2020 CENSUS

Bureau Has Made 

Progress with Its 

Scheduling, but 

Further Improvement 

Will Help Inform 

Management 

Decisions

Report to Congressional Requesters

July 2018

GAO-18-589

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-18-589, a report to 

congressional requesters

July 2018

2020 CENSUS

Bureau Has Made Progress with Its Scheduling, but 

Further Improvement Will Help lnform Management 

Decisions

What GAO Found

The three census project schedules GAO reviewed better reflect characteristics 

of a reliable schedule compared to a GAO schedule assessment performed in 

2013, but weaknesses remain. GAO reviewed three projects that contribute to 

two of the Census Bureau’s (Bureau) largest field operations—address 

canvassing and nonresponse follow-up. The schedules for all three projects are 

better constructed and more credible than previously reviewed project 

schedules. For example, the Bureau has improved the logic of the relationship 

between activities, and better ensured that all schedules are linked together in a 

master schedule so that their interactions can be better managed.

However, the three selected schedules have some of the same weaknesses 

GAO identified in other Bureau schedules in 2009 and 2013. For example, none 

of the selected schedules contain information on resource needs and availability. 

GAO has reported that such information assists program offices in forecasting 

the likelihood that activities will be completed as scheduled. It can also help 

management compute total labor and equipment hours, calculate total project 

and per-period cost, resolve resource conflicts, and establish the 

reasonableness of the plan. If the schedule does not allow insight into current or 

projected allocation of resources, then the likelihood is significantly increased 

that the program may slip or need additional resources to complete on time. 

In GAO’s 2009 review of the Bureau’s schedule, GAO recommended that the 

Bureau include in the 2020 master schedule estimates of the resources, such as 

labor, materials, and overhead costs for each activity as the 2020 schedule was

built. The Department of Commerce did not respond to the recommendation at 

that time. Then, regarding GAO’s 2013 assessment of the Bureau’s schedule, 

Bureau officials stated that they hoped to begin identifying the resources needed 

for each activity in their schedules by early 2014. However, as of May 2018, the 

Bureau had not taken these steps. Senior Bureau officials have now stated that it

would require additional staffing in order to plan for and implement this 

recommendation.

Additionally, the Bureau has not conducted risk assessments for the project 

schedules GAO assessed. Schedule risk analysis—the systematic analysis of 

“what if” scenarios—is an established leading practice. Risk assessments are 

needed to determine the likelihood of the project’s completion date; how much 

schedule risk contingency is needed to provide an acceptable level of certainty 

for completion by a specific date; risks most likely to delay the project; how much 

contingency reserve each risk requires; and the paths or activities that are most 

likely to delay the project. 

In 2013, GAO recommended the Bureau conduct risk assessments for its 

schedules. The Bureau said it had no disagreement with this recommendation.

However, while Senior Bureau officials stated that a schedule risk assessment 

plan and process were approved by Bureau management in late May 2018, it 

has not yet implemented this recommendation.

GAO believes that these prior recommendations still apply and can help the 

Bureau improve the reliability of its 2020 schedule.

View GAO-18-589. For more information, 

contact Robert Goldenkoff at (202) 512-2757 

or goldenkoffr@gao.gov

Why GAO Did This Study

The Bureau is required by law to count 

the population as of April 1, 2020; 

deliver state apportionment counts to 

the President by December 31, 2020; 

and provide redistricting data to the 

states within 1 year of Census Day, 

April 1, 2021. To meet these statutory 

deadlines, the Bureau carries out 

hundreds of projects, which it manages 

with an integrated master schedule. 

Because census operations need to 

proceed in concert with one another, 

significant delays could propagate to 

other activities resulting in increased 

costs, reduced operational quality, or 

changes to the design of the census in 

order to compensate for lost time. 

This report determines the extent to 

which the Bureau is using leading 

practices for scheduling key projects. 

GAO selected three projects for review 

based on their cost and in-progress 

status. GAO analyzed schedules and 

their supporting documents against 

GAO's Schedule Assessment Guide. 

GAO also spoke with relevant Bureau 

officials regarding the three selected 

projects.

GAO provided a draft of this report to 

the Department of Commerce, which 

agreed with the findings. 
Page i GAO-18-589 2020 Census

Letter 1

Background 3

Selected Census Schedules Better Reflect Characteristics of a 

Reliable Schedule Compared to Prior Assessment, though 

Weaknesses Remain 6

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 14

Appendix I Objective, Scope, and Methodology 17

Appendix II Description of Scheduling Leading Practices 19

Appendix III Assessment of the Extent to Which the Bureau Followed Scheduling 

Leading Practices 20

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Commerce 22

Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 23

Tables

Table 1: Scoring Methodology 18

Table 2: Assessment of the Bureau’s 2018 End-to-End Census 

Test Address Canvassing Schedule 20

Table 3: Assessment of the Bureau’s 2018 End-to-End Census 

Test Nonresponse Follow-up Schedule 21

Table 4: Assessment of the Bureau’s 2020 Census Geographic 

Programs Schedule 21

Figures

Figure 1: The Average Cost of Counting Each Housing Unit (in 

2020 Constant Dollars) Has Escalated Each Decade, 

While the Percentage of Mail Response Rates Has 

Declined 5

Contents
Page ii GAO-18-589 2020 Census

Figure 2: Selected Census Bureau Schedules Show Improvement 

in Some Areas Compared to GAO’s 2013 Assessment 7

Figure 3: 2020 Census Life-Cycle 9

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-18-589 2020 Census

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

July 26, 2018

Congressional Requesters:

