INFORMATION 

TECHNOLOGY

Census Bureau Needs 

to Implement Key 

Management Practices

Report to Congressional Requesters

September 2012

GAO-12-915

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-12-915, a report to 

congressional requesters

September 2012

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 

Census Bureau Needs to Implement Key 

Management Practices

Why GAO Did This Study

The 2010 Decennial Census, at a cost 

of approximately $13 billion, was the 

most expensive headcount in our 

nation’s history. Prior to the 2010 

Decennial Census, the Census Bureau 

experienced significant challenges in 

managing its information systems 

leading to cost overruns and 

performance shortfalls which increased 

the cost of the 2010 census by almost 

$3 billion. Given the bureau’s extensive 

use of IT in collecting, analyzing, and 

distributing information, GAO was 

asked to determine to what extent the 

bureau has developed (1) effective 

policies, procedures, and processes for 

managing IT investments and system 

development; and (2) effective 

practices for acquiring and maintaining 

IT human capital skills. To address 

these objectives, GAO identified 

leading practices in these areas, 

reviewed bureau policies and 

procedures to determine whether they 

followed these practices, and 

interviewed bureau officials.

What GAO Recommends

To strengthen and improve the Census 

Bureau’s management of IT, GAO 

recommends that the Acting Secretary 

of Commerce take eight actions, 

including improvements to guidance for 

its planned IT investment process, a 

consistent requirements development 

and management process, an 

implementation plan and time frames 

for its investment management 

process and system development 

methodology, and coordination of IT 

workforce planning efforts. In written 

comments, the Acting Secretary 

concurred with our recommendations 

and described steps the bureau was 

taking to implement them.

What GAO Found

The U.S. Census Bureau (Census Bureau) has drafted a new investment 

management plan, system development methodology, and requirements 

development and management processes to improve its ability to manage 

information technology (IT) investments and system development, but additional 

work is needed to ensure these processes are effective and successfully 

implemented across the bureau. GAO and others have identified the importance 

of implementing critical processes within an agency to allow it to select, control, 

and evaluate its IT investments and effectively manage system development. 

The bureau has developed a new draft investment management plan which 

contains policies and guidance for managing IT projects; however, the plan does 

not explain when investments with cost or schedule variances should be 

escalated to higher-level boards for review, or when managers should provide 

updated investment information to a planned bureau-wide tracking tool. The 

bureau has also developed a new system development methodology guide, but 

the guide has critical gaps. For example, although there are five development

process models allowed, including the traditional sequential approach and newer 

more iterative approaches, the guide does not explain how to adapt processes 

and related work products for newer iterative approaches. Furthermore, while the 

bureau has developed new draft requirements development and management 

processes for system development within individual bureau directorates, it has 

not established a consistent process bureau-wide as GAO recommended in 

2005. Lack of a consistent bureau-wide process contributed to significant cost 

and performance issues in the 2010 Decennial Census. Although the bureau 

plans to begin operational development for the 2020 Decennial Census in fiscal 

year 2015, it has not finalized plans for implementing its new investment 

management and system development processes across the bureau. Until the 

bureau takes additional action to finalize and implement consistent, bureau-wide 

processes, it faces the risk that IT governance issues that adversely affected the 

2010 Decennial Census will also impact the 2020 Decennial Census.

The bureau has begun to take steps to improve its IT workforce planning; 

however, many key practices consistent with principles for effective workforce 

planning remain to be put in place. In particular, there is no bureau-wide 

coordination of these workforce planning efforts. Each directorate is responsible 

for its own IT workforce planning and the bureau has not established any efforts 

to coordinate activities among directorates. While the bureau identified mission 

critical IT occupations and began an assessment of select mission critical 

competencies in June 2011, it does not plan to perform a bureau-wide IT 

competency assessment until the fall of 2012. Until bureau-wide IT workforce 

planning processes are established and the bureau develops specific plans to 

conduct an IT skills inventory and gap analysis, the bureau faces the risk that the 

appropriate IT workforce will not be in place to effectively develop and manage 

multimillion dollar investments in information systems and technology that will be 

needed for the 2020 Decennial Census.

View GAO-12-915. For more information, 

contact David A. Powner at (202) 512-9286 or 

pownerd@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-12-915 Census Management Practices

Letter 1 

Background 2

Census Bureau Has Begun to Improve Its Investment Management 

and System Development Processes, but Has Not Finalized 

Plans for Implementation 17

Census Bureau Does Not Have Bureau-wide Workforce Planning 

Practices for IT Staff 29

Conclusions 31

Recommendations for Executive Action 32

Agency Comments 33

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 35

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Commerce 38

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 43

Tables

Table 1: Assessment of Census Bureau’s Enterprise Investment 

Management Plan against the ITIM Framework 19

Table 2: Census Bureau’s Implementation of the Investment 

Management Plan and System Development Methodology 26

Table 3: Census Bureau’s IT Workforce Planning Practices 29

Figures

Figure 1: Organizational Chart of the Census Bureau 3

Figure 2: Fundamental Phases of the IT Investment Approach 6

Figure 3: The Five Information Technology Investment 

Management Stages of Maturity with Critical Processes 7

Figure 4: Agile Development Compared with Traditional Waterfall 

Development 10

Contents
Page ii GAO-12-915 Census Management Practices

Abbreviations

Census Bureau U.S. Census Bureau

CMMI Capability Maturity Model Integration

IT information technology

ITIM information technology investment management

SEI Software Engineering Institute 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-12-915 Census Management Practices

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

September 18, 2012

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper

Chairman

The Honorable Scott P. Brown

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management,

 Government Information, Federal Services, 

 and International Security

Committee on Homeland Security 

 and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Danny K. Davis

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Health Care, District of Columbia, 

 Census, and the National Archives

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

House of Representatives

Providing current and relevant data about the economy and people of the 

United States is the mission of the U.S. Census Bureau (Census Bureau) 

of the Department of Commerce. The data collected are vital for 

determining reapportionment and redistricting of the congressional 

districts for the U.S. House of Representatives; realigning the boundaries 

of the legislative districts of each state; allocating money for federal 

financial assistance; and providing a social, demographic, and economic 

profile of the nation’s people to guide policy decisions at each level of 

government. To improve the coverage, accuracy, and efficiency of 

gathering data from the public, the Census Bureau relies on automation 

and information technology (IT).

Given the Census Bureau’s extensive use of IT in collecting, analyzing, 

and distributing information, you asked us to determine to what extent the 

Census Bureau has developed (1) effective policies, procedures, and 

processes for managing IT investments and system development; and (2) 

effective practices for acquiring and maintaining IT human capital skills.

To meet these objectives, we reviewed the bureau’s policies and 

procedures related to IT investment management, system development, 

and human capital management. We also interviewed bureau officials 

responsible for providing oversight in these areas to learn how the bureau 

 
 

Page 2 GAO-12-915 Census Management Practices

is implementing changes to those management processes. For more 

information on our scope and methodology, see appendix I.

We conducted this performance audit from February 2012 through 

September 2012 in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the 

audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 

basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We 

believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

The Census Bureau’s mission is to collect and provide comprehensive 

data about the nation’s people and economy. Core activities include 

conducting decennial, economic, and government censuses; conducting 

demographic and economic surveys; managing international 

demographic and socioeconomic databases; providing technical advisory 

services to foreign governments; and performing other activities such as 

producing official population estimates and projections.

The Census Bureau is part of the Department of Commerce and is in the 

department’s Economics and Statistics Administration, led by the Under 

Secretary for Economic Affairs. The Census Bureau is headed by a 

Director and is organized into directorates corresponding to key 

programmatic and administrative functions as depicted in figure 1.

Background 
 

Page 3 GAO-12-915 Census Management Practices

Figure 1: Organizational Chart of the Census Bureau

According to the bureau, while planning, taking, processing, and 

publishing the results of censuses and surveys still requires the work of 

thousands of people, advances over the years have been made in the 

speed of collection, analysis, and publication of data through the 

development of mechanical and electronic tools. For nearly 100 years, 

census data were tabulated by clerks who made tally marks or added 

columns of figures with a pen or a pencil. As the nation grew and there 

were more people, items, and characteristics to count, speedier tabulation 

methods had to be invented or the results of one census would not be 

processed before it was time for the next one. In 1880, the bureau used a 

“tabulating machine”—a wooden box in which a roll of paper was 

threaded past an opening where a clerk marked the tallies in various 

columns and then added up the marks when the roll was full—that made 

tabulating at least twice as fast as the previous manual process.

Role of IT at the Census 

Bureau
 

Page 4 GAO-12-915 Census Management Practices

By 1950, mechanical tabulating improved; its speed had increased to 

2,000 items per minute. In 1951, the first large-scale electronic computer, 

UNIVAC I, was designed and built specifically for the Census Bureau. 

This machine was able to tabulate 4,000 items per minute. From 1970 on, 

the bureau took advantage of new high-speed composers that converted 

the data on computer tape directly to words and numbers on off-set 

negative film used in publishing. Beginning in the mid-1980s, some 

statistics were made available on diskettes for use in microcomputers and 

users began to obtain statistics online. In the later 1980s, the bureau 

began testing CD-ROM (compact disk/read-only memory) laser disks as a 

medium for releasing data.

