes, emails, and the list goes on). She was the only contact and I know she
was busy with all of us just calling her. Before the POC, we could call the office and I did.
Everyone there was polite, friendly and helpful.



There seemed to be a lot of pressure put on the FS to make the POC work so there was much
more contact than previously. In addition, automation, respondent letters, supplies and materials
were all issues for which I had the independent discretion to contact the RO on an as needed
basis and did not have to go through my SFR first.



I was working a survey that was new to me.



All my emails and letter requests went through her. Also, I had to let her know when I called the
RO for CPS Fast Data. Also all my NAMCS/NHAMCS contact went through her but never did
before.



There was more contact at first but by the middle of September it was less often as new FS and I
got to know each other better.



Worked on additional survey for first time.



Because it was mandated to notify her every time letters were requested, etc. etc.



Having to send daily reports of the work I was going to do and work completed was over doing
it.



The FS handled it well. I saw no change in her service.

Q14: If you were NOT satisfied with your Field Supervisor’s ability to answer your questions
on a topic, please list the topic(s), the question(s) that your Field Supervisor could not answer,
and what you did to get your question(s) answered.


(a) Workload – why was 20 cases deleted from my temporary survey? I anticipated work for a
longer time frame. Answer: the survey supervisor did it. (b) Why should I continue contacting
refusing respondents if the requested letters have not been sent or confirmed sent? (c) When
asked about the delay in RO response for letters, the answer was: there is only one clerk…but
there were three clerks. (d) After a request for transfer of language barrier/refusal cases early on,
the answer was “wait.” It was approximately a month later.
2 



FS needed to relay my message that a letter was needed - ended up with a one day delay of the
information, which delayed my time to re-contact the household. Payroll concerns were never an
issue before but were during the POC.



My FS was very helpful and responsive – but it seemed there was an unnecessary step in
contacting the FS when I ended up having to contact the RO anyway. It would have saved time
to just contact the RO in the first place.



If she did not know, she forwarded my question or request on to the appropriate department
immediately, so I was always satisfied.



None – no problems



Not permitted to speak to anyone else so no resolution possible.

Q16: If you were NOT satisfied with your SFR’s/RO’s/Program Supervisors’ ability to answer
your questions on a topic, please list the topic(s), the question(s) that your he/she could not
answer, and what you did to get your question(s) answered. (Please print)


How to handle LWOP status – disability; What paper work do I need? Where do I get it? Where
do I send it? AHS is very difficult.



Workload – I requested additional work but the answer was due to “cutbacks” the work is
limited. However, my SFR did get some additional work for me.



RO did serve me well. My only concern with this order of operation was the delay in getting my
letters to the household and the communication delay in general.



My SFR did not have the same ability to change my workload around that the FS had.



All email and phone requests were cc’ed to the department and to the SFR.



No problems. Prior SFR was very cooperative.

Q18: If it took more/less time to get your questions answered during the POC test, please
explain below how you handled/dealt with the situation.


Incident reports need - took more time because neither of us was familiar with what terms were
necessary.



Turnaround time from POC mailbox to survey specific clerk - response to request took way too
long. Not the fault of the local SFR.
3 



I think it took less time for my questions to be answered because she was our dedicated person
and was always on top of any issues that I may be having. She was very well prepared to help
and answer any questions. I really preferred to deal with one person.



If I was not getting a response from the RO, FS had to call them to facilitate.



Fast Data took longer in every request. In one instance, it took 3 business days to get a response
and then it was done because my supervisor called and requested it.



Additional emails for letter requested from RO; additional email to SFR.



Response time for letter requests for temporary surveys via email initially took too long. Clerk
was not familiar with the survey. I made requests to FS – she brought attention to the issue and
corrected it.



Email to SFR



I had to wait for the RO staff to contact me – because I was not permitted to call them. Most of
the time they did not call/email to confirm my letter requests. (In 3 months I had only three
contacts back from the RO) The office needs more staff!



I called the FS, waited for a call back if busy, but sent emails as backup if extremely timesensitive. FS would respond by either giving the necessary information or a contact, which was
always right to the point; she would also give options if she did not know the answer.



