a

GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to Congressional Addressees

July 2002 2000 CENSUS

Refinements to Full 

Count Review 

Program Could 

Improve Future Data 

Quality

GAO-02-562
Page i GAO-02-562 2000 Census

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Scope and Methodology 4

Background 5

The Numbers and Kinds of Issues Identified During Full Count

Review 6

The Bureau Resolved Few Issues Prior to Releasing Public Law

Data 8

Lessons Learned That Can Inform Future Data Clearance Reviews 9

Conclusions 12

Recommendations for Executive Action 13

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 13

Appendix I Disposition of Data Issues Identified During Full

Count Review by State 15

Appendix II Comments From the Department of Commerce 17

Appendix III GAO Products on the Results of the 2000 Census and

Lessons Learned for a More Cost-Effective Census in

2010 20

Tables

Table 1: Types of Issues Flagged During Full Count Review 7

Table 2: Disposition of Data Issues Identified During Full Count

Review 9

Contents
Page 1 GAO-02-562 2000 Census

July 3, 2002

The Honorable Henry A. Waxman

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Government Reform

House of Representatives

The Honorable William Lacy Clay, Jr.

The Honorable Carolyn B. Maloney

House of Representatives

Demographic Full Count Review was one of a number of quality assurance

programs the Bureau of the Census developed for the 2000 decennial

headcount to help ensure the completeness and accuracy of census data.

Analysts were to identify, investigate, and document suspected data

discrepancies or “issues” in order to clear census data files and products

for subsequent processing or public release. Bureau reviewers were to

determine whether and how to correct the data by weighing quality

improvements against time and budget constraints.

According to bureau officials, because the bureau lacked sufficient staff to

conduct Full Count Review on its own, it contracted out some of the

analysts’ work to members of the Federal-State Cooperative Program for

Population Estimates (FSCPE), an organization composed of state

demographers that, since its inception in 1973, has worked with the

bureau to ensure accurate state and local population estimates. The

bureau believed that FSCPE members’ knowledge of the demographic

characteristics of their respective states could help the bureau review data

files and products, including politically sensitive apportionment and

redistricting data files known as public law data.1

This letter responds to your request to review the FSCPE members’

participation in the Full Count Review program. As agreed with your

 1

 The Census Act (13 USC sec. 141(a,b)) requires the Secretary of Commerce to deliver

state population counts to the President within 9 months after the census date (for the 2000

Census, this meant no later than December 31, 2000). State population counts are used to

reapportion seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. The Census Act also requires the

Secretary of Commerce to send census population tabulations to the states no later than 1

year after the April 1 decennial census date (13 USC sec. 141 (c)). These numbers are used

for redistricting.

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548
Page 2 GAO-02-562 2000 Census

offices, we provide information on (1) the number and kinds of data issues

identified by FSCPE members and bureau analysts, (2) how the bureau

used the information developed during Full Count Review, and (3) lessons

learned from the conduct of Full Count Review that can help the bureau

plan for the 2010 Census. This report is the latest in a series of reviews that

examine the results of key census-taking operations and highlight

opportunities for reform (see app. III for a list of products issued to date).

FSCPE members documented 1,402 data issues, which was about 29

percent of the 4,809 issues identified by both FSCPE and bureau analysts

during Full Count Review. Of the 4,809 issues, 1,599 (33 percent) dealt

with “group quarters,” where the location or population counts for prisons,

nursing homes, dormitories, and other group living facilities differed from

what analysts expected. Of the 1,599 group quarters issues, FSCPE

members identified 567 (35 percent). Discrepancies relating to housing

unit counts, population data, and demographic characteristics accounted

for 1,150 issues (24 percent), 375 of which (33 percent) were identified by

FSCPE members. The bureau was unable to classify 2,060 issues (43

percent) because of insufficient documentation.

