a

GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

October 2002 2000 CENSUS

Complete Costs of 

Coverage Evaluation 

Programs Are Not 

Available

GAO-03-41
Page i GAO-03-41 Census 2000 ICM/A.C.E. Programs

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 3

Scope and Methodology 6

Life Cycle Costs 7

Seven Issues Related To ICM/A.C.E. Programs 8

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 15

Appendixes

Appendix I: Budgeted and Obligated Life Cycle Costs by Framework and 

Project for Fiscal Years 1996 through 2003 17

Appendix II: Comments From the Department of Commerce 19

Tables Table 1: Census 2000 ICM/A.C.E. Program Budgeted Life Cycle 

Costs for Fiscal Years 1996 through 2003 17

Table 2: Census 2000 ICM/A.C.E. Program Obligated Life Cycle 

Costs for Fiscal Years 1996 through 2001 18

Figures Figure 1: Budgeted Costs of ICM/A.C.E. Programs 11

Figure 2: Obligated Costs of ICM/A.C.E. Programs 12

Figure 3: Obligated Costs of ICM/A.C.E. Programs by Category 13

Abbreviations

A.C.E. Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation

CAMS Commerce Accountability Management System

FTE full-time equivalent

ICM Integrated Coverage Measurement

OMB Office of Management and Budget

PES Post Enumeration Survey
Page 1 GAO-03-41 Census 2000 ICM/A.C.E. Programs

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

October 31, 2002 Letr

The Honorable William Lacy Clay, Jr.

House of Representatives

The Honorable Carolyn B. Maloney

House of Representatives

To assess the quality of the population data collected in the 2000 Census, 

the U.S. Census Bureau conducted the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation 

(A.C.E.) program, which focused on a survey of housing units designed to 

estimate the number of people missed, counted more than once, or 

otherwise improperly counted in the census. As agreed with your offices, 

this report responds to your joint request to review A.C.E. life cycle costs. 

Total life cycle costs for the 2000 Census cover a 13-year period from fiscal 

year 1991 through fiscal year 20031

 at an estimated cost of $6.5 billion, 

adjusted to 2000-year dollars. The A.C.E. program was first included in 

bureau program documents in November 1998 and funded for fiscal years 

2000 through 2003. A predecessor program, Integrated Coverage 

Measurement (ICM), began in May 1995 and was funded by the bureau for 

fiscal years 1996 through 1999. We considered both programs to be within 

the scope of your request. 

As agreed with your offices, we focused our review on the following seven 

questions concerning ICM/A.C.E. program life cycle costs.

1. What were the original estimated life cycle costs for the ICM/A.C.E. 

programs?

2. What was the source and support for $400 million in life cycle costs 

reported by the bureau for the ICM/A.C.E. programs?

3. How were ICM/A.C.E. program costs estimated?

4. How much did the bureau budget2

 for the ICM/A.C.E. programs?

1

 Proposed fiscal year 2003 funding was included in the President’s Budget in February 2002, 

but has not yet been approved by the Congress.

2

Since fiscal year 1996, the bureau has received its appropriation based on eight broad 

frameworks of effort and then establishes budgets for individual activities and projects 

within frameworks.
Page 2 GAO-03-41 Census 2000 ICM/A.C.E. Programs

5. What were the obligated life cycle costs for the ICM/A.C.E. programs?

6. Were any budgeted funds for the ICM/A.C.E. programs not used as of 

the end of fiscal year 2001, and if so, how much?

7. What were the ICM/A.C.E. program-related costs for the bureau dress 

rehearsal in fiscal year 1998?

This report is part of a series of GAO studies on the lessons learned from 

the 2000 Census that can help in the planning and development effort now 

occurring for the 2010 Census. 

Results in Brief Although the U.S. Census Bureau tracked some costs of conducting the 

ICM/A.C.E. programs, it did not identify the complete life cycle costs of the 

programs due to three factors. First, program costs prior to fiscal year 

1996 were not identified because the bureau considered costs from earlier 

years to be part of its general research and development efforts and the 

bureau did not assign unique project codes to identify ICM/A.C.E. program 

and related costs in its financial management system. Second, although 

$3.6 million of fiscal year 1996 obligated costs were identified in the 

bureau’s financial management system as an ICM special test, the bureau 

did not consider these costs as part of the ICM/A.C.E. programs and it also 

classified these costs as general research. We disagreed with the bureau on 

this point and have included this amount in our report as part of the 

ICM/A.C.E. life cycle costs we could identify. Finally, we were unable to 

identify ICM/A.C.E. portions of costs, such as evaluations and data 

processing, which the bureau included in other 2000 Census programs. 