The 2000 Census demonstrated probably the biggest leap forward in the 

use of technology for collecting and disseminating data. According to the 

bureau, its previous response scanning system (which dated to the 

1950s) was replaced with optical character recognition technology, 

allowing the bureau to design a respondent-friendly (instead of machinefriendly) questionnaire in which write-in responses could also be captured 

electronically. In addition, the bureau’s previous online data system from 

the 1990s evolved into online data available through the Census Bureau’s 

website.1

The 2010 Decennial Census cost $13 billion and was the costliest U.S. 

census in history. One reason for the high cost was the increased use of 

paper-based processing over what was originally intended due to 

performance issues with key IT systems, which increased the cost of the 

census by up to $3 billion. The total cost of the census was 56 percent 

more than the $8.1 billion 2000 Decennial Census (in constant 2010 

dollars). Based on past trends, if the growth rate continues unchecked, 

the census could cost approximately $25 billion in 2020.

Further technological advances were made in the 2010 census 

through the use of handheld computers for certain parts of Census 

operations and integration of Global Positioning System information into 

Census Bureau maps. Although specific technical decisions for the 2020 

Census remain to be made, both ongoing Census operations and the 

next decennial census will be highly reliant on the effective use of 

information technology.

2

 

1

See 

For 2020, the 

http://www.census.gov. 

2

GAO, 2010 Census: Preliminary Lessons Learned Highlight the Need for Fundamental 

Reforms, GAO-11-496T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 6, 2011).
 

Page 5 GAO-12-915 Census Management Practices

bureau intends to focus on several measures to reduce costs, including 

better use of IT, but still is planning to spend roughly $12 to $18 billion to 

conduct the census.

To support its IT operations for all of its activities, including those related 

to decennial censuses, the Census Bureau reported that it plans to spend 

$384 million on major IT investments in fiscal year 2012. Of this, $130 

million is to be spent on systems managed by the IT Directorate and $254 

million is to be spent on systems managed in other directorates. To 

support these efforts, a bureau official from the Human Resource Division 

reported that as of July 2012, the bureau employed 1,148 IT staff among 

its approximately 14,000 employees.3 IT staff are spread throughout the 

bureau: the IT Directorate has 256 staff, Economic Programs has 262 

staff, the Decennial Census has 156 staff, Field Operations has 185 staff, 

and Demographic Programs has 123 staff.

GAO’s Information Technology Investment Management (ITIM) 

framework can be used by agencies to improve their organizational 

processes and measure progress in attaining them.4

 

3

The bureau defines IT staff as those staff with the Office of Personnel Management 

0391, 1550, or 2210 job series.

A central tenet of 

this framework is the select/control/evaluate model. Figure 2 illustrates 

the central components of this model.

4

GAO, Information Technology Investment Management: A Framework for Assessing and 

Improving Process Maturity (Version 1.1), GAO-04-394G (Washington, D.C.: March 

2004).

Overview of Investment 

Management and GAO’s IT 

Investment Management 

Maturity Framework
 

Page 6 GAO-12-915 Census Management Practices

Figure 2: Fundamental Phases of the IT Investment Approach

During the select phase the organization (1) identifies and analyzes each 

project’s risks and returns before committing significant funds to any 

project and (2) selects those IT projects that will best support its mission 

needs. This process should be repeated each time funds are allocated to 

projects, reselecting even ongoing investments as described below.

During the control phase the organization ensures that, as projects 

develop and investment expenditures continue, the project continues to 

meet mission needs at the expected levels of cost and risk. If the project 

is not meeting expectations or if problems have arisen, steps are quickly 

taken to address the deficiencies. If mission needs have changed, the 

organization is able to adjust its objectives for the project and 

appropriately modify expected project outcomes.

During the evaluate phase, actual versus expected results are compared 

after a project has been fully implemented. This is done to (1) assess the 

project’s impact on mission performance, (2) identify any changes or 

modifications to the project that may be needed, and (3) revise the 

investment management process based on lessons learned.

The ITIM framework consists of five progressive stages of maturity that 

an agency can achieve in its investment management capabilities. The 

maturity stages are cumulative; that is, in order to attain a higher stage, 

an agency must institutionalize all of the critical processes at the lower 

stages, in addition to the higher stage critical processes.
 

Page 7 GAO-12-915 Census Management Practices

The framework’s five maturity stages (see fig. 3) represent steps toward 

achieving stable and mature processes for managing IT investments. The 

successful attainment of each stage leads to improvement in the 

organization’s ability to manage its investments. With the exception of the 

first stage, each maturity stage is composed of critical processes that 

must be implemented and institutionalized. These critical processes are 

further broken down into key practices that describe the types of activities 

that an organization should be performing to successfully implement each 

critical process. It is not unusual for an organization to be performing key 

practices from more than one maturity stage at the same time. However, 

our research shows that agency efforts to improve investment 

management capabilities should focus on implementing all the lowerstage practices before addressing the higher-stage practices.

Figure 3: The Five Information Technology Investment Management Stages of 

Maturity with Critical Processes

Stage 2 critical processes lay the foundation by establishing successful, 

predictable, and repeatable investment control processes at the project 

level. Stage 3 is where the agency moves from project-centric processes 

to portfolio-based processes and evaluates potential investments 

according to how well they support the agency’s missions, strategies, and 

goals. Organizations implementing these Stage 2 and 3 practices have in 

place selection, control, and evaluation processes that are consistent with 
 

Page 8 GAO-12-915 Census Management Practices

the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996.5

The ITIM framework can be used to assess the maturity of an agency’s 

investment management processes and as a tool for organizational 

improvement. The overriding purpose of the framework is to encourage 

investment processes that promote business value and mission 

performance, reduce risk, and increase accountability and transparency 

in the decision-making process. We have used the framework in several 

of our evaluations and a number of agencies have adopted it.

Stages 4 and 5 require the use of 

evaluation techniques to continuously improve both investment processes 

and portfolios in order to achieve strategic outcomes.

6

Effective management of federal IT investments remains an ongoing 

challenge. In December 2010, the White House released a plan to reform 

federal IT management that includes greater attention to several of the 

management processes described in ITIM. The plan includes efforts to 

increase accountability for IT investments, strengthen IT program 

management, increase the authority of agency chief information officers, 

and strengthen the ability of agency investment review boards to oversee 

agency IT investments.

These 

agencies have used ITIM for purposes ranging from self-assessment to 

redesign of their IT investment management processes.

7

 

5

As relevant here, 40 U.S.C. § 11312.

6

GAO, Information Technology: DHS Needs to Further Define and Implement Its New 

Governance Process, GAO-12-818 (Washington, D.C.: July 25, 2012); Information 

Technology: IRS Has a Strong Oversight Process but Needs to Improve How It Continues 

Funding Ongoing Investments, GAO-11-587 (Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2011); 

Information Technology: HUD Needs to Better Define Commitments and Disclose Risks 

for Modernization Projects in Future Expenditure Plans, GAO-11-72 (Washington, D.C.: 

Nov. 23, 2010); Information Technology: HUD Needs to Strengthen Its Capacity to 

Manage and Modernize Its Environment, GAO-09-675 (Washington, D.C.: July 31, 2009);

Information Technology: FDA Needs to Establish Key Plans and Processes for Guiding 

Systems Modernization Efforts, GAO-09-523 (Washington D.C.: June 2, 2009); and

Information Technology: SSA Has Taken Key Steps for Managing Its Investments, but 

Needs to Strengthen Oversight and Fully Define Policies and Procedures, GAO-08-1020 

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 12, 2008). 

7

Office of Management and Budget, 25 Point Implementation Plan to Reform Federal 

Information Technology Management (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 9, 2010). 
 

Page 9 GAO-12-915 Census Management Practices

The decision to invest in IT often leads to the acquisition or development 

of IT systems. To manage that development, organizations often employ 

a system development methodology. There are several different 

methodologies that can be used to develop IT systems, which range from 

the traditional waterfall model to the spiral model and to iterative models 

such as the Agile model.

• The waterfall model begins with requirements development and 

continues sequentially through other phases—design, build, and 

test—using the output of one phase as the input to the next to develop 

a finished product at the end. This model allows the status of a 

development project to be easily identified and tracked based on the 

current phase of the project.

• The spiral model uses a risk-based approach to incrementally build a 

system by cycling through the four development phases. Using this 

model, each spiral, or incremental cycle, typically starts by 

determining the development objectives and scope for the increment. 

Next, alternative solutions are evaluated and risk management 

techniques are employed to identify and reduce risks. Then, a product 

for the increment (such as a prototype) is developed. Finally, the 

product is evaluated to determine whether the increment’s initial 

objectives have been met.

• The Agile model focuses on short-duration, small-scope 

development phases that produce segments of a functional product. 