According to bureau officials, 5 of the 4,809 issues identified during Full

Count Review were corrected prior to the December 31, 2000, release of

apportionment data, and the April 1, 2001, release of redistricting data. All

five were group quarters issues where the bureau had the correct

population count for each facility but placed them in the wrong locations.

The “misplaced” group quarters included a military base, a federal medical

center, and multiple facilities at two prisons and a college. The bureau was

able to correct these issues because FSCPE members identified them early

in the Full Count Review process and thoroughly documented them so

that they did not require additional research or field verification. Because

the bureau lacked the time and field staff from its regional offices to do

any further investigative work, the 4,804 remaining issues went unresolved

prior to the release of the redistricting data. As a result, uncertainties

surround the accuracy of the census data for the affected localities.

Overall, of the 4,809 issues identified during Full Count Review, 4,267 (89

percent) were not subjected to further investigation by the bureau in large

part because of insufficient documentation. The bureau plans to review

537 issues as part of a subsequent effort called the Count Question

Resolution (CQR) program, which the bureau developed to respond to

challenges to the census data brought by state, local, or tribal governments

(see app. I for the disposition of Full Count Review data issues by state).

Results in Brief
Page 3 GAO-02-562 2000 Census

The bureau’s preliminary plans for the 2010 Census include a Full Count

Review program. Our examination identified several areas where

improvements are warranted. Foremost among these is that it will be

important for the bureau to investigate and resolve a larger number of

issues prior to the release of the public law data. We found three factors

that limited the bureau’s ability to do so for the 2000 Census. First, bureau

officials said that correcting individual issues was beyond the scope of the

Full Count Review program. They noted that the program was developed

in February 1999, just 14 months prior to Census Day 2000 and, as a result,

the bureau was unable to test the program, or integrate it with other

census operations and units that could have investigated the issues and

made corrections.

Second, the bureau’s requirements for documenting data issues were not

clearly defined. As a result, there was considerable variation in the quality

of the documentation analysts used to support issues, and in a number of

cases, the bureau had difficulty determining the precise nature of an issue,

or if in fact an issue even existed.

A third, and related item that limited the bureau’s ability to resolve a larger

number of issues was the fact that the bureau had no mechanism for

managing its workload. Unlike the CQR program where the bureau

requires specific documentation before committing resources to

investigate local issues, the Full Count Review program had no filter for

screening submissions. Had the bureau first categorized issues based on

the quality and precision of the documentation provided, the bureau could

have prioritized its investigative workload and perhaps reconciled a larger

number of data issues.

Another area where there is room for improvement concerns the

consistency and clarity of the Full Count Review program’s objectives. For

example, training materials noted that one purpose of the Full Count

Review program was to document issues and “fix what can be fixed.”

However, this conflicts with statements from bureau managers that

correcting issues was outside the scope of the Full Count Review program.

The different messages may have raised FSCPE members’ expectations

that the bureau was going to correct a larger number of data issues than it

actually did.

That the apportionment and redistricting data were released with around

4,800 unresolved data issues of unknown validity, magnitude, and impact

is cause for concern. The bureau did not fully exploit the Full Count

Review program’s potential, and missed an opportunity to verify and
Page 4 GAO-02-562 2000 Census

possibly improve the quality of the public law data. To help develop the

Full Count Review program into a more effective tool for enhancing data

quality in the future, as well as to make better use of FSCPE members’

input, we recommend that the Secretary of Commerce explore ways of

reconciling a larger number of data issues prior to the release of public

law data. Specific steps include

(1) planning the Full Count Review program early in the census cycle and

testing procedures under conditions as close to the actual census as

possible,

(2) integrating the Full Count Review program with other census

organizational units and operations to ensure the bureau has sufficient

time and field support to investigate issues,

(3) developing clear guidelines on the minimum documentation needed for

the bureau to investigate individual data issues,

(4) categorizing issues on the basis of the quality and precision of the

documentation, and investigating first those issues that are best

documented and thus more easily resolved, and

(5) exploring the feasibility of using staff from the bureau’s regional

offices to help investigate data issues in the field prior to the release of

public law data.