Based on available information for the seven questions, we found the 

following: 

• The original estimated cycle costs of conducting the ICM/A.C.E. 

programs were about $400 million.

• The first evidence for the original $400 million estimate is in the original 

budget justifications for fiscal year 2000.

• The bureau based its estimates of ICM/A.C.E. costs on assumptions 

about the needs for personnel and benefits, contractual services, travel, 

office space, equipment, and other costs necessary to conduct and 

support operations of the programs.
Page 3 GAO-03-41 Census 2000 ICM/A.C.E. Programs

• The budgeted amounts that we identified from bureau records for 

conducting the ICM/A.C.E. programs are about $277 million through 

fiscal year 2003.

• The obligated costs that we identified from bureau records for 

conducting the ICM/A.C.E. programs are about $207 million through 

fiscal year 2001.

• About $58 million of budgeted funds for the ICM/A.C.E. programs that 

we identified from bureau records were not obligated through fiscal 

year 2001.

• The ICM/A.C.E. program-related costs that we identified from bureau 

records for the 1998 dress rehearsal were about $11 million budgeted 

and about $9 million obligated. 

Due to limitations in the bureau’s available financial data, our responses to 

the seven specific questions identified in your request do not include all 

ICM/A.C.E. program life cycle costs and are limited to cost information 

covering fiscal years 1996 through 2003, except where indicated.

The Department of Commerce expressed disagreement with how we had 

presented answers to the seven questions, but did not comment on the 

substance of our answers. Regarding its concern that our report implied 

managerial or reporting weaknesses, our answers were not prepared with 

the intent of drawing conclusions beyond the information presented. We 

have addressed the comments in the “Agency Comments and Our 

Evaluation” section of this report and the full text of the comments and our 

detailed evaluation is presented in appendix II.

Background Early in the 2000 Census cycle, the U.S. Census Bureau was researching 

coverage measurement options for the 2000 Census, including the Post 

Enumeration Survey (PES) methods used in past decennial censuses. The 

bureau explored a number of design options aimed at improving data 

accuracy while controlling costs. In 1993, the bureau was also evaluating 

the feasibility of conducting a one-number census, which combines the 

features of both the traditional head count and statistical methods to 

produce a single count before the mandated deadlines.
Page 4 GAO-03-41 Census 2000 ICM/A.C.E. Programs

In May 1995, the bureau announced that it would conduct a sample survey 

of 750,000 housing units, called Integrated Coverage Measurement (ICM), 

to estimate how many housing units and people it would miss or count 

more than once in the 2000 Census.3

 In this initial design for the 2000 

Census, the bureau planned to use statistical methods to integrate the 

results of this survey with the traditional census enumeration to provide a 

one-number census by December 31, 2000. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 

in January 1999 that 13 U.S.C. 195 prohibited the use of statistical sampling 

to generate population data for reapportioning the U.S. House of 

Representatives.4

 However, the court’s ruling did not prohibit the use of 

statistical sampling for other purposes, such as adjusting formulas to 

distribute billions of dollars of federal funding to state and local 

governments.

Following the Supreme Court ruling, the bureau abandoned certain 

statistical aspects of the ICM program, and announced the A.C.E. program 

to assess the quality of the population data collected in the 2000 Census, 

using a smaller sample of 300,000 housing units.5

 The bureau conducted 

A.C.E., which corresponded to the PES in past censuses and the ICM in the 

original 2000 Census Plan, to measure and correct the overall and 

differential coverage of the U.S. resident population in the 2000 Census. 

Although A.C.E. was generally implemented as planned, the bureau found 

that A.C.E. overstated the census net undercount. This was due, in part, to 

errors introduced during matching operations and from other remaining 

uncertainties. The bureau has reported that additional review and analysis 

would be necessary before any potential uses of A.C.E. data could be 

considered.6

Due to uncertainties or errors in the A.C.E. survey results, the acting 

director of the bureau decided in separate decisions in March 2001 and 

October 2001 that the 2000 Census tabulations would not be adjusted for 

any purpose, including distribution of billions of dollars in federal funding. 

3

U.S. Census Bureau, The Reengineered 2000 Census (Suitland, MD: May 19, 1995).

4

Department of Commerce v. United States House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316 (1999).

5

U.S. Census Bureau, Updated Summary Census 2000 Operational Plan (Suitland, MD: 

Feb. 24, 1999).

6

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

Implemented as Planned, but Census Bureau Should Evaluate Lessons Learned, GAO-02-

297 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 14, 2002).
Page 5 GAO-03-41 Census 2000 ICM/A.C.E. Programs

These decisions were consistent with those for the 1990 Census, which was 

not adjusted due to other problems. According to senior bureau officials, 

the bureau is continuing to evaluate issues related to A.C.E. and the census, 

and the results of its evaluation are expected to influence the bureau’s 

planning for the 2010 Census. 

