2010 Census: Census Bureau Needs to Take Prompt Actions to Resolve Long-standing and Emerging Address and Mapping Challenges
Published: 2006-06-15T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: To conduct a successful census, it is important that the U.S. Census Bureau (Bureau) produce the most complete and accurate address file and maps for 2010. For this review, GAO's specific objectives were to determine the extent to which (1) the Bureau's efforts to modernize the address file and maps are addressing problems experienced during the 2000 Census, (2) the Bureau is managing emerging address file and map issues, (3) the Bureau is able to collect and transmit address and mapping data using mobile computing devices (MCD) equipped with global positioning system (GPS) technology, and (4) the Bureau has a plan to update the address file and maps in areas affected by hurricanes Katrina and Rita. GAO reviewed the Bureau's progress in modernizing both the address file and maps.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Bureau's address and map modernization efforts have progressed in some areas. The Bureau is researching how to correct addresses that were duplicated, missed, deleted, and incorrectly located on maps. However, some deadlines for completing research are not firm, while other deadlines that had been set continue to slip. Thus, whether research will be completed in enough time to allow the Bureau to develop new procedures to improve the 2010 address file is unknown. Also, the Bureau has not fully addressed emerging issues. For one such issue, the Bureau has acknowledged the compressed time frame for completing address canvassing--an operation where census workers walk every street in the country to verify addresses and maps--but has not reevaluated the associated schedule or staffing workloads. Also, the Bureau has allotted only 6 weeks to conduct address canvassing it completed in 18 weeks in 2000 and expanded the operation from urban areas in 2000 to the entire country in 2010. Whether the Bureau can collect and transmit address and mapping data using the MCD is unknown. The MCD, tested during 2006 address canvassing, was slow and locked up frequently. Bureau officials said the MCD's performance is an issue, but a new MCD to be developed through a contract awarded in March 2006 will be reliable. However, the MCD will not be tested until the 2008 Dress Rehearsal, and if problems emerge, little time will remain to develop, test, and incorporate refinements. If after the Dress Rehearsal the MCD is found unreliable, the Bureau could face the remote but daunting possibility of reverting to the costly paper-based census of 2000. Bureau officials do not believe a specific plan is needed to update the addresses and maps for areas affected by the hurricanes. Securing a count is difficult under normal conditions, and existing procedures may insufficient to update addresses and maps after the hurricanes' destruction--made even more difficult as streets, housing, and population will be in flux.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The decennial census is an important, constitutionally mandated activity  undertaken by the federal government that is complex and costly— estimated at $11.3 billion for the 2010 Census. The data that the census  produces are used to reapportion the seats of the U.S. House of  Representatives; realign the boundaries of the legislative districts of each  state; allocate hundreds of billions of dollars in federal financial  assistance; and provide a social, demographic, and economic profile of the  nation’s people to guide policy decisions at each level of government. The  U.S. Department of Commerce’s Census Bureau (Bureau) is responsible  for conducting the decennial census, and the success of the census  depends in large part on the ability of the Bureau to locate and deliver  questionnaires to every person residing in the United States. To  successfully accomplish this monumental task, the Bureau must maintain  accurate address and map information for every location where a person  could reside. During the 2000 Census, Bureau evaluations estimated that of  the 116 million housing units in the final census count, about 2.3 million  housing units were incorrectly included in the census and about   2.7 million housing units were missed.
One of the Bureau’s principal objectives for the 2010 Census is  modernizing the Master Address File (MAF)—the Bureau’s repository of  approximately 130 million addresses to which the Bureau expects to  deliver census forms for the 2010 Census. The Bureau also works to  ensure the accuracy of the associated mapping system, the Topologically  Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (TIGER®) database.  The Bureau hopes to improve the completeness and accuracy of  MAF/TIGER through a combination of activities, including partnering with  state and local governments to verify the address lists and maps and  updating maps to reflect correct geographic features. The Bureau will also  use satellite-based global positioning system (GPS) technology to correctly  locate housing units and door-to-door canvassing to verify the status of all  housing units. The combined cost of these efforts is estimated to be about  $536 million (nominal dollars).
An important component of the Bureau’s attempts to modernize its  address listing and mapping activities will be the planned use of relatively  new technology. For the first time, census workers will use a GPS- equipped mobile computing device (MCD) to collect data in the field,  including address and map data. The Bureau anticipates that the MCDs  will be used in three major census operations, and their successful  implementation would allow the Bureau to reduce the amount of paper  used, process data in real time, and improve the quality of the information  collected.
