DECENNIAL CENSUS

Additional Actions 

Could Improve the 

Census Bureau’s 

Ability to Control 

Costs for the 2020 

Census

Report to Congressional Requesters

January 2012

GAO-12-80

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-12-80, a report to 

congressional requesters 

January 2012 

DECENNIAL CENSUS

Additional Actions Could Improve the Census 

Bureau’s Ability to Control Costs for the 2020 

Census

Why GAO Did This Study

A complete count of the nation’s 

population is an enormous challenge 

requiring the U.S. Census Bureau 

(Bureau) to balance requirements for 

accuracy with the need to control 

escalating costs. The 2010 Census 

was the costliest U.S. Census in 

history at about $13 billion, and was 

about 56 percent more costly than the 

$8 billion cost of the 2000 Census (in 

2010 dollars). The fundamental 

challenge facing the Bureau going 

forward is cost effectively counting a 

population that is growing steadily 

larger, more diverse and becoming 

increasingly difficult to enumerate. As 

requested, this report assesses (1) the 

key factors affecting cost growth from 

the 2000 Census to the 2010 Census; 

(2) the Bureau’s plans for controlling 

costs for the 2020 Census and what 

additional steps, if any, could be taken;

and (3) the extent to which the 

Bureau’s plans for developing life cycle 

cost estimates for 2020 are consistent 

with best practices. The report is based 

on GAO’s analysis of Bureau data and 

documents as well as interviews with 

Bureau officials.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the Census 

Director develop a method to identify 

and address specific factors that 

contribute to cost increases, identify 

decision points, and finalize guidance 

for the 2020 life cycle cost estimate. 

The Department of Commerce

expressed broad agreement with the 

overall theme of the report but did not 

directly comment on the 

recommendations. It raised concerns 

about specific aspects of the summary 

of findings which GAO addressed as 

appropriate. 

What GAO Found

The average cost to count each housing unit rose from $70 in 2000 to $97 in 

2010 (in constant 2010 dollars). While the U.S. Census Bureau (Bureau) made 

changes to its budget structure from 2000 to 2010, they did not document the 

changes that would facilitate comparisons over time and cannot identify specific 

drivers of this cost growth. According to GAO’s Cost Estimating and Assessment 

Guide, an agency can strengthen its ability to control costs by using available

cost data to make comparisons over time and identify and quantify trends. The 

Bureau faces the fundamental challenge of striking a balance between how best 

to control costs without compromising accuracy. However, the Bureau’s inability 

to identify specific actionable factors affecting past growth will make it difficult for 

the Bureau to focus its efforts to control costs for the 2020 Census. 

The Bureau developed several design alternatives for the 2020 Census that 

could help reduce costs, but has not identified decision points when executives 

would review progress and decide whether the Bureau is prepared to move 

forward from one project phase to another. Office of Management and Budget 

guidance and previous GAO work support the use of these practices to 

strengthen an agency’s decision making on large-scale projects. Incorporating 

these practices in its 2020 planning could help the Bureau improve its ability to 

manage risk to achieve desired cost, schedule and performance outcomes.

The Bureau is taking steps to strengthen its life cycle cost estimates. However, 

the Bureau has not yet established guidance for developing cost estimates. The 

Bureau is scheduled to begin work on the 2020 Census estimate in fiscal year 

2013 but has limited time to develop guidance. By finalizing such guidance, the 

Bureau can better ensure that it is developing comprehensive, accurate, and

credible estimates for the 2020 Census.

The Average Cost of Counting Each Housing Unit Escalated Each Decade While Mail 

Response Rates Declined 

View GAO-12-80. For more information, 

contact Robert Goldenkoff at (202) 512-2757 

or goldenkoffr@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-12-80 Decennial Census

Letter 1 

Background 2

The Bureau Cannot Identify Specific Sources of Cost Growth from 

2000 to 2010 7

The Bureau Is Assessing Options for Controlling Field Costs, but 

Additional Steps Could Be Taken 12

Without a Process in Place for Developing 2020 Census Life Cycle 

Cost Estimates, the Bureau Is at Risk of Not Following Best 

Practices 21

Conclusions 22

Recommendations for Executive Action 23

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 24

Appendix I Objective, Scope, and Methodology 30

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Commerce 34

Appendix III 2010 Census Costs Were Concentrated in Certain Budget Categories 

and Projects 38

Appendix IV The 12 Steps of a High-Quality Cost Estimating Process 39

Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 42

Table

Table 1: Field Data Collection Costs Accounted for the Largest 

Growth from 2000 to 2010 8

Contents
Page ii GAO-12-80 Decennial Census

Figures

Figure 1: The Average Cost of Counting Each Housing Unit 

Escalated Each Decade While Mail Response Rates 

Declined 3

Figure 2: 2010 Census Costs Were Concentrated in Certain Budget 

Categories and Projects 5

Figure 3: Cost per Housing Unit Increased at a Faster Rate Than 

Workload from 2000 to 2010 9

Figure 4: 2020 Census Design Alternatives Show Varying Degrees 

of Change, Risk, and Potential Cost Savings 13

Figure 5: Estimated Marginal Cost of Checking in NRFU 

Questionnaires Dramatically Rose in the Final Weeks of 

the Operation 16

Figure 6: Executive-Level Review at Decision Points Could 

Improve 2020 Census Planning 19

Abbreviations 

CBS Commerce Business System 

CPEX Census Program for Evaluations and Experiments

IT information technology

LCO local census office

LUCA Local Update of Census Addresses

NRFU nonresponse follow-up

OMB Office of Management and Budget

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

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

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

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

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-12-80 Decennial Census

United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548

January 24, 2012

Congressional Requesters

Although the 2020 Census is still approximately 8 years away, the U.S. 

Census Bureau (Bureau) has already begun critical research and testing 

activities. The cost of the decennial census has steadily increased during 

the past 40 years, in part because of increasing difficulty in accurately 

counting a population that is growing larger, more diverse, and 

increasingly difficult to enumerate. For example, at about $13 billion, the 

2010 Census was the costliest U.S. census in history, and was 56 

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

dollars). Further, based on past trends, if the growth rate continues 

unchecked the census could cost approximately $25 billion in 2020. Thus, 

as the Bureau plans for the 2020 Census, it faces the fundamental 

challenge of striking a balance between how best to control costs without 

compromising accuracy. The Bureau is well aware of this, and its 

business plan, which describes its efforts for the early research and 

testing phase of the 2020 Census, notes that it is committed to planning 

and implementing a 2020 Census that costs less than the approximately 

$100 per housing unit that was spent on the 2010 Census.1

In response to your request that we review the Bureau’s cost control 

efforts for the 2020 Census, this report assesses (1) the key factors 

affecting cost growth from the 2000 Census to the 2010 Census; (2) the 

Bureau’s plans for controlling costs for the 2020 Census and what 

additional steps, if any, could be taken; and (3) the extent to which the 

Bureau’s plans for developing life cycle cost estimates for 2020 are 

consistent with best practices.

In reviewing key factors affecting cost growth, we reviewed and analyzed 

actual cost data from the Bureau’s financial management system for the 

2000 Census life cycle and the 2010 Census life cycle.2

 

1 U.S. Census Bureau, Business Plan for the 2020 Census in Support of the FY 2012 

Budget Initiative (June 13, 2011).

We adjusted the 

data for inflation and compared broad budget categories from the 2000 

and 2010 Censuses; however, limitations in cost data made it impossible 

2 Fiscal years 2011 through 2013 costs are projected for the 2010 life cycle.

 
 

Page 2 GAO-12-80 Decennial Census

to conduct comprehensive comparisons below the category level. In 

addition, we reviewed Bureau documentation and interviewed officials to 

identify factors that could have driven cost growth. To assess the 

Bureau’s cost control efforts for the 2020 Census and its plans for 

developing life cycle cost estimates, we reviewed available planning 

documents for the 2020 Census and interviewed Bureau officials involved 

with the planning process. We used GAO’s Cost Estimating and 

Assessment Guide to identify best practices for cost estimation.3

We conducted this performance audit from December 2010 through 

January 2012 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

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

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

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

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

For 

more information on our scope and methodology (see app. I).

On January 6, 2012, the Secretary of Commerce provided written 

comments on a draft of this report (see app. II).