Bureau Appropriations and 

Accounting

The bureau receives two appropriations from the Congress: (1) salaries 

and expenses and (2) periodic censuses and programs. The salaries and 

expenses appropriation provides 1-year funding for a broad range of 

economic, demographic, and social statistical programs. The periodic 

censuses and programs appropriation includes primarily no-year funding7

to plan, conduct, and analyze the decennial censuses every decade and for 

other authorized periodic activities. Since fiscal year 1996, the bureau has 

prepared its annual budget request for the 2000 Census in eight broad 

frameworks of effort that were submitted to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) and the Congress. For management, program, financial, 

staffing, and performance purposes, frameworks are further divided by the 

bureau into activities and then projects within these activities.8

7

 No-year funds are available for their original purpose until they are either expended, 

rescinded, transferred, or reprogrammed, or the account is closed. 

8

For example, for fiscal year 2000, the bureau used 8 frameworks, 23 activities, and 119 

projects.
Page 6 GAO-03-41 Census 2000 ICM/A.C.E. Programs

The bureau accounts for the costs of conducting the ICM/A.C.E. programs 

in its Commerce Administrative Management System (CAMS), which 

became operational in fiscal year 1997. Bureau financial management 

reports generated by CAMS have provided appropriated amounts, 

expended and obligated amounts, and variances to a project level from 

fiscal year 1997 to the current period. The ICM/A.C.E. programs are an 

activity comprised of eight projects contained within three frameworks. 

Fiscal year 1996 was the first year the bureau set up a specific project code 

to identify ICM program costs through fiscal year 1999. However, it was 

difficult to identify the change to the A.C.E. program beginning in fiscal 

year 2000 because the bureau did not change many of the project 

descriptions in CAMS from the ICM program. As discussed in our 

December 2001 report, we identified specific control weaknesses for fiscal 

year 2000 related to the lack of controls over financial reporting and 

financial management systems.9

Scope and 

Methodology

To meet the objective of responding to seven questions concerning 

ICM/A.C.E. program life cycle costs, we reviewed and analyzed budget and 

program data for all coverage measurement programs that existed during 

the 2000 Census (for fiscal years 1991 to 2003), which included the ICM and 

A.C.E. programs. We did not audit budget and other financial data provided 

by the bureau. We also reviewed planning and methodology documents 

and other available information in order to determine the history of the 

programs. Also, we identified ICM and A.C.E. project accounts and 

analyzed amounts by fiscal year using the financial management reports 

generated by CAMS. We discussed the results of our analysis with senior 

bureau officials and interviewed bureau officials to obtain their views and 

observations regarding the ICM and A.C.E. programs. It was not our 

objective to assess the efficiency of expenditures and obligations against 

planned budget appropriations.

We encountered several limitations in the scope of our work on this 

assignment as follows.

• We were unable to determine the complete life cycle costs of the 

ICM/A.C.E. programs because the bureau considered any ICM/A.C.E. 

9

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

Internal Control Weaknesses at the U.S. Census Bureau, GAO-02-30 (Washington, D.C.: 

Dec. 28, 2001).
Page 7 GAO-03-41 Census 2000 ICM/A.C.E. Programs

related costs from fiscal years 1991 through 1995 as part of its general 

research and development programs and thus did not separately track 

these costs. Although some costs were tracked in fiscal year 1996, the 

bureau still considered these costs as research and development and did 

not include these costs as ICM/A.C.E. program costs.

• We were further unable to identify ICM/A.C.E. portions of costs, such as 

evaluations and data processing, which the bureau included with other 

2000 Census programs. 

Our work was performed in Washington, D.C. and at U.S. Census Bureau 

headquarters in Suitland, Maryland, from February 2002 through July 2002. 

Our work was done in accordance with U.S. generally accepted 

government auditing standards. On November 17, 2002, the Department of 

Commerce provided written comments on a draft of this report and we 

have reprinted the comments in appendix II. Technical comments were 

also provided by the department and incorporated into the report where 

appropriate, but have not been reprinted.

Life Cycle Costs Although the bureau tracked some costs of conducting the ICM/A.C.E. 

programs, we found that the bureau did not identify the complete life cycle 

costs of the programs due to the following three factors.

First, the bureau only tracked the costs of conducting the ICM/A.C.E. 

programs, which covers the period from fiscal year 1997 through 2003. 