As my supervisor had more responsibilities it took longer to get in contact with her and we were
not able to get some issues resolved without going through her first.



My production level went down – I was unable to act on revisits until the letter arrived a day or
two late. My response rate may have gone down as well. I need the quick response the RO call
gave me.



Patience.



Less time to get answers to questions results in better productivity; case resolved faster.



Before POC, I would call all the many people in the RO during business hours and there was
always someone available all day. Evening/weekends I would cal1 my supervisor. During the
POC, I had to wait until she was available and could call me back. She always returned my
calls/emails. I know she was extremely busy with all of us calling but she was always
professional, helpful and friendly and always patient and willing to help. It did not matter what
time we called – nights/weekends seven days a week. She was never irritated if I called 9-10 pm
or on Sundays. She was always available. If she was at training, or whatever, she called as soon
4 

as she could on her break or would send emails late at night. She spent a lot of time being
helpful.


Most of the areas ended up needing RO assistance and it seemed like an unnecessary step to go
through the FS to get permission to contact the RO. In addition, my FS had more difficulty in
getting my cases back from CAPI.



Did not take that much more time, just a little. I liked being able to call or email the FS more;
nice having a single point of contact.



Contacted FS and usually had answer quickly.



More: Just having to go through the process twice - calling FS and then calling survey clerks.

Q25: Why do you think your workload changed during the POC test? Other – please explain:











Housing survey came on-line.
Worked additional surveys (not too many!) Need more work!
NHAMCS “kicked in” during the period; it had nothing to do with the test.
More and different procedures on the computer (more passwords to use, new way of doing
email, etc.)
Because it was a test to see if we are able to handle any type of situation given to us, especially if
others were sick, etc.
Assisted other FRs; given additional cases; learned new programs.
No survey work (DAAL, CAUS).
Done because of S.S. restrictions.
I was confined to inner city locations.
FRs needed to be hired in several counties.

Q29: If having one person to report to made your job easier, please explain how your job
became a little/lot easier.
 Time wasn’t needed to discover who I should talk to. The time waiting for responses to
messages was dramatically reduced.
 One person knew all of my workload for other surveys - this made it easier to set my work
priorities and goals without another SFR thinking her survey was more important.


With payroll, I had an issue where some of my hours were missing. In the past when I had to
call the RO, the representative handling my payroll was busy, so I would have to try calling back
many times in a day or week to reach her, as opposed to just getting the issue resolved with my
SFR.
5 



SFR was always available



It was nice, only having to dial one person’s number and she was already familiar with FRs and their

work habits. Worked more closely as a team to help one another as well; FS was also
experienced in what we do.


Consistency.



More timely and efficient communication; continuity to conversations about cases – FS more
familiar with progression of a case, specifically a difficult respondent. Thus the FS was able to
provide more timely suggestions for a successful outcome; FS more familiar with field
operations and the need for quick communication to resolve a case; FS more attuned to FR’s
cases on all surveys; Quicker response to resolving questions immediately rather than waiting for
office direction during its hours of operation.



My FS worked in the field and had a much better understanding of issues and problems that can
cause FRs not to meet established goals. A lot of the tension between RO supervisors and FRs
was alleviated by having the FS as the intermediary.



One pint of contact - who usually forwarded emails and responses – is in my opinion an easy
way to do business.




Less transferring around to get answers.
I could just make one call and cover everything at once. Did not have to wait to reach others to
get answers.



One chief only to talk to and do as told and not so many different answers.



I have always had strong SFRs. I like the idea of one person well trained on all surveys.



Deadlines by different supervisors was diminished.



One phone call to one person – but it’s always been that way!

Q30: If having one person to report to made your job more difficult, please explain how your
job became a little/lot more difficult.
 I prefer to go directly to the person who can handle my request and get it done rather than several
hands just “passing the buck” and not knowing when or if the job request got done.

