ILLINOIS FUNDERS CENSUS INITIATIVE – COUNT ME IN 2010 FINAL REPORT

Ten Illinois grantmakers banded together to create the Illinois Funders Census Initiative (the Initiative) in

the spring of 2009. They sought to increase the number of households that completed and mailed back

their census questionnaires – stage one of the decennial census. This phase is less expensive1 and

provides more accurate data2 than the next phase of door-to-door enumeration by Census Bureau

employees. The funders sought to assure that Illinois would receive its fair share of federal money and

an accurate count of those historically undercounted.

The barriers were significant. In every census, certain populations are historically hard-to-count: urban

and rural communities with high concentrations of low-income people, minority groups, immigrants,

non-English speaking households, migrant workers, female-headed households, renters, homeless

people, ex-offenders, and individuals living in multi-unit residences, gated communities, and hidden

housing units. In the 2000 census experts estimate that millions of Americans were not counted,

including 1 percent of all Latinos and 2 percent of all African Americans3. Many populations whose

census participation has been the lowest had grown in number since 2000.

For 2010, other concerns included increased mobility and displacement caused by the housing and

foreclosure crises and natural disasters, lower public participation rates to surveys of all kinds, and

greater concern about privacy of personal information, especially in the post-9/11 environment. Anti-

immigrant measures and an increase in workplace raids had raised fears among immigrants.

The objective of the funders collaborative was to increase mail back rates in selected municipalities –

that is, the percent of all households that mail back questionnaires to the Census Bureau. The Initiative

aimed to support work that would increase 2010 mail response rates in designated or proposed towns

and cities by at least 4 to 5 percentage points above the 2000 rates4.

The Initiative awarded nearly $1.25 million for the Count Me In campaign: grants to 26 nonprofit

organizations who drew on their relationships with community members and reached out to, educated,

and mobilized Illinois residents in communities with a history of weak response to the Census form.

1 The Census Bureau estimates that it costs $3 to count a household by mail and $35 to count a household by

sending an enumerator to collect responses in person. 2 4/28/10 press conference remarks by Dr. Robert Groves, director of the U.S. Census Bureau.

3 Andrew Reamer, Brookings Institution, http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2009/0217_census_reamer.aspx,

2/17/09 4 The Final Mail Response Rates for 2010 will not be available until 2011. In 2010, the Census Bureau opted to track

and make public a new measure: the Mail Participation Rate. According to the Bureau, “The Mail Participation Rate is the percentage of forms mailed back by households that received them. The Census Bureau developed this new measure in 2010, in part because of the current economy and higher rates of vacant housing. The rate excludes households whose forms were returned to us by the U.S. Postal Service as ‘undeliverable,’ strongly suggesting the house was vacant. Mail Participation Rate is a higher number than the Mail Response Rate [the Bureau has] used over the last decade, but it is a better measure of actual participation and therefore an easier goal to achieve when residents mail back their forms. In 2000, the national Mail Response Rate was 67% and the comparable national Mail Participation Rate was 74%.” The national participation rate in 2010 was 72%, matching the 2000 rate. In Illinois, the participation rate in 2000 was 73%; in 2010 it increased to 75%. The Bureau released two sets of “final participation rates.” After consultation, we have elected to report against the April 2010 data.

Page 2 of 21

Their work helped Illinois increase its participation rate by 2% in the mail-back phase of the 2010

census, Cook County – where nearly 80% of those living in hard to count areas reside – to increase by

2%, and Chicago to increase by 5%, making the Initiative a striking success.

The following report seeks to document and reflect on the workings, impact, and lessons learned by the

Illinois Funders Census Initiative, between the fall of 2008 and December 2010, in hopes that

grantmakers and community nonprofits will benefit now and in later decennial censuses.

KEY FACTS Funders and Funding

10 funders5: the Boeing Company, Chicago Bar Foundation, Chicago Community Trust, Lloyd A.

Fry Foundation, Grand Victoria Foundation, Joyce Foundation, John D. and Catherine T.

MacArthur Foundation, Polk Bros. Foundation, Steans Family Foundation, Woods Fund of

Chicago

$1,292,500 contributed to the Initiative (contributions from $2,500 to $350,000)

o $1,112,500 pooled for grants and administration expenses, at the Chicago Community

Trust by 6 grantmakers

o $180,000 grants made directly by 5 contributors to Count Me In grantees

Expenses $1,224,000 awarded in grants to 26 nonprofit organizations

$68,500 (5%) allocated for non-grant expenses, primarily for project management consultation

Count Me In Grantees & Results 26 grants made to support work in 25 Chicago Community Areas, 3 other Cook County cities,

and 9 Illinois cities outside Cook County

With members and affiliates, the 26 grantees engaged 60 nonprofit organizations in all

Chicago Community Areas funded

o Had final mail response rates under 60% in 2000 census

o 85% had populations of 40,000 or more (based on 2000 census)

o 92% had 2 to 7 grantees focused on residents of the Chicago Community Area

o Averaged 5% increase in 2010 participation rate from 2000 rate (versus 4% increase in

comparable Chicago Community Areas with no Count Me In grantees)

Other funded cities

o 92% had 2000 final mail response rates 70% and under

o All had populations of 28,000+ (based on the 2000 census)

o All had 2 to 4 Count Me In grantees

o Averaged 2% better participation rate in 2010 than 2000 (versus .5% increase in other

comparable Illinois cities)

Chicago

o 63% of households returned their census forms – 5% over the 2000 rate

o Among 25 largest U.S. cities, only Baltimore exceeded Chicago’s gain

5 In addition, LISC Chicago generously contributed grants of $10,000 to five organizations selected for Count Me In

support that were members of LISC’s New Communities Program. The total dollars contributed includes LISC’s grants, though LISC did not consider itself part of the collaboration.

Page 3 of 21

Illinois

o 76% of households returned their census forms – matching 2000’s rate and 2 points

above the national average

o Compared to 4 other states with comparable hard to count populations (Florida, New

Jersey, Louisiana, and Mississippi), Illinois’ participation was higher

TIMELINE Ngoan Le (CCT) 10 funding partners committed; & Deborah Bennett (Polk Bros.) RFP mailed; info sessions; Review groups meet; become co-organizers with Gretchen Nora Moreno Cargie (Boeing) funders’ meeting Grants approved

becomes 4th co-organizer Late 2008 March May July

Early 2009 April June August Larry Hansen & Gretchen Crosby Sims (Joyce) Project manager 79 proposals Funders meet again; discuss 2010 census as funding opportunity; hired received revisions requested Sims begins research & joins FCI from applicants

TIMELINE

1st grantee convening 3rd grantee convening ; Terri Ann Lowenthal (consultant) & US Census Bureau mails census forms regional Bureau staff to households

September 2009 January 2010 April

October March Grants paid; LCCR 2nd grantee convening Census Day (4/1); Census Bureau training in Chicago ends mail back phase (4/27) &

announces 201 participation rates

HISTORY, STRUCTURE, FUNDERS, GRANTMAKING

In the fall of 2008, Lawrence Hansen, vice president of the Joyce Foundation, began to talk with

Gretchen Crosby Sims, Joyce’s director of strategic initiatives, about the 2010 census and the

opportunity it might present philanthropy. In September, Hansen hosted a meeting of the Funders

Committee for Civic Participation that featured representatives of the regional Census Bureau, national

advocacy group leaders, and census experts6. The national Funders Census Initiative (FCI) was created

as a result of this meeting, and went on to be a source of indispensable expertise for the Illinois Funders

Census Initiative and many other grantmakers around the country.