Although life cycle costs for the 2000 Census cover a 13-year period from 

fiscal years 1991 through 2003, senior bureau officials said that the 

ICM/A.C.E. program was not viable for implementation until fiscal year 

1997. Therefore, the bureau considered costs from earlier years as part of 

its general research and development programs and the bureau did not 

assign unique project codes to identify ICM/A.C.E. programs and related 

costs in its financial management system. 

Second, although $3.6 million of fiscal year 1996 obligated costs were 

identifiable in the bureau’s financial management system as an ICM special 

test, the bureau did not consider these costs as part of the ICM/A.C.E. 

programs. Instead, these costs were considered general research and 

development. However, because the bureau separately identified these 

costs as ICM program costs, we have included the $3.6 million as part of the 

ICM/A.C.E. program costs we could identify in this report. 
Page 8 GAO-03-41 Census 2000 ICM/A.C.E. Programs

Finally, we were unable to identify the ICM/A.C.E. portions of costs, such 

as evaluations and data processing, which the bureau included with other 

2000 Census programs. For example, in late fiscal year 2000 and after, the 

bureau did not separate A.C.E. evaluations from its other 2000 Census 

evaluations in its financial management system. Bureau officials stated 

that the contracts for evaluations included overall 2000 Census and A.C.E. 

evaluations, and did not have a separate code identifying A.C.E. costs. 

Similarly, the bureau did not capture all costs for items such as data 

processing by programs like ICM/A.C.E. These type of operations were 

conducted for the 2000 Census overall, were budgeted by framework, were 

not separated by program in the bureau’s financial management system, 

and were not allocated back to individual projects. Therefore, we were 

unable to identify these types of costs for the ICM/A.C.E. programs. 

Seven Issues Related 

To ICM/A.C.E. 

Programs

Due to the limitations in the bureau’s data, our responses to the seven 

specific questions identified in your request do not include all ICM/A.C.E. 

life cycle costs and are limited to available cost information covering fiscal 

years 1996 through 2003, except where indicated, and exclude such costs 

as A.C.E. evaluations and some data processing. The following sections 

include our responses to the seven questions on ICM/A.C.E. program life 

cycle costs.

1. What were the original estimated life cycle costs for the ICM/A.C.E. 

programs?

The bureau originally estimated the costs of conducting the ICM program 

to be about $400 million when it planned to use statistical methods to 

integrate the results of a survey based on 750,000 housing units with the 

traditional census enumeration to provide a one-number census. This 

original estimate included fiscal years 1997 through 2003. However, this 

estimate was incomplete, as the bureau did not include program costs prior 

to fiscal year 1997 because it considered them as general research and 

development costs. The bureau also combined costs for A.C.E. evaluation 

and data processing with other program costs in different frameworks.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in January 1999 that statistical sampling 

could not be used to generate population data for reapportioning the House 

of Representatives. As a result of the ruling, in June 1999, as part of its 

amended fiscal year 2000 budget request, the bureau decreased the 

ICM/A.C.E. program by about $214 million, due to a reduction in the sample 

size from 750,000 to 300,000 housing units. We could not identify from 
Page 9 GAO-03-41 Census 2000 ICM/A.C.E. Programs

bureau records an original estimate for only A.C.E. life cycle costs for 

completing the scaled-back survey. 

2. What was the source and support for $400 million in life cycle costs 

reported by the bureau for the ICM/A.C.E. programs?

In 1995, the bureau estimated life cycle costs for the 2000 Census in 13 

frameworks; however, bureau documents did not break out the 

frameworks into activities and projects.10 The first evidence for the $400 

million cost estimate for conducting the ICM/A.C.E. program for the 2000 

Census was submitted as part of the original fiscal year 2000 budget 

justification for overall census operations to the Congress in February 

1999. This original budget was prepared based on the initial design for 

ICM, which planned to incorporate statistical methods to integrate the 

results of a survey based on 750,000 housing units with the traditional 

census enumeration to provide a one-number census. 

3. How were ICM/A.C.E. program costs estimated? 

According to bureau officials, estimates of ICM/A.C.E. costs are based on 

assumptions about the needs for headquarters and support staff and 

related benefits, contractual services, travel, office space, and equipment 

costs necessary to conduct and support operations of the program. The 

bureau used an electronic cost model to calculate many of the estimates for 

the ICM/A.C.E. programs. 

For personnel costs, the A.C.E. program costs were divided into costs for 

data collection and costs for headquarters full-time equivalent (FTE) staff 

and support staff as follows.

