Noncensus Nonsense: Kevorkian With a Collar

Kevorkian With a Collar

by Resident Apt.1

The Washington Post  ran an article on Thursday, May 6 regarding housing your elderly loved one in a high-end shipping container in your backyard. Maybe next to the dog house?

The genius who invented the shelter, Rev. Kenneth Dupin, is a Methodist minister in Salem, Va. A sort of Kevorkian With a Collar so to speak. For the love of God, the man’s suppose to be a minister, how does treating the elderly in such a manner express the compassion, dignity, and self-sacrifice that the office of minister is supose to uphold? Has he not vowed to proclaim and seek the fruit of the spirit; love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and temperance?

Without even building a prototype, Dupin and his Nightmare Team managed to persuade the Virginia General Assembly to pass legislation allowing  families to install the pod in their backyards and then install sweet aunt Lydia or Gramps and Grandma in the box. He’s a Dupin alright, and we’re positive  he’s “Dupin” Virginia Legislature.

There is a pod-load of humorous cannon fodder in this situation. I can’t resist some of it myself and I’m hoping late-night comedians will ridicule this pathetic idea out of existence but the fact is, this is an appalling example how some people treat the elderly and of $100,000 in public grant money and your tax dollars at work.

Yes, I’ve personally experience the trials and tribulations of caring for the elderly. My mother lived with me for the last six years of her life as she slowly descended into dementia. It was exhausting, frustrating, and disheartening. Why did I do it? Because when I needed to be spoon-fed and have my diaper changed she didn’t stick me in a box in the backyard.
So when she needed to be spoon-fed and have her diaper changed I did it. See, how quickly what goes around comes around.
My family did have to make sacrifices and adjustments so we did just that. It taught us patience, perserverance, compassion, loyalty, and how to love unconditionally. I have never been sorry because I know that not only did I take care of the woman who took care of me but I also taught my children how to treat another unfortunate human being. How they learn to treat others is how they will treat themselves, each other, and me. The only regrets that I had about that time with my mother is that I now wish I could have done it all with more grace, more patience, and more understanding. But that’s a lesson learned for next time. And yes, as a care provider I know there certainly are extenuating circumstances that require around the clock medical care. But when a family has already done everything possible and still finds themselves at that point it’s time to look at professional residential care as heartbreaking as that is.

The box is presented as an answer to prayer but it is really just for those who are unwilling to make adjustments and open their own doors to the very people who supported, nurtured, and cared for them when they were helpless. What it really comes across as is a money-maker for the Dupin Reverend and and a way for some people to assuage their feelings of guilt as they roll their eyes, sigh, and say, “Oh yes, we took my elderly parents in when they couldn’t live on their own anymore.” This of course will allow them to effortlessly bask in the sympathy and admiration that usually accompanies such a  statement.

A recent survey I heard stated that only ten percent of the world’s population had high regard for Christians. I’m willing to bet this is just one dark example of why that statistic exists.

 Perhaps the Kevorkian with a Collar, his Nightmare Team of cohorts, and the Virginia legislators should spend  a week or ten in the box. That way they could really learn to “think outside the box”.
Then again, maybe Dupin should just drop the wolf in sheep’s clothing guise and get rid of his collar.

“This people draweth nigh unto Me with their mouth, and honoureth Me with their lips; but their heart is far from Me.” -Matthew 15:8

“‘Honor your father and your mother, as the Lord your God commanded you, that your days may be long, and that it may go well with you…” Deut. 5:16

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/05/AR2010050503074.html

About CensusThis

Welcome to CensusThis.

Here you will find information on the US Census Bureau, the census questionaires including the American Community Survey, and how some American citizens are choosing to deal with it.

Articles on the census are listed under More Census Nonsense by Resident Apt. 1.

Don’t forget that You Have the Right to Question the Census Worker.

You can Write a Letter to Congress Regarding the ACS

Here is a short article with a printable notice to the Census Bureau notifying them that you will not be answering their invasive, unconstitutional questions. A Refusal to Answer the Questions Notice to the Census Bureau

The link, Census Bureau’s Blackhole: Photos, will show you how some of your tax dollars were spent on a new facility for the census bureau.

Links to other sites about the census are listed under You Are Not Alone.

Links to Videos, some humorous, some informative, are also listed under: A Few Videos About the Census.

If you feel like tearing your hair out over the census form thenTell CensusThis About Your Adventures in Senseless Land” is the page for you. There you can share your Census adventures with a world of sympathetic listeners. But please, take a minute to read and follow the guidelines so your post won’t be deleted. Thanks.

About NonCensus Nonsense:

Resident Apt.1 has tried to keep this site dedicated to imparting information on the census surveys to American citizens but has become unable to resist writing about the  bureaucratic idiocy that is spreading across the nation like a wine stain on a white carpet. Therefore, from time to time, not as often as I’d like, I will post links, information, and opinions on other particularly bizzare  areas of government lunacy.

The First Census

The first national census  was taken in 1790. States included in the first census were Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina,Vermont, and Virginia.

The first enumeration began in August, 1790, right before the second session of the first Congress ended. Congress assigned responsibility for the 1790 census to the marshals of the U.S. judicial districts under an act that, with minor modifications and extensions, regulated census-taking through1840. The law required that every household be visited and that completed census schedules be posted in ‘‘two of the most public places within, there to remain for the inspection of all concerned…’’ and that ‘the aggregate amount of each description of persons’’ for every district be transmitted to the President. The six inquiries in 1790 called for:
1. the name of the head of the family
2. the number of persons in each household of the following descriptions:
free white males of 16 years and upward (to   assess the country’s industrial and military potential)                                               

free white males under 16 years

free white females

all other free persons (by sex and color)

slaves

That is the extent of the original census. Six catagories of people but only one simple question. (Two if you count the name of the head of household question, but only the head of each household answered that, not everyone in the household.) The name question aside, the one question was, how many voters in these states. One question, not 10, not 28 pages of questions as in the US Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. The census is only to count voters and to assess the manpower of the states for industrial and military purposes. Both those goals were met by asking one question. Before 1820, free black men in Massachusetts, New Jersey,Pennsylvania, New York, Maine, Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire voted on an equal basis with white men and in 1768 blacks were elected to office in New Hampshire.
The first census was taken by federal marshalls. Now it’s taken by hired, mostly temporary, census takers. I wonder how long it will take the census bureau to bring back federal marshalls to come knocking on our doors.

Got Warrant?

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

I see a few keywords here, “secure in their… papers” (could that just possible mean information?) “no warrant” without “probable cause supported by oath”( another excellent phrase). Hmm… did the Founding Fathers suspect that even their own new govermnent might get too big and nosy someday? Maybe they had prior experience, oh maybe like King George the III.

 Seems to me the Founding Fathers were the “Smartest Guys in the Room”, and still are.

I have heard of instances where a homeowner, harrassed by a sensless worker, quoted the Fourth Amendment and then shut the door. Hmm…

Disclaimer: WordPress has a new feature in the drop down comment section at the end of each post which automatically generates links to stories that may be “Possibly Related” to the article posted on this blog that a reader is commenting on. I have nothing to do with putting them there and I am not responsible for the content nor am I supporting the views expressed on such websites.
If I remove them then this blog will not appear on other blogs as a “possibly related” post so it’s a bit of a give-and-take. Click on them at your own discretion.

 

Anonymous Speech

To read the whole article click on the title link above the date.

Do We Have a Constitutional Right to Anonymous Speech and to Publish Anonymous Pamphlets?

Yes. Anonymous speech is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. The Federalist Papers were first published anonymously by Founding Fathers James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton.

The Supreme Court has defended anonymous speech time and time again. The key U.S. Supreme Court case is McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission. http://www.eff.org/Legal/Cases/mcintyre_v_ohio.decision

Federal decisions regarding anonymous speech:

1. Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation (1999) 525 U.S. 182, 197-200;

2. McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1995) 514 U.S. 334. In that case, on page 357, the Supreme Court said:

“An author is generally free to decide whether or not to disclose his or her true identity. The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one’s privacy as possible. Whatever the motivation may be, the interest in having anonymous works enter the marketplace of ideas unquestionably outweighs any public interest in requiring disclosure as a condition of entry. Accordingly, an author’s decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content Amendment.

Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and dissent.

3. Talley v. California (1960) 362 U.S. 60. (holding unconstitutional a state ordinance prohibiting the distribution of anonymous handbills)

4. Lamont v. Postmaster General (1965) 381 U.S. 301, 307 (finding unconstitutional a requirement that recipients of Communist literature notify the post office that they wish to receive it, thereby losing their anonymity);

5. ACLU of Georgia v. Miller (N.D. Ga. 1997) 977 F. Supp. 1228 (striking down a Georgia statute that would have made it a crime for Internet users to falsely identify themselves online).