Sims researched the census – process, entry points, and impact – to identify ways that grantmakers

might supplement and amplify the efforts of the U.S. Census Bureau by providing grants to nonprofit

organizations.

6 Notably, Terri Ann Lowenthal (later a member of the Obama Presidential Transition Team, responsible for review of the U.S. Census Bureau, and a 15-year legislative and policy consultant specializing in the census and federal statistical system) and William O’Hare (a statistical analyst of social and demographic info and senior consultant to the KIDS COUNT Project of Annie E. Casey Foundation ).

Page 4 of 21

She discovered that many municipalities planned to provide significantly

less support for local census-related work in 2010 than a decade earlier.

The City of Chicago and State of Illinois named staff charged with census

oversight, and the City in particular worked with nonprofits and other

sectors of the community, but neither provided funds. In Illinois, only

philanthropy would fund ancillary efforts to boost community response.

The Joyce Foundation authorized Sims to take considerable time to

formulate possible funding strategies and to cultivate relationships with

others, including the Bureau’s regional office leadership and designated

staff from Mayor Daley’s office. She developed a depth of knowledge

that was unmatched by any other local funder and lent the Initiative

great credibility. Others have commented that that they relied on her

expertise and understanding, and that without her depth of knowledge

and the time she devoted, the Initiative would not likely have been

created.

In early 2009, Sims talked with Ngoan Le (Chicago Community Trust) and

Deborah Bennett (Polk Bros. Foundation) about their foundations’

possible interest in joining Joyce for census funding. Both readily agreed.

The three began to work together to define the focus of funding, craft

the RFP, and to seek buy-in from other local funders. In the spring, Nora

Moreno Cargie of the Boeing Company joined Bennett, Le, and Sims as a

co-organizer of the Initiative.

By April 2009, ten grantmaking institutions had formed the Illinois

Funders Census Initiative. Grantmakers joined the collaborative for

various reasons, but those interviewed all stated that census data are

crucial to their work, and that it was a no-brainer to invest in an effort to

bring a fair share of federal dollars to Illinois and the communities in

which they fund. Funders were also motivated by a commitment to

correcting historical undercounts, increasing civic engagement, concern

for just political representation for all communities, and by the “bigger

bang for the buck” value of collaborative funding. Three funders –

Joyce, Polk Bros., and MacArthur – invested in 2010 after successful 2000

local and national grantmaking for census-related outreach and

education7.

In March 2009, the three original funders selected Alice Cottingham to be

project manager. She and Sims worked together to complete the RFP,

prepare a list for RFP dissemination, and structure information sessions

for applicants. Her role also included assessing proposals (with funders),

organizing funders’ and grantee meetings, developing funding scenarios,

7 Joyce and MacArthur also made national grants in 2010.

Why the Census Matters The U.S. Constitution requires that all residents (including undocumented immigrants and non-citizens) be counted every ten years through a labor intensive, nationwide census. Federal implementation of the 2010 census was expected to be highly problematic. Local efforts to ensure full accounting of residents become even more critical because: The census affects federal and state funding. Nationally, the census helps determine the distribution to state and local governments of more than $400 billion a year in federal funds – or $4 trillion over a ten-year period. Illinois alone receives more than $14 billion annually in federal funds allocated on the basis of the census. The census affects community and economic planning. Census data guide both government and private sector planners on where to build new roads, schools, and businesses; provide services for the elderly; locate job training centers; and more. The census affects Illinois’ voice in the federal government. It determines how many seats each state has in the U.S. House of Representatives and influences how congressional and legislative districts are drawn. The census affects civil rights enforcement. Census data are used to monitor and enforce compliance with civil rights laws in employment, housing, voting, lending, and education.

Page 5 of 21

and designing grantee report forms. She provided information to grantees over the course of their

work. She was a contractor to the Chicago Community Trust.

The RFP was designed with a specific focus on more populous geographical areas in Illinois with poorer

rates of mailing back the census form in 2000. This included 22 Illinois cities outside Chicago that had

populations of 30,000 or more and 2000 mail response rates of 70% or less.8 All 77 Chicago Community

Areas were included, though they ranged from 32 to 82% mail response rates in 20009. Prospective

applicants were also invited to make a case for other places to be included for consideration. The RFP

was intended to direct resources where strong efforts would have significant impact.

The RFP was emailed in April 2009 to 250+ organizations across Illinois10. Shortly thereafter, Sims and

Cottingham led two optional info sessions, recapping the RFP and introducing liaisons from the regional

Census Bureau office and Mayor Daley’s office who provided overviews of their census plans.

The RFP allowed a variety of kinds of activities – including campaigns, events, and public education – and

asked applicants to describe experience, such as previous census work or other campaigns to promote

participation in specific civic action, such as voter registration or mobilization. It prioritized applications

along several axes:

- Organizations focused on specific communities with poor rates of returns of the census form in

2000, or at high risk of undercount in 2010 due to demographic changes;

- Organizations providing clear and measurable objectives for their work;

- Organizations with strong ties to the communities in which they proposed to work, and

experience with activities that increase civic participation;

- Understanding of other census efforts;

- Commitment to working collaboratively with other grantees.

In the absence of evidence about effective approaches and activities for influencing people to fill in and mail back their census forms, this list reflected the funders’ best thinking and experience with promoting other forms of civic participation. Ten staff from eight of the participating funders agreed to review proposals. The number of proposals

(79) surprised funders, as did their high quality (nearly two thirds were rated “strongly consider or

consider” by reviewers). The depressed economy likely was a factor in the volume of requests, but their

caliber suggests that nonprofit organizations also value census data and saw census education and

outreach as important mission-related activities and organic extensions of their larger bodies of work.

8 The 2000 mail response rates reflected the percent of all housing units, occupied and vacant, that returned a

form by mail. These rates are not the same as the participation rates created to measure mail response in 2010. 9 While neighborhood-level final response rates are not available from the U.S. Census Bureau, estimates were

provided by the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP). CMAP aggregated publicly available data from the Census Bureau on the “final response rates” of individual census tracts into neighborhood-level rates. There was necessarily involved a measure of judgment when aggregating census tract data into community areas, as they have different geographies. When the Bureau announced that it would use the new participation rate in 2010, CMAP also aggregated Chicago Community Area data by that measure 10 The RFP was used as a template by funders in New York, California, and Massachusetts who also made investments in local census outreach.