The Secretary of Commerce should also ensure that the bureau clarifies

and consistently communicates to FSCPE members the objectives of the

Full Count Review program and how the bureau plans to use the

information derived from it.

The Secretary of Commerce forwarded written comments from the Bureau

of the Census on a draft of this report (see app. II). The bureau concurred

with all of our recommendations and had no comments on them. The

bureau also provided minor technical corrections that we incorporated in

our report as appropriate.

To obtain information on the number and kinds of issues identified by the

FSCPE and bureau analysts and to determine how the bureau used the

information developed during the Full Count Review program, we

analyzed the work papers submitted by FSCPE members and other

participants in the Full Count Review program. We also analyzed data

Scope and

Methodology
Page 5 GAO-02-562 2000 Census

from the bureau’s Count Review Information System, a database that the

bureau used to track issues flagged during the review process. We did not

independently verify the information it contained.

To identify lessons learned for future improvements, we examined bureau

training manuals, statements of work, process models, and other

documents that described the objectives, processes, and decision-making

criteria. We also reviewed the results of a survey the bureau conducted of

FSCPE members that asked them to rate their experience with Full Count

Review processes and tools, bureau staff, and the overall effectiveness of

the Full Count Review program. In addition, we interviewed managers in

the bureau’s Population Division and other officials responsible for

implementing the Full Count Review program, as well as three FSCPE

members.

We performed our audit in Washington, D.C., and the bureau’s

headquarters in Suitland, Maryland, between May 2001 and April 2002. Our

work was done in accordance with generally accepted government

auditing standards.

On April 26, 2002, we requested comments on a draft of this report from

the Secretary of Commerce. The Secretary forwarded the bureau’s written

comments on June 11, 2002 (see app. II). We address them in the “Agency

Comments and Evaluation” section of this report.

Accurate census results are critical because the data are used to

reapportion seats in the House of Representatives and for congressional

redistricting. Moreover, census data remain an important element in

allocating federal aid to state and local governments. With billions of

dollars at stake, the data are scrutinized intensely for accuracy.

To help ensure the accuracy of census data, the bureau conducted a

number of quality assurance programs throughout the course of the

census. One such program was the Full Count Review program, which was

designed to rapidly examine, rectify if possible, and clear census data files

and products for subsequent processing or public release. The bureau

expected data analysts to identify data discrepancies, anomalies, and other

data “issues” by checking the data for its overall reasonableness, as well as

for its consistency with historical and demographic data, and other census

data products. The Full Count Review program ran from June 2000

through March 2001.

Background
Page 6 GAO-02-562 2000 Census

According to bureau officials, because the bureau could not complete the

Full Count Review workload without a costly staff increase, some of the

analysts’ work was contracted to members of the FSCPE, an organization

composed of state demographers that works with the bureau to ensure

accurate state and local population estimates.

The bureau contracted with 53 FSCPE members who reviewed data for 39

states and Puerto Rico. Bureau employees reviewed data for the 11

remaining states and the District of Columbia without FSCPE

representation in Full Count Review. Bureau and FSCPE analysts were to

ensure that (1) group quarters were correctly placed or “geocoded” on

census maps, and that their population counts and demographic

characteristics appeared reasonable and (2) population counts of other

areas were in line with population estimates. They were to describe each

issue flagged and provide supporting documentation derived from bureau

resources and/or resources of the respective state government.

Additionally, bureau officials stated that staff from the regional offices

reviewed demographic data from the 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the

District of Columbia. They focused on identifying inconsistent

demographic characteristics and did not necessarily concentrate on any

one particular state or locality. The bureau reimbursed state governments

for wages and expenses FSCPE members incurred.