The above information was gathered at the Chilling Effects Clearinghouse: http://www.chillingeffects.org/index.cgi

Disclaimer: WordPress has a new feature in the drop down comment section at the end of each post which automatically generates links to stories  that may be “Possibly Related” to the article posted on this blog that a reader is commenting on. I have nothing to do with putting them there and I am not responsible for the content nor am I supporting the views expressed on such websites. If I remove them then this blog will not appear on other blogs as a “possibly related” post so it’s a bit of a give-and-take. Click on them at your own discretion.

Secure and Confidential, Uh Huh

The US Census Bureau is not suppose to divulge your confidential information. They assure you, as they stand at your door tagging your location with their handheld GPS devices(Click on the article:Does Not Compute) that all the information that you give them is kept strictly confidential. So how did director of strategy and policy analysis at the Soufan Group Daniel Freedman fare when he received the American Community Survey? By his own words, not good, not good at all.
Freedman received the ACS in January. He thought that the questions ranged from invasive to strange to creepy to Orwellian. He questioned friends in the Justice Department who thought it was some kind of sophisticated mail fraud. But after enough research he discovered it wasn’t a fraud. He spent an hour answering questions. Now I don’t know if Mr. Freedman has others living in his home but I know that it would take more than an hour if there were more than one or two people living in a home. However, he completed the form and dropped it in the mail towards the end of January.
That’s when the nightmare began. A few weeks later he received a note stuck in his door from a census worker asking that he call her. He did and she said she wanted to come by his home and complete the questions. He replied that he had already filled out the form and mailed it back and that if they had lost it then it was their duty to find it and that he didn’t want a stranger in his home asking him personal questions that he had already answered. She ignored him and turned up at his home unannounced, twice. She demanded entry and gave dire warnings of the fines he would face. (To the best of my knowledge, at this time no one has been fined by the US Census Bureau for refusing to fill out the forms. The Census Bureau is in enough hot water without going high-profile with a court case that is sure to get an amazing amount of coverage.)
Freedman quoted the Fourth Amendment to her, the right for citizens to be secure in their persons, houses, personal effects and papers against unreasonable searches. By this time it was March and he sent a letter of complaint to the census worker’s regional director.
On March 23 Freedman was contacted by an American Community Survey program supervisor who told him that indeed his form had been received at the Census Bureau on February 8 but that it had been “sitting on the sidelines”  ( a sad little eupherism for “lost and we didn’t know where it was for several weeks”) and never processed. She thanked him for the letter of complaint as it was his letter that prompted the search for the missing form. Right, they didn’t even know they had the form or that it was missing in action until they received the letter of complaint that Freedman wrote. Yes, the form that had his name, address, phone number and all kinds of personal information in it.

So there you have it, a government “worker bee” swollen with self-importance, using her probably temporary position to attempt to bully her way into an American citizen’s home using threats of fines and wielding the power of the Department of Commerce.
Of course, the real question here is just how confidential and secure was Mr. Freedman’s personal information for the several weeks that no one knew where it was?

Freedman also said that in the past census workers have also accidently published people’s personal information on public websites. Well, that certainly may be so.  We do know for a fact that during World War I census information was used to round up draft dodgers and in the 1940’s census information was handed over to the FBI and other government agencies and was used to round up Japanese Americans and put them in internment camps.  The WWII release of information to the FBI was kept a secret for sixty-five years. The Census Bureau was also used to identify Arab Americans after 9/11. A whooping twenty percent of the questions on census forms are race questions. Homeland Security being the many-headed Hydra that it is today I’m not sure how that’s going to work out for all the  law-abiding, naturalized citizens who, seeking freedom and opportunity, came here from other countries.

I tried to post a link here to Mr. Freedman’s original article at the Weekly Standard but for some reason it isn’t posting as a link. In any case here is the address of the article. You might be able to highlight, copy, and paste it into your browser bar.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/orwellian-american-community-survey

Disclaimer: WordPress has a new feature in the drop down comment section at the end of each post which automatically generates links to stories that may be “Possibly Related” to the article posted on this blog that a reader is commenting on. I have nothing to do with putting them there and I am not responsible for the content nor am I supporting the views expressed on such websites.
If I remove them then this blog will not appear on other blogs as a “possibly related” post so it’s a bit of a give-and-take. Click on them at your own discretion.

Let’s Play 256 Questions

US Census American Community Survey

The American Community Survey is sent to American citizens, prison inmates, and illegal aliens by the U.S Census Bureau. The American Community Survey is not the short 10 question form most people receive, it is the very long form that is sent out monthly to a random selection of homes, prisons, and abandon buildings. The Census Bureau sends out two hundred fifty thousand of the long form questionnaires every month. Below this article I have posted every question that is on the American Community Survey. You will probably get one or you might be asked to answer some questions about your neighbors. Then again, your neighbors might be asked some questions about you. Yes that’s right, the Census Bureau workers can ask your neighbors questions about you.  
 
Note: As a writer I had a difficult time refraining from editing the errors the census bureau made on the form but I did and, I stayed true to my intent to represent the form as close as possible to its original paper state. The punctuation and grammar errors, and the CAPS and bold are those of the U.S. Census Bureau. My comments are in dark red. Yes, I couldn’t resist poking fun at this whole hot mess created by the Census Bureau. It’s tough to be angry or nervous about something you’re laughing at. For a good laugh take a look at the Video links on the right.
The whole point of this blog is to let American citizens know they are not alone. Any reader of this blog has permission to create a link to it from their page if your website or blog has to do with the Census. However, if you just have to copy and paste please just give credit where credit is due, create a link back to the orginal and name the author. In this case the author is; Resident Apt.1.
  On the outside of the envelope:
 The American Community Survey Form is enclosed
YOUR RESPONSE IS REQUIRED BY LAW
The Census Bureau states that the form is confidential. U.S. Citizens might want to take that statement with a grain of salt. Confidential is not the same as anonymous. The survey does not ask for social security numbers but it does ask for names, addresses, and telephone numbers. Confidentiality is questioned when the Census Bureau loses forms and doesn’t even look for them until someone writes a letter of complaint. (Click on the article:Secure and Confidential, Uh Huh)
The form is a total of twenty-nine pages with forty-seven questions for each person up to five people. However, most of the questions, if not all, have multiple parts. There are also twenty-one questions about your housing. That’s a total of two hundred fifty-six questions you will be answering if you have five people living in your home. There is also a page that states,” If there are more than five people living or staying here, print their names in the spaces for Person 6 through person 12. We may call you for more information about them.”
 Bet they will.
My form was addressed to:
Resident Apt.1
Here’s an example:
Resident Apt 1
13 Primrose Path
Suckertown, Big Brother 00666
So why can’t we fill in the name form as “Resident”? After all, it’s confidential, as they say.
Then the person who makes the choice to go ahead and fill out the form also has to answer the forty-seven questions for each additional person in the house.That could be as much as two hundred fifty-six questions. These are multiple part questions. If you don’t answer the questions and mail it back to them they will send you another one along with a letter from Director Steve H. Murdock explaining how the success of the survey depends on you. Typical governement statement, pass the buck and put the onus on people who have been given no say in what questions they are going to be asked. According to government-think it wouldn’t make sense to structure the census form so that all American citizens wouldn’t have a privacy issue with the one and only one question it was originally intended to ask.
 
