Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request, 23501-23503 [2015-09741]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 81 / Tuesday, April 28, 2015 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Submission for OMB Review;
Comment Request
The Department of Commerce will
submit to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for clearance the
following proposal for collection of
information under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
chapter 35).
Agency: U.S. Census Bureau.
Title: American Community Survey.
OMB Control Number: 0607–XXXX.
Form Number(s): ACS–1, ACS–1(SP),
ACS–1(PR), ACS–1(PR)SP, ACS–1(GQ),
ACS–1(PR)(GQ), GQFQ, ACS CATI
(HU), ACS CAPI (HU), ACS RI (HU), and
AGQ QI, AGQ RI.
Type of Request: Regular Submission.
Number of Respondents: 3,760,000.
Average Hours Per Response: 40
minutes for the average household
questionnaire.
Burden Hours: The estimate is an
annual average of 2,455,868 burden
hours.
Needs and Uses: The U.S. Census
Bureau requests authorization from the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for revisions to the American
Community Survey (ACS). The content
of the proposed 2016 ACS questionnaire
and data collection instruments for both
Housing Unit and Group Quarters
operations reflect changes to content
and instructions that were proposed as
a result of the 2014 ACS Content
Review.
The American Community Survey
(ACS) is one of the Department of
Commerce’s most valuable data
products, used extensively by
businesses, non-governmental
organizations (NGOs), local
governments, and many federal
agencies. In conducting this survey, the
Census Bureau’s top priority is
respecting the time and privacy of the
people providing information while
preserving its value to the public. The
2016 survey content changes are the
initial step in a multi-faceted approach
to reducing respondent burden. The
Census Bureau is currently carrying out
this program of research, which
includes several components as
discussed briefly below.
One of the areas with strong potential
to reduce respondent burden is to reuse
information already supplied to the
federal government in lieu of directly
collecting it again through particular
questions on the ACS. The Census
Bureau is conducting groundbreaking
work aimed at understanding the extent
to which existing government data can
reduce redundancy and improve
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:18 Apr 27, 2015
Jkt 235001
efficiency. The tests we are conducting
in the next two years will tell us
whether existing government records
can provide substitute data for
households that have not responded to
the ACS.
In addition, we continue to look into
the possibility of asking questions less
often beginning initial efforts on the
martial history series of questions. For
example, asking a question every other
year, every third year, or asking a
question of a subset of the respondents
each year. We also want to examine
ways we can better phrase our questions
to reduce respondent concern,
especially for those who may be
sensitive to providing information.
The outcome of these future steps will
be a more efficient survey that
minimizes respondent burden while
continuing to provide quality data
products for the nation. We expect to
make great progress during fiscal 2015
on this front, and will be reporting our
progress to the Secretary of Commerce
at the end of the fiscal year.
Since the founding of the nation, the
U.S. Census has mediated between the
demands of a growing country for
information about its economy and
people, and the people’s privacy and
respondent burden. Beginning with the
1810 Census, Congress added questions
to support a range of public concerns
and uses, and over the course of a
century questions were added about
agriculture, industry, and commerce, as
well as occupation, ancestry, marital
status, disabilities, and other topics. In
1940, the U.S. Census Bureau
introduced the long form and since then
only the more detailed questions were
asked of a sample of the public.
The ACS, launched in 2005, is the
current embodiment of the long form of
the census, and is asked each year of a
sample of the U.S. population in order
to provide current data needed more
often than once every ten years. In
December of 2010, five years after its
launch, the ACS program accomplished
its primary objective with the release of
its first set of estimates for every area of
the United States. The Census Bureau
concluded it was an appropriate time to
conduct a comprehensive assessment of
the ACS program. This program
assessment focused on strengthening
programmatic, technical, and
methodological aspects of the survey to
assure that the Census Bureau conducts
the ACS efficiently and effectively.