A separate set of employees from the bureau’s Population Division

assessed issues identified by Full Count Review analysts based on (1) the

adequacy of the documentation supporting each issue, and (2) whether or

not they believed the issue to be resolvable through follow-up research by

the bureau. Those issues deemed to have adequate documentation were

classified as a “group quarters,” “housing unit,” or “household” or “other”

issue. Bureau officials told us that the remaining issues could not be

categorized because the nature of the issue could not be determined from

the documentation.

Bureau data show that after reviewing census data for 39 states and Puerto

Rico, FSCPE members identified a total of 1,402 issues, or about 29

percent of the 4,809 issues collectively flagged during Full Count Review

(see table 1). Since the bureau has yet to resolve most of these issues, it is

not known whether they are necessarily errors.

The Numbers and

Kinds of Issues

Identified During Full

Count Review
Page 7 GAO-02-562 2000 Census

Table 1: Types of Issues Flagged During Full Count Review

Type of issue

Issues identified by

FSCPE members

Issues identified by

bureau personnel Total

Group quarters 567 1,032 1,599

Housing unit 203 276 479

Household 134 154 288

Other 38 345 383

No type assigned 460 1,600 2,060

Total 1,402 3,407 4,809

Note: 201 issues were placed in more than one category.

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data.

Table 1 also shows that group quarters issues were those most frequently

identified by the bureau, accounting for 1,599 of the 4,809 issues identified

(33 percent). Group quarters issues relate to suspected discrepancies in

the population counts and locations of prisons, dormitories, nursing

homes, and similar group living arrangements. Analysts also identified 479

housing unit issues (10 percent of the total), and 288 household issues (6

percent of the total). With housing unit issues, the count of occupied

housing units differed from what analysts expected while household

issues had population data for occupied residences that differed from

what analysts expected. There were also 383 issues (8 percent) that the

bureau classified as “other”. They contained questions concerning the

demographic characteristics of the data such as age, race, and gender. The

bureau was unable to classify 2,060 issues (43 percent). Bureau officials

told us that in these cases, analysts did not provide sufficient

documentation for the bureau to determine the nature of the issue.

According to bureau officials, bureau analysts identified a larger number

of issues than FSCPE members—and a far larger number of issues for

which the bureau could not assign a type—because bureau analysts used

an automated process that compared data from the 2000 Census to

independent benchmarks such as the 1990 Census, and flagged any

anomalies. This process alerted bureau officials that there were data

discrepancies, but did not indicate their nature. By comparison, FSCPE

members compared census data to administrative records and other data,

and were better able to document specific issues.

Examples of the three issue categories and how they were found include:

Group quarters issues: Analysts noticed that the group quarters population

count in a particular census tract of a large midwestern city appeared to
Page 8 GAO-02-562 2000 Census

be too high, while a neighboring tract had a correspondingly low group

quarters population count. By comparing state administrative records to

information obtained from bureau resources, analysts determined that

bureau data had placed college dormitories in the wrong tract.

Housing unit issues: An urban area had a large amount of redevelopment

since the 1990 census. As part of this, several condominiums and

apartment complexes were built which substantially increased the number

of housing units in a particular census tract. However, when the analyst

compared population data from the 1990 Census and 2000 Census, the

2000 Census did not appear to reflect this increase, and it was flagged.

Household issues: Data from the 2000 Census appeared to accurately

reflect the large amount of new house construction that had taken place

within a specific census tract. However, because the population count

differed from that indicated by other data sources, the analyst flagged it as

an issue to avoid undercounting the population.

Bureau officials told us that they used the Full Count Review program to

identify systemic errors such as those that could be produced by software

problems. None were found. The officials noted that the bureau generally

did not use the Full Count Review program to resolve individual issues.

According to bureau officials, the bureau corrected data for 5 of the 4,809

issues prior to the December 31, 2000, release of reapportionment data

and the April 1, 2001, release of redistricting data.