If you don’t answer the questions on the second form they send they will send a “field representative” to your house to “help” you fill out the form. I wasn’t home when the field representative visited the first time but she was kind enough to stick her official business card, another letter from Steve H. Murdock, Director, and a brochure with the American flag and the statue of Liberty on it in my door. Apparently she didn’t see the mailbox on the side of the door about 3 inches from where she jammed her business card and other info. I guess they assume that if you didn’t jump at the chance to spread your personal information all over the country then it must mean that either you are an ESL person (English as a Second Language) or you’re just too stupid to know how to do it and so must need their help.
The Census Bureau assumes that the American people just can’t wait to tell complete strangers all about how much money they makes, who they have what kind of relationship with, how much their mortgage payments are, and whether or not they have some physical, emotional, or mental problems.
The field reps are required to make six attempts at face to face contact with you. If they are not successful in getting the information from you during the six attempts they are then instructed by the U.S. Census Bureau to go to any of your neighbors that are fifteen years old or older and ask them the questions about you.
I received the American Community Survey last year. It sat in a junkmail pile for a while. When I opened it I was appalled at the questions so I threw it out. I received a reminder in the mail. I threw it out. I got another ACS in the mail. I sat down called my congressman’s office. They hadn’t heard much about it but were interested. Then I put all the questions on a website.( I got busy and didn’t keep up the website so now here it is again on this blog.) After I put it on the website I threw it in a file. I got a visit from a government census worker. I was polite I said, “No I’m not filling it out.” She tried to engage me in conversation (she must have gone through the Refusal Avoidance Training for Census Workers) I didn’t engage. I closed the door. I got a reminder. I got a call from a neighbor saying that a census worker was asking about me. My neighbor wasn’t co-operative either. I got another letter. Then I got a visit from a supervisor. I was polite. I said, “Put me on the Refusal List.” She said, “Well, give me your name so I can put you on the list.” When I stopped laughing I replied, “You don’t need my name just put this address on your list.” She said, OK, but the Census Bureau doesn’t take refusals lightly.” “Really?” I said, “That’s ok, I don’t take invasion of my privacy lightly either.” Softly closed the door. Never heard from them again.
Here’s an excerpt from a story about how a couple of U.S. citizens handled a field representative:
“Walt,” wrote about how he’d been approached a number of times: “The ACS lady came by for her second visit around 6:00 yesterday afternoon. I happened to outside and greeted her at her car door – she never got out. I advised her that the owner or owners of the information she was seeking have not authorized it’s release”. I like that, good answer.
“Reasoning with a Census ‘field representative’ is like reasoning with a Jihadist. They believe what they are being paid to do is worthwhile, BUT cannot and will not do anything if you just refuse to play their game. Be polite if you wish. Frankly, I lost my cool and yelled ‘don’t talk about fining me, DO IT! You’ll get plenty of publicity!'” added “Scribe.”
Here’s a link to the full article by Bob Unruh:

What will the Duggar family do? They have nineteen kids. Will they be answering the American Community Survey?

So here are all the questions on the American Community Survey. Just mulitply them by the number of people living in your home to find out how many questions you’ll be answering, if you choose to answer them.
Questions for Person 1 (who has to fill in all the other questions for persons one through five.)
 
 
 
 
 
 

The questions are very interesting.
After you fill in the date the very next question is:

 

 

 Then:
1.What is Person 1’s name?_______________________________
How about just “Resident” or “Person 1”? That would keep it confidential.
Then they are kind enough to X the next box for you because they’re not sure you’d be able to figure out that you are person 1 so the question doesn’t apply to you.

2. How is this person related to person 1? X

Note: This second question, when asked of Person 2 is worded as follows:

2. How is this person (person 2) related to Person 1? Mark (X) ONE box.
Which can be interpreted as; who are you sleeping with? Depending on person 1 and person 2’s answers to question 3 it can also be interpreted as; are you gay or straight?

 Husband or wife

 Biological son or daughter

 Adopted son or daughter

 Stepson or stepdaughter

 Brother or sister

 Father or mother

 Grandchild

 Parent-in-law

 Son-in-law or daughter-in-law

Other relative

 Roomer or boarder

 Housemate or roommate

 Unmarried partner

 Foster child

 Other nonrelative

What, no check box for uncle daddy?

3. What is Person 1’s sex? Only two choices?

  •  Male
  •  Female

Nothing for hermaphrodite, asexual, or sex-change? Not yet anyway, maybe next time they’ll be more blatant about it because, if you read question 2 for Person 2’s relationship to Person1 you will realize they are asking about your sexual orientation.

4. What is Person 1’s age and date of birth? _______ ________

5. Is Person 1 of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin?
(There are plenty of hardworking, naturalized citizens of Spanish origin living in the U.S. that don’t need the U.S. Census Bureau profiling them)

 No, not of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin

 Yes, Mexican, Mexican Am., Chicano

 Yes, Puerto Rican

Yes, Chicano Yes, another Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin – Print origin,(Wrong use of a hyphen by the way) for example, Argentinian, Colombian, Dominican Republic, Nicaraguan, Salvadoran, Spaniard, and so on.

6.What is Person 1’s race?
 White

 Black

 African Am. or Negro

 American Indian or Alaska Native. – Print name of enrolled or principle tribe.___________
Asian Indian

 Chinese

 Filipino

 Other Asian – Print race, for example, Hmong, Laotian, Thai, Pakistani, Cambodian, and so on.

 Japanese

 Korean

 Vietnamese

 Native Hawaiian

 Guamanian or Chammorro

 Samoan Other Pacific Islander – Print race, for example, Fijian, Tongan, and so on.

Where is Irish American? Where is Italian American? Where is (fill in your heritage here)___________________? Oh, excuse me, they have been relegated to: Plain old White, and Some other race – print race. So just write “some other race”?
Again, wrong use of the hyphen. Just a testament to the U. S. school system. But I won’t belabor the point anymore.

7. Where was this person born? ____________

 In the United States – print name of state ___________
 Outside of United States – Print name of foreign country or Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.__________________________________

8. Is this person a citizen of the United States?

 Yes born in the United States – Skip to 10a

 Yes, born in Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, or Northern Marianas.
 Yes, born abroad of U.S. citizen parents Yes, U.S.citizen by naturalization – Print year of naturalization_____  No, not a U.S. citizen

9. When did this person come to live in the United States? Print numbers in boxes __/____/____

10. a At anytime IN THE LAST 3 MONTHS has this person attended school or college?
Include only nursery or preschool, kindergarten, elementary school, home school, and schooling which leads to a high school diploma or college degree.
Ok, so what schooling was left out? Maybe the Resistance Avoidance Training for Census Workers?

 No, has not attended in the last 3 months

 Yes, public school, public college

 Yes, private school, private college, home school10.b What grade or level was this person attending?
Mark (X) one box.
Thanks for the example, as a victim of the U.S. school system I wouldn’t have been able to figure out how to mark the X.

  • Undergraduate years (freshman to senior) Thanks, cleared that one right up too,I wasn’t sure.
  •  Nursery, preschool

     Kindergarten

     Grade 1 through 12-Specify grade 1-12 → ________

     College undergraduate (freshman to senior)

     Graduate or professional school beyond a bachelor’s degree. For example: MA or PhD program, or medical or law school. Thanks for that example too. Of course any U.S. citizen with an MA, a PhD, a medical degree, or a law degree wouldn’t have been able to figure that out without the example.11. What is the highest degree or level of school that this person has completed?

     No schooling completed

     Nursery or preschool through grade 12

     Nursery school

     Kindergarten

     Grade 1 through 11-Specify 1-11 → ____________

     12th grade – NO DIPLOMANo Diploma, the only one in CAPS and in bold, so if you’re a hardworking person but you don’t have a high school diploma maybe you’ve been singled out for a little dose of embarassment, even if it’s just while you’re sitting at your own kitchen table.

    HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE

     Regular high school diploma

     GED or alternative credential

    COLLEGE OR SOME COLLEGE

     Some college credit, but less than one year of college credit

     1 or more years of college credit, no degree

     Associate’s degree (for example: AA,AS)

     Bachelor’s degree (for example: BA, BS)

    AFTER BACHELOR’S DEGREE

     Master’s degree (for example: MA, MS, MEng, MEd, MSW, MBA,) What no MFA? Well, yeah, maybe if we’re talking about the MFAs at the U.S. Census Bureau. You know, Masters (of the) Fine (of) Art of B.S.

     Doctorate degree (for example: PhD, EdD)

    12.What is this person’s ancestry?______________
    (For example: Italian, Jamaican,African Am., Cambodian, Cape Verdean, Norwegian,Dominican, French Canadian, Haitian, Korean, Lebanese, Polish, Nigerian, Mexican, Taiwanese, Ukrainian, and so on)What, are we profiling all U.S. citizens now? And this question wasn’t answered by questions 5, 6, or 7?
    Some of us are just the “so ons”. So maybe we can just write “so on” in the box.

    13a. Does this person speak a language other than English at home? What language is “English at home”? Try, At home does this person speak a language other than English?

     Yes

     No→ SKIP to question 14a

    b. What is this language? ___________________

    For example: Korean, Italian, Spanish, Vietnamese

    c. How well does this person speak English?

    Well, if he or she attended U.S. public schools maybe not that well at all.

     Very well

     Well

     Not well

     Not very well

    14. Did this person live in this house or apartment 1 year ago?

    •  Person is under 1 year old→ SKIP to question 15 (This is a question for Person 1, the home owner or renter,remember? So yeah, this question needed a check box for “Person is under one year old.” )
    •  Yes, this house→ SKIP to question 15
    •  No, different house in the United States or Pureto Rico
    •  No, outside the United States and Puerto Rico – Print name of foreign country, or U.S. Virgin Island, Guam, etc., below; then SKIP to question 15

    _________________________________

    b. Where did this person live 1 year ago?