Page 6 of 21

Applicants included advocacy, service, organizing, community

development, and technical assistance groups.

As funders participated in conversations with colleagues about proposals

they’d read, a number of common perspectives emerged. Funders

believed that more active and personally engaging approaches, such as

door-to-door outreach and one-to-one conversations, were more likely

to influence and lead to action than passive, strictly educational tactics.

Organizations that positioned census work as part of a larger agenda of

civic engagement or building democracy were compelling. The possibility

of funding more than one dynamic organization in a particular geography

to reach multiple groups of residents, a “flood the zone” approach, was

attractive, particularly where groups seemed likely to work in a

coordinated and cooperative fashion.

Because the number, quality, and amounts requested in proposals were

high (nearly $4.2 million requested by groups that reviewers thought

should be considered) and dollars limited ($973,000 at the time funders

first met), making decisions about how to fund was challenging. Two

scenarios were developed to guide further consideration. Decision

making was made significantly easier by the Boeing Company’s generous

$100,000 increase in support to the Initiative11, and by LISC Chicago’s

decision to augment grants to organizations that were part of its New

Communities Program.

The funders chose to focus dollars on communities where strong

applicants could amplify one another’s work. To reconcile actual dollars

with requested grants, funders approved significantly reduced grant

awards. Groups were asked to revise their budgets and were allowed to

revise work plans to reflect actual grant amounts and the priority

communities selected, and could begin their work later, if they wished.

Funders also acknowledged that Chicago Community Areas, used to focus

work and to measure impact, do not reflect the true geography in which

most nonprofits work.

Prospective grantees were asked if they had concerns or ideas for

revision that were different from the funders. One group expressed

dismay that a part of its ethnic community was not funded, as a result of

the funding strategy chosen12. In another instance, a coalition was asked

to include an organization and an ethnic community that had been part

11

Cargie said that Boeing’s having been the major sponsor of the Initiative is one of her proudest grant decisions. 12

At a later date, the community was supported as part of a coalitional effort when another partner dropped out.

The Initiative was structured

as a funders’ collaborative

with shared decision making

and grantmaking.

Funders were invited to join

the Initiative, either by

contributing to the Chicago

Community Trust, which

agreed to serve as fiscal

sponsor (charging a fee of

$250 for administering grants

and other payments) or by

making grants directly to

organizations chosen

collectively by the Initiative.

This flexibility was cited by

some funders as key to their

foundations’ participation.

There were no minimum

requirements for amounts

contributed to the Initiative,

and funders gave between

$2,500 and $350,000.

Administrative costs – for

grantee meetings and project

management– were paid from

the pooled fund.

All agreed to accept grant

reports to and from the

Initiative in lieu of customized

reports.

Funders were asked to

participate to the degree that

they wished and bureaucracy

was minimized. While

provision had been made for

each partner institution to

have a vote, decisions were

made by consensus.

Page 7 of 21

of another, unfunded application. The group graciously agreed, but at

the end of the Initiative, said the add-on had not been a success.

Grants were paid, by the Trust and five direct funders, in September

2009. All funders used the same grant agreement language, obligating

grantees to participate in grantee meetings, complete progress and final

reports, and be available for a final report interview.

The funders interviewed all expressed great satisfaction with the

collaborative process used by the Initiative and with the level and type of

participation they chose.

COUNT ME IN GRANTEES AND GRANTS

Twenty-six organizations received $1,224,000 in grants for the Count Me

In campaign. The organizations included coalitions and networks,

community-based organizations, human service organizations, a public

library, and a national advocacy group. Counting the coalition and

network members that were active in census projects, in all 60 nonprofits

were part of Count Me In.

Grantees engaged in communities with larger populations of people

historically undercounted in the census: people of color, immigrants, low

income people, non-English speakers, female-headed households,

children, renters, residents of multi-unit buildings, ex-offenders, and

grandchildren raised by grandparents. Grants ranged from $145,000 to

two large community organizing coalitions, to $10,000 for a small radio

and television public service announcement campaign in a specific ethnic

community.

Most funders interviewed agreed that the grantees chosen and grants

awarded were about right, given the goals and resources of the Initiative.

As one put it, “We patched together about the best possible

arrangements, hoping for the right outcomes, and with the best

intentions.” However, one grantmaker thought grants were too small,

given the promise of the larger plans that accompanied larger grant

requests. She would have preferred to add dollars to make larger grants

feasible. Another funder countered, saying, “The grants process was

viewed *by community groups+ as really political. If we’d made fewer,

larger grants, we’d have opened ourselves up to more criticism. I believe

the coverage was more equitable than it could have been with fewer

grants.” This disagreement was comfortably managed by colleagues who

recognized the range of perspectives held across the group.

COUNT ME IN GRANTEES AgeOptions

Asian American Institute

Brighton Park Neighborhood Council

Center for Economic Progress

Chicago Commons

Claretian Associates, Inc.

East Central Illinois Community Action Agency

Enlace Chicago

Gail Borden Public Library District

Heartland Human Care Services, Inc.

Illinois Action for Children

Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights

Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, for United African Organization

Korean American Community Services

Latinos Progresando

Lawndale Christian Development Corporation

Logan Square Neighborhood Association

Metropolitan Tenants Organization

Organization of NorthEast

Polish American Association

Southsiders Organized for Unity & Liberation

Spanish Community Center

Springfield Urban League

Teamwork Englewood

TARGET Area Development Corporation, for The United Congress for Community and Religious Organizations Voto Latino Inc.

Page 8 of 21

Grantee Meetings and Reports

Because the census is complex and to assure that learning was cataloged,

the Initiative adopted a proactive approach of providing info to and

collecting experiences and lessons learned from grantees. The grantees

convened three times. The first session in early October 2009 featured

an overview of census operations by Lowenthal (the Funders Census

Initiative consultant) and partnership coordinators from the regional U.S.

Census Bureau. In addition, representatives of three Joyce Foundation

census grantees (these grants preceded the Initiative) spoke briefly about

their work; MALDEF, in particular, proved to be a valuable resource (of

palm cards, a census Wheel of Fortune game, and expertise) for many

Count Me In grantees.

All convenings included time for grantees to talk with others with

common geographical and or population focus, to encourage

coordination, joint planning, sharing what was working in their efforts,

and group problem-solving. A number of common barriers and questions

were identified in meetings and from progress reports, and information

and answers were compiled and emailed to grantees.

Progress and final reports document the value of grantee meetings.

Technical information about census operations, the chance to learn with

others attempting to reach common goals, collective problem-solving,

and guidance to resources were all mentioned as essential to grantees’

effective outreach and mobilization. The project manager noted a

number of beneficial changes made as a result of meetings and

conversations.

