{"id":110573,"date":"2017-12-02T09:28:00","date_gmt":"2017-12-02T09:28:00","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2023-01-08T11:02:01","modified_gmt":"2023-01-08T11:02:01","slug":"criminals-at-your-front-door-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/2017\/12\/02\/criminals-at-your-front-door-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Criminals at Your Front Door?"},"content":{"rendered":"<div style=\"margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;\" class=\"sharethis-inline-share-buttons\" ><\/div><h3 class=\"post-title entry-title\" itemprop=\"name\"><\/h3>\n<div class=\"post-header\"> <\/div>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/thehill.com\/blogs\/blog-briefing-room\/news\/62237-criminals-have-been-hired-for-census-work\">A blog posting by <em>The Hill&#8217;s<\/em> Eric Zimmerman <\/a>seems to confirm our worst fears about the 2010 Census.<\/p>\n<p>Citing <a href=\"http:\/\/www.gao.gov\/new.items\/d10132t.pdf\">a new report by the Government Accountability Office<\/a>,  Mr. Zimmerman reports that the Census Bureau hired as many as 200  employees with criminal records that should have disqualified them for  federal employment.<\/p>\n<p>The problem was the result of poor  finger-printing techniques by the bureau. According to the GAO, over  35,000 workers were hired for the recently-completed address canvassing  process&#8211;despite the fact that their fingerprints could not be process.<\/p>\n<p>Without  clear, readable prints, the FBI could not complete a full background  check on canvassing personnel. But the Census Bureau still hired the  workers, and at least 200 criminals slipped through the cracks and  participated in the canvassing effort.<\/p>\n<p>However, it is unclear how  much contact these individuals had with members of the public; during  the canvassing operation, census workers compared actual addresses and  residences with those in the existing database and made corrections.  Census workers were required to knock on the door of each home as a part  of canvassing, and provide information on the process if a resident  answered.<\/p>\n<p>Amid continuing concerns about the census&#8211;and those  hired to conduct it&#8211;we forwarded a link to The Hill post (and the GAO  report) to a former military colleague. Our friend (we&#8217;ll call him Bob)  worked for the Census Bureau earlier this year, after being laid off by a  major corporation. He served as a Field Supervisor for the bureau,  managing canvassing operations in nearly a dozen counties in the  Mid-Atlantic Region. He has since moved on to an executive position at a  non-profit organization. Here is Bob&#8217;s reply:<\/p>\n<p>***<br \/>Spook:<\/p>\n<p>I  read the blog post (and the GAO summary) with a great deal of interest,  given my recent tenure with the Census Bureau. Can&#8217;t say that I  disagree with any of their findings. You&#8217;ll note that the problems with  canvassing went well beyond criminals who couldn&#8217;t be identified through  the background check. The GAO says the bureau has no clue when it comes  to cost estimation, one reason that canvassing went over-budget by at  least $88 million.<\/p>\n<p>The fingerprint operation, based on my  experience, was absolute chaos. We had to complete two fingerprint forms  on each employee, literally the day before computer training was  scheduled to begin. The prints were necessary not only for background  checks, but also to log onto the hand-held computers (HHCs) used by  canvassing personnel. Without their prints in the database, individual  workers&#8211;known as &#8220;listers&#8221; in the trade&#8211;couldn&#8217;t use their computers,  which meant that canvassing would be delayed. We literally had 24-36  hours to get everyone in the system, so the door-to-door effort could  begin. Lots of potential for mistakes&#8211;including sloppy finger-printing.<\/p>\n<p>Now,  consider the size of the effort. I was one of seven supervisors in my  region. Each of us had seven or eight teams of listers that we were  responsible for&#8211;anywhere from 110-135 personnel in all. Everyone was  fingerprinted on the same day, and all of those prints had to be rushed  to the district office, where other personnel literally worked all night  to get them into the database &#8211;before they were sent to the FBI. In my  experience, the background checks (based on fingerprints) didn&#8217;t begin  until well <em>after<\/em> the workers were in the field.  Why not fingerprint workers at the time they were hired?  No one could answer that one.<\/p>\n<p>The  problem with the prints can be easily explained: most of the  supervisors charged with taking them had no experience in the process.  As you know, there is a definite technique involved in recording clear,  readable prints. Luckily, I had lots of practice from my days in the  military. And, I instructed my crew leaders to find personnel with  finger-printing experience in law enforcement or the military. If they  didn&#8217;t have anyone with those skills, I made sure that we had someone  qualified to help them out. By Census Bureau standards, our prints were  very good (at least, that&#8217;s what my boss at the district office told  me).<\/p>\n<p>Interestingly, the fingerprints did reveal one individual  with a questionable past. About two weeks into canvassing, I got a phone  call from my supervisor, who told me that one lister&#8217;s prints had  resulted a &#8220;match&#8221; in the FBI database. Our procedures in that situation  were very clear; the worker was immediately removed from the canvassing  operation and placed in stand-by (non-pay) status. We collected the  individual&#8217;s equipment, and the lister was instructed to contact the FBI  for resolution.