    ____________________________

    Address (Number and Street name)

    ____________________________

    Name of city, town, or post office

    ________________________________

    Name of U.S. county or municipio in Puerto Rico

    ____________________________
    Name of U.S. state or Puerto Rico Zip code

    15. Is this person CURRENTLY covered by any of the following types of health insurance or health coverage plans? Mark “yes” or “No” for EACH type of coverage in items a – h.

    Yes No
          A. Insurance through a current or former employer or    union  this person or another family member).                 

          B. Insurance purchased directly from an insurance company (by this person or another family member).

         C. Medicare for people 65 and older, or people with certain disabilities.

         D. Medicaid, Medical Assistance, or any kind of government-assistance planfor those with low incomes or a disability.

         E. TRICARE or other military health care.

         F. VA (including those who have ever used or enrolled for VA health care).
         G. Indian Health Service

         H. Any other type of health insurance or health coverage plan. Specify ________.

    16.a Is this person deaf or does he/she (incorrect use of slash) have serious difficulty
    hearing?

      Yes

      No

    Apparently the U.S Census bureau is deaf. They can’t hear the American people refusing to answer these privacy invading questions.

    b. Is this person blind or does he/she have serious difficulty seeing even when wearing glasses?

     Yes

      No

    17.a Because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition, does this person have serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions?

    Well yes actually, I’m having trouble remembering the answers to the multitude of questions the Sensless Bureau is asking.

     Yes

      No

    b. Does this person have difficulty walking or climbing stairs?

      Yes

      No

    c. Does this person have difficulty dressing or bathing?

      Yes

       No

    18. Because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition, does this person have difficulty doing errands alone such as visiting a doctor’s office or shopping?

      Yes

       No

    “Nazi Germany was not the first or only country to sterilize people considered “abnormal.” Before Hitler, the United States led the world in forced sterilizations. Between 1907 and 1939, more than 30,000 people in twenty-nine states were sterilized, many of them unknowingly or against their will, while they were incarcerated in prisons or institutions for the mentally ill. Nearly half the operations were carried out in California. Advocates of sterilization policies in both Germany and the United States were influenced by eugenics. This sociobiological theory took Charles Darwin’s principle of natural selection and applied it to society. Eugenicists believed the human race could be improved by controlled breeding.”

    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/disabled.html

    19. What is this person’s marital status?

     Now married

     Widowed

     Divorced

     Separated

      Never Married→ SKIP to H

    20. In the PAST 12 MONTHS did this person get-

    Yes   No
     Married

          Widowed Does someone actually “get” widowed? Is is a choice like Married or Divorced?

          Divorced

    21. How many times has this person been married?

     Once

      Twice

      Three or more times

    22. In what year did this person last get married?
    Year _______________

    23. Has this person given birth to any children in the past 12 months?
    What else would “persons” give birth to? Oh, yeah, ideas for surveys that invade the privacy of the American people.

     Yes

      No

    24.a Does this person have any of his/her own grandchildren under the age of 18 living in this house or apartment?

     Yes

     No→ SKIP to question 25

    b. Is this grandparent currently responsible for most of the basic needs of any grandchild(ren) under the age of 18 who live(s) in this house or apartment?

     Yes

    No→ SKIP to question 25

    c. How long has this grandparent been responsible for the(se) child(ren)?
    (Now that’s an attractive, elegantly constructed sentence demonstrating the power of the U.S. public school system. Or perhaps they assume that the rest of us don’t understand good grammar.)
    If the grandparent is financially responsible for more than one grandchild,
    answer the question for the grandchild for whom the grandparent has been
    responsible for the longest period of time.

     Less than 6 months
      6 to 11 months

      1 or 2 years

      3 or 4 years

      5 or more years

    25. Has this person ever served on active duty in the U.S. Armed forces, military reserves, or National Guard? Active duty does not include training for the Reserves or National Guard, but DOES include activation for example, for the Persian Gulf War.

     Yes, now on active duty

     Yes, on active duty during the last 12 months, but not now.

     Yes, on active duty in the past, but not during the last 12 months

     No, training for Reserves or National Guard only→SKIP to question 28a.

     No, never served in the military→SKIP to question 28a

    26. When did this person serve on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces?
    Mark (X) a box for EACH period in which this person served, even if just for
    part of the period.

     September 2001 or later

     August 1990 to August 2001 (including Persian Gulf War)

     September 1980 to July 1990

     May 1975 to August 1980

     Vietnam era (August 1964 to april 1975)

      March 1961 to July 1964

     February 1955 to February 1961

      Korean War (July 1950 to January 1955)

      January 1947 to June 1950

      World War II (December 1941 to December 1946)

      November 1941 or earlier

    27.a Does this person have a VA service-connected disability rating?

     Yes (such as 0%, 10%, 20%,…, 100%)

      No→ SKIP to question 28a

    b. What is this person’s service-connected disability rating?

      0 percent

     10 or 20 percent

      30 or 40 percent

      50 or 60 percent

      70 percent or higher

    Will the U.S. government will use this information to cut the benefits of the many women and men that over the years fought for the very freedom the U.S. Census Bureau is now trying to take away?

    28 a. LAST WEEK, did this person work for pay at a job (or business)?

      Yes → SKIP to question 29

      No – Did not work (or retired)

    b. LAST WEEK, did this person do ANY work for pay, even for as little as one hour?

      Yes

      No → SKIP to question 34a

    29. At what location did this person work LAST WEEK? If this person worked at more than one location, print where he or she worked most last week.

    a. Address and street name

    ____________________________

    If the exact location is not known, give a description of the location such as the building name or the nearest street or intersection.

    b. Name of city, town, or post office

    ______________________

    c. Is the work location inside the limits of that city or town?

      Yes

      No

    d. Name of county

    ________________________

    e. Name of U.S. state or foreign country

    __________________________

    f. ZIP code

    __________________________

    30. How did this person usually get to work LAST WEEK? If this person usually used more than one method of transportation during the trip, mark (X) the box of the one used for most of the distance.

      Car, truck,van

      Bus or trolley bus

      Streetcar or trolley car

      Subway or elevated

      Railroad

      Ferryboat

      Taxicab

      Motorcycle

      Bicycle

      Walked

      Worked at home → SKIP to question 38a

      Other method What other method? Horseback? ok. How about unicycle? Or maybe astral travel?

    Answer question 31 if you marked “Car, truck,or van” in question 30. Otherwise,

    SKIP to question 32.

    31. How many people, including this person, usually rode to work in the car,truck, or van LAST WEEK?

    Person(s)

    ___________

    So they couldn’t just write “vehicle” in place of “Car, truck, or van” so they could save the ink on 250,000 forms per month? How “green” is that?

    32. What time did this person usually leave home to go to work LAST WEEK?
    Hour____ Minute____ a.m.___ p.m____

    33. How many minutes did it usually take this person to get from home to work LAST WEEK?

    Minutes_____________

    Answer questions 34 – 37 if this person did NOT work last week. Otherwise,
    SKIP to question 38a.

    34 a. Last week, was this person on layoff from a job?

      Yes

      No

    b. LAST WEEK, was this person TEMPORARILY absent from a job or business?

     Yes

      No → SKIP to question 35

    c. Has this person been informed that he or she will be recalled to work
    within the next 6 months OR been given a date to return to work?

      Yes → SKIP to question 36

      No

    Well they finally figured out that the “he/she” was wrong and switched to “he or she”. Can’f figure out why they didn’t go back and correct the previous errors. Well, that’s the U.S. Census Bureau for you, I guess a margin of error is acceptable to them. Hmm. how does that translate into accurate data?

    35. During the LAST 4 WEEKS has this person been ACTIVELY looking for work?

      Yes

      No → SKIP to question 37

    36. LAST WEEK, could this person have started a job if offered one, or returned to work if recalled?

      Yes, could have gone to work

      No, because of own temporary illness (Nice grammar there too.)

      No, because of all other reasons (in school, etc.)

    37. When did this person last work, even for a few days?

    • Within the past 12 months
    • 1 to 5 years ago → SKIP to K
    • Over 5 years ago or never worked → SKIP to question 46

    38 a. During the PAST 12 MONTHS (52 weeks), did this person work 50 or more weeks? Count paid time off as work. Thanks, I wasn’t sure how many weeks are in a year.

     Yes → SKIP to question 39

      No

    b. How many weeks DID this person work, even for a few hours, including
    paid vacation, paid sick leave, and military service?

      50 to 52 weeks

      48 to 49 weeks

      40 to 47 weeks

      27 to 39 weeks

      14 to 26 weeks13 weeks or less (should be “fewer” not “less”)

    39. During the PAST 12 MONTHS, in the WEEKS WORKED, how many hours did this person usually work each WEEK?

    Usual hours worked each WEEK _____________

    K Answer questions 40 – 45 if this person worked in the past 5 years. Otherwise,

    SKIP to question 46.