According to bureau officials, FSCPE members identified the five issues,

all of which involved group quarters that were placed in the wrong

locations, but the population counts were correct. They included (1) a

military base in Nevada, (2) 10 facilities at a college in Wisconsin, (3) 9

facilities at a prison in New York City, (4) 14 facilities at a Washington

prison, and (5) a federal medical center in Massachusetts.

Bureau officials said that the bureau was able to correct these issues for

two reasons. First, FSCPE analysts found them early in the Full Count

Review program, while the bureau was processing a key geographic data

file and was thus able to incorporate the corrections before the data were

finalized. Second, the FSCPE analysts had thoroughly documented the

issues and recommended how the bureau should correct the errors. The

five errors did not require additional research or field verification.

The Bureau Resolved

Few Issues Prior to

Releasing Public Law

Data
Page 9 GAO-02-562 2000 Census

Bureau officials told us that they lacked the time to research the remaining

issues, as well as field staff to inspect purported discrepancies prior to the

release of the public law data. As a result, the bureau missed an important

opportunity to verify and possibly improve the quality of the data, and

instead the apportionment and redistricting data were released with more

than 4,800 unresolved issues. Until these issues are resolved, uncertainties

will surround the accuracy of the census data for the affected localities.

Some of the issues might be resolved under the CQR program, which the

bureau designed to respond to challenges to housing unit and group

quarters population counts received from state, local, or tribal

governments.2

 However, as shown in table 2, of the 4,804 issues remaining

after Full Count Review, 1,994 (42 percent) were referred to CQR, and of

these, 537 (11 percent) were accepted for further investigation. The

remaining 1,457 issues referred to CQR did not meet the bureau’s

documentation requirements and consequently, the bureau took no further

action on them (see app. 1 for the disposition of Full Count Review data

issues by state).

Table 2: Disposition of Data Issues Identified During Full Count Review

Action Number of issues

Identified during Full Count Review 4,809

Corrected during Full Count Review 5

Identified during Full Count Review but not referred to CQR 2,810

Referred to CQR 1,994

 Accepted by CQR 537

 Rejected by CQR 1,457

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data.

The overall results of the Full Count Review program and FSCPE

members’ participation appear to be mixed. On the one hand, the bureau

reported that the Full Count Review program was successful in that it met

a number of performance goals. For example, the bureau reported that the

Full Count Review program was comprehensive in its review of geography

and content, and was completed in time to release the public law data on

schedule.

 2

 CQR began in late June 2001, and is scheduled to end in September 2003.

Lessons Learned That

Can Inform Future

Data Clearance

Reviews
Page 10 GAO-02-562 2000 Census

Moreover, between January and February 2001, the bureau surveyed the

40 entities that participated in Full Count Review and the results suggest

that most FSCPE members were satisfied with their Full Count Review

experience. For example, respondents indicated that they were generally

satisfied with such aspects of the program as its processes and technical

tools, bureau staff, and the overall effectiveness of the review in terms of

positioning states to use and understand census data. In addition, bureau

officials believe the Full Count Review program benefited from FSCPE

members’ local demographic knowledge.

Nevertheless, our review of the Full Count Review program highlighted

several areas where there is room for future improvement. It will be

important for the bureau to address these shortcomings as its preliminary

plans call for a similar operation as part of the 2010 Census. According to

bureau officials, the bureau plans to include a Full Count Review program

in census tests it expects to conduct later in the decade.

Foremost among the areas in need of improvement is resolving, to the

extent practical, a larger number of data issues prior to the release of

apportionment data by December 31 of the census year, and redistricting

data by April 1 of the following year. We found three factors that limited

the bureau’s ability to do so.

First, according to bureau officials, resolving individual issues was outside

the scope of the Full Count Review program. They explained that the

program was poorly integrated with other census operations and units that

could have investigated the issues and corrected the data if warranted.