• The A.C.E. field staff needed to conduct each A.C.E. data collection 

operation included enumerators, crew leaders, field operations 

supervisors, and assistants. The cost model was designed to estimate 

the number of field staff positions, hours, FTEs, salary costs, and 

mileage costs. In the cost model, each operation had its own distinct 

production assumptions based on the data collection needs for that 

operation. Based on operational needs, the bureau determined the 

assumptions for production rates, mileage rates, production and 

training days, and hours worked per day. 

10U.S. Census Bureau, The Reengineered 2000 Census (Suitland, MD: May 19, 1995).
Page 10 GAO-03-41 Census 2000 ICM/A.C.E. Programs

• The magnitude of the A.C.E field production labor was determined by 

the A.C.E. field operation workload. Based on the workload, the 

number of A.C.E. enumerators was calculated for each operation. Then, 

based on the number of enumerators, the bureau determined the 

number of crew leaders, field operations supervisors, and assistants 

needed. The number of production positions became the bureau’s basis 

for the number of staff to be trained. The number of positions, both 

production and trainee, was then used to estimate the salary cost as a 

function of the total production and trainee hours and applicable labor 

rates. 

• Once labor rates were determined, a percentage was used to calculate 

benefit costs. 

For nonpersonnel costs, the bureau estimated the costs based on the 

following.

• Contract costs were estimated based upon procurement needs for 

goods and services, including contractors hired to assess the feasibility 

of A.C.E. operations and to evaluate the results of the program. 

• Travel costs were estimated using the numbers of production and 

trainee positions to calculate the average miles per case and the mileage 

reimbursement rate. 

• Office space estimates were based on the number of people who needed 

space, the number of square feet per person, and the cost per square 

foot. 

• Equipment and supply costs were based on the needs of each employee 

and the specific needs of each A.C.E. operation. This included laptop 

computers that were provided to field data collection staff to conduct 

interviews and to monitor the operational progress of the program.

4. How much did Census budget for the ICM/A.C.E. programs?

As shown in figure 1, we identified from bureau records budgeted amounts 

of $276.5 million for conducting the ICM/A.C.E. programs. Of this amount, 

$64.2 million was for the ICM program from fiscal year 1996 through 1999, 

and $212.3 million was for the A.C.E. program from fiscal year 2000 through 

2003. Also, see table 1 in appendix I for additional details of ICM/A.C.E. 

budgeted costs by framework and project.
Page 11 GAO-03-41 Census 2000 ICM/A.C.E. Programs

Figure 1: Budgeted Costs of ICM/A.C.E. Programs (Dollars in millions) 

5. What were the obligated life cycle costs for the ICM/A.C.E. programs? 

As shown in figure 2, we identified from bureau records obligated amounts 

of $206.9 million, of which $58.4 million was for the ICM program from 

fiscal year 1996 through 1999, and $148.5 million was for the A.C.E. 

program for fiscal years 2000 and 2001. We did not include obligated costs 

for fiscal year 2002 as they are not yet final and fiscal year 2003 obligations 

have yet to be incurred. Also, see table 2 in appendix I for additional 

details of obligated costs for the ICM/A.C.E. programs.

A.C.E. (fiscal years 2000-2003)

ICM (fiscal years 1996-1999)

Total budgeted costs $276.5

$64.2 

(23%)

$212.3 

(77%)

Source: GAO analysis of unaudited bureau data.
Page 12 GAO-03-41 Census 2000 ICM/A.C.E. Programs

Figure 2: Obligated Costs of ICM/A.C.E. Programs (Dollars in millions)

As shown in figure 3, of the $206.9 million of obligated ICM/A.C.E. program 

costs through fiscal year 2001, 65 percent or about $135 million were for 

salaries and benefits. The next largest category was for contractual 

services, which constituted about $22.3 million or 11 percent of ICM/A.C.E. 

program costs. The third largest category was for equipment, which 

constituted about $22 million, or 11 percent of ICM/A.C.E. program costs. 

Other costs - including office space, travel, and supplies - made up about 

$27.6 million or 13 percent of program costs. 

A.C.E. (fiscal years 2000-2001)

ICM (fiscal years1996-1999) 

Total obligated costs $206.9 

$58.4

 (28%)

$148.5

 (72%) 

Source: GAO analysis of unaudited bureau data.
Page 13 GAO-03-41 Census 2000 ICM/A.C.E. Programs

Figure 3: Obligated Costs of ICM/A.C.E. Programs by Category (Dollars in Millions)

6. Were there any budgeted funds for the ICM/A.C.E. programs not used as 

of the end of fiscal year 2001, and if so, how much?

About $57.7 million of budgeted funds that we identified from bureau 

records for the ICM/A.C.E. programs were not obligated through fiscal year 

2001. 