    40. Was this person –

    Mark (X) ONE box.

      an employee of a PRIVATE FOR PROFIT company, or business, or of an individual, for wages, salary, or commission? Check the grammar on that one.

      an employee of a PRIVATE NOT FOR PROFIT, tax-exempt, or charitable organization?

      a local GOVERNMENT employee (city, county, etc) Great explanation, couldn’t have done it with out it.

      a state GOVERNMENT employee?

      a Federal GOVERNMENT employee?

      SELF-EMPLOYED in own NOT INCORPORATED business, professional practice, or farm?

     SELF-EMPLOYED in own INCORPORATED business, professional practice, or farm?

      working WITHOUT PAY in family business or farm?

    41. For whom did this person work?
    If now on active duty in the Armed Forces, mark (X) this box →__
    and print the branch of the Armed Forces.

    Name of company, business, or other employer
    ________________________________________

    42. What kind of business or industry was this?
    Describe the activity at the location where employed. (For example: hospital,
    newspaper publishing, mail order house, auto engine manufacturing,bank)

    ___________________________________________

    43. Is this mainly – Mark (X) one box.

     manufacturing?

     wholesale trade?

     retail trade?

     other (agriculture, construction, service, government, etc.)?

    44. What kind of work is this person doing? (For example: registered nurse,
    personnel manager, supervisor of ordering department, secretary, accountant)
    ___________________________________________

    45. What was this person’s most important activities or duties? (For example:
    patient care, directing hiring policies, supervising order clerks, typing and
    filing, reconciling financial records)
    _______________________________________________

    Mark(X) the “No” box to show types of income NOT received.
    f net income was a loss, mark the “Loss” box to the right of the dollar amount.
    For income received jointly, report the appropriate share for each person – or, if that is not possible, report the whole amount for only one person an mark the “No” box for the other person.

    a. Wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, or tips from all jobs. Report amount before deductions for taxes, bonds, dues, or other items.
    <font color=”660000″>I assume this means that if you are a wait person who is required to split tips with other wait people then you are required to write down what you received before you divided the tips with other staff and tipped out the bartenders. OK, so, maybe I’m pushing it a bit here, we all know how claiming the tips works.</font color=”660000″>

     Yes → $________

     No

    b. Self-employment income from own nonfarm businesses or farm
    businesses, including proprietorships and partnerships. Report NET
    income after business expenses.

    46. INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS

    Mark (x) the “Yes” box for each type of income this person received and give your best estimate of the TOTAL AMOUNT during the PAST 12 MONTHS.

    (Note: The “past 12 months” is the period from today’s date one year ago up through today.)

    Mark(X) the “No” box to show types of income NOT received.
    If net income was a loss, mark the “Loss” box to the right of the dollar amount.
    For income received jointly, report the appropriate share for each person – or, if that is not possible, report the whole amount for only one person an mark the “No” box for the other person.

    Interest, dividends, net rental income, royalty income, or income from
    estates and trusts. Report even small amounts credited to an account.

      Yes → $____________________.00__ ____ Loss
    TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 months

      No

    d. Social Security or Railroad Retirement

     Yes → $__________________.00
    TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 months

     No

    e. Supplemental Security Income (SSI)

      Yes → $__________________.00
    TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 months

      No

    f. Any public assistance or welfare payments from the state or local welfare office.

     Yes → $__________________.00
    TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 months

      No

    g. Retirement, survivor, or disability pensions.
    Do NOT include Social Security

     Yes → $__________________.00
    TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 months

      No

    h. Any other sources of income received regularly such as Veterans’ (VA) payments, unemployment compensation, child support, or alimony. Do not include lump sum payments such as money from an inheritance or the sale of a home.

     Yes → $__________________.00
    TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 months

     No

    47. What was this person’s total income during the PAST 12 MONTHS?Add entries in questions 46a to 46h; subtract any losses. If net income was a loss, enter the dollar amount and mark (X) the “Loss” box next to the dollar amount.

    None ___ OR $________.00 Loss ____
    TOTAL AMOUNT for past 12 months

    Continue with the questions for Person 2 on the next page. If only 1 person is listed on page 2, SKIP to page 28 for mailing instructions.

    Congratulations! You’ve gotten this far, now get ready to answer the same forty-six questions for all other “Persons” in your home.

    Sign me,

    Resident Apt 1

    Since I first posted this article back in the beginning of 2009 (in another blog which I don’t use anymore) I have found a link to a PDF file of the American Community Survey. You can access it here:
    American Community Survey PDF

    © 2008

    Disclaimer: WordPress has a new feature in the drop down comment section at the end of each post which automatically generates links to stories  that may be “Possibly Related” to the article posted on this blog that a reader is commenting on. I have nothing to do with putting them there and I am not responsible for the content nor am I supporting the views expressed on such websites. If I remove them then this blog will not appear on other blogs as a “possibly related” post so it’s a bit of a give-and-take. Click on them at your own discretion.
    All articles on this blog are the property of the author, with the exception of the excerpts from the public documents released by the Census Bureau. No part of this publication maybe reproduced without written consent from the author. So that being said and the web being what it is I’ll say this: If you just have to copy and paste something from someone else please be decent enough to reference back to the original author with a link or a notation as to who the author is. Otherwise, you’re the same as the census workers you’re reading about: Taking information that doesn’t belong to you.
    However, the author grants permission to place a link to this blog on web pages that address similar content.
     

    Refusal Aversion Training for Census Workers

    To read the whole article click on the title above the date.

    Here is a verbatim copy of a PDF file written by the US Census Bureau on training techniques designed to teach their workers how to overcome your resistance to answering their questions.

    Since it is a copy and paste I simply left the errors in spelling and grammar as they are in the original.

    The report was released to inform interested parties of ongoing research and to encourage discussion of work in progress.

    So are you an “interested party”? If so, read on.

    INTERVIEWER  REFUSAL  AVERSION  TRAINING  TO  INCREASE  SURVEY  PARTICIPATION

    This paper reports the results of research and analysis undertaken by Census Bureau staff. It has undergone a Census Bureau review more limited in scope than that given to official Census Bureau publications. This report is released to inform interested parties of ongoing research and to encourage discussion of work in progress.

    Initial non-response rates for ongoing Federal household surveys are increasing (e.g., Atrostic, Bates, Burt, Silberstein, & Winters, 1999). Survey researchers are now focusing on the development of innovative methods to improve survey response rates. One area of interest is the interviewer-respondent interaction and its influence on survey cooperation. The Census Bureau, among other organizations, is beginning to consider the merits of specialized training programs that build on an understanding of this interviewer-respondent interaction to help interviewers effectively deal with respondent reluctance and avoid refusals. The paper reports on a pilot study of one training protocol designed to do so.

    The interaction between interviewer and respondent up to the point of the start or termination of the interview is generally short, between 1-5 minutes for face-to-face interviews (Groves & Couper, 1998), and even shorter for telephone interviews (Oksenberg, Coleman, & Cannell, 1986). Groves, Cialdini, & Couper (1992) suggested that inexperienced interviewers often create “soft refusals” in these first interactions by pressing the respondent to make a decision too quickly. Groves & Couper (1998) also posited that such soft-refusals happen because interviewers do not give an effective response to a specific respondent concern. Furthermore, their work showed that inexperienced interviewers often misconstrue respondent questions as an indication of reluctance. Questions asked by a respondent, however, are often predictive of positive interview outcomes for several reasons: a) it shows the respondent is motivated and attending to the conversation; b) it allows the conversation to continue; and c) it provides the interviewer with information to use to tailor the interaction. Thus, their theoretical considerations regarding the nature of initial interviewer-respondent interactions and their influence on respondent cooperation suggest this: interviewer refusal avoidance training would do better to focus on quickly identifying a concern and quickly delivering a brief, situation-appropriate response.

    Groves  Couper (1998) described the theoretical motivation for such a training protocol.Because experienced interviewers are more adept at tailoring (adapting their approach to the specific characteristics of a household) and maintaining interaction (continuing the conversation with the respondent), they are more successful in obtaining cooperation from respondents. In their model, the following components are necessary for tailoring to be successful: a) the interviewer must have a repertoire of techniques, strategies, phrases, etc., related to the particular survey request; b) the interviewer must be adept at reading the verbal and nonverbal cues from the respondent; c) the interviewer must be able to apply the appropriate strategy according to the cues received from the respondent; and d) the interaction between the interviewer and respondent must be long enough so that tailoring can be applied. This indicates a strong relationship between tailoring and maintaining interaction. Maintaining interaction, say Groves and Couper, works because as a conversation grows longer, it becomes less socially acceptable to break it off. In addition, tailoring and maintaining interaction work together because the longer the conversation lasts, the more cues are provided to the interviewer, thus increasing the opportunity to apply tailoring techniques (Groves, Cialdini, & Couper, 1992; Groves & Couper, 1998).