This was because the Full Count Review program, with FSCPE

participation, was not conceived until February 1999, which was

extremely late in the census cycle, coming just 14 months before Census

Day, April 1, 2000.

The timing of the decision stemmed from the Supreme Court’s January

1999 ruling3

 that prohibited the bureau from using statistical sampling for

purposes of congressional apportionment (the bureau originally planned a

“one-number” census that would have integrated the results of a sample

survey with the traditional census to provide one adjusted set of census

numbers). Faced with the larger workload of reviewing two sets of data—

adjusted and unadjusted—the bureau decided to enlist the help of FSCPE

 3 Department of Commerce v. United States House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316 (1999).
Page 11 GAO-02-562 2000 Census

members in order to meet the deadlines for releasing the public law data.

Additionally, the bureau’s decision came after the 1998 dress rehearsal for

the 2000 Census, which meant that the bureau had no opportunity to test

the Full Count Review program in an operational environment.

Bureau officials explained that if more time or staff were available in the

future, it would be possible to correct a larger number of individual issues

prior to the release of the public law data. They noted that field staff

would be needed to help verify issues, and the effort would require close

coordination with several bureau units.

A second factor that affected the bureau’s ability to correct a larger

number of issues was that the bureau’s requirements for documenting data

issues were not clearly defined. For example, the training materials we

examined did not provide any specific guidance on the type of evidence

analysts needed to support data issues. Instead, the training materials told

analysts to supply as much supporting information as necessary. This

could help explain the variation that we observed in the quality of the

documentation analysts provided. Indeed, while some analysts provided

only minimal data, others supported issues with state and local

administrative records, historical data, photographs, and maps. In some

cases, the bureau had difficulty determining the precise nature of an issue

or if in fact an issue even existed.

In contrast, the CQR program provides comprehensive guidelines on the

documentation required for making submissions. The guidance available

on the bureau’s CQR web site notes that before the bureau will investigate

concerns raised by government and tribal officials, such officials must first

supply specific information. The guidance then details the information

needed to support boundary corrections, geocoding and coverage

corrections, and group quarters population corrections.

A third, and related factor that affected the bureau’s ability to resolve a

larger number of issues stemmed from the fact that the bureau had no

mechanism for managing the Full Count Review workload. Unlike the

CQR program, where the bureau required local governments to provide

specific documentation before it would commit resources to investigate

local data issues, the Full Count Review program had no filter for

screening submissions based on the quality of the documentation. Better

guidance on documenting issues for the Full Count Review program could

make the bureau’s follow-up investigations more efficient.
Page 12 GAO-02-562 2000 Census

Another area where there is room for improvement concerns the

consistency and clarity in which the bureau communicated the objectives

of the Full Count Review program and how the bureau planned to use

analysts’ input. For example, materials used to train FSCPE members

noted that one purpose of Full Count Review was to document issues and

“fix what can be fixed.” However, this appears to be inconsistent with

statements made by bureau officials, who noted that resolving individual

issues was beyond the scope of the Full Count Review program. Moreover,

according to one bureau official, it was not clear internally what was

meant by “fix what can be fixed.”

None of the bureau’s documentation or training manuals that we reviewed

explicitly stated that the bureau would only check for systemic errors.

Because of the inconsistent message on the purpose of the Full Count

Review program, the bureau may have set up the expectation that a larger

number of issues would be resolved during Full Count Review. For

example, one FSCPE member told us that he expected FSCPE members

would identify any geographic discrepancies that contrasted with

preliminary census data, and the bureau would investigate and make the

necessary changes. He noted that both he and his staff were very

“dismayed” to find out that certain discrepancies involving group quarters

were not resolved prior to the release of the public law data. Another

FSCPE member told us that participants were strongly motivated by the

expectation that everything would be done to correct the census data.

The Full Count Review program was one of a series of quality assurance

efforts the bureau implemented throughout the census that helped ensure

the bureau released accurate data. Moreover, FSCPE members’

participation, and specifically their expertise and knowledge of local

geography, demographics, and housing arrangements, had the potential to

identify data issues that the bureau might have otherwise missed.