The decennial census is a crucial, constitutionally mandated activity with 

immutable deadlines.1 The U.S. Census Bureau (Bureau) is required by 

law to count the population as of April 1, 2020; deliver state 

apportionment counts to the President by December 31, 2020; and 

provide redistricting data to the states within 1 year of Census Day, April 

1, 2021.2 To meet these statutory deadlines, the Bureau carries out 

thousands of interrelated activities, which it manages with an integrated 

master schedule. The Bureau’s schedule is essential to help manage the 

risks to preparing and implementing a successful decennial census. 

Because census operations need to proceed in concert with one another, 

significant delays could propagate to other activities and increase costs, 

reduce operational quality, or force the Bureau to change the design of 

the census in order to compensate for lost time.

Over the years, we have reported on significant weaknesses in the 

Bureau’s scheduling practices, leading to recommendations for the 

Bureau to improve the comprehensiveness, construction, and credibility 

of its schedule, and ensure that it includes estimates of the resources and 

a qualitative risk assessment. The Bureau said that it had no 

disagreement with these recommendations, yet these recommendations 

have not been implemented.3 With less than 2 years until Census Day, 

 1

The U.S. Constitution empowers Congress to carry out the census in “such manner as 

they shall by Law direct” (U.S. Const. art. I, § 2, cl. 3).

2

13 U.S.C. § 141(a)-(c). Although the Constitution prescribes the year in which a 

decennial census is to be conducted, it does not specify an actual date. The specific date 

for the census is established by statute. The April 1 date has been mandated by statute 

since the 1960 Census. The timetable for reporting population counts derived from census 

data is also mandated by statute. The law requires the Secretary to tabulate the “total 

population by States” and report these data to the President for purposes of congressional 

reapportionment within 9 months after the census date. The law also requires the 

Secretary of Commerce to send census population tabulations for redistricting to the 

states as expeditiously as possible, but no later than 1 year after the April 1 decennial 

census date.

3

GAO, 2020 Census: Bureau Needs to Improve Scheduling Practices to Enhance Ability 

to Meet Address List Development Deadlines, GAO-14-59 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 21, 

2013); and 2010 Census: Census Bureau 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).

Letter
Page 2 GAO-18-589 2020 Census

there is little time remaining for the Bureau to deal with any unexpected 

problems that may arise. Accordingly, early recognition of potential delays 

is essential, and remaining activities need to begin and end on schedule 

and in the proper operational sequence.

In response to your request, our objective was to determine the extent to 

which the Bureau is using leading practices for scheduling key projects. In 

order to meet this objective, we selected the following three projects for 

review: 2018 End-to-End Census Test Address Canvassing, 2018 End-toEnd Census Test Nonresponse Follow-up, and 2020 Census Geographic 

Programs. These projects are critical to the Bureau’s ability to build and 

maintain an accurate address list, and help ensure that households 

respond to the census. We selected these projects based on their high 

cost, their significance to the 2020 Census, and that they were still in 

progress.

We compared the schedules for each of these projects to the leading 

practices in our Schedule Assessment Guide.

4 We spoke with relevant 

Bureau officials regarding these project schedules. We scored each 

scheduling leading practice on a five-point scale ranging from “not met” to 

“met.” Finally, we compared these results with our prior assessments of 

the Bureau’s schedule, particularly those where we made 

recommendations, and we updated the status of those recommendations.

Assessing only three key projects limits possible statements about the 

Bureau’s entire schedule. For example, if the Bureau is not following best 

practices in creating and maintaining these three project schedules, we 

can conclude that the larger integrated schedule is unreliable. This is 

because an integrated master schedule consolidates lower-level project 

schedules. Thus, errors and reliability issues in lower levels will be 

transferred to higher-level schedules. However, if the selected lower-level 

projects are deemed reliable, we cannot definitively determine the 

reliability of the integrated master schedule because the other projects 

that were not assessed may be unreliable. For more details on our scope 

and methodology, see appendix I.

We conducted our performance audit from July 2017 to July 2018 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

 4

GAO, Schedule Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Project Schedules, GAO-16-89G. 

(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 2015). 
Page 3 GAO-18-589 2020 Census

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.

A reliable schedule is critically important for a successful 2020 Census. In 

February 2017, we added the 2020 Census to our High-Risk List because 

operational and other issues including scheduling are threatening the 

Bureau’s ability to deliver a cost-effective enumeration.5 We reported on 

concerns about the quality of the Bureau’s schedule and cost 

assessment, the Bureau’s capacity to implement innovative census-taking 

methods, and uncertainties surrounding critical information technology 

systems. Underlying these issues are challenges in such essential 

management functions as the Bureau’s ability to

• collect and use real-time indicators of schedule, cost, and 

performance;

• follow leading practices for scheduling, cost estimation, risk 

management, and IT acquisition, development, testing, and security; 

and

• cost effectively deal with contingencies including, for example, fiscal 

constraints, potential changes in design, and natural disasters that 

could affect the enumeration.