In August 2012, the OMB and the
Census Bureau chartered the
Interagency Council on Statistical Policy
(ICSP) Subcommittee for the ACS to
‘‘provide advice to the Director of the
Census Bureau and the Chief
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
23501
Statistician at OMB on how the ACS can
best fulfill its role in the portfolio of
Federal household surveys and provide
the most useful information with the
least amount of burden.’’ The
Subcommittee charter also states that
the Subcommittee would be expected to
‘‘conduct regular, periodic reviews of
the ACS content . . . designed to ensure
that there is clear and specific authority
and justification for each question to be
on the ACS, the ACS is the appropriate
vehicle for collecting the information,
respondent burden is being minimized,
and the quality of the data from ACS is
appropriate for its intended use.’’
The formation of the ICSP
Subcommittee on the ACS and the
aforementioned assessment of the ACS
program also provided an opportunity
to examine and confirm the value of
each question on the ACS, which
resulted in the 2014 ACS Content
Review. This review, which was an
initial step in a multi-faceted approach
of a much larger content review process,
included examination of all 72
questions contained on the 2014 ACS
questionnaire, including 24 housingrelated questions and 48 person-related
questions.
The Census Bureau proposed the two
analysis factors—benefit as defined by
the level of usefulness and cost as
defined by the level of respondent
burden or difficulty in obtaining the
data, which was accepted by the ICSP
Subcommittee. Based on a methodology
pre-defined by the Census Bureau with
the input and concurrence of the ICSP
Subcommittee on the ACS, each
question received a total number of
points between 0 and 100 based on its
benefits, and 0 and 100 points based on
its costs. These points were then used
as the basis for creating four categories:
High Benefit and Low Cost; High Benefit
and High Cost; Low Benefit and Low
Cost; or Low Benefit and High Cost. For
this analysis, any question that was
designated as either Low Benefit and
Low Cost or Low Benefit and High Cost
and was NOT designated as Mandatory
(i.e., statutory) by the Department of
Commerce Office of General Counsel
(OGC) or NOT Required (i.e., regulatory)
with a sub-state use, was identified as
a potential candidate for removal. The
Department of Commerce OGC worked
with its counterparts across the federal
government to determine mandatory,
required, or programmatic status, as
defined below:
• Mandatory—a federal law explicitly
calls for use of decennial census or
ACS data on that question
• Required—a federal law (or
implementing regulation) explicitly
E:\FR\FM\28APN1.SGM
28APN1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
23502
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 81 / Tuesday, April 28, 2015 / Notices
requires the use of data and the
decennial census or the ACS is the
historical source; or the data are
needed for case law requirements
imposed by the U.S. federal court
system
• Programmatic—the data are needed
for program planning,
implementation, or evaluation and
there is no explicit mandate or
requirement.
Based on the analysis, the following
questions were initially proposed for
removal:
• Housing Question No. 6—Business/
Medical Office on Property
• Person Question No. 12—
Undergraduate Field of Degree
• Person Question No. 21—(In the Past
12 mos, did this person) Get Married,
Widowed, Divorced
• Person Question No. 22—Times
Married
• Person Question No. 23—Year Last
Married
For reports that provide a full
description of the overall 2014 ACS
Content Review methods and results,
see ‘‘Final Report—American
Community Survey FY14 Content
Review Results’’ (Attachment V);
additional reports about the 2014 ACS
Content Review are also available at
https://www.census.gov/acs/www/about_
the_survey/methods_and_results_
report/.
Regarding the business/medical office
on property question, the Census
Bureau received 41 comments from
researchers, and individuals. Most of
these comments came from researchers
who felt that the Census Bureau should
keep all of the proposed questions in
order to keep the survey content
consistent over time, or felt that
modifications to the question could
potentially make it more useful.
Housing Question No. 6—Business/
Medical Office on Property is currently
not published by the Census Bureau in
any data tables. The only known use of
the question is to produce a variable for
the Public Use Microdata Sample
(PUMS), a recode for the Specified
Owner (SVAL) variable that allows
users to compare other datasets. The
Content Review did not reveal any uses
by federal agencies, and the comments
to the Federal Register notice did not
reveal any non-federal uses.
Additionally, there were no uses
uncovered in meetings with
stakeholders, data user feedback forms,
or other methods employed to
understand the uses of ACS data. Lastly,
independent research conducted on
behalf of the Census Bureau did not
uncover any further uses. Though the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:18 Apr 27, 2015
Jkt 235001
question has a low cost, it has no benefit
to federal agencies, the federal statistical
system, or the nation. The Census
Bureau plans to remove this question,
beginning with the 2016 ACS content.