Grantees were also encouraged to attend the Train the Trainers session

hosted by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund in

September 2009, and periodically throughout the grant period, the

project manager provided resources to grantees, including lists of

census-related websites and other e-subscriptions, updates, and

summaries of new, highly relevant materials (e.g., Communicating the

Message Effectively, produced by Hattaway Communications for the Ford

Foundation, about messaging to African American men and Latino

immigrants).

Websites, notably The Census Project, Nonprofits Count! 2010 (of the

Nonprofit Voter Engagement Network), ¡Ya Es Hora! ¡Hagase Contar!,

Steve Romalewski’s Hard to Count site at CUNY, Asian American Justice

Center, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, and the Census Bureau,

along with emails of Census News Briefs and the Census Project Blog

were heavily relied on by many grantees and the project manager for

information, training, and materials. In the weeks of the mail back

COUNT ME IN CHICAGO COMMUNITY AREAS Albany Park Auburn Gresham Austin Avondale Belmont Cragin Brighton Park Chicago Lawn Englewood Grand Boulevard Humboldt Park Kenwood Logan Square Lower West Side Near North Side Near West Side New City North Lawndale Oakland Rogers Park South Chicago South Lawndale South Shore Uptown West Englewood West Town

OTHER COUNT ME IN CITIES

Aurora Berwyn Cicero Danville East St. Louis Elgin Harvey Joliet Peoria Romeoville Springfield Waukegan

Page 9 of 21

phase, many grantees used the 2010census.gov site to check their work

against daily participation rate updates.

Grantees provided three progress reports, on a simple form that

emphasized concise information about what was being learned as

projects unfurled. Most grantees provided rich, pithy information. The

project manager commented on all reports – complimenting, asking

questions, and correcting mis-information. She summarized all reports

and fed info back to grantees about problems and smart workarounds,

lessons learned, and intersections in grantees’ efforts.

Final reports asked grantees to reflect on their strategies and activities,

the impact of their projects, what they learned in the course of the

Initiative, whether their organizations and constituencies benefitted from

their engagement in census outreach, the biggest facilitators and barriers

to their work, and advice for funders and other nonprofits.

WHAT GRANTEES DID

There were 6 main methods used by the Count Me In nonprofit

organizations. Many grantees combined approaches.

1. Direct individual contact. This included highly organized door-

knocking, other forms of community canvassing, and

opportunistic exchanges with community members (e.g., clients

waiting for services), which stressed establishing rapport, giving

information, seeking commitment, and follow-up contact to urge

follow-through. Pledge cards were used by a half dozen grantee

organizations as part of this method.

2. Events. This included educating at formal and informal

community events and gatherings, such as fairs, holiday

commemorations, and poetry slams; most were not census-

specific, but included a World’s Largest Census Form event.

Giveaways from the Bureau, such as key chains and caps, along

with iTunes cards distributed by one grantee, as well as the

dissemination of grantee palm cards and fact sheets were

common.

3. Networks. This included: working with other institutions with a

shared interest in census participation, sometimes resulting in

new resources for grantees (e.g., staffing, census materials);

teaching community gatekeepers (including pastors, principals,

cabdrivers, hairdressers and barbers, students, sororities, child

care providers, and street vendors) about the census and asking

them to educate – by word of mouth or printed materials – those

with whom they had relationships, as well as reaching members

We asked grantees in their

final reports to name the top

facilitators and barriers to their

work.

FACILITATORS

People and organizations: (1) partners – member and affiliate organizations, collaborating or cooperating organizations – that helped shape and carried out the work; (2) relationships and connections to key community gatekeepers, such as pastors and other faith leaders, local businesses, young people, parents, school leaders, and civic leaders who were important conduits of trustworthy information; (3) effective staff, hired or assigned to census work; and (4) great volunteers. Resources: (1) money; (2) menu of informational materials – breadth and variety of the messages and types of materials, from the Census Bureau and national advocacy groups, much of it available in many languages; (3) Lowenthal (by email, phone, in webinars, and at the first grantee training); (4) cooperative and resourceful Census Bureau employees; (5) Complete Count Committees that functioned effectively; and (6) the project manager.

Page 10 of 21

of an organization’s own networks (for example, in large

organizations, all departments and staff; in coalitions, all member

organizations). Complete Count Committees13 were one form of

network and most grantees participated in one or more and

remained engaged if they were well staffed and productive.

Some grantees effectively formed their own CCC’s.

4. Insertion of census messages into other organizational

activities and programming, such as waiting room videos about

the census, making announcements and presentations at

meetings, including census info in mailings, and concluding

tenant rights hotline calls with a reminder about filling in census

forms.

5. News and other media. Most work with the news media was

designed to reinforce other forms of communication. Many

grantees used electronic media, including newsletters, e-blasts,

and tag lines on staff email. A couple grantees sought to educate

the ethnic media of their communities. Social media, including

Facebook and video, were only lightly used.

6. Some grantees were chosen to be Questionnaire Assistance

Centers and a number offered or agreed to serve as testing and

or training sites for the Census Bureau. These alliances generally

enhanced the organizations’ other activities.

LESSONS LEARNED

The Role of Nonprofit Organizations

Grantees sought to educate residents of their communities about the

census and the form that each household would receive, the value to the

person and community of being counted, and the advantages of

participating by completing and mailing back the census form. But

beyond education, they sought to motivate and mobilize people to act.

All tactics were based in relationships between the organizations and the

people with whom they worked. This included community organizing

groups with established (and who also expanded) relationships in their

neighborhoods, networks that provide technical assistance to member

organizations, service providers and program participants, and celebrities

13

Complete Count Committees, piloted originally by the Chicago regional office, included volunteer representatives from all parts of the community to work in loose networks to promote census participation. The Committees were to be the main conduit of printed materials and promotional items from the Bureau to local groups and other partners.

We asked grantees in their

final reports to name the top

facilitators and barriers to their

work.

BARRIERS

Persistent fear, mistrust, apathy, and skepticism about the safety, confidentiality, and value of participating in the census by some community members. Confusion and anger about the race and ethnicity questions on the census form. The questions were confusing to many; angered some ethnic groups who felt overlooked; and in some cases aroused suspicion that the form was somehow connected to the federal government’s immigration service. Difficulty with the Census Bureau. This included interactions with staff who were ill-informed and unhelpful, shortfalls and untimely delivery of vital printed materials to nonprofits, calls for information and assistance that went unanswered, operational and communications plans that were slow to be communicated, and changes in operations that had a negative impact on nonprofit work.

Page 11 of 21

who spoke on behalf of census participation for a national advocacy organization.

The Initiative deliberately supported more work in Chicago than elsewhere in Illinois, to reflect the

proportion of the state’s population who live in the city, its significant number of hard-to-count

communities, and the relative prevalence of nonprofits with organizational capacity.

On average, the Chicago Community Areas (CCA’s) where funded work occurred had higher participation

rates than comparable CCA’s: funded areas averaged 5% better than 2000, while comparable ones

averaged 4% better. Of the 25 CCA’s where grantees worked, 85% exceeded their 2000 participation

rates, while 76% of those without grantees surpassed their 2000 rates.

