United States General Accounting Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Government Management,

Restructuring, and the District of Columbia

Committee on Government Affairs

United States Senate

For Release on Delivery

Expected at

1:30 p.m. EDT

Wednesday

April 9, 1997

STATISTICAL AGENCIES

Consolidation and Quality

Issues

Statement of L. Nye Stevens, Director

Federal Management and Workforce Issues

General Government Division

GAO/T-GGD-97-78

Summary 

Statistical Agencies: Consolidation and

Quality Issues

GAO’s statement applies its considerable body of work on statistical issues

to four questions the Subcommittee asked on data quality and the

decentralized U.S. statistical system.

Quality of Statistical

Data

While the principal statistical agencies GAO has reviewed have generally

adhered to applicable professional standards, there are reasons to be

concerned about the quality of statistical data. Public and private sector

experts have said that the current system needs a more coherent approach

to measurement of investment, productivity, and services. Measurement

problems, such as those concerning consumer prices, can affect budget

and economic policymaking. GAO’s work has also demonstrated a

deterioration in the quality of the decennial census, which GAO designated

as a high-risk area in February 1997.

Effects of the

Decentralized

Structure

Although GAO’s work does not indicate the extent to which the

decentralized structure is a major cause of the quality problems, it does

show that the decentralization contributes largely to other problems, such

as inefficiency, the lack of national priorities for allocation of resources,

burden on data users and providers, and restrictions on the exchange of

data among statistical agencies. For example, in part because of the

inability to share data, both Census and the Bureau of Labor Statistics

have compiled and maintained their own lists of businesses.

Potential Effects of

Consolidation

GAO has compared the dispersed U.S. system with Canada’s centralized

system. The head of Statistics Canada has a higher level position than that

of the U.S. Chief Statistician, can set and change priorities and shift

resources easily, has access to all of the government’s administrative

records, and can share survey data internally under strict and uniform

privacy requirements. Potential disadvantages associated with

consolidation would include possibly diminished responsiveness to the

needs of former parent departments and possible objections to the

concentration of data in a single agency.

Benefits From

Location in the

Commerce

Department

Commerce historically has not been managed on the basis of a unifying

mission or shared goals and has decentralized its key administrative

functions. While the Commerce relationship is not meaningless, GAO is not

aware of any reasons that would prevent Census and the Bureau of

Page 1 GAO/T-GGD-97-78
Summary 

Statistical Agencies: Consolidation and

Quality Issues

Economic Analysis from performing their missions as part of another

department.

Page 2 GAO/T-GGD-97-78
Statement 

Statistical Agencies: Consolidation and

Quality Issues

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

We are pleased to be here today to discuss the federal statistical system.

Over the years, we have developed a considerable body of work on

statistical issues. The related products list that follows my statement

contains our most recent products. As you requested, our testimony today

brings this body of work to bear on four issues you asked us to address:

(1) the quality of federal statistics, (2) how the federal statistical system’s

decentralized structure affects statistical quality, (3) whether

consolidating the statistical functions currently housed in the Department

of Commerce with those of other federal agencies could provide a more

streamlined and effective federal statistical system, and (4) whether or not

the Bureau of the Census and the Bureau of Economic Analysis benefit

from being housed in the Department of Commerce.

Background Statistical activities are dispersed throughout the federal government. The

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has identified 70 federal agencies

that each spend at least $500,000 annually on statistical activities.

Together, these agencies requested over $2.75 billion for fiscal year 1997

for statistical activities. Of the 70 agencies, 11 are considered to be the

principal statistical agencies because they collect, produce, and

disseminate statistical information as their primary mission. These 11

agencies together spend approximately $1.2 billion annually on statistical

activities. Two Commerce agencies—the Bureau of the Census and the

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)—and the Department of Labor’s

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) account for about $825 million of this

total.1

 The missions of the principal statistical agencies are to ensure that

the statistical information they collect, produce, and disseminate is

accurate, reliable, and free from political interference and impose the least

possible burden on individuals, businesses, and others responding to

requests for data. Most of the other agencies that produce and disseminate

statistical data do so as an ancillary part of their missions.

