2010 Census: Cost and Design Issues Need to Be Addressed Soon
Published: 2004-01-15T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The key to a successful census is meticulous planning as it helps ensure greater cost-effectiveness. However, the 2000 and previous censuses have been marked by poor planning, which unnecessarily raised the costs and risks of those efforts. GAO was asked to (1) review the U.S. Census Bureau's (Bureau) current plans for 2010 and whether they might address shortcomings of the 2000 Census, (2) analyze the Bureau's cost estimates, and (3) review the rigor of the Bureau's 2010 planning process.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: While preparations for the 2010 Census appear to be further along compared to a similar point prior to the 2000 Census, cost and design information had to be pieced together from various documents. The Bureau's plans also lack a substantial amount of supporting analysis, budgetary transparency, and other information that made it difficult to verify the Bureau's assertions concerning the costs and benefits of its proposed approach. Further, unlike in previous censuses, the Bureau does not intend to develop coverage measurement procedures that would allow it to adjust census data for certain purposes. Although its experience in 2000 shows that its coverage measurement methodology needs improvement, GAO believes the Bureau should have researched alternative approaches more thoroughly and disclosed the results of its research before making a decision. In designing the 2010 Census, the Bureau hoped to address several shortcomings of the 2000 enumeration, namely to (1) increase the relevance and timeliness of data, (2) reduce operational risk, (3) increase coverage and accuracy, and (4) contain costs. To achieve these goals, three components--all new operations--are key to the Bureau's plans for 2010. They include enhancing procedures for building the census address list and associated maps, replacing the census long-form questionnaire with a more frequent sample survey, and conducting a short-form-only census. The Bureau's approach has the potential to achieve the first three goals, but reducing operational risk could prove to be more difficult as each of the three components actually introduces new risks. The Bureau will also be challenged to control the cost of the 2010 Census, now estimated at over $11 billion. The current budget reporting process masks the long-term costs of the census, most of which will be incurred in 2010; making it difficult for Congress to monitor the Bureau's planned expenditures. Certain actions by the Office of Management and Budget could produce greater fiscal transparency, and thus help inform congressional deliberations on how to best balance the need for an accurate census, with the need to ensure a reasonable cost for this endeavor.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: In designing the 2010 Census, the U.S. Census Bureau (Bureau) faces the  daunting challenge of cost effectively counting a population that is growing  steadily larger, more diverse, and increasingly difficult to enumerate, with a  design that meets the sometimes competing requirements and interests of a  vast spectrum of stakeholders that include Congress, government agencies,  the statistical community, advocacy groups, and the public.
Planning a successful census—one that is acceptable to Congress and  other stakeholders and achieves desired outcomesrequires the Bureau to  assess the lessons learned from past enumerations, identify initiatives that  show promise for producing a better census while controlling costs, test  the feasibility of these initiatives, and convince stakeholders of the value of  the proposed plans.   However, the Bureau’s planning efforts for the 2000  and earlier censuses contained a number of weaknesses that unnecessarily  increased the cost and risk of those efforts.
In January 2003, we named the 2010 Census a major performance and  accountability challenge because of our growing concern over the  numerous obstacles to a cost-effective head count.  Already, current  estimates of the cost of the 2010 Census exceed $11 billion.  You asked us  to examine the decision-making process for the 2010 Census.  As agreed  with your offices, our objectives for this report were to review the Bureau’s  current plans for the 2010 Census and the extent to which they might  address shortcomings with the 2000 Census, analyze the Bureau’s cost  estimates, and assess the rigor of the Bureau’s 2010 planning process.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Thorough and comprehensive planning and preparation are crucial to the  ultimate cost-effectiveness of any large, long-term project, particularly one  with the scope, magnitude, and immutable deadlines of the decennial  census.  Indeed, the Bureau’s past experience has shown that the lack of  proper planning can increase the costs and risks of downstream  operations.  Moreover, sound planning is critical to obtaining congressional  support and funding because it helps demonstrate that the Bureau has  chosen the optimal design given various trade-offs and constraints and that  it will effectively manage operations and control costs.
However, Congress, GAO, the Department of Commerce Inspector General,  and even the Bureau itself have noted how the 2000 Census was marked by  poor planning, which unnecessarily added to the cost, risk, and  controversy of the last national head count.  For example, our earlier work,  and that of the Department of Commerce Inspector General, reported that  in planning the 2000 Census, the Bureau, among other shortcomings,  did not involve key operations staff in the initial design phases;  did not translate key performance goals into operational, measurable  terms that could be used as a basis for planning;   did not develop and document a design until mid-decade; and  initially failed to provide sufficient data to stakeholders on the likely  effects of its initiatives for addressing the key goals for the census— reduced costs and improved accuracy and equity.
Planning weaknesses were not limited to the 2000 Census.  In fact, a variety  of problems plagued the planning of the 1990 Census.
To help prevent the Bureau from repeating those mistakes as it plans the  2010 Census, in our October 2002 report, we recommended that the  Secretary of Commerce direct the Bureau to provide comprehensive  information backed by supporting documentation in its future funding  requests for planning and development activities, including, but not limited  to,   specific performance goals for the 2010 Census and information on how  the Bureau’s programs would contribute to those goals;  detailed information on program feasibility, priorities, and potential   key implementation issues and decision milestones; and  performance measures.
The consequences of a poorly planned census are high given the billions of  dollars spent on the enterprise and the importance of collecting quality  data.  The Constitution requires a census as a basis for apportioning seats  in the House of Representatives.  Census data are also used to redraw  congressional districts, allocate billions of dollars in federal assistance to  state and local governments, and provide information for many other  public and private sector purposes.
section_title: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: As agreed with your offices, our objectives for this report were to review  the Bureau’s current plans for the 2010 Census and the extent to which they  might address shortcomings with the 2000 Census, analyze the Bureau’s  cost estimates, and assess the rigor of the Bureau’s 2010 planning process.
To achieve these three objectives, we interviewed officials from the  Bureau’s Decennial Management Division and other units involved with  planning the 2010 Census.  We also reviewed relevant design and budget  documents as well as our prior work and that of the Department of  Commerce Inspector General, on planning the 2000 and earlier censuses.   We also reviewed reports by the National Academy of Sciences on planning  the 2010 Census.  We did not independently verify the cost information the  Bureau provided.  To help determine the key elements for successful  project planning, we reviewed a number of guides to project management  and business process reengineering.
Our work was performed from January through September 2003 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  We  requested comments on a draft of this report from the Secretary of  Commerce and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.  On  November 6, 2003, we received the Secretary’s written comments on the  draft (see app. I).  On October 14, 2003, the Director of OMB forwarded  OMB’s comments on the draft (see app. II).  They are addressed in the  Agency Comments and Our Evaluation section of this report.
section_title: 2010 Design Has Potential, but Introduces New Risks
paragraphs: In designing the 2010 Census, Bureau officials had four principal goals in  mind:  (1) increase the relevance and timeliness of census long-form data,  (2) reduce operational risk, (3) increase the coverage and accuracy of the  census, and (4) contain costs.  The goals were a direct response to  problems the Bureau experienced in conducting the 2000 Census, such as  untimely long-form data; inaccurate maps; coverage difficulties; and  expensive, labor-intensive, and paper-laden field data collection.
subsections: section_title: Census Reforms Have Three Key Components
paragraphs: The Bureau recognized that its traditional approach to counting the  population was insufficient for meeting these four objectives.  In its place,  the Bureau developed what it believes is a paradigm shift to taking the  census, basing its reform efforts on three interrelated components the  Bureau refers to as a “three-legged stool.”
subsections: section_title: Modernizing and Enhancing the MAF/TIGER Address File and Geographic Database
paragraphs: The mainstay of a successful census is an accurate address list and its  associated maps. The Bureau uses MAF and TIGER to provide (1) maps for  field operations and data reference, (2) the geographic location of every  structure, (3) address lists for the decennial census, and (4) names and  codes of entities for data tabulation and data for use by the commercial  geographic information systems industry.