    An independent review of the Census Bureau’s interviewer training program for the Current Population Survey identifies both the absence and the importance of these components in interviewing success. In their evaluation, Doughty et al. (2000) reported: Insufficient training, practice, and feedback is provided for the most challenging tasks required of FRs. (These) are converting refusals, gaining cooperation of respondents, troubleshooting computer problems, communicating purpose of survey/use of data, listing and coverage, establishing and maintaining rapport with respondent, understanding the job of an interviewer, and answering respondents’ questions (p. 10).

    Thus, CPS interviewers appeared to be ill-prepared for the tasks most important to the constructs of tailoring and maintaining interaction as described by Groves and Couper (1998). That is, Doughty et al. found that CPS interviewers were not sufficiently trained in converting refusals, gaining cooperation of respondents, communicating the purpose of the survey, establishing and maintaining rapport with the respondent, and answering respondent’s questions. In addition to the fairly specialized task of dealing with reluctance, Doughty et al. (2000) alsoreported that “FRs do not feel prepared to perform their job independently before N-1 [field training]”(p. 10). Thus, more general concerns about interviewers’ level of self-confidence with their role may be an important issue. Earlier research demonstrates a strong association between confidence-levels and interviewing success. Singer, Frankel, & Glassman (1983) reported that interviewers with optimistic expectations about the ease of gaining respondent cooperation had significantly higher response rates than those with less optimistic expectations. Similarly, Groves and Couper (1998) reported that interviewers having higher levels of self-confidence about their ability to gain respondents’ cooperation tended to have longer interactions with respondents. One of the strengths of the Refusal Aversion Training is its focus on behaviors that build interviewers self-confidence by addressing the difficult job responsibilities described by Doughty et al. Groves and Couper’s (1998) concepts of tailoring and maintaining interaction suggested that developing refusal aversion training is a four step process: a) collecting respondent concerns in their own words; b) developing “alternative kinds of information relevant to those concerns” (p. 266); c) training interviewers to group respondent concernsinto categories; and d) training interviewers to quickly provide responses to the respondent, using wording appropriate for that particular respondent.  Building on this work, Groves & McGonagle (in press) implemented specialized “refusal aversion training” for survey interviewers, including concepts and skills associated with the constructs of tailoring and maintaining interaction. In two independent studies they found that interviewer groups who received training increased cooperation rates by 10.0 and 13.6 percentage points, respectively. Both tests, however, were conducted in an establishment survey.The current study expanded upon the research of Groves & McGonagle (in press) by implementing their design in a household survey environment. The Questionnaire Design Experimental Research Survey, (QDERS), is an omnibus RDD survey designed by researchers in the Center for Survey Methods Research (CSMR) at the Census Bureau. The current Refusal Aversion Training project functioned as a pilot study to test the feasibility of using the Groves-McGonagle training protocol in Census Bureau demographic survey training.Although the motivation for this training protocol is built upon a theory of householder cooperation in a face-to-face survey environment, QDERS offered a useful and cost-effective bridge to the household context from earlier tests in establishment surveys. One important dimension of the Groves-Couper model, however, is missing from the QDERS experiment. In using a telephone surveyto test the protocol, interviewers’ ability to identify cues from which to tailor and maintain interaction with respondents are restricted to aural cues only (Groves &amp; Couper, 1998). Thus, how these telephone survey results might generalize to a faceto- face survey is not clear. Groves and Couper do suggest the training effect with field enumerators might be greater precisely because they are afforded a richer set of cues (e.g., household environment, respondents’ facial expressions, posture, gestures) to better implement tailoring, build rapport, and maintain interaction with respondents. For the current study we expected Refusal Avoidance Training to increase interviewers’ ability to gain householder cooperation. This would be reflected inhigher cooperation rates and decreases in refusal rates. Because of the limited cues inherent in a telephone survey interaction described above, we would expect these results to represent a conservative estimate of the training effect, (i.e., we would expect a greater response rate increase in a face-to-face survey environment).

    METHOD Participants

    Participants included 24 interviewers from the Hagerstown Telephone Center (HTC) recruited to collect survey data for the QDERS. Interviewer tenure ranged from five months to 15 years. All interviewers had previously received the initial training conducted by HTC, and 18 interviewers had at some time attended a Refusal Avoidance Workshop conducted by HTC staff.

    Materials

    Focus groups. Two focus groups were held in order to create the materials used for the Refusal Aversion Training. To avoid any confounds with the actual training, these focus groups were conducted via video-conferencing with a total of eighteen experienced telephone interviewers from the two other Census Bureau’s telephone centers (Tucson and Jeffersonville Telephone Centers). The purpose was to obtain verbatim respondent concerns and interviewer rebuttals that proved successful for these staff in surveys of similar topics (health care, residential finance, income, etc.) The first focus group served to identify a list of verbatim respondent concerns, providing detailed terminology used by respondents. Prior to the second focus group, researchers grouped respondent concerns into thematic sets. Systematically working through concerns within each set, researchers prompted interviewers in the second focus group to provide situation-appropriate rebuttals for each concern. Interviewers were repeatedly reoriented toward providing exact words and phrases that had proved successful in the past in gaining cooperation from respondents with specific concerns.

    Refusal Aversion Handbook. An interviewer handbook was developed based on the training materials used by Groves & McGonagle (in press) and material gathered in the aforementioned focus groups. It was composed of three components: a thorough description of the refusal aversion process, a catalog of ten dominant themes of respondent reluctance for the particular survey, and a ‘toolkit’ section where interviewers could record new concerns and rebuttals identified in training or in ongoing work with the survey. Drawn from Groves and Couper (1998) and Groves & McGonagle (in press), the essential building block of this Refusal Aversion Training was described in the handbook’s first section as The Five Basic Steps to Encouraging Survey Response. Here interviewers learned to identify distinct parts of the refusal aversion process: a) Prepare for the call; b) Engage in active listening; c) Diagnose the main barrier; d) Quickly identify a counter response; and e) Quickly deliver a clear, brief rebuttal. This component is generalizable to all surveys. The second section of the handbook offered ten common themes of reluctance expressed by respondents as they might relate to a hypothetical RDD, omnibus survey such as QDERS. The themes included: a) Legitimacy Concerns; b) Time and Burden Concerns; c) “Why me?” Concerns; d) Purpose Concerns; e) Confidentiality Concerns; f) Government Concerns; g) Voluntary Survey; h) Burn-out; i) Refusals; and k) Income Under each main theme, the handbook noted several representative examples of verbatim respondent concerns and successful, verbatim interviewer rebuttal strategies. Each example was derived from the focus groups, previous Bureau research or from other surveys with survey concepts similar to QDERS. We feel that whereas some themes of respondent concerns may be common across surveys, (e.g. Time and Burden, Confidentiality, etc.), it would be necessary to rebuild this section of the handbook for use in other surveys. Unique design features of a survey can influence a householder’s ability to assess the interviewer’s intent, (e.g., mode of contact, use of advance letters, etc.), and how an interviewer may use them to tailor an effective rebuttal strategy for a particular respondent. The emphasis of the Refusal Aversion Training is not simply drilling interviewers on what strategies to use to address reluctance, butwhen and how to best use them. As such, both the composition of what is said and/or done must be relevant for the particular survey and tailored as needed to individual respondents.

    Exercises

    A number of exercises were designed to familiarize interviewers with the refusal aversion process and systematically increase their ability to use the process in a production setting. Therefore, the first exercises were fairly relaxed and gave participants a chance to consciously go through the steps in the process. Concluding exercises focused on increasing the speed and accuracy with which interviewers used the process.

    Procedure

    Interviewers from the Hagerstown Telephone Center (HTC) collected data for the QDERS. Two independent Random Digit Dialing (RDD) samples were used. Each sample included 4,000 cases and was in the field for approximately two weeks. The first half sample was fielded in August 2000; the second in September 2000. Participants were divided into three groups containing eight interviewers each, (one control group and two test groups). The Control Group only attended the training sessions for the content of the QDERS and did not receive Refusal Aversion Training. The Before Group received Refusal Aversion Training before the beginning of the first data collection period. The Between Group received the Refusal Aversion Training before the beginning of the second data collection period. This design allowed for both between subject and within subject analysis. Using two independent samples eliminated any confounds that might be associated with a within-subject analysis conducted using only one sample (e.g., differences in the number of cases, etc.).