Because of the critical importance of complete and accurate address lists  and maps, under the Comptroller General’s statutory authority, we  reviewed the Bureau’s progress in modernizing both MAF and TIGER. As  agreed with your offices, we are providing this report to you which  contains information that will be useful for your oversight responsibilities  of the decennial census. Our specific objectives were to determine the  extent to which (1) the Bureau’s efforts to modernize the address file and  maps are addressing problems experienced during the 2000 Census,  (2) the Bureau is managing emerging MAF/TIGER issues, (3) the Bureau is  able to collect and transmit address and mapping data using a MCD that is  equipped with GPS technology, and (4) the Bureau has a plan to update  the address file and maps in areas affected by hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
To meet these objectives, we analyzed relevant evaluations from the 2000  Census and other studies conducted by the Bureau, the Department of  Commerce Office of Inspector General, and other organizations. We also  reviewed various documents describing the Bureau’s MAF/TIGER  modernization efforts and interviewed knowledgeable Bureau officials  about MAF/TIGER, including the Bureau’s plans to update MAF/TIGER in  the wake of hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Further, to obtain a firsthand  look at how the Bureau’s address-building operations and MCDs  performed in a real-world environment, we observed address canvassing  activities at the 2006 Census Test sites located at the Cheyenne River  American Indian Reservation and Tribal Trust Lands in South Dakota and  the central portion of Travis County, Texas. Address canvassing is an  operation where census workers walk every street in the country,  verifying addresses and updating maps. We conducted our work from June  2005 through April 2006 in accordance with generally accepted  government auditing standards. Additional information on our scope and  methodology appears in appendix I.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: A complete and accurate address list is the cornerstone of a successful  census, because it both identifies all households that are to receive a  census questionnaire and serves as the control mechanism for following  up with households that fail to respond. If the address list is inaccurate,  people can be missed, counted more than once, or included in the wrong  location. MAF is intended to be a complete and current list of all addresses  and locations where people live or could live. The TIGER database is a  mapping system that identifies all visible geographic features, such as type  and location of streets, housing units, rivers, and railroads. To link these  two separate databases, the Bureau assigns every housing unit in the MAF  to a specific location in the TIGER, a process called “geocoding.”
As shown in figure 1, for the 2000 Census the Bureau’s approach to  building complete and accurate address lists and maps consisted of a  number of labor- and data-intensive operations that sometimes overlapped  and were conducted over several years. This effort included partnerships  with the U.S. Postal Service and other federal agencies; state, local, and  tribal governments; local planning organizations; the private sector; and  nongovernmental entities. The Bureau employed thousands of temporary  census workers to walk every street in the country to locate and verify  places where people could live. Determining this was no simple task as   people can reside in cars, sheds, illegally converted basements and  garages, and similar nontraditional and often hidden living arrangements.
For the 2000 Census, the Bureau found that the MAF/TIGER databases  were less than complete and accurate. Although the number of errors was  small in proportion to the total number of housing units at the national  level, the errors could be problematic at lower levels of geography for  certain purposes for which census data are used, such as allocating federal  assistance to state and local governments.
According to Bureau evaluations conducted after the 2000 Census, the  final census count contained approximately 116 million housing units.  However, the address file used to conduct the 2000 Census also contained  a number of errors. Bureau evaluations estimate that there were    0.7 million duplicate addresses,    1.6 million vacant housing units misclassified as occupied,    1.4 million housing units not included,    1.3 million housing units improperly deleted, and    5.6 million housing units incorrectly located on census maps.
In light of these and other problems, the Bureau made enhancing the  MAF/TIGER one of three critical components to support the 2010 Census.  The other two components are replacing the long form questionnaire with  the American Community Survey and conducting a short-form-only  decennial census that is supported by early research and testing.
For the 2010 Census, the Bureau is making extensive use of contractors to  provide a number of mission-critical functions and technologies. One of  the technologies to be provided by a contractor is the MCD. Under a  contract awarded on March 30, 2006, a new MCD will be developed for the  2008 Dress Rehearsal. To date, the Bureau has tested two models of the  MCD—one during the 2004 Census Test and another during the 2006  Census Test. In January 2005, we reported that the MCD used during the  2004 Census Test to collect nonresponse follow-up data experienced  problems transmitting, and the mapping feature was slow. Consistent with  our recommendations, the Bureau took steps to improve the dependability  of transmissions and correct the speed of the mapping feature.