The Bureau’s experience in conducting the 2000 Census highlighted the  need to update and modernize MAF/TIGER prior to 2010. For example, the  centerlines of streets in TIGER did not accurately reflect their true  geographic locations, which could cause houses to be placed in the wrong  census blocks.  Also, according to the Bureau, the 1980s software used to  develop TIGER is now outdated and cumbersome to update.  To fix these  and other problems, the Bureau launched the MAF/TIGER Enhancements  Program (MTEP) as part of the 2010 Census modernization efforts.  Its  objectives include  correcting the locations of each MAF address, street, and other map   developing and deploying a new MAF/TIGER processing environment;  expanding and encouraging geographic intergovernmental partnership  programs;  implementing the Community Address Updating System (CAUS), an  initiative to partner with local governments to update MAF data; and   initiating quality assurance evaluation activities.
The Bureau estimates the total cost for these five objectives to be   $536 million.  According to Bureau officials, while some elements of MAF  will be improved as part of the overall MAF/TIGER enhancements  program, the primary focus of the effort is on TIGER modernization and  data correction.  This modernization program will not reengineer the MAF  process.
section_title: Implementing ACS to Collect Long-Form Data on an Ongoing, Annual Basis
paragraphs: ACS is intended to be a monthly survey of 250,000 households that would  replace the long form used in past decennial censuses.  According to the  Bureau, the benefits of ACS include (1) more timely long-form data at  detailed geographic levels that would be as accurate as subnational annual  data from existing surveys, such as the Current Population and American  Housing Surveys, and (2) the ability to improve the accuracy of the  decennial census population counts by eliminating the long-form  questionnaire.
The ACS data will be published annually for geographic areas with  populations over 65,000; as a 3-year average for geographic areas with  populations of 20,000 to 65,000; and as a 5-year average for geographic  areas with populations under 20,000.  According to the Bureau, because of  the larger sample size associated with long-form data, the annual and 3- year average data will be significantly less accurate than the long-form  data.  The 5-year data would be about as accurate as the long form.
section_title: Developing, Testing, and Implementing a Short-Form-Only Census; Taking Advantage of the Benefits Gained by the First Two Efforts
paragraphs: The Bureau believes that eliminating the long form will result in a number  of benefits to decennial data collection and general field operations.  For  example, according to the Bureau, the reduction in paper will enable it to  process data with three data capture centers instead of the four centers  used during Census 2000.  The Bureau also would not need as many local  census offices, thereby allowing it to reduce the rolls of clerical and  administrative staff.
According to the Bureau, a short-form-only census also allows the Bureau  to use such technology as handheld mobile computing devices so that  enumerators can locate and update data on housing units, help conduct  interviews, transmit data directly to the data capture centers, and receive  regularly updated field assignments.  The devices will be linked to the  satellite-based Global Positioning System (GPS) to enable field workers to  locate addresses more precisely and efficiently.  The Bureau also plans to  incorporate changes that are not dependent on ACS and MAF/TIGER.  For  example, the Bureau plans to expand the respondents’ ability to complete  their questionnaires via the Internet.
section_title: 2010 Design Is Linked to Goals, but Challenges Remain
paragraphs: As shown in table 1, the Bureau’s three-legged stool strategy is generally  aligned with three of its four key goals for the 2010 Census and, if  successful, could put the Bureau on track toward achieving them.
Less clear is how the Bureau will achieve its goal of reducing operational  risk using its current plan.  Although the Bureau’s position that early testing  will enable it to identify and correct flaws is both a common sense business  practice and supported by its past experience (assuming its testing  program is adequately designed), as described below, the operational and  other hurdles associated with successfully implementing the three-legged  stool actually introduce new risks and challenges.  This does not  necessarily mean that the Bureau’s design is flawed.  To the contrary, the  obstacles to a cost-effective head count call for the Bureau to consider bold  and innovative initiatives, and these are not risk free.
At the same time, given the enormity of the census and all of its  complexities, the three-legged stool by itself will not automatically  guarantee the successful accomplishment of the Bureau’s goals.  Our work  on transforming agencies into high-performing organizations has  underscored the importance of an agency’s leadership and core business  practices.   Critical success factors include, among others, effective  communication strategies to ensure coordination, synergy, and integration;  strategic planning; aligning the agency’s organization to be consistent with  the goals and objectives established in the strategic plan; and effective  performance, financial, acquisition, and information technology  management.  In all, the Bureau faces at least three key challenges.
subsections: section_title: Challenge #1: Securing Congressional Approval
paragraphs: Among the more significant challenges the Bureau faces is securing  congressional approval for its proposed approach.  As we noted in our  January 2003 performance and accountability report, congressional  support for the 2010 design is necessary to ensure adequate planning,  testing, and funding levels. Conversely, the lack of an agreed-upon design  raises the risk that basic design elements might change in the years ahead,  while the opportunities to test those changes and integrate them with other  operations will diminish. In other words, in order for the Bureau to conduct  proper planning and development activities, the basic design of the 2010  Census needs to be stable.
According to the Bureau, a go/no-go decision on key aspects of the  design—a short-form-only census and replacing the long form with ACS— will need to be made around 2006.  Bureau officials told us that if ACS were  dropped after 2007, the Bureau would not be able to reinstate the long form  with the short form in 2010 because of logistical obstacles.  They noted that  the Bureau is already testing the short-form-only census and, in late-2005 or  early-2006, expects to sign a contract for data capture operations.  If the  Bureau had to revert to a long-form census at that point, it would add  significant risks and costs to the 2010 Census.
During the 2000 Census, the lack of an agreement between the  administration and Congress on the fundamental design—and particularly,  the Bureau’s planned use of sampling—increased the likelihood of an  unsuccessful head count and was one of the principal reasons why, in 1997,  we designated the 2000 Census a high-risk area.  Members of Congress  questioned the use of sampling and estimation for legal and methodological  reasons.  Contributing to Congress’s skepticism was the Bureau’s failure to  provide sufficiently detailed data on the effects of its proposed approach.    Although the U.S. Supreme Court settled the dispute in January 1999, the  Bureau ultimately wound up having to plan for both a “traditional” census  and one involving sampling, which added to the costs and risks of the 2000  decennial census.