    Refusal Aversion Training for both the Before and Between Groups consisted of eight hours of training given on two consecutive days. The first day of training included lectures on the process of encouraging survey response and basic exercises designed to reinforce specific steps of this process.

    The second day of training consisted almost entirely of exercises designed to increase the speed with which interviewers could effectively implement the process.

    RESULTS

    Interviewer-level First Contact Cooperation Rates (completed interviews and sufficient partial interviews/eligible contacted households) were calculated for each QDERS interviewer2. CATI case management practices resulted in cases being randomly assigned to the next available interviewer. If contact was established with a household but the interview was not completed, subsequent attempts could be made by any interviewer working the survey. It was therefore necessary to calculate these rates using only the outcome of the first contact with an eligible household, thereby avoiding any confounds associated with different interviewers (possibly from different experimental groups) conducting follow-up interviews with households. Rates were calculated for each interviewer for both data collection periods. Comparisons were made not only between experimental groups, but also within experimental groups over time.

    A two factor analysis of variance with a repeated measure on one factor for the First Contact Cooperation Rate revealed a significant main effect for Group, F(2, 17) = 4.79, p &lt; 0.05, and significant main effect for Time, F(1, 17) = 14.15, p &lt; 0.01, but no interaction between Group and Time, F(2,17) =1.57, p &gt; 0.10. As can be seen from Figure 1, the Before Group (N=7) had the highest First Contact Cooperation Rates, followed by the Between Group (N=6), with the Control Group (N=6) showing the lowest cooperation rates. It also shows that for all three groups, First Contact Cooperation Rates increased from data collection period one to data collection period two. The lack of a significant interaction between Group and Time is most likely a factor of the small sample sizes of the groups, but could also be influenced by the fact that training was administered at different times in the production schedule for the two treatment groups. Because of the importance of this pilot study, and the potential practical significance of these results, follow-up comparisons were made to further explore the effects of the training. Tukey multiple comparison tests (p = 0.10) did not reveal any significant differences in the First Contact Cooperation Rates between any of the experimental groups for the first data collection period. Because neither the Control nor the Between Groups had received any Refusal Aversion Training, however, the groups were combined in order to increase the statistical power. The First Contact Cooperation Rate for the combined non-trained groups ( x = 26.2) was significantly lower than that of the Before Group, t(18) = -2.01, 0.10. This suggests that the Refusal Aversion Training was successful in increasing the First Contact Cooperation Rates of trained versus untrained interviewers. All three groups showed an increase in First Contact Cooperation Rates from the first data collection period to the second. This suggests that some natural learning (maturation) took place over time, contributing to higher cooperation rates in the second data collection period for all groups. Both the Before and Between Groups, however, showed significant increases in First Contact Cooperation Rates from the end of the first data collection period to end of the second, t(6) = -5.61, p &lt; 0.01 and t(5) = -3.07, p &lt; 0.05, respectively, whereas the Control Group showed no significant increase, t(6) = -0.81, p &gt; 0.10. These results suggest that the Refusal Aversion Training contributed to the learning process over and above what might have occurred naturally over time for interviewers with no training. As can be seen from Figure 1, First Contact Cooperation Rates increased about 3.7 percentage points for the Between Group, and about 7.2 percentage points for the Before Group, but only increase about 2.4 percentage points for the Control Group. For the second data collection period, as expected, Tukey multiple comparison tests (p = 0.10) showed that the Before Group achieved significantly higher cooperation rates than the Control Group. This supports the notion that the Refusal Aversion Training was successful in increasing the First Contact Cooperation Rates of the interviewers who participated in the training. In addition, the multiple comparisons also showed that the Before Group had significantly higher cooperation rates than the Between Group. Since both groups had received training, this result suggests that there might be a“kick in” effect of the Refusal Aversion Training such that it takes interviewers a period of time (e.g., about a week) to apply the knowledge that they have learned in the Refusal Aversion Training. That is, whereas the Refusal Aversion Training did seem to help interviewers increase their cooperation rates for the first two weeks after training, it appears that the benefit increases for the third and forth weeks after training. This was echoed in interviewers’ remarks in a post-data collection debriefing session. In the words of one interviewer, “It took about a week of using it (the Refusal Aversion Training) before it all came together and I got comfortable with it.”

    Because the two treatment groups received training at different times we might speculate as to how such a “kick in” effect might operate. One caveat is that conclusions drawn from comparisons between these groups do not account for individual differences between the interviewers (interviewer bias). That said, however, it is useful to explore the pattern of results for First Contact Cooperation Rates as they might occur over time. Step one is to note that for the first data collection period the combined non-trained group of interviewers shows cooperation rates of about 26 percent (see Figure 1). Step two is to examine the First Contact Cooperation Rates for the two-week period after training (this would be the rate for the first data collection period for the Before Group and the rate for the second data collection period for the Between Group). We see that the First contact Cooperation Rates are 30.7 percent and 33.0 percent for the Between Group and Before Group, respectively. In the final step we see that the rates for the second data collection period for the Before Group (40.2 percent) represent the First Contact Cooperation Rate for a two to four week period after training. Assuming that the cooperation rates for the Between and Control groups for the first data collection period represents the baseline cooperation rates for untrained interviewers, and that the rates for the Before group represent the potential improvement after up to four weeks post-training, it might therefore be possible to speculate gains of up to 14 percent (from 26 to 40 percent) from no training to a period two to four weeks after receiving Refusal Aversion Training. In future research it would be interesting to further examine the effect of time to explore this possible “kick in” effect, and also determine if there is a point after training where learning levels off, and perhaps, even starts to decline.

    Conclusions

    As hypothesized, First Contact Cooperation rates increased in the range of 3-7 percentage points for interviewers who participated in the Refusal Aversion Training and as much as 14 percentage points over time compared to those who did not receive the training. We believe that these results support further testing of such Refusal Aversion Training in a face-to-face survey environment. We recommend, however, that follow-up research include: a) a larger sample of interviewers; b) a longer data collection period; c) baseline data for all participant groups; and d) the design of an interviewer evaluation as a management tool. Ideally, such a test would be conducted on a more focused, complex survey data collection with a history of response rate problems. In addition, such a test would permit further investigation of the effects of the training over time, such as when it “kicks in” and how it may erode over time. Such evidence could suggest when best to deliver the training, how often, on which staff and so on. Ultimately, this would yield important information that could guide management decisions regarding interviewer training.

    Does Not Compute

    To read the whole article click on the title link above the date.
     Here’s just a sample of  news articles regarding the US Census Bureau’s $595 Million handheld computer fiasco. All that and paper and pencil too. Links to the orginal story are provided at the end of each article.

    Friday April 16 2004

    Census Bureau to Test Handheld Computers in Southwest Georgia

         U.S. Census Bureau workers will swap pencils and clipboards for handheld computers beginning April 24 in the next phase of its 2004 Census Test in Georgia’s Colquitt, Thomas and Tift counties.

        During the nonresponse follow-up operation, census workers will use the handheld computers to collect information from households that did not return their questionnaires by mail. The enumerators will enter respondents’ answers to the census test questions in the computers and submit completed questionnaires electronically to Census Bureau headquarters in Suitland, Md.

        Using these methods is designed not only to improve productivity, but also to reduce the high cost of paper questionnaires in the follow-up phase.

        “The biggest change in how we conduct this part of the test is the use of the handheld computers,” said Atlanta Regional Director James F. Holmes. “The census workers visiting homes will not have paper maps, paper lists or paper questionnaires.

        The Census Bureau will apply security measures such as electronic barriers, encryption and dedicated telephone lines to protect respondents’ information. In addition, every Census Bureau worker takes an oath of confidentiality. If a census worker shares information that could identify a person or household with anyone outside the Census Bureau, that worker faces a maximum of five years in jail and a $250,000 fine.

        Census Bureau officials ask that residents of the test area cooperate with census workers who visit their homes to obtain the information needed to complete the census questionnaire.

        “During the field test, the Census Bureau will hire workers from the test communities to do the kind of detailed work needed to ensure that each household has an opportunity to participate in the 2004 Census Test,” Holmes said. “They will carry easily recognizable, official identification cards and an official Census Bureau tote bag.”

        This and future census tests are critical to ensuring a more cost-effective and accurate 2010 Census. For the Census Bureau to do a better job in the next census, it needs to find out now what works best in communities across the nation.

    Here’s the link to the orginal article:

    http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/census-tests/census-bureau-to-test-handheld-computers-in-southwest-georgia.html

    Harris

    Harris Corporation Selected for $600 Million U.S. Census Bureau Field Data Collection Automation Program

    MELBOURNE, Florida, March 30, 2006 — Harris Corporation (NYSE:HRS) today announced that it has been selected by the U.S. Census Bureau for the five-year, $600 million Field Data Collection Automation (FDCA) program. The FDCA program will fully integrate the multiple automated systems required to efficiently and securely obtain field census data for the 2010 Census.