• For fiscal years 1996 and 1997, there were no unused funds for the ICM 

program. 

• For fiscal year 1998, about $2.7 million remained unobligated for the 

ICM program because of the following reasons. 

• $1.5 million was due to the dress rehearsal housing unit follow-up 

workload being smaller than anticipated; a bureau bonus program11

not being implemented although budgeted; and less mileage 

reimbursement than budgeted under project code 6205 (ICM Dress 

Rehearsal).

11This program was intended to provide certain temporary employees a cash incentive to 

stay at the bureau until the end of 2000 Census operations.

$22.30

$135.0 

$27.60 

$22.0 

Salaries and benefits

Contractual services

Equipment

Other

Total obligated costs $206.9 

Source: GAO analysis of unaudited bureau data.
Page 14 GAO-03-41 Census 2000 ICM/A.C.E. Programs

• $400,000 was due to unused budgeted funds for salaries related to 

project code 6352 (ICM Coverage Measurement).

• $400,000 was due to unused budgeted funds for salaries and a delay 

in awarding contract services under project code 6444 (ICM 

Procedures and Training).

• $400,000 was due to unused budgeted funds for regional office 

manager and assistant manager salaries and travel costs due to 

delays in hiring under project code 6480 (ICM Collection).12

• For fiscal year 1999, about $3.6 million budgeted for the ICM program 

remained unobligated due to the following reasons.

• About $2.3 million related to project code 6480 (ICM Collection) was 

not used, including $1.6 million due to unspent salaries related to 

hiring delays, hiring fewer staff than authorized for selected 

positions, and hiring qualified candidates at less than budgeted 

levels. Another $0.7 million was due to less mileage reimbursement 

than budgeted.

• About $1.2 million was due to equipment costs and hardware for 2000 

being less than budgeted under project code 6608 (ICM Processing).

• For fiscal year 2000, about $42.5 million remained unobligated for the 

A.C.E. program, consisting of almost $40 million for project code 6480 

(A.C.E. Collection), which was budgeted for the program but was not 

used primarily because of the following reasons.

• About $32 million was due to unspent salaries and benefits for office 

staff in field offices from hiring fewer positions and hiring at lower 

grades than budgeted and from lower data collection costs due to a 

reduction in cases requiring personal visits. 

• About $4 million was due to the fact that contract obligations for 

laptop computers and support services were less than budgeted.

• About $2 million resulted from lower GSA rents than budgeted.

12This project covers the implementation of certain ICM/A.C.E. field operations and support 

activities.
Page 15 GAO-03-41 Census 2000 ICM/A.C.E. Programs

• For fiscal year 2001, about $8.9 million of unobligated funds remained 

for the A.C.E. program, consisting mostly of $6.4 million for project code 

6480 (A.C.E., Collection), which was budgeted for the program but was 

not used.

7. What were the ICM/A.C.E. program-related costs for the bureau dress 

rehearsal in fiscal year 1998?

As shown in appendix I, the ICM program-related costs for the 1998 dress 

rehearsal were captured under project code 6205 (ICM Dress Rehearsal). 

Of the total $10.8 million budgeted, we were able to identify obligations of 

$9.4 million from bureau records. Most of these obligations were incurred 

in fiscal year 1998, with some follow-up amounts in the first quarter of 

fiscal year 1999. According to bureau officials, the dress rehearsal project 

activities included data collection and case management, data processing, 

and implementation of estimation operations. This project also covered 

the implementation of ICM and some elements of A.C.E. at the Sacramento, 

California, and Menominee County, Wisconsin dress rehearsal sites. 

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

The Department of Commerce comments expressed disagreement with 

how we presented answers to the seven questions in the report, but did not 

comment on the substance of our answers. It said that our report’s 

conclusions imply financial management or reporting failures and suggest 

specific control weaknesses in the bureau’s financial management systems. 

It also said we inferred an inability to properly manage from large 

unexplained discrepancies between budgeted and obligated amounts for 

the ICM/A.C.E. programs. Our answers were not prepared with the intent 

of drawing conclusions beyond the information presented and we did not 

make interpretive conclusions or qualitative judgments about the 

ICM/A.C.E. programs. Although not within the scope of this report, our 

December 2001 report identified internal control weaknesses for fiscal year 

2000 related to the bureau’s lack of controls over financial reporting and 

financial management systems.13

The department’s written comments and our more detailed evaluation of its 

concerns are presented in appendix II.