To help secure congressional support for its 2010 reform efforts, it will be  important for the Bureau to convincingly demonstrate that it has chosen  the optimum design given various resource and other constraints and that  it will effectively manage operations and costs.  A critical first step in this  regard is to have comprehensive and transparent information that lays out  the specifics of the Bureau’s plans, explains their benefits, and supports  assumptions.  However, as discussed more fully in the next section, while  the Bureau’s planning for the 2010 Census has improved compared with its  efforts for the 2000 Census, certain information gaps remain.  For example,  the Bureau’s most recent budget submissions have not included complete  life cycle cost estimates that could enable Congress to make more  informed decisions about the cost implications of the three-legged stool  design, including ACS.
section_title: Challenge #2: Resolving Uncertainties That Surround ACS
paragraphs: Most of the reforms, savings, and improvements in accuracy the Bureau  anticipates will not be possible unless it conducts a short-form-only census.    However, the Bureau’s planned replacement for the long form, ACS, faces  methodological and other questions that need to be resolved soon.   Consequently, the Bureau is taking a significant risk by pinning the success  of its reform efforts largely on a survey that may not be an adequate  replacement for the long form.  The Bureau believes that without ACS, it  will need to repeat the Census 2000 design.
One methodological question is whether to administer ACS as a mandatory  or voluntary survey.  Under the Bureau’s current approach, survey  recipients will be legally required to respond to ACS.  However, in response  to congressional concerns that a mandatory survey is intrusive, the Bureau  tested conducting ACS as a voluntary survey.  Based on the results of the  test, the Bureau estimates that a voluntary survey could produce a  response rate around 4.2 percentage points lower than a mandatory survey.  The Bureau estimates that costs would increase by $59.2 million per year to  maintain the same level of reliability achieved from a mandatory survey.
Moreover, the Bureau’s efforts to ensure that ACS data will serve as a  satisfactory replacement for the long-form data are not yet complete.   Among the remaining issues, most of which are critical to the reliability of  the small geographic area ACS data, are the following: 1. Benchmarking ACS data or small geographic areas to the population  counts and characteristics from the 2010 short form.
2.
Inconsistency of ACS residency rules—which determine the  geographic area in which a person is supposed to be counted—with  those used for the census. 3. Consistency of ACS data with long-form data from the 2000 Census. 4. For multiyear averages of ACS data for small areas, consistency with  annual ACS data for larger areas and utilization as a measure of change.
section_title: Challenge #3: Successfully Implementing Each Leg of the Bureau’s Design
paragraphs: Each leg of the Bureau’s three-legged stool is dependent on the other; that  is, the implementation of one leg allows the other two legs to operate  successfully.  For example, ACS is facilitated by first updating the  MAF/TIGER database for the ACS sample.   Similarly, as noted above, the  Bureau’s plan to conduct a short-form-only enumeration depends on ACS.    Consequently, the Bureau’s design assumes that by 2008, (1) ACS will be in  place nationwide and producing data, (2) a GPS-aligned and modernized  MAF/TIGER will be available, and (3) all reengineering efforts will be  complete to allow for a true dress rehearsal.  Completing any one of these  tasks would be a considerable undertaking; for 2010, the Bureau plans to  develop, refine, and integrate all three in the space of just a few years.
Moreover, the Bureau has no contingency plans other than to revert to a  “traditional” census.  According to the Bureau, while the failure of any one  leg would not doom the census, it could jeopardize the Bureau’s goals.   For  example, if the MAF/TIGER modernization is not completed on schedule,  the Bureau would be unable to employ the GPS-enabled handheld mobile  computing devices that enumerators are to use when conducting  nonresponse follow-up.  This in turn could affect the efficiency of the effort  and the quality of the data collected.  In addition, the Bureau would not  have time to conduct the research and testing necessary to improve the  long form based on lessons learned in the 2000 Census.
section_title: The Bureau’s Plans for Measuring Accuracy and Coverage in 2010
paragraphs: Because of limitations in census taking methods, some degree of error in  the form of persons missed or counted more than once is inevitable.  Since  1980, the Bureau has used statistical methods to generate detailed  measures of the undercounts of particular ethnic, racial, and other  population groups.  To assess the quality of population data for the 2000  Census and to possibly adjust for any errors, the Bureau conducted the  Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation (A.C.E.) program.  Although the U.S.  Supreme Court ruled in 1999 that the Census Act prohibited the use of  statistical sampling for purposes of apportioning seats in the House of  Representatives, the Court did not specifically address the use of statistical  sampling for other purposes.
In March 2001, the Acting Director of the U.S. Census Bureau  recommended to the Secretary of Commerce that only unadjusted data be  released for purposes of congressional redistricting.  The Acting Director  made this recommendation when, after considerable research, the Bureau  was unable to conclude that the adjusted data were more accurate for use  in redistricting.  Specifically, the Acting Director cited the apparent  inconsistency in population growth over the decade as estimated by the  A.C.E., and demographic analysis, which estimated the population using  birth, death, and similar records.  He noted that the inconsistency raised  the possibility of an unidentified error in either the A.C.E. estimates or the  census numbers, and the inconsistency could not be resolved prior to   April 1, 2001, the legally mandated deadline for releasing redistricting data.    Later that year, following additional research, the Acting Director decided  against using adjusted census data for nonredistricting purposes, such as  allocating federal aid, because A.C.E. estimates failed to identify a  significant number of people erroneously included in the census.  The  Acting Director noted that  “this finding of substantial error, in conjunction  with remaining uncertainties, necessitates that revisions, based on  additional review and analysis, be made to the A.C.E. estimates before any  potential uses of these data can be considered.”
As the Bureau turned toward the 2010 Census, it needed to decide whether  it would have a coverage measurement program and how the results would  be used.  Because of the 1999 U.S. Supreme Court ruling noted earlier, the  Bureau could not use coverage measurement results to adjust census data  for purposes of congressional apportionment.  However, adjusting census  data for other purposes remained an open question.
In our January 2003 report on the objectives and results of the 2000 A.C.E.  program, we noted that an evaluation of the accuracy and completeness of  the census is critical given the many uses of census data, the importance of  identifying the magnitude and characteristics of any undercounts and  overcounts, and the cost of the census overall.  We cautioned that the  longer the 2010 planning process continues without a firm decision on the  role of coverage measurement, the greater the risk of wasted resources and  disappointing results.
Consequently, we recommended that the Bureau, in conjunction with  Congress and other stakeholders, come to an early decision on whether  and how coverage measurement will be used in the 2010 Census.  In  reaching this decision, we recommended that the Bureau (1) demonstrate  both the operational and technical feasibility of its coverage measurement  methods, (2) determine the level of geography at which coverage can be  reliably measured, (3) keep Congress and other stakeholders informed of  its plans, and (4) adequately test its coverage measurement methodology  prior to full implementation.
The Bureau agreed with our recommendations, noting that we had  identified important steps that should be followed in developing a coverage  measurement methodology for the 2010 Census.  While certain aspects of  the Bureau’s coverage measurement plans are still being developed, the  Bureau is not currently planning to develop a procedure that would allow it  to adjust census numbers for purposes of redistricting.
According to the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau, although the Bureau  plans to evaluate the accuracy of the coverage it achieves in the 2010  Census, its experience during the 2000 Census demonstrated “that the  science is insufficiently advanced to allow making statistical adjustment to  population counts of a successful decennial census in which the  percentage of error is presumed to be so small that adjustment would  introduce as much or more error than it was designed to correct.”
Furthermore, irrespective of whether it is both legal and appropriate to do  so, the Bureau does not believe that it can both collect coverage  measurement data and complete the analysis of those data’s accuracy in  time to deliver the information to the states to meet their redistricting  deadlines.