Regarding the field of degree question,
the Census Bureau received 625
comments from researchers, professors
and administrators at many universities,
professional associations that represent
science, technology, engineering and
mathematics (STEM) careers and
industries, members of Congress, the
National Science Foundation, and many
individuals interested in retaining this
question. A number of commenters (92)
cited the importance of these estimates
for research that analyzes the effect of
field of degree choice on economic
outcomes, including earnings,
education, occupation, industry, and
employment. University administrators
(37) commented that this information
allows for analysis of postsecondary
outcomes, and allows them to
benchmark their graduates’ relative
success in different fields as well as to
plan degree offerings. While some
commenters used the estimates to
understand fields such as humanities or
philosophy (56), the majority of these
comments (125) addressed the value of
knowing about the outcomes of people
who pursued degrees in science,
technology, engineering and
mathematics. These commenters felt
that knowing more about the people
currently earning STEM degrees and the
people currently working in STEM
fields would enable universities,
advocacy groups, and policy makers to
encourage more people to pursue STEM
careers, and to encourage diversity
within STEM careers.
The initial analysis of Person
Question No. 12—Undergraduate Field
of Degree did not uncover any evidence
that the question was Mandatory or
Required. However, comments to the
Federal Register notice uncovered the
existence of a relationship between the
Census Bureau and the National Science
Foundation, dating back to 1960. Over
the course of this established
relationship, long-form decennial
census data was used as a sampling
frame for surveys that provided
important information about scientists
and engineers. These comments
demonstrated that the Field of Degree
question on the ACS continues this
historical use of decennial long-form
and ACS data for this purpose, and
makes this process more efficient. Many
commenters (58) also cited the necessity
of the National Survey of College
Graduates (NSCG), and recommended
retaining the question because it is
needed as a sampling frame for the
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
NSCG. Though commenters theorized
that the NSCG might still be able to
produce STEM estimates without the
ACS, a number of commenters (16)
thought that doing so would be very
expensive, costing as much as $17
million more (1).
Additionally, many comments also
indicated uses of this question to
understand the economic outcomes of
college graduates at local geographic
levels, especially those with STEM
degrees. These commenters included
professional, academic, congressional,
and policy-making stakeholders who
expressed concerns that the absence of
statistical information about STEM
degrees would harm the ability to
understand characteristics of small
populations attaining STEM degrees.
Given the importance of this small
population group to the economy, the
federal statistical system and the nation,
bolstered by the new knowledge of
historical precedent brought to light by
commenters to the Federal Register
notice, the Census Bureau therefore
plans to retain this question on the 2016
ACS.
Regarding the marital history
questions, the Census Bureau received
1,361 comments from researchers and
professors, professional associations
that represent marriage and family
therapists, the Social Security
Administration (SSA), and many
individuals interested in retaining these
questions. SSA commented that it uses
the marital history questions to estimate
future populations by marital status as
part of the Board of Trustees annual
report on the actuarial status (including
future income and disbursements) of the
Old-Age and Survivors Insurance
(OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI)
Trust Funds. The Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS) also uses
these questions to distinguish
households in which a grandparent has
primary responsibility for a grandchild
or grandchildren, as well as to provide
family formation and stability measures
for the Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) program.