1

The other eight principal statistical agencies are the National Center for Health Statistics (in the

Department of Health and Human Services), Energy Information Administration (in the Department of

Energy), National Agricultural Statistics Service and the Economic Research Service (both in the

Department of Agriculture), Statistics of Income Division (Internal Revenue Service in the Department

of the Treasury), Bureau of Justice Statistics (in the Department of Justice), the Bureau of

Transportation Statistics (Department of Transportation), and the National Center for Education

Statistics (in the Department of Education).

Page 3 GAO/T-GGD-97-78
Statement 

Statistical Agencies: Consolidation and

Quality Issues

Quality of Statistical

Data

The principal statistical agencies have done many things well. For

example, in August 1995, we reported that four statistical agencies we

reviewed-Census, BEA, BLS, and the National Center for Health

Statistics—generally adhered to applicable professional standards.2

Nevertheless, a series of studies of the federal statistical system going

back several decades have identified concerns over the quality of

statistical data. One of the concerns is that economic statistics have not

kept pace with changes in the economy. This has led some experts to

question whether current statistics adequately reflect the importance of

international transactions to the economy, or whether current productivity

measures are adequate given the increase in importance of service

industries. Experts who have worked in the federal statistical system have

also said that the current system needs to update its approach to

measuring savings and investment. We are finding that agencies are

devoting more attention than ever to the quality and coverage of statistical

data series as they search for appropriate outcome-based performance

measures in their efforts to comply with the Government Performance and

Results Act that originated with this Committee.

In 1991, the Economic Statistics Initiative, which was led by Michael

Boskin who chaired the Council of Economic Advisers under President

Bush, made 38 recommendations to address well-known problems in

economic statistics for which action was feasible in the near term. Among

the recommended actions were (1) accelerating improvements in

estimates of international trade in services, including financial services;

(2) better measuring service sector production and prices; (3) separating

quality and inflationary changes in prices; and (4) making it easier for

statistical agencies to share data for statistical purposes. In reviewing the

status of these recommendations, we found that only about half of the

recommendations were funded and that the funding levels varied

considerably among the different agencies producing economic statistics,

thereby hampering improvement efforts.3

We reported in 1995 that measurement problems can affect budget and

economic policymaking.4

 In that report, we pointed out that many of the

studies we reviewed indicated that technical problems associated with the

2

Statistical Agencies: Adherence to Guidelines and Coordination of Budgets (GAO/GGD-95-65, Aug. 9,

1995).

3

Economic Statistics: Status Report on the Initiative to Improve Economic Statistics (GAO/GGD-95-98,

July 7, 1995).

4

Economic Statistics: Measurement Problems Can Affect the Budget and Economic Policymaking

(GAO/GGD-95-99, May 2, 1995).

Page 4 GAO/T-GGD-97-78
Statement 

Statistical Agencies: Consolidation and

Quality Issues

development of the Consumer Price Index could cause it to overstate

inflation. We also pointed out that measures of economic output and

productivity failed to account for the increasing importance of the service

sector to the nation’s economy.

In February 1997, the National Association of Business Economists (NABE)

reported that nearly 70 percent of its members who responded to its

survey were dissatisfied with the scope and quality of economic data in the

United States. NABE said that the current system does a better job of

measuring manufacturing than it does of measuring services and the

information technology aspects of the economy.

Our work has also demonstrated a deterioration in the quality of the

Decennial Census, which provides a baseline for countless other statistical

programs. The 1990 Census, though it was the most expensive in history,

for the first time produced results that were less accurate than those of the

preceding Census.5

 Almost 10 million persons were missed in that Census,

although the net effect of this was somewhat masked by the counting of

about 6 million persons twice. These 16 million gross errors represent a

minimum tally, since they do not include such errors as persons

erroneously included or assigned to the wrong locations. In February 1997,

we designated the 2000 Decennial Census as being at high risk of

producing unsatisfactory results.6

How the

Decentralized

Structure of the

Federal Statistical

System Affects

Statistical Quality

Over the years, a number of problems with the quality of statistical data

have been associated with the organizational structure of the federal

statistical system. Although our work does not indicate the extent to

which a decentralized structure is a major cause of the quality problems, it

does indicate that not all of the quality problems that exist stem from the

decentralized structure of the statistical system. For example, the

deteriorating quality of decennial census data relates largely to limitations

in the basic processes used to collect census data, not to the decentralized

structure of the statistical system. On the other hand, our work as well as

that of others has shown that the decentralized structure of the system

contributes largely to other problems, such as inefficiency, the lack of

national priorities for allocation of resources, burden on data users and

providers, and restrictions on the exchange of data among statistical

agencies.

