Download:
pdf |
pdfThe memorandum and attached document(s) was prepared for Census Bureau internal use. If
you have any questions regarding the use or dissemination of the information, please contact
the Stakeholder Relations Staff at [email protected].
2020 CENSUS PROGRAM INTERNAL MEMORANDUM SERIES: 2019.17.i
Date:
May 1, 2019
MEMORANDUM FOR: The Record
From:
Deborah M. Stempowski (signed May 1, 2019)
Chief, Decennial Census Management Division
Subject:
2020 Census Evaluation: Research on Hard to Count Populations: Non-English
Speakers and Complex Household Residents including Undercount of Children
Study Plan
Contact:
Jennifer Reichert
Decennial Census Management Division
301-763-4298
[email protected]
This memorandum releases the final version of the 2020 Census Evaluation: Research on Hard to Count
Populations: Non-English Speakers and Complex Household Residents including Undercount of Children
Study Plan, which is part of the 2020 Census Program for Evaluations and Experiments (CPEX). For
specific content related questions, you may also contact the authors:
Renee Ellis
Center for Behavioral
Science Methods
301-763-5122
[email protected]
Patricia Goerman
Center for Behavioral Science
Methods
301-763-1819
[email protected]
Kathleen M. Kephart
Center for Behavioral Science
Methods
301-763-8891
[email protected]
Rodney Terry
Center for Behavioral
Science Methods
301-763-5475
[email protected]
Joanna Fane Lineback
Center for Behavioral Science
Methods
301-763-7599
[email protected]
Marcus P. Berger
Center for Behavioral Science
Methods
301-763-8335
[email protected]
Mikelyn V. Meyers
Center for Behavioral Science
Methods
301-763-9008
[email protected]
census.gov
2020 Census
Evaluation
Research on Hard-to-Count Populations: Non-English
Speakers and Complex Household Residents Including
Undercount of Children
Study Plan
Renee Ellis, CBSM
Patricia Goerman, CBSM
Kathleen Kephart, CBSM
Mikelyn Meyers, CBSM
Rodney Terry, CBSM
Fane Lineback, CBSM
Marcus Berger, CBSM
5/01/2019
Version 2.2
Page intentionally left blank.
Research on non-English speakers and complex households,
Version 2.2
Table of Contents
I.
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
II.
Background ......................................................................................................................... 2
III.
Assumptions........................................................................................................................ 3
IV.
Research Questions ............................................................................................................. 3
V.
Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 3
VI.
Subproject 1- Evaluation: NRFU Observations With Debriefing Interviews .................... 5
VII.
Subproject 2- Bilingual Enumerator Training Experiment ............................................... 15
VIII.
Data Requirements ............................................................................................................ 21
IX.
Risks.................................................................................................................................. 21
X.
Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 22
XI.
Issues That Need to be Resolved ...................................................................................... 22
XII.
Division Responsibilities .................................................................................................. 23
XIII.
Milestone Schedule ........................................................................................................... 24
XIV. Review/Approval Table .................................................................................................... 24
XV.
Document Revision and Version Control History ............................................................ 25
XVI. Glossary of Acronyms ...................................................................................................... 25
XVII. References ......................................................................................................................... 25
Research on non-English speakers and complex households,
Version 2.2
Page intentionally left blank.
Research on non-English speakers and complex households,
Version 2.2
I.
Introduction
One particularly difficult aspect of the Census Bureau’s mission is to include “hard-to-count”
populations, including children, racial/ethnic minorities, and non-English speaking residents, in
surveys and censuses. As the Census Bureau moves toward a person-based, records-based 2030
Census, we are confronted with the challenge of learning more about coverage in this context.
The purpose of this study is to conduct both an evaluation and an experimental research project
about hard-to-count populations, such as non-English speakers and complex household residents
during the 2020 census.
The evaluation research will aim to: (a) build on previous research about hard-to-count
populations; (b) examine the interaction between the social context in 2020 and interviewer
doorstep messaging to increase participation among hard-to-count populations; (c) conduct
qualitative interviews to gain insights into issues relevant to non-English speakers and to develop
a five minute doorstep debriefing to be conducted during the 2020 Census; (d) to observe
doorstep interactions between interviewers and respondents across languages during the census
and conduct debriefings to see what doorstep messages are most effective at increasing
participation; (e) evaluate enumerator use of doorstep materials and hear from them about
whether they have access to all that they need; (f) learn in real time about issues such as
undercount of children, confidentiality concerns, and respondent propensity to respond across
different survey modes.
For the evaluation research, in collaboration with a contractor, we will first conduct in-depth
qualitative interviews in seven languages: English, Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean,
Russian and Arabic. The goal will be to gain in-depth insights into a variety of issues listed
below, related to census participation and issues such as undercount of children and
confidentialitly concerns and to develop a five minute debriefing interview to take place in the
field during observations of the 2020 Census enumeration.
For the experimental component of the research, we will develop an interviewer training module
designed to support bilingual Spanish-speaking enumerators by providing them with researchbased doorstep messages and practices to conduct interviews in Spanish. A test group of
Spanish-speaking enumerators will receive the training for the 2020 Census, and outcomes such
as response rates, contact attempts, and missing data will be compared across the test with a
control group of bilingual interviewers who will not receive the training.
We will work with Field Division and the contractor with whom they are currently working to
develop a brief, online Spanish bilingual interviewer training module that will have the same
look and feel as the other 2020 Census training modules.
For both the evaluation and the experiment, we will select geographic areas with large nonEnglish speaking populations where we will work with Field Division to match our contracted
1
Research on non-English speakers and complex households,
Version 2.2
bilingual observer ethnographers with bilingual enumerators during the census and to select
interviewers for the experiment.
This proposal is meant to fill in gaps we have about coverage of hard-to-count populations and
the reasons they are often missed during the decennial census. Many reasons may contribute to
the undercoverage of these populations, but studies that take place outside of a decennial census
year may fail to fully capture those reasons. The visibility of the decennial census creates a
unique relationship between the government and its citizens that cannot be replicated in nondecennial years.
The information collected from this 2020 Census evaluation and experiment will inform research
and innovations directed toward counting hard-to-count populations who typically have missing
or limited administrative records available. The results will assist in planning throughout the
decade leading up to 2030, so that we have support and methods in place to count these
populations by the 2030 Census.
II.
Background
The Census Bureau is interested in hard-to-count populations, including children, racial/ethnic
minorities, and non-English speaking immigrants, where hard-to-count refers to known undercoverage of these populations in surveys and censuses. Multi method research at the Census
Bureau has been used to study this topic with the goal of improving coverage for these
populations. We know that for the 2020 Census, we can still expect many under-covered
populations, including non-English speaking immigrants, to be less likely to complete the census
via internet self-response than most of the population. The Non-Response Follow Up (NRFU)
operation and face-to-face interviewing mode is extremely important for counting these
populations.
As the Census Bureau moves towards a person-based, records-based 2030 Census, we are
confronted with the challenge of learning more about the coverage issues of a mostly recordsbased census. For example, are we correct in our projections of who the “under-covered”
populations are and where they will be in 2020? Do we understand their concerns and know the
best ways to encourage their participation in the Census?
This proposed evaluation seeks to learn more about encouraging participation of populations that
may be less willing or able to use online forms and those for whom these forms may pose more
burden. Our primary focus will be on respondents who speak languages other than English. The
areas in which these populations are concentrated will also include both English and non-English
speakers who have historically higher rates of undercount of children in the Decennial Census.
The goal is to gain insights both prior to and during the Census about these populations to help
with understanding the 2020 census data and with planning the 2030 operations.
2
Research on non-English speakers and complex households,
Version 2.2
III.
Assumptions
1. The project team will obtain adequate funding to implement the evaluation and
experiment as it is designed in this study plan including all pretesting, travel, contractor
support, and support for analysis and report writing.
2. The project team assumes that the Census Bureau will be able to obtain the services of a
contractor to support the design and implementation of this evaluation/experiment.
3. CBSM will have access to paradata, response data and data from paper forms about the
language the form was completed in and race/ethnicity of household respondents in order
to analyze response rates and contact attempts for the experiment.