Outside Chicago, the cities where Count Me In grantees worked averaged 2% better than in 2000, while

comparable areas without grantees averaged .5% better. Among funded communities, 46% exceeded

their 2000 participation rates, with 38% of them bettering participation by 4 or more points. In contrast,

among comparable cities without grantees, 40% performed better than 2000, with just 10% improving

by 4 or more percent.

Many factors likely helped Chicago outperform its 2000 participation by 5% and Illinois by 2%.

The Census Bureau targeted areas with the largest percentages of hard to count populations,

and the regional office’s partnership specialists promoted the use of its Hot Tracts data (tracts

with 50% or less response rate in 2000) among grantees and CCC’s.

The Bureau also, for the first time, mailed a second census form to many households in an effort

to increase the return of forms from harder to count groups; analysis showed this was very

effective.

The Bureau’s national communications campaign was significantly more robust than earlier

ones, and much of it was designed to reach historically undercounted households.

While the City of Chicago did not make funds available for groups, it lent staff time to the

organization of CCC’s and helped respond to questions and requests for materials when

possible14.

Finally, demographic changes over the previous decade – the movement of CHA residents out of

high rises, large numbers of vacant residences, gentrification of some neighborhoods, and

increases in immigrant communities across the state – no doubt played a role in participation

rate changes.

It is not possible to surgically extract and calculate the impact of the Count Me In grantees in the final

participation rates. Yet, the patterns of better performance overall in funded community areas and

cities, most significantly in Chicago, compared to comparable areas where no funded work was done,

strongly suggest that their work was a factor in the overall mail back by Illinois households in response

to the 2010 census. It seems likely that the most important characteristic of the nonprofits’ work was

their relationships with their communities. Relationships lent credibility and trust to nonprofit

encouragement of residents to complete and mail back the census form.

14

Outside Chicago, the formation of CCC’s varied greatly, with some communities (notably Elgin, where the

grantee was instrumental to the CCC’s creation and effectiveness) forming strong and very active committees, and others convening them very late.

Page 12 of 21

Grantmakers interviewed were unanimous in their satisfaction with the impact of Count Me In grants.

Nonprofits’ Lessons Learned

Most grantees were very thoughtful about their work, designing and adapting based on experience and

critical examination of what was and wasn’t working. The lessons they articulated are integrated

throughout this report. Some lessons learned had wide application. Others were contradictory,

suggesting the need for careful reflection about the specific cultural, political, and historical realities of

each community. Below are three lessons that are pertinent to many organizations.

Assuring alignment of census projects with core purpose yields benefits beyond census

participation. Census campaigns and projects had the potential to build and strengthen

relationships between community residents and community organizations. From the outset, it

seemed likely that organizations that made their census work an organic extension of their core

work would be most vested in executing their plans, most likely to secure agency-wide buy-in

for census work, and best able to make connections between the census and other issues and

campaigns of importance to community members. Judging from reports and participation rates,

it appears that this theory held water.

As one coalition put it, “We were explicit among our executive directors and staff about the

broader goal of building our organizations and engaging our entire communities to a scale and

depth we don’t normally have opportunities to reach. [Among] community organizing entities

that have often had agitational relationships, the census provided a very positive and proactive

project to engage institutions and individuals that would not normally be involved in an

organizing campaign.” As another grantee put it, “The thing that worked best for us was that

we were able to tie the census work into the agenda we’d already been working on, and in such

a way that it made the benefits tangible and pressing for our communities.”

A number of grantees noted that they realized significant ancillary benefits, as a result of

participating in census work. These were described as: “*The census+ was a gateway to a

broader discussion about the role of the federal government spending, civic engagement, and

the need for local, regional, state, and federal cooperation on issues of transportation,

infrastructure, housing, and jobs,” and “This campaign also provided *us+ with the opportunity

to develop new leaders and promote our programs throughout the community. It has been

several years since we have organized a campaign that involved knocking on every door in our

neighborhood.”

Flexibility and nimbleness are essential. Effective groups refined their plans as they worked. In

one case, an organization shifted its emphasis from a couple large events at single churches to

organizing and educating pastors to reach their congregations from the pulpit or in ministry

visits, as well as via an event customized to each church. It then followed up that work with

phone calls to 800 congregants, many of whom were residents in Chicago Community Areas

with the largest increases in participation rates

Page 13 of 21

Messages must be carefully crafted. Messaging was complex and

many grantees found that they needed to shape theirs

specifically for their community members. Different, sometimes

contradictory, findings were made among nonprofits. For

instance, in some communities, emphasizing avoidance of door-

to-door enumerators was found to be threatening and undercut

the message that participating is safe, while in others this

message was very welcome. In some communities, money

arguments (such as, every person counted draws resources to

the community) worked very well, while in others residents

doubted that resources would ever reach their neighborhoods.

Many people were highly skeptical about the Bureau’s promises

of privacy and confidentiality, and many grantees found it

important to focus mainly on this, rather than making it one of

many messages. A number of groups also noted that it was more

than a little challenging to explain the census questions about

race and ethnicity, which perplexed many. If the questions

remain the same, anticipating this challenge to develop ways to

effectively educate people in advance of questionnaires’ delivery

may be helpful.

Partnering With the Census Bureau

Grantees’ work was nested in the much larger scope of work specific to

the U.S. Census Bureau, which is responsible for all aspects of conducting

the decennial census: informing the American people of it, preparing a

comprehensive list of all household addresses, urging Americans to

watch for and respond to the mailed census form, mailing the forms,

visiting the addresses of all those who did not mail back a form,15 and

compiling and reporting all data collected. In addition, the Bureau

conducts a handful of special decennial census canvasses, including of all

group quarters (including dorms, nursing homes, and prisons) and the

special street count of homeless people. The Bureau’s decennial census

operations are massive, complex, and lengthy, and other Bureau

operations, such as the American Community Survey, continue

throughout the decennial count.

The Census Bureau’s 2010 census partnership program was

unprecedented in scale and scope16, and included new and untested

relationships between the Bureau and private philanthropy, and between

the Bureau and nonprofit organizations. Designed to engage an array of

community leaders and influencers, the partnership program sought

15

In limited circumstances a household that has mailed back a form may be visited. 16

The Bureau created the Partnership Program for the 2000 Census; the 2010 effort was far more extensive.

GRANTEE ADVICE TO

FUNDERS CONSIDERING

FUNDING FUTURE CENSUS

WORK:

Factor in anecdotal information from community-based organizations about demographic changes in communities that aren’t reflected in decade-old decennial census data

1.