Although the Bureau’s experience during the 2000 Census shows that its  approach to measuring coverage needs to be improved if it is to be used to  adjust census numbers, the Bureau has not yet determined the feasibility of  refinements to the 2000 approach or alternative methodologies.   Consequently, the Bureau’s decision on how coverage evaluation data will  be used in 2010 appears to be premature.  Indeed, while the Bureau has  reported that the 2000 Census had better coverage compared to the 1990  Census, as noted below, the U.S. population is becoming increasingly  difficult to count, a factor that could affect the quality of the 2010 Census.
More generally, the decennial census is an inherently fragile endeavor,  where an accurate population count requires the near-perfect alignment of  a myriad of factors ranging from the successful execution of dozens of  census-taking operations to the public’s willingness to cooperate with  enumerators.  External factors such as the state of the economy and world  events might also affect the outcome of the census.  The bottom line is that  while the census is under way, the tolerance for any breakdowns is quite  small.
Therefore, the Bureau’s ability to maintain the level of quality reported for  the 2000 Census is far from guaranteed.  Thus, to ensure that the nation  uses the best available census data, it will be important for the Bureau to  research procedures that depending on what the results of the coverage  evaluation say about the quality of the census data, would allow  adjustment, if necessary, for those purposes for which it is both legal and  appropriate to do so.  The Bureau should conduct this effort on a timetable  that allows it to adequately test and refine those procedures, as well as  obtain input from both majority and minority parties in the Senate and  House of Representatives.
section_title: Escalating Census Costs Call for Transparent Budget Data and Better Reporting
paragraphs: In June 2001, the Bureau estimated that the reengineered 2010 Census  would cost $11.3 billion in current dollars.  This would make the 2010 head  count the most expensive in the nation’s history, even after adjusting for  inflation.  According to the Bureau estimates in June 2001, a repeat of the  2000 approach would cost even more, over $11.7 billion.  This estimate of  repeating the 2000 approach was revised to approximately $12.2 billion in  April 2003.  Moreover, the actual cost of the census could end up  considerably higher as the Bureau’s initial cost projections for previous  censuses proved to be too low because of such factors as unforeseen  operational problems or changes to the fundamental design.  For example,  while the Bureau estimated that the 2000 Census would cost around   $4 billion using sampling, and that a traditional census without sampling  would cost around $5 billion, the final price tag for the 2000 Census  (without sampling) was over $6.5 billion.
subsections: section_title: Census Costs Continue to Grow
paragraphs: The Bureau’s cost projections for the 2010 decennial census continue an  escalating trend.  As shown in figure 1, in constant 2000 dollars, the  estimated $9.3 billion cost of the 2010 Census represents a tenfold jump  over the $920 million spent on the 1970 Census (as noted above, the Bureau  estimates the 2010 Census will cost $11.3 billion in current dollars).
Although some cost growth can be expected in part because the number of  housing units—and hence the Bureau’s workload—has gotten larger, the  cost growth has far exceeded the housing unit increase.  The Bureau  estimates that the number of housing units for the 2010 Census will  increase by 10 percent over 2000 Census levels.  Meanwhile, the average  cost per housing unit for 2010 is expected to increase by approximately 29  percent from 2000 levels (from $56 to $72), nearly five and a half times  greater than the $13 it cost to count each household in 1970 (see fig. 2).
As for previous censuses, the major cost for the 2010 Census is what the  Bureau calls “field data collection and support systems.”  Over half of  decennial census life cycle costs are attributed to this area.  Specific  components include the costly and labor-intensive nonresponse follow-up  operation as well as support activities such as the opening and staffing of  hundreds of temporary local census offices.
One reason why field data collection is so expensive is because the Bureau  is finding it increasingly difficult to locate people and get them to  participate in the census.  According to Bureau officials, societal trends,  such as the increasing number of respondents who do not speak English,  the growing difficulty of finding respondents at home, and the general  increase of privacy concerns, impede a cost-effective head count.    Further,  the legal requirement to count everyone leads the Bureau to employ  operations that only marginally improve coverage but that are relatively  expensive to conduct.
Societal changes have also reduced the cost-effectiveness of the census,  and it has become increasingly difficult to simply stay on par with the  results of previous enumerations.  For example, during the 1990 Census,  the Bureau spent $0.88 per housing unit (in 2000 dollars) to market the  census and encourage participation and achieved a response rate of 65  percent.  During the 2000 Census, the Bureau spent $3.19 per housing unit  (in 2000 dollars) to promote participation, but the response rate was 64  percent.
section_title: Cost Estimates Need Greater Transparency
paragraphs: The constitutional mandate to count the nation’s population explicitly  commits or “exposes” the government to spending money on the census  each decade.  In this way, the census is similar to other fiscal exposures  such as retirement benefits, environmental cleanup costs, and the payment  of Social Security benefits in that the government is obligated to a certain  level of future outlays.
Early in each census cycle, expenditures are relatively low as the Bureau  plans the census and conducts various tests.  As the decade continues,  spending increases, spiking during the decennial year when costly data  collection activities take place.  As shown in figure 3, during the 2000  Census, $4.1 billion—almost two-thirds of the money spent on the entire  census—was spent in fiscal year 2000 alone.
Current budget reporting, however, does not always fully capture or require  explicit consideration of some future fiscal exposures.  In fact, this is  particularly true with the census, as annual budget requests and reports  provided to Congress early in the decennial census life cycle do not reflect  the full cash consequences of the spending and policy decisions.  Thus, as it  begins funding the 2010 Census early in the decade at relatively low levels,  Congress will have implicitly accepted a future spike in costs—essentially a  balloon payment in 2010—without requiring the Bureau to clearly define  what those costs might be, why they are justified, and what alternatives  might exist.
As we noted in our January 2003 report on improving the budgetary focus  on long-term costs and uncertainties, information on the existence and  estimated cost of fiscal exposures needs to be considered along with other  factors when making policy decisions.  With respect to the census, not  capturing the long-term costs of annual spending decisions limits  Congress’s ability to control the government’s exposure at the time  decisions are made, consider trade-offs with other national priorities, and  curtail the growth in census costs.  Consequently, fiscal transparency is  critical to better reflect the magnitude of the government’s long-term  spending on the census and signal unanticipated cost growth.  Greater  fiscal transparency can also facilitate an independent review and provide  an opportunity to improve stakeholder confidence and commitment to the  Bureau’s reengineered decennial census design.
Our January 2003 report noted that increased supplemental reporting could  help improve fiscal transparency and described several options for how to  accomplish this.  Although that report recommended that OMB consider  implementing these options governmentwide, at least two options could be  adapted specifically for the Bureau and its parent agency, the Department  of Commerce.  The two options are (1) annually reporting the planned life  cycle cash flow and explaining any material changes from previous plans  (currently, the Bureau does not make this information available) and   (2) setting triggers to signal when the amount of money expected to be  spent in any one year exceeded a predetermined amount.  Combined, these  actions could prompt more explicit deliberations on the cost and  affordability of the census and help inform specific cost control measures  by Congress, if warranted.
section_title: More Information Needed on Underlying Budget Assumptions
paragraphs: The assumptions the Bureau used to develop the life cycle cost estimate  could also benefit from greater transparency.   More robust information  on the likelihood that the values the Bureau assigned to key cost drivers  might differ from those initially assumed, and the impact that any  differences would have on the total life cycle cost, could provide Congress  with better information on the range and probability of the fiscal exposure  the nation faces from the upcoming census.
