[Federal Register: November 1, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 210)]
[Notices]
[Page 63355-63358]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01no04-33]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Census Bureau
2005 National Census Test
ACTION: Proposed collection; comment request.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort
to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public
and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on
proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13 (44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2)(A)).
DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before January 3, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental
Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th
and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet
at DHynek@doc.gov).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions
should be directed to Edison Gore, U.S. Census Bureau, Building 2, Room
2012, Washington, DC 20233-9200, (301) 763-3998.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 63356]]
I. Abstract
The 2005 National Census Test (NCT) is part of the research and
development cycle leading up to the re-engineered 2010 Census. The NCT
will help the U.S. Census Bureau achieve one of its Strategic Goals--
developing a census that is cost-effective, improves coverage, and
reduces operational risk.
The Objectives of the 2005 NCT include studying methods for:
Improving completeness and accuracy of reporting for short
form items.
Reducing respondent and data capture errors.
Making questionnaires more respondent friendly.
Improving coverage accuracy.
Improving the operational feasibility of a targeted
mailing for replacement questionnaires.
Improving self-response and maintaining data quality by
mailing bilingual questionnaires.
In conjunction with the 2005 NCT, the Census Bureau will conduct
the 2005 Coverage Followup (CFU) operation. This operation is a
continuation of the research and testing program begun in 2002 that is
intended to develop and evaluate new procedures to improve coverage and
reduce duplication. The CFU operation will collect data to evaluate the
different versions of the coverage questions and different
presentations of the residence rules instructions (See Definition of
Terms). A separate Federal Register notice will be submitted for this
operation.
Components of the Test
A. Control
The Control questionnaire will include short-form topics from the
Census 2000 questionnaire. The standard mailing strategy will be used
for both the initial and replacement Control questionnaires. All
wording changes in the control questionnaire that are different from
the Census 2000 questionnaire reflect refinements based on the 2004
Census Test questionnaire. The short form questions included in the
Control questionnaire are currently considered to be the ``best''
version of each question. Our objective is to determine whether the
experimental panels' question wording can improve the item response and
data completeness over the control panel questions.
The control questionnaire will use the Residence Rules Instructions
(See Definition of Terms) tested in the Alternative Questionnaire
Experiment (AQE) 2000 (See Definition of Terms). This design will serve
as the control for some of the experimental treatments because the
results of tests conducted during Census 2000 indicated that the
residence rules instructions used in the AQE questionnaire yielded
better quality data than did the Census 2000 questionnaire residence
rules instructions. The changes in format, presentation, and wording of
the residence rules instructions used in the AQE resulted in a
significantly higher response to the household count question (an
important indicator of missing data and a flag for large household
followup). In addition, the AQE questionnaire also produced better data
for Hispanics who were likely to be left off census forms.
The Control Component includes four Self Response Option (SRO)
treatments, each using the same form, content and initial questionnaire
mailing strategy. Previous tests have shown that sending non-
respondents a replacement questionnaire significantly increases
response rates. We will employ four variations of the traditional
replacement mailing strategy.
Two treatments are planned to test the operational
feasibility of two different replacement questionnaire-packaging
strategies. Since the questionnaires designed to be included in these
treatments may also ``look'' different, we also need to evaluate the
response to them.
A third treatment is planned to test the effect of
providing a letter encouraging respondents to send in their original
questionnaire or respond via the Internet. Households in this panel
will not receive a replacement questionnaire.
The fourth treatment is planned to test whether using
messaging on the replacement questionnaire (that distinguishes it from
the initial questionnaire) will increase response rates as well as
reduce response duplication. This treatment is intended to create a
clear differentiation between the replacement questionnaire and the
original in order to make it easier for respondents to understand the
intent of the replacement questionnaire.
The questionnaires for the Control component and the four (SRO)
treatments share the same design and mailing strategy for the initial
questionnaire. Consequently, we will be able to compare the results
from the Control questionnaire with the results from the initial
questionnaires in the SOR treatments. Doing so will give us a much
larger sample for comparisons.