4. Training will be designed and developed to have a similar look and feel as the e-learning
modules that enumerators will complete.
5. Geographic locations with similar demographic characteristics will be selected to enable
comparisons between test and control groups for the enumerator training experiment.
6. FLD will recognize the selected Spanish bilingual enumerators and train them according
to their appropriate treatment group.
7. Contractors and headquarters staff will observe live interviews during the 2020 Census to
collect observations regarding the implementation of the training.
8. Enumerators will participate in debriefing focus groups following the 2020 Census.
9. Response data and paradata from the relevant geographic locations will be made
available to research staff for statistical analysis of metrics such as contact attempts,
response rates, item non-response, misreports, etc.
10. Response data will include an indicator for which enumerators worked on the case and
whether they belonged to the treatment or control group.
11. Results and reports for external audiences will be reviewed by Data Products and
Dissemination.
IV.
Research Questions
Research questions vary by subproject and are detailed in the sub-project sections.
V.
Methodology
A.
Design
Methodology design varies by subproject and are detailed in the sub-project sections.
B.
Interventions with the 2020 Census
This project has minimal impact on the 2020 Census; it does not require any interventions with
existing solutions, systems or processes. There will be some interaction with field operations
3
Research on non-English speakers and complex households,
Version 2.2
staff and with enumerators, but these do not require any changes to existing systems or processes
and we anticipate minimal impact.
The required activities for this project include:
1. Selection of the observation sites of NRFU interviews for the evaluation using the Planning
Data Base (PDB), geographic information on language proficiency, and existing research on
geographic areas likely to have large numbers of non-English speakers and undercounts of
children. This selection process will use existing data sources and will not interfere in any
way with Census processes
2. Sample selection of bilingual enumerators for the experiment into experimental and control
groups using multistage sampling with existing census and PDB data. No intervention with
any census processes will be required.
3. Field observations conducted in preselected areas. HQ staff and contractors will need Field’s
help to be assigned to NRFU interviewers for observations, including those who speak the
target languages. Enumerators will be followed in the selected sites. The Center for
Behavioral Science Methods (CBSM) understands that they will have no say in what
households are selected for each enumerator. CBSM observers will accompany interviewers
for whatever households are assigned on the given day. CBSM has met with FLD staff on
several occasions to determine if they have any concerns with the impact of the observations
or training experiment on operations during the 2020 Census. The FLD staff with whom we
have spoken believe this research will minimally impact their operations and they were
supportive of the projects. They have been given an opportunity to comment on the proposal
at several points.
4. For the enumerator training experiment, collaboration with Field Division will be necessary
in order to do a modification to the current Field training modules development contract for
CBSM to develop the new training module in collaboration with the contractor. CBSM has
spoken with Field training staff about this and they were supportive of the idea. CBSM will
also collaborate with Field division to coordinate observation of enumerators in the test and
control groups by contractor and headquarters staff. The training that enumerators receive in
the treatment groups will not conflict with the standard training all enumerators receive.
Rather, the additional modules will provide supplementary information to enumerators. The
training will require approximately 30 additional minutes of training time for
approximately100 Spanish bilingual enumerators. Additionally, approximately 200
enumerators total will participate in 90-minute debriefing focus groups with 8-10 participants
each. When CBSM consulted with Field Division staff, they encouraged CBSM to ensure
that the training had the same “look and feel” as the training all enumerators receive in order
to make the experience seamless, but otherwise felt that all parts were feasible.
4
Research on non-English speakers and complex households,
Version 2.2
Implications for 2030 Census Design Decisions and Future Research and
Testing
C.
As the 2030 Census moves toward an administrative records and self-response-based approach,
hard-to-count households are particularly at risk of not being enumerated accurately via these
approaches. Limited English Proficient (LEP) households in particular tend to fall into
interviewer-administered modes, which has important cost implications for enumerating the U.S.
population in 2030. This population is also likely to be missed with a records-based only 2030
Census and this study will provide insight into respondent concerns and strategies to increase
response both at the doorstep and in other modes.
The expected outcome of our research would use recommendations and guidelines to improve
undercounted population coverage, ethnic/racial minority coverage, coverage of young children.
It also will provide an evaluation of 2020 privacy concerns that may be unique to the 2020
Census environment, such as response of hard-to-count populations to the citizenship question.
This information can be used to inform content and operational decisions moving forward into
2030.
Other Expected Outcomes
1) Evaluated impact of the citizenship question on hard-to-count populations and research
plans information for how to address messaging and strategies to increase response for
future censuses and surveys that include this type of question.
2) Insights on rostering will show how well innovations in 2020 designed to improve
rostering and reduce undercount worked and what additional areas may need
improvement.
3) Insights into the use of paradata to identify respondents who are likely to use languages
other than English to respond to the census.
4) Improvements in terms of coverage, data quality, and efficiency that may result from
bilingual interviewers receiving specialized training could make enumerating LEP
populations more accurate and cost effective in 2030. This training module could be
adapted for languages other than Spanish and could be incorporated into other, nondecennial survey operations moving forward from these potential outcomes.
VI.
A.
Subproject 1- Evaluation: NRFU Observations with Debriefing
Interviews
Background
We propose to conduct a 2020 Census evaluation of enumerator messaging and operations at the
doorstep in the context of hard-to-count populations such as non-English speakers and members
of racial and ethnic minority groups who have historically undercounted children at higher rates
than the general population.
5
Research on non-English speakers and complex households,
Version 2.2
This evaluation will look at both our operations and at issues and concerns facing hard-to-count
populations in the particular social context of 2020. This will allow us to examine how changes
in procedure and process and new respondent concerns can be addressed going forward.
Subproject 1 will focus on hard-to-count populations of several types:
1. Limited English proficient (LEP) respondents (Martin and De la Puente 1993).
2. Complex household residents who may be monolingual English speakers, bilingual speakers
of English and another language, or LEP respondents (Schwede and Terry 2013).
3. People who often omit babies, young children, and other household residents from their
census forms.
There is a strong overlap in these three groups, and we therefore propose to study them together.
By NRFU design, LEP households cannot be exclusively targeted, as such, some monolingual
English households will end up in the study. Including questions on coverage allow us to take
advantage of having an observer present and use this as a chance to study and ask meaningful
questions of this population.
As a first step we will conduct qualitative research through cognitive interviews, both to gain
insight and in-depth understanding of the point of view of people in these groups and to help us
narrow down and prepare a list of no more than five minutes of doorstep, NRFU debriefing
questions to ask in the field. Because we anticipate a strong overlap in residential areas of the
groups of interest, we plan to come up with a sort of “tool kit” of debriefing questions that can be
asked based on what is observed during NRFU interviews. For example, if the observer notices
evidence of a child in the household, such as toys outside the home, but the respondent does not
include children on the form, the observer can pull out the list of undercount questions to be
included in the debriefing. If the observer notices a respondent refusing or unable to answer
certain questions, he/she can pull out debriefing questions about sensitivity or difficulty with
proxy response. Observation and debriefing at the time of the NRFU operation will provide a
wealth of information about the current social context, interviewer preparedness, respondent
concerns and information to help understand the data coming out of the 2020 Census and to help
prepare plans and operations for 2030.
Previous 2020 Census evaluations on hard-to-count populations such as non-English speakers,
complex household residents, and groups who have historically omitted young children have
resulted in a lack of concrete and easily implemented action items. The report for this evaluation
and experiment will include up-to-date information relevant to the current social context in 2020.
In addition it will include specific messages, steps, and recommendations for each population
studied and will include recommendations for products and processes that can be easily
implemented in future operations. Finally it will include insights from qualitative findings that
can be used to understand results of the 2020 Census and any anomalies that might arise, such as
increased nonresponse or item nonresponse among specific populations. This information can
also be used to tailor operations and outreach for the 2030 Census.
Examples of the types of insights this project will uncover are:
1. What challenges are enumerators facing in the current social context?
6
Research on non-English speakers and complex households,
Version 2.2
2. What kinds of paper materials do interviewers use and/or need at the doorstep? What are they
missing?
3. How can respondents best be encouraged to include all young children on the census form at
the doorstep?
4. What specific messages, actions, gestures of politeness are most successful in gaining
cooperation of respondents who speak the languages in question?
