individual, and an enumeration based on a length-of-stay distinction may be more relevant for policy needs.
We strongly support a system in which all group quarters and nonhousehold residents are approached and enumerated in the same manner as the general household population, to the greatest extent practicable. Accordingly, Recommendation 6.2 applies to all census respondents: the panel recommends that “any residence elsewhere” (ARE) address information be collected for all group quarters and nonhousehold residents, just as we advocate its collection in the main household census form.
As with the main household population, the physical collection of ARE data from nonhousehold respondents in 2010 is certainly feasible; indeed, “usual home elsewhere” (UHE) was asked on all group quarters ICRs in 2000, but only deemed valid for specific group quarters types. The Census Bureau’s failure to analyze the UHE data it collected on group quarters forms in 2000, particularly having progressed through the geocoding of reported addresses, looms large as a lost opportunity. That failure is a principal reason that we encourage the analysis of ARE data as a large-scale experiment in the 2010 census (and a future direction for 2020), rather than as part of the 2010 count. Unlike the 2000 experience, ARE information gathered in 2010 should be collected from all group quarters residents, and those data should be analyzed and evaluated extensively, to establish—for example—the degree to which college students’ reported address information matches (or fails to match) reports from their parental households.
Consistent with our support for treating household and nonhousehold populations alike, the direct enumeration of people in nonhousehold settings—questionnaires distributed to and filled out by respondents or administered by enumerator interview—is preferable to other means of data collection. But two important caveats are in order: they concern the use of facility and administrative records and the need for different forms for different purposes.
The first of these arises from the sobering, underlying message of Table 7-1. The 2000 census mounted a vigorous and highly visible partnership with community organizations; even with these strong efforts to boost awareness of and cooperation with the census, only about one-half of census records