Reliable scheduling practices are essential for managing tradeoffs 

between cost, schedule, and scope. Among other things, scheduling 

allows program managers to decide between possible sequences of 

activities, determine the flexibility of the schedule according to available 

resources, predict the consequences of managerial action or inaction in 

events, and allocate contingency plans to mitigate risk. Following 

changes in a program, the schedule is used to forecast the effects of 

delayed, deleted, and added effort, as well as possible avenues for time 

and cost recovery.

Scheduling is important because the cost of counting the nation’s 

population has been escalating with each decade. The 2010 Census was 

 5

GAO, High-Risk Series: Progress on Many High-Risk Areas, While Substantial Efforts 

Needed on Others, GAO-17-317 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 15, 2017).

Background
Page 4 GAO-18-589 2020 Census

the most expensive in U.S. history at about $12.3 billion, and was about 

31 percent more costly than the $9.4 billion 2000 Census (in 2020 

constant dollars).6 According to the Bureau, the total cost of the 2020 

Census is now estimated to be approximately $15.6 billion dollars, more 

than $3 billion higher than previously estimated by the Bureau.7

Moreover, as shown in figure 1, the average cost for counting a housing 

unit increased from about $16 in 1970 to around $92 in 2010 (in 2020 

constant dollars). At the same time, the return of census questionnaires 

by mail (the primary mode of data collection) declined over this period 

from 78 percent in 1970 to 63 percent in 2010. Declining mail response 

rates have led to higher costs because the Bureau needs to send 

temporary workers to each nonresponding household to obtain census 

data.

 6

According to the Bureau, these figures rely on fiscal year 2020 constant dollar factors 

derived from the Chained Price Index from “Gross Domestic Product and Deflators Used 

in the Historical Tables: 1940–2020” table from the Fiscal Year 2016 Budget of the United 

States Government.

7

The historical life-cycle cost figures for prior decennials as well as the initial estimate for 

2020 provided by the Department of Commerce in October 2017 differ slightly from those 

reported by the Bureau previously. According to Commerce documents, the more recently 

reported figures are “inflated to the current 2020 Census time frame (fiscal years 2012 to 

2023),” rather than to 2020 constant dollars as the earlier figures had been. Specifically, 

since October 2017, Commerce and the Bureau have reported the October 2015 estimate 

for the 2020 Census as $12.3 billion; this is slightly different than the $12.5 billion the 

Bureau had initially reported. 
Page 5 GAO-18-589 2020 Census

Figure 1: The Average Cost of Counting Each Housing Unit (in 2020 Constant 

Dollars) Has Escalated Each Decade, While the Percentage of Mail Response Rates 

Has Declined

The schedules we reviewed for this report—2020 Census Geographic 

Programs, 2018 End-to-End Test Address Canvassing, and 2018 End-toEnd Census Test Nonresponse Follow-up—relate to the key activities of 

developing an accurate address list and following up with households that 

did not mail back their census forms. The Bureau relies on a complete 

and accurate address list to maximize the more cost-efficient selfresponse rate.

The three projects we selected contribute to two of the Census Bureau’s 

largest field operations. The Bureau’s Geographic Programs Operation 

maintains the Bureau’s master address file and mapping data used to 

conduct the 2020 Census. The Bureau’s Geographic Programs Operation 

provides the most current address list to the Bureau’s Address 

Canvassing Operation, where Bureau staff make updates to the address 

list via in-office and in-field procedures. These updates are processed on 

an ongoing basis throughout the decade. The Bureau conducts its 

Nonresponse Follow-up Operation after Census Day by having 
Page 6 GAO-18-589 2020 Census

enumerators go door-to-door to determine the housing unit status for 

addresses that do not self-respond to the 2020 Census, and enumerate 

households that are determined to be occupied.

We have previously reported in our Schedule Assessment Guide that a 

reliable schedule can provide a road map for systematic execution of a 

program, and the means by which to gauge progress, identify and 

address potential problems, and promote accountability.8 The guide 

identifies four characteristics of a reliable schedule:9

• Comprehensive: The schedule should identify all activities and 

resources necessary to accomplish the project. The schedule should 

cover the scope of work to be performed so that the full picture is 

available to managers.

• Well-constructed: Activities should be logically sequenced and critical 

activities that would affect the timelines of the schedule should be 

identified.

• Credible: All schedules should be linked to a complete master 

schedule for managers to reference and analyzed for how risk 

impacts the outcome of the schedule.

• Controlled: There should be a documented process for changes to the 

schedule so that the integrity of the schedule is assured.

For a schedule to be reliable, it must substantially or fully meet all criteria 

for these four characteristics. These characteristics, their related leading 

practices, and their criteria are described in more detail in appendix II.

In 2013, we assessed the Bureau’s 2020 Research and Testing and 

Geographic Support System Initiative schedules using these criteria. 

While the results exhibited some of the characteristics of a reliable 

schedule, important weaknesses remained. Both schedules substantially 

met one of the four characteristics (controlled) and minimally or partially 

met the other three characteristics (comprehensive, well-constructed, and 

credible).