This model operates with similar phases to the traditional waterfall 

model—requirements, design, build, and test—but uses a shorter 

development cycle to achieve multiple iterations in similar time 

frames. Recently, several agencies have tried Agile, as it calls for 

producing software in small, short increments. Shorter, more 

incremental approaches to IT development have been identified as 

having the potential to improve the way in which the federal 

government develops and implements IT. In a recent report, we 

identified 32 practices and approaches as effective for applying Agile 

software development methods to IT projects.8

 

8

GAO, Software Development: Effective Practices and Federal Challenges in Applying 

Agile Methods, 

Officials who have 

used Agile methods on federal projects generally agreed that these 

practices are effective. In addition, the Office of Management and 

GAO-12-681 (Washington, D.C.: July 27, 2012).

System Development 

Methodologies 
 

Page 10 GAO-12-915 Census Management Practices

Budget recently issued guidance that advocates the use of shorter 

delivery time frames,9

Figure 4: Agile Development Compared with Traditional Waterfall Development

an approach consistent with Agile. See figure 4 

for a comparison of the Agile and waterfall development methods.

According to the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) Capability Maturity 

Model Integration (CMMI) for Development, a noted reference for best 

practices in system life-cycle development processes, when establishing 

an organizational process, the organization should establish and maintain 

criteria and guidelines that can be tailored for a particular project based 

 

9

Office of Management and Budget, 25 Point Implementation Plan to Reform Federal 

Information Technology Management (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 9, 2010) and Immediate 

Review of Financial Systems IT Projects, M-10-26 (Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2010).
 

Page 11 GAO-12-915 Census Management Practices

on the development model chosen, and other issues, such as customer 

needs, cost, schedule, and technical difficulty.10

Also according to SEI, within a given system development model, a 

number of specific development activities should be addressed. These 

include requirements development and requirements management. 

Requirements development includes activities such as identifying 

desirable functionality and quality attributes through an analysis of 

scenarios with relevant stakeholders; analyzing and qualifying 

functionality required by end users; and partitioning requirements into 

groups based on established criteria such as similar functionality to 

facilitate and focus the requirements analysis. Requirements 

management provides management of the business and system 

requirements, and identification of inconsistencies among requirements 

and the project’s plans and work products.

A strategic approach to human capital management includes viewing 

personnel as assets whose value can be enhanced by investing in them. 

Such an approach enables an organization to use their people effectively 

and to determine how well they integrate human capital considerations 

into daily decision making and planning for mission results. It also helps 

organizations to remain aware of and be prepared for current and future 

needs as an organization, and ensure that personnel have the 

knowledge, skills, and abilities needed to pursue the mission of the 

organization.

In 2003, we identified a set of key practices for effective strategic human 

capital management, including workforce planning.11

 

10Software Engineering Institute, CMMI for Development, Version 1.3, CMU/SEI-2010-TR033 (Pittsburgh, Pa: November 2010).

These practices are 

based on our reports and testimonies, reviews of studies by leading 

workforce planning organizations, and interviews with officials from the 

Office of Personnel Management and other federal agencies. Strategic 

workforce planning addresses two critical needs: (1) aligning an 

organization’s human capital program with its current and emerging 

mission and programmatic goals and (2) developing long-term strategies 

11GAO, Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic Workforce Planning, 

GAO-04-39 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11, 2003).

GAO and Office of 

Personnel Management

Guidance Help Federal 

Agencies Strategically 

Manage Human Capital
 

Page 12 GAO-12-915 Census Management Practices

for acquiring, developing, and retaining staff to achieve programmatic

goals. While agency approaches to workforce planning will vary, we and 

the Office of Personnel Management have identified key practices in 

effective strategic workforce planning,12

• Align workforce planning with strategic planning and budget 

formulation.

six of which are:

• Involve top management, employees, and other stakeholders in 

developing, communicating, and implementing the strategic workforce 

plan.

• Identify the critical skills13 and competencies14

• Develop strategies that are tailored to address gaps in number, 

deployment, and alignment of human capital approaches for enabling 

and sustaining the contributions of all critical skills and competencies.

that will be needed to 

achieve current and future programmatic results.

• Build the capability needed to address administrative, educational, 

and other requirements important to support workforce planning 

strategies.

• Monitor and evaluate the agency’s progress toward its human 

capital goals and the contribution that human capital results have 

made toward achieving programmatic results.

 

12GAO-04-39; GAO, Workforce Planning: Interior, EPA, and the Forest Service Should 

Strengthen Linkages to Their Strategic Plans and Improve Evaluation, GAO-10-413 

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 31, 2010); and Office of Personnel Management, Human Capital 

Assessment and Accountability Framework— Systems, Standards, and Metrics 

(http://www.opm.gov/hcaaf_resource_center/). 

13The Chief Information Officers Council defines a skill as a granular or discrete ability 

related to a specific product or technology. 

14The Office of Personnel Management defines a competency as a measurable pattern of 

knowledge, skills, abilities, behaviors, and other characteristics that an individual needs to 

successfully perform a work role or occupational function. 
 

Page 13 GAO-12-915 Census Management Practices

We have previously reported on the challenges associated with 

implementing a new IT governance framework, such as the Census 

Bureau is trying to do.15 Implementing a new governance framework and 

system development methodology are challenging tasks that can be 

aided by having robust implementation plans. Such a plan is instrumental 

in helping agencies coordinate and guide improvement efforts. As we 

have previously reported, several steps are important for successfully 

implementing new organizational governance processes related to 

investment management and system development.16

• Have a commitment from agency leadership to putting the process in 

place. Buy-in of key stakeholders should be obtained to ensure that 

their perspectives are considered and to facilitate adoption. This 

includes obtaining top management support and creating forums for 

involving business representatives.

For example, 

organizations should:

• Select an implementation team and develop a detailed 

implementation plan that lays out a roadmap for implementing the 

new process. An effective implementation team should include key 

stakeholders from both business and IT components. An 

implementation plan should build on existing strengths and 

weaknesses; specify measurable goals, objectives, and milestones; 

specify needed resources; assign responsibility and accountability for 

accomplishing tasks; and be approved by senior-level management. 

On the other end, measures to assess progress in meeting the 

objectives of the implementation efforts should be developed and 

should include lessons learned.

• Perform pilot testing of the new process to evaluate the process and 

identify potential problems. Pilot testing is an effective—and usually 

necessary—tool for moving the agency successfully to full 

implementation. Pilot testing allows the agency to (1) evaluate the 

soundness of the proposed process in actual practice, (2) identify and 

 

15GAO, Information Technology: Treasury Needs to Strengthen Its Investment Board 

Operations and Oversight, GAO-07-865 (Washington, D.C.: July 23, 2007).

16GAO, Information Technology: DHS Needs to Further Define and Implement Its New 

Governance Processes, GAO-12-818 (Washington, D.C.: July 25, 2012); and Business 

Process Reengineering Assessment Guide, Version 3, GAO/AIMD-10.1.15 (Washington, 

D.C.: May 1997).

Activities for 

Implementing New 

Organizational Governance 

Processes
 

Page 14 GAO-12-915 Census Management Practices

correct problems with the new design, and (3) refine performance 

measures. Also, successful pilot testing will help strengthen support 

for full-scale implementation from employees, outside stakeholders, 

Congress, and the public, and help secure the funding needed for a 

smooth rollout.

• Develop a formal evaluation process to determine the effectiveness of 

the new process in meeting the agency’s goals. The team should 

develop a formal evaluation process to determine the efficiency and 

effectiveness of the new process, both during pilot tests and full 

implementation, in meeting the agency’s performance goals. The 

process should also allow the agency to pinpoint trouble spots, so that 

corrective actions can be developed quickly.

Our prior work has identified the importance of having sound 

management processes in place to help the bureau as it manages 

multimillion dollar investments needed for its decennial census. For the 

last decennial, we issued multiple reports and testimonies from 2005 

through 2010 on weaknesses in the Census Bureau’s management and 

testing of key 2010 Decennial Census IT systems. For example, in June 

2005, we found that while the Census Bureau had initiated key practices 

in areas such as providing investment oversight, project planning, 

requirements management, and risk management, they were not fully and 

consistently performed across the bureau.17

As development of the IT systems progressed, these problems were 

realized. In 2007, we reviewed the status of four key IT acquisitions 

Accordingly, we made 

recommendations to the Census Bureau to develop procedures to ensure 

consistent investment management and decision-making practices and to 

institutionalize a process improvement initiative, such as the CMMI 

framework, to strengthen bureau-wide system development and 

management processes. We noted that unless these recommendations 

were implemented, the bureau would face increased risk that cost 

overruns, schedule slippages, and performance shortfalls would occur 

and it would not be able to effectively manage its multimillion dollar 

investments in IT.

 

17GAO, Information Technology Management: Census Bureau Has Implemented Many 

Key Practices, but Additional Actions Are Needed, GAO-05-661 (Washington, D.C: June 

16, 2005). 