Due to the critical role of contractors to help carry out the 2010 Census,  we conducted a review of major acquisitions for the 2010 Census.  footnote number should not start a line) In that report issued in May 2006,  we highlighted the tight time frames the FDCA contractor has for  developing and implementing systems to support the upcoming 2008 Dress  Rehearsal and recommended that the Bureau ensure that all systems are  fully functional and ready to be assessed in time for the Dress Rehearsal.  In addition, on March 1, 2006, we testified on the status of the FDCA  project.  In that testimony, we discussed the need for the Bureau to    validate and approve a baseline set of operational requirements for the  FDCA contract, because if not, the FDCA project would be at risk of  having changes to requirements, potentially affecting its ambitious  development and implementation schedule;  implement an effective risk management process that identifies,  prioritizes, and tracks project risks; and    select detailed performance measures for tracking the contractor’s work.
In response to our work, the Bureau stated that they plan to complete  these activities as soon as possible.
section_title: Uncertainties Surround Completion of Ongoing MAF/TIGER Modernization Research
paragraphs: While the Bureau’s MAF/TIGER modernization efforts have progressed in  a number of areas, uncertainties and risks remain in dealing with address- related problems that affected the 2000 Census. Currently it is not known  whether ongoing research to resolve those problems will be completed in  sufficient time to allow the Bureau to develop new methodologies and  procedures for improving the MAF by June 2007—the Bureau’s announced  deadline for baselining all program requirements. One significant cause for  this uncertainty is that some deadlines for completing research do not  have firm dates, while other deadlines that have been set continue to slip.  In addition, one major research effort using software to identify duplicate  addresses (an estimated 1.4 million duplicate addresses were removed  during the 2000 Census) did not work any better at identifying true  duplicates than what the Bureau already had in place and will not be used  in 2010. As a result, duplicate addresses may still be a problem for the 2010  MAF, and to the extent they are not detected, can result in reduced  accuracy and increased cost.
During the 2000 Census, the Bureau encountered a number of problems  with the MAF including (1) missed addresses, where the Bureau failed to  include addresses in the MAF; (2) improperly deleted addresses, where the  Bureau removed otherwise valid addresses from the MAF; (3) duplicate  addresses, with two or more addresses for the same housing unit; and  (4) geocoding errors, where addresses were improperly located on a  census map. All of the errors affect the quality of census data. When  detected, the errors can increase the cost of the census to the extent they  result in rework. Moreover, these errors are associated with a variety of  living arrangements and addresses, including small, multi-unit dwellings;  dormitories, prisons, and other group living facilities, known collectively  as “group quarters,” as well as hidden housing units, such as converted  basement apartments. As shown in table 1, to address those problems the  Bureau has been conducting research and making some operational  changes.
subsections: section_title: Research to Identify Hidden Housing Units Is Progressing, but Completion Date Is Uncertain
paragraphs: Although research to find hidden housing units holds promise for a more  accurate census, whether the results will be delivered in time to be useful  for the 2010 Census is uncertain. While Bureau officials do not have a firm  date for completing this research, they do estimate it will be completed by  the end of 2006.
According to Bureau evaluations, approximately 1.4 million housing units  were missed in the 2000 Census. Missed addresses often result when  temporary census workers do not recognize that particular structures,  such as tool sheds, are being used as residences. Addresses can also be  missed when census workers fail to detect hidden housing units, such as  basement apartments, within what appear to be single housing units. This  is especially true for urban areas, where row houses have been converted  into several different apartments. If an address is not in the MAF, its  residents are less likely to be included in the census.
In May 2003, Bureau staff met with the New York City Planning  Department to discuss and observe the address problems associated with  small multi-unit structures in Queens, New York. After the visit, the  Bureau concluded that delivering questionnaires to small multi-unit  structures was a problem that needed to be addressed. In response, the  Bureau is using the MAF to identify urban areas, including Baltimore, an  area west of Chicago, and counties in New Jersey, where small multi-unit  dwellings exist, fitting the description of those that were missed.  According to Bureau officials, to accurately identify and count these  missed housing units, the Bureau would use update/enumerate  procedures—where census workers update the address list and conduct  interviews to collect census data—instead of using mailout/mailback  procedures, where census forms are mailed to the housing units.  Update/enumerate procedures are more labor–intensive and costly than  mailout/mailback procedures.
In reviewing the research plan on small multi-unit structures,we found no  milestones for completing this research. Bureau officials could not provide  a firm completion date, but estimated that the research would be  completed by the end of 2006. Without clear milestones for completing this  research and action plans based on research results, it is uncertain  whether the Bureau will have sufficient time to develop a methodology for  identifying all the problematic locations across the country where  update/enumerate methodology would be necessary and to inform  decision makers on the cost of converting these areas from  mailout/mailback procedures to update/enumerate procedures.
section_title: Research to Prevent Valid Addresses from Being Deleted Is Ongoing, but Completion Date Has Slipped
paragraphs: The Bureau has tested new procedures to validate whether an address  initially marked “delete” should be removed from the address file.  However, the results from that testing, due January 2006, were delayed  until April 2006, and were not available at the time of this review.