5

Decennial Census: 1990 Results Show Need for Fundamental Reform (GAO/GGD-92-94, June 9, 1992).

6

High-Risk Series (GAO/HR-97-2, Feb. 1997).

Page 5 GAO/T-GGD-97-78
Statement 

Statistical Agencies: Consolidation and

Quality Issues

Clearly, our decentralized statistical system has sometimes affected the

quality of statistical data produced by the system. For example, in

estimating the National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA), which

includes the estimate of gross domestic product, BEA relies on data

collected by other agencies. Frequently, those data are collected for other

purposes, and according to a BEA official, much of the data are not in the

form that BEA needs to calculate NIPA. In some cases, gaps exist in the data,

and these gaps, in turn, affect the NIPA estimates. As another example,

some of the data quality problems that were identified by the Economic

Statistics Initiative have yet to be corrected because the corrective action

requires steps by more than one agency. In some cases, one agency

received funding to correct its data problems, but another agency, which

may contribute source data, did not get funds to address the issue.

Many experts have expressed concern about inefficiencies in the

statistical system due to its decentralized structure. The experts often cite

duplicative or overlapping data collection activities or system

infrastructure, such as field structures; computer systems; or

administrative, technical, and program personnel as sources of potential

cost savings. Those who have studied the systems, however, often

disagree on how much could be saved through consolidation. In this

regard, we have noted that many agencies have used reimbursable

agreements with other agencies, such as the Census Bureau, to handle

their data collection activities, thereby avoiding having to establish and

maintain their own systems and structure for these purposes.7

 These types

of arrangements would tend to limit the savings that could come from

consolidation. Further, we are not aware of any savings estimates that

have been verified by an independent party.

The lack of an effective mechanism for setting national priorities for the

federal statistical system has been another concern expressed over the

years about the system’s decentralized structure. Our work as well as

work done by others has shown that the United States has lacked an

effective apparatus for setting national priorities for use of the statistical

agency resources. For example, in August 1995, we reported on limitations

on OMB’s ability to coordinate the budgets of statistical agencies.8

 A

number of factors contribute to the lack of clear national priorities for the

U.S. statistical system. One of these factors is the nature of the budget

formulation process, in which each statistical agency has its own budget

7

Federal Statistics: Principal Statistical Agencies’ Missions and Funding (GAO/GGD-96-107, July 1,

1996).

8

GAO/GGD-95-65, August 9, 1995.

Page 6 GAO/T-GGD-97-78
Statement 

Statistical Agencies: Consolidation and

Quality Issues

which has been generally determined in the context of the competing

needs and priorities of other components within its home agency or

department, as opposed to the needs and priorities of the overall federal

statistical system. Another related factor is the dispersion of responsibility

among multiple congressional committees and subcommittees for

authorizing, funding, and overseeing the statistical agencies.

Another problem arising from decentralization is the increased burden on

data providers as a result of duplicative data collection efforts. For

example, Janet Norwood, a former Commissioner of Labor Statistics, has

identified surveys that she believes could be consolidated. She believes

that the consolidation of such surveys would reduce cost as well as

burden to survey respondents while improving the possibility for

integrating the data collected. At least to some extent, overlap in the types

of information asked for in surveys has occurred because of the

decentralized structure of the statistical system.

Another related factor that contributes to the overlap problem is the

inability of statistical agencies to share data with one another because of

legislated confidentiality restrictions. Federal statistical agencies generally

operate under a number of laws, policies, or regulations that govern the

collection, use, and confidentiality of the statistical information for which

these agencies are responsible. Some of these laws, policies, and

regulations apply only to a specific agency. The legal framework for the

federal statistical system also limits the extent of data sharing among

agencies because statutes exist to protect the confidentiality of data

providers and, in many instances, allow only the agency collecting the data

to have access to them. For example, in part because of the inability to

share data, both Census and BLS have compiled and maintained their own

lists of businesses.