Prior GAO and Inspector 

General Reports Identified 

Management Challenges
 

Page 15 GAO-12-915 Census Management Practices

needed for the 2010 Decennial Census.18 The bureau was still in the 

process of addressing our 2005 recommendations and our review found 

that there were increases in cost estimates and projected cost overruns of 

at least $51 million for the Field Data Collection Automation program19

Subsequently, in March 2008, we added the 2010 Decennial Census to 

our list of high-risk programs in part because of long-standing 

weaknesses in the Census Bureau’s IT acquisition and contract 

management function, difficulties in developing reliable life-cycle cost 

estimates, and key operations that were not tested under operational 

conditions.

due to changes in requirements. There were also schedule slippages with 

two other projects. Furthermore, these four projects were not consistently 

implementing key risk management practices. We concluded that unless 

the bureau addressed our recommendations to strengthen system testing 

and risk management activities, there would be an increased probability 

that decennial systems would not be delivered on schedule and within 

budget or perform as expected.

20 We also testified on significant risks facing the 2010 census. 

In particular, we testified in March 2008 that the Field Data Collection 

Automation program was experiencing significant problems, including 

schedule delays and cost increases from changes in requirements, which 

required additional work and staffing.21

 

18GAO, Information Technology: Census Bureau Needs to Improve Its Risk Management 

of Decennial Systems, 

In April 2008, the Census Bureau 

dropped the use of handheld devices developed as part of this program 

for nonresponse follow-up and reverted to a paper-based operation, 

requiring the development of a Paper-Based Operations Control System 

to manage the operation. Dropping the use of handhelds for nonresponse 

follow-up and replacing it with the paper-based system increased the cost 

of the 2010 Decennial Census by up to $3 billion.

GAO-08-79 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 5, 2007). 

19The Field Data Collection Automation program, originally estimated to cost $596 million, 

was intended to use handheld mobile devices to support field data collection for address 

canvassing to verify addresses and for nonresponse follow-up, or following up in person 

with respondents who failed to return the mail questionnaire. In April 2008, the Census 

Bureau decided not to use the handheld devices for nonresponse follow-up, but did 

continue to use the devices for other decennial census operations.

20GAO, High-Risk Series, An Update, GAO-09-271 (Washington, D.C.: January 2009). 

21GAO, Information Technology: Significant Problem of Critical Automation Program 

Contribute to Risks Facing 2010 Census, GAO-08-550T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 5, 2008). 
 

Page 16 GAO-12-915 Census Management Practices

In March 2009, we reported that the bureau continued to face a number 

of problems related to testing of key IT systems, such as the PaperBased Operations Control Systems, that included weaknesses in test 

plans and schedules, and a lack of executive-level oversight and 

guidance.22 We recommended that the bureau complete key systemtesting activities and improve testing oversight and guidance or the 

Census Bureau would face the risk that systems were not thoroughly 

tested and or would perform as planned. Later that year, we reported in 

November 2009 that the bureau had not finalized detailed requirements 

for releases of the Paper-Based Operations Control System, which put 

the system at risk for cost increases, schedule delays, or performance 

shortfalls.23 Although the bureau worked aggressively to improve the 

Paper-Based Operations Control System, we reported in December 2010 

that the system had experienced significant issues when it was put in 

operation.24

At a cost of about $13 billion, 2010 was the costliest decennial census in 

history. While the 2010 census was removed from GAO’s high-risk list in 

February 2011, we reported in April 2011 that the bureau needed to 

continue to improve key practices for managing IT and strengthen its 

ability to develop reliable life-cycle cost estimates.

The bureau attributed these issues, in part, due to a 

compressed development and testing schedule, as well as inadequate 

performance and interface testing.

25

More recently, in May 2012, we reported on the Census Bureau’s early 

planning efforts for the 2020 census.26

 

22GAO, Information Technology: Census Bureau Testing of 2010 Decennial Systems Can 

Be Strengthened, 

We noted that the bureau’s early 

planning and preparation efforts were consistent with most leading 

practices in each of the three management areas we reviewed: 

GAO-09-262 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 5, 2009). 

23GAO, 2010 Census: Census Has Made Progress on Schedule and Operational Control 

Tools, but Needs to Prioritize Remaining System Requirements, GAO-10-59 (Washington, 

D.C.: Nov. 13, 2009). 

24GAO, 2010 Census: Data Collection Operations Were Generally Completed As 

Planned, but Long-Standing Challenges Suggest Need for Fundamental Reform, 

GAO-11-193 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 14, 2010). 

25GAO-11-496T. 

26GAO, 2020 Census: Additional Steps Are Needed to Build on Early Planning, 

GAO-12-626 (Washington, D.C.: May 17, 2012).
 

Page 17 GAO-12-915 Census Management Practices

organizational transformation, long-term project planning, and strategic 

workforce planning, but we did identify opportunities for improvement.27

In addition, the Department of Commerce Office of the Inspector General 

recently identified several management challenges the Census Bureau 

faces as it prepares for the 2020 Decennial Census.28 In June 2011, the 

Office of the Inspector General noted that the bureau needed to 

implement improved project planning and management techniques early 

in the decade to address the weaknesses in project management, cost 

estimation, and risk management. Officials from the Census Bureau 

stated that those recommendations were consistent with their current 

plans.29

The Census Bureau has drafted a new investment management plan, 

system development methodology, and requirements development and 

management processes to improve its ability to manage IT investments 

and system development and to address our prior recommendations. 

While the bureau’s investment plan adapts key practices outlined in the

ITIM framework, additional work is needed to develop guidelines such as 

when investment review boards should escalate investments with cost or 

schedule variances and when managers should provide updated 

investment information to the enterprise portfolio management tool. In 

addition, while the system development methodology lays out a 

foundation for development activities at the Census Bureau, it lacks 

guidance on tailoring the methodology to development models other than 

the traditional waterfall model. Furthermore, while the bureau has 

developed new draft requirements development and management 

processes for system development, it has not established a consistent 

process bureau-wide as we recommended in 2005. Finally, the bureau 

has not finalized plans for implementing these processes across the 

bureau or for ensuring they are in place for managing investments and 

 

27This report did not include the bureau’s IT investment management practices as part of 

its scope. 

28U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Inspector General, Top Management 

Challenges Face the Department of Commerce, OIG-11-015 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 20, 

2010).

29U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Inspector General, Census Bureau - Census 

2010: Final Report to Congress, OIG-11-030-I (Washington, D.C.: June 27, 2011).

Census Bureau Has 

Begun to Improve Its 

Investment 

Management and 

System Development 

Processes, but Has 

Not Finalized Plans 

for Implementation 
 

Page 18 GAO-12-915 Census Management Practices

developing systems necessary for the 2020 Decennial Census to help 

avoid a repeat of the cost and performance issues that occurred during 

the 2010 Decennial Census.

The bureau has developed a new investment management plan, called 

the Enterprise Investment Management Plan, which is to apply to all 

investments, including IT investments. The draft plan outlines a portfolio 

management process that is to operate in two interdependent cycles, one 

to align current and planned investments to ensure the right investments 

are selected to support the bureau’s mission, and one to monitor the 

development, deployment, and operation of approved investments in 

order to ensure new projects are developed as planned and ongoing 

systems are regularly evaluated for their impact on and relevancy to the 

bureau’s mission.

The plan outlines key investment management roles and responsibilities 

for various groups within the bureau. The groups include the

• Operating Committee, which is comprised of the bureau’s senior 

executive team, including the Deputy Director, who chairs the 

committee, and associate directors for all nine of the bureau’s 

directorates, one of whom is also the Chief Information Officer of the 

bureau. The Operating Committee has ultimate responsibility for 

directing the bureau’s resource allocations and overseeing program 

performance. It also has overall responsibility for all IT investments 

costing more than $10 million that are high priority and medium or 

high priority investments that cost more than $50 million.

• Office of Risk Management and Program Evaluation, which is to 

manage the bureau’s enterprise investment portfolio, review business 

cases for major investments and all other projects and portfolio 

investments within the bureau, regardless of cost or priority, and track 

project, program, and portfolio performance information. The office 

began operating in January 2011.

• Directorate, division, and program-level investment review boards, 

which are to assess, review, and prioritize all existing and proposed 

investments at the appropriate directorate, division, or program level, 

and escalate investment issues to a higher-level board when required. 

Directorate-level review boards have overall responsibility for 

investments that are high priority and cost less than $10 million, 

medium-priority investments between $10 million and $50 million, and 

Census Bureau Has Not 

Finalized Its Investment 

Management Plan
 

Page 19 GAO-12-915 Census Management Practices

low-priority investments costing more than $50 million. Division and 

program-level boards have responsibility for medium-priority 

investments of less than $10 million and low-priority investments that 

cost less than $50 million.

As shown in the following table, the bureau’s new investment 

management plan is consistent with key practices outlined in the ITIM 

framework for Stage 2, including having documented policies and 

procedures in place for identifying IT projects that support business needs 

and selecting investments for funding. However, other policies within the 

plan only partially address the ITIM framework. In particular, the plan 

does not include guidelines for the membership of investment review 

boards, the frequency of board meetings, and the thresholds for 

escalating issues to higher-level boards, as these decisions are left up to 

individual directorates to determine. Table 1 summarizes our assessment 

of the policies contained in the bureau’s draft plan against relevant 

practices in Stage 2 of the ITIM framework.