For the 2000 Census, the Bureau found that it had mistakenly deleted  1.3 million existing housing units from the address file used to conduct the  census. In some instances, this occurred when the Bureau deleted an  address that the U.S. Postal Service had coded as a business address,  although people were living at that address. According to a Bureau  evaluation, when this happens, the Bureau relies on census workers to  find and add back those units. Bureau officials stated that identifying  residential housing units is difficult for some structures, such as  apartments in businesses.
The Bureau would also delete an address if no census form was returned  from the unit and if two other census operations determined that the  address should be deleted. A Bureau evaluation found that this process  identified and removed 8.3 million nonexistent addresses; however, about  653,000 of those addresses were valid and should not have been deleted.  The evaluation does not provide an explanation for why these valid  addresses were deleted or what could be done in the future to prevent  valid addresses from being removed. Concerned that valid addresses were  deleted, the Bureau, for the 2006 Census Test of address canvassing, tested  a new follow-up quality check procedure designed to verify the status of  all addresses that were identified as “delete” during the address canvassing  operation. The 2000 Census did have a follow-up operation, but not one  specifically for all deleted addresses during the canvassing operation. By  building this quality control operation into the address canvassing  operation, the Bureau hopes to prevent valid addresses from getting  inadvertently deleted. An assessment report of address procedures that  were tested in 2005 as part of the 2006 address canvassing operation was  to be completed by January 2006. However, the deadline for this  assessment slipped until the end of April 2006, and was not available at the  time of this review.
section_title: Research Efforts on Duplicate Addresses Have Mixed Results
paragraphs: The Bureau has taken actions to prevent duplicate addresses. However,  one research effort to identify duplicates using software was found to be  ineffective because approximately 10 percent of the time the software  would incorrectly identify a valid address as a duplicate address, and as a  result, this software will not be used in 2010. According to Commerce  officials, it is their philosophy to favor the inclusion of addresses in the  census process over the exclusion of addresses. Nevertheless, preventing  duplicate addresses in the MAF saves the Bureau from having to make  unnecessary and expensive follow-up visits to households already  surveyed. Furthermore, preventing duplicate responses also enhances the  accuracy of the data.
Bureau studies initially estimated that during the 2000 Census, about   2.4 million duplicate addresses existed in the MAF. The problem was so  significant that in the summer of 2000, the Bureau initiated a special  follow-up operation to identify and remove duplicate addresses. Research  from this special operation confirmed that 1.4 million addresses were  duplicates, and the Bureau removed those addresses from the census.  However, the operation was not able to determine with certainty whether  the remaining 1 million addresses were duplicates. As a result, according  to Commerce officials, the 1 million addresses were not removed from the  census because those addresses were believed to be a combination of  apartment mix-ups and misdelivery of questionnaires, and not duplicates.  Had the Bureau identified these 1.4 million housing units before  nonresponse follow-up had occurred, it could have saved  $39.7 million (based on our estimate that a 1 percentage point increase in  workload could add at least $34 million in direct salary, benefits, and  travel costs to the price tag of nonresponse follow-up). Even after the  special operation to remove duplicates was completed, the Bureau still  estimated that approximately 0.7 million duplicates remained in the MAF  in error.
According to Bureau officials, duplicate addresses resulted from the  multiple operations used to build the MAF. While the redundancy of  having multiple address-building operations helps produce a more  complete and accurate address list because more opportunities exist for  an address to be added to the MAF, any variations in city-style addresses,  which are addresses with house numbers and street names, could produce  a duplicate entry. For example, the Postal Service, which is the source of  many addresses in the MAF, might refer to an address in its database as  123 Waterway Point. A census worker in another address operation might  record that address as 123 South Waterway Point. If not detected, two  addresses would remain in the MAF for this single residence. To help  resolve this problem, in 2004, the Bureau tested whether it could detect  duplicate addresses in the MAF by using computerized matching software  to link variations in street addresses. In test results, the Bureau found that  90 percent of the potential duplicates identified by the process of  “probablistic matching” were actual duplicates, while 10 percent were  valid addresses. Because the number of false duplicates was significantly  high, the Bureau decided against incorporating this approach into its plans  for 2010 and planned no further testing of the software. As a result of not  being able to use this software, duplicate addresses may still be a problem  for the 2010 MAF, and duplicate addresses that are not detected can  reduce accuracy and increase costs.