6 

 It wasn’t having one person to report to, it was the time it took to get response letters and
supplies from the RO that made things more difficult (sometimes 2-3 days wait for phone call
from RO).
 You don’t always get direct answers to your questions. Subjected to transfer of cases because
you have no voice other than the FS, which can be stressful. (less work/less money)
 One more channel to go through instead of direct contact with RO – took more time to get
answers/help.
 Getting Fast Data information and sending letters to respondents was more difficult. It took
longer.
 I did not consistently hear back from the supervisor as soon as I would have preferred, because
she had to be out in the field, or busy with so many responsibilities to all the team members.
 More difficult as everything needed to go though my supervisor first, such as getting computer
repaired, payroll questions answered, letter request okayed, etc.
 I could not get an answer to my concerns in a timely manner. Had to call FS who had to call
ARD who had to call someone else to get a simple refusal letter sent etc. My production went
down because of their timing problem.
 If that person was not available, had to wait. Old way - there was always (Mon-Fri) a person
who could help us after hours.
 The SFR was not always available and, in one case, was not familiar with one of my surveys.
 Requiring daily emails - very time consuming. No other resource permitted if you disagreed
with any decision.
 Had to go through channels when an immediate answer was necessary.
 Feeling micro-managed.

Q32: What did you like about having one person (i.e., the FS) to report to for all surveys?






It saved time in that communications were easier. FS was familiar with assignments and able to
respond with practical suggestions.
It was easier and more efficient and more productive.
It is always easier to “chase down” one person instead of ten!
My FS was very helpful and responded in a timely manner to any issues.
SFR was always available.
7 



















Answers to question…I would usually call the RO and questions were answered in a timely
manner – much faster.
I have always had an SFR to report to for the surveys I worked.
FS was experienced in all areas: FS encouraged us as to what we could do to get the job done;
FS always communicated – kept us in constant motion as to what was expected; FS spoke with
me everyday about deadlines, new polices, etc.
Build rapport
Availability of the FS on all the FR’s surveys created faster solutions to questions and/or
problems in the field.
Only had one person following up on surveys instead of several calls from a variety of people.
Only had one supervisor style to adapt to instead of three or four; didn’t have competition
between surveys for priority.
One point of contact.
FS was up to date on all my issues. Little confusion as to strategies taken.
Easier chain of command.
Easily accessible and extremely knowledgeable and helpful.
Always speak to the same person and that way you don’t get conflicting info, you are always on
the “same page” with your SFR and then, if need be, she will tell you when to call someone else.
Same as question 29.
It is more efficient.
She knows me and I know her way of doing things.
A FS who is thoroughly trained in surveys and can answer our inquiries is very beneficial.
Deadlines by different supervisors was diminished.
One phone call to one person – but it’s always been that way!

Q33: What did you dislike about having one person (i.e., the FS) to report to for all surveys?


Rather go directly to source/tool - too much time to get what I needed done!



If there is a case where my FS is unreachable, I would like the option of reaching someone else
A.S.A.P.



Nothing



Each survey we know represents a concensus of people/change. No two respondents are exactly
alike. The information obtained for two surveys from four respondents can be totally distinctive
and/or varied because of their specific experiences.



One more channel to go through instead of direct contact with the RO – took more time to get
answers/help.



Team building, strong SFR conference
8 



Not as many resources for me to use in my field work. Timing made me less effective. A simple
phone call was now a series of conversations to get the job done.



From my experience during the POC, field operations were very efficient reporting to one person
for all surveys.



The potential for conflict with one person and not having any options for who to talk to; My FS
was great and this was not the case with her but I would be nervous if I only had one individual
to confer with on difficult cases.



Redundant for NAMCS/NHAMCS where FS had no direct experience or input - more work for
her. Everything was forwarded anyway.



No dislikes. Worked for me.



Nothing.



The FR position tends to be lonely with no office staff for interaction. Having only a FS took
away some of the contact with RO personnel that had felt essential.



Too much control for one person; too demanding. Too much “nit picking” – rarely any
positive feedback.



If we have an immediate question on a particular survey it would be helpful to call RO
supervisor, who is thoroughly trained in the survey.

Q34: From an FR’s viewpoint, what are the advantages of this new RO structure?