Table 1: Assessment of Census Bureau’s Enterprise Investment Management Plan against the ITIM Framework

Practice 

category Specific practice

Included in 

policy? Summary of assessment

Instituting 

investment 

board 

operations

A process for creating and defining 

the membership, guiding policies, 

operations, roles, responsibilities, 

and authorities of one or more 

investment review boards is 

established. 

Partially An investment board, the Operating Committee, has been 

established and responsibilities and authorities have been 

outlined in the draft plan. In addition, the plan calls for the 

creation of investment review boards at the directorate level as 

well as at the division and program levels. However, the 

membership of these boards and the frequency of meetings are 

not specified in the plan. According to the Chief of the Office of 

Risk Management and Program Evaluation, these decisions will 

be left up to the individual directorates to decide. However, by 

doing so, the bureau may not be able to ensure there is 

consistency in individual review board operations when 

decisions are made regarding investments.

Meeting 

business 

needs

Documented policies and 

procedures for identifying IT projects 

or systems that support the 

organization’s ongoing and future 

business needs are established. A 

business mission with stated goals 

and objectives is also documented. 

Yes The bureau’s draft plan outlines the process for identifying IT 

projects that support business needs and mission. The bureau’s 

business mission with stated goals and objectives is 

documented in the U.S. Census Bureau Strategic Plan FY2007-

2012. 

Selecting an 

investment

Policies and procedures for 

selecting new IT investments as well 

as reselecting ongoing investments 

have been developed, which also 

include integrating funding as part of 

the process. 

Yes The draft plan describes processes for the concurrent review of 

proposals by executives, the use of predefined criteria to 

analyze these proposals, and the process by which executives 

choose to fund some proposals and not others. 
 

Page 20 GAO-12-915 Census Management Practices

Practice 

category Specific practice

Included in 

policy? Summary of assessment

Providing 

investment 

oversight

Policies and procedures are 

documented for management 

oversight of IT projects and 

systems. 

Partially The draft plan describes the Operating Committee, which 

serves as the manager of the bureau’s enterprise portfolio and 

has ultimate responsibility for directing the Census Bureau’s 

resource allocation and overseeing program performance. The 

Operating Committee currently reviews investments on a yearly 

basis. However, the management of most program components 

in the portfolio is the responsibility of the individual program 

owners. In addition, while the plan indicates that issues with 

investments will be escalated from the directorate’s investment 

review board to the Operating Committee when there are cost, 

risk, schedule, or impact issues, no consistent criteria or 

thresholds have been established for escalation. The Chief of 

the Office of Risk Management and Program Evaluation stated 

that individual boards will be responsible for determining these 

thresholds. However, by doing so, the bureau may not be able 

to ensure that issues with specific investments are consistently 

reported to higher-level boards.

Capturing 

investment 

information

Policies and procedures for 

identifying and collecting information 

about IT projects to support the 

investment management process 

are documented.

Partially The plan includes information on the use of an enterprise 

portfolio management tool, which will consolidate investment 

information from all directorates into one centralized database. 

According to the Chief of the Office of Risk Management and 

Program Evaluation, individual directorates will be able to use 

other applications to manage their projects, but they will be 

required to extract information from their applications and 

provide it to the enterprise portfolio management tool central 

database. Census Bureau officials said that financial 

information in the enterprise portfolio management tool will be 

updated on a monthly basis, but the bureau has not set a time 

frame for when project managers should provide periodic 

updates to the tool, or provided dates for when this would be 

done.

Source: GAO analysis of Census Bureau documentation and interviews with bureau officials. 

Note: Full implementation of a practice in the ITIM framework requires that a practice be stated in a 

policy and also be in use. This table only assesses whether the practice is stated in the bureau’s 

policy.

In addition to lacking key guidelines for investment review board 

operations and the enterprise portfolio management tool, the plan is still a 

draft. The Chief of the Office of Risk Management and Program 

Evaluation stated that the plan would be finalized in late September 2012. 

According to the official, it has taken the bureau time to finalize the plan 

due to its review process with stakeholders, which included holding 

desktop exercises with key staff in various directorates to walk through 

the new governance processes and obtain feedback, and the naming of a 

new Deputy Director for the bureau. 

While development of a draft investment management plan is a useful 

first step toward more rigorous investment management, until the Office 
 

Page 21 GAO-12-915 Census Management Practices

of Risk Management and Program Evaluation establishes guidelines for 

the frequency and membership of the investment review boards, 

thresholds for escalating cost or schedule variance issues, and time 

frames for project managers to make periodic updates of investment 

information in its enterprise portfolio management tool, the bureau is likely 

to face inconsistent application of its investment management plan.

In February 2012, the bureau’s IT and 2020 Census Directorates, with the 

assistance of a contractor, developed a new system development lifecycle methodology to improve the bureau’s ability to develop IT systems 

and to address our prior 2005 recommendation to strengthen bureauwide system development and management processes.30

• Ten defined life-cycle phases, including initiation, concept 

development, planning, requirements analysis, design, development, 

integration and test, deployment, operations and maintenance, and 

disposition, along with corresponding activities and work products that 

must be completed.

The main 

elements of the bureau’s new methodology include:

• Five development process models, including waterfall, prototyping, 

incremental, iterative,31

• A tool that helps project managers choose the appropriate 

development process model.

and spiral, that project managers can use 

when developing new systems or modifying or adding functionality to 

existing systems.

• An appendix that helps project managers identify the work products to 

complete for each phase of the life-cycle based on the project’s lifecycle cost and priority.

Although the methodology lays out a foundation for system development 

activities at the bureau, it has critical gaps. In particular, SEI’s CMMI for 

Development, a noted reference for best practices in system life-cycle 

development processes, recommends that an organization establish and 

 

30GAO-05-661. 

31One example of an iterative development process model is Agile.

Census Bureau Has 

Created a New System 

Development 

Methodology, but It Does 

Not Address Modifications 

Needed for Newer Models 

of Software Development
 

Page 22 GAO-12-915 Census Management Practices

maintain criteria and guidelines that can be tailored to suit changing 

situations.32

The current Chief Information Officer stated that the bureau’s process 

does not currently include alternate development models because the 

methodology is in its first iteration and he wanted to evaluate the new 

process with pilots before making changes or additions. Census Bureau 

officials also acknowledged that the system development life-cycle 

methodology will not be as useful with other life-cycle models, such as an 

iterative model, and that they intend to develop additional guidance for 

non-waterfall models. However, they could not provide dates for when 

development of this guidance would be started or finalized.

However, the bureau’s methodology is based on a waterfall 

development model and work products identified in the guide are only tied 

to categories of projects assigned according to each project’s life-cycle 

cost and priority. The guide does not have guidance on how to adapt the 

process and related work products to alternate development models. 

Specifically, since other life-cycle models do not follow the waterfall model 

in terms of phases, types of activities, and work products for each phase, 

the methodology should explain how it can be adapted to alternate 

software development models, including identifying mandatory work 

products for other non-waterfall development models and phases. For 

example, one project manager for a pilot project of the new guide that is 

using an iterative process development model confirmed that he had 

difficulty in using the guide and had to deviate from it as he was 

developing work products.

Both private and public-sector organizations are making increasing use of 

non-waterfall development models as a means of reducing development 

times and reducing risk for software projects.33 Until the bureau specifies 

how to adapt the new system development life-cycle development 

methodology to non-waterfall models, the methodology will be of limited 

use for managing system development and acquisition efforts.

 

32Software Engineering Institute, CMMI for Development, Version 1.3, CMU/SEI-2010-TR033 (Pittsburgh, Pa: November 2010).

33Alternative models allow for developing software in increments or stages, adding 

additional capabilities until a full system is developed, which can provide a better return on 

investment. In addition, alternative models have the potential to address changes in 

requirements more readily than a waterfall model. See GAO-12-681.
 

Page 23 GAO-12-915 Census Management Practices

SEI states that a disciplined process for developing and managing 

requirements can help reduce the risks of developing or acquiring a 

system. The practices underlying requirements development and 

management include eliciting, documenting, verifying and validating, and 

managing requirements through a system’s life cycle. This set of activities 

translates customer needs from statements of high-level business 

requirements into validated, testable system requirements. A well-defined 

and managed requirements baseline can, in addition, improve 

understanding among stakeholders and increase stakeholder buy-in and 

acceptance of the resulting system.

Both the IT Directorate and the 2020 Census Directorate have drafted 

new requirements development and management processes, though only 

the IT Directorate’s guidance has been finalized. In particular, the IT 

Directorate has developed a new process, the Application Services 

Division’s Requirements Elicitation, Analysis, and Documentation 

Process, for working with customers to develop requirements for projects 

during the requirements phase. This includes activities for creating a 

requirements work plan, identifying high-level and detailed project 

requirements, as well as assessing the feasibility and managing the risks 

associated with these requirements. The 2020 Census Directorate has 

developed a draft Requirements Engineering Management Plan that 

establishes processes for developing both enterprise-level mission 

requirements for the 2020 Decennial Census and specific project-level 

business, capability, and solution requirements. The process includes 

four stages for developing and managing these sets of requirements 

including discovery, analysis, agreement, and solution acceptance, and 

outlines roles and responsibilities for stakeholders.

