Census does everything possible to avoid confusion

[jbuck919]

I just had a lady leave off our census form (why it was not in the mail I do not know--perhaps the rural location), saying that it needed to be returned by April 1. The first question on the form says: "How many people were living or staying in this house, apartment, or mobile home on April 1, 2010?" The form itself provides no explanation of whether it is proper to anticipate or the deadline by which the form is to be completed and returned (or, for the curious, what happens if someone is reported and then moves out or dies before April 1).

See where I'm going here?

[MarkC]

I agree it's absurd.

I'd have trouble bringing myself to fill it out till they had the form changed to make sense -- which presumably would mean never.

[John F]

If it's really a worry, just mail in the form late. No big deal. If you put it off too long, a census taker will come to your door and take down your information.

http://2010.census.gov/2010census/how/census-taker.php

You got your form early, as the Census Bureau's site says to look for our census forms in mid-March. I haven't received mine yet.

[jbuck919]

If it's really a worry, just mail in the form late. No big deal. If you put it off too long, a census taker will come to your door and take down your information.

http://2010.census.gov/2010census/how/census-taker.php

You got your form early, as the Census Bureau's site says to look for our census forms in mid-March. I haven't received mine yet.

Thank you, John, I was able to discern the most reasonable course of action. The form itself should say "Do not complete before April 1. Do not mail in early or anticipate births, deaths, and relocations. Place form in mail by _____________" Then forms postmarked before April 1 should be discounted and the address polled again.

[Madame]

If it's really a worry, just mail in the form late. No big deal. If you put it off too long, a census taker will come to your door and take down your information.

http://2010.census.gov/2010census/how/census-taker.php

You got your form early, as the Census Bureau's site says to look for our census forms in mid-March. I haven't received mine yet.

Thank you, John, I was able to discern the most reasonable course of action. The form itself should say "Do not complete before April 1. Do not mail in early or anticipate births, deaths, and relocations. Place form in mail by _____________" Then forms postmarked before April 1 should be discounted and the address polled again.

You have WAY too much time on your hands, John.

[living_stradivarius]

If it's really a worry, just mail in the form late. No big deal. If you put it off too long, a census taker will come to your door and take down your information.

http://2010.census.gov/2010census/how/census-taker.php

You got your form early, as the Census Bureau's site says to look for our census forms in mid-March. I haven't received mine yet.

Thank you, John, I was able to discern the most reasonable course of action. The form itself should say "Do not complete before April 1. Do not mail in early or anticipate births, deaths, and relocations. Place form in mail by _____________" Then forms postmarked before April 1 should be discounted and the address polled again.

You have WAY too much time on your hands, John.

Yeah, we want to know more about the contents of your federal income tax return

[Madame]

I received an advance letter dated March 8 (USPS). (I haven't checked today's mail.) This is the content of the letter ... interesting.

Dear Resident:

About one week from now, you will receive a 2010 Census form in the mail. When you receive your form, please fill it out and mail it in promptly. Your response is important. Results from the 2010 Census will be used to help each community get its fair share of government funds for highways, schools, health facilities, and many other programs you and your neighbors need. Without a complete, accurate census, your community may not receive its fair share. Thank you in advance for your help.

Sincerely, Robert M. Groves
Director, U.S. Census Bureau

Go to <2010census.gov> for help completing your 2010 Census form when it arrives. [Note: this sentence is repeated in Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese and Russian]


see http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/op ... etter.html

[John F]

Me too. Thought it might be the census form itself, but no, just a letter saying the form would be coming. Waste of paper.

[jbuck919]

Me too. Thought it might be the census form itself, but no, just a letter saying the form would be coming. Waste of paper.

And the cost of delivery. Just because there's no stamp on the envelope....

[living_stradivarius]

Me too. Thought it might be the census form itself, but no, just a letter saying the form would be coming. Waste of paper.

And the cost of delivery. Just because there's no stamp on the envelope....

Someone had to lick the adhesive and close it too!

[jbuck919]

Me too. Thought it might be the census form itself, but no, just a letter saying the form would be coming. Waste of paper.

And the cost of delivery. Just because there's no stamp on the envelope....

Someone had to lick the adhesive and close it too!

Actually, I suspect that the letters were intended to reduce the number of people who would throw away the census form because they think it is junk mail. Yes, I know the obvious retort, but I would not be surprised if they actually had research that showed that two missives were cost effective over the follow-up needed for the additional people who would throw away the form if it was the only thing they received. However, I can't think of what research result would support the confusion caused by the April 1 date with no further instructions. Other people around here have brought it up, so it's not entirely in my head that it raises questions.