The focus of the proposed elimination
is on the marital history questions only
with no change to collection of marital
status. Over 400 additional comments to
the Federal Register notice cited
concerns that the proposed elimination
of the marital history questions was an
indication of whether the government
views information about marriage as
somehow less valuable than other ACS
question topics that were not proposed
for removal. While the Census Bureau
had always planned to continue
collecting information about the
‘‘marital status’’ for each person in a
E:\FR\FM\28APN1.SGM
28APN1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 81 / Tuesday, April 28, 2015 / Notices
household (Person Question No. 20) and
their relationships to each other (Person
Question No. 2), the Census Bureau
remains sensitive to these criticisms
More than 100 supporters of retaining
the marital history questions mentioned
their utility for research into marital
status changes over time and they
correctly noted that there is currently no
other national source of the marital
history information. As a result, many
commenters felt they would not be able
to compare marriage characteristics and
patterns with other nations in the same
depth that is possible today. Similarly,
without these questions, the
commenters felt that the analysis of
changes in marriage events (especially
those due to changing societal values
and pressures or policy changes) would
be less robust. In particular, comments
focused on 6 research areas that would
be more difficult to analyze without the
marital history questions:
• Family formation and stability (23)
• Patterns/trends of marriage and
divorce (168)
• Marital effects on earnings, education
and employment (45)
• Marital effects on child wellbeing (6)
• Same-sex marriages, civil unions and
partnerships (70)
• New government policy effects on
marriage (9)
Because the initial analysis of Person
Question Nos. 21–23 on marital history
did not uncover any evidence that data
from these questions were ‘‘Required’’
for federal use at sub-state geographies,
those questions received a lower benefit
score than many other ACS questions.
However, in deference to the very large
number (1,367) of comments received
on the Census Bureau proposal to
eliminate those questions, the Census
Bureau plans to retain those questions
on the 2016 ACS.
The Census Bureau takes very
seriously respondent concerns and
recognizes that the Content Review and
the resulting, proposed question
changes discussed above are only initial
steps to addressing them. The Census
Bureau has implemented an extensive
action plan on addressing respondent
burden and concerns. The work
completed, and the comments received,
on the 2014 Content Review provide a
foundation for ongoing and future
efforts to reduce burden and concerns.
In addition to the immediate content
changes (proposed above), the Census
Bureau is also currently testing the
language on the survey materials that
may cause concern such as reminding
people that their responses are required
by law. In order to be responsive to
these concerns about the prominence of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:18 Apr 27, 2015
Jkt 235001
the mandatory message on the
envelopes, we are conducting research
with a subset of ACS respondents in
May 2015. Over the summer, we will
work with external methodological
experts to test other revisions of the
ACS mail materials to check respondent
perceptions of the softened references to
the mandatory nature of participation in
the ACS. The preliminary results of
those tests will be available in the fall,
and the Census Bureau will make
changes to the 2016 ACS mail materials
based on those results.
Concurrently we also are identifying
additional questions that we may only
need to ask intermittently, rather than
each month or year. The current ACS
sample design asks all of the survey
questions from all selected households
in order to produce estimates each year
for small geographies and small
populations. However, during the
Content Review we learned about over
300 data needs that federal agencies
require to implement their missions. We
see several potential opportunities to
either include some questions
periodically, or ask a smaller subset of
ACS respondents in cases where those
agencies do not need certain data
annually. The Census Bureau plans to
engage the federal agencies and external
experts on this topic during 2015. In
addition, we need to assess the
operational and statistical issues
associated with alternate designs. The
alternate designs will result in a
reduction in the number of questions
asked of individual households.
We are also conducting research on
substituting the direct collection of
information with the use of information
already provided to the government. It
is possible that the Census Bureau could
use administrative records from federal
and commercial sources in lieu of
asking particular questions on the ACS.
Lastly, we are examining our
approaches to field collection to reduce
the number of in-person contact
attempts while preserving data quality.
For example, based on research
conducted in 2012, we implemented
changes in 2013 which led to an
estimated reduction of approximately
1.2 million call attempts per year, while
sustaining the 97 percent response rate
for the survey overall. For the person
visit operation, we are researching a
reduction in the number of contact
attempts. We plan to field test this
change in August 2015. If successful we
would implement nationwide in spring
2016.
We will continue to look for other
opportunities to reduce respondent
burden while maintaining survey
quality. Taken together, these measures
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
23503
will make a significant impact on
reducing respondent burden in the ACS.
Affected Public: Individuals or
households.
Frequency: Response to the ACS is on
a one-time basis.
Respondent’s Obligation: Mandatory.
Legal Authority: Title 13, United
States Code, Sections 141, 193, and 221.
This information collection request
may be viewed at www.reginfo.gov.
Follow the instructions to view the
Department of Commerce collections
currently under review by OMB.