The cost of the census, in terms of cost for counting each housing unit, 

has been escalating over the last several censuses. The average cost for 

counting a housing unit increased from about $16 in 1970 to around $97 

in 2010 constant dollars (see fig. 1). Meanwhile, 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 are significant and have led to higher costs because the 

mail response rate directly dictates the number of housing units in the 

nonresponse follow-up (NRFU) universe. NRFU, where the Bureau 

attempts to contact households that did not mail back questionnaires, was 

the largest and most costly Bureau field operation in 2000 and 2010 and 

has had an impact on overall census costs.

 

3 GAO, GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Developing and 

Managing Capital Program Costs, GAO-09-3SP (Washington, D.C.: March 2009).

Background
 

Page 3 GAO-12-80 Decennial Census

Figure 1: The Average Cost of Counting Each Housing Unit Escalated Each Decade 

While Mail Response Rates Declined

a

The 2010 life cycle runs from 2002 through 2013, so costs for the 2010 Census are not yet final. 

b

In the 2010 Census, the Bureau used only a short-form questionnaire. For this report, we use the 

1990 and 2000 Census short-form mail response rate when comparing 1990, 2000, and 2010 mailback response rates. Census short-form mail response rates are unavailable for 1970 and 1980, so 

we use the overall response rate. 

Over the past several censuses, the Bureau has attempted to address the 

competing goals of containing costs and improving the quality of census 

information, but costs continued to rise in part because external factors, 

such as a growing and increasingly diverse population, required the 

Bureau to devote more resources in order to ensure a complete count. 

The Bureau is assessing various measures of the quality of the 2010 

Census. This effort, combined with a better understanding of the specific 

sources of cost growth, could help managers make cost control decisions.

Within its financial management system, the Bureau classifies census 

costs into eight broad categories and hundreds of projects (see fig. 2). 

These broad categories are further subdivided into individual projects that 

may be discrete, such as the NRFU operation, which has its costs 
 

Page 4 GAO-12-80 Decennial Census

captured in a single project line, or several project lines may be 

combined, sometimes from multiple categories, to reflect the total cost of 

an operation, as is the case with the Local Update of Census Addresses 

(LUCA) operation.4 The 2010 Census costs were concentrated in few 

categories.

 

4 The LUCA Program enables state, local, and tribal governments to review and update 

the list of addresses and maps the Bureau uses to deliver questionnaires within those 

communities.
Interactive graphic Figure 2: 2010 Census Life Cycle Costs Were Concentrated in Certain Budget Categories and Projects

Page 5 GAO-12-80 Decennial Census

[Click] each tab below to see characteristics of the highest cost projects within each Decennial 

Census 2010 budget category.

Directions:

• Click to make view needed visible. In the “Print” dialog box, choose “Current page,” then “OK.” Repeat for each view.

Print instructions • A print version of this graphic is also available in appendix III.
 

Page 6 GAO-12-80 Decennial Census

Notes: See app. III for a noninteractive breakout of all the data. Some projects have the same name, 

but these costs do not overlap with one another. The money was spent in different time periods for 

each project. All costs were adjusted to 2010 dollars using the gross domestic product deflator. The 

Bureau identified one project that did not fit into any regular category, the project labeled 

“adjustments.” Changes were made to project descriptions to increase clarity. For example, 

abbreviations were expanded into full words. 

Planning for the 2020 Census is divided into five phases: (1) options 

analysis; (2) research and testing; (3) operational development and 

systems testing; (4) supplemental research and testing; and (5) readiness 

testing, execution, and closeout. The Bureau has identified a range of 

design alternatives for the 2020 Census and will narrow this range over 

the census life cycle. During fiscal year 2012, the Bureau will enter the 

research and testing phase and intends to develop a preliminary design 

that when adjusted for inflation will cost less than the $97 per housing unit 

cost of the 2010 Census but will also maintain quality. During the 

research and testing phase, the Bureau plans to execute at least 35 

research projects to explore how design areas could be modified to 

control costs or improve quality. For example, the Bureau will examine 

the feasibility of using administrative records, such as Internal Revenue 

Service tax records, to collect information from nonresponders and thus 

reduce the fieldwork. Other research areas include new response options, 

such as the Internet and social networking sites.

The Bureau uses life cycle cost estimates as a starting point for annual 

budget formulation and revises the estimates based on appropriations 

and updated budget information. As noted in our Cost Estimating and 

Assessment Guide, a life cycle cost estimate can be thought of as a 

“cradle to grave” approach to managing a program throughout its 

duration.5 However, in our past work, we found that the Bureau’s 2010 

Census life cycle cost estimate was not reliable because it lacked 

adequate documentation and was not comprehensive, accurate, or 

credible.6

 

5

The Bureau may continue to be challenged in developing 

reliable life cycle cost estimates for a program as large, costly, and 

complex as the census. As part of its planning for 2020, the Bureau has 

developed an early life cycle cost estimate based on existing information 

GAO-09-3SP. 

6 GAO, 2010 Census: Census Bureau Should Take Action to Improve the Credibility and 

Accuracy of Its Cost Estimate for the Decennial Census, GAO-08-554 (Washington, D.C.: 

June 16, 2008).
 

Page 7 GAO-12-80 Decennial Census

and plans to release a full range of life cycle cost estimates in the budget 

submission for fiscal year 2015.

Of the Bureau’s eight broad budget categories, field data collection and 

its associated support systems accounted for $3.5 billion of the $4.6 

billion life cycle cost increase, or 77 percent of the overall cost growth 

from 2000 to 2010 (see table 1). This represents a 64 percent growth in 

the field data collection category from its 2000 totals, which was the 

largest percentage increase of all budget categories. Field data collection 

costs include training, labor, and mileage for temporary workers, as well 

as the support systems needed to run operations, including rental space 

and office equipment for local census offices (LCO). We previously 

reported that the field data collection budget category was also the largest 

contributor to cost growth from the 1990 Census to the 2000 Census.7

The remaining seven budget categories accounted for less than 25 

percent of overall cost growth. The automated data collection category 

experienced the second largest growth, accounting for 12 percent of 

overall cost growth from 2000 to 2010. Expenses in this category were 

$547 million more than in 2000, a 42 percent increase. This category 

includes data processing activities and related information technology (IT) 

system costs. Smaller categories experienced cost growth as well, 

including content, questionnaires, and products; census design, 

methodology, and evaluation; and census test and dress rehearsal. Other 

categories actually experienced cost decreases, including program 

development and management.

 

7 GAO, 2000 Census: Significant Increase in Cost Per Housing Unit Compared to 1990 

Census, GAO-02-31 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11, 2001).

The Bureau Cannot 

Identify Specific 

Sources of Cost 

Growth from 2000 to 

2010

Field Data Collection 

Drove Cost Increases, but 

More Details Are Needed 

to Help Control Future 

Costs
 

Page 8 GAO-12-80 Decennial Census

Table 1: Field Data Collection Costs Accounted for the Largest Growth from 2000 to 2010

Dollars in millions

2010 budget category 

2000 Census 

costs

2010 Census 

costs a Absolute change

Percentage 

change within 

category b

Percentage of 

total cost growth 

by category

1. Field data collection and support systems $5,509 $9,052 $3,543 64 77

2. Automated data collection, systems, and 

data capture

1,298 1,844 547 42 12

3. Content, questionnaires, and products 670 1,045 375 56 8 

4. Census design, methodology, and 

evaluation

372 531 159 43 3 

5. Program development and management 192 c 70 -122 -64 Did not contribute 

to cost growth

6. Census test and dress rehearsal 

implementation

d

90 108 18 20 Did not contribute 

to cost growth

7. Contingency

d

Did not exist e 78 78 N/A 2 

8. Uncategorized expenditures 31 28 -4 -12 Did not contribute 

to cost growth

Total

d

8,161 12,754 4,593 56 100

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

Note: All costs are adjusted to 2010 dollars using a gross domestic product price deflator. 

a

The 2000 Census budget categories were different from 2010 budget categories. The Bureau 

remapped 2000 Census costs from 2000 budget categories into 2010 budget categories to facilitate 

comparison. Remapping was not possible at the more detailed budget project level. 

b

Numbers may not subtract correctly because of rounding. 

c

Program development and management costs decreased from 2000 to 2010 because the Bureau 

shifted the cost of project managers’ pay out of the program development and management category 

and into the other categories that contained the actual projects. 

d

Categories that did not contribute to cost growth either accounted for a 0 (#6) or a negative 

percentage (#5 and $8) of total cost growth by category. 

e

The contingency category was established as part of risk mitigation planning by the Bureau in 2010 

to prepare for unforeseen events, such as an unexpected drop in mail response rates. This category 

also included funding for fingerprinting activities. 