5. What specific kinds of interviewer training materials are most useful? Which ones are
currently lacking?
The decennial environment provides a unique opportunity to observe respondent privacy and
confidentiality concerns given the mandatory nature of the census and the messaging campaign
that explains the content of the census questionnaire. Respondents may be more aware of the
presence of a citizenship question than they are in other survey instruments, and may have heard
messages from community leaders regarding how they should respond to the requirement that
they participate in the census. This qualitative research study has the potential to provide a
wealth of information about these topics across cultural and language groups in the context of the
2020 Census.
Qualitative research may also provide insight into response patterns to the citizenship question in
the production data of the census. While the census is different from many surveys because of
its mandatory nature and because of the extensive outreach campaigns discussing the content of
the survey instrument, qualitative findings on the topic of a citizenship question may also be
somewhat applicable to other surveys containing citizenship questions.
1. Background Research on Respondents who Speak Languages other than English
During the 2010 Census, the Center for Survey Measurement (CSM), now called Center for
Behavior Science Methods (CBSM), 1 conducted baseline NRFU observations for seven nonEnglish languages. This research sought to collect qualitative data about sociolinguistic and
cultural factors that affected enumeration, strategies used by enumerators to negotiate access
to non-English speaking households, ways in which in-language census materials were used
in the field, and how non-English speaking populations perceived the census and its public
messaging.
Seven ethnographer teams went out to observe NFRU interviews, and they observed a total
of 586 interviews (both in English and the non-English target languages). The ethnographers
had previous experience conducting research in the communities and were fluent in the
languages in question. The project was led by a team of Census Bureau coordinating
researchers. Each multilingual team was then led by a contracted senior ethnographer and
two to four assistant ethnographers. Ethnographers had backgrounds in a number of fields,
including anthropology, sociology and linguistics. Ethnographers used an observation guide
and debriefing protocol designed by the Census Bureau research team. Ethnographers were
1
The Center for Survey Measurement (CSM) has been renamed to the Center for Behavior Science Methods
(CBSM) as of October 2018. We use the new name for the remainder of this study plan even when referring to work
carried out prior to the name change.
7
Research on non-English speakers and complex households,
Version 2.2
trained by the Census team and the team developed a comparative analysis framework to
analyze results. There had been no official Census Bureau training for bilingual enumerators
in terms of when and how to use non-English supplementary materials so an important part
of the study was to see what enumerators were doing in the field.
In order to assist with 2020 Census research planning, the next section includes information
about the number of in-language cases that were observed in the field in 2010 and how long
it took to achieve that number of observations and debriefings. We include this information
for five of the seven languages since individual reports were not published for the
Vietnamese and Russian projects.
In 2010, observations for Arabic were carried out by three ethnographic observers in
Michigan. Each observer was in the field for four to eight days. Each researcher observed up
to 20 Arabic language cases, yielding a total of 60 observation/debriefings (Ajrouch et al.
2012).
Chinese NRFU interviews were observed by four ethnographers, who spent 19 days in the
field in the metro Washington, D.C, area and in New York City. Of the 37 debriefings they
conducted, 22 of them were in Chinese, mostly with Mandarin Chinese speakers, although a
few spoke Cantonese (Shepherd et al. 2012).
Korean interviewers were followed by three ethnographers for 30 days in the metro
Washington, D.C., area and in New York City. Of the total 83 NRFU interviews they
observed, 23 were in Korean (Yoon et al. 2012).
The Portuguese observation and debriefings were carried out by three ethnographers who
spoke very different dialects of Portuguese. These were conducted in southern New England
over a period of 27 days. Of the 74 NRFU interviews observed, 33 were in Portuguese. These
ethnographers reported a variety of language problems as they encountered very different
regional dialects of Portuguese in their research site (Rodrigues et al. 2012).
Finally, Spanish observations were carried out by three ethnographers over 11 days in the
field in Illinois. The observations focused primarily on Mexican and Mexican-American
households in that region. Out of 88 NRFU interviews observed, 63 were Spanish-language
cases (Isabelli et al. 2012).
On the whole, teams of three to four ethnographers in the field for two to four weeks in key
areas with large language populations were able to observe 20 to 60 in-language cases during
the NRFU field period.
General findings from these observations were: (1) cultural appropriateness and linguistic
fluency of enumerators helped extend the length of interactions with non-English speaking
respondents, (2) enumerators were more likely to go off script (deviating from the
introductory messages included in the English instrument) when interviewing non-English
speaking respondents than when interviewing English speakers, (3) enumerators did not have
8
Research on non-English speakers and complex households,
Version 2.2
knowledge about or access to available in-language materials prepared for the 2010 Census,
(4) many interactions made use of on-the-fly translations or ad hoc interpreters, and (5) some
non-English respondents were concerned that participation in the census would be prejudicial
to them in some way.
In 2010 this research was conducted in seven non-English languages and different debriefing
questions were asked of different communities, depending on the language being
investigated, although the final reports were structured in the same way. This was due to a
lack of coordination across the independent research teams and different ideas about what
would be most relevant to ask about in each group. While this provided insight into tailored
doorstep messaging for particular communities in 2020, it made direct comparisons between
the languages’ difficulty. Given the predicted changes in demographics by 2030, more
general messaging and interviewer training for interacting with non-English respondents will
be needed. In order to better evaluate interviewer procedures and issues that respondents are
concerned about, we will be asking a standard set of debriefing questions across all
languages including English. This will yield better comparison data across languages. Also,
this type of research is important for directly understanding the barriers to completing NRFU
interviews out in the field, especially for traditionally hard-to-count populations.
In 2016, CBSM conducted a large focus group study in which we filmed doorstep interaction
examples using tailored messages to gain cooperation and participation in Spanish, Chinese,
Korean, Vietnamese, Russian, Arabic and English. Respondents provided feedback on the
messages and materials, such as the Language Identification Card, used to alert English only
interviewers to the language spoken in a household. In addition to identifying particular
messages that were most salient to members of each language group, one of the
recommendations that came from this work was to create bilingual enumerator training and
other supports to help achieve higher response rates for hard-to-count non-English speakers.
CBSM has developed training for use in the 2018 Census test as well as for another current
survey administered by the Census Bureau (the National Health Interview Survey or NHIS).
Some of that training will be used in the training experiment detailed in subproject 2.
Findings from this research have been shared with various census stakeholders, and CBSM
created a bilingual interviwer job aid that was given to a small subset of bilingual
interviewers prior to the 2018 test. In addition, CBSM will be working with FLD in early
2019 to create two interviewer training modules for use in 2020: one on cross-cultural
awareness and one for use with Spanish-speaking interviewers in Puerto Rico.
To address gaps in earlier studies and improve upon earlier work, the evaluation project will
evaluate whether and to what extent non-English messages that have come out of various
research projects over the last decade are getting into the field in 2020. Some examples of
messages that can be used to encourage participation are: type of questions on the survey,
interviewer legitimacy (showing Census ID), mandatory nature of the census, irrelevance of
respondent immigration status to participation, confidentiality of the data, benefits to
respondent communities, and reassurance about receipt of government benefits not being
affected by survey participation.
9
Research on non-English speakers and complex households,
Version 2.2
By following NRFU interviewers in predetermined tracts likely to contain hard-to-count
populations, this study will also seek to identify additional barriers and best practices for
including non-English speakers in the count. Prior to observing the NRFU interviews,
researchers will conduct a qualitative interviewing project designed to gain in depth
knowledge about respondent views. These interviews will serve two additional purposes: 1.
To pretest questions about a) respondent views on census materials, messages, modes, and
barriers, and b) Undercount of children; and 2. To design and select five minutes worth of
debriefing questions to be administered at the doorstep following NRFU observations.
As part of the debriefing, observers will ask no more than five minutes of additional
questions after the interview (see Section B below for some preliminary plans on question
topics). The additional questions will be carefully planned and pretested with cognitive
testing on the target populations in early 2019. In 2020, tracts will be selected based on
characteristics in the Planning Database (PDB) and other Census Bureau sources.