13GAO-02-30. 
Page 16 GAO-03-41 Census 2000 ICM/A.C.E. Programs

As agreed with your offices, unless you announce its contents earlier, we 

plan no further distribution of this report until 7 days after its issuance 

date. At that time, we will send copies to the Chairman and Ranking 

Minority Member of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, the 

House Committee on Government Reform, and the House Subcommittee 

on Civil Service, Census, and Agency Organization. We will also send 

copies to the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau, the Secretary of 

Commerce, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the 

Secretary of the Treasury, and other interested parties. This report will also 

be available on GAO’s home page at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staffs have any questions concerning this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-9095 or by e-mail at kutzg@gao.gov or

Roger R. Stoltz, Assistant Director, at (202) 512-9408 or by e-mail at 

stoltzr@gao.gov. A key contributor to this report was Cindy Brown-Barnes.

Gregory D. Kutz

Director

Financial Management and Assurance
Page 17 GAO-03-41 Census 2000 ICM/A.C.E. Programs

Appendix I

Budgeted and Obligated Life Cycle Costs by Apendxies

Framework and Project for Fiscal Years 1996 

through 2003 ApendxiI

Table 1: Census 2000 ICM/A.C.E. Program Budgeted Life Cycle Costs for Fiscal Years 1996 through 2003 

Note: ICM projects became A.C.E. projects in fiscal year 2000 and thereafter.

a This full year original cost estimate of the A.C.E. program was developed around May 2001. On June 

12, 2002, a senior official told us that the bureau was revising this amount to about $2 million to cover 

the period October 1 through December 31, 2002, when the A.C.E. program will end. 

Source: GAO compiled from U.S. Census Bureau financial management records.

Dollars in millions

Project Description FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 Total

6311 A.C.E. Coverage 

Management $8.5 $8.5

6348 A.C.E. Operations

 .4 .4

6480 ICM Collection

$1.6 $13.9 132.3 $29.6 177.4

Total Framework 3 1.6 13.9 141.2 29.6 186.3

6444 ICM Procedures & 

Training $.2 1.7 1.8 2.6 2.1 $.7 $1.7 10.8

6608 ICM

Processing .2 5.3 10.4 3.9 1.4 3.0 24.2

Total Framework 5 .4 1.7 7.1 13.0 6.0 2.1 4.7 35.0

6205 ICM Dress 

Rehearsal .1 9.4 1.4 10.9

6236 ICM Special Test

$3.3 7.0 10.3

6352 ICM Coverage 

Measurement 3.0 6.0 9.3 10.0 3.2 2.5 34.1

Total Framework 6 3.3 10.1 15.4 10.7 10.0 3.2 2.5 55.2

Total $3.3 $10.5 $18.7 $31.7 $154.2 $45.6 $5.3 $7.2a $276.5
Appendix I

Budgeted and Obligated Life Cycle Costs by 

Framework and Project for Fiscal Years 1996 

through 2003

Page 18 GAO-03-41 Census 2000 ICM/A.C.E. Programs

Table 2: Census 2000 ICM/A.C.E. Program Obligated Life Cycle Costs for Fiscal Years 1996 through 2001 

Note: ICM projects became A.C.E. projects in fiscal year 2000 and thereafter.

Source: GAO compiled from U.S. Census Bureau financial management records.

Dollars in millions

Project Description FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 Total

6311 A.C.E. Coverage 

Management $7.7 $.1 $7.8

6348 A.C.E. Operations

 .4 .4

6480 ICM Collection

$1.2 $11.6 92.5 23.2 128.5

Total Framework 3 1.2 11.6 100.6 23.3 136.7

6444 ICM Procedures & Training

$.4 1.3 1.9 2.9 1.8 8.3

6608 ICM Processing

 .2 4.1 8.4 3.8 16.5

Total Framework 5 .6 1.3 6.0 11.3 5.6 24.8

6205 ICM Dress Rehearsal

 .1 7.9 1.4 9.4

6236 ICM Special Test

$3.6 7.1 10.7

6352 ICM Coverage 

Measurement 3.0 5.6 9.0 -.1 7.8 25.3

Total Framework 6 3.6 10.2 13.5 10.4 -.1 7.8 45.4

Total $3.6 $10.8 $16.0 $28.0 $111.8 $36.7 $206.9
Page 19 GAO-03-41 Census 2000 ICM/A.C.E. Programs

Appendix II

Comments From the Department of 

Commerce ApendxiI

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in 

the report text appear 

at the end of this 

appendix.
Appendix II

Comments From the Department of 

Commerce

Page 20 GAO-03-41 Census 2000 ICM/A.C.E. Programs

See comment 1.

See comment 2.
Appendix II

Comments From the Department of 

Commerce

Page 21 GAO-03-41 Census 2000 ICM/A.C.E. Programs

See comment 3.

See comment 4.