It’s impossible to know now what format the 2020 census will take, but if it may use the internet, consider addressing, much in advance, the digital divide in low-income and rural communities, and communities of color. Fewer, larger grants. More money. Fund earlier – recommendations range from five years in advance to a few months earlier – with the implicit assumption that early education and repetition will increase action. Fund groups that will focus on the very hardest to count. Offer a number of centralized volunteer trainings, in multiple languages for grantee groups. Give or fund identification/gear that shows that door knockers are part of the census campaign2. 1 This could be addressed by consulting the three-year average detailed data of the American Community Survey (ACS). (The Bureau had planned to have these available in late 2009; Congress did appropriate to make that possible.) However, using a second data source would make RFP development more complicated, and funders will want to assure that ACS data are aggregated to the Chicago Community Areas. 2 One community group’s workers were confronted by police while door-knocking. The Mayor’s Office then alerted police commanders to grantees’ work; it also asked outreach workers to carry personal and professional identification.

Page 14 of 21

national, regional, and local partners who would help inform their communities about the 2010 census

and encourage them to participate by serving as “trusted voices.” Within this context and with a shared

commitment to a better rate of return of census questionnaires, the Count Me In grantees and the

Illinois Funders Census Initiative envisioned themselves as partners to the Bureau. It was a fruitful but

not an easy relationship. Unanticipated challenges were sometimes well resolved and sometimes not,

but lessons learned can help strengthen future cooperation.

The Bureau is a federal agency with regional offices that follow standard procedures and programs, with

a great deal of management autonomy, and the Illinois Funders Census Initiative’s efforts had both

national and regional dimensions. At the national level, the Initiative was most affected by the Bureau’s

policymaking and operations and its national communications campaign. Information from the national

office flowed through the national Funders Census Initiative, via Lowenthal and her contacts. At the

regional level, the Initiative looked to the Chicago office for data, answers to questions and help with

problems, and access to printed resources and promotional items.

Despite the Bureau’s interest in and encouragement of partnerships by nonprofits and support from

philanthropy, it seems fair to say that it was not as prepared as it might have been to effectively define

the terms of partnership with capable and funded nonprofit organizations, and to provide certain

information and resources to partners. This resulted in tension and disappointment among funders and

nonprofits, who expected that the partnership would be more responsive to their ideas and requests.

Yet the Bureau is a very large government bureaucracy, charged with carefully ensuring the privacy of all

Americans, executing a colossal nationwide operation, seeking the absolute accuracy and

standardization of all data it collects, and scrutinized by critical and sometimes hostile elements of

Congress and the public. It was not and perhaps cannot be especially nimble.

One example of a challenge for nonprofits was the absence of Bureau policy regarding whether and how

nonprofit organizations should help people complete their census forms.

For many organizations, assistance with official forms – from school registration, low income energy

assistance, to immigration applications and tax filings – is standard practice, and seemed to many an

obvious and important way for community groups to greatly increase the odds that some households

would complete their census forms.

In fact, the Count Me In project manager encouraged grantees early on to include direct assistance in

their work plans. Only later, from Lowenthal, did she learn that this idea was not likely to be embraced

by the Bureau, which encouraged households to seek assistance from Bureau employees who are sworn

to assure privacy and confidentiality, at its Questionnaire Assistance Centers.

When asked whether nonprofits could assist with forms, the Bureau had no official stance on the

question. Some grantees received varying advice from different levels of Bureau staffing, creating

uncertainty and tension. Lowenthal recommended that nonprofits limit their assistance to education

about the meaning of the census form questions, rather than individual assistance in completing a form.

During the mail back stage, with direct assistance from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights

Education Fund, the Census Bureau issued a memorandum on steps community groups could take to

Page 15 of 21

assist people in filling out their census forms. In this instance, an unanticipated need for guidance was

identified and eventually addressed, but the slow response was frustrating.

Another problem was the lack of detailed, complete information about census operations. The national

office provided outlines of census operations for partners. But the information was not comprehensive.

In the interview for this report, regional office staff told the project manager that regional offices also

were frustrated by the slowness with which details of operations were released. The Initiative relied

heavily on Lowenthal, whose contacts within the Bureau and long experience with the decennial census

served us very well. Yet, she too was surprised by some parts of the 2010 operations.

For nonprofits to be the most effective partners within communities, they need to be able to plan their

work with reference to the national and regional plan. Drawing on their community capital of trust and

credibility, they naturally want to be able to convey accurate information to those they are educating

and reassuring. This would be challenging under the very best of circumstances, because census

operations are extremely complicated. More complete and timely operational information in future

partnerships would be very helpful, and support to nonprofits to help them learn and apply the

information will be important.

The 2010 partnership in Illinois between the Chicago Regional Office of the Census Bureau and the

Illinois Funders Census Initiative and its Count Me In grantees experienced instances of good working

relationships and clear mutual benefit, but was also marked by some frustration.

The regional office director, Stanley Moore, assigned a staff liaison (Ellisa Johnson, National Partnership

Specialist) to the Initiative. She was extremely helpful when able to provide information and guidance,

as were the two partnership coordinators (Saul Garcia and Brenda J. Lee) for the Chicago metropolitan

area and the rest of Illinois, respectively. Some neighborhood partnership specialists and their

assistants were highly valued by community nonprofit partners. The regional director himself

authorized a large order of many kinds of promotional items emblazoned with “Count Me In” for

grantees, along with a large shipment of printed materials, and the Bureau regularly recognized the

Initiative in its communications about regional efforts.

On the other hand, the regional office was cautious about providing data to the funders, requested early

on to inform the RFP’s development. When repeated calls were not answered it was impossible to

know if requests were being ignored, considered slowly, or tacitly denied. When asked later, the liaison

to the Initiative said that many of the funders’ requests were unprecedented, and it was unclear which

data were available and what information could be released to the public.

The Census Bureau’s Chicago Regional Office, serving Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin, ultimately boasted

the highest 2010 census participation rate in the mail-back phase of all regions. Johnson offered high

praise when she said she believed three factors were most significant: the Complete Count Committees,

the communications campaign, and the Count Me In initiative.

However, late in the Initiative, the regional director was publicly critical of some grantees whose door-

to-door outreach workers, especially of one (among several) that used a pledge card. In hindsight, we

believe that the director feared the workers might be confused with door-to-door scams and perceived

Page 16 of 21

by some households as Census Bureau workers and the pledge cards as census forms, and would thus

believe they had already responded to the census. Direct discussions between Initiative representatives

and the regional director, to discuss and address his concerns, would have been more constructive in

light of the good intentions of the grantee census partners.

The Initiative also made missteps. It might have been more thoughtful and precise in its language –

sometimes informally referring to grantee staff as “census outreach workers” may have confused their

roles. The language, operations, and procedures related to the census are complex, often arcane, and

can be easily confused, and the Bureau’s processes were not intuitively understood by philanthropy or

nonprofits. Some grantees did not always absorb information provided.

Grantees’ experiences with regional Census Bureau staff were mixed. On the one hand, knowledgeable,

helpful staff were ranked among the greatest facilitators of community nonprofits’ effective work, but

partnering with the regional office was also ranked high as a barrier to good work. The office’s evident

intense workload and inadequate technical resources (notably, no individual voice mail for many staff)

undoubtedly contributed to this problem.