While both the IT and 2020 Census Directorates have established new 

requirements development and management processes, which are to be 

used in the requirements analysis phase of the bureau’s new system 

development methodology, the bureau has not established a consistent 

process bureau-wide as we have previously recommended. In 2005 we 

found that individual project teams within the bureau had not consistently 

implemented key practices for requirements management and we 

recommended that a consistent approach be established bureau-wide. 

These weaknesses in the bureau’s processes for requirements 

management were not sufficiently addressed and we reported in 2007, 

2008, and 2009 that these issues contributed to increases in life-cycle 

Both IT and 2020 Census 

Directorates Have 

Independently Drafted 

New Requirements 

Development and 

Management Processes, 

but Bureau-wide Approach 

Is Needed
 

Page 24 GAO-12-915 Census Management Practices

cost estimates and cost overruns of hundreds of millions of dollars for key 

investments necessary for the 2010 Decennial Census.34

Nevertheless, both the Chief Information Officer, who heads the IT 

Directorate and the Associate Director of the 2020 Census Directorate, as 

well as the Chief of the Office of Risk Management and Program 

Evaluation, stated that there are no plans to standardize a requirements 

development and management process across the bureau. Currently, for 

future investments, bureau officials will decide which directorate 

requirements process to use, depending on which directorate has 

responsibility for developing the system. For example, the 2020 Census 

and IT Directorates are currently working together to develop a new 

electronic document management system

Furthermore, 

the bureau had developed a handheld device for the 2010 census that did 

not operate as intended because of the lack of a robust requirements 

process. Instead, the bureau had to rely on a paper-based system to 

replace the handheld devices for key aspects of the census, which 

increased the cost of the 2010 census by up to $3 billion.

35

While the 2020 Census and IT Directorate’s processes both contain 

useful elements of a requirements management process, neither process 

is sufficient by itself. Specifically, the IT Directorate has guidance for 

eliciting, developing, and documenting requirements for projects, but 

although the 2020 Directorate’s process mentions project requirements, 

the guidance does not provide clear steps for developing these 

requirements. In contrast, the 2020 Census Directorate’s guidance 

provides clear steps for developing strategic mission and business

requirements, but the IT Directorate’s guidance does not. Moreover, each 

of these guidance documents lacks information on how these 

requirements processes will be integrated into the bureau’s new system 

development life-cycle methodology. Bureau officials stated that they 

hope to integrate processes from the two directorates sometime in the 

intended for the 2020 

Decennial Census. For this project, only the IT Directorate’s requirements 

process is being used because the IT Directorate has overall 

responsibility for developing the system.

 

34GAO-08-79, GAO-08-550T, and GAO-10-59. 

35The Electronic Document Management System will be used to streamline the American 

Community Service Office and 2020 Census program processes for developing, 

reviewing, and approving documents at the program and project levels.
 

Page 25 GAO-12-915 Census Management Practices

future in preparation for the 2020 Decennial Census, but did not specify 

when this would occur.

By utilizing overlapping requirements development and management 

processes without a specified time frame for when these processes will 

be integrated, the bureau is increasing the risk that IT investments, 

particularly those intended for the 2020 Decennial Census, will face cost 

overruns, schedule slippages, and performance shortfalls. Until the 

bureau establishes and implements a consistent requirements 

development and management process across the bureau that has clear 

guidance for developing requirements at the strategic mission, business, 

and project levels and is integrated with its new system development 

methodology, it will not have assurance that requirements for IT systems 

intended for the 2020 Decennial Census will be effectively developed or 

managed.

While the bureau has drafted a new investment management plan, and 

system development methodology, including requirements development 

and management processes, key activities for effectively implementing 

these processes across the bureau remain to be undertaken. In 

particular, while the bureau’s leadership has made a commitment to 

putting the new investment plan in place across the bureau, no specific 

plans have been made to implement the system methodology bureauwide. In addition, detailed implementation plans for putting these 

processes in place, including having sufficient pilot testing and formal 

evaluations to determine the effectiveness of the new processes remain 

to be developed. Table 2 shows our assessment of the bureau’s 

implementation efforts based on our prior work on implementing new 

processes within an organization.36

 

36GAO-12-818 and GAO/AIMD-10.1.15. 

Census Bureau Has Not 

Finalized Plans for 

Implementing Investment 

Management and System 

Development Processes 

across the Bureau
 

Page 26 GAO-12-915 Census Management Practices

Table 2: Census Bureau’s Implementation of the Investment Management Plan and System Development Methodology

Key activity Assessment Summary of assessment

Agency leadership makes 

commitment to putting the process in 

place

Partially 

implemented

Agency leadership has played a key role in establishing the new investment 

management structure and the Office of Risk Management and Program 

Evaluation. The Operating Committee, composed of senior executive 

leadership in the bureau, has been established and is chaired by the Deputy 

Director of the bureau. It has begun meeting on a yearly basis to review IT 

investments. However, no time frames for implementing the investment 

management plan across the bureau have been established.

The Chief Information Officer, who heads the IT Directorate, and the 

Associate Director of the 2020 Census Directorate have spearheaded the 

initiative to create a new system development methodology and have 

directed their staffs to work to implement the methodology within their 

directorates. However, the bureau has not made specific plans to implement 

the methodology across the bureau. The Chief Information Officer stated 

that because of the culture change associated with establishing such a 

standardized process at the bureau, it was important to take a gradual 

approach to implementation. Regarding requirements management, both 

directorates have developed new processes and have indicated that these 

processes will be integrated sometime in the future; however they did not 

specify when this would occur.

A detailed implementation plan is 

developed that lays out a road map 

for implementing the new process

Not 

implemented

The Chief of the Office of Risk Management and Program Evaluation 

originally stated that the bureau intended to finalize its plan in August 2012. 

However, the office did not provide a draft plan or milestones for us to 

review. As of August 2012, the chief stated that the implementation plan 

would not be finalized and approved until September 2012. In addition, the 

office has not finalized plans for implementing the enterprise portfolio 

management tool across the bureau.

The Chief Information Officer delegated ownership of the system 

methodology, including the requirements development and management 

processes, to the Application Services Division within the IT Directorate and 

established a project team to coordinate implementation. The Chief of the 

Application Services Division stated that his division was beginning to 

develop a formal implementation plan for the system development 

methodology, but did not provide any more specific information.
 

Page 27 GAO-12-915 Census Management Practices

Key activity Assessment Summary of assessment

Pilot testing of the new process is 

performed to evaluate the process 

and identify potential problems

Partially 

implemented

The Office of Risk Management and Program Evaluation has not finalized 

plans for pilot testing the new investment management process or the 

enterprise investment management tool, though two directorates have been 

tentatively identified to help pilot these efforts.

The bureau is currently piloting the new system development methodology 

and using the IT Directorate’s requirements process on two projects 

managed by the IT Directorate: the Electronic Document Management 

System and an effort to upgrade and consolidate Linux servers within the 

bureau. However, one of the two pilots—the Linux project—is of limited 

usefulness in testing the system development life cycle because it is not a 

system development effort. In addition, the second pilot—the Electronic 

Document Management System—is a limited system development effort 

that is intended to take 3 months. Although both the Chief Information 

Officer, who heads the IT Directorate, and the Associate Director of the 

2020 Census Directorate stated that they intend to use the system 

development life-cycle methodology in the future, there are no specific plans 

for additional pilots.

A formal evaluation process is 

developed to determine the

effectiveness of the new process in 

meeting the agency’s goals

Not 

implemented

The Office of Risk Management and Program Evaluation has not identified a 

formal evaluation process for evaluating the pilots or the implementation of 

the new investment management governance structure.

The project manager for the system development life-cycle methodology has 

initiated weekly meetings to obtain feedback on the use of the methodology 

for the pilots. However, an evaluation process has not yet been established.

Source: GAO analysis of Census Bureau documentation and interviews with bureau officials.

With respect to the investment management plan, the Chief of the Office 

of Risk Management and Program Evaluation said that the bureau had 

not finalized a plan for implementing the new investment management 

structure because the office was still in the process of incorporating 

feedback on the plan. For the system development methodology, the 

Chief Information Officer stated that an implementation plan had not been 

finalized because more work was needed to refine the methodology. The 

methodology would be implemented across the bureau once it had been 

refined and all issues were resolved.

As we noted in 2005, the bureau’s lack of a consistent bureau-wide 

approach for IT investment management contributed to the bureau not 

effectively and efficiently managing multimillion dollar investments, 

including taking consistent and appropriate action when cost, schedule, or 

performance expectations were not being met. In addition, a lack of a 

consistent approach for system development and management, including 

requirements development and management, led to project teams 

managing systems in an ad hoc manner and increased the risk that cost 
 

Page 28 GAO-12-915 Census Management Practices

overruns, schedule slippages, and performance shortfalls would, and did, 

occur, as we reported in 2007 and 2009.37

According to the bureau’s timeline for 2020 Decennial Census planning, it 

will begin operational development and system testing starting in fiscal 

year 2015. While the exact design for 2020 information systems is not yet 

defined, it is likely to be complex, involve multiple directorates, and use 

both contractors and bureau staff based on the prior decennial census 

and the bureau’s initial plans for 2020.