See comment 5.
Appendix II

Comments From the Department of 

Commerce

Page 22 GAO-03-41 Census 2000 ICM/A.C.E. Programs
Appendix II

Comments From the Department of 

Commerce

Page 23 GAO-03-41 Census 2000 ICM/A.C.E. Programs

The following are GAO’s comments on the letter dated October 17, 2002, 

from the Department of Commerce. 

GAO Comments 1. Our report does not make interpretive conclusions or qualitative 

judgments about the ICM/A.C.E. programs. With bureau assistance, we 

compiled unaudited budgeted and obligated amounts for projects that 

the bureau reported in its financial management system as being 

ICM/A.C.E. related. Our review of these reported costs indicated that 

life cycle costs of the ICM/A.C.E. programs were not complete due to 

three factors as discussed in the body of our report. One of the factors 

we cited that contributed to incomplete life cycle costs was $3.6 million 

of fiscal year 1996 obligated costs for an ICM special test. In its 

comments, the bureau pointed out that prior to fiscal year 1996 it had 

not defined the coverage measurement program, did not allocate any 

expenditures to the ICM project codes, and could not identify any costs 

prior to fiscal year 1996. Thus, it was the bureau’s decision to not track 

specific costs during this time period and to consider them as general 

research.

We also stated that $57.7 million of budgeted funds were not obligated 

or spent through fiscal year 2001, and, with input from bureau officials, 

we obtained reasons why these funds were not spent. The bureau did 

not take exception to these facts in its response and we noted no 

improprieties in this report. 

Regarding a reference to specific control weaknesses in its financial 

management systems, the scope of this report did not include an 

assessment of internal control weaknesses in the bureau’s financial 

management systems. However, in a December 2001 report, we 

identified specific internal control weaknesses for fiscal year 2000 

related to the bureau’s lack of controls over financial reporting and 

financial management systems.14

2. We still disagree with the bureau on this point, as we stated in the draft 

report. Because these costs were separately tracked by a specific ICM 

project code in the bureau’s financial management system, we included 

them in the costs of the ICM/A.C.E. programs that we could identify.

14GAO-02-30. 
Appendix II

Comments From the Department of 

Commerce

Page 24 GAO-03-41 Census 2000 ICM/A.C.E. Programs

3. We did not cite discrepancies between the $400 million original cost 

estimate of the ICM/A.C.E. programs provided in early 1999 and the 

$277 million budgeted amount we identified for fiscal years 1996 

through 2003. An objective of our report was to determine what were 

the original estimated life cycle costs for the ICM/A.C.E. programs. The 

earliest amount that we could identify from bureau records was $400 

million and in our report we explained that this amount was estimated 

by the bureau before the January 1999 Supreme Court decision. As a 

result of this decision and as disclosed in our report, the bureau 

decreased the ICM/A.C.E. program by about $214 million due to a 

reduction in the sample size from 750,000 to 300,000 housing units. 

4. We did not suggest that the difference between $277 million of 

budgeted life cycle costs and $207 million of obligated life cycle costs 

demonstrated the bureau’s inability to properly manage and record 

expenditures relating to the ICM/A.C.E. programs. As presented in our 

report, the budgeted amount of $277 million included fiscal years 1996 

through 2003 and the obligated amount of $207 million included 

amounts for 2 fewer fiscal years (1996 through 2001). As the bureau 

pointed out in its response, it is too soon to determine obligated 

amounts for fiscal years 2002 and 2003 that were budgeted for $12.5 

million. Variances for the remaining $57.7 million of unspent funds are 

discussed in comment 1.

5. The bureau agreed that it did not capture the life cycle costs of 

evaluations for the ICM/A.C.E. programs because evaluations for all 

2000 Census programs were charged to one project code. However, the 

bureau believes that data processing costs were included in the life 

cycle costs of the ICM/A.C.E. programs and stated that not being able to 

identify portions of these costs is not demonstrative of a financial 

management or reporting failure. We agree with the bureau that some 

data processing costs were captured in the life cycle costs of the 

ICM/A.C.E. programs as evidenced by project codes for ICM/A.C.E. 

data processing for procedures, training, and processing as part of 

Framework 5. However, we do not believe that all data processing 

costs were included. Similar to evaluation costs, the bureau attributed 

much of its computer hardware and support costs to overall 2000 

Census programs, and did not allocate costs to specific projects or 

programs. 

(192052)
GAO’s Mission The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, exists to 

support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve 

the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American 

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

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 

integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

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

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

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

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

including charts and other graphics.

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

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

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

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

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

Products heading.

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A check 

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

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

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

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

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

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

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

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

Washington, D.C. 20548
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Service Requested

Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00