B. Hispanic Origin/Race
For the 2005 NCT, we plan to test modifications of the questions on
race and Hispanic origin that are consistent with the 1997 Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Directive 15 (i.e., test a question on race
that includes only the five minimum OMB race categories--See Definition
of Terms). The version of the question chosen for future testing must
produce data that is comparable in quality or better than the data
produced by the Census 2000 questions.
The Hispanic origin and race component of the 2005 NCT is intended
to evaluate the following elements: question design, the use of
examples, revised wording of the questions and instructions, and a
tribal enrollment question.
Question Design
We plan to test two fundamentally different designs--the
traditional Hispanic origin and race design and a new design that
includes shortened questions on Hispanic origin and race combined with
a third question on ancestry. The shortened design includes only the
five minimum OMB race categories and eliminates all write-ins. The
Hispanic origin question component will consist of a yes/no option with
no write-in option. The ancestry question component will include write-
in lines that are intended to permit respondents to provide detailed
information on their ancestry or country of origin.
Examples
We need to determine how useful it is to include examples of the
OMB race categories to help respondents understand the intent of the
design that includes the shortened questions. Consequently we plan to
test this design with and without examples. We are currently conducting
cognitive tests in order to select the most promising sets of examples
for the 2005 NCT. We will choose the examples that yield the highest
quality data for use in the 2008 Dress Rehearsal.
Secondly, based on the results of past censuses, we know that the
specific examples used in the ancestry question can affect reporting.
Since the detailed Hispanic origin (e.g., Mexican) and race information
(e.g., Japanese) only will be collected in the ancestry question, we
intend to evaluate the effect of using two different sets of examples
on the reporting of detailed ancestry groups in that question.
Wording and Instructions
We plan to test the effect of changing the word order of the
Hispanic origin
[[Page 63357]]
item so that it reads, ``Is this person of Hispanic, Latino, or of
Spanish origin?'' (Census 2000 order: ``Spanish, Hispanic, Latino'').
The instruction for the Hispanic origin item will reflect the OMB
definition of Hispanic origin (See Definition of Terms) rather than
relying on examples to communicate the intent of the question.
In addition, we plan to test revisions to the ``MARK ONE OR MORE''
instruction in order to make it more user-friendly, and we plan to test
the effectiveness of the revised note that is intended to encourage
respondents to answer both of the traditionally formulated race and
Hispanic origin questions. The note is intended to reduce the number of
Hispanics who report ``Some other race''. The final wording of the
question will be determined by cognitive testing that is currently
underway.
Tribal Enrollment
The 2005 NCT plans to test a tribal enrollment question to attempt
to determine what proportion of those who report a tribe are enrolled.
We are currently conducting cognitive testing to determine the final
wording of the question. We plan to evaluate the quality of tribal
enrollment data.
C. Tenure and Other Population Questions
Tenure
We plan to test the following elements in the Tenure (own or rent)
and other population questions: dropping the reference to ``cash''
rent, adding an instruction to improve the reporting of home equity
loans, and a version that combines both treatments.
We intend to test the effect of eliminating the term ``cash'' from
the tenure question, since the traditional formulation of the question
has been criticized as not accurately depicting how rent is actually
paid (e.g., by check). We plan to compare missing item data rates for
the test questions to those for the Census 2000 question in order to
determine the effect of eliminating the term.
Since we are not sure whether respondents understand that home
equity loans are liens against the home, we also plan to test an
instruction asking respondents who own their own homes whether they
have a mortgage or loan, including home equity loans. We plan to
evaluate the resulting owner distribution (owned free and clear vs.
owned with a mortgage or loan). We plan to evaluate both variables in
order to choose the version of the question that yields the highest
quality data for use in future tests.