Written comments and
recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent
within 30 days of publication of this
notice to OIRA_Submission@
omb.eop.gov or fax to (202)395–5806.
Dated: April 22, 2015.
Glenna Mickelson,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015–09741 Filed 4–27–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–07–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Submission for OMB Review;
Comment Request
The Department of Commerce will
submit to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for clearance the
following proposal for collection of
information under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
chapter 35).
Agency: Bureau of Industry and
Security.
Title: Miscellaneous Short Supply
Activities.
Form Number(s): N/A.
OMB Control Number: 0694–0102.
Type of Request: Regular.
Burden Hours: 201 hours.
Number of Respondents: 1
respondent.
Average Hours Per Response: 201
hours per response.
Needs and Uses: This information
collection is comprised of two rarely
used short supply activities:
‘‘Registration Of U.S. Agricultural
Commodities For Exemption From
Short Supply Limitations On Export’’,
and ‘‘Petitions For The Imposition Of
Monitoring Or Controls On Recyclable
Metallic materials; Public Hearings.’’
These activities are statutory in nature
and, therefore, must remain a part of
BIS’s information collection budget
authorization.
Affected Public: Businesses and other
for-profit institutions.
Frequency: On occasion.
Respondent’s Obligation: Required to
obtain benefits.
E:\FR\FM\28APN1.SGM
28APN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 81 (Tuesday, April 28, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23501-23503]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09741]
[[Page 23501]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of
information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. chapter 35).
Agency: U.S. Census Bureau.
Title: American Community Survey.
OMB Control Number: 0607-XXXX.
Form Number(s): ACS-1, ACS-1(SP), ACS-1(PR), ACS-1(PR)SP, ACS-
1(GQ), ACS-1(PR)(GQ), GQFQ, ACS CATI (HU), ACS CAPI (HU), ACS RI (HU),
and AGQ QI, AGQ RI.
Type of Request: Regular Submission.
Number of Respondents: 3,760,000.
Average Hours Per Response: 40 minutes for the average household
questionnaire.
Burden Hours: The estimate is an annual average of 2,455,868 burden
hours.
Needs and Uses: The U.S. Census Bureau requests authorization from
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for revisions to the American
Community Survey (ACS). The content of the proposed 2016 ACS
questionnaire and data collection instruments for both Housing Unit and
Group Quarters operations reflect changes to content and instructions
that were proposed as a result of the 2014 ACS Content Review.
The American Community Survey (ACS) is one of the Department of
Commerce's most valuable data products, used extensively by businesses,
non-governmental organizations (NGOs), local governments, and many
federal agencies. In conducting this survey, the Census Bureau's top
priority is respecting the time and privacy of the people providing
information while preserving its value to the public. The 2016 survey
content changes are the initial step in a multi-faceted approach to
reducing respondent burden. The Census Bureau is currently carrying out
this program of research, which includes several components as
discussed briefly below.
One of the areas with strong potential to reduce respondent burden
is to reuse information already supplied to the federal government in
lieu of directly collecting it again through particular questions on
the ACS. The Census Bureau is conducting groundbreaking work aimed at
understanding the extent to which existing government data can reduce
redundancy and improve efficiency. The tests we are conducting in the
next two years will tell us whether existing government records can
provide substitute data for households that have not responded to the
ACS.
In addition, we continue to look into the possibility of asking
questions less often beginning initial efforts on the martial history
series of questions. For example, asking a question every other year,
every third year, or asking a question of a subset of the respondents
each year. We also want to examine ways we can better phrase our
questions to reduce respondent concern, especially for those who may be
sensitive to providing information.
The outcome of these future steps will be a more efficient survey
that minimizes respondent burden while continuing to provide quality
data products for the nation. We expect to make great progress during
fiscal 2015 on this front, and will be reporting our progress to the
Secretary of Commerce at the end of the fiscal year.
Since the founding of the nation, the U.S. Census has mediated
between the demands of a growing country for information about its
economy and people, and the people's privacy and respondent burden.
Beginning with the 1810 Census, Congress added questions to support a
range of public concerns and uses, and over the course of a century
questions were added about agriculture, industry, and commerce, as well
as occupation, ancestry, marital status, disabilities, and other
topics. In 1940, the U.S. Census Bureau introduced the long form and
since then only the more detailed questions were asked of a sample of
the public.