Potential of

Consolidation to

Provide a More

Streamlined and

Effective System

You asked whether consolidating the statistical functions currently housed

in the Department of Commerce with those of other agencies could

provide a more streamlined and effective federal statistical system. To

respond to your question, we drew on our work comparing the

decentralized U.S. system with Canada’s centralized system. The Canadian

statistical system is often used as a reference point for considering

proposed consolidations in the United States and is highly regarded in the

international statistics community. However, there are some differences

between the U. S. and Canada that need to be considered when making

such a comparison. Also, there may be disadvantages associated with a

Page 7 GAO/T-GGD-97-78
Statement 

Statistical Agencies: Consolidation and

Quality Issues

consolidation, and there are alternative approaches to making the system

more streamlined and effective.

A consolidated agency could help streamline and improve effectiveness in

a number of ways. For example, better quality data could be achieved by

bringing together the expertise needed to address important issues, such

as the use of common data collection methods and more efficient survey

designs, so that data that are produced are based on similar concepts, time

periods, and classification structures. Cost savings and reduced burden on

data providers may be achieved through a greater sharing of data and

agency resources in a consolidated agency, thereby avoiding duplication

and enabling greater integration. Consolidation could also resolve the

issue of setting national priorities and achieving greater coordination for

the system to the extent that a head of the proposed consolidated agency

would be able to set priorities for the use of its funds and require its

components to cooperate with one another.

Our August 1996 report comparing the Canadian statistical system with the

U. S. system offers some insights on consolidation.9

 While we did not

evaluate the effectiveness of the Canadian system, we did identify several

clear differences between the Canadian and U.S. systems in our review.

The Canadian system is much more centralized, with Statistics Canada

containing many of the activities currently divided among the principal U.

S. statistical agencies and being responsible for the majority of the

government’s statistical information. The head of Statistics Canada has a

higher level position than that of the U.S. Chief Statistician, has direct

control over the agency’s budget request, and can set and change priorities

and shift resources easily. Statistics Canada also (1) has access to all of

the government’s administrative records, (2) can share survey and other

data among its components and other government agencies and

nongovernmental organizations, (3) has consolidated technical and

administrative support functions, and (4) is subject to strict and uniform

privacy requirements. According to Statistics Canada officials, these

privacy requirements also help ensure a high voluntary response rate to

data collection efforts.

While Canada’s centralized system may appear to offer several advantages

over the U.S. system, several factors need to be considered as part of the

comparison. Canada’s parliamentary system of government may lead to a

clearer definition of government policy and priorities and the ensuing

9

Statistical Agencies: A Comparison of the U.S. and Canadian Statistical Systems (GAO/GGD-96-142,

Aug. 1, 1996.)

Page 8 GAO/T-GGD-97-78
Statement 

Statistical Agencies: Consolidation and

Quality Issues

needs for statistical information than our system, which institutionalizes

tension between different branches of government. The United States is a

much larger nation and has a larger and more complex economy than

Canada. Also, the Canadian statistical system is much smaller than the

U.S. system. For example, the fiscal year 1997 budget for Statistics Canada

was about $246 million (in U.S. dollars) compared to the nearly $1.2 billion

budget for the U. S. principal statistical agencies. Finally, the Canadian

public has accepted that a government agency will have broad access to

all government records for statistical purposes.

On the other hand, disadvantages may also be associated with a

consolidation. For example, the consolidated agencies could be less

responsive to the needs of their parent departments from which they came

and their constituencies. Another potential disadvantage is the potential

for abuse, such as breaches of confidentiality, that could occur when so

much information about individuals and businesses is concentrated in one

agency. Finally, some of the benefits expected from consolidation are

unlikely to materialize unless the components of the consolidated

statistical agency are authorized to share data and if legislative

responsibility for the consolidated agency continues to be dispersed

among multiple congressional committees. In addition, the extent to which

benefits of a consolidation could be realized would depend on how

comprehensive the consolidation is. If significant statistical activities

remain outside the consolidated agency, some of the problems of

inefficiency and priority setting in the statistical system could persist.

Given the potential drawbacks of consolidation, the Subcommittee may

also want to consider alternative approaches for improving statistical data

collection and analysis. One option would be to consider alternatives to

the dominant paradigm of having federal employees collect, analyze, and

disseminate information through the use of appropriated funds.

Alternatives might be privatizing at least some aspects of data collection,

analysis, or dissemination; additional contracting out; or the imposition of

user fees. We have not explored such alternatives for the federal statistical

system and are therefore not in a position to elaborate on them.