 8

GAO-16-89G. 

9

Underlying these characteristics are 10 leading practices, which are described in 

appendix II. These characteristics and leading practices were developed based on our 

practices for creating a reliable cost estimate and in consultation with experts from the

scheduling community. 

Selected Census 

Schedules Better 

Reflect 

Characteristics of a 

Reliable Schedule 

Compared to Prior 

Assessment, though 

Weaknesses Remain
Page 7 GAO-18-589 2020 Census

For this review, we assessed the 2018 End-to-End Census Test Address 

Canvassing, 2018 End-to-End Census Test Nonresponse Follow-up, and 

2020 Census Geographic Programs projects’ schedules.10 We found that 

overall the selected schedules better reflected two of the four 

characteristics of a reliable schedule compared to our 2013 assessment 

(see figure 2).

Figure 2: Selected Census Bureau Schedules Show Improvement in Some Areas Compared to GAO’s 2013 Assessment

Examples of the extent to which these characteristics were met are 

provided below. For a more detailed explanation of our assessment 

results, see appendix III.

 10The December 17, 2017 version of the 2020 Census integrated master schedule—from 

which we selected three projects for detailed analysis—consisted of 255 total projects, of 

which 134 were remaining. The 3 projects selected for review are 2018 End-to-End 

Census Test Address Canvassing, 2018 End-to-End Census Test Nonresponse Followup, and 2020 Census Geographic Programs. We selected these based on several criteria, 

including cost of the project and status of the project. 
Page 8 GAO-18-589 2020 Census 

As with our 2013 schedule assessment, our 2018 analysis found that the 

Bureau is partially meeting the characteristics of a comprehensive 

schedule. For example, the projects we assessed reflect the work to be 

accomplished for the project schedules, and each project schedule 

includes estimates of the duration of each activity. Additionally, the 2018 

End-to-End Census Test Address Canvassing and the 2018 End-to-End 

Census Test Nonresponse Follow-up project schedules contain clear start 

and finish milestones, and map to the census program work breakdown 

structure—a detailed definition of the work necessary to accomplish a 

program’s objectives.

This leading practice of capturing all activities was substantially met, not 

fully met (see appendix III for a more detailed explanation), because while 

for each project all activities and milestones are mapped to their work 

breakdown structures by codes, there are no corresponding dictionaries 

to define the work. The absence of such a dictionary could potentially 

lead to confusion among staff in different census offices about the scope 

of the work they are responsible for performing.

Our schedule guide states that a work breakdown structure dictionary is a 

valuable communication tool between systems engineers, program 

management, and other stakeholders because it provides a clear picture 

of what efforts have to be accomplished. Bureau officials stated that 

although their 2020 Schedule Management Plan requires each project to 

have a schedule work breakdown structure dictionary, as project 

schedules are updated, they have not created these required dictionaries. 

As an alternative, they noted that the 2020 Census Operational Plan 

includes details and definitions of the projects.

Additionally, none of the three schedules we assessed include 

information about what levels of resources, such as labor and equipment, 

are required to complete the planned work—including this information is 

called resource loading. The Bureau’s 2020 Schedule Management Plan 

states that it is the responsibility of a representative from a project team 

and the schedule staff to assign resources to an individual project 

schedule, and that defining and assigning resources should be done 

following the testing phase of the 2020 Census Lifecycle.

The Bureau is now in its implementation phase (see figure 3 below), so 

according to its management plan, resource loading should have begun. 

But it has not. For example, the 2018 End-to-End Census Test Address 

Canvassing project schedule did not include any resource information on 

the recruiting and hiring goals for the address canvassing field work. 

Comprehensive–Selected 

Schedules Partially Meet 

Characteristic but Do Not 

Identify Needed 

Resources
Page 9 GAO-18-589 2020 Census

Instead, Bureau officials stated that they are estimating the cost of 

activities using a software tool separate from the current schedule 

management tool. They further stated that this Bureau-wide solution 

includes all 2020 Decennial Census staff as Decennial funded resources. 

However, the information in this separate tool has no effect on the 

durations or forecasted start and finish dates of detailed activities within 

individual projects. Furthermore, the separate tool does not always track 

all activities at the lowest level in the schedule, so that Bureau managers 

do not have reliable visibility with it on the efforts of the lowest level of 

detailed activities.

Figure 3: 2020 Census Life-Cycle

Resource loading is important for any agency, but is particularly important 

for the Census Bureau, given its statutorily mandated deadlines. Missed 

deadlines or schedule slippage can easily jeopardize the quality of the 

2020 Census, and there is little room for error given that census data are 

used to apportion the seats of the House of Representatives, redraw 

congressional districts, and allocate billions of dollars each year in federal 

financial assistance. In our schedule guide, we reported that including 
Page 10 GAO-18-589 2020 Census

resources such as labor, materials, and overhead costs can make a 

schedule a more useful management tool.