The ACS, launched in 2005, is the current embodiment of the long
form of the census, and is asked each year of a sample of the U.S.
population in order to provide current data needed more often than once
every ten years. In December of 2010, five years after its launch, the
ACS program accomplished its primary objective with the release of its
first set of estimates for every area of the United States. The Census
Bureau concluded it was an appropriate time to conduct a comprehensive
assessment of the ACS program. This program assessment focused on
strengthening programmatic, technical, and methodological aspects of
the survey to assure that the Census Bureau conducts the ACS
efficiently and effectively.
In August 2012, the OMB and the Census Bureau chartered the
Interagency Council on Statistical Policy (ICSP) Subcommittee for the
ACS to ``provide advice to the Director of the Census Bureau and the
Chief Statistician at OMB on how the ACS can best fulfill its role in
the portfolio of Federal household surveys and provide the most useful
information with the least amount of burden.'' The Subcommittee charter
also states that the Subcommittee would be expected to ``conduct
regular, periodic reviews of the ACS content . . . designed to ensure
that there is clear and specific authority and justification for each
question to be on the ACS, the ACS is the appropriate vehicle for
collecting the information, respondent burden is being minimized, and
the quality of the data from ACS is appropriate for its intended use.''
The formation of the ICSP Subcommittee on the ACS and the
aforementioned assessment of the ACS program also provided an
opportunity to examine and confirm the value of each question on the
ACS, which resulted in the 2014 ACS Content Review. This review, which
was an initial step in a multi-faceted approach of a much larger
content review process, included examination of all 72 questions
contained on the 2014 ACS questionnaire, including 24 housing-related
questions and 48 person-related questions.
The Census Bureau proposed the two analysis factors--benefit as
defined by the level of usefulness and cost as defined by the level of
respondent burden or difficulty in obtaining the data, which was
accepted by the ICSP Subcommittee. Based on a methodology pre-defined
by the Census Bureau with the input and concurrence of the ICSP
Subcommittee on the ACS, each question received a total number of
points between 0 and 100 based on its benefits, and 0 and 100 points
based on its costs. These points were then used as the basis for
creating four categories: High Benefit and Low Cost; High Benefit and
High Cost; Low Benefit and Low Cost; or Low Benefit and High Cost. For
this analysis, any question that was designated as either Low Benefit
and Low Cost or Low Benefit and High Cost and was NOT designated as
Mandatory (i.e., statutory) by the Department of Commerce Office of
General Counsel (OGC) or NOT Required (i.e., regulatory) with a sub-
state use, was identified as a potential candidate for removal. The
Department of Commerce OGC worked with its counterparts across the
federal government to determine mandatory, required, or programmatic
status, as defined below:
Mandatory--a federal law explicitly calls for use of decennial
census or ACS data on that question
Required--a federal law (or implementing regulation)
explicitly
[[Page 23502]]
requires the use of data and the decennial census or the ACS is the
historical source; or the data are needed for case law requirements
imposed by the U.S. federal court system
Programmatic--the data are needed for program planning,
implementation, or evaluation and there is no explicit mandate or
requirement.
Based on the analysis, the following questions were initially proposed
for removal:
Housing Question No. 6--Business/Medical Office on Property
Person Question No. 12--Undergraduate Field of Degree
Person Question No. 21--(In the Past 12 mos, did this person)
Get Married, Widowed, Divorced
Person Question No. 22--Times Married
Person Question No. 23--Year Last Married
For reports that provide a full description of the overall 2014 ACS
Content Review methods and results, see ``Final Report--American
Community Survey FY14 Content Review Results'' (Attachment V);
additional reports about the 2014 ACS Content Review are also available
at https://www.census.gov/acs/www/about_the_survey/methods_and_results_report/.
Regarding the business/medical office on property question, the
Census Bureau received 41 comments from researchers, and individuals.
Most of these comments came from researchers who felt that the Census
Bureau should keep all of the proposed questions in order to keep the
survey content consistent over time, or felt that modifications to the
question could potentially make it more useful. Housing Question No.