Age
In Census 2000, many respondents incorrectly reported the age of
babies under one year of age. The 2005 NCT will test an instruction in
the Age question to help respondents correctly determine the age of
babies who are less than one year old. We also plan to reverse the
order of the Age and Date of Birth questions to make them consistent
with electronic modes such as the Internet.
Modified Categories in the Relationship Question
We plan to test the effect on response distributions of replacing
``Foster Child'' with ``Foster child or foster adult''. Cognitive tests
indicate that respondents understand the phrase ``foster adult'' and do
not consider it to be offensive.
We plan to test the effect on data quality of replacing ``Natural-
born son/daughter'' with ``Biological son/daughter'' [used in the
Survey of Income and Program Participation]. Adoptive parents have
received the term ``Natural-born'' unfavorably.
D. Residence Rules Instructions and Coverage Questions
Improving the accuracy of census coverage is one of the major goals
of reengineering the 2010 Decennial Census Program. As a result of the
Census 2000 Testing, Evaluation, and Experimentation Program and the
Coverage Measurement Program, we implemented a research and development
program to investigate ways of improving our coverage of persons and
housing units in preparation for the 2010 Census. The 2005 NCT is part
of this effort. Specific areas that we intend to evaluate in the 2005
NCT include improving within-household coverage and revising residence
rules instructions so that they are clear and unambiguous to the
respondent.
The panels in this section of the 2005 NCT are planned to evaluate
the main effects and anticipated interactions of the residence rules
instructions (See Definition of Terms) and two versions of the 2004
Census Test coverage questions.
The Control for this section of the 2005 NCT is the experimental
roster tested in the AQE in the 2000 Census. This design was chosen as
the control because it out-performed the Census 2000 residence rules
instructions in two ways: It had significantly lower item nonresponse,
and, in low coverage areas, the rate at which Hispanics were not
included on the AQE questionnaire was significantly lower than for the
Census 2000 questionnaire.
The following are the features of the residence rules instructions
that will be evaluated:
Content, order, and wording of cues and bullets in the
include/exclude lists (See Definition of Terms).
List order.
Presentation of the basic ``usual residence'' concept.
Approach to structuring the residence rules instructions
(for example, using an alternative approach that eliminates the
include/exclude lists and relies instead on explaining the basic
concept behind the lists).
The Coverage Followup (CFU) operation will evaluate the effects of
the alternative residence rules instructions on gross coverage errors.
The Census Bureau is currently conducting cognitive tests using
four versions of the 2004 Census Test undercount question (Question 2)
and overcount question (Question 10). The versions of the questions
that produce the best results will be chosen for use in the 2005 NCT.
The experimental treatments are intended to isolate some of the
individual effects of each version of the coverage questions by
crossing them with the different residence rules instructions. We plan
to evaluate the coverage questions' efficacy in flagging potential
omissions or erroneous enumerations by implementing the CFU operation.
E. Respondent-Friendly Design
The questionnaire for this panel will have design changes intended
to make it easier to use. The changes that this questionnaire will test
include:
Color as a navigational tool.
Lightly embedded text that describes what should be
entered in response boxes.
Consistent formats between check boxes and write-in answer
fields (for example, all answer fields will be outlined with a strong
black line). Using consistent formats for all answer fields is intended
to help respondents identify all fields where a response is required.
F. Language
The 2005 NCT will include a bilingual English/Spanish questionnaire
panel in an effort to improve self-response in the growing number of
households in which Spanish is a primary language. We plan to implement
an English/Spanish questionnaire mailout treatment that is intended to
evaluate the effect of a bilingual questionnaire on response rates,
public reaction, and data quality.
[[Page 63358]]
G. Internet Option
All respondents (including those in the Language panel) will have
the opportunity to respond via the Internet, but while the general
content of the Internet questionnaire will be the same as other test
questionnaires, it is not planned to mirror the exact wording of any
one specific paper questionnaire. Instead, the Internet Questionnaire
will be designed using questions from several of the 2005 NCT
questionnaires and rewording the questions to reflect the wording that
works best for this response mode.