For its part, philanthropy is largely accustomed to ready access to information and having a hand in

shaping relationships and joint efforts, and funders were taken aback by difficulties they encountered as

partners. Grantees, who are accustomed to seeing philanthropy as very powerful – some

recommended to the funders that future efforts “use the power of money to demand better

cooperation from the Census Bureau and to legitimate funded nonprofits with the Bureau” – were no

doubt frustrated by the lack of influence the Initiative had with the regional and national offices.

Despite philanthropic investments, requests from nonprofit partners to the Bureau for materials,

promotional items, and information from the national and regional offices were early, substantial, and

ongoing –and apparently well beyond the Bureau’s expectations and capacity. The Bureau was not able

to accommodate adequately most unanticipated requests for direction and information from its most

engaged partners.

In retrospect, it is clear that neither the Bureau nor the philanthropic sector foresaw that nonprofit

partners would benefit from a more complete understanding of when and how census operations would

play out, better access to information and answers to questions, and more realistic expectations of how

unanticipated needs would be managed.

FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Champion/s Needed

Sims’ early and deep research and strategic thinking about how philanthropy and nonprofits could

support the decennial census were crucial to the collaborative’s beginning, recruitment, and focus. She

was able to devote considerable time to the planning and grantmaking phases. Future efforts will need

one or more people with similar professional latitude, curiosity, and critical thinking.

Page 17 of 21

Maintain Focus on the Mail Back Phase of the Census

The mail back portion of the decennial census process was the focus of the Initiative for practical

reasons. It is the stage in which the particular asset of nonprofit organizations – trusted relationships –

can be most strategically deployed to augment the Census Bureau’s work. It is the less costly segment in

the process and focuses on all American residents.

For some, notably the City of Chicago, the end of Count Me In grantees’ work at the close of the mail-

back was disappointing, as the need to encourage households to participate in the census (by

responding to door-to-door Bureau enumerators) continued for months afterward. Nonetheless,

without limitless dollars, grantmakers must consider how to best focus, and 2010 success in increasing

Illinoisans’ completion and return of their census questionnaires suggests that the Initiative focused

strategically.

Better Partnership with the U.S. Census Bureau

Ideally, the U.S. Census Bureau and all its partners will benefit from lessons learned in the 2010

experience. Suggestions for the future for the Census Bureau, grantmakers, and nonprofits:

Clearly define the role of nonprofits as partners in the decennial census. The Bureau, with input

from the nonprofit sector, should clearly describe when, where, and how nonprofits can amplify

and extend its efforts.

The Bureau should provide clear and detailed public information about all aspects of the census

operations, including automatic electronic updates to registered partners as changes are made

or details are confirmed. It should make it possible for partner nonprofits to ask and receive the

answers to questions that arise along the way, in a timely and reliable fashion.

The Bureau should plot out and plan to dependably provide the resources that funded, active

nonprofit partners are likely to require to fulfill their promise.

Regional Census Offices and local philanthropy would benefit from a nationally sanctioned joint

planning and problem-solving mechanism to be used from the outset of funder planning to the

conclusion of funding initiatives. This may require additional investment from the national

office to help assure that partnerships are as productive as possible.

Funders and nonprofits should be clear-eyed and low key about the distinct differences

between the Bureau and the nonprofit sector. Collaboration may be increasingly common in

the latter, but it is not part of the DNA of large government bureaucracy.

Grantmakers should expect some glitches and help grantees expect the same. Be tolerant of

mistakes, especially well-meaning ones17. Emphasize what is within funders’ and grantees’

power to change and adapt. Plan ahead to rely on sources other than the Bureau for data and

other information the Bureau is not prepared to release or cannot easily provide.

Grantmakers should provide comprehensive training about census operations to prospective

applicant organizations, so that plans are designed to be congruent with operations. Give

examples of plans that are well-conceived and those that would prove problematic, and explain

why.

17

Such as the Bureau’s decision to post online, for the first time, the locations of all Questionnaire Assistance and Be Counted Centers on maps– effectively requiring that prospective users have computer and language skills to access the information. In contrast, the daily online updating of participation rates, also a first, was invaluable.

Page 18 of 21

Some tension points will likely remain and should be normalized. Door-to-door work by

community-based organizations will likely remain controversial because of its potential to be

confused with Bureau enumerators’ visits or with scams. But well-organized canvassing by well-

trained nonprofit workers was effective and essential to the Initiative’s success. Because

completing a pledge card may be confused with completing a census form, groups using these at

the door should consider how to best distinguish between the two, and all door-to-door work

should be focused solely on the census, to avoid possible conflation of issues and agendas.

Fund Campaigns First, But Not Only

Two grantees employed full campaign strategies, including a well-conceived plan, tested messages,

strong execution – including micro-targeting by census tract, door-knocking, pledge cards, and follow-up

phone calls and visits once the census forms had been mailed – and supported by close monitoring and

thoughtful revision. These groups documented some of the greatest results.

This method makes very strong use of the critically important characteristics of some of the best

community-based organizations: deep knowledge of a community, experience with campaigns, and

credible, trusting relationships with community members, which can be fundamental to the

organization’s ability to reach and persuade them to act.

Final reports and interviews with organizations that deployed door knockers and closely monitored

participation rates at the tract level were the most persuasive in their analyses of the reasons for greater

and lesser impact of their work in the communities where they focused. One grantee report was

particularly blunt, “*T]hese participation rate changes reflect the ground strategy of each organization in

each local community. Each community [organization] set proportional goals for commitment cards,

phones, and doors. Those that exceeded their goals…increased their participation rates dramatically.

Those that met only a fraction of their goals numbers…saw a decrease.” But smart, intense efforts

weren’t infallible. The same report noted that gentrification also had an impact in some places, and that

one community group gave a tremendous effort, not reflected as dramatically in their rate as others.

Because not everyone in a community will open the door to a canvasser and not all hard to count

communities have nonprofits that can mount strong campaigns, working through networks is likely the

second most important approach to reaching and influencing people to complete and mail back their

census forms. Networks authoritatively reached multiple member organizations and sites, and in doing

so, interacted with many messengers who could, in turn, personally reach many households.

The other activities of grantees – events, disseminating census information messages through programs

and services, media, and partnering with the Bureau to provide space for testing, training, and QACs –

are important tertiary methods. These approaches can inform people with less media access (due to

poverty, lack of steady residence, or language barrier) of the census, and a community-based messenger

helps make it seem more important and less threatening. Handing out paper was sometimes attractive,

but likely of limited value, if not tied to a more personal exchange.

These reflections essentially conform to the best thinking of the funders who created the Illinois Census

Funders Initiative – that a mix of approaches grounded in trusted, credible relationships would be the

most likely to reach hard to count communities across the state.