According to the Bureau, an increased workload—a larger number of 

housing units to count—is one of the factors driving up census costs. 

This, however, does not fully explain (1) why the cost to count each 

housing unit grew at a faster pace than the workload (39 percent increase 

to count each housing unit compared to 12 percent increase in workload) 

or (2) why component costs, such as data capture systems, experienced 

cost increases (see fig. 3).

To more fully understand what is driving up census costs aside from an 

increase in workload, it will be important for the Bureau to analyze cost 
 

Page 9 GAO-12-80 Decennial Census

growth below the category level to determine the specific reasons why 

cost per housing unit continues to grow at a faster pace than workload. 

Key questions in this regard include, for example, (1) to what extent did 

increased labor and gasoline costs contribute to overall increases in field 

data collection costs, (2) how did additional use of technology contribute 

to field data collection costs, (3) how did increased investments in nonfield-related IT systems affect cost growth, and (4) to what extent did the 

weak economy in 2010 help the Bureau reduce costs for field operations. 

While some cost increases, such as rising gasoline prices, might have 

been outside of the Bureau’s direct control, better information on the 

sources of census cost growth could enable the Bureau to develop workarounds and alternatives that could mitigate their impact.

Figure 3: Cost per Housing Unit Increased at a Faster Rate Than Workload from 2000 to 2010

Note: All costs are adjusted to 2010 dollars using a gross domestic product price deflator. 

a

Percentage growth may not exactly match numbers in figure because of rounding. 
 

Page 10 GAO-12-80 Decennial Census

Best practices in GAO’s Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide illustrate 

how an agency can strengthen its ability to control costs by using 

available cost data to make comparisons over time and identify and 

quantify trends.8

While it is reasonable for the Bureau to modify its budget structure to 

accommodate changes from one decennial to the next, a crosswalk 

would have enabled officials to compare costs for specific projects. For 

example, for the 2000 Census, 236 projects were identified in the budget. 

For the 2010 Census, the Bureau changed its budget structure to more 

precisely capture costs, and as a result, the number of projects listed in 

the budget increased by almost 400 percent to 1,175 projects. However, 

the Bureau created no documentation to facilitate comparison for most 

projects in the budget from 2000 to 2010. For example, costs for LUCA 

are combined into one project in 2000 data while in 2010 data, LUCA 

activities were identified in 11 separate projects (for example, LUCA 

processing and LUCA testing). Without documentation explaining what 

costs were included in LUCA for the 2000 Census, it is impossible to 

accurately compare costs for LUCA between the two decennials and 

determine where any cost growth might have occurred.

However, the Bureau cannot identify specific sources of 

cost growth below broad budget categories from 2000 to 2010 because 

the Bureau changed the way it defines projects without creating a 

crosswalk that documents the changes over time. As a result, the Bureau 

cannot specifically determine where costs are growing.

Further, the Bureau cannot accurately calculate the growth in field 

infrastructure costs, if any, from 2000 through 2010 because of a similar 

lack of documentation. Although the $2 billion the Bureau spent on its 

field infrastructure in 2010—including 12 regional census centers and 

almost 500 LCOs used to support field activities—represented a major 

investment, the Bureau lacks the information needed to accurately 

compare the costs of specific components from one decennial to the next. 

Such information would enable the Bureau to more accurately determine 

where any significant cost increases occurred and thus better focus its 

cost control efforts for the 2020 Census, as well as allow the Bureau to 

more precisely determine the potential cost savings of any operational 

changes.

 

8 GAO-09-3SP. 

Additional Documentation 

Could Position the Bureau 

to Better Identify Specific 

Sources of Cost Changes
 

Page 11 GAO-12-80 Decennial Census

Although these structural changes are recent, the absence of 

documentation has been a challenge in the past as well. In a prior report 

comparing costs for the 1990 and 2000 censuses, we were unable to 

compare costs at the project level because of limitations in the available 

data and documentation.9 For the 1990 Census, the Bureau provided 

limited cost data by activity and project, so we were not able to attempt 

detailed cost comparisons. Moving forward, it will be important for the 

Bureau to put a process in place to enhance its ability to identify potential 

factors affecting cost growth and, if necessary, target cost control efforts 

appropriately.

Although the Bureau identified five broad factors affecting cost growth, 

their ability to help the agency pinpoint and control future costs is limited 

because they mainly focus on high-level, generic management 

challenges rather than specific census-taking activities on which the 

Bureau can assess and take action as appropriate. Additionally, the 

Bureau has no data to support how much these factors contributed to 

cost growth. The five factors include

1. the increasing diversity of the population;

2. the demand for the Census Bureau to strive for improving accuracy 

over previous censuses;

3. the lack of full public participation in the self-response phase of the 

census, requiring the hiring of a large field staff for NRFU;

4. the failure or challenges with linking major acquisitions, the schedule, 

and the budget; and

5. substantial investments in major national updating of the address 

frame just prior to enumeration (2009).10

The Bureau plans to use these factors to guide 2020 Census planning 

and research efforts. For example, the forthcoming research and testing 

phase will focus on the decreasing self-response rate; the linkage of 

acquisitions, schedule, and budget; and updates to the address frame. 

While these factors, which the Bureau developed through management 

 

9 GAO-02-31. 

10 The updates to the address frame here refer to activities in 2009 to update the address 

frame, such as address canvassing where census employees check addresses in the 

field. 

Cost Factors Identified by 

the Bureau Are of Limited 

Use
 

Page 12 GAO-12-80 Decennial Census

experience, likely affected the cost of the census, evaluating the extent to 

which specific operations and activities drove up census costs would 

provide the Bureau with more actionable information. As one example, 

the Bureau identified the demand for improved accuracy as a factor, but 

this effort to improve accuracy involved a number of operations aimed at 

producing a more complete count, ranging from advertising in different 

languages to special enumeration programs aimed at hard-to-count 

populations. What is not clear, and will be important for the Bureau to 

determine, is how the cost of the special enumeration programs 

compared to those for 2000, the extent to which they contributed to the 

cost of the 2010 Census, and whether they produced the desired results.

The Bureau has developed a range of design alternatives for the 2020 

Census aimed at counting each housing unit at a lower cost than in 2010. 

The Bureau estimated that if it repeated the design of the 2010 Census, 

and assuming real costs grow at the same rate they did between 1990 

and 2010, it would cost $151 to count each housing unit—more than a 55 

percent increase, compared to 2010. The challenge for the Bureau, as 

recognized in its 2020 Census business plan, is striking a balance 

between an accurate census, on the one hand, and reducing costs and 

managing risks, on the other.11

The Bureau’s 2020 design alternatives have potential for containing costs 

but at varying degrees of risk for meeting cost, schedule, and 

performance goals. The design alternatives focus on options to target 

address canvassing, using the Internet and other social media to increase 

 

11 U.S. Census Bureau, Business Plan for the 2020 Census. 

The Bureau Is 

Assessing Options for 

Controlling Field 

Costs, but Additional 

Steps Could Be Taken

The Bureau Is Considering 

Design Alternatives to 

Potentially Reduce Costs 

for the 2020 Census
 

Page 13 GAO-12-80 Decennial Census

response rates, and reengineer field and IT infrastructures.12

Figure 4: 2020 Census Design Alternatives Show Varying Degrees of Change, Risk, and Potential Cost Savings

Figure 4 

shows the current range of 2020 Census design alternatives. According 

to the Bureau, the final 2020 design is likely to incorporate both existing 

approaches as well as activities that have never been used in the 

decennial census, such as a near paperless NRFU.

 

12 In the 2010 and earlier censuses, the Bureau conducted full address canvassing, where 

census workers generally went door-to-door and attempted to verify every address in the 

country. Targeted address canvassing would limit this operation to areas in which the 

Bureau believes more work is needed to develop an accurate and complete address list.
 

Page 14 GAO-12-80 Decennial Census

According to the Bureau, the greater the change to the overall design, the 

greater the potential for cost savings. However, greater design changes 

also incur greater risk, and further testing will be needed to identify the 

risks, costs, and benefits of any new approaches. According to the 

Bureau, alternative one has the lowest risk, as it most closely mirrors the 

2010 Census design and is not dependent on implementing innovations 

such as administrative records and targeted address canvassing. The 

remaining alternatives incorporate varying degrees of centralized 

infrastructure; address canvassing; and use of administrative records, the 

Internet, and social networks. For example, most of the new design 

options use administrative records, which could save money by reducing 

labor-intensive and costly field operations. Yet, the Bureau has not 

previously used administrative records to supplement respondent data on 

a national level, so the new approach will present a certain degree of risk 

as such things as data quality and access to records must first be 

resolved.