    Harris will serve as the systems integrator and provide overall program management. Members of the Harris team include: Accenture LLP, which will provide mobile computing applications and enterprise support systems; Unisys Corporation, which will provide nationwide support and service for approximately 500 Census Bureau field offices; Dell Computer Corporation, which will provide office computing equipment; High Tech Computer Corporation, which will provide the mobile computing equipment; Sprint, which will provide telecommunications services; Oracle, which will provide database support; Client Network Services, Inc., which will provide engineering and field technician support; and Headstrong, which supported the enterprise architecture development for the 2010 Census.

    “We are very excited about this win and to have the opportunity to strengthen our partnership with the U.S. Census Bureau,” said Al Dukes, president of the Civil Programs business unit of the Harris Government Communications Systems Division.

    Here’s the link to the orginal article on the Harris Corp. website:

    http://www.harris.com/view_pressrelease.asp?act=lookup&pr_id=1818

    *******************

    Census Works Through Handheld-Computer Glitches

    By Allan Holmes   05/14/07 12:42 pm ET

    Introducing new technology into old ways of doing business can be challenging at times. That’s what the U.S. Census Bureau is finding out, Government Executive observed during a recent trip to a site where the bureau is testing wireless computers.

    In Fayetteville, N.C., dozens of temporary census employees are testing how new handheld computers perform in the field to verify addresses and add new ones. During a training session that the bureau held last week, many of the trainees’ handhelds froze as they tried to input or download information. The handhelds, which are linked to census databases, upload and download information via satellite and require about 10 to 15 seconds to respond to requests. During that time, trainees, thinking the computer was not operating properly, continued to tap their stylists on the touch-sensitive screens. That caused the handhelds to freeze.

    The bureau is testing the use of the handheld computers in a nine-county region in and around Fayetteville as well as in Stockton, Calif., to check how well the devices help employees verify addresses. The handhelds, which are outfitted with GPS location devices, will replace the paper, pencils and maps that enumerators carried around during the prior censuses to locate addresses and to record answers from individuals who had not mailed in their census forms. Last year, Harris Corp. won the $600 million contract to supply the handhelds. Census hopes the handhelds will reduce costs for the decennial census (the 2010 census is estimated to cost $11.3 billion compared with $6.6 billion in 2000) and make the census more accurate.

    This dress rehersal was conducted to uncover problems. And it did. Other problems with the handhelds included the device’s fingerprint scanner, a security feature that prevents anyone other than the enumerator from accessing data on the handheld. But Beatrice Wolff, a 70-year-old retiree from Fayetteville, found the scanner didn’t always work for her. She said the handheld’s fingerprint reader repeatedly failed to recognize her fingerprint when she would try to turn the handheld on, causing the automatic shutdown feature to kick in. That denied Wolff from accessing her computer for 15 minutes before she could try again. “This [handheld] is giving me a lot of problems,” she said.

    Monique Moya, a crew leader overseeing eight people canvassing the Ft. Bragg military base in Fayetteville, said at any time as many as 25 percent of the eight listers she supervises were experiencing some kind of problem with the handheld computers in the field. Most problems were software related, she said, or because the satellite communications didn’t provide enough bandwidth. “When the handhelds are working, it’s great,” she said. “But with this being the first rollout, all the bugs are showing up.”

    Harris will spend the next year trying to iron out those bugs. A Harris technician at the bureau’s Fayetteville office, who was busy fielding calls trying to solve problems with the handhelds, declined an interview. The bureau and Harris have less than two years to fix the bugs before the bureau begins to verify and add new addresses nationwide.

    Here’s a link to the orginal article on Techinsider.nextgov.com:

    http://techinsider.nextgov.com/2007/05/census_works_through_handheldc.php

    ****************

    So much for a “high-tech” census in 2010.

    Department of Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez plans to tell Congress on Thursday that the next constitutionally mandated count of the U.S. population will be taking place, once again, via old-fashioned pencil and paper, according to a report by National Journal’s NextGov blog.

    Census officials had been hoping to introduce handheld computers into the process of collecting and transmitting data, but numerous glitches along the way have stymied those plans.

    That means, in part because of “recent increases in gas prices, postage, and printing” and the need to hire more census workers, Congress will need to allocate as much as $3 billion in additional taxpayer dollars for the 2010 census, Gutierrez was expected to tell a House of Representatives subcommittee that oversees such spending matters. That means the entire price tag for the decennial process could climb to as much as $14.5 billion.

    In mid-March 2010, the U.S. Census Bureau plans to send out forms to all American households, Gutierrez said in prepared testimony obtained by NextGov. Then, from April through June, some 580,000 census “enumerators” will go door-to-door in an attempt to interview those who haven’t mailed in the data.

    After the 2000 census, government officials started plotting ways to make that “non-response follow-up” process, as it’s called in bureaucrat-speak, more efficient, and they settled on the idea of outfitting census workers with handheld computers. But that project, managed through a 5-year, $600 million contract with Harris Corporation inked in 2006, has since “experienced significant schedule, performance, and cost issues,” Gutierrez said in prepared testimony.

    Here’s a link to the orginal story on cnet news.com:

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9910517-7.html

    Resident Apt 1

    Disclaimer: WordPress has a new feature in the drop down comment section at the end of each post which automatically generates links to stories  that may be “Possibly Related” to the article posted on this blog that a reader is commenting on. I have nothing to do with putting them there and I am not responsible for the content nor am I supporting the views expressed on such websites. If I remove them then this blog will not appear on other blogs as a “possibly related” post so it’s a bit of a give-and-take. Click on them at your own discretion.

    You Bought What!?

    If the American Community (Communist is a better word) Survey questions aren’t invasive enough take a look at this press release regarding the Consumer Expenditure Survey that took place in 2008. Here it is, right from the horse’s —um, mouth:

    Census Bureau to Survey Nation’s Spending Habits

    Mar 28 11:53 AM US/Eastern

    “BOSTON, March 28 – In April 2008, U.S. Census Bureau field representatives will collect information about how much Americans spend for groceries, clothing, transportation, housing, health care and other items from a sample of households across the country.

    The Consumer Expenditure (CE) Survey program consists of two parts:

    — The Interview Survey — About 15,000 households will be interviewed once every three months over five calendar quarters to obtain data on relatively large expenditures and also for those expenditures that occur on a regular basis (such as rent and utilities).

    — The Diary Survey — During the year, another 12,000 households will keep two consecutive one-week diaries of smaller, more frequent purchases that may be more difficult for respondents to recall later (such as a fast-food purchase at a drive-through window, a soda or candy bar from a vending machine, or a carton of eggs from the supermarket). ”

    Or bathroom tissue, or personal hygiene products, or over the counter birth control or, prescriptions, or (fill in the blank) I__________________________I

    “The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics then publishes integrated data from the two surveys — providing a snapshot of our nation’s economy (Snapshot!? Snapshot? By now I think we all have the big picture on our nation’s economy) and spending habits. Government economists use the survey results to update a “market basket” of goods and services for the Consumer Price Index (CPI), our nation’s most widely used measure of inflation.

    “The findings are invaluable to businesses and policymakers in our communities,” said Kathleen Ludgate, director of the Census Bureau’s Boston Regional Office. “They use the data to evaluate consumer needs and track changes in consumer spending.”

    Before the CE interviews begin, households will receive a letter from the Census Bureau director informing them of their selection to participate in the survey. Census Bureau field representatives ( aka The Dreaded Census Worker) will visit these households to conduct the interview. The field representative must display an official photo identification before proceeding with the interview. The law ensures survey respondent’spersonal information and answers are kept confidential.”

    SOURCE U.S. Census Bureau

    I know I just can’t wait to share the contents of my closet and my medicine cabinet with a goverment worker whom I’ve never laid eyes on before in my life.

    Is it possible that the Census Bureau could become the Censor Bureau?  Will we all have to surrender our Victoria’s Secret or Brownells Catalogs?

    So, how much did you pay for  those Depends and that Preparation H?

    Sign me,
    Resident Apt 1

    Disclaimer: WordPress has a new feature in the drop down comment section at the end of each post which automatically generates links to stories  that may be “Possibly Related” to the article posted on this blog that a reader is commenting on. I have nothing to do with putting them there and I am not responsible for the content nor am I supporting the views expressed on such websites. If I remove them then this blog will not appear on other blogs as a “possibly related” post so it’s a bit of a give-and-take. Click on them at your own discretion.