Page 19 of 21

Unsurprisingly, the capacity of the grantee organization appeared central to its effectiveness with

census work. Organizations as diverse as the Gail Borden Library and Illinois Action for Children led work

with their communities and constituencies that was characterized by savvy, dedicated staffing and

marked resourcefulness, whether in the form of a marketing department (as with the Library) or the

ability to reach thousands of hard to count families (as with Action). Funders’ commitments over time

make a big difference to organizational capacity.

A core premise of the grants awarded was that supporting multiple groups in a geographical area would

increase the impact of the groups’ work and yield better results. Many grantees did work together, but

others did not. While it is not possible to verify the success of this strategy independently, on average,

funded communities had better participation and most featured three to five grantee groups. In a few

areas, participation was slightly greater where fewer grantees worked. Based on reports and interviews,

it appears that more germane than the number of groups in these higher scoring places was grantee

performance and gentrification. This is a reminder that grantmaking is as much art as science.

Provide More Training

None of the Illinois Funders Census Initiative participants was very knowledgeable about the decennial

census at the outset. After a great deal of self-education that was greatly accelerated by the Funders

Census Initiative and its consultants, Sims and Cottingham developed a working knowledge and the

Initiative’s RFP was written to provide guidance to nonprofits. Training provided to grantees, especially

in October 2009 featuring Lowenthal, was more critically important than any understood at the time,

providing vital information about census operations that shaped intelligent and effective design and

redesign of each grantee’s work plan. A second training with Lowenthal would have been valuable.

Funders could offer a much more in-depth training earlier in the process, to increase the likelihood that

applicants create work plans that align with and thus compliment and amplify the work of the Bureau.

Ideally this training would be led by someone expert in the Bureau’s operations but not of the Bureau,

to assure that information is focused on what nonprofits need to know, and to offer the kinds of candid

commentary and answers that may not be possible by public officials. Ideally, it would also include a

representative of the regional office, who would provide information about its partnership program,

communications plans, and promotional and information materials. This training could be a

requirement or optional for prospective applicants. It should be followed by at least one more, to

review information and address questions that arise in implementation.

Repeat Grantee Convenings and Hands On Project Management

The in-person gatherings of grantees were a useful source of cross-pollination of ideas and information,

provided opportunities for strangers working in the same neighborhoods and towns and with the same

populations to meet and share resources, and surfaced questions that were typically of concern to a

number of groups.

The project manager helped assure that grantees received regular updates about a highly technical

subject, responded to myriad questions, intervened when information was inaccurate or plans

problematic, recognized and encouraged good work, facilitated relationships between grantees,

gathered and funneled resources to grantees, and organized grantee meetings. Her work was cited by

Page 20 of 21

grantees as a facilitator of their success. Funders interviewed stated that a mix of technical knowledge

and strong people skills are central to good project management.

Geographical Considerations

Work by Count Me In grantees in most cities outside Cook County appears to have been less intensive

than the tightly organized, focused, and, in some cases, coordinated efforts that took place in many

Chicago neighborhoods and suburbs. Funders were handicapped by knowing less about most of the

communities outside Cook County and about the nonprofits working there. There, fewer organizations

using community organizing exist, and it’s possible that some good prospects were never identified to

receive the RFP18. It also is possible that these nonprofits were hit harder and sooner by the recession,

public funding cuts, and increased demand, and thus may have had less organizational capacity. To

retain a statewide focus, include grantmakers that fund across Illinois, and make best use of dollars, in

the future funders might consider concentrating funding in fewer places, to organizations that have run

successful campaigns to increase civic participation.

Alternately, given the outsized impact that Count Me In grantees appears to have had in Chicago and the

disproportionate percentage of the state’s total population and hard-to-count areas there, it may be

most sensible for grantmakers to focus all grants in Chicago in future census funding.

Plan Ahead to Translate Results

The success of the Initiative is evident in the participation rates where nonprofits were funded, but it

would have been compelling to be able to describe the value of the efforts, in numbers of more people

counted and more federal dollars secured. We were unable to identify a credible way to quantify

impact. In the future, earlier consideration of this might be fruitful.

Fund National Resources for Funders

In 2009, funders outside Illinois supported the national Funders Census Initiative, an early national

census partner on behalf of the broader philanthropic community. It made consultation available to

grantmakers, through biweekly calls and on demand. It is questionable whether the Illinois Initiative

would have been created without that unparalleled knowledge, and as reflected above, the ongoing

consultation provided by O’Hare and Lowenthal was invaluable throughout the Initiative. If funding is

needed for 2020, it would behoove Illinois funders to contribute. This could include support to

underwrite the consultants’ engagement with the Bureau, to help it better partner with the nonprofit

sector in 2020.

This report has documented and reflected on the workings, impact, and lessons learned by the Illinois

Funders Census Initiative, between the fall of 2008 and December 2010, in hopes that grantmakers and

community nonprofits will benefit now and in later decennial censuses. It serves as the final grant

report to the ten grantmaking partners to the Initiative.

18

Lists of community foundations and community action agencies seemed the most promising, but produced few responses. A state-wide effort by Grand Victoria Foundation to strengthen community foundations may bear fruit in 2020.

Page 21 of 21

METHODOLOGY

This report was written by the project manager, Alice Cottingham, and draws on 16 interviews,

graciously provided by the regional Census Bureau (1), Mayor Daley’s administration (1), funders (5),

and grantees (9), as well as from the progress and final reports of grantees. Thank you for your work

and for making the Illinois Funders Census Initiative a success. Your impact will be felt for the next

decade.

Comparative data about the outcome of the Count Me In grantees’ work were compiled by the Chicago

Metropolitan Agency for Planning, the Chicago Mayor’s Office, Sims, and the project manager.

Interviewees:

Ellisa Johnson, National Partnership Specialist, U.S. Census Bureau

Kate McAdams, Assistant to the Mayor, Office of the Mayor, City of Chicago

Deborah Bennett, Senior Program Officer, Polk Bros. Foundation

Gretchen Crosby Sims, Director of Strategic Initiatives, Joyce Foundation

Ngoan Le, Vice President of Program, Chicago Community Trust

Nora Moreno Cargie, Director Global Corporate Citizenship, The Boeing Company

Elspeth Revere, Vice President, General Program, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur

Foundation

Rebecca Burgstahler, Planning Specialist, and Elizabeth Lough, I&A Team Leader and Red Tape

Cutter Specialist, AgeOptions

Tameeka Christian, New Communities Program Organizer and Marlon Ryals, Census Project

Manager , Lawndale Christian Development Corporation

Flavia Jimenez, Director, New Americans Initiative, and Monica Staczuk, Field Coordinator,

Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights

Ann M. Locke, Director of Health Initiatives, Springfield Urban League

Sarah Loffman, Safety Net Works Coordinator

Christian Mitchell, Organizer, Southside Organized for Unity and Liberation

Josina Morita, Executive Coordinator, United Congress of Community and Religious

Organizations

Josh Norek, Deputy Director, Voto Latino

Scott Kane Stukel, Manager, Local Programs, Center for Economic Progress