2. Background Research on Undercount of Children
Hard-to-count, limited English speakers are among the groups who often omit children from
their census forms. We anticipate that we may see some examples of undercount of children
through the course of our NRFU observation research. The respondent groups in question
may also have useful insights about why children may be undercounted in their communities
even if they do not leave any children off of their forms themselves. The reasons being, there
will be little added cost to having questions on undercount ready to ask at the doorstep, and
we can learn a lot about this topic in the qualitative interviews with this population prior to
the field work. This study is a good opportunity to learn more about the undercount of
children among hard-to-count respondent groups.
While the issue of undercounted children can and should also be studied outside of a
decennial census environment, the unique visibility of a decennial census may yield
important and unique insights. A decennial census is a highly publicized survey across
languages and communities, which stresses the importance of including every person, yet
historically census respondents have still left children age 4 and under off the form. Studying
this issue is not the main purpose of this subproject, but we think that the project is a good
opportunity to gain additional insights. These insights may be unique to the decennial census
and interventions can be developed that will help future censuses.
Population estimates from demographic analysis methods (based on independent counts of
births, deaths, and net migration) show that children under age 5 have been undercounted in
the decennial census for decades (O’Hare 2015; U.S. Census Bureau 2014). The 2010 Census
had an estimated net undercount of 4.6 percent young children, which amounts to about 1
million children under age 5 being missed (Konicki 2016; U.S. Census Bureau 2012).
Children under age 5 are at increased risk of omission if they live in large multigenerational
or complex low-income households in disadvantaged communities (Fernandez et al. 2018;
10
Research on non-English speakers and complex households,
Version 2.2
O’Hare 2009; O’Hare et al. forthcoming; U.S. Census Bureau 2014). Researchers suggest
that this is because shifts in demographic, social, and economic patterns have contributed to a
separation between families and households, such that families may be spread over multiple
households, or multiple families may be living in one household (Cherlin 2010). Thus, the
increased complexity in household structures may cause ambiguity for census respondents
about who to include on the household roster for a given residence, increasing the likelihood
that some household members are not counted (U.S. Census Bureau 2016, U.S. Census
Bureau 2017a, b, & c). Given the goal to move to an administrative records-based census in
2030, it is key that we understand more about these populations and ways to capture them in
the census.
Other research (U.S. Census Bureau 2017d forthcoming) has also found that three specific
types of complex households—households with nonrelatives, households with other
unspecified relatives, and multigenerational households—accounted for 50 to 75 percent of
undercounts within each of the single race (race-alone) and Hispanic origin groups. These
results suggest that these types of households are at highest risk of undercounting and should
be targeted in a future evaluation on the undercount of young children and other
undercounted groups. Additional training has been added to this year’s enumerator training
about this topic. This includes information on rostering and a scenario about household
rostering that is included in the practice training scenarios.
With limited federal resources, understanding and reducing the undercount of young
children, as well as other under-covered populations, in the next census will require strategies
such as identifying and targeting census tracts with a high concentration of people at risk of
underenumeration. This research will help us understand rostering issues and other factors
that impact the undercount of young children that can help us improve future survey work.
The undercount of young children and other household members is an issue that should be
addressed in the 2020 Census, however, this is not the main goal of this subproject; the main
goal is to study non-English speaking households. We know from past research that LEP
populations are more likely to contain undercounted household members (Martin and de la
Puente, 1993). In addition to the limited English speaking households in the areas we sample,
we will encounter English only households in the selected sites. These households will be
living in areas with lower cost housing and are likely to contain Hispanic, Black, and other
non-White populations that past research has shown are more likely to contain extended
family and/or unrelated members (Schwede, 2007). The results of this research can help
inform decisions about whether or not to transition from a household-based to person-based
collection in 2030 and what to do about populations that might be missed this way.
3. Background Research on Confidentiality and Privacy Concerns
A separate 2020 Census evaluation proposal focuses on using community partners to help
understand confidentialy and privacy concerns of respondents who do not answer the
census. However, with the inclusion of the citizenship question in the census, we expect
to be able to learn about respondent concerns regarding this question as well as privacy
11
Research on non-English speakers and complex households,
Version 2.2
and confidentiality concerns more generally in this LEP evaluation project. We plan to
discuss privacy and confidentiality concerns with respondents both in the qualitative
interviewing phase of the project and at the doorsteps during the NRFU observation and
debriefing study. During the NRFU operation, observers will track behaviors that might
be indicative of respondent concerns with the citizenship question and other
confidentiality concerns, including requests for clarification and refusals, as well as
interviewer behavior during the administration of the citizenship question such as
rephrasing the question or providing clarification. Additionally, observers will track any
other privacy or confidentiality concerns raised by respondents and how interviewers
react to these concerns.
B.
Research Questions
The next section contains a list of all questions and topic areas that we propose to ask
respondents in the qualitative interview/pretesting phase of the project. We will use that part of
the project to gain in-depth insight into the topics and to develop and pretest five minutes worth
of questions to ask respondents at the doorstep during the NRFU observation phase of the
project.
Note: Topic area 1 below (language related questions) will be the main focus of observations in
the field, but since it is also possible that we’ll observe issues related to topics 2 (undercount of
children) and 3 (confidentiality concerns) in the communities where we’ll be observing, we plan
to include these topics to see what insights we can gain. The qualitative interview study will help
us choose five minutes worth of the most relevant debriefing questions. We plan to come up with
multiple five minute lists of possible debriefing questions to choose from based on what the
observer sees at each household. Debriefing questions will be prioritized according to the rarity
of certain household characteristics to ensure that more unusual situations are addressed in
debriefing before more common situations. We plan to conduct formal training with the
observers to help them select the correct list of follow-up questions depending on the make-up of
the household they are observing.
1. Language related questions
a. Observational questions:
i. Were bilingual enumerators able to convince respondents to participate at the
doorstep?
ii. What messages did enumerators use to convince reluctant respondents? Was
there variation with techniques and messages they used for English v. nonEnglish respondents?
iii. What messages/techniques were not successful? Was there variation across
the English and non-English cases they observed?
iv. What English-language or non-English written materials were shown to
respondents at the doorstep?
12
Research on non-English speakers and complex households,
Version 2.2
v. Was an interpreter needed/used? If so, who was the interpreter (household
member vs. neighbor vs. professional interpreter)? What procedures were
followed?
vi. What difficulties occurred during the interview related to language barriers?
b. Questions to pose to respondents:
i. How likely are Limited English Proficient (LEP) respondents to open mailings
from the Census Bureau?
ii. Were any printed materials in their language clear/helpful?
iii. Would the respondent prefer to answer the census by mail, phone, or online
(or other)? Why?
iv. Are there circumstances under which the respondent would feel comfortable
completing the census online?
v. Was there any information that the respondent would like to have heard or
received before participating in the census?
2. Undercount:
Note: Based on a 2010 Census evaluation, Schwede & Terry (2013) made recommendations to
changing the under and overcount questions. Some of the recommendations were incorporated
into the 2020 Census instrument. This is a chance to see how these changes worked. We would
also like to examine the 2020 wording in the context of changing trends in household
composition and differences in the political environment since 2010.
a. Observational questions
i. Is there evidence of anyone else staying in the house that respondents left
off the roster?
ii. Did respondents have any difficulty with rostering?
iii. Additional training was given on rostering to avoid undercounts. What
techniques did enumerators use when completing the roster?
iv. Do the characteristics of people who are initially missed and later added
match previous research findings?
v. Are there new demographic or cultural characteristics that haven’t been
observed before?
b.
Questions to pose to respondents
i. Are there any people who stay here that you were not sure if you should
include? If there are, what could we have written or said that would have
encouraged you to include this person or people?
ii. Are there young children like grandchildren or relatives who stay here
sometimes or are staying here now? When would you count them as part
of the household? When wouldn’t you?
iii. Would someone else in the household responding include or exclude
different people if they were answering?