A resource-loaded schedule can help management with things such as 

computing labor and equipment hours, calculating total project and perperiod cost, resolving resource allocation conflicts, determining whether 

all required resources will be available when they are needed, and 

establishing the reasonableness of the plan. For example, information on 

the resource needs of field operations in the 2018 End-to-End Census 

Test would assist management in determining if the appropriate resource 

allocations have been made for any given test activity. It would also aide 

in forecasting the likelihood that those resources will be available to 

complete the 2018 End-to-End Census Test Address Canvassing and 

Nonresponse Follow-up activities as scheduled. If the schedule does not 

allow insight into the current or projected allocation of resources for these 

test activities, the Bureau’s risk of key end-to-end test milestones slipping 

increases significantly.

In 2009, we reviewed the Bureau’s schedule and recommended that the 

Bureau include estimates of the resources in the 2020 integrated 

schedule for each activity as the schedule was built.11 The Department of 

Commerce did not respond to the recommendation at that time. In our 

2013 assessment of the Bureau’s schedule, Bureau officials stated that 

they hoped to begin identifying the resources needed for each activity in 

their schedules by early 2014.12 However, as of May 2018, the Bureau 

has not yet implemented this recommendation. Senior Bureau officials 

have now stated that the Bureau would require additional staffing in the 

Schedule Management Branch in the Decennial Census Management 

Division in order to plan for and implement resource loading. When the 

Bureau has resource loaded its schedule, it will be able to use the 

schedule more effectively as a management tool.

 11GAO-10-59. 

12GAO-14-59. 
Page 11 GAO-18-589 2020 Census

Our 2013 assessment of the Bureau’s schedule reported that the Bureau 

only minimally met the characteristics of a well-constructed schedule. Our 

2018 assessment found that two of the selected project schedules now 

substantially met this characteristic and one partially met it. In this 

assessment, Bureau officials linked many of the activities clearly and in a 

straightforward sequence in the schedule, which was not always the case 

in prior assessments.

This improvement is important because it helps staff identify next steps as 

they progress through such things as acquiring and mobilizing the staff 

needed to conduct the address canvassing and nonresponse follow-up 

test field work, and helps managers identify the impact of changes in one 

activity on subsequent activities. For example, the schedule lays out the 

sequence of activities needed, such as developing training materials, 

recruiting field staff, training staff and equipping them with the tools 

needed to complete the test. Our assessment also concluded that two of 

the three project schedules we assessed have valid critical paths, which 

is the sequence of activities in the schedule that, according to their 

current status, lead to the program’s earliest completion date. A valid 

critical path allows management to focus on activities that will lead to the 

project’s success.

The 2020 Census Geographic Programs project schedule partially met 

the well-constructed characteristic due to problems existing within the 

schedule’s sequencing logic. In particular, we found a large number of 

unjustified date constraints and lags.13 In part because of these 

sequencing issues, total float calculations—that is, the amount of time a 

predecessor activity can slip before its delay affects the program’s 

estimated finish date—appear unreasonably high. Additionally, this 

project schedule has activities on the critical path with long durations. For 

example, the project schedule for Geographic Programs included several 

long-duration activities on its critical path that relate to the Bureau’s 

collection of community boundary data—information essential to 

delineating geographic boundaries used in the tabulation of census data. 

These critical long-duration activities make it difficult to measure timecritical progress on such activities in the near term.

 13Date constraints restrict how planned dates respond to actual accomplished effort or 

resource availability. Lags delay a successor activity but are not associated with any effort 

or resources. Because constraints and lags override network logic, they should only be 

used when necessary and only if they are justified in the schedule documentation.

Well-Constructed–The 

Bureau Demonstrated 

Improvement in Selected 

Schedules Compared to 

Prior Assessment
Page 12 GAO-18-589 2020 Census

These issues with how the schedule is constructed can also cause 

schedule users to lack confidence in the forecasted dates. Bureau 

officials acknowledged that the 2020 Census Geographic Programs 

project schedule had logic issues at the time because it was in the middle 

of a revision. Bureau officials stated that the standard process is to 

update the project schedule in an offline version and then assess the 

quality and impacts of changes before acceptance. According to Bureau 

officials, the Geographic Programs project schedule did not follow this 

process and was instead updated in the live version of the schedule 

because of time constraints.

Our 2013 assessment of the Bureau’s schedule found that the Bureau 

minimally met the characteristics of a credible schedule. Our 2018 

assessment of the Bureau’s schedule found that the Bureau’s scheduling 

practices for a credible schedule have improved. We found that there is 

now a clear relationship between lower-level activities and higher-level 

activities and milestones, and there is generally better consistency of 

dates between the project schedule and higher-level management 

documents.

However, the Bureau has not carried out a systematic quantitative risk 

analysis on its schedule. A schedule risk analysis is a statistical 

simulation of the possible effects of threats, opportunities, and general 

uncertainty to a program’s schedule that results in a quantifiable level of 

confidence in meeting the program’s key milestone dates. While the 

Bureau has identified and continues to track risks to its 2018 End-to-End 

Test address canvasing and nonresponse follow-up efforts in risk 

registers, a quantitative risk analysis would illustrate the impact of risks on 

the project schedule, and how those risks would affect the Bureau’s ability 

to meet milestones on time. Such an analysis would also provide a 

measure of how much time contingency should be built in the schedule to 

help manage prioritized risks, and, implicitly, provide indications of where 

additional resources might be needed to stay on schedule.