As shown in figure 4, the Bureau derived the baseline for its 2010 cost  estimate using the actual cost of the 2000 Census and assumptions about  certain cost drivers, estimating the cost of the 2010 Census as if the Bureau  were to repeat its 2000 design.  The key assumptions include   a 35 percent decrease in enumerator productivity,   a pay rate increase for census workers from 2000 levels,   a mail-back response rate lower than Census 2000 levels, and   inflation.
The projected costs and savings of repeating the 2000 design versus the  Bureau’s approach based on the three-legged stool, are shown in table 2.
Transparent information is especially important since decennial cost  estimates are sensitive to many key assumptions.  In fact, for the 2000  Census, the Bureau’s supplemental funding request for $1.7 billion in fiscal  year 2000 primarily involved changes in assumptions related to increased  workload, reduced employee productivity, and increased advertising.
Given the cost estimates’ sensitivity to key assumptions, greater  transparency could be obtained by showing the range and likelihood of  how true cost drivers could differ from those assumed and how those  differences would affect estimates of total cost.  Thus, if early research and  testing show that response rates may be higher than originally anticipated,  or that enumerator productivity could be better than expected, the Bureau  can report on the nature of its changing assumptions and its effect on life  cycle costs.  Also important, by providing information on the likely  accuracy of assumptions concerning cost drivers, the Bureau would better  enable Congress to consider funding levels in an uncertain environment.
Other key areas in which changes in assumptions can greatly affect costs  are salary rates for enumerators, the future price of handheld mobile  computing devices, and inflation.
Our prior work has described how agencies provide supporting  information when developing budget assumptions.  For example, the  Nuclear Regulatory Commission identifies a basis and a certainty level for  its budget assumptions used for internal reporting.  A basis summarizes the  facts that were evaluated to justify the assumption, while a certainty level  depicts the likelihood of its occurrence as high, medium, or low.
Finally, it is important to have timely cost information for congressional  decision making.  The Bureau’s life cycle estimates were updated in April  2003 after being first presented in June 2001—nearly a 2-year interval.  In  addition, when we requested additional information on life cycle costs the  Bureau took several months to provide information on its life cycle cost  estimates and assumptions, ultimately revising its total cost estimates  before providing us with the data.
section_title: 2010 Planning Process Is Better Than Past Efforts, but Rigor Is Uneven
paragraphs: The Bureau has taken several positive steps to correct problems  encountered planning past censuses, and the Bureau appears to be further  along in planning the 2010 Census than at this same point during the 2000  Census cycle.  Although an improvement over past efforts, the Bureau’s  2010 planning process still contains certain weak points that if not  addressed could undermine a cost-effective head count and make it more  difficult to obtain the support of Congress and other stakeholders.
subsections: section_title: The Bureau Improved Its Planning Process, but Key Elements Are Still Lacking
paragraphs: The characteristics of the census—long-term, large-scale, high-risk, costly,  and politically sensitive—together make a cost-effective enumeration a  monumental project management challenge, one that demands meticulous  planning.  To help determine the principal ingredients of successful project  planning, we reviewed a number of guides to project management and  business process reengineering.  Although there is no one best approach to  project planning, the guides we reviewed contained many elements in  common, including the following:        Developing a project plan.  The plan should consider all phases of the  project and should have clear and measurable goals; all assumptions,  schedules, and deadlines clearly stated; and needed skills and resources  identified.
Evaluating human resource implications.  This includes assessing  needed competencies and how they will be acquired and retained.
Involving stakeholders and incorporating lessons learned.
Stakeholders—both internal and external to an organization—have  skills and knowledge that could contribute to a project and should be  involved in the decision-making process.  An organization should focus  on the highest priority stakeholder needs and mission goals. Evaluating  past performance and capitalizing on lessons learned is also important  for improving performance.
Analyzing and mitigating risks.  This involves identifying, analyzing,  prioritizing, and documenting risks.  Ideally, more than one alternative  should be assessed.
Monitoring progress.  Measurable performance goals should be  identified and performance data should be gathered to determine how  well the goals are being achieved.
The Bureau has made considerable progress in planning the 2010 Census,  and some of the positive steps taken to date include the following efforts.
Early in the decade, senior Bureau staff considered various goals for the  2010 Census and articulated a design strategy to achieve those goals.   Senior Bureau officials collaborated on this initial design plan to set the  stage for further refinements during later field testing and research  activities.
The Bureau has involved experienced staff in the design process  through cross-divisional planning groups. Staff involved in these  planning groups will ultimately be responsible for implementing the  2010 Census.  According to Bureau officials, this is a departure from the  2000 Census planning effort when Bureau staff with little experience in  conducting the census played a key role in designing the decennial  census, which resulted in impractical reforms that could not be  implemented.
The Bureau has recognized the importance of strategically managing its  human capital to meet future requirements.  The planning and  development of the 2010 Census will take place at a time when the  Bureau could find itself experiencing substantial employee turnover  (three senior Bureau managers left the agency in 2002, and according to  a report by the Department of Commerce Inspector General, the Bureau  could lose through retirement around half of the senior staff who  carried out the 2000 Census).  The Bureau, as part of a broader risk  assessment, plans to provide less experienced staff the opportunity to  obtain operational experience prior to the actual 2010 Census.  In  addition, the Bureau has provided training in project management and  has encouraged staff to take training courses in management and  planning.
However, other aspects of the Bureau’s 2010 planning process could be  improved.  A more rigorous plan would better position the Bureau to fulfill  its key objectives for the 2010 Census and help demonstrate to Congress  and other stakeholders that it can effectively design and manage operations  as well as control costs.
subsections: section_title: Developing a Project Plan
paragraphs: Although the Bureau has developed project plans for some of the key  components of its 2010 strategy, the Bureau has not yet crafted an overall  project plan that (1) includes milestones for completing key activities;   (2) itemizes the estimated cost of each component; (3) articulates a clear  system of coordination among project components; and (4) translates key  goals into measurable, operational terms to provide meaningful guidance  for planning and measuring progress.  OMB Circular A-11 specifies that an  agency’s general goals should be sufficiently precise to direct and guide  agency staff in actions that carry out the agency’s mission and aid the  agency in developing annual performance goals.
The importance of this information for improving accountability and  performance can be seen, for example, in the Bureau’s principal goal to  increase coverage and accuracy.  Though laudable, the Bureau has yet to  assign any numbers to this goal.  This makes it difficult to evaluate the  costs and benefits of alternative designs, determine the level of resources  needed to achieve this goal, measure the Bureau’s progress, or hold  managers accountable for results.
Bureau managers provided us with several documents that pieced together  present 2010 Census goals and strategies, life cycle costs, and schedules,  but no single, comprehensive document exists that integrates this  information.  For example, the Bureau’s life cycle cost estimates and  information on its performance goals were contained in two separate  documents, making it hard to see the connection between cost and the  Bureau’s objectives.  Likewise, a draft document, entitled 2010  Reengineered Census Milestone Schedule, included various milestones by  fiscal quarter, but did not contain information on dependencies and  interrelationships among the various aspects of the project.