6--Business/Medical Office on Property is currently not published by
the Census Bureau in any data tables. The only known use of the
question is to produce a variable for the Public Use Microdata Sample
(PUMS), a recode for the Specified Owner (SVAL) variable that allows
users to compare other datasets. The Content Review did not reveal any
uses by federal agencies, and the comments to the Federal Register
notice did not reveal any non-federal uses. Additionally, there were no
uses uncovered in meetings with stakeholders, data user feedback forms,
or other methods employed to understand the uses of ACS data. Lastly,
independent research conducted on behalf of the Census Bureau did not
uncover any further uses. Though the question has a low cost, it has no
benefit to federal agencies, the federal statistical system, or the
nation. The Census Bureau plans to remove this question, beginning with
the 2016 ACS content.
Regarding the field of degree question, the Census Bureau received
625 comments from researchers, professors and administrators at many
universities, professional associations that represent science,
technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) careers and industries,
members of Congress, the National Science Foundation, and many
individuals interested in retaining this question. A number of
commenters (92) cited the importance of these estimates for research
that analyzes the effect of field of degree choice on economic
outcomes, including earnings, education, occupation, industry, and
employment. University administrators (37) commented that this
information allows for analysis of postsecondary outcomes, and allows
them to benchmark their graduates' relative success in different fields
as well as to plan degree offerings. While some commenters used the
estimates to understand fields such as humanities or philosophy (56),
the majority of these comments (125) addressed the value of knowing
about the outcomes of people who pursued degrees in science,
technology, engineering and mathematics. These commenters felt that
knowing more about the people currently earning STEM degrees and the
people currently working in STEM fields would enable universities,
advocacy groups, and policy makers to encourage more people to pursue
STEM careers, and to encourage diversity within STEM careers.
The initial analysis of Person Question No. 12--Undergraduate Field
of Degree did not uncover any evidence that the question was Mandatory
or Required. However, comments to the Federal Register notice uncovered
the existence of a relationship between the Census Bureau and the
National Science Foundation, dating back to 1960. Over the course of
this established relationship, long-form decennial census data was used
as a sampling frame for surveys that provided important information
about scientists and engineers. These comments demonstrated that the
Field of Degree question on the ACS continues this historical use of
decennial long-form and ACS data for this purpose, and makes this
process more efficient. Many commenters (58) also cited the necessity
of the National Survey of College Graduates (NSCG), and recommended
retaining the question because it is needed as a sampling frame for the
NSCG. Though commenters theorized that the NSCG might still be able to
produce STEM estimates without the ACS, a number of commenters (16)
thought that doing so would be very expensive, costing as much as $17
million more (1).
Additionally, many comments also indicated uses of this question to
understand the economic outcomes of college graduates at local
geographic levels, especially those with STEM degrees. These commenters
included professional, academic, congressional, and policy-making
stakeholders who expressed concerns that the absence of statistical
information about STEM degrees would harm the ability to understand
characteristics of small populations attaining STEM degrees. Given the
importance of this small population group to the economy, the federal
statistical system and the nation, bolstered by the new knowledge of
historical precedent brought to light by commenters to the Federal
Register notice, the Census Bureau therefore plans to retain this
question on the 2016 ACS.
Regarding the marital history questions, the Census Bureau received
1,361 comments from researchers and professors, professional
associations that represent marriage and family therapists, the Social
Security Administration (SSA), and many individuals interested in
retaining these questions. SSA commented that it uses the marital
history questions to estimate future populations by marital status as
part of the Board of Trustees annual report on the actuarial status
(including future income and disbursements) of the Old-Age and
Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Funds.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) also uses these
questions to distinguish households in which a grandparent has primary
responsibility for a grandchild or grandchildren, as well as to provide
family formation and stability measures for the Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families (TANF) program.