13
Research on non-English speakers and complex households,
Version 2.2
3. Confidentiality concerns 2: What privacy and confidentiality concerns do respondents have
related to a decennial census environment?
a. Obsevational questions
i. What privacy or confidentiality concerns did respondents demonstrate, if any,
related to participating in the census?
ii. Did respondents refuse to answer any census questions for themselves or other
household members?
iii. Do respondent privacy or confidentiality concerns relate to participating in the
2020 Census vary by demographic group or household structure?
iv. How did enumerators address respondent privacy or confidentiality concerns?
v. Which enumerator strategies were most and least successful in addressing
respondent privacy or confidentiality concerns relating to participating in the
2020 Census?
vi. How did respondents react to being asked about their citizenship status in
particular?
vii. Did respondent reactions to being asked about citizenship status vary by
demographic group or household structure?
viii. How did enumerators respond to concerns, if any, that respondents displayed
about being asked their citizenship status?
ix. Which enumerator strategies, if any, were successful in overcoming
respondent concerns about the citizenship question?
b. Questions to pose to respondents
i. Do you have any privacy or confidentiality concerns related to the 2020
Census? What are they?
ii. Do you know of other people who have specific privacy or confidentiality
concerns?
iii. Did you have difficulty answering any of the census questions for yourself or
others in your household?
iv. Does the citizenship question raise any concerns for you?
v. Have you heard others talking about the citizenship question in your
community?
C. Methodology
There will be three components to this evaluation:
1. The first is qualitative research to delve into the research questions in depth and to
develop a five-minute protocol for the later NRFU interviews. These qualitative
interviewing sessions will be one-hour cognitive interviews conducted with the target
populations. This part of the study will be a rich, qualitative data gathering exercise in its
own right. It will also serve the secondary purpose of helping to plan and pretest the
2
We plan to talk with people about this topic in the qualitative interview/pretesting phase. We will likely learn more
during that phase of the project than we will at the doorstep given that those who are most concerned may not open
the door at all. However, similar to the undercount of children topic, we would like to have some possible debriefing
questions to pull out in the event that we do observe any evidence of these concerns at the doorstep.
14
Research on non-English speakers and complex households,
Version 2.2
NRFU debriefing questions. The interviews will be conducted in English, Spanish,
Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean, Russian, and Arabic. This part of the project will occur in
2019 and will require contractor support. Results of the qualitative interviewing phase
will be used to plan for the NRFU observation phase. For that phase we will develop an
observation guide along with multiple five minute debriefings. Observers will be trained
on how to use the observation guide and when and how to use each of the debriefing
questionnaires. We will only use one minute questionnaire per household.
Observer/researchers will be trained on how to select the best debriefing questionnaire for
each type of situation they observe.
2. For the 2020 NRFU observation study, initially a potential 15 to 20 sites will be chosen
based on meeting criteria of demographic characteristics associated with under-coverage
and non-English speaking households. Sites will be chosen using the PDB and previous
research on geographies that have high rates of undercount of young children. The
criteria for potential sites will include percentage of households speaking each of the
seven target languages, percentage of population that identifies as non-White, percentage
of households in poverty, percentage of complex households, percentage of households
with a child under 5 present, as well as other characteristics that previous research has
shown are correlated with under-coverage. From the initial sites, five to seven sites will
be strategically chosen. In the sites selected, we will work with field to identify three to
five enumerators to pair with observers depending on the size of the site and availability.
The target is approximately 25 pairings that will last five to seven days. Although we
cannot guarantee how many interviews will actually occur and how many of those
interviews will be in the target language, about 25 observations for each of the six
languages (150 interviews) and at least 150 English interviews will be the goal.
Although we are using previous research and more quantitative methods to choose sites,
these will not be random selections; they will be more strategic selections designed to
increase our chances of observing interviews in households that have the characteristics
we are interested in. As with all qualitative studies, we will seek as diverse a group as
possible but will not make assertions of national representation.
3. During the 2020 Census, Census Bureau researchers and contractors will follow bilingual
NRFU interviewers in these sites to observe interview interactions and conduct fiveminute follow-up interviews with the target populations. Ideally, HQ staff and contractors
will be able to audio record the entire NRFU interview, but at the very least, they can
record the follow-up portion of the interview in addition to taking notes.
VII. Subproject 2- Bilingual Enumerator Training Experiment
A. Background
We propose conducting a 2020 Census experiment to evaluate the impact of specialized
enumerator training on metrics like refusals, item non-response, and number of contact attempts
in Spanish-language interviews during the Nonresponse Followup (NRFU) operation. This
training will focus on enumerating Spanish-speaking households, and will be administered to a
15
Research on non-English speakers and complex households,
Version 2.2
group of Spanish-bilingual enumerators. In addition to statistical analysis, this mixed methods
study will include qualitative field observations and enumerator debriefing focus groups.
Given the difficulty of capturing Limited English Proficient (LEP) households via administrative
records or self-administered modes, streamlining field operations for enumerating LEP
households will be an important component of accurately counting the U.S. population in the
2030 Census. This training could be adapted for other Census Bureau survey operations and into
additional non-English languages.
The U.S. Census Bureau has devoted considerable resources over the past decade to developing
and pretesting target-language materials and interviewer training with the goal of more
accurately and efficiently enumerating LEP households, which are considered hard-to-count. In
particular, CBSM has led the following research initiatives this decade:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ethnographic research in 2010 on enumerating Spanish-speaking households (Yuling Pan
and Stephen Lubkemann, 2013)
Debriefing focus groups with Census Questionnaire Assistance (CQA) enumerators from
the 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 Census Tests ((Elizabeth Nichols et al, 2016; Erica
Olmsted-Hawala et al, 2017; Elizabeth Nichols and Erica Olmsted-Hawala, 2018;
Elizabeth Nichols et al, Forthcoming)
Debriefing focus groups with Coverage Improvement (CI) and Re-Interview (RI)
enumerators from the 2018 Census Test (Elizabeth Nichols and Erica Olmsted-Hawala,
Forthcoming; Elizabeth Nichols et al, Forthcoming)
Focus Groups Pretesting Enumerator Doorstep Introductions in 7 languages in 2017
(Anna Sandoval Girón et al, 2018)
Focus groups with New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey (NYCHVS)
interviewers in 2017 on training for administering the survey in non-English languages
(Lucia Lykke et al, Forthcoming)
Expert review of the Language Barrier enumerator training module for the 2018 Census
Test (Mikelyn Meyers et al, 2018)
Pretesting of messages relating to Census Participation in English and Spanish in 2018
(Aleia Clark Fobia et al, Forthcoming)
Development of a bilingual enumerator handout on enumerating LEP households for
usage in the 2018 Census Test (Lucia Lykke et al, 2018)
Debriefing focus groups with 2018 Census Test NRFU enumerators on their experience
with the bilingual enumerator handout developed by CSM
Developing, administering, and revising a 1 hour Spanish bilingual training module for
NHIS interviewers in preparation for their Redesigned NHIS Field Test in 2018 (Mikelyn
Meyers et al, 2018; Mikelyn Meyers et al, 2018)
Observation of Spanish bilingual NHIS interviewers during the Redesigned NHIS Field
Test to determine the efficacy of the Spanish bilingual training they received (Mikelyn
Meyers, Forthcoming)
16
Research on non-English speakers and complex households,
Version 2.2
•
Focus groups with NHIS interviewers in 2017 and 2018 on training for administering the
survey in Spanish (Mikelyn Meyers et al, Forthcoming; Mikelyn Meyers et al,
Forthcoming)
Findings from the research conducted by Census Bureau staff listed above will inform the design
of specialized training for our 2020 experiment, which represents the culimination of 10 years of
research to provide additional support to bilingual interviewers. The experiment will be
designed such that quantitative metrics will determine the extent to which the training
interventions impacted response rates, data quality, and number of contact attempts in Spanishlanguage cases.
As the 2030 Census moves toward an administrative records and self-response-based approach,
households that cannot be effectively enumeratated via those approaches, i.e., those that fall into
interviewer-administered modes, will increasingly drive the costs associated with enumerating
the U.S. population. As such, efficiencies in terms of response rates and contact attempts as well
as improving data quality for hard-to-count households will be increasingly important. If
successful, this training could make Spanish bilingual enumerators more efficient at enumerating
Spanish-language households. The training could be adapted for additional languages and used
by other, non-decennial survey operations. Although research is driving the creation of training,
that research is qualitative. A larger, more representative test will allow us to measure the benefit
of this type of training before expending the money to give this training to all bilingual
enumerators.