At the same time, the Bureau has made some progress toward preventing  duplicates. The Bureau is testing new methods to resolve difficulties in  distinguishing group quarters (which include dormitories, prisons, group  homes, and nursing homes) from housing units, such as single-family  homes and apartments. In the 2000 Census, the Bureau used different  operations and compiled separate address lists for group quarters and  housing units. Group quarters are sometimes difficult for census workers  to identify because they often look the same as conventional housing units  (see fig. 2). As a result, these homes were sometimes counted twice during  the 2000 Census—once as a group quarter and once as a housing unit.
One approach to help prevent duplicates that the Bureau tested during the  2004 and 2006 Census Tests is integrating the two address lists and then  verifying potential group quarters on that list. Evaluation results from the  2004 testing showed progress was being made for integrating the address  lists. The operational assessment report on the 2006 group quarters testing  validation/advance visit operation that occurred in 2005, as a part of the  address canvassing operation for the 2006 Census Test, was expected by  May 30, 2006, and was not available at the time of this review.
section_title: Mixed Progress Is Being Made to Properly Identify and Locate Housing Units on TIGER Maps
paragraphs: The Bureau is using a contractor to update its TIGER maps and intends to  use GPS technology to locate every housing unit across the country  precisely. Collectively, these two efforts are designed to avoid the  geocoding errors of the 2000 Census, when residences were sometimes  counted in the wrong census block. However, progress can be hindered if  technical problems associated with the GPS continue.
Bureau evaluations estimated that in 2000, of the nation’s approximately  116 million housing units, 5.6 million (about 4.8 percent) housing units in  the country were counted in the wrong locations. Resolving geocoding  errors will be important, as census data are used to redraw congressional  lines and allocate federal assistance and state funding. For example, in  June 2005, we reported that Soledad, California, lost more then $140,000 in  state revenue when a geocoding error caused over 11,000 Soledad  residents to be miscounted in two nearby cities.
Geocoding errors are partly attributable to inaccuracies in the TIGER  maps that census workers use to verify the locations of residences. As  shown in figure 3, roads and other features on TIGER maps did not always  reflect their true geographic locations.
To help improve TIGER maps, in June 2002, the Bureau awarded an 8-year,  $200 million contract to correct in TIGER the location of every street,  boundary, and other map feature so that they are aligned with their true  geographic locations, among other contractual tasks. This work is to be  completed on a county-by-county schedule. According to Bureau officials,  as of March 2006, nearly 1,700 county maps have been completed, with  about another 1,600 to be completed by April 2008.
In conjunction with updating TIGER, the Bureau, as part of its 2010  address canvassing operations, plans to have census workers capture the  exact location of every structure on the address list by using GPS  receivers. This approach has the potential to resolve the cause of many  geocoding errors; however, as we discuss later in this report, when this  operation was tested as part of the 2006 Census Test, the GPS receiver did  not always operate properly, leaving some housing units without a GPS  coordinate to determine their locations. As part of the address canvassing  operational assessment report, the Bureau will provide the number and  type of map spots collected (GPS, manual, or attached multi-unit). This  report, initially due in January 2006, has been delayed and was not  available at the time of our review.
Testing GPS coordinates was a part of the 2004 Census Test, and  evaluations showed that workers only used the GPS receiver to capture  the location of housing units 55 percent of time. The evaluation, however,  did not address why census workers did not use the GPS receiver.
section_title: Emerging Issues Related to Overlapping and Compressed Schedules Pose a Risk to MAF/TIGER Modernization Efforts
paragraphs: As the Bureau has planned for the 2010 Census, issues surrounding the  schedule of address activities have emerged and have not been fully  addressed. One key challenge in conducting the 2010 Census is the  Bureau’s ability to keep the myriad of census activities on track amid tight  and overlapping schedules for updating addresses and maps. For example,  in planning the various 2010 address list activities, Bureau officials  estimate that TIGER maps for 600 to 700 counties (out of 3,232 counties in  the United States) will not be updated in time to be part of the local update  of census addresses (LUCA)—a program through which the Bureau gives  local, state, and tribal government officials the opportunity to review and  suggest corrections to the address lists and maps for their jurisdictions.  LUCA is to begin in August 2007, when, according to the current schedule,  the Bureau will still have to update 368 counties in 2008 alone. Because all  updates will not have been completed, some counties will not have the  most current maps to review, but instead will be given the most recent  maps the Bureau has available. According to Bureau officials, some maps  have been updated for the American Community Survey, but others have  not been updated since the 2000 Census. LUCA participation is important  because local knowledge contributes to a more complete and accurate  address file. Not having the most current TIGER maps could affect the  quality of a local government’s review. The Bureau is aware of the  overlapping schedules, but officials stated that they need to start LUCA in  2007 in order to complete the operation in time for address canvassing— an operation where census workers walk every street in the country to  verify addresses and update maps. Further, Commerce officials stated that  the primary focus of the LUCA program is to review and update the  address list and not to review and update maps; therefore, not having the  improved maps should not affect the ability of LUCA participants to add or  make corrections to the census address list. We, however, believe that  improved maps would help LUCA participants to provide more accurate  address data.