<\/p>\n<p>To this day, I have no idea what sort of &#8220;flag&#8221;  was raised by the FBI background check. The individual was not arrested  (so it wasn&#8217;t anything like an outstanding felony warrant), but they  never returned to work. So, to some degree, the process worked. But, by  the time we identified potential issues with this individual, he\/she had  been on the job for at least two weeks, and visited scores of homes.<\/p>\n<p>A  few final points. The canvassing process was a rush job from start to  finish. Originally, the operation was scheduled to last eight weeks, but  we completed the task in less than 40 days. There was tremendous  pressure to accelerate the job, to save money and make our bosses look  good. While field workers (including supervisors like myself) were  temporary hires, top managers at the district office were guaranteed 1-2  years of employment, at $20-25 an hour. Not a fortune, but considerably  more than the $13.25 listers were earning. The regional office had a  sizable, permanent civil service staff.<\/p>\n<p>With the push to &#8220;get it  done,&#8221; efforts at quality control were often laughable. While we had a  QC team that evaluated our work, many of those personnel were poorly  trained. On multiple occasions, my field workers discovered QC checkers  were evaluating the wrong area. Most were far less proficient with  hand-held computers and maps than our production listers. We also found  that some of our work &#8220;failed&#8221; because the original database was so  screwed up that no one could figure it out.<\/p>\n<p>Incidentally (as the  GAO observes), this is the first census that used computers for field  canvassing. Previously, the census bureau used paper lists and maps. As  you might expect, we discovered plenty of &#8220;pencil-whipping&#8221; from the  past operations. One of my crew leaders worked in both the 1990 and 2000  Census, and discovered mistakes in her area dating back at least 20  years. And remember: canvassing is supposed to correct those problems.  With the rush to finish the job this time, we questioned whether any of  our updates will actually wind up in the revised database. In other  words, census teams in 2020 will still be fixing mistakes from 2010&#8211;or  even earlier.<\/p>\n<p>Lastly, a word about ACORN. There&#8217;s been a lot of  justifiable concern about that organization&#8217;s relationship with the  Census Bureau. But in my particular district, I couldn&#8217;t find anyone who  was associated with ACORN, or had been hired through that its local  office. However, my district covered suburban and rural areas, so ACORN  probably had little interest in our area. I can&#8217;t speak for hiring in  neighboring districts, which included major urban areas.<\/p>\n<p>I can  report that the bureau&#8217;s hiring practices often bordered on  incomprehensible. As we were wrapping up canvassing&#8211;and laying off  staffers&#8211;the local HR office was still interviewing and offering jobs  to new personnel. They were supposedly gearing up for the next phase of  the operation. Never mind that it was 4-5 months away, and those  recently laid-off workers supposedly had first crack at being hired for  the second phase of canvassing.<\/p>\n<p>Bottom line: my experience as a  census supervisor was unique, to say the least. Lots of good people in  the field; my crew included retired teachers, executives and military  personnel; single moms, college students and even a retired NSA analyst.  As a group, they were hard-working and extremely conscientious.  Unfortunately, leadership above our level was often incompetent,  populated by a bunch of yes-men (and yes-women) concerned only about  protecting their own jobs, and kissing the ass of their boss.<\/p>\n<p>Against  that backdrop, it&#8217;s not surprising that a few criminals wound up going  door-to-door.  If it&#8217;s any consolation, listers were not allowed to  enter homes during canvassing, even if residents asked them to come  inside.  However, we had at least one &#8220;census imposter&#8221; who tried to get  into a local home during the operation&#8211;we found out only because the  home owner knew one of my crew leaders and contacted him. <\/p>\n<p>That&#8217;s  something else the Census Bureau doesn&#8217;t like to admit; the decennial  process also attracts con men and crooks who pose as listers, and trek  through neighborhoods in search of potential victims.     <\/p>\n<p>Regards,<\/p>\n<p>Bob<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>A blog posting by The Hill&#8217;s Eric Zimmerman seems to confirm our worst fears about the 2010 Census. Citing a new report by the Government Accountability Office, Mr. Zimmerman reports that the Census Bureau hired as many as 200 employees with criminal records that should have disqualified them for federal employment. The problem was the [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110573"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=110573"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110573\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=110573"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=110573"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=110573"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}