The new structure is not clear to me besides wanting to be more efficient.
I found that communicating by email with my SFR and other FRs was very convenient.
None
Consistency and reliability
Quicker communication and faster resolution of field concerns. Better productivity, better
response rates, quality data, and overall improved knowledge of survey concepts.
One supervisor knows what you are doing or not doing.
One person to answer to regarding survey issues, especially for FRs working on multiple
surveys; Reduction in RO issues around survey prioritization; Difference in supervisor styles.
The FS has a greater understanding of field issues having worked in the field. One supervisor’s
input on performance.
If your FS gives you a wrong turn, there is only one person responsible.
Single point of contact for CPS and Admin, in some cases.
One person to troubleshoot and strategize with - both of us on same page; RO 90% of time.
9 










Faster response to questions/problems.
Single point of contact
Less confusion, less time in contacting several program supervisors.
It is more efficient.
Not having to deal with the RO. This RO does not return calls unless they want something.
Always someone available to give you an answer.
I have always been able to go to my immediate supervisor with questions. Responding daily
kept me more focused.
I’m new but totally satisfied with my supervisor.

Q35: From a Field Representative’s viewpoint, what are the disadvantages of this new RO
structure?




















None
Possible discrimination with personalities; work not getting done quickly enough.
I did not like the letter request and Fast Data process.
The disadvantages are not real damaging. The new RO structure was a smooth operation.
The disadvantages were the problems/time it took to get the RO calls back to get respondent
letters sent to correct respondent; and also supplies – the FS had to call them several times to
facilitate.
See 34 above
No interaction with the RO – isolation in the field – lack of team concept.
Breakdown in communication with the RO, in some instances, such as requests for supplies and
letters - unless the email procedure will be monitored more intensely.
More burden on FS; Making the FS an administrative position not a field position; no contact
with the RO.
I found it difficult to get letters send to respondents. Getting Fast Data information was also
difficult.
It does seem to be more efficient but in some ways it takes more time, especially all the work on
the computer and waiting for letters to be handled. Plus, not being able to contact someone with
urgent matters – if it takes more time, how is it saving money?
Too much time before problems get solved – field work is fast paced.
Less effective use of my time. Inability to get a small job done with one phone call vs. the chain
reaction.
None visible.
From an FR’s viewpoint, the implementation of the new RO structure will result in improved
operations. No disadvantages at this time.
If she’s not available, you have to wait. They do a lot of other duties and have a lot of people
calling them.
FS’s time is spread too thin - addressing conversion of potential reluctant respondents and
workload issues; too much time on routine issues such as material/supply requests. Respondent
letters need to have FS approval, which causes increase in lag time and decrease in productivity
when you end up contacting the RO anyway.
If your FS gives you a wrong turn, there is no alternative communication network.
10 












Redundant contact for NAMCS/NHAMCS, Admin (in some cases) and ROCS.
None for me during test period.
Requires one person to have broad knowledge.
None.
It was a little disheartening.
Being forbidden to speak to anyone else, too controlling, gives one person too much power.
They should not have access to my ?? rate!
Too many people won’t be able to keep track of one person and may cause conflict.
If RO supervisors are not thoroughly trained in surveys -- and cannot answer our questions –
could be a hindrance in completing them in a timely manner. (i.e., A hospital calls with a
question and would like an answer within a short period of time. Calling the Field Supervisor
who calls their representative who goes to the RO who may not be thoroughly trained and may
not know the answer takes away from the integrity of the Field Rep to represent the Census
Bureau in a professional manner.)
Don’t see any.

Q36: Do you think the FS job is one that you would like to have? No – please explain:




















Prefer to work more independently.
I’m sure it was and can be very overwhelming at times.
Medical issues would prevent me from doing it.
As a field position – yes; as an administrative position – no.
The SFR job is too much of an office job with little field work.
Too many workload demands = too stressful.
Maybe - I would have to know more details.
Happy with my current role as an FR.
Hours are long – seven days a week, nights, and days. I would not want to drive all over the
state/county.
Based on the POC, the Field Supervisor’s job appears more difficult and time consuming than
the SFR job.
Too demanding on all sides.
Never have wanted that job – nothing has changed; I’m retired senior.
Hours I put in now are sufficient.
Present assignments take as much time as I have available.
Just don’t want more hours!
Too much work.
Not sure what it entails.
I like what I do now.
Salary limitations.

11 

Q37: If there are any additional comments you would like to share about your experiences
during the POC test and its impact on your job as a Field Representative, please describe them
below. If you need more space, please attach an additional piece of paper.