The census schedule will be a challenge for address canvassing in 2010.  The Bureau has allotted 6 weeks for census workers to verify the nation’s  inventory of approximately 116 million housing units. This translates into a  completion rate of over 2.75 million housing units every day. The challenge  in maintaining this schedule can be seen in the fact that for the 2000  Census, the Bureau took 18 weeks just to canvass “city-style” address  areas, which are localities where the U.S. Postal Service uses house- number and street-name addresses for most mail delivery. However, a  Bureau official could not explain why the schedule had been shortened by  12 weeks, compared to the 2000 Census.
Although Bureau officials agreed that more time will be needed to conduct  the address canvassing operation, especially in the northern sections of  the country where bad weather can hinder those operations, they have not  reevaluated the schedule. A Bureau official stated that the Bureau would  need to assess staffing levels to ensure it will be able to meet workload  demands. Meeting the demands of the shortened time frame for  completing address canvassing is a concern because the workload for  address canvassing has significantly expanded from including only urban  areas in 2000 to including the entire country for 2010. Furthermore, in the  summer of 2005, when address canvassing was conducted for the 2006  test, the Bureau was unable to finish in 6 weeks because of problems with  the new MCD and GPS technology. In its comments to a draft of this  report, Commerce officials said it would work to expand the address  canvassing schedule to ensure that it can be done without having a  negative impact on other critical decennial activities.
section_title: Reliability of MCD to Conduct Address Canvassing Activities is Unknown
paragraphs: The Bureau’s ability to collect and transmit address and mapping data  using the MCD is not known. The performance of these devices is crucial  to the accurate, timely, and cost-effective completion of address listing,  nonresponse follow-up, and coverage measurement activities. During 2006  testing, the MCD used to collect address and map data was slow and  locked up frequently. As a result, the Bureau was unable to complete  address canvassing, even with a 10-day extension. Also, some census  workers were not always able to get GPS signals for collecting coordinates  for housing units. Bureau officials have acknowledged that the MCD’s  performance is an issue but believe that a new version of the MCD, to be  developed under the Field Data Collection Automation (FDCA) contract  awarded on March 30, 2006, will be reliable and functional. However,  because the 2008 Dress Rehearsal will be the first time this new MCD will  be tested under census-like conditions, it is uncertain how effective that  MCD will be, and if problems do emerge, little time will be left for the  contractor to develop, test, and incorporate any refinements. Moreover, if  after the Dress Rehearsal the MCD is found to be unreliable, the Bureau  could be faced with the remote, but daunting possibility of having to revert  to the costly paper-based census used in 2000.
subsections: section_title: Bureau Is Unable to Complete Address Canvassing Operation Because of Technical Difficulties with the MCD
paragraphs: During the address canvassing operation, the technical problems with the  MCDs were so significant that the operation did not finish as scheduled.  The 6 week operation was expected to run through September 2, 2005, but  had to be extended by 10 days (through Sept. 12, 2005). However, the  Bureau was still unable to finish the operation, leaving six assignment  areas in Travis County, Texas and four assignment areas at the Cheyenne  River Reservation, South Dakota not canvassed.
To conduct address canvassing, each MCD was loaded with address  information and maps and was also equipped with GPS. Census workers  were trained to locate every structure in their assignment area, as well as  to compare the locations of housing units to address and map data on the  MCD and update the data accordingly. They also were instructed to  capture each housing unit’s GPS coordinates. However, workers we  observed and interviewed had problems updating address and map data as  well as collecting GPS coordinates, largely because the device’s software  and GPS receiver were unstable. For example, we observed census  workers unable to complete their planned assignments for the day  because it took too long to complete address and map updates, as the  device was slow to pull up and exit address registers, accept the data  entered by the worker, and link a map spot to addresses for multi-unit  structures. Furthermore, the devices would often lock up, requiring  workers to reboot them.