[Corlyss_D]

Me too. Thought it might be the census form itself, but no, just a letter saying the form would be coming. Waste of paper.

Actually, the situation is pretty much what John said. Kudos, John, if you just reasoned out that analysis. I actually heard something on it on FN Special Report yesterday. If you can believe the director of the census, such notices increase the participation by something like 15%. Not a lot you say? He says every percentage point represents $850,000 dollars they don't have to spend on workers to canvass the addresses from which no response is received. Now those are numbers that mean something to me, the taxpayer. As it is, the return rate on the forms averages something under 70%. That 30%+ is a lot of people we shouldn't have to pay borrowed money to go tap on doors.

[John F]

The census form has arrived, in an envelope that says in huge black type, "Census 2010," and "YOUR RESPONSE IS REQUIRED BY LAW." Anybody who would discard this as junk mail isn't going to be deterred by a previous heralding letter which actually is junk mail.

If you can believe the director of the census, such notices increase the participation by something like 15%.

I don't believe him, and am surprised you take a government bureaucrat at his unsupported word. How can he possibly know that? jbuck919 says he "wouldn't be surprised" if the practice is based on actual research. I would be very surprised. I can't think of what that research might amount to or how reliable its findings could possibly be. Anybody have any authoritative information about this?

As for the April 1 business, how can there possibly be any real confusion about what to put in the census questionnaire? We're receiving it two weeks beforehand, and surely only the tiniest fraction of respondents will be truly unable to say who besides themselves will be living at their home address in two weeks' time. There may be confusion about what "living at their home address" means, though the form explains this pretty clearly and gives a phone number to call for clarification if needed. But not about April 1.

[jbuck919]

The census form has arrived, in an envelope that says in huge black type, "Census 2010," and "YOUR RESPONSE IS REQUIRED BY LAW." Anybody who would discard this as junk mail isn't going to be deterred by a previous heralding letter which actually is junk mail.

If you can believe the director of the census, such notices increase the participation by something like 15%.

I don't believe him, and am surprised you take a government bureaucrat at his unsupported word. How can he possibly know that? jbuck919 says he "wouldn't be surprised" if the practice is based on actual research. I would be very surprised. I can't think of what that research might amount to or how reliable its findings could possibly be. Anybody have any authoritative information about this?

Most mass mailing, including the commercial kind, is based on research using samples. I do not know for a fact that the Census Bureau conducted a study, but it is likely they did so, or that they appropriated results of a study of mailings done in parallel situations. We don't think of what research lies behind a lot of important stuff that is based on it, do we? Recently I saw a tv report (unfortunately I cannot find any link to this) of recent research which verifies that sugared soda is, contrary to intuition, very price sensitive, meaning that a tax, whatever one thinks of it for various reasons, would in fact seriously reduce consumption. There are people who know how to design and conduct such studies and the rest of us can look them over to verify their methodology if we are so inclined (this is doubly the case with a government study where an ordinary citizen could probably track it down and get a free copy with a couple of phone calls or e-mails). People get their PhDs learning how to do such things. I also don't try to run through all the steps in the training a surgeon has before I let him operate on me.

As for the April 1 business, how can there possibly be any real confusion about what to put in the census questionnaire? We're receiving it two weeks beforehand, and surely only the tiniest fraction of respondents will be truly unable to say who besides themselves will be living at their home address in two weeks' time. There may be confusion about what "living at their home address" means, though the form explains this pretty clearly and gives a phone number to call for clarification if needed. But not about April 1.

The point is that people can anticipate inaccurately, and for no fault of their own in not being as careful as possible in their anticipation. To take the most obvious example, a certain number of people will drop dead unexpectedly between now and April 1. In a country of 300 million, the discrepancies will add up. Are they significant in relation to the size of the population? Maybe not. Do they tend to cancel each other out? Perhaps. But the whole premise of the census is an accurate literal count. If people insist on that and won't allow any kind of correction, which by the way is also science not easily understood by the lay person, then it is foolish to be setting up the situation for any preventable inaccuracy.

[Teresa B]

Well, clear as rain it's April Fool's!*

Teresa

*Just in case, I filled mine out.

[NancyElla]

The instructions said "mail today" and so we did, trusting that neither of us will drop dead, get fed up with the other and leave, or otherwise be absent from the home on April 1--a lot of assumptions, I know, but what the heck, once every 10 years we can live dangerously! And besides, can you imagine the effect on the USPS if everyone actually mailed the form ON April 1?