In response to our 2013 schedule assessment, Bureau officials said they 

were waiting for decisions about scheduling software before making 

decisions about a schedule risk analysis. As of May 2018, the Bureau has 

conducted three risk analyses to prove the software’s capability. 

However, the Bureau still had not conducted a schedule risk assessment 

on the current integrated master schedule used to manage the 2020 

Census program.

Credible–Selected 

Schedules Partially Meet 

Characteristic, but the 

Bureau Has Not Carried 

Out a Schedule Risk 

Analysis
Page 13 GAO-18-589 2020 Census

Without a schedule risk analysis, the Bureau cannot determine the 

likelihood of each project’s completion date; how much schedule risk 

contingency is needed to provide an acceptable level of certainty for 

completion by a specific date; which risks are most likely to affect the 

schedule; how much contingency time each risk requires; and the 

sequence of activities that are most likely to delay the project. Senior 

Bureau officials stated that a schedule risk assessment plan and process 

was approved by Bureau management in late May 2018 and that they 

hope to implement this plan in summer 2018. They intend to conduct an 

internal review over the next couple months to determine how to best use 

the information this risk assessment would yield. Follow through on their 

plans is critical to ensuring our recommendation is implemented.

As with our 2013 schedule assessment, our 2018 analysis reported that 

the Bureau’s scheduling practices are substantially meeting the 

characteristics of a controlled schedule. Our analysis determined that 

there are no date anomalies in the project schedules, such as planned 

dates in the past or actual dates in the future. We found the schedule was 

current as of the date delivered to us, and according to Bureau 

documents, the schedule is updated weekly following an established 

schedule process.

Additionally, the Bureau reported that it has a schedule management 

process in place and a method for logging changes to the schedule in 

accordance with leading practices. Bureau officials reported that they 

monitor schedule trends, including bi-weekly schedule reliability checks 

using the Defense Contract Management Agency 14-Point assessment, a 

commonly used set of schedule integrity and reliability measures. Bureau 

officials also provided the May 2014 Program Change Management 

Process Strategy which defines the process for initiating changes to the 

integrated performance measurement baseline configuration; analyzing 

the impact of changes to project cost, schedule and scope; approving or 

disapproving changes; and updating project or product specifications and 

baselines.

However, our assessment found that the Bureau did not fully meet this 

characteristic for a controlled schedule. The Bureau lacked sound 

documentation of the schedule in the form of a schedule basis document, 

and changes to the current schedules in the form of a schedule narrative. 

The current schedule should be documented in a schedule narrative with 

each update, including changes made to the schedule during status 

updates and changes that are justified along with their likely effect on 

Controlled–Selected 

Schedules Substantially 

Meet the Characteristic
Page 14 GAO-18-589 2020 Census

future activities. The Bureau had not prepared such narratives. 

Additionally, none of the three schedules were supported by a schedule 

baseline document—a single document that defines the organization of a 

schedule, describes the logic of the network, describes the basic 

approach to managing resources, and provides a basis for all parameters 

used to calculate dates. Sound documentation helps with analyzing 

changes in the program schedule and identifying the reasons why actual 

schedule results vary from their estimates, thereby contributing to the 

collection of data that can be useful to evaluations of schedule efforts, 

and that can be used to support future estimates.

While the Bureau has made improvements to implement the 

recommendations regarding the comprehensiveness and construction 

characteristics of the Bureau’s scheduling practices, the Bureau’s lack of 

resource loading and a risk assessment of the schedule continue to affect 

the reliability of the Bureau’s schedule. The schedule would be a more 

useful management tool if the Bureau increased the schedule’s reliability 

by addressing these weaknesses. To address these remaining 

weaknesses, we continue to believe that these recommendations are 

valid in order to ensure the 2020 schedule can support key management 

decisions.

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Commerce. In its 

written comments, reproduced in appendix IV the Department of 

Commerce agreed with our findings.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Commerce, the 

Under Secretary of Economic Affairs, the Acting 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.

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Page 15 GAO-18-589 2020 Census

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 

512-2757 or goldenkoffr@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 that made major contributions to this report are 

listed in appendix V.

Robert Goldenkoff

Director

Strategic Issues
Page 16 GAO-18-589 2020 Census

List of Requesters 

The Honorable Ron Johnson 

Chairman 

The Honorable Claire McCaskill 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Gary Peters 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Federal Spending Oversight and Emergency 

Management 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Trey Gowdy 

Chairman 

The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

House of Representatives
Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 17 GAO-18-589 2020 Census

This report assesses the extent to which the Bureau is using leading 

practices for scheduling key projects.1 We did this by focusing on three 

2020 projects. We selected the three projects from the December 17, 

2017, version of the 2020 Census integrated master schedule. That 

schedule consists of 255 total projects, of which 134 were remaining to be 

completed. We made our selections based on the cost of the projects, 

their significance to the 2020 Census, and the fact that they were in 

progress. The 3 projects selected for review are 2018 End-to-End Census 

Test Address Canvassing, 2018 End-to-End Census Test Nonresponse 

Follow-up, and 2020 Census Geographic Programs.