In its 2001 letter to the Bureau’s acting director, the National Academy of  Sciences’ (NAS) Panel on Research on Future Census Methods raised  similar concerns about the need for a coherent project plan.  The panel  noted that it wanted “to see a clearer case for components of the 2010  census strategy, itemizing the goals, costs, and benefits of each initiative  and indicating how they integrate and contribute to a high quality census.”   To that end, NAS recommended that the Bureau develop what it called a  business plan for 2010.
section_title: Incorporating Lessons Learned
paragraphs: The Bureau is making an effort to develop and incorporate the lessons  learned from the 2000 Census and, in fact, created an elaborate evaluation  program to help inform this effort.  Moreover, the Bureau chartered 11  planning groups consisting of knowledgeable census staff (see app. III for  the 2010 planning organization).  However, the Bureau’s ability to build on  the results of 2000 could be hampered by the fact that while the evaluation  program assessed numerous aspects of the census, the Bureau still lacks  data and information on the performance of key census activities, as well  as on how specific census operations contributed to two of the Bureau’s  key goals for 2000:  improved accuracy and cost-effectiveness.
For example, as noted earlier, the cost of the 2010 Census is increasing  relative to 2000 partly because the Bureau expects nonresponse follow-up  enumerators will be less productive in 2010.  Because of various societal  factors, it will simply take enumerators more time to complete their work.   And yet, despite the importance of accurate productivity data to inform the  Bureau’s planning and budgeting processes for 2010, the Bureau had  trouble obtaining quality productivity data following the 2000 Census.   Although the Bureau later committed additional resources to refine the  numbers, the adjustment was coarse and addressed just one of the two  known problems.  Moreover, because of differences in the way the Bureau  measured staffing levels and hours worked from census to census, none of  the productivity data from the last few censuses are comparable.
Another area in which the Bureau lacks useful performance information is  in the extent to which the dozen or so separate activities used to build MAF  in 2000 contributed to its overall accuracy relative to one another.  Without  this information, the Bureau has limited data with which to guide  investment and trade-off questions for 2010, such as which activity  provided the biggest “bang for the buck” and should thus be repeated, or  whether it would be more effective for the Bureau to improve accuracy and  coverage by putting more resources into MAF-building activities or some  other operation altogether, such as marketing.
To date, the Bureau’s planning groups have incorporated a variety of  lessons learned from the evaluations of the 2000 Census.  As an example,  the Coverage Improvement Planning Group observed an increase in  inconsistent responses from 2000 Census compared to the previous census  (e.g., some questionnaires were marked “uninhabited,” but individuals  were enumerated at the sites).  According to a Bureau official, one  hypothesis for the higher rate of inconsistent responses was that  enumerators were encouraged to fill in information even when not all of  the relevant information was known.  The Bureau plans to address this  issue by building in “edits” to its planned handheld mobile computing  devices so that inconsistent data cannot be entered.  In addition, the  Coverage Improvement Planning Group also looked at the 2000 Census  experience to provide recommendations for the Bureau’s 2004 test.
section_title: Analyzing and Mitigating Risks
paragraphs: Risk management is important for preparing for contingencies or changes  in the external operating environment.   At the time of our review, the  Bureau had completed a risk assessment of some aspects of its operations  as part of its OMB Circular A-11, Exhibit 300 submission, and for certain  aspects of the reengineering efforts.  However, the Bureau had not  developed a risk assessment that addressed the entire 2010 Census,  including ACS and the MAF/TIGER modernization.
The risk assessment for the reengineering effort uses a consistent scoring  system to assess the severity of the risks identified and addresses various  contingencies and mitigation strategies, such as preparing for the  retirement of key personnel and using succession planning to offset the  attrition.  The scoring system and how it was applied is clearly described in  the plan, making it easy to evaluate the way it was used.
However, the assessment does not provide extensive detail on the  mitigation actions proposed.  Also, it does not indicate how risks were  identified and whether any risks were excluded.  A notable exclusion was  that it did not address the risks if ACS or MAF/TIGER fail or are not funded  and the impact this might have on the census as a whole.
As mentioned earlier, the Bureau’s three-legged stool strategy assumes that  all three legs must work together to achieve its goals.  One of the reasons  for doing a risk analysis is to prepare to make trade-offs when faced with  inevitable budgetary pressures, operational delays, or other risks.  Lacking  information on trade-offs, the Bureau maintains that its only alternative to  the reengineering is to repeat the 2000 Census design, an approach that  Bureau officials believe will be extremely expensive.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The obstacles to conducting a cost-effective census have grown with each  decade, and as the Bureau looks toward 2010, it confronts its biggest  challenge yet.  Consequently, the Bureau will need to balance the growing  cost, complexity, and political sensitivity of the census with meticulous  planning.   As the Bureau’s past experience has shown, early investments in  planning can help reduce the costs and risks of its downstream operations.
Moreover, a rigorous plan is essential for securing early agreement  between the Bureau and Congress on the Bureau’s fundamental strategy for  2010.  Congressional support—regardless of whether the Bureau’s current  approach or an alternative is ultimately selected—is crucial for creating a  stable environment in which to prepare for the census and avoiding a  repeat of the 2000 Census when disagreement over the Bureau’s  methodology led to late design changes and additional costs and risks.  The  Bureau has laid out an ambitious schedule of planning, testing, and  evaluation for the coming years, culminating with a “dress rehearsal” in  2008.  While midcourse corrections are to be expected as a result of these  efforts, it will be important for the Bureau to proceed with as few  alterations to its fundamental strategy as possible so that all of the  operations used in 2010 have been thoroughly road tested.
The Bureau appears to be further along in planning the 2010 Census  compared to a similar point during the 2000 Census cycle, and its efforts to  enhance past planning practices are commendable.  Focusing its activities  on early design, research, and testing and organizing its reengineering  activities around cross-divisional planning groups, are just some of the  noteworthy improvements the Bureau has made.
However, the Bureau’s plans for 2010, while not unreasonable on the  surface, lack a substantial amount of supporting analysis, budgetary  transparency, and other information, making it difficult for us, Congress,  and other stakeholders to properly assess the feasibility of the Bureau’s  design and the extent to which it could lead to greater cost-effectiveness  compared to alternative approaches.
Questions surrounding the Bureau’s underlying budget assumptions;  uncertainties over ACS; the failure to translate key goals into measurable,  operational terms; and the lack of important performance data from the  2000 Census to inform 2010 decision making are just some of the  problematic aspects of the 2010 planning process.  More than simply  paperwork or documentation issues, this information is essential for  improving the performance and accountability of the Bureau and of the  decennial census in particular.
To be sure, some challenges are to be expected in an endeavor as  demanding as counting a population that is mobile and demographically  complex and whose members reside under a multitude of living  arrangements.  Further, shortcomings with prior censuses call for the  Bureau to consider bold initiatives for 2010 that entail some risk.  However,  if Congress is to accept and fund the Bureau’s approach—now estimated at  more than $11 billion—then the Bureau needs to more effectively  demonstrate that it has (1) selected a design that will lead to the most cost- effective results and (2) establish a rigorous capacity to manage risks,  control costs, and deliver a successful head count.  Moreover, to ensure the  nation uses the best available data, it will be important for the Bureau to  research procedures that would allow it to adjust census results for  purposes for which it is both legal and appropriate to do so, if it is  determined that the adjusted figures would provide greater accuracy than  the enumeration data.  Such procedures could function as a safety net  should there be problems with the initial census count.