The Bureau collects data on the costs of its field operations that are a 

potentially valuable source of information to help guide future cost quality 

trade-off decisions during the planning process. However, it could make 

better use of this information in gaining an understanding of return on 

investment for costly census-taking activities, such as address building 

and NRFU. According to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

guidance on benefit-cost analysis, agencies should have a plan for 

periodic, results-oriented evaluation of the effectiveness of federal 

programs. The guidance also notes that retrospective studies can be 

valuable in determining if any corrections need to be made to existing 

programs and to improve future estimates of other federal programs.13 In 

addition, our Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide suggests that 

agencies should seek the best value solution by gathering data on 

alternatives that inform agencies on cost and performance trade-offs.14

 

13 OMB Circular A-94, Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal 

Programs (Oct. 29, 1992). 

One way agencies can improve their ability to evaluate benefits and costs 

is to examine the marginal cost of activities, or the incremental cost of 

producing one more unit of output. For the Bureau, this means mining its 

14 GAO-09-3SP. 

Additional Analysis of 2010 

Data Could Improve the 

Bureau’s Ability to Make 

Cost Decisions about 2020
 

Page 15 GAO-12-80 Decennial Census

performance and cost data to evaluate the effectiveness of its operations 

and to identify potential opportunities for improvement.

Although the Bureau has a number of efforts under way within two 

initiatives to help guide 2020 planning, only a handful are aimed at 

producing return on investment information that enhances its ability to 

make decisions on cost quality trade-offs. These initiatives are the 2010 

Census Program for Evaluations and Experiments (CPEX) looks back at 

2010 operations, and the research and testing phase looks ahead at 

potential design alternatives for 2020. According to Bureau officials, of the 

more than 100 planned evaluations, assessments, experiments, and 

quality profiles in CPEX, a few are designed to produce information 

describing the return on investment of census-taking activities, which can 

help the Bureau make decisions about cost-quality trade-offs. For 

example, 2 planned evaluations will examine potential cost savings for 

address canvassing—one looks at the potential cost reduction associated 

with targeted address canvassing and the other looks at potential cost 

savings associated with automated field data collection of address 

canvassing results. Moreover, of planned 2010 CPEX evaluations for 

which we have a description, the vast majority will measure aspects of 

accuracy or coverage.

The Bureau may be missing opportunities to mine performance data for 

information that could help officials increase the efficiency of costly field 

operations and could help inform difficult decisions for controlling costs 

and maintaining quality. As part of CPEX, the Bureau has planned about 

50 assessments of specific enumeration activities and operations, such 

as address canvassing and NRFU. These assessments include an 

analysis of cost that would be of limited usefulness for informing return on 

investment decisions. For example, the assessments will compare 

budgeted and actual costs and indicate why an operation was over or 

under budget, but will not determine the marginal return for different 

enumeration or address-building operations. Information on the marginal 

returns on investments could, for example, help the Bureau determine 

where to focus cost control efforts. As one example, based on our 

analysis of operational data provided by the Bureau for NRFU, we 

determined that the marginal cost per questionnaire checked into LCOs 

was approximately $1,045 in the final weeks of the operation (see fig. 5). 

During this time, the Bureau completed a little over 2,300 questionnaires 

or roughly .005 percent of the entire NRFU universe of over 47 million 

housing units. This estimate is roughly a $1,000 increase per 

questionnaire compared to the first few weeks of the operation, which 

began on May 1, when the Bureau completed approximately 39 percent 
 

Page 16 GAO-12-80 Decennial Census

of the NRFU universe. Thus, it cost the Bureau approximately 17 times 

more per questionnaire in the final weeks of NRFU to attempt to obtain 

information from nonresponding housing units, units that may have been 

contacted as many as six times in person or by phone. More extensive 

analyses of these data could help the Bureau determine the extent to 

which specific activities contributed to cost growth and help it target 

control cost effects without compromising accuracy.

Figure 5: Estimated Marginal Cost of Checking in NRFU Questionnaires 

Dramatically Rose in the Final Weeks of the Operation

As the Bureau enters the research and testing phase, several planned 

projects will yield information that will improve its ability to make decisions 

balancing the competing goals of cost and quality. According to the 

Bureau, it is essential to conduct research and testing of multiple design 

alternatives prior to deciding upon a final census design and technical 

solution to ensure that the final census design is effective and works 

within the 2020 Census environment. Our review of Bureau planning 

documents identified 8 of 35 projects scheduled in the early part of the 

decade that will include analyses of costs and benefits. For example, a 
 

Page 17 GAO-12-80 Decennial Census

project on reducing and improving in-person follow-up operations is 

designed to examine the costs and benefits of different contact strategies 

and whether these will achieve the goals of the operation. However, most 

projects examine the accuracy and quality implications of conducting 

enumeration and not cost implications. Without gathering data on cost 

during this phase, specifically the potential cost savings that could be 

realized with certain alternatives, the Bureau could be making decisions 

based on incomplete information on the design alternatives.

The lack of emphasis on cost analyses is consistent with our previous 

reports that fundamental reforms will be needed to ensure that the 

Bureau’s management, culture, and business practices are aligned with 

cost-effective enumeration.15 According to Bureau officials, previous 

decisions about operational changes were based on a priority to improve 

quality and were sometimes made without much complete knowledge of 

cost implications. As we reported in 2009, the Bureau has not always 

used available information to determine the value added of the operation. 

For example, the Bureau has the information but has not determined 

which of its 11 operations for building its address list16 provide the best 

return on investment in terms of contributing to accuracy and coverage.17

The Bureau’s planning documents have not clearly identified and defined 

decision points that can help avoid cost overruns and schedule delays. 

OMB guidance for large projects suggests that agencies develop a 

schedule with defined phases, decision points, and an identified decision 

authority to evaluate whether an agency should proceed to the next 

phase in the investment life cycle. In addition, our previous body of work 

on acquisition policies in high-performing organizations includes the best 

 

15 GAO, 2010 Census: Data Collection Operations Were Generally Completed as 

Planned, but Long-standing Challenges Suggest Need for Fundamental Reforms, 

GAO-11-193 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 14, 2010), and 2010 Census: Preliminary Lessons 

Learned Highlight the Need for Fundamental Reforms, GAO-11-496T (Washington, D.C.: 

Apr. 6, 2011).

16 According to the 2010 Census Operations and Systems Plan, address-building 

operations include LUCA, the New Construction Operation, the Address Canvassing 

Operation, and the Group Quarters Validation Operation, among others, and serve as the 

building blocks for an accurate mailing list. 

17 GAO, 2010 Census: Efforts to Build an Accurate Address List Are Making Progress, but 

Face Software and Other Challenges, GAO-10-140T (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2009).

Decision Points Could 

Help the Bureau Control 

Costs and Avoid Delays
 

Page 18 GAO-12-80 Decennial Census

practice of identifying critical junctures, also known as knowledge or 

decision points, in the acquisition cycle and requiring executive-level 

oversight at critical junctures.18

The Bureau’s 2020 business plan has a high-level preliminary schedule 

for the major phases of the decennial that includes, for example, a 

yearlong activity at the end of the research and testing phase to 

determine and refine initial operational designs. However, the schedule 

has no decision points at the end of research and testing or any phase, 

as best practices suggest, to determine whether progress was made and 

ensure that the agency’s needs for quality and accuracy match the 

available resources—that is, technology, design, time, and funding. In 

addition, there is no identified executive-level review at any point in the 

schedule. Since the research and testing phase is intended to develop a 

preliminary design from a range of alternatives, a decision point at the 

end of this phase could help the Bureau determine if it has enough 

information to support the increased investment necessary to move to the 

next phase of development and testing (see fig. 6). At subsequent stages 

in the process, decision points could be used to determine that the design 

was stable enough to meet operational requirements. Later decision 

points could also be used to determine whether a particular design 

alternative could be implemented within cost and schedule constraints 

while meeting quality targets and maintaining reliability. Absent such an 

approach at each phase, the Bureau lacks assurance that it has obtained 

the critical technological and design knowledge that best practices call for 

to avoid cost overruns, schedule slips, and performance shortfalls going 

forward.