Concerning data sharing, one step could entail enacting legislation that

allows statistical agencies to share data and information with appropriate

safeguards to protect against breaches of confidentiality. Proposals to

enable greater data sharing among statistical agencies have been made in

the past; both the Economic Statistics Initiative under President Bush and

the National Performance Review under President Clinton have

Page 9 GAO/T-GGD-97-78
Statement 

Statistical Agencies: Consolidation and

Quality Issues

recommended such actions. These proposals were not adopted, in part

because of general concerns that greater data sharing might endanger the

privacy of individuals. In 1996, OMB and the Department of the Treasury

sent to Congress proposed legislation that would permit limited sharing of

data among designated statistical agencies for statistical purposes subject

to procedural safeguards contained in the proposals. Although Congress

did not enact the legislative proposals, OMB officials have told us that the

administration plans to submit these data sharing proposals in 1997. We as

well as others who have studied or are knowledgeable about the federal

statistical system believe that the inability of statistical agencies to share

data is one of the most significant issues facing the statistical system and

one of the major factors affecting the quality of data, the efficiency of the

system, and the amount of burden placed on those who provide

information to the agencies. Since 1979, we have recommended changes to

existing statutes that would enable statistical agencies to share data.10

Another approach to improve the current system would be to strengthen

OMB’s ability to set priorities for use of the agencies’ funds and provide

mechanisms that would enable the agencies more easily to shift resources,

including staff. The appropriations process constrains OMB’s ability to

independently make such resource shifts, and we, as well as others, have

reported on limitations on OMB’s ability to set priorities for allocation of

funding among statistical agencies.11 In recognition of this concern, OMB

launched an initiative during preparation of the administration’s fiscal year

1998 budget in which some priorities were set for statistical agency

funding. The effect of OMB’s efforts, however, will not be known until after

Congress completes the appropriations process.

Greater coordination among statistical agencies is another way to improve

their effectiveness and streamline operations. In this regard, it should be

noted that some consolidation already has taken place and additional

efforts are underway. For example, statistical agencies have already acted

to reduce duplication and inefficiency by collecting information for one

another. An illustration of this is the decennial census long form

questionnaire. Ten of the principal statistical agencies and many other

federal agencies use information collected through the form as source of

data for their own statistical activities. We reported in July 1996 that if

agencies had to collect or arrange for the collection of these data on their

10After Six Years, Legal Obstacles Continue to Restrict Government Use of the Standard Statistical

Establishment List (GAO/GGD-79-17, May 25, 1979.) 

11GAO/GGD-95-65.

Page 10 GAO/T-GGD-97-78
Statement 

Statistical Agencies: Consolidation and

Quality Issues

own the total cost would exceed the cost of having Census collect these

data.12

OMB also has a number of coordinative efforts under way through the

Interagency Statistical Policy Council, which OMB chairs. The council

consists of the heads of the principal statistical agencies as well as

representatives from the National Science Foundation and the Social

Security Administration, and exists to foster greater coordination among

statistical agencies. One such initiative has been the development of the

“one-stop shopping” service for users of federal statistical data. This effort

entails establishing an electronic link to all federal statistical agencies

through the Internet. OMB plans to have this service fully operational in

1997. With this system a user should be able to go to one source that will

identify the types of data available and will electronically link the user to

the data maintained by the appropriate agency. While OMB’s coordination

efforts appear promising, it is unclear at this point how effective they will

be in resolving problems that result from the decentralized structure of the

system.

Do the Census Bureau

and the Bureau of

Economic Analysis

Benefit From

Location in the

Commerce

Department?

In testimony before the full Governmental Affairs Committee on July 25,

1995,13 we described the Commerce Department as essentially a holding

company for many disparate programs, and subject to almost constant

organizational changes in its 84-year history. Because of the wide diversity

of its functions, Commerce historically has not been managed on the basis

of a unifying mission or shared goals. Its components are overseen and

authorized by several committees in Congress, none of which has

jurisdiction over the entire department. Within Commerce, Census and BEA

together account for less than 10 percent of departmental obligations and

less than 20 percent of departmental staff.

Commerce has decentralized its key administrative functions. Major

Commerce components, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, the Patent and Trademark Office, and the Economics and

Statistics Administration which comprises both Census and BEA, have been

granted the authority and responsibility by Commerce for meeting most of

their own administrative needs. Thus, Commerce headquarters provides

some services but primarily sets policy and provides overall direction and

oversight. In some cases, the major components pay for the services

12GAO/GGD-96-107, July 1, 1996.