Census workers also experienced problems with the GPS receiver  acquired by the Bureau. Some workers had problems getting a signal, but  even when a signal was available, the GPS receiver was slow to locate  assignment areas and provide coordinates for map spots. Bureau officials  were not certain why the Bureau’s equipment was unreliable, but provided  several possible explanations: (1) the software, hardware, or both did not  function properly, (2) GPS units were not correctly inserted into the  device, and (3) too few satellites were available for capturing coordinates.  Given the importance of GPS to collecting precise coordinates for housing  units, it will be important for the Bureau to understand and correct the  source of the problems that affected the reliability of the GPS.
Going into address canvassing, the Bureau was aware that the MCDs had  software problems and delayed the address canvassing operation by a  month to try to resolve them. The Bureau was unable to resolve the  problems, but wanted to test the feasibility of the MCD and decided to go  forward with the operation with the goal of learning as much as possible.  For the 2008 Dress Rehearsal, the Bureau plans to test a new MCD that is  being developed under the FDCA contract. However, less than a year  remains for the contractor to develop the MCD that will be used in April  2007 for the canvassing operation of the 2008 Dress Rehearsal. In a May  2006 report, we reported on the tight time frames to develop the MCD  and recommended that systems being developed or provided by  contractors for the 2010 Census—including the MCD—be fully functional  and ready to be assessed as part of the 2008 Dress Rehearsal. In  commenting on a draft of this report, Commerce noted that the Bureau  designed the FDCA acquisitions strategy to reduce risks related to cost,  schedule and performance, stating that the Bureau required offerors to  develop and demonstrate a working prototype for address canvassing.  Nevertheless, because the previous two MCD models had performance  problems, the introduction of a new MCD adds another level of risk to the  success of the 2010 Census.
section_title: Bureau Does Not Have a Specific Plan for Updating MAF/TIGER in the Aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
paragraphs: The Bureau does not have a plan to update the MAF/TIGER for areas  affected by hurricanes Katrina and Rita. On August 29, 2005, Hurricane  Katrina devastated the coastal communities of Louisiana, Mississippi, and  Alabama. A few weeks later, Hurricane Rita plowed through the border  areas of Texas and Louisiana. Damage was widespread. In the wake of  Katrina, for example, the Red Cross estimated that nearly 525,000 people  were displaced. Their homes were declared uninhabitable, and streets,  bridges, and other landmarks were destroyed. Approximately 90,000  square miles were affected overall and, as shown in figure 4, entire  communities were obliterated.
The task of updating MAF/TIGER for 2010 to reflect these changes will be  a formidable one, as much has changed since the 2000 Census. For the  2010 Census, locating housing units and the people who reside in them will  be critical to counting the population of places hit by the hurricanes,  especially since it is estimated that hundreds of thousands of people  have—either temporarily or permanently—migrated to other areas of the  country. To ensure an accurate count, it will be important for the Bureau  to have accurate maps and an updated address file for the 2010 Census in  those areas affected by hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Bureau officials do not believe a specific plan is needed to update the  address and map files for those areas affected by hurricanes Katrina and  Rita. Although Census Day is still several years away, preliminary  activities, such as operations for building the MAF, have to occur sooner.  Consequently, a key question is whether the Bureau’s existing operations  are adequate for capturing the dramatic changes to roads and other  geographic features caused by the hurricanes, or whether the Bureau  needs to develop enhanced or additional procedures before August 2007  when LUCA is scheduled to begin. For example, new housing and street  construction in the areas affected by the hurricanes could require more  frequent updates of the Bureau’s address file and maps. Also, local  governments’ participation in LUCA might be affected because of the loss  of key personnel, information systems, or records needed to verify the  Bureau’s address lists and maps. Further, the Bureau has not identified  local partners with whom it can monitor this situation.
The Bureau’s short-term strategy for dealing with the effect of the  hurricanes on MAF/TIGER is to see who returns and whether communities  decide to rebuild. Bureau officials stated that by 2009, as census workers  prepare to go out in the field for address canvassing for the 2010 Census,  residents will have decided whether to return to the region. The Bureau  believes that by then it will be in a better position to add or delete  addresses for areas in the Gulf region affected by the hurricanes. However,  Bureau officials could not provide us with information on the basis of their  conclusion that by 2009, most affected persons will have made final  decisions about whether they are returning to the region. This approach  may not be adequate, given the magnitude of the area, population, and  infrastructure affected. Therefore, it would be prudent for the Bureau to  begin assessing whether new procedures will be necessary, determining  whether additional resources may be needed, and identifying whether  local partners will be available to assist the Bureau in its effort to update  address and map data, as well as in other census-taking activities. In its  comments on a draft of this report, Commerce officials stated that there  was a team working on how to reflect the impact of the hurricanes in the  MAF and that they were aware of the sensitive nature of working with  local officials on using data that had not been updated since the  catastrophe.