We reviewed the project schedules and underlying sub-schedules to 

assess them against the 10 scheduling leading practices by:

• Checking for specific problems that could hinder the schedule’s ability 

to respond to changes. For example, we:

• Examined if there are any open-ended activities (i.e., activities 

with no predecessor and/or successors),

• Searched for activities with poor logic:

• For example, Start to Start successor only or Finish to Finish 

predecessor only which represent dangling logic, or

• Logic on summary tasks rather than attached to detailed tasks 

(summary tasks are for organizing the schedule and should 

not drive the logic).

• Looked for activities with constraints which keep the schedule rigid 

(e.g., start no earlier than, finish no later than, etc.),

• Identified any lags or leads which should only be used to show 

how two tasks interact and not to represent work,

• Determined if activities were resource loaded—which helps to cost 

out the schedule—and examine whether resources are over 

allocated or not available when needed,

• Examined the length of activity durations and compared them to 

the program management review cycle,

 1

GAO, GAO Schedule Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Project Schedules. 

GAO-16-89G (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 2015). Underlying these characteristics are 10 

leading practices, which are described in appendix II. These characteristics and leading 

practices were developed in 2012 based on our practices for creating a reliable cost 

estimate and in consultation with experts from the scheduling community.

Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 18 GAO-18-589 2020 Census

• Checked for horizontal and vertical integration within the schedule,

• Examined the schedule critical path to determine whether or not it 

was reliable and logical,

• Examined schedule float and determine if it was reasonable, and

• Examined whether the schedule was baselined, its status cycle, 

and what deviations there were from the original plan. We also 

determined if there were any actual start or finish dates recorded 

in the future and whether there was any broken logic between 

planned tasks.

We also interviewed Bureau officials responsible for the 2020 schedule. 

We scored each scheduling leading practice on a five-point scale ranging 

from “not met” to “met.” We determined the characteristic assessment 

rating by assigning each best practice rating a number and taking the 

average. The numerical ratings and ranges of the resulting averages are 

as follows.

Table 1: Scoring Methodology

Rating description Best practice rating

Characteristic

(average) rating

Met 5 5.0 – 4.5

Substantially met 4 4.4 – 3.5

Partially met 3 3.4 – 2.5

Minimally met 2 2.4 – 1.5

Not met 1 1.4 – 1.0

Source: GAO-18-589.

We then compared these results with our prior assessments of the 

Bureau’s schedule, particularly those where recommendations were 

made, and we updated the status of those recommendations.

Assessing only three key projects limits possible statements about the 

Bureau’s entire schedule. For example, if the Bureau is not following best 

practices in creating and maintaining the three project schedules, we can 

conclude that the larger integrated schedule is unreliable. This is because 

an integrated master schedule consolidates lower-level project schedules; 

errors and reliability issues in lower levels will be transferred to higherlevel schedules. However, if the selected lower-level projects are deemed 

reliable, we cannot definitively determine the reliability of the integrated 

master schedule because the other projects that were not assessed may 

be unreliable.
Appendix II: Description of Scheduling 

Leading Practices

Page 19 GAO-18-589 2020 Census

Characteristic Leading Practice Description

Comprehensive Capturing all activities A schedule should reflect all activities defined in the project’s work breakdown 

structure and include all activities to be performed by the government and contractor.

Assigning resources to all 

activities

The schedule should realistically reflect the resources (i.e., labor, material, and 

overhead) needed to do the work, whether all required resources will be available 

when needed, and whether any funding or time constraints exist.

Establishing the durations 

of all activities

The schedule should reflect how long each activity will take to execute.

Well-constructed Sequencing all activities The schedule should be planned so that all activities are logically sequenced in the 

order they are to be carried out.

Confirming that the critical 

path is valid

The schedule should identify the critical path, or those activities that, if delayed, will 

negatively impact the overall project completion date. The critical path enables 

analysis of the effect delays may have on the overall schedule.

Ensuring reasonable total 

float

The schedule should identify float—the amount of time an activity can slip in the 

schedule before it affects other activities—so that flexibility in the schedule can be 

determined. As a general rule, activities along the critical path have the least amount 

of float.

Credible Verifying that the schedule 

is traceable horizontally 

and vertically

The detailed schedule should be horizontally traceable, meaning that it should link 

products and outcomes associated with other sequenced activities. The integrated 

master schedule should also be vertically traceable—that is, varying levels of 

activities and supporting subactivities can be traced. Such mapping or alignment of 

levels enables different groups to work to the same master schedule.

Conducting a schedule 

risk analysis

The schedule should include a schedule risk analysis that uses statistical techniques 

to predict the probability of meeting a completion date. A schedule risk analysis can 

help management identify high priority risks and opportunities.

Controlled Updating the schedule 

with actual progress and 

logic

Progress updates and logic provide a realistic forecast of start and completion dates 

for program activities. Maintaining the integrity of the schedule logic at regular 

intervals is necessary to reflect the true status of the program. To ensure that the 

schedule is properly updated, people responsible for updating should be trained in 

critical path method scheduling. 

Maintaining a baseline 

schedule

A baseline schedule represents the original configuration of the program plan and is 

the basis for managing the project scope, the time period for accomplishing it, and 

the required resources. Comparing the current status of the schedule to the baseline 

can help managers target areas for mitigation.