Agencies can use decision points to 

determine whether a particular investment is ready to proceed to the next 

phase. For example, when moving out of an early phase agencies must 

determine if resources—that is, technology and funding—and needs are 

matched. The 2020 Census is a complex, costly project with immutable 

deadlines. Decision points at key phases of the planning process could 

improve the Bureau’s ability to manage risks as well as achieve desired 

cost, schedule, and performance outcomes for the decennial.

 

18 For example, see GAO, Best Practices: Capturing Design and Manufacturing 

Knowledge Early Improves Acquisition Outcomes, GAO-02-701 (Washington, D.C.: 

July 15, 2002), and Best Practices: Better Matching of Needs and Resources Will Lead to 

Better Weapon System Outcomes, GAO-01-288 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 8, 2001).
 

Page 19 GAO-12-80 Decennial Census

Figure 6: Executive-Level Review at Decision Points Could Improve 2020 Census Planning

According to one Bureau planning memo, cost is one of four categories of 

criteria that will be used to evaluate design options for the 2020 Census.19

However, the memo does not describe specifically how the cost criterion 

will be used to select among design alternatives.20 For example, the 

criterion for cost can be expressed by ranking costs (i.e., least costly to 

most costly), weighting costs for different elements, or specifying that 

costs fall within a range. We have previously reported that criteria should 

be clearly defined, well documented, transparent, and consistently 

applied.21

 

19 The other three criteria are business and technical requirements and risk.

Neither the Bureau’s strategic plan nor its early business plan, 

20 U.S. Census Bureau, Plan for Developing 2020 Census Alternative, Memorandum No. 

6 (Jan. 15, 2010).

21 GAO, A Model of Strategic Human Capital Management, GAO-02-373SP (Washington, 

D.C.: Mar. 15, 2002).

The Bureau Could Further 

Develop Cost Criteria for 

Selecting among 2020 

Design Alternatives
 

Page 20 GAO-12-80 Decennial Census

which outlines and guides the early development of the 2020 Census, 

describes criteria or identifies when criteria would be used to select the 

design of the 2020 Census.

Bureau officials said they have not established when they will develop 

specific evaluation criteria for cost. Further, they acknowledged that 

selecting among design alternatives may take place during the research 

and testing phase, which begins in fiscal year 2012. In addition, Bureau 

officials told us that not all 2020 Census planning memos will be updated 

throughout the course of 2020 planning. Therefore, it is unclear how 

updates to criteria will be made to this planning memo. As a result, the 

Bureau may make decisions to eliminate design alternatives before 

clearly documenting how cost criteria will be applied, as well as how the 

alternatives will be considered along with the other criteria.

The Bureau’s early cost estimates range from $12.8 billion to $18 billion 

for four of the six design alternatives.22 Because of the wide range of 

2020 cost estimates, documenting and consistently using cost as a 

criterion when deciding among design alternatives can help the Bureau 

control costs. It is important for the Bureau to apply cost in decision 

making because the Bureau has not achieved previous goals for 

containing costs and made late design changes that proved costly in 

previous censuses.

 

22 The Bureau did not complete approximations for the remaining alternatives, those that 

would maximize the use of administrative records and therefore potentially realize the 

most costs savings, but plans to do so after gathering information from the research and 

testing phase.
 

Page 21 GAO-12-80 Decennial Census

The Bureau has not yet established policies, procedures, or guidance for 

developing the 2020 Census life cycle cost estimate and is at risk of not 

following related best practices. The Bureau uses the life cycle cost 

estimate as the starting point for the annual budget formulation process 

and, according to our Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide, a reliable 

cost estimating process is necessary to ensure that cost estimates—

particularly for large, complex projects like the 2020 Census—are 

comprehensive, well documented, accurate, and credible.23

Our guide identifies 12 steps of a high-quality cost estimation process, 

including, among other things, determining the estimate’s purpose; 

defining the program’s characteristics; clearly defining ground rules and 

assumptions; conducting sensitivity, risk, and uncertainty analyses; and 

documenting all steps used to develop the estimate. These best 

practices, if followed correctly, should produce reliable estimates that 

management can use for making informed decisions (see app. IV).

Put another 

way, reliable cost estimates are essential for a successful census 

because they help ensure that the Bureau has adequate funds and that 

Congress, the administration, and the Bureau itself can have reliable 

information on which to base decisions.

To date, the Bureau has developed a rough-order-of-magnitude estimate, 

which covers the four 2020 Census design alternatives that are the most 

similar to the 2010 Census design.24

The Bureau’s early 2020 planning documents note that the Bureau 

intends to use our cost guide as it develops cost estimates for 2020, and 

Bureau officials have stated that its cost estimators would follow best 

Bureau officials stated that this was 

not an official estimate, but rather a starting point that will be revised and 

improved as the Bureau gathers more data in the research and testing 

phase. As the Bureau goes forward in its 2020 planning, it will be 

important for it to have reliable and accurate cost estimates as it narrows 

down design alternatives and moves closer to a final design.

 

23 The definition of a “large, complex project” varies by agency depending on the size and 

value of the assets it manages. 

24 A rough-order-of-magnitude estimate is a quick, high-level estimate that generally 

involves less time and effort than a budget-quality estimate. The Bureau chose not to do 

estimates for design alternatives five and six, which are more radical changes, because 

Bureau officials did not feel they yet had sufficient information to develop reliable 

estimates. 

Without a Process in 

Place for Developing 

2020 Census Life 

Cycle Cost Estimates, 

the Bureau Is at Risk 

of Not Following Best 

Practices
 

Page 22 GAO-12-80 Decennial Census

practices wherever practicable. Nevertheless, the Bureau has not yet 

documented how it plans to conduct its cost estimates; and, while officials 

stated that they plan on developing more detailed documentation in the 

future, they could not provide a specific time when such documents would 

be finalized.

Although the 2020 Census is still a number of years away, the timeline for 

the Bureau to develop a cost estimation process is growing short. The 

Bureau plans to begin work on an official life cycle cost estimate in fiscal 

year 2013, and plans to include its initial life cycle cost estimate in its 

fiscal year 2015 budget submission covering initiatives from 2015 through 

2018. As a result, the Bureau has about a year to establish and finalize a 

process for preparing high-quality life cycle cost estimates.

The importance of reliable cost estimates is underscored by the Bureau’s 

experience leading up to the 2010 Census, where we found that the 

Bureau’s cost estimate lacked detailed documentation on data sources 

and significant assumptions and was not comprehensive because it did 

not include all costs. Among other weaknesses, we noted that the Bureau 

had insufficient policies and procedures for conducting high-quality cost 

estimation. Partly as a result, some operations had substantial variances 

between their initial cost estimates and their actual costs. Until the Bureau 

finalizes its cost estimating policies, procedures, and guidance, the 

Bureau runs the risk of again developing unreliable cost estimates for 

2020.

For the Bureau to improve its ability to control the costs of future 

censuses without sacrificing accuracy, it will be critical for it to have a 

better understanding of the factors affecting cost increases from prior 

decennials, as well as how various census-taking activities contributed to 

the overall quality of the count. Although the Bureau will gain valuable 

insights from its evaluations of the 2010 Census as well as from research 

and testing for 2020, this information will only be of limited use in helping 

the Bureau develop a complete picture of the key drivers of census costs 

and the steps needed to control costs going forward. Therefore, to 

improve its capacity to identify cost drivers and effectively target cost 

control efforts, it will be important for the Bureau to develop a way to 

compare costs for key activities across censuses and assess the 

marginal returns of each.

The Bureau has set a clear goal for controlling costs while maintaining 

accuracy for the 2020 Census, and has developed a range of design 

Conclusions
 

Page 23 GAO-12-80 Decennial Census

alternatives aimed at achieving that goal. Given the number of design 

alternatives the Bureau is evaluating for the 2020 Census, it will be 

important for the Bureau to set explicit decision points for executive-level 

review at the end of individual phases to reduce the risk of cost, schedule, 

and performance shortfalls. Without clearly defined decision points in its 

2020 planning phases, the Bureau may not be able to determine that it is 

on track or make the necessary adjustments in its design approach to 

achieve a more cost-effective census. Moreover, decision points would 

allow the Bureau to determine its readiness to move on to the next phase 

in 2020 planning. In conjunction with scheduled decision points, it will be 

critical for the Bureau to finalize evaluation criteria that are transparent, 

thoroughly documented, and consistently applied to maximize its ability to 

control costs for the 2020 Census. Without specifying explicit cost 

evaluation criteria for selecting among design alternatives, the Bureau 

and stakeholders, such as Congress, cannot accurately consider costs 

and may not have assurance that they are on the path to a more efficient 

census in 2020.