We have some limited qualitative data that indicates that the inclusion of the citizenship
question may make some Spanish-speakers less willing to participate in the decennial census or
to answer certain census questions due to their immigration status, or that of their household
members (Aleia Clark Fobia et al, Forthcoming, CBSM, 2017). Although this hesitation may
impact the response rates for these populations overall, we have no reason to believe response
patterns would vary between the test and control groups in this experiment because of the
procedure we will use to draw the random sample. We also consider this potential response
pattern in our power analysis because it increases the complexity of our sample and will
therefore mean we may need more cases in order to see significant differences.
B.
Research Questions
1. Does Spanish training for bilingual enumerators impact response rates in Spanishlanguage interviews?
2. Does Spanish training for bilingual enumerators impact the number of contact attempts
for Spanish-language interviews?
3. Does Spanish training for bilingual enumerators impact item non-response and
misreporting errors in Spanish-language interviews?
17
Research on non-English speakers and complex households,
Version 2.2
4. Do observers see differences between enumerators with bilingual training and those
without?
5. To what extent do Spanish bilingual enumerators in the test group report in focus groups
that the additional training made them more or less successful at enumerating Spanishspeaking households? To what extent do Spanish bilingual enumerators in the control
group report in focus groups that their training was or was not sufficient in preparing
them to enumerate Spanish-speaking households?
We hypothesize that enumerator in the test group will be significantly more effective than
enumerators in the control group (in regards to response rates, contact attempts, item
nonresponse and reporting errors).
6. What do observers and focus groups report regarding the impact of the citizenship
question? Does this differ between observations of control and test groups? We
hypothesize that there will be no difference between the test and control groups in this
regard but if we get qualitative evidence that there is a difference we can control for it in
our analysis.
C.
Methodology
Sample selection
In order to evaluate the research questions listed above, we propose an experimental design
comparing a test and control group of enumerators in demographically similar locations.
We will use a multistage random sampling technique to select a sample of pairs of tracts with
Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Spanish-speaking households using the Planning Database
(PDB). We will use a matching algorithm to select tracts with similar demographic
characteristics such as: Language, nativity, population density etc. In order to avoid overlapping
test and control groups, we propose selecting two MSA’s (Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land,
TX, Metro Area and Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX, Metro Area). All control group tracts will
be from 1 MSA and all test group tracts will be from the other. In order to counter the potential
bias introduced by treatment groups across two separate MSA’s, we will select a second sample
of pairs from a third MSA (Los Angeles, CA). In this case, we will add an additional constraint
to the matching algorithm to assure that test and control tracts are geographically distant from
each other in order to avoid overlap. We did not include nativity or citizenship as demographic
criteria because we believe LEP acts as a proxy for those characteristics. However, we will check
our selected pairs to make sure they are similar in regard to those demographic characteristics
and will add them as sample selection criteria if needed.
We will select all Spanish-bilingual enumerators in the selected pairs of tracts on the assumption
that case assignment will attempt to assign cases close to the enumerator’s home. Field Division
has shared Spanish-bilingual recruitment goals with our team, with the caveat that the actual
number of enumerators is expected to be fewer than the total number who are recruited, and that
data from 2010 is not a good proxy for estimating the number of enumerators in 2020 because of
changes in the recruitment procedures (e.g., recruitment is now an online process). As such, we
18
Research on non-English speakers and complex households,
Version 2.2
do not yet have a good estimate of how many bilingual enumerators will be in each geographic
area, but we can reasonably assume that the selection of areas with high percentages of limited
English proficiency Spanish-speaking households will yield a higher number of bilingual
enumerators. We are estimating a sample of at least 40 pairs of tracts and we estimate at least
100 enumerators each in the test and control groups. Enumerators in the test group will receive
the approximately 30-minute Spanish bilingual training. Enumerators in the control group will
not receive the additional training module. The online training module will not be available to
enumerators in the control group, which will prevent contamination between the groups. Census
field supervisors working in the test and control sites will not be assigned this training, but will
be briefed that some of their enumerators will be taking part in this experiment.
Power analysis
There are many unknowns that we have to contend with in this experimental design. For
example, Field Division has a new method of adaptively assigning cases on a daily basis rather
than assigning cases to a specific enumerator. Adaptive design introduces an increased potential
for a particular case to be reassigned to one more other enumerators during the life cycle of the
case. This is because cases are assigned daily rather than assigned to a particular interviewer.
While we cannot model exactly how many enumerators will work the average case, we do our
best to control for any effects by ensuring sufficient distance between test and control tracts to
make it unlikely that the same case will be assigned to both an enumerator who received the
training and one who did not during the life cycle of the case. Additionally, we cannot account
for variability in supervisors, enumerator language skill or other enumerator characteristics.
However, we do not have any reason to believe that these variations would be more likely to
occur in the test or control group compared to the other group because these are both randomly
sampled. There may also be underyling differences in test and control group populations that we
may not know about and therefore can not account for in our sampling. However, a random
sample should account for this variance as long as the sample size is large enough. In order to
ensure that we have a large enough sample size to detect significant differences between the
training and control groups, we designed a power analysis model to account for variation and
guide how many tracts to select in order to have enough power. See attached paper detailing the
power analysis model.
Training and evaluation
We will develop an approximately 30-minute online training module with the same look and feel
as existing training that will cover the following topics:
• Training for bilingual enumerators to improve data quality in non-English interviews
o Using the official translation rather than translating on the fly.
o Bilingual materials available to enumerators.
o Overcoming respondent concerns to avoid refusals and improve accuracy on
questions that are frequently difficult for LEP respondents.
CBSM is currently assisting the Field Division and working with their training module
contractor on two online training modules for use in the 2020 Census: 1) creating training to use
for all enumerators on cross-cultural competence and 2) reviewing training for Spanish-speaking
enumerators in Puerto Rico. We have spoken with the field training area about whether it would
19
Research on non-English speakers and complex households,
Version 2.2
be possible to do a modification on their current training module contract in order to create a
special training module for use in this 2020 experiment. They have been very positive about this
idea, which will help to ensure that the experimental module has the same look and feel as other
training enumerators receive.
During the 2020 Census NRFU operations, researchers and contractors will follow enumerators
in the field to observe Spanish-language cases completed by enumerators in both the test and
control groups. We understand that enumerators are assigned cases via an adaptive design
methodology and that Spanish-speaking enumerators may not encounter Spanish-speaking
households on the dates of their observation. However, we are targeting geographic regions with
high percentages of limited English proficiency Spanish-speaking households, which will
maximize the likelihood that observers will encounter Spanish-language cases. Enumerators may
be noncompliant with training instructions in the field, and indeed they are often noncompliant
based on prior research. We have no reason to believe the test group will be more noncompliant
than the control group. This is a limitation of conducting field research, but field observations
will provide some insight into the extent to which enumerators implemented best practices
covered in the training. Observers will track behaviors such as using the official translation
rather than translating on the fly and enumerator success in overcoming respondent concerns.
covered in the training. Observers will track behaviors such as using the official translation
rather than translating on the fly and enumerator success in overcoming respondent concerns.
Toward the end of the 2020 Census NRFU operations, Spanish bilingual enumerators in the test
and control groups will participate in debriefing focus groups to share the extent to which the
training they received prepared them to enumerate Spanish-speaking households. We understand
that as the field period progresses, enumerators may quit or be let go. We intend to coordinate
these focus groups with field staff to ensure adequate numbers of enumerators in the test and
control groups are still available to participate.
Analysis
Following the 2020 Census, CBSM will conduct statistical analysis of metrics between cases
worked solely by enumerators in each group, as well as qualitative analysis of observational and
focus group data. While cases worked by enumerators in more than one group will be excluded
from analysis, we have created a sampling design that should minimize overlap between test and
control groups. Cases completed with an observer present and cases completed by an enumerator
who works as an interviewer on other Census Bureau surveys will be flagged and analyzed for
their impact on the overall results. For example, career Census Bureau interviewers may have
received specialized, Spanish-bilingual training during other survey operations that could
contaminate results. We anticipate that excluding career Census Bureau interviewers from this
experiment will have minimal impact on the study, as the majority of NRFU interviews will be
completed by temporary interviewers hired specifically for the 2020 Census operation, given that
career interviewers already have full caseloads on other survey operations. If these factors are
found to effect the results, cases completed by these interviewers will also be removed.