However, the fact that the apportionment and redistricting data were

released with around 4,800 unresolved data issues of unknown validity,

magnitude, and impact, is cause for concern, and indicates that the bureau

missed an opportunity to verify and possibly improve the quality of the

public law data. Given the importance of accurate census data and the

resources that bureau staff and FSCPE members invest in the Full Count

Review program, it will be important for the bureau to explore how to

make better use of the program for correcting potential errors in census

data in the future.

Conclusions
Page 13 GAO-02-562 2000 Census

It will also be important for the bureau to clarify the purpose of the Full

Count Review program and convey that purpose clearly and consistently

to FSCPE members. Doing so could help ensure that the bureau meets

FSCPE members’ expectations.

To help ensure the accuracy and completeness of census data and take full

advantage of the Full Count Review program and FSCPE members’

participation, we recommend that the Secretary of Commerce direct the

bureau to develop ways to resolve a larger number of data issues prior to

the release of the public law data. Specifically, consideration should be

given to

(1) planning the Full Count Review program early in the census cycle and

testing procedures under conditions as close to the actual census as

possible,

(2) integrating the Full Count Review program with other census

organizational units and operations to ensure the bureau has sufficient

time and field support to investigate issues,

(3) developing clear guidelines on the minimum documentation needed for

the bureau to investigate individual data issues,

(4) categorizing issues on the basis of the quality and precision of the

documentation, and investigating first those issues that are best

documented and thus more easily resolved, and

(5) exploring the feasibility of using staff from the bureau’s regional

offices to help investigate data issues in the field prior to the release of

public law data.

Moreover, to ensure no expectation gaps develop between the bureau and

FSCPE members, the Secretary of Commerce should also ensure that the

bureau clarifies and consistently communicates to participants the

objectives of the Full Count Review program and how the bureau plans to

use the information derived from it.

The Secretary of Commerce forwarded written comments from the Bureau

of the Census on a draft of this report (see app. II). The bureau concurred

with all of our recommendations and had no comments on them. The

Recommendations for

Executive Action

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation
Page 14 GAO-02-562 2000 Census

bureau also provided minor technical corrections that we incorporated in

our report as appropriate.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from its

issue date. At that time, we will send copies to other interested

congressional committees, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Director of

the Bureau of the Census. Copies will be made available to others upon

request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO

Web site at http://www.gao.gov. Corinna Wengryn, Ty Mitchell, and

Robert Goldenkoff made major contributions to this report. If you have

any questions concerning this report, please contact me on (202) 512-6806.

Patricia A. Dalton

Director

Strategic Issues
Appendix I: Disposition of Data Issues

Identified During Full Count Review by State

Page 15 GAO-02-562 2000 Census

State

Issues

identified by

FSCPE

members

Issues identified

by bureau

personnel

Total accepted for

research by Count

Question Resolution

program

Alabama 18 54 3

Alaska 21 77 4

Arizona 17 57 5

Arkansas 65 72 16

California 20 71 12

Colorado 36 29 5

Connecticut 0 70 16

Delaware 0 67 0

District of Columbia 18 61 1

Florida 39 61 14

Georgia 23 42 6

Hawaii 0 127 5

Idaho 0 62 2

Illinois 112 52 15

Indiana 21 55 9

Iowa 71 38 21

Kansas 19 46 6

Kentucky 16 60 11

Louisiana 25 66 3

Maine 0 67 1

Maryland 8 39 0

Massachusetts 29 38 14

Michigan 23 51 32

Minnesota 69 44 30

Mississippi 0 123 1

Missouri 21 37 7

Montana 27 69 12

Nebraska 0 93 20

Nevada 29 40 5

New Hampshire 0 39 0

New Jersey 58 52 13

New Mexico 32 79 4

New York 33 100 33

North Carolina 0 149 31

North Dakota 19 47 11

Ohio 0 174 25

Oklahoma 14 41 13

Oregon 7 57 3

Pennsylvania 51 56 12

Appendix I: Disposition of Data Issues

Identified During Full Count Review by State
Appendix I: Disposition of Data Issues