The focus of the proposed elimination is on the marital history
questions only with no change to collection of marital status. Over 400
additional comments to the Federal Register notice cited concerns that
the proposed elimination of the marital history questions was an
indication of whether the government views information about marriage
as somehow less valuable than other ACS question topics that were not
proposed for removal. While the Census Bureau had always planned to
continue collecting information about the ``marital status'' for each
person in a
[[Page 23503]]
household (Person Question No. 20) and their relationships to each
other (Person Question No. 2), the Census Bureau remains sensitive to
these criticisms
More than 100 supporters of retaining the marital history questions
mentioned their utility for research into marital status changes over
time and they correctly noted that there is currently no other national
source of the marital history information. As a result, many commenters
felt they would not be able to compare marriage characteristics and
patterns with other nations in the same depth that is possible today.
Similarly, without these questions, the commenters felt that the
analysis of changes in marriage events (especially those due to
changing societal values and pressures or policy changes) would be less
robust. In particular, comments focused on 6 research areas that would
be more difficult to analyze without the marital history questions:
Family formation and stability (23)
Patterns/trends of marriage and divorce (168)
Marital effects on earnings, education and employment (45)
Marital effects on child wellbeing (6)
Same-sex marriages, civil unions and partnerships (70)
New government policy effects on marriage (9)
Because the initial analysis of Person Question Nos. 21-23 on
marital history did not uncover any evidence that data from these
questions were ``Required'' for federal use at sub-state geographies,
those questions received a lower benefit score than many other ACS
questions. However, in deference to the very large number (1,367) of
comments received on the Census Bureau proposal to eliminate those
questions, the Census Bureau plans to retain those questions on the
2016 ACS.
The Census Bureau takes very seriously respondent concerns and
recognizes that the Content Review and the resulting, proposed question
changes discussed above are only initial steps to addressing them. The
Census Bureau has implemented an extensive action plan on addressing
respondent burden and concerns. The work completed, and the comments
received, on the 2014 Content Review provide a foundation for ongoing
and future efforts to reduce burden and concerns. In addition to the
immediate content changes (proposed above), the Census Bureau is also
currently testing the language on the survey materials that may cause
concern such as reminding people that their responses are required by
law. In order to be responsive to these concerns about the prominence
of the mandatory message on the envelopes, we are conducting research
with a subset of ACS respondents in May 2015. Over the summer, we will
work with external methodological experts to test other revisions of
the ACS mail materials to check respondent perceptions of the softened
references to the mandatory nature of participation in the ACS. The
preliminary results of those tests will be available in the fall, and
the Census Bureau will make changes to the 2016 ACS mail materials
based on those results.
Concurrently we also are identifying additional questions that we
may only need to ask intermittently, rather than each month or year.
The current ACS sample design asks all of the survey questions from all
selected households in order to produce estimates each year for small
geographies and small populations. However, during the Content Review
we learned about over 300 data needs that federal agencies require to
implement their missions. We see several potential opportunities to
either include some questions periodically, or ask a smaller subset of
ACS respondents in cases where those agencies do not need certain data
annually. The Census Bureau plans to engage the federal agencies and
external experts on this topic during 2015. In addition, we need to
assess the operational and statistical issues associated with alternate
designs. The alternate designs will result in a reduction in the number
of questions asked of individual households.
We are also conducting research on substituting the direct
collection of information with the use of information already provided
to the government. It is possible that the Census Bureau could use
administrative records from federal and commercial sources in lieu of
asking particular questions on the ACS.
Lastly, we are examining our approaches to field collection to
reduce the number of in-person contact attempts while preserving data
quality. For example, based on research conducted in 2012, we
implemented changes in 2013 which led to an estimated reduction of
approximately 1.2 million call attempts per year, while sustaining the
97 percent response rate for the survey overall. For the person visit
operation, we are researching a reduction in the number of contact
attempts. We plan to field test this change in August 2015. If
successful we would implement nationwide in spring 2016.
We will continue to look for other opportunities to reduce
respondent burden while maintaining survey quality. Taken together,
these measures will make a significant impact on reducing respondent
burden in the ACS.
Affected Public: Individuals or households.
Frequency: Response to the ACS is on a one-time basis.
Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.
Legal Authority: Title 13, United States Code, Sections 141, 193,
and 221.
This information collection request may be viewed at
www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view the Department of
Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice
to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov or fax to (202)395-5806.
Dated: April 22, 2015.
Glenna Mickelson,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015-09741 Filed 4-27-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-07-P