Unless the investment management plan and system development lifecycle methodology, including a requirements development and 

management process, are fully implemented by this time, the Census 

Bureau will face increased risk that similar challenges that occurred in the 

2010 Decennial Census will occur for the 2020 Decennial Census’s 

multimillion dollar investments. In addition, although only full 

implementation can identify all the potential problems with the new 

investment management plan and system methodology, until the bureau 

conducts additional pilot testing, including various software development 

models and projects of the scope and complexity of those needed for the 

2020 Decennial Census, there is increased risk of not identifying potential 

problems with the investment management plan and system development 

life-cycle methodology.

Moreover, while feedback sessions on issues with implementing 

processes can be useful, until the Office of Risk Management and 

Program Evaluation and the Application Services Division establish a 

documented evaluation process to assess the effectiveness of the new 

processes, the bureau will lack assurance as to whether these processes 

are effective in meeting the bureau’s goals. Lastly, while any significant 

change cannot be accomplished overnight, clear leadership and 

deadlines are essential to implement changes. Failure to address these 

issues in a timely manner puts the bureau at risk of the same cost 

overrun, schedule slippage, and performance shortfall issues that 

affected the previous census. 

 

37GAO-08-79 and GAO-10-59. 
 

Page 29 GAO-12-915 Census Management Practices

Over the past year, the Census Bureau has taken limited steps to develop 

IT human capital practices, including identifying critical IT occupations 

and select competencies and conducting an inventory of these 

competencies among its IT staff in June 2011. However, many key 

practices remain to be implemented. In particular, the Census Bureau has 

not developed a bureau-wide IT workforce plan, identified gaps in 

mission-critical IT occupations, skills, and competencies, or developed 

strategies to address gaps. Table 3 summarizes our assessment of the 

bureau’s efforts against key principles for effective workforce planning.38

Table 3: Census Bureau’s IT Workforce Planning Practices

Principle Assessment Summary of assessment

Align workforce planning with 

strategic planning and budget 

formulation

Not 

implemented

According to bureau officials, the bureau has not developed a bureau-wide IT 

workforce plan since at least 2009a and only one directorate, the IT 

Directorate, has created an IT workforce plan. According to bureau officials, 

each directorate is responsible for establishing its own workforce planning, 

including IT planning for its staff, as IT staff are distributed across the bureau. 

According to the Chief of the Human Resources Division, the bureau has 

provided no guidance to the directorates on preparing workforce plans or 

established any efforts to coordinate workforce plans between them.

Involve top management, 

employees and other stakeholders 

in developing, communicating, and 

implementing the strategic 

workforce plan

Not 

implemented

The bureau has not involved top management or key stakeholders in strategic 

IT workforce planning because each directorate is responsible for developing 

their own plans. Although the IT Directorate has established a draft IT 

workforce plan, bureau officials from the IT Directorate stated there was limited 

involvement from management and employees in developing this draft plan 

due to budget constraints and lack of sufficient staff resources.

Identify critical occupations, skills, 

and competencies and analyze 

workforce gaps

Partially 

implemented

In June 2011, the bureau conducted a pilot assessment of the competencies 

of its IT workforce across the bureau, with the intent of conducting a bureauwide competency inventory assessment of all employees in fall 2012. As part 

of this pilot effort, the Human Resources Division identified the critical IT 

occupations needed, but did not identify critical IT skills and only partially 

identified critical IT competencies. In addition, the bureau has not yet used this 

information to conduct an IT skills gap analysis.

Develop strategies tailored to 

address workforce gaps and human 

capital conditions in critical skills 

and competencies that need 

attention

Not 

implemented

Work has not been started in this area for the bureau’s IT workforce because a 

gap analysis for critical occupations, skills, and competencies has not been 

performed. The bureau does have existing strategies for other staff that could 

be used to address gaps for IT staff once the gaps are identified.

Build capacity to address workforce 

strategies

Not 

implemented

Work has not been started in this area for the bureau’s IT workforce because 

the bureau has not completed a gap analysis of critical IT occupations, skills, 

and competencies. 

 

38We reported on the bureau’s early management of strategic workforce planning for the 

2020 Decennial Census for areas other than IT in May 2012. See GAO-12-626. 

Census Bureau Does 

Not Have Bureauwide Workforce 

Planning Practices for 

IT Staff
 

Page 30 GAO-12-915 Census Management Practices

Principle Assessment Summary of assessment

Monitor and evaluate progress 

toward achieving workforce 

planning and strategic goals

Not 

implemented

The bureau has not yet developed an IT workforce plan, and so is not able to 

monitor and evaluate progress in addressing its workforce planning and 

strategic goals. 

Source: GAO analysis of Census Bureau documentation and interviews with bureau officials.

a

The bureau has developed a bureau-wide human capital management plan but it does not 

specifically address IT.

According to officials in the Human Resources Division, the bureau has 

not yet begun key workforce planning activities because it first needs to 

complete an initial bureau-wide competency assessment. In planning for 

this assessment, the bureau conducted a pilot assessment of IT 

competencies in June 2011. Officials stated that the pilot assessment 

provided several lessons that they intend to use for the bureau-wide 

competency assessment. For instance, while managers in the 

directorates with IT staff found that the information from the pilot 

assessment was useful, those managers were more interested in 

identifying the current skills of their IT staff than the competency 

information that was gathered. The bureau’s Human Resources Division 

therefore collected additional information for managers in May 2012. The 

bureau is to conduct the bureau-wide competency assessment, including 

a reassessment of IT competencies, in late 2012.

Once this assessment is completed, the bureau’s directorates are to 

conduct additional workforce planning activities. For example, bureau 

officials stated that individual directorates plan to conduct gap analyses 

for mission-critical skills and competencies. According to the bureau’s 

Human Resources Division, once the gap analysis is completed, the 

bureau is to begin refining existing strategies and its capacity to address 

workforce gaps. The bureau provided a document with high-level goals to 

incorporate results of its competency assessment into individual 

directorate workforce plans by July 2013. However, it did not provide time 

frames for when specific activities would be completed for its IT 

workforce, such as a gap analysis for occupations, skills, or competencies 

of IT staff, nor did it provide plans to integrate these activities bureauwide.

The Chief of the Human Resources Division stated that the Census 

Bureau has traditionally been decentralized in its IT workforce planning 

efforts because its IT staff is located in several directorates. The bureau 

has also faced budget constraints in conducting workforce planning 

specifically for its IT staff but had recently begun to undertake efforts in 

this area within the IT Directorate after a new division chief was hired.
 

Page 31 GAO-12-915 Census Management Practices

Effective IT workforce planning efforts are critical to ensuring the bureau 

has the appropriate workforce in place to achieve its mission and 

strategic goals, particularly in regards to the 2020 Decennial Census. 

While the bureau’s Human Resources Division plans to undertake a 

thorough assessment of the competencies of its workforce this year, 

unless the division establishes a repeatable process for performing skills 

assessments and gap analysis that can be implemented in a timely 

manner, managers may not be able to make decisions to address any 

skills gaps in preparation for the 2020 Decennial Census. In addition, until 

the Human Resources Division establishes a process for directorates to 

coordinate on IT workforce planning in line with key principles for effective 

workforce planning, the bureau may not have sufficient assurance that it 

has the appropriate IT workforce needed for 2020 Decennial Census 

activities.

While the Census Bureau has begun to make improvements to 

investment management and system development processes, including 

requirements development and management, more work remains to be 

done to refine these processes and implement them across the bureau. 

As we have previously reported, a lack of robust processes in these areas 

contributed to the cost overruns, schedule slippages, and performance 

shortfalls in key IT investments that were needed for the 2010 Decennial 

Census, which increased its cost by up to $3 billion. However, the bureau 

has not established key guidelines and thresholds within its investment 

management plan, nor has it developed guidance to tailor the bureau’s 

new system development methodology to alternate development models, 

or established plans to implement these new processes across the 

bureau. Until the bureau takes action in these key areas, there is the risk 

that similar issues will arise for the 2020 Decennial Census.

Furthermore, having an IT workforce that has the appropriate missioncritical skills and competencies will be necessary to help the bureau 

effectively develop and manage its multimillion dollar investments in 

information systems and technology. While the bureau has begun to 

improve its IT human capital practices including conducting an inventory 

of select IT competencies, many key workforce planning practices remain 

to be put in place, including conducting gap analyses and integrating IT 

workforce planning bureau-wide. Having effective IT workforce planning 

practices will help ensure the bureau can achieve its mission and 

strategic goals for the 2020 Decennial Census.