Cost estimates are necessary tools for major programs because they help 

in developing budget requests and efficiently allocating scarce resources. 

In a time of constrained budgets, these tools become even more 

important. However, cost estimates are technically complex and cost 

estimators face challenges in developing estimates for complex programs 

such as the 2020 Census. Previously, the Bureau had insufficient policies 

and procedures for developing reliable and high-quality cost estimates. 

Without clear guidance in place, there is no assurance that the Bureau 

will develop life cycle cost estimates for 2020 that are reliable and highquality and follow best practices.

To improve the Bureau’s ability to control costs for the 2020 decennial 

and balance cost and quality, we recommend that the Secretary of 

Commerce direct the Under Secretary of the Economics and Statistics 

Administration, as well as the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau, to take 

the following four actions:

• Develop and document a method to compare costs in 2010 to those in 

future decennials, for example, around major activities or investments, 

to allow the Bureau to identify and address factors that contribute to 

cost increases.

• Analyze data from key census-taking activities to determine their 

marginal costs and benefits, and use this information to inform 

decisions on developing more cost-effective methods.

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
 

Page 24 GAO-12-80 Decennial Census

• Identify decision points at the end of each planning phase and assign 

decision-making authority at the executive level, as well as consider 

adding decision points within phases to determine progress and 

readiness to proceed to the next phase.

• Finalize how the Bureau will apply cost as an evaluation criterion for 

choosing among design alternatives for 2020 and ensure that all 

criteria are transparent, well documented, and consistently applied 

before alternatives are eliminated.

We have previously recommended that the Secretary of Commerce direct 

the Bureau to establish guidance, policies, and procedures for cost 

estimation that would meet best practice criteria.25

• Finalize guidance, policies, and procedures for cost estimation in 

accordance with best practices prior to developing the Bureau’s initial 

2020 life cycle cost estimate.

To help ensure that the 

Bureau produces a reliable and high-quality cost estimate for the 2020 

Census, we recommend that the Bureau take the following action:

The Secretary of Commerce provided written comments from the Bureau 

on a draft of this report on January 6, 2012. The comments are reprinted 

in appendix II. The Department of Commerce expressed broad 

agreement with the overall theme of the report but did not directly 

comment on the recommendations. It raised concerns about specific 

aspects of the summary of findings which GAO addressed as appropriate.

Specifically, the Bureau agrees with the importance of using analysis, 

such as assessing marginal returns to help with decision making on 

balancing the need to control costs while maintaining accuracy. Moving 

forward, it will be important for the Bureau to also recognize that more indepth understanding of the growth in costs from prior censuses can, in 

fact, strengthen its decision-making ability and help it more effectively 

target cost control efforts in the future. The Bureau said understanding 

the growth in costs from 2000 through 2010 in depth has not been its 

highest-priority area for investment of scarce resources. We are sensitive 

to existing budget constraints. The fiscal issues facing federal agencies 

make it even more imperative for Bureau decision makers to develop and 

use actionable information, such as data on the extent to which specific 

 

25 GAO-08-554. 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 25 GAO-12-80 Decennial Census

operations and activities drove up costs, to pinpoint problem areas and 

target cost control efforts accordingly.

The Bureau expressed concern that the summary of findings and 

conclusions on the highlights page seemed premature and unsupported 

by discussions in the full report. In commenting on the first paragraph, the 

Bureau stated that it does not believe its inability to identify specific 

factors affecting past growth will make it difficult to control costs for the 

2020 Census. However, our report concludes that the Bureau’s inability to 

identify specific actionable factors will make it difficult for the Bureau to 

focus its cost control efforts for the 2020 Census. To help pinpoint 

problem areas for controlling census costs, it is important for the Bureau 

to have a better understanding of the specific sources of cost growth. This 

requires analysis of costs below the broad category level, focusing on 

projects that tie directly to major operations and investments. We believe 

understanding how the cost of these programs compared to 2000 and the 

extent to which they contributed to the cost of the 2010 Census, and 

whether they produced the desired results can help with decision making 

on areas where there are trade-offs in cost and accuracy. We added 

language to the highlights page to reflect the need for analyses to more 

effectively target future cost control efforts.

In commenting on the second paragraph of the highlights page, the 

Bureau stated that it had not yet received any appropriated funds or had 

the opportunity to develop program management efforts for the 2020 

Census that would allow the agency to establish formal guidance for 

developing cost estimates. However, the paragraph discusses practices 

for strengthening agency decision making for large projects rather than 

establishing formal guidance for developing cost estimates. OMB 

guidance for large projects and our previous body of work on acquisitions 

policies in high-performing organizations suggest setting explicit decision 

points for executive-level review at the end of individual planning phases 

can help reduce the risk of cost, schedule, and performance shortfalls. By 

clearly defining decision points in its 2020 planning phases, the Bureau 

could better ensure that it is on track or make adjustments in its design 

approach earlier in the 2020 planning process to achieve a more costeffective census. On the issue of having appropriated funds for planning 

purposes, we agree that funding for the 2020 Census life cycle did not 

officially begin until fiscal year 2012. However, the Bureau includes costs 

of early planning for the next census in the final years of the previous 

census life cycle (i.e., 2010 appropriations pay for 2020 planning). During 

our audit, we interviewed individuals who were planning and developing 

the 2020 Census. We also reviewed informational memos, such as the 
 

Page 26 GAO-12-80 Decennial Census

strategic plan and the business plan issued in 2009 and 2010, 

respectively, as guiding documents for the 2020 Census planning effort. 

Moreover, during the audit, the Bureau released newly developed and 

revised planning documents, such as the updated business plan and 

rough-order-of-magnitude estimates. While we made changes to the 

second paragraph of the highlights page, these were not made in 

response to this comment. 

The Bureau commented that it was unclear why the graphic in our 

highlights page focused on costs and mail response rate data over time. 

We selected mail response rates because, as the Bureau notes, declining 

mail response rates are significant and have led to higher costs. For 

example, the mail response rate directly dictates the number of housing 

units in the NRFU universe. NRFU is the largest and most costly Bureau 

field operation and has an impact on overall census costs. We agree with 

the Bureau that the declining mail response rate is only one factor leading 

to higher census costs. Our report acknowledges other factors that 

contribute to higher costs. As such, we made no change to the highlights 

page in response to this comment.

The Bureau made a number of technical comments on the body of the 

report. The Bureau commented that our report implies that the Bureau 

attributed all cost growth over the decades only to population growth. In 

fact, our draft report has a section dedicated to the five broad factors the 

Bureau identified as affecting cost growth. However, we added clarifying 

language to the discussion on workload and census costs to note 

workload is one of the factors driving up census costs.

The Bureau commented that the statement that the Bureau cannot 

determine areas of cost growth is a sweeping and premature conclusion 

given that the 2020 research and testing program just began. The Bureau 

stated that its primary focus is to study ways to reduce the cost of the 

next census while maintaining quality. While we acknowledge that the 

research and testing effort may help identify ways to reduce costs, 

coupling that information with specific factors of past cost growth could 

strengthen the Bureau’s ability to target cost reduction efforts in the 

future. We made no change to the report to address this comment.

The Bureau noted that statements in two areas seemed to be based on 

an assessment of how well the Bureau documented and analyzed costs 

relative to our Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide. The Bureau states 

that the guide was not issued until March 2009 and that the Bureau has 

not fully incorporated all those practices into a program as large, costly, 
 

Page 27 GAO-12-80 Decennial Census

and complex as the census. While it is true that we published the guide in 

March 2009, we issued an exposure draft in 2007 and shared a copy of 

our guide with the Bureau during our October 2006-June 2008 audit of 

Bureau cost estimating practices (GAO-08-554). In fact, the cost guide is 

based on long-standing industry and government best practices on cost 

estimation followed long before GAO published them in a concise form in 

2009. Moreover, in its June 2008 action plan to address GAO 

recommendations, the Bureau noted its plan to use the guide, particularly 

the 12 steps of a high-quality cost estimating process. In less than 1 year 

from now, the Bureau plans to begin work on its official life cycle cost 

estimate for the 2020 Census. By not establishing policies, procedures, or 

guidance for developing life cycle cost estimates, the Bureau again runs 

the risk of developing cost estimates that are not comprehensive, 

accurate, or credible. We made no change to the report in response to 

this comment.