Identified During Full Count Review by State

Page 16 GAO-02-562 2000 Census

State

Issues

identified by

FSCPE

members

Issues identified

by bureau

personnel

Total accepted for

research by Count

Question Resolution

program

Puerto Rico 20 57 18

Rhode Island 25 36 7

South Carolina 43 51 11

South Dakota 33 50 11

Tennessee 31 55 7

Texas 86 93 1

Utah 19 59 8

Vermont 112 35 12

Virginia 0 135 8

Washington 59 52 8

West Virginia 7 59 4

Wisconsin 0 124 11

Wyoming 26 39 10

Total 1,402 3,407 537

Note: The table includes 201 issues that were placed in more than one issue category (the bureau

had five categories of issues depending on the nature of the discrepancy).

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data.
Appendix II: Comments From the

Department of Commerce

Page 17 GAO-02-562 2000 Census

Appendix II: Comments From the

Department of Commerce
Appendix II: Comments From the

Department of Commerce

Page 18 GAO-02-562 2000 Census
Appendix II: Comments From the

Department of Commerce

Page 19 GAO-02-562 2000 Census
Appendix III: GAO Products on the Results of

the 2000 Census and Lessons Learned for a

More Cost-Effective Census in 2010

Page 20 GAO-02-562 2000 Census

U.S. General Accounting Office. 2000 Census: Coverage Evaluation

Matching Implemented As Planned, but Census Bureau Should Evaluate

Lessons Learned. GAO-02-297. Washington, D.C.: March 14, 2002.

U.S. General Accounting Office. 2000 Census: Best Practices and

Lessons Learned for a More Cost-Effective Nonresponse Follow-Up. GAO02-196. Washington, D.C.: February 11, 2002.

U.S. General Accounting Office. 2000 Census: Coverage Evaluation

Interviewing Overcame Challenges, but Further Research Needed. GAO02-26. Washington, D.C.: December 31, 2001.

U.S. General Accounting Office. 2000 Census: Analysis of Fiscal Year

2000 Budget and Internal Control Weaknesses at the U.S. Census

Bureau. GAO-02-30. Washington, D.C.: December 28, 2001.

U.S. General Accounting Office. 2000 Census: Significant Increase in

Cost Per Housing Unit Compared to 1990 Census. GAO-02-31.

Washington, D.C.: December 11, 2001.

U.S. General Accounting Office. 2000 Census: Better Productivity Data

Needed for Future Planning and Budgeting. GAO-02-4. Washington, D.C.:

October 4, 2001.

U.S. General Accounting Office. 2000 Census: Review of Partnership

Program Highlights Best Practices for Future Operations. GAO-01-579.

Washington, D.C.: August 20, 2001.

U.S. General Accounting Office. Decennial Censuses: Historical Data on

Enumerator Productivity Are Limited. GAO-01-208R. Washington, D.C.:

January 5, 2001.

U.S. General Accounting Office. 2000 Census: Information on Shortand Long-Form Response Rates. GAO/GGD-00-127R. Washington, D.C.:

June 7, 2000.

Appendix III: GAO Products on the Results

of the 2000 Census and Lessons Learned for a

More Cost-Effective Census in 2010

(450069)
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, exists to

support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help

improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the

American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal

programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other

assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding

decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values

of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,

including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail

this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to daily

E-mail alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading.

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A

check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents.

GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a

single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000

TDD: (202) 512-2537

Fax: (202) 512-6061

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149

Washington, D.C. 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of

GAO Reports and

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in

Federal Programs

Public Affairs