Conclusions 
 

Page 32 GAO-12-915 Census Management Practices

To strengthen and improve the bureau’s new investment management, 

system development, and IT workforce management processes, we 

recommend that the Acting Secretary of Commerce direct the Under 

Secretary for Economic Affairs who oversees the Economics and 

Statistics Administration, as well as the Acting Director of the U.S. 

Census Bureau, take eight actions to address weaknesses in the 

following IT management areas:

• Establish guidelines for the frequency and membership of bureau 

investment review boards and thresholds for these boards to escalate 

cost or schedule variance issues to higher-level boards.

• Establish time frames for project managers to provide periodic 

updates of investment information in the enterprise investment 

management tool.

• Adapt the bureau’s new system development life-cycle methodology, 

including the mandatory work products, activities, and phases of the 

project, to the additional software development models beyond the 

waterfall model that are specified in the methodology.

• Establish and implement a consistent requirements development and 

management process across the bureau that is integrated with its new 

system development life-cycle methodology and includes guidance for 

developing requirements at the strategic mission, business, and 

project levels.

• Finalize a plan for implementing the Enterprise Investment 

Management Plan, including time frames for implementation by fiscal 

year 2015, pilot testing of the new process, and a documented 

evaluation process.

• Establish a plan for implementing the new system development lifecycle methodology, including requirements development and 

management processes, across the bureau, to include time frames for 

implementation by fiscal year 2015, additional pilots of the 

methodology prior to full implementation, and a documented 

evaluation process. 

• Establish a repeatable process for performing IT skills assessments 

and gap analysis that can be implemented in a timely manner.

• Establish a process for directorates to coordinate on IT workforce 

planning, including: (1) aligning IT workforce planning with strategic 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
 

Page 33 GAO-12-915 Census Management Practices

planning and budget formulation; (2) involving appropriate 

stakeholders and staff from each directorate; (3) identifying critical 

occupations, skills, and competencies, and analyzing workforce gaps; 

(4) developing strategies to address IT workforce gaps; (5) building 

capacity to address workforce gaps; and (6) monitoring and 

evaluating IT workforce planning efforts across the bureau, and 

ensure this process is implemented across the bureau.

We received comments from the Acting Secretary of Commerce on a 

draft of this report. The comments are included in appendix II. In its 

comments, the department stated that the Census Bureau concurred with 

our eight recommendations and outlined steps it was taking to implement 

the recommendations. The bureau acknowledged that the Enterprise 

Investment Management Plan was in draft, but indicated it had deployed 

components of the plan, such as initiating governing boards in three 

directorates. The bureau also noted that its enterprise portfolio

management tool had been placed into production in July and that the 

bureau was working to migrate to the new tool.

Regarding the system development life-cycle methodology, the bureau 

stated that the methodology was one of several initiatives to improve the 

bureau’s delivery of IT services. The bureau said that later iterations of 

the methodology would include more iterative models such as Agile that 

were applicable to its business needs. The bureau also indicated it was 

planning to include feedback from its pilot projects in the revised 

methodology and to provide additional guidance on required 

documentation.

For its requirements management processes, the bureau stated it was 

planning to integrate the bureau’s different requirements management 

processes and emphasized that joint commitment of the 2020 Decennial 

Census and IT Directorates was critical to the success of a requirements 

management process for the 2020 Decennial Census. 

The bureau also indicated that it has provided extensive training and 

education for its IT workforce even though it lacked an integrated plan 

based on best practices. The bureau plans to develop a workforce plan to 

incorporate strategies for hiring, developing, and contracting to meet its 

identified requirements. It noted, however, that this could be affected by 

potential budget cuts. The bureau stated its bureau-wide assessment and 

competency gap analysis would be completed by fall 2012.

Agency Comments
 

Page 34 GAO-12-915 Census Management Practices

We are sending copies of this report to the Acting Secretary of 

Commerce, the Senior Advisor to the Acting Director and the Deputy 

Director of the U.S. Census Bureau, and interested congressional 

committees. The report also is available at no charge on GAO’s website 

at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staffs have any questions on the matters discussed in this 

report, please contact me at (202) 512-9286 or pownerd@gao.gov. 

Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public 

Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made 

major contributions to this report are listed in appendix III.

David A. Powner

Director, Information Technology 

 Management Issues
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 35 GAO-12-915 Census Management Practices

Our objectives were to evaluate the (1) effectiveness of the Census 

Bureau’s policies, procedures, and processes for managing information 

technology (IT) investments and system development and (2) the Census 

Bureau’s development of effective practices for acquiring and maintaining 

IT human capital skills.

To address our first objective, we reviewed the effectiveness of policies 

and procedures in two areas—investment management and system 

development and management. We compared the bureau’s new IT 

investment management policies and procedures in its draft Enterprise 

Investment Management Plan to the criteria for policies and procedures 

associated with maturity stage 2 of the Information Technology 

Investment Management (ITIM) framework.1 The ITIM framework consists 

of five progressive stages of maturity that an agency can achieve in its 

investment management capabilities. The maturity stages are cumulative; 

that is, in order to attain a higher stage, an agency must first 

institutionalize all of the critical processes at the lower stages. To 

determine whether the bureau satisfied the criteria for maturity stage 2 we 

compared the bureau’s policies and procedures to the critical processes 

outlined in stage 2. We did not evaluate the bureau at maturity stage 1 

because our prior review in 2005 determined that it had passed that 

stage.2

To assess the effectiveness of the bureau’s processes for managing 

system development, including requirements development and 

management, we reviewed the bureau’s System Development Life Cycle

Users’ Guide and project templates, Requirements Engineering 

Management Plan, and the Application Services Division’s Requirements 

Elicitation, Analysis, and Documentation Process, and compared these 

documents with Software Engineering Institute’s (SEI) Capability Maturity 

Model Integration for Development criteria in two areas: establishing 

organizational processes, and requirements management and 

We did not evaluate the Census Bureau at maturity stages 3, 4, or 

5 because our prior work has shown that an agency should focus on 

implementing all practices associated with a lower phase before 

addressing the higher-stage practices. We also interviewed officials from 

the Office of Risk Management and Program Evaluation regarding the 

development and implementation of the plan across the bureau.

 

1

GAO-04-394G. 

2

GAO-05-661. 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 36 GAO-12-915 Census Management Practices

development. Although SEI specifies criteria in numerous areas, we 

focused on establishing organizational processes because the bureau’s 

system development methodology is newly developed. We focused on 

requirements development and management because of the bureau’s 

challenges in managing requirements for the 2010 Decennial Census. For 

each of the two areas, we analyzed bureau plans and procedures to 

determine if the practices described were consistent with those in the SEI 

criteria. In addition, we interviewed officials from the IT Directorate and 

2020 Census Directorate regarding development and implementation of 

the guide and the requirements management and development 

processes.

To assess the Census Bureau’s efforts to effectively implement these 

new investment management and system development processes across 

the bureau, we interviewed officials from the Office of Risk Management 

and Program Evaluation, IT Directorate, and 2020 Census Directorate 

regarding implementation efforts and reviewed related documentation, 

which we compared to our reported best practices for implementing new 

organizational governance processes.3

To address our second objective, we reviewed bureau workforce planning 

documents, including the Human Capital Management Plan (FY 2011-

2016 ), IT Directorate’s 2011-2016 Strategic Information Technology 

Plan, and the IT Directorate’s workforce plan, and other bureau 

documentation related to the bureau’s pilot workforce competency 

assessment and compared these to the six leading principles for 

workforce planning that we and the Office of Personnel Management 

have identified to determine whether the bureau’s practices were 

consistent with these principles. We evaluated whether the bureau’s 

activities satisfied each of the detailed practices in a principle and 

assigned ratings of “implemented”, “partially implemented”, or “not 

implemented” based on that assessment. A rating of “partially 

implemented” was assessed if the bureau’s activities satisfied at least one 

We evaluated whether these 

efforts satisfied each of the components of each key activity from the best 

practices and assigned ratings of “implemented”, “partially implemented”, 

or “not implemented” based on that assessment. A rating of “partially 

implemented” was given if the bureau’s activities satisfied at least one 

component of the key activity.

 

3

GAO-12-818 and GAO/AIMD-10.1.15.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 37 GAO-12-915 Census Management Practices

of the detailed practices in the principle. We also interviewed officials from 

the Human Resources Division and IT Directorate to obtain information 

about the pilot assessment and the bureau’s workforce planning efforts.

We performed our work from March 2012 through September 2012 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce

Page 38 GAO-12-915 Census Management Practices

Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce

Page 39 GAO-12-915 Census Management Practices
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce

Page 40 GAO-12-915 Census Management Practices
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce

Page 41 GAO-12-915 Census Management Practices
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce

Page 42 GAO-12-915 Census Management Practices
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 43 GAO-12-915 Census Management Practices

David A. Powner at (202) 512-9286 or pownerd@gao.gov

In addition to the contact listed above, the following staff made key 

contributions to this report: Vijay D’Souza (Assistant Director); Justin 

Booth; Nancy Glover; Valerie Hopkins; Paul Middleton; Tarunkant 

Mithani; and Karl Seifert. 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(311265)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

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 GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.