The Bureau commented that it was unsure why we presented the NRFU 

analysis of marginal costs as it was a small percentage of the entire 

budget. However, we used this as an example of how such an analysis 

may help point to areas for targeting cost reduction efforts or for 

modifying the Bureau’s approach to data collection. The analysis does not 

imply that the Bureau should ignore the remaining households at the end 

of NRFU as the Bureau’s comment states. Instead, it highlights the 

importance of considering alternative approaches in order to ensure a 

complete and cost-effective enumeration. The more important point is that 

it highlights the increasing marginal costs of contacting certain 

households at the tail end of the enumeration. We agree that the Bureau 

cannot ignore hard-to-contact households. By mining performance data 

on the NRFU operation, the Bureau may be in a better position to identify 

alternative approaches for the hardest-to-contact households that have 

the greatest potential to reduce costs without compromising accuracy. We 

made no change to the report to address this comment.

Finally, the Bureau commented that our reported costs for local census 

operations were incomplete, so we corrected the number based on 

information provided by the Bureau.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

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

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

congressional committees, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Director 
 

Page 28 GAO-12-80 Decennial Census

of the U.S. Census Bureau. In addition, the report will be available at no 

charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff 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 who made key contributions to this 

report are listed in appendix V.

Robert Goldenkoff

Director

Strategic Issues
 

Page 29 GAO-12-80 Decennial Census

List of Requesters

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper

Chairman

The Honorable Scott P. Brown

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government

 Information, Federal Services, and International Security

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Darrell E. Issa

Chairman

The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings

Ranking Member

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

House of Representatives

The Honorable Trey Gowdy

Chairman

The Honorable Danny Davis

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Health Care, District of Columbia, Census and the

 National Archives

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

House of Representatives

The Honorable John S. McCain

United States Senate

The Honorable William Lacy Clay

House of Representatives

The Honorable Patrick T. McHenry

House of Representatives
Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 30 GAO-12-80 Decennial Census

To identify the key factors affecting cost growth from the 2000 Census to 

the 2010 Census, we reviewed U.S. Census Bureau (Bureau) strategic 

planning documents for 2000 and 2010, Bureau operational and systems 

plans for 2000 and 2010, Bureau assessments and evaluations of past 

census operations, National Academy of Sciences work on decennial 

census costs, and our prior work on implementation of 2000 and 2010 

census operations. We assessed the Bureau’s approach to determine 

trends in cost data using best practices for cost estimation in GAO’s Cost 

Estimating and Assessment Guide.

1

To identify sources of cost growth from the 2000 Census and the 2010 

Census, we reviewed and analyzed expenditure data on 2000 Census 

and 2010 Census life cycle costs from the Bureau’s Commerce Business 

System (CBS). CBS is the Bureau’s financial management system and 

the official system of record for expenditures.

The guide illustrates the importance 

of using cost data to understand trends and drivers. In addition, we 

interviewed Bureau officials and reviewed agency documentation on 

actions taken to determine sources of cost growth between decennials.

2

We assessed the reliability of the Bureau’s CBS data by reviewing 

relevant documentation, interviewing knowledgeable agency officials, and 

conducting comparisons with other data sources. We reviewed previous 

GAO, Department of Commerce Inspector General, and other 

Department of Commerce reports covering the system. We conducted 

interviews with Bureau officials who maintain the system at the Bureau 

level and its primary users within the Decennial Management Division. 

CBS data contained 

information at two levels of aggregation for the census: budget 

categories, which are broad groupings of related items, and budget 

projects, which are the lowest level of cost information. To determine the 

level of cost growth from the 2000 Census and the 2010 Census, we 

developed life cycle totals for each census and life cycle totals for each of 

the budget categories within those censuses, comparing their absolute 

and percentage growth. We adjusted all monetary data for inflation using 

the gross domestic product implicit price deflator. All costs were adjusted 

to fiscal year 2010 dollars. In addition, we compared costs after adjusting 

for the number of housing units for each census.

 

1 GAO-09-3SP. 

2 The system is referred to in older GAO reports as the Commerce Administrative 

Management System (CAMS). It is the same system, but the name changed over time. 

Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 31 GAO-12-80 Decennial Census

After receiving the cost data covering the 2000 and 2010 censuses, we 

compared them to financial management reports provided by Bureau 

officials to determine data consistency. We determined that these data 

are sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.

Our review was subject to some limitations. The budget categories and 

budget projects for 2000 and 2010 varied from census to census. We 

requested and the Bureau provided recategorized cost data to facilitate 

comparison of the 2000 budget categories with 2010 budget categories. 

We requested and the Bureau was unable to provide recategorized cost 

data to facilitate comparison of 2000 budget projects with 2010 budget 

projects. We attempted to compare costs at the budget project level from 

2000 to 2010 but were unable to do so for the following reasons: (1) the 

Bureau’s budget projects were not consistent from 2000 to 2010, making 

it impossible to match projects directly using project descriptions or 

project codes;3 (2) the number of projects increased substantially from 

236 in 2000 to 1175 in 2010; and (3) the Bureau was unable to provide us 

with any documentation tracking similar projects from the 2000 Census to 

the 2010 Census.4

To assess the Bureau’s plans for controlling costs for the 2020 Census 

and what additional steps, if any, could be taken, we reviewed available 

documentation on 2020 Census planning and 2010 Census evaluations 

and assessments, such as 2010 evaluation study plans. We consulted 

with GAO staff with expertise in economics to determine the potential for 

leveraging available Bureau cost data to better support the Bureau’s 

ability to make cost-quality trade-offs. We reviewed Office of Management 

and Budget guidance on major acquisitions as well as GAO work on

acquisition best practices to determine whether the use of decision points 

could help the Bureau make more informed decisions about census 

design that could relate to cost control. Further, we reviewed Bureau 

documentation on criteria for selecting among 2020 design alternatives.

We attempted to group similar projects in 2000 and 

2010 for comparison, but the available project descriptions did not provide 

enough information to group 2000 costs with the same precision as 2010. 

Therefore, we could not conduct a comparison of groups of projects.

 

3 There were a small number of exceptions that could be directly matched based on 

project descriptions, such as the nonresponse follow-up operation. 

4 The Bureau said it has no such crosswalk at the project level and said that such 

comparison is inherently difficult because of the changing nature of the census. 
Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 32 GAO-12-80 Decennial Census

We analyzed the marginal cost of conducting nonresponse follow-up 

(NRFU)—the costliest field operation in the 2010 Census—to determine 

how the Bureau might be able to further use its cost data in planning for 

2020. We used Bureau cost and progress data from the 2010 Census to 

identify the marginal costs of the NRFU operation in 3-week intervals. 

This analysis compared the cost of the operation for that period with the 

number of questionnaires checked in to identify return on investment. We 

assessed the reliability of the Bureau’s 2010 cost and progress data by 

consulting with the Bureau about variables we used and reviewing past 

GAO data reliability work that used cost and progress data. The cost and 

progress system is a daily management tool used by Bureau officials to 

track the work completed of various census operations. It includes 

measures of cost (such as field hours or mileage costs) and measures of 

work completed (such as questionnaires checked in). Our estimate of the 

marginal costs of checking in NRFU questionnaires in the early weeks of 

the operation may be somewhat overstated because, for instance, we 

included training costs as well as fieldwork costs because training costs 

were incurred in the early part of NRFU and those costs were not spread 

over the life of the operation. As a result, costs for the early weeks of the 

operation could be lower than presented in the graphic.

After developing the marginal costs methodology, we followed up with 

agency officials knowledgeable about the data when we had questions 

about potential errors or inconsistencies. In addition, we reviewed prior 

GAO data reliability work on cost and progress data that examined the 

accuracy and completeness of the entry and processing of data. Based 

on this work, we determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for 

gauging the approximate marginal cost increase per questionnaire 

checked in during the final weeks of the NRFU operation.