Although we believe we have accounted for variations in geographic areas, demographics,
enumerator and supervisor effects through our random sampling techniques, we will analyze the
20
Research on non-English speakers and complex households,
Version 2.2
data for any biases first. If these exist we can use modeling or weighting to adjust for biases
before analysis.
Statistical analysis of the efficacy of the bilingual enumerator training will focus on response
rates, number of contact attempts, response rates by contact attempt (to be able to distinguish
between self reports and proxy reports), notes from interviewers about contact attempts, item
nonresponse and item response selection on questions with high amounts of error for LEP
populations.
Qualitative analysis from observational and focus group data will provide insight into what
happened on the ground during the decennial census and will help explain quantitative trends in
the data.
Once statistical and qualitative analysis are complete, CBSM will release a report documenting
the efficacy of the specialized training in terms of effects on response rates, data quality,
coverage, and cost and will provide a recommendation regarding the implementation of similar
training in additional languages or survey operations.
VIII. Data Requirements
Data File/Report
Source
Purpose
Expected
Delivery Date
PDB and other existing census
sources
Publicly available data
or already created data
sets
2020 Decennial
Sample selection for
subproject 1,2
2019
Analysis for subproject 4
After collection
period 2020
2020 Decennial response and
paradata including enumerator
id so we can flag enumerators in
control and experimental group
IX.
Risks
1. If there is inadequate funding in FY 19, FY 20, or FY 21 then we will need to scale back
evaluations and experiments.
2. If we are unable to partner with contractor(s) who can handle the seven target languages
to conduct pretesting or the language NRFU follow-ups, then we will need to limit the
number of languages we evaluate.
3. If we are not allowed to record the NRFU full interviews, then analysis will be limited to
notes taken by observers.
4. If the hiring of Spanish-bilingual cases do not match projections, then we will have
smaller experimental and control groups.
21
Research on non-English speakers and complex households,
Version 2.2
X.
Limitations
Subproject 1:
1. Because of staff and resource limitations, we can’t select a sample large enough to be
nationally representative. The purpose of this research is to provide qualitative evidence
only.
2. The NRFU followup interviews will need to be kept to a maximum of five minutes so
questions will need to be concise and relevant. However, the qualitative/pretesting phase
will give us more in depth insight into the issues.
3. We cannot be sure we will obtain successful NRFU interviews in any given day, or that
the households will contain the target population.
4. This qualitative research on the effects of the citizenship question on respondent
participation is not representative research and the findings will be limited in their
generalizability to larger populations. However, since people who do not respond to the
2020 Census are not likely to be captured using other methods, this research will help to
fill this gap.
Subproject 2:
5. If cases are worked by enumerators in both the test and control groups in the enumerator
training experiment, they will have to be discarded because we can’t determine if they
should be in the control of experimental group. Cases observed by observers from
headquarters or conducted by professional interviewers who work full-time on continuing
surveys during non-census years would also be discarded if they are found to impact
results. Both of these procedures may limit the pool of eligible cases for analysis, but we
anticipate including enough cases in both treatment and control groups to overcome this
limitation.
6. Control and experimental groups may be different in ways that were not detectable in the
sampling design.
XI.
Issues That Need to be Resolved
1. How OMB approval will be obtained to follow NRFU interviewers and ask additional
questions?
2. How we coordinate with Field Division to identify interviewers to follow in the target
sites.
3. CBSM needs to design and collaborate with NPC to access data centers training and data
access processes?
4. Contracting and staffing- A contract needs to be put in place to get staff that speaks
languages we are observing.
5. What mechanism will be used to assign a special training plan to enumerators in the test
group?
22
Research on non-English speakers and complex households,
Version 2.2
XII. Division Responsibilities
Division or Office
Field
Responsibilities
• Helping to identify and pair observer/researchers with
specific bilingual interviewers during the NRFU operation
• Provide us with a copy of enumerator training and paper
materials that enumerators are instructed to use with
respondents in the field
• Provide list of enumerators in test and control sites
• Review training to ensure consistent look and feel
• Ensure enumerators in test groups receive appropriate
training
• Coordinate focus groups
CBSM
• Planning, coordination and management of research
project
• Field work: conduct ethnographic observations and
interviews
• Contracting for additional field work
• Select treatment and control sites for interview, select
locations of observations and interviews
• Design and program training
• Analyze qualitative and quantitative data
• Write final report with recommendations for 2030 and
other Census Bureau operations
Decennial experiments and
evaluations
• Coordinate and submit OMB package
• Provide access to decennial data with appended
information on interviewers who worked each case
23
Research on non-English speakers and complex households,
Version 2.2
XIII. Milestone Schedule
Milestones
Date
Develop supplementary training modules
Develop interview and observation draft protocols
Get contract in place for qualitative interviews to pretest observation protocols
04/2019-09-2019
4/2019-11/2019
9/2019-11/2019
Conduct Round 1 qualitative interviews and Round 2 qualitative interviews/pretesting
of debriefing protocols for follow up interviews
Target geographic locations with similar demographic compositions in order to
randomly select sites for test and control enumerators
Select sites for NRFU observations
11/2019-03/2020
Administer training to Spanish bilingual enumerators in the test group; Spanish
bilingual enumerators in control group will not receive training
03/2020 – 04/2020
Observe enumerators in test and control groups
Observe NRFU interviews
04/2020-06/2020
Conduct debriefing focus groups with enumerators in experiment test and control
groups
Work on analysis of NRFU observations debriefing interviews
06/2020-07/2020
Receive, Verify, and Validate Data For language Experiment
09/2020-11/2020
Conduct statistical analysis of response metrics between cases worked solely by
enumerators in test groups and cases worked solely by enumerators in the control
group, as well as qualitative analysis of observational and focus group data
09/2020-05/2021
Distribute Initial Draft Report to the Decennial Research Objectives and Methods
(DROM) Working Group for Pre-Briefing Review
06/2021
Decennial Census Communications Office (DCCO) Staff Formally Release the
FINAL Report in the 2020 Memorandum Series
09/ 2021
9/2019
9/2019
07/2020-02/2021
XIV. Review/Approval Table
Role
Primary Author’s Division Chief (or designee)
Decennial Census Management Division (DCMD) ADC for Nonresponse, Evaluations, and Experiments
Decennial Research Objectives and Methods (DROM) Working Group
Decennial Census Communications Office (DCCO)
24
Research on non-English speakers and complex households,
Version 2.2
XV. Document Revision and Version Control History
Version/Editor
0.1/ RE
0.2/RE
0.3/RE
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.0
2.1
2.2
Date
8/17/2018
8/20/2018
9/26/2018
9/26/2018
1/15/19
1/29/19
1/31/19
3/14/2019
3/27/2019
4/25/2019
Revision Description
First full draft
Full draft with comments from subproject leads
Draft with changes after feedback
Submitted draft
Draft with comments from DROM
Draft with comments from leads
Full draft for DROM
Revisions after process review
Revisions after meetings with FLD
Incorporate edit comments from DCCO
XVI. Glossary of Acronyms
Acronym
ADC
CBSM
DCCO
DROM
DSSD
EXC
IPT
R&M
FY
NRFU
XVII. References
Ajrouch, Kristine, Yuling Pan and Lubkemann. 2012. “Observing Census Enumeration of NonEnglish Speaking Households in the 2010 Census: Arabic Report.” Survey Methodology 2012,
05.
Center for Survey Measurement. 2017. “Respondent Confidentiality Concerns.” Memorandum
for Associate Directorate for Research and Methodology. Sept 20, 2017.
Fernandez, Leticia, Rachel Shattuck and James Noon. 2018. The Use of Administrative Records
and the American Community Survey to Study the Characteristics of Undercounted Young
Children in the 2010 Census. CARRA working paper No 2018-05.