Respondents who ask to respond via the Internet (including those in
the language panel) will be randomly assigned to answer either a
person-based or a topic-based format. In the person-based approach,
responses for all items (e.g., name, date of birth, gender, race) are
collected for one household member (person), after which the same
questions are repeated for each successive household member. In the
topic-based approach, responses for a given topic/item (e.g., age) are
collected for all persons in the household, after which responses for
the next topic/item (e.g., date of birth) are collected. This process
continues for each successive topic/item. We will evaluate the quality
of Internet data collected using these two design treatments.
II. Method of Collection
In late August, we will mail an advance letter to a national sample
of about 420,000 households. This letter will explain why we are
conducting the mandatory 2005 NCT. The letter also will assure
respondents that their answers are confidential. We will inform them of
the measures we take to keep their personal information secure. The
2005 NCT questionnaires will be mailed approximately a week later.
Respondents will be asked to mail back their completed questionnaires
or respond via the Internet by Census Day (September 15, 2005). Early
in September, we will send reminder/thank you postcards thanking those
who have already responded and asking non-respondents to send in their
questionnaires or reply via the Internet. As part of the Census
Bureau's efforts to improve response rates and contain costs, most
nonrespondents will receive replacement questionnaires a few days after
Census Day. Households assigned to the panel for which the experimental
treatment consists of a letter in lieu of a replacement questionnaire
will not receive the second questionnaire.
The Coverage Followup (CFU) operation is scheduled to begin in
December. The CFU operation will obtain additional information by
telephone from a sample of respondents in order to evaluate the
residence rules instructions and coverage questions. Approximately six
months after Census Day, we will begin formal evaluations of population
and housing content, coverage, language, race and ethnicity, and self-
response options.
Definition of Terms
Alternative Questionnaire Experiment--The 2000 AQE incorporated
three separate experiments, one involving census long forms and the
other two involving short forms, with different objectives. This
experiment was conducted during Census 2000 under census conditions.
Consequently, we were able to compare the effectiveness of the AQE
questionnaire designs with the Census 2000 questionnaires.
All three experiments tested combinations or ``packages'' of design
features, rather than testing each design change separately in a
controlled fashion that would permit inferences about their individual
effects. Thus, firm conclusions only were drawn about the combined
effect of multiple design features. This is an important limitation of
all three experiments. The three experiments were:
1.1 Experiment A: Effects of Altering the Design of
Branching Instructions on Navigational Performance.
1.2 Experiment B: An Experiment to Improve Coverage
Through Revised Roster Instructions.
1.3 Experiment C: Questionnaire Effects on Reporting of
Race and Hispanic Origin: Results of a Replication of the 1990 Mail
Short Form in Census 2000.
The report describing the experiment is located at the following
address: http://www.census.gov/pred/www/rpts/TR17.pdf.
Include/exclude List--The list of the people the respondent should
include in the household count and those who should be left out because
they should not be counted or will be counted elsewhere.
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) definition of Hispanic
origin--A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South
American or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) race categories--American
Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native
Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and White.
Residence Rules Instructions--Instructions that respondents use to
determine who should be counted in that household. They are meant to
insure that everyone is counted once and in the right place for the
primary purposes of apportionment and redistricting.
III. Data
OMB Number: None.
Form Number: DC-1A through DC-1X (2005 Census Test questionnaires).
Type of Review: Regular.
Affected Public: Individuals or households.
Estimated Number of Respondents: Approximately 420,000 households.
Estimated Time Per Response: 10 minutes.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 70,000.
Estimated Total Annual Cost: There is no cost to respondents except
for their time to respond.
Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.
Legal Authority: Title 13 of the United States Code, sections 141
and 193.
IV. Request for Comments
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the agency, including whether the information shall have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden
(including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;
(c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on respondents, including through the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized
and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information
collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Dated: October 26, 2004.
Madeleine Clayton,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 04-24294 Filed 10-29-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-07-P