To assess the extent to which the Bureau’s plans for developing life cycle 

cost estimates for 2020 are consistent with best practices, we reviewed 

available Bureau documentation on the Bureau’s life cycle cost estimation 

processes and procedures. For example, we reviewed documentation 

from the Bureau’s rough-order-of-magnitude estimate—an early highlevel estimate developed from limited data. We reviewed the guidance 

contained in our Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide and our 

previous work on census life cycle cost estimates. We also conducted 

interviews with knowledgeable Bureau officials and contractor staff and 

received a demonstration of new capabilities in the Bureau’s budgeting 

tool that will be used for 2020 Census cost estimation.
Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 33 GAO-12-80 Decennial Census

We conducted this performance audit from December 2010 through 

January 2012 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

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

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

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

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

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

of Commerce

Page 34 GAO-12-80 Decennial Census

Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce 
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce

Page 35 GAO-12-80 Decennial Census
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce

Page 36 GAO-12-80 Decennial Census
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce

Page 37 GAO-12-80 Decennial Census
Appendix III: 2010 Census Costs Were 

Concentrated in Certain Budget Categories 

and Projects

Page 38 GAO-12-80 Decennial Census

Notes: This graphic is a static breakdown of the data presented in the background section of the 

report. Some projects have the same name, but these costs do not overlap with one another. The 

money was spent in different time periods for each separate project. All costs were adjusted to 2010 

dollars using the gross domestic product deflator. The Bureau identified one project that did not fit into 

any regular category, the project labeled “adjustments.” Changes were made to project descriptions 

to increase clarity. For example, acronyms were spelled out and abbreviations were expanded into 

full words. 

Appendix III: 2010 Census Costs Were 

Concentrated in Certain Budget Categories 

and Projects
Appendix IV: The 12 Steps of a High-Quality 

Cost Estimating Process 

Page 39 GAO-12-80 Decennial Census

Step Description Associated task

1 Define estimate’s purpose • Determine estimate’s purpose, required level of detail, and overall scope;

• Determine who will receive the estimate;

2 Develop estimating plan • Determine the cost estimating team and develop its master schedule;

• Determine who will do the independent cost estimate;

• Outline the cost estimating approach;

• Develop the estimate timeline 

3 Define program characteristics • In a technical baseline description document, identify the program’s purpose and its 

system and performance characteristics and all system configurations;

• Any technology implications;

• Its program acquisition schedule and acquisition strategy;

• Its relationship to other existing systems, including predecessor or similar legacy 

systems; 

• Support (manpower, training, etc.) and security needs and risk items;

• System quantities for development, test, and production;

• Development and maintenance plans 

4 Determine estimating structure • Define a work breakdown structure (WBS) and describe each element in a WBS 

dictionary (a major automated information system may have only a cost element 

structure); 

• Choose the best estimating method for each WBS element;

• Identify potential cross-checks for likely cost and schedule drivers;

• Develop a cost estimating checklist 

5 Identify ground rules and 

assumptions

• Clearly define what the estimate includes and excludes;

• Identify global and program-specific assumptions, such as the estimate’s base year, 

including time phasing and life cycle;

• Identify program schedule information by phase and program acquisition strategy;

• Identify any schedule or budget constraints, inflation assumptions, and travel costs;

• Specify equipment the government is to furnish as well as the use of existing facilities 

or new modification or development;

• Identify prime contractor and major subcontractors;

• Determine technology refresh cycles, technology assumptions, and new technology to 

be developed;

• Define commonality with legacy systems and assumed heritage savings;

• Describe effects of new ways of doing business

Appendix IV: The 12 Steps of a High-Quality 

Cost Estimating Process
Appendix IV: The 12 Steps of a High-Quality 

Cost Estimating Process 

Page 40 GAO-12-80 Decennial Census

Step Description Associated task

6 Obtain data • Create a data collection plan with emphasis on collecting current and relevant 

technical, programmatic, cost, and risk data;

• Investigate possible data sources;

• Collect data and normalize them for cost accounting, inflation, learning, and quantity 

adjustments;

• Analyze the data for cost drivers, trends, and outliers and compare results against 

rules of thumb and standard factors derived from historical data;

• Interview data sources and document all pertinent information, including an 

assessment of data reliability and accuracy;

• Store data for future estimates 

7 Develop point estimate and 

compare it to an independent cost 

estimate

• Develop the cost model, estimating each WBS element, using the best methodology 

from the data collected,a

• Express costs in constant year dollars;

and including all estimating assumptions;

• Time-phase the results by spreading costs in the years they are expected to occur, 

based on the program schedule;

• Sum the WBS elements to develop the overall point estimate;

• Validate the estimate by looking for errors like double counting and omitted costs;

• Compare estimate against the independent cost estimate and examine where and 

why there are differences;

• Perform cross-checks on cost drivers to see if results are similar;

• Update the model as more data become available or as changes occur and compare 

results against previous estimates

8 Conduct sensitivity analysis • Test the sensitivity of cost elements to changes in estimating input values and key 

assumptions;

• Identify effects on the overall estimate of changing the program schedule or 

quantities;

• Determine which assumptions are key cost drivers and which cost elements are 

affected most by changes 

9 Conduct risk and uncertainty 

analysis

• Determine and discuss with technical experts the level of cost, schedule, and

technical risk associated with each WBS element;

• Analyze each risk for its severity and probability;

• Develop minimum, most likely, and maximum ranges for each risk element;

• Determine type of risk distributions and reason for their use;

• Ensure that risks are correlated;

• Use an acceptable statistical analysis method (e.g., Monte Carlo simulation) to 

develop a confidence interval around the point estimate;

• Identify the confidence level of the point estimate;

• Identify the amount of contingency funding and add this to the point estimate to 

determine the risk-adjusted cost estimate;

• Recommend that the project or program office develop a risk management plan to 

track and mitigate risks
Appendix IV: The 12 Steps of a High-Quality 

Cost Estimating Process 

Page 41 GAO-12-80 Decennial Census

Step Description Associated task

10 Document the estimate • Document all steps used to develop the estimate so that a cost analyst unfamiliar with 

the program can re-create it quickly and produce the same result;

• Document the purpose of the estimate, the team that prepared it, and who approved 

the estimate and on what date;

• Describe the program, its schedule, and the technical baseline used to create the 

estimate;

• Present the program’s time-phased life cycle cost;

• Discuss all ground rules and assumptions;

• Include auditable and traceable data sources for each cost element and document for 

all data sources how the data were normalized;

• Describe in detail the estimating methodology and rationale used to derive each WBS 

element’s cost (prefer more detail over less);

• Describe the results of the risk, uncertainty, and sensitivity analyses and whether any 

contingency funds were identified;

• Document how the estimate compares to the funding profile;

• Track how this estimate compares to any previous estimates

11 Present estimate to management 

for approval

• Develop a briefing that presents the documented life cycle cost estimate;

• Include an explanation of the technical an programmatic baseline and any 

uncertainties;

• Compare the estimate to an independent cost estimate (ICE) and explain any 

differences;

• Compare the estimate (life cycle cost estimate (LCCE)) or independent cost estimate 

to the budget with enough detail to easily defend it by showing how it is accurate, 

complete, and high in quality;

• Focus in on logical manner on the largest cost elements and cost drivers;

• Make the content clear and complete so that those how are unfamiliar with it can 

easily comprehend the competence that underlies the estimate results;

• Make backup slides available for more probe questions;

• Act on and document feedback from management;

• Request acceptance of the estimate

12 Update the estimate to reflect 

actual costs and changes

• Update the estimate to reflect changes in technical or program assumptions or keep it 

current as the program passes through new phases or milestones;

• Replace estimates with earned value management (EVM) estimate at completion 

(EAC) and independent EAC from the integrated EVM system;

• Report progress on meeting cost and schedule estimates;

• Perform a postmortem and document lessons learned for elements whose actual 

costs or schedules differ from the estimate;

• Document all changes to the program and how they affect the cost estimate

Source: GAO-09-3SP. 

a

In a data-rich environment, the estimating approach should precede the investigation of data 

sources; in reality, a lack of data often determines the approach. 
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 42 GAO-12-80 Decennial Census

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

In addition to the contact named above, Signora May, Assistant Director; 

Tom Beall; Tim Carr; Eric Charles; Sara Daleski; Dewi Djunaidy; Ron 

Fecso; Robert Gebhart; Rich Hung; Kirsten Lauber; Jason Lee; Andrea 

Levine; Donna Miller; Stacey Steele; and Jack Wang made key 

contributions to this report.

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(450879)
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 (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 www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

TDD (202) 512-2537.

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

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

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

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

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

Contact:

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

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

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

7125, Washington, DC 20548

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

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

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.