It will also be important for policymakers to consider, early in the decade,  the long-term costs associated with the census and finding the right  balance between controlling mushrooming costs and improving accuracy.   Although initial spending on the census is relatively low, it will accelerate  in the years ahead, culminating with a balloon payment in 2010 when data  collection and other costly operations take place.  Greater fiscal  transparency prior to getting locked into a particular level of spending  could help inform deliberations on the extent to which (1) the cost of the  census is reasonable, (2) trade-offs will need to be made with competing  national priorities, and (3) additional dollars spent on the census yield  better quality data.
Just over 6 years remain until Census Day 2010.  While this might seem like  an ample amount of time to shore up the Bureau’s planning process and  take steps to control costs, past experience has shown that the chain of  interrelated preparations that need to occur at specific times and in the  right sequence leave little room for delay or missteps.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To help control the cost of the 2010 Census and inform deliberations on the  acceptability of those costs, we recommend that the Director of the Office  of Management and Budget take steps to ensure that the Bureau improves  the transparency of the fiscal exposure associated with the census.   Specifically, OMB should ensure that the Bureau, in a notational item in the  Program and Financing schedule of the President’s budget, include an  updated estimate of the life cycle costs of the census and the amount of  money the Bureau expects to spend in each year of the cycle, as well as an  explanation of any material changes from previous plans.  The information  should also contain an analysis of the sensitivity of the cost figures to  specific assumptions, including a range of values for key cost assumptions,  their impact on total cost estimates of the census, the likelihood associated  with those ranges, and their impact on the total estimated cost of the  census.
As part of this process, OMB should establish triggers that would signal  when the yearly 2010 Census costs, total 2010 Census costs, or both  exceeded some predetermined amount.  In such instances, the Bureau  should then be required to prepare a special report to Congress and OMB  justifying why the additional costs were necessary and what alternatives  were considered.
Further, to enhance the Bureau’s performance and accountability, as well  as to help convince Congress and other stakeholders that the Bureau has  chosen an optimum design and will manage operations and control costs  effectively, we recommend that the Secretary of Commerce direct the  Bureau to improve the rigor of its planning process by developing an  operational plan that consolidates budget, methodological, and other  relevant information about the 2010 Census into a single, comprehensive  project plan that would be updated as needed.  Individual elements could  include  specific performance goals, how the Bureau’s efforts, procedures, and  projects would contribute to those goals, and what  performance  measures would be used;   risk and mitigation plans that fully address all significant potential risks;  detailed milestone estimates that identify all significant   annually updated life cycle cost estimates, including a sensitivity  analysis, and an explanation of significant changes in the assumptions  on which these costs are based.
Moreover, to help ensure that the nation has at its disposal the best  possible data should there be problems with the quality of 2010 Census, the  Bureau, with input from both majority and minority parties in the Senate  and House of Representatives, should research the feasibility of  procedures that could allow it to adjust census results for those purposes  for which it is both legal and appropriate to do so and, if found to be  feasible, test those procedures during the 2006 census test and 2008 census  dress rehearsal.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: The Secretary of Commerce forwarded written comments from the U.S.  Census Bureau on a draft of this report that we received November 6, 2003.   The comments are reprinted in appendix I.   The Bureau generally  disagreed with many of our key findings, conclusions, and  recommendations.
The Bureau believes that the report, in its discussion of escalating census  costs, ignores the fact that a key cost driver is stakeholders’ demand for  better accuracy.  We agree with the Bureau that its mandate to count each  and every resident in the face of countervailing societal trends is an  important reason for the cost increases.  As we noted in the report, societal  changes have reduced the cost-effectiveness of the census, and it has  become more and more difficult to stay on par with the results of previous  enumerations.  Similarly, we stated that “the legal requirement to count  everyone leads the Bureau to employ operations that only marginally  improve coverage but that are relatively expensive to conduct.”
Further, we do not, as the Bureau asserts, treat the cost issue in a vacuum,  and agree with the Bureau that little would be gained by focusing on the  cost of the 2010 Census alone.  Rather, any deliberations on the 2010  Census need to focus on how changes in spending on the census might  affect the quality of the count.  Our draft report emphasized this exact point  noting that “The growing cost of the head count, at a time when the nation  is facing historic budget deficits, highlights the importance of  congressional deliberations on the extent to which each additional dollar  spent on the census results in better data, as well as how best to balance  the need for a complete count, with the need to ensure the cost of a  complete count does not become unreasonable.” Similarly, we concluded  that “it will also be important for policymakers to consider, early in the  decade, the long-term costs associated with the census and finding the  right balance between controlling mushrooming costs and improving  accuracy.”
The Bureau also believes the report implies that the cost increases are  caused by the reengineering effort.  Our draft report did not state, nor did  we intend to imply, that the reengineering effort would cause most of the  projected cost increases for the 2010 Census.  In fact, our report even notes  that the Bureau's reengineering strategy has the potential to reduce costs  relative to a design that would repeat the Census 2000 approach.  To help  clarify this point, we added text that describes how a repeat of the 2000  approach would be more costly than the reengineered design, according to  Bureau estimates.
The Bureau disagreed with our recommendation to OMB regarding the  need for greater budgetary transparency, noting that the real reason for the  vagueness of out-year cost estimates stems from a fundamental difference  of opinion between the administration and Congress over the appropriate  time to share that information.  We believe that it is important for the  administration to provide details of out-year cost projections for the  decennial census for the reason stated in our draft report:  annual budget  requests and reports provided to Congress early in the decennial census life  cycle do not reflect the full cash consequences of the spending in later  years of the decade.  We understand that the Bureau has followed the  administration’s guidance on providing out-year cost estimates; this is also  why we directed our recommendation for greater fiscal transparency to  OMB, which we discuss in greater detail below.
The Bureau disagreed with our recommendation to improve the rigor of its  planning process by developing an operational plan that consolidates  budget, methodological, and other relevant information into a single,  comprehensive project plan.  The Bureau noted that these documents  already exist and are widely available, and the Bureau already shares them  with Congress, us, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Panel on  Research on Future Census Methods—the panel responsible for reviewing  the census, and other stakeholders.
While we agree with the Bureau that some of this information is available  (and we noted this fact in our draft report), it is piecemeal—one can only  obtain it by cobbling together the Bureau’s budget submission, its strategic  plan, and several other documents, and even then, key information such as  performance goals would still be lacking.  Further, although the Bureau  notes that it has provided this information to the NAS panel, as we stated in  our report, NAS, like us, also found the information wanting.  As we  described in the report, the panel shared our concerns over the need for a  coherent project plan, and called on the Bureau to develop a business plan  that among other things, itemized the goals, costs, and benefits of each  census component and a describes how they contributed to a high-quality  census.  Whether it is called a business plan or a project plan, such  information is not, as the Bureau maintains, simply “more process.”  Quite  the contrary, this information is essential for improving performance;  facilitating a thorough, independent review of the Bureau’s plans; and  demonstrating to Congress and other stakeholders that the Bureau can  effectively design and manage operations and control costs.
The Bureau incorrectly asserts that our report criticizes it for not  completing the evaluations of the 2000 Census in a timely manner.  Our  report did not address this matter, although NAS’s Second Interim Report  on Planning the 2010 Census urged the Bureau to “give high priority to  evaluation studies” and complete them as expeditiously as possible.   We  agree that the Bureau’s planning staff do have access to the draft  evaluations, and in fact, we noted in the report that they are using them in  planning for the 2010 Census.