13Government Reorganization: Observations on the Department of Commerce

(GAO/T-GGD/RCED/AIMD-95-248, July 25, 1995).

Page 11 GAO/T-GGD-97-78
Statement 

Statistical Agencies: Consolidation and

Quality Issues

provided by headquarters through a working capital fund. Census and BEA

receive their legal services this way, for instance. In addition, BEA

purchases most of its administrative services from other components of

Commerce through a series of cross-servicing arrangements. Commerce’s

decentralized approach to providing administrative services is a result of

its response to significant budget reductions that occurred in the early

1980s. The relative independence of the major components minimizes the

disruption that would occur if one or more were broken away in a

reorganization. Neither the Census Bureau nor BEA is physically housed in

the Commerce headquarters building.

We are not aware of any reasons that would prevent Census and BEA from

performing their missions if they were not components of the Commerce

Department. This is not to say, however, that the Commerce relationship is

meaningless. In fact, Commerce officials have argued that the absence of

regulatory programs within the department has been a factor in preserving

the reputation for independence of its two statistical agencies. Because

they are located in Commerce, Census and BEA must compete for attention

and resources with other functions of that department, functions as

disparate as weather service modernization, fisheries preservation,

technological innovation, and trade sponsorship.

The department’s superior stature, resources, and access to the highest

policy levels within the administration have at times been of value to

Census and BEA; for example, our high-risk report on the 2000 Census

recognized that the Bureau itself was not capable of securing all the

stakeholder decisions it needs to proceed with plans, tests, and

commitments, and that attention from the administration was needed. The

value of attachment to a Cabinet-level department to promote an agency’s

interests at the highest policy-making levels is well established in

organizational theory and practice. Statistics Canada, for example, takes

pride in its independence but it is nevertheless a component of the

Department of Industry Canada. Granting the value of departmental

affiliation, it does not necessarily follow that the Commerce Department is

the only organization to provide it.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased

to respond to questions on it or on aspects of our statistical policy work

that I have not covered.

Page 12 GAO/T-GGD-97-78
Page 13 GAO/T-GGD-97-78
Related GAO Products

Statistical Agencies: A Comparison of the U.S. and Canadian Statistical

Systems (GAO/GGD-96-142, Aug. 1, 1996).

Statistical Agencies: Statutory Requirements Affecting Government

Policies and Programs (GAO/GGD-96-106, July 17, 1996).

Federal Statistics: Principal Statistical Agencies’ Missions and Funding

(GAO/GGD-96-107, July 1, 1996).

Government Statistics: Proposal to Form a Federal Statistical Service

(GAO/T-GGD-96-93, Mar. 22, 1996).

Commerce Dismantlement: Observations on Proposed Implementation

Mechanism (GAO/T-GGD-95-233, Sept, 6, 1995).

Statistical Agencies: Adherence to Guidelines and Coordination of Budgets

(GAO/GGD-95-65, Aug. 9, 1995).

Government Reorganization: Observations on the Department of

Commerce (GAO/T-GGD/RCED/AIMD-95-248, July 25, 1995).

Economic Statistics: Status Report on the Economics Statistics Initiative

(GAO/GGD-95-98, July 7, 1995).

Economic Statistics: Measurement Problems Can Affect the Budget and

Economic Policymaking (GAO/GGD-95-99, May 2, 1995).

Measuring U.S.-Canada Trade: Shifting Trade Winds May Threaten Recent

Progress (GAO/GGD-94-4, Jan. 19, 1994).

Bureau of the Census: Legislative Proposal to Share Address List Data Has

Benefits and Risks (GAO/T-GGD-94-184, July 21, 1994).

Gross Domestic Product: No Evidence of Manipulation in First Quarter

1991 Estimates (GAO/GGD-93-58, Mar. 10, 1993).

Decennial Census: 1990 Results Show Need for Fundamental Reform

(GAO/GGD-92-94, June 9, 1992).

1990 Census: Reported Net Undercount Obscured Magnitude of Error

(GAO/GGD-91-113, Aug. 22, 1991).

Page 14 GAO/T-GGD-97-78
Related GAO Products

The Decennial Census: Potential Risks to Data Quality Resulting From

Budget Reductions and Cost Increases (GAO/T-GGD-90-30, Mar. 27, 1990).

(410126) Page 15 GAO/T-GGD-97-78
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100