25
Research on non-English speakers and complex households,
Version 2.2
Fobia, Aleia Clark, Mikelyn Meyers, Aryn Hernandez, Lucia Lykke, (forthcoming) “Privacy Act
Cognitive Testing High Level Findings and Recommendations,” CSM Research Report Series.
Hogan, H., Cantwell, P., Devine, J., Mule, V.T. and Velkoff, V. (2013) Quality and the 2010
Census. Population Research and Policy Review, Vol 32, No. page 637-662.
Isabelli, Christina, Yuling Pan and Lubkemann. 2012. “Observing Census Enumeration of NonEnglish Speaking Households in the 2010 Census: Spanish Report.” Survey Methodology 2012,
06.
Konicki, S. et al. (forthcoming 2017). Undercount of Young Children Research Team Report.
Lykke, Lucia, Gerson Morales, Mikelyn Meyers, Results from 2017 Focus Groups with Field
Staff on Survey Translation and Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Households in the 2017 New
York City Housing and Vacancy Survey (NYCHVS), CSM Research Report Series,
Forthcoming.
Lykke, Lucia, Mikelyn Meyers, Patricia Goerman, “Guidelines for Counting Limited EnglishSpeaking Households,” 2018, DX-697. Not publicly available.
Meyers, Mikelyn. “2018 Redesigned National Health Interview Survey Field Test CSM
Observation Report,” CSM Research Report Series, Forthcoming.
Meyers, Mikelyn Cynthia Guerrero, Kim Geaghan, “2018 NHIS Bilingual Interviewer June
Field Test Training,” 2018. Not publicly available.
Meyers, Mikelyn, Cynthia Guerrero, Kim Geaghan, Marcus Berger, “2018 NHIS Bilingual
Interviewer September Training,” 2018. Not publicly available.
Meyers, Mikelyn, Kathleen Kephart, Jessica Holzberg, “2018 Redesigned National Health
Interview Survey Focus Groups Report: Focus Groups with Monolingual and Bilingual Field
Representatives Conducted During June 7 Training,” CSM Research Report Series,
Forthcoming.
Meyers, Mikelyn, Lucia Lykke, Patricia Goerman, “Expert Review of NRFU E19 Language
Barrier and Exercises Training Module,” 2018. Not publicly available.
Meyers, Mikelyn, Marcus Berger, Lidia Ojeda, “2018 Redesigned National Health Interview
Survey Debriefing Report: Focus Groups with Monolingual and Bilingual Field Representatives
Conducted on June 28, 2018,” CSM Research Report Series, Forthcoming.
Martin, Elizabeth and Manuel de la Puente (1993). “Research on Sources of Undercoverage
Within Households.” Research Report series, 1993. Accessible at :
https://www.census.gov/srd/papers/pdf/sm93-03.pdf, accessed on 12/7/18.
26
Research on non-English speakers and complex households,
Version 2.2
Nichols, Elizabeth, Erica Olmsted-Hawala, “Evaluating the Decennial Census Coverage
Improvement Option: Results from an Interviewer Debriefing of the 2018 Census Test,” CSM
Research Report Series, Forthcoming.
Nichols, Elizabeth, Erica Olmsted-Hawala, “Evaluating the decennial census call-in option:
Results from an interviewer debriefing of the 2016 Census Test,” 2018,
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/working-papers/2018/adrm/rsm201804.pdf, accessed on 7/16/18.
Nichols, Elizabeth. Erica Olmsted-Hawala, Jonathan Katz, “Evaluating the decennial census callin option: Results from an interviewer debriefing of the 2015 National Content Test,” 2018,
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/working-papers/2016/adrm/rsm201602.pdf, accessed on 7/16/18.
Nichols, Elizabeth, Erica Olmsted-Hawala, Mikelyn Meyers, “Evaluating the Decennial Census
Reinterview Option: Results from an Interviewer Debriefing of the 2018 Census Test,” CSM
Research Report Series, Forthcoming.
Nichols, Elizabeth, Erica Olmsted-Hawala, Mikelyn Meyers, “Evaluating the Decennial Census
Call-In Option: Results from an Interviewer Debriefing of the 2018 Census Test,” CSM
Research Report Series, Forthcoming.
O’Hare, William P. 2009. Why Are Young Children Missed So Often in the Census? Kids Count
Working Paper. Baltimore, MD: The Annie E. Casey Foundation.
O’Hare, W. (2015). O’Hare W.P (2015). The Undercount of Young Children in the U.S.
Decennial Census, Springer publishers.
O’Hare, William P., Deborah Griffin and Scott Konicki. (Forthcoming). Investigating the 2010
Undercount of Young Children – Summary of Recent Research. Report from the U.S. Census
Bureau Task Force on the Undercount of Young Children.
Olmsted-Hawala Erica, Elizabeth Nichols, Mikelyn Meyers, CSM Suggestions for Updates to
CQA based on 2017 Census test Interview Debriefings, Memorandum June 27, 2017. Not
publicly available.
Pan, Yuling, Stephen Lubkemann, “Observing Census Enumeration of Non-English Speaking
Households in the 2010 Census: Evaluation Report,” 2013,
https://www.census.gov/srd/papers/pdf/ssm2013-02.pdf, accessed on 7/16/18.
Rodrigues, Isabel, Yuling Pan and Lubkemann. 2013. “Observing Census Enumeration of NonEnglish Speaking Households in the 2010 Census: Portuguese Report.” Survey Methodology
2013, 15.
27
Research on non-English speakers and complex households,
Version 2.2
Sha, M., Son, J., Pan, Y., Park, H., Schoua-Glusberg, A., Tasfaye, C., Sandoval Girón, A.,
García Trejo, A., Terry, R., Goerman, P., Meyers, M., and L. Lykke. 2018. “Multilingual
Research for Interviewer Doorstep Messages Final Report.” Research Report Series. 2018.
https://www2.census.gov/library/working-papers/2018/adrm/rsm2018-08.pdf, accessed on
7/16/18.
Schwede L. and R. Terry (2013). 2010 CPEX Evaluation. Comparative Ethnographic Studies
of Enumeration Methods and Coverage across Race/Ethnic Groups in the 2010 Census. March,
2013.
Schwede L. (2007). “A New Focus Studying Linkages among Household Structure,
Race/Ethnicity, and Geographic Levels, with Implications for Census Coverage.” Research
Report Series. 2007, https://www.census.gov/srd/papers/pdf/rsm2007-38.pdf, accessed on
12/7/18.
Shepherd, Robert, Yuling Pan and Lubkemann. 2012. “Observing Census Enumeration of NonEnglish Speaking Households in the 2010 Census: Chinese Report.” Survey Methodology 2012,
08.
U.S. Census Bureau (2017a) Investigating the 2010 Undercount of Young Children – A
Comparison of Demographic, Housing, and Household Characteristics of Children by Age,
January 18, 2017.
U.S. Census Bureau (2017b) Investigating the 2010 Undercount of Young Children—Child
Undercount Probes. January 2017.
U.S. Census Bureau (2017c) Investigating the 2010 Undercount of Young Children – Examining
Data Collected During Coverage Followup. January 2017
U.S. Census Bureau (2017d) Investigating the 2010 Undercount of Young Children – Analysis
of Complex Households.
U.S. Census Bureau (2017e) Investigating the 2010 Undercount of Young Children - Analysis of
Coverage Followup Results Using the Esri Tapestry Segmentation and Planning Database.
.
U.S. Census Bureau (2017f) Call for 2020 Census Evaluation and Experiment Proposals. June
29, 2017.
U.S. Census Bureau (2016). Administrative Records, Internet, and Hard to Count Population
Working Group of the National Advisory Committee on Racial, Ethnic, and Other Populations,
U.S. Census Bureau, Washington DC.
28
Research on non-English speakers and complex households,
Version 2.2
U.S. Census Bureau. (2014). Final Task Force Report on the Undercount of Young Children,
U.S. Census Bureau, Washington DC.
Yoon, Kyung-Eun, Yuling Pan and Lubkemann. 2012. “Observing Census Enumeration of NonEnglish Speaking Households in the 2010 Census: Korean Report.” Survey Methodology 2012,
07.
29
| File Type | application/pdf |
| Author | douglass Abramson |
| File Modified | 2019-05-01 |
| File Created | 2019-05-01 |