The key point, however, is the Bureau’s ability to build on the results of the  2000 Census.  This could be hampered by the fact that while the evaluation  program assessed numerous aspects of the census, the Bureau still lacks  data on the performance of key census activities as well as how specific  census operations contributed to two of the Bureau’s key goals for 2000:   improved accuracy and cost-effectiveness.
The Bureau agreed with us that it is important to bring closure to the  discussion on whether and how coverage measurement will be used in the  2010 Census.  However, the Bureau believes that the approach used for the  2000 Census proved that it was not feasible to produce a final analysis of  coverage measurement in time to meet redistricting requirements.  We  agree with the Bureau’s assessment that the coverage measurement  approach used in the 2000 Census needs to be reworked.  However, this  should not preclude it from researching alternative approaches for the 2010  Census in light of the fact that the Bureau’s ability to maintain the level of  quality reported for the 2000 Census is less than certain.
Finally, the Bureau questioned our assessment that the only contingency  plan for conducting the 2010 Census, if the reengineered effort fails, was to  fall back on the Census 2000 methods.  The Bureau maintains that the 2000  Census was by most accounts a very successful census and, accordingly,  the Bureau already has available the methods and procedures for taking an  excellent census.  Our report does not advocate the development of  another set of census methods.  Rather, we were trying to illustrate the  challenge the Bureau faces in implementing its reengineering plans, where  the failure of any one leg could compromise the other two, thereby  requiring the Bureau to rely on the approach it used for the 2000 Census.   According to Bureau officials, this in turn could make it difficult for the  Bureau to accomplish its goals for the 2010 Census, which include cost  containment and better quality data.
On October 14, 2003, the Associate Director for General Government  Programs, OMB, provided written comments on a draft of this report,  which are reprinted in appendix II.  OMB shared our view that the costs  and risks associated with the 2010 Census must be carefully monitored and  evaluated throughout the decade.  OMB also agreed that it is essential to  understand the key cost drivers and said that it is working with the U.S.  Census Bureau to ensure that the Bureau develops high-quality, transparent  life cycle cost estimates.
However, OMB disagreed with our recommendation that it ensure that the  Bureau, include a notational item in the Program and Financing (P&F)  schedule of the President’s Budget with an updated estimate of the life  cycle costs of the census and the amount of money the Bureau expects to  spend in each year of the cycle, as well as an explanation of any significant  changes from previous plans.  OMB believes that the Bureau’s report on the  life cycle costs, which is updated regularly, is the best mechanism to  present estimates of the total life cycle costs and explanations for any  material changes from previous plans.  Further, OMB noted that presenting  this information in the P&F schedule is cumbersome and unnecessary  because the Analytical Perspectives volume of the President’s Budget  currently shows out-year estimates that incorporate anticipated  programmatic changes of the Decennial Census within the Periodic  Censuses and Program account.
As noted in our report, we do not believe the information OMB currently  reports to Congress is sufficiently timely or detailed to provide the level of  transparency needed for effective congressional oversight and cost control.   Indeed, while OMB cites the Bureau’s life cycle report, the document that  we reviewed for this report took the Bureau nearly 2 years to revise.   Moreover, the revised estimates, like the original estimates, overstated the  life cycle cost estimate by $300 million because the Bureau did not take  into account a surplus of that amount that it identified near the end of fiscal  year 2000.  Although the Bureau is to reissue the 2010 life cycle cost  estimates early in calendar year 2004, the incorrect estimates will have  been in circulation for more than 2 years.
Additionally, the information contained in the Analytical Perspectives  volume of the President’s Budget is limited.  For example, it only provides  information on out-year estimates for 5 years.  As a result, the volume will  not include estimates for the high-cost year of 2010 until the release of the  President’s fiscal year 2006 budget.  Further, the Analytical Perspectives  volume lacks information on the sensitivity of cost figures to specific  assumptions and the likelihood of these estimates.  It also does not contain  any explanations of changes in cost estimates from year to year.  Complete  and transparent information on out-year costs is important to inform  deliberations on the acceptability of these costs and to ensure that  Congress understands the possible range of census life cycle costs.
OMB also disagreed with our recommendation to establish triggers to  signal when the yearly 2010 Census costs, total 2010 Census costs, or both  exceeded some predetermined amount.  OMB noted that it has established  internal procedures within its budget reviews to monitor 2010 Census costs  and believes they are sufficient for ensuring that estimates are not  exceeded without clear justification.  OMB added that this justification  could be included in the Bureau’s updates to its life cycle cost estimates.
Although OMB’s internal procedures might be sufficient for OMB’s  requirements, they do little to address the fundamental need for greater  fiscal transparency.  Continued reliance on these procedures would inhibit  independent review by congressional and other external stakeholders, as  well as limit informed discussion of the trade-offs of dollars versus  accuracy and what cost control measures, if any, might be needed to make  the 2010 Census more affordable.
In closing, OMB commented that the Bureau’s reengineering plan is being  reviewed by NAS as well as seven advisory committees.  OMB stated that  the analyses stemming from these reviews, such as NAS’s recently issued  report on census planning, enhance the Bureau’s accountability and help  ensure “that the ultimate 2010 Census design is optimal.”
We agree with OMB that NAS and the advisory committees are important  for reviewing the Bureau’s plans and holding the Bureau accountable for a  cost-effective census in 2010.  And this is precisely why we made the  recommendations that we did.  Without a transparent budgeting and  planning process, a thorough, independent review by these and other  external groups would be difficult to impossible.  That greater  transparency is needed in both these areas is highlighted not just in our  report, but in the very NAS study that OMB cites.   Indeed, NAS found that   “a major conclusion of the panel is that discussion of the 2010 Census  design needs to be more fully informed by the evaluation of various trade- offs—the costs and benefits of various reasonable approaches in order to  make wise decisions.”
As agreed with your offices, unless you release its contents earlier, we plan  no further distribution of this report until 30 days from its issue date.  At  that time we will send copies to other interested congressional committees,  the Secretary of Commerce, the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau, and  the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.  Copies will be made  available to others upon request. This report will also be available at no  charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please  contact me at  (202) 512-6806 or daltonp@gao.gov or Robert Goldenkoff,  Assistant Director, at (202) 512-2757 or goldenkoffr@gao.gov.  Key  contributors to this report were Richard Donaldson, Ty Mitchell, Robert  Yetvin, and Christine Bonham.
section_title: Comments from the Department of Commerce
section_title: Comments from the Office of Management and Budget
section_title: 2010 Census Planning Organization
paragraphs: The U.S. Census Bureau (Bureau) has given its Decennial Management  Division responsibility for planning the 2010 Census, including the  American Community Survey (ACS) and the Master Address  File/Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing  (MAF/TIGER) enhancements.  The division established an executive  steering committee, shown in figure 5, for this purpose.
Each group under the 2010 Census planning organization has specific  activities that it was charged with studying.  Listed below are the research  and development planning groups chartered at the time of our review and a  list of these activities.
subsections: section_title: GAO’s Mission
paragraphs: The General Accounting 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.
section_title: Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
paragraphs: The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is  through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full- text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older  products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents  using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,  including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and  correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site  daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail this  list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to   e-mail alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading.
subsections: section_title: Order by Mail or Phone
section_title: To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
section_title: Public Affairs