[Corlyss_D]

I'll mail mine on 1 April, just to avoid having to put up with an unwanted visitor in case they really meant "don't mail before 1 April." I suppose I could drop dead between now an then, but what are the chances? And nobody else would know to put in my cats and dogs . . .

[NancyElla]

I'll mail mine on 1 April, just to avoid having to put up with an unwanted visitor in case they really meant "don't mail before 1 April." I suppose I could drop dead between now an then, but what are the chances? And nobody else would know to put in my cats and dogs . . .

I'm pretty sure you only get the visitor if you don't mail it in. And no, putting your dogs and cats on your census form doesn't mean you get to claim them as dependents on you tax return (nice try, though).

[jbuck919]

I'll mail mine on 1 April, just to avoid having to put up with an unwanted visitor in case they really meant "don't mail before 1 April." I suppose I could drop dead between now an then, but what are the chances? And nobody else would know to put in my cats and dogs . . .

I'm pretty sure you only get the visitor if you don't mail it in. And no, putting your dogs and cats on your census form doesn't mean you get to claim them as dependents on you tax return (nice try, though).

Actually, they will send you a second form before you get a visit (at least that's what they say).

[NancyElla]

I'll mail mine on 1 April, just to avoid having to put up with an unwanted visitor in case they really meant "don't mail before 1 April." I suppose I could drop dead between now an then, but what are the chances? And nobody else would know to put in my cats and dogs . . .

I'm pretty sure you only get the visitor if you don't mail it in. And no, putting your dogs and cats on your census form doesn't mean you get to claim them as dependents on you tax return (nice try, though).

Actually, they will send you a second form before you get a visit (at least that's what they say).

I'm sure you're right. Sending a census taker to the door is the most expensive way to get the information, so it would be the last resort.

[jbuck919]

I'll mail mine on 1 April, just to avoid having to put up with an unwanted visitor in case they really meant "don't mail before 1 April." I suppose I could drop dead between now an then, but what are the chances? And nobody else would know to put in my cats and dogs . . .

I'm pretty sure you only get the visitor if you don't mail it in. And no, putting your dogs and cats on your census form doesn't mean you get to claim them as dependents on you tax return (nice try, though).

Actually, they will send you a second form before you get a visit (at least that's what they say).

I'm sure you're right. Sending a census taker to the door is the most expensive way to get the information, so it would be the last resort.

Which of course raises the question of why my form was hand delivered rather than sent in the mail. (This is beginning to sound like that old circular song "There's a Hole in My Bucket").

[Corlyss_D]

^^^

When we get done with that, can we sing "Buffalo gals" for a while? I can't get the tune out of my head . . . At least it's not the Oscar Mayer weiner song.

[NancyElla]

I'll mail mine on 1 April, just to avoid having to put up with an unwanted visitor in case they really meant "don't mail before 1 April." I suppose I could drop dead between now an then, but what are the chances? And nobody else would know to put in my cats and dogs . . .

I'm pretty sure you only get the visitor if you don't mail it in. And no, putting your dogs and cats on your census form doesn't mean you get to claim them as dependents on you tax return (nice try, though).

Actually, they will send you a second form before you get a visit (at least that's what they say).

I'm sure you're right. Sending a census taker to the door is the most expensive way to get the information, so it would be the last resort.

Which of course raises the question of why my form was hand delivered rather than sent in the mail. (This is beginning to sound like that old circular song "There's a Hole in My Bucket").

You must be a VERY important person!

[Jean]

Regarding the advance letters and recent TV and radio commercials, I think it's important to remember that since the census is taken so infrequently there is a whole new generation encountering it for the first time. Not everyone knows what it is. It's also a document that could be quite alarming for a resident alien to receive.

When I was about 10 years old I remember a census taker coming to the house and asking me for the info. I think my mom was in the bath or something. Anyway, I was convinced that the fellow was from the CIA for the longest time.

[Corlyss_D]

When I was about 10 years old I remember a census taker coming to the house and asking me for the info. I think my mom was in the bath or something. Anyway, I was convinced that the fellow was from the CIA for the longest time.

At 10?

[Jean]

I know I was still in elementary school. I'm guessing 10 or 11.
I have no idea whatever why the person asked me questions. I can only think that he was too lazy to come back another time.
As for the CIA thing, I was a devotee to the tv show The Man from U.N.C.L.E. at the time. I was very interested in spy stuff and knew that the CIA was our country's spy organization.