I would declare it a success from all aspects. We worked together to improve the Census Bureau
efficiencies and it was exciting to help do this. Keep up the avenues of change. Thank you.



I appreciate being part of the POC test. Thank you!



Again, letters going to deceased/incorrect respondents and not in a timely manner. Also not
getting supplies until FS intervened. The clerks at the RO said they weren’t getting emails. In
emails where a (PII) phone call was required, it was often 2-3 days before responses came and
sometimes they sent letters to incorrect respondents. It was frustrating as we weren’t supposed
to call them.



As stated, it had little impact on me.



Withheld



More emails and less phone contact further alienates any field employee from much needed
personal contact. When I sent emails for AHS letters it took weeks to get a response. I received
this questionnaire via an email on Thursday Nov 3, 2011 and was expected to FedEx it the next
day Friday, which was not possible for me. That’s NOT FAIR that your urgency is my
emergency but my request took weeks. Sorry this is one day late.



I think as we work with the concept more, the more proficient we will become. I did enjoy
learning the POC.



We had to fit in more detailed ways of doing our work, but were not allowed more hours per case
to do it. The new procedures are supposed to be more cost-effective, but how is that possible
when it takes longer? We tried it for three months, but the 3rd month did not take any less time
than in the beginning. (i.e., we don’t get used to it just because we’ve done it longer.) There is
just so much of us to go around and only so many hours in the day. Time schedule changes and
weather also affected our ability to contact respondents (they won’t answer the door after dark),
and the general public is more and more frustrated with the government (harder to get them to
respond = more visits = more time!)



The (POC test and FS test) are only as good as the FS. The person has to be positive, energetic,
have ideas and be able to communicate with FRs, have experience and know the challenges that
we face daily with the respondents, as well as challenges that come with this job (well rounded
individuals); The best key to the program was communication, communication, communication
– everything else will follow; Our FS definitely fit the bill. She did a great job! She was
excellent!

12 



Thank you very much for the opportunity to work on the POC. Denver’s field operations were
extraordinary with an incredibly knowledgeable and talented Field Supervisor.



(1) On Sept 30 went to do payroll and the code would not work. Tried many times to call
supervisor late that evening. She did not have new project code for several days. (2) Received
mail packet (notes, etc.) the end of the month while getting new cases (last day). Could we get it
4-5 days before new cases so we can review it? (3) I received this POC debriefing survey at 5:30
pm when arriving home from out on my cases on Nov 3. It’s due Nov 4th so I had to do it that
night immediately and put everything else on hold. A survey this important needed more time to
read, think ad write. It was rushed. It took one hour and 45 minutes to complete.



I would suggest having a person, with the appropriate level of authority, identified to aid in
reluctant respondent conversion; Continue to allow FRs the discretion to contact RO for routine
issues such as automation/computer issues, respondent letters, materials and supplies; Have POC
last longer than three months since not all the kinks could get worked out or tested (i.e., how
would performance evaluations work). It seems pointless to have a POC team and then disband
it only to reorganize this same structure in six months or less; Have entire team cross trained on
all surveys so all team members can act as back up for each other.



My FS was very knowledgeable and, thanks to her, several interviewing and transmission errors
were ironed out due to the one-on-one help. However I felt that at the end, she might have been
dreading my phone calls.



The only time there was a lack of communication was when some of my cases were reassigned
or I was given another FR’s cases to follow-up on. A couple of times we ended up working on
the same cases at the same time. It would help to get an email when reassignments are made and
instructions on what the follow-up expectations are specifically.



My SFR is the most knowledgeable SFR I’ve ever worked with.



Just started with September case load - don’t know how things were before POC Test.



I have been very fortunate to have a wonderful SFR, who is always timely and helpful.



Never got specific written instructions for this test - UNKNOWN if guidelines were followed.
Cannot understand how you can evaluate the POC when there were no written guidelines
provided. If the supervisor could do letter requests and Fast Data, it would be helpful.



My FS was a great supervisor.



This concept in my mind was a good one, though not having any information about it, I had
difficulties; having to request Fast Data from a different check was untimely.

13