Source: GAO-18-589.

Appendix II: Description of Scheduling 

Leading Practices
Appendix III: Assessment of the Extent to 

Which the Bureau Followed Scheduling 

Leading Practices

Page 20 GAO-18-589 2020 Census

Ten Leading Practices Version of Supporting Applied Research and 

Methods Schedule Analyses

Table 2: Assessment of the Bureau’s 2018 End-to-End Census Test Address Canvassing Schedule

Characteristic Overall Assessment Leading Practice (#s refer to Schedule Guide)

Individual 

Assessment

Comprehensive Partially Met 1. Capturing all activities Substantially Met

3. Assigning resources to all activities Minimally Met

4. Establishing the durations of all activities Substantially Met

Well-constructed Substantially Met 2. Sequencing all activities Substantially Met

6. Confirming that the critical path is valid Substantially Met

7. Ensuring reasonable total float Substantially Met

Credible Partially Met 5. Verifying that the schedule is traceable horizontally and 

vertically 

Substantially Met

8. Conducting a schedule risk analysis Minimally Met

Controlled Substantially Met 9. Updating the schedule with actual progress and logic Substantially Met

10. Maintaining a baseline schedule Substantially Met

Source: GAO analysis of Census Bureau schedule data. | GAO-18-589.

Note: Not Met – Census provided no evidence that satisfies any of the criterion, Minimally Met –

Census provided evidence that satisfies a small portion of the criterion, Partially Met – Census 

provided evidence that satisfies about half of the criterion, Substantially Met – Census provided 

evidence that satisfies a large portion of the criterion, and Met – Census provided complete evidence 

that satisfies the entire criterion.

Appendix III: Assessment of the Extent to 

Which the Bureau Followed Scheduling 

Leading Practices
Appendix III: Assessment of the Extent to 

Which the Bureau Followed Scheduling 

Leading Practices

Page 21 GAO-18-589 2020 Census

Table 3: Assessment of the Bureau’s 2018 End-to-End Census Test Nonresponse Follow-up Schedule

Characteristic Overall Assessment Leading Practice (#s refer to Schedule Guide)

Individual 

Assessment

Comprehensive Partially Met 1. Capturing all activities Substantially Met

3. Assigning resources to all activities Minimally Met

4. Establishing the durations of all activities Substantially Met

Well-constructed Substantially Met 2. Sequencing all activities Substantially Met

6. Confirming that the critical path is valid Substantially Met

7. Ensuring reasonable total float Partially Met

Credible Partially Met 5. Verifying that the schedule is traceable horizontally and 

vertically 

Substantially Met

8. Conducting a schedule risk analysis Minimally Met

Controlled Substantially Met 9. Updating the schedule with actual progress and logic Substantially Met

10. Maintaining a baseline schedule Substantially Met

Source: GAO analysis of Census Bureau schedule data. |GAO-18-589.

Note: Not Met – Census provided no evidence that satisfies any of the criterion, Minimally Met –

Census provided evidence that satisfies a small portion of the criterion, Partially Met – Census 

provided evidence that satisfies about half of the criterion, Substantially Met – Census provided 

evidence that satisfies a large portion of the criterion, and Met – Census provided complete evidence 

that satisfies the entire criterion.

Table 4: Assessment of the Bureau’s 2020 Census Geographic Programs Schedule 

Characteristic Overall Assessment Leading Practice (#s refer to Schedule Guide)

Individual 

Assessment

Comprehensive Partially Met 1. Capturing all activities Substantially Met

3. Assigning resources to all activities Minimally Met

4. Establishing the durations of all activities Partially Met

Well-constructed Partially Met 2. Sequencing all activities Partially Met

6. Confirming that the critical path is valid Partially Met

7. Ensuring reasonable total float Minimally Met

Credible Partially Met 5. Verifying that the schedule is traceable horizontally and 

vertically 

Partially Met

8. Conducting a schedule risk analysis Minimally Met

Controlled Substantially Met 9. Updating the schedule with actual progress and logic Substantially Met

10. Maintaining a baseline schedule Substantially Met

Source: GAO analysis of Census Bureau schedule data. | GAO-18-589.

Note: Not Met – Census provided no evidence that satisfies any of the criterion, Minimally Met –

Census provided evidence that satisfies a small portion of the criterion, Partially Met – Census 

provided evidence that satisfies about half of the criterion, Substantially Met – Census provided 

evidence that satisfies a large portion of the criterion, and Met – Census provided complete evidence 

that satisfies the entire criterion.
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce

Page 22 GAO-18-589 2020 Census

Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Department of Commerce
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 23 GAO-18-589 2020 Census

Robert Goldenkoff, (202) 512-2757 or goldenkoffr@gao.gov

Other key contributors to this report include Ty Mitchell, Assistant 

Director; Juaná Collymore; Rob Gebhart; Yvette Gutierrez; Jason Lee; 

Kayla Robinson; Cynthia Saunders; and Timothy Wexler.

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(102204)
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 (https://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 https://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, https://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 https://www.gao.gov.

Contact:

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

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7700

Orice Williams Brown, Managing Director, WilliamsO@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

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

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

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.