Securing a complete count, a difficult task under normal circumstances,  could face additional hurdles along the Gulf Coast, in large part because  the baseline the Bureau will be working with—streets, housing, and the  population itself—will be in flux for some time to come. According to  Bureau officials, different parts of the agency work on hurricane-related  issues at different times, but no formal body has been created to deal with  the hurricanes’ impact on the 2010 Census.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The success of the 2010 Census relies on an accurate and complete MAF,  and the Bureau has taken steps to improve the MAF. For example, many of  the problems identified in the 2000 Census are being addressed through  sequential address list building, the collection of GPS coordinates, and the  verifications of deleted addresses. However, several key challenges and  sources of uncertainty remain. The management of some of the Bureau’s  research efforts to resolve problems from the 2000 Census are negatively  affected by a lack of specific end dates for that research or because those  end dates have slipped. Also, one research effort to prevent duplicate  addresses was found to be ineffective and was abandoned altogether.  Time to complete research and take the appropriate resulting action is of  the essence, as the Bureau has announced that all design features should  be baselined by June 2007. If long-standing problems are not resolved, the  address file could experience the same problems with missed and  incorrectly included housing units as it did in the 2000 Census.
The Bureau must also manage the planning and development of the census  amid tight and overlapping schedules. In our view, changing milestones to  complete MAF research, the Bureau’s tight development schedule for the  MCD, and the interdependence of the various address activities could  affect the Bureau’s ability to develop a fully functional set of address- building operations that can be tested along with other census operations  during the 2008 Dress Rehearsal—the Bureau’s last opportunity to assess  MAF/TIGER under near census-like conditions. If the MCDs do not  function as planned in the Dress Rehearsal, little time will remain for the  Bureau to develop, test, and incorporate any refinements. This uncertainty  places the accuracy and completeness of data collected using the MCD at  risk.
Because the MCD has not yet been developed, it will be important for the  Bureau to closely monitor the contractor’s progress for developing the  MCD. In May 2006, we reported on the tight time frames to develop the  MCD and recommended that systems being developed or provided by  contractors for the 2010 Census—including the MCD—be fully functional  and ready to be assessed as part of the 2008 Dress Rehearsal. However, if  after the Dress Rehearsal the MCD is found to be unreliable, the Bureau  could be faced with the remote but daunting possibility of having to revert  to the costly paper-based census used in 2000.
Finally, the destruction and chaos caused by hurricanes Katrina and Rita  underscore the nation’s vulnerability to all types of hazards and highlight  how important it is for government agencies to consider emergency  preparedness and continuity of operations as part of their planning.  However, the immediate concern for the 2010 Census is that the Bureau  has no plan for how it will successfully update MAF/TIGER in the affected  hurricane zone. If problems updating the address file and maps do occur,  the census count in those areas affected by hurricanes Katrina and Rita  could be inaccurate or incomplete.
In conversations with Bureau officials, it became apparent to us that they  are keenly aware of the existing time constraints and challenges detailed  above. However, the Bureau had not developed risk mitigation plans to  address these challenges. Our recommendations, therefore, are intended  to make transparent for Bureau managers and congressional decision  makers how those challenges can and should be addressed. At a minimum,  the Bureau should have a risk-based mitigation plan in place that includes  specific dates for completing research on the address file and an approach  for exploring the difficulties that the Bureau may face updating  MAF/TIGER along the Gulf Coast. Because time is running short, it is  imperative that the Bureau continue to stay focused on identifying and  resolving problems to ensure that the most accurate and complete address  file and maps are produced for the 2010 Census.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To mitigate potential risks facing the Bureau as it plans for 2010 and to  ensure a more complete and accurate address file for the 2010 Census, we  recommend that the Secretary of Commerce direct the U.S. Census Bureau  to take the following three actions:    Establish firm deadlines to complete research, testing, and evaluations of  the MAF to prevent missed, deleted, and duplicate addresses, as well as  map errors, and develop an action plan that will allow sufficient time for  the Bureau to revise or establish methodologies and procedures for  building the 2010 MAF.
Reevaluate the 2010 address canvassing schedule in areas affected by bad  weather, as well as staffing levels, to ensure that the status of all housing  units are accurately verified throughout the entire country.
Develop a plan, prior to the start of LUCA in August 2007, that will assess  whether new procedures, additional resources, or local partnerships may  be required to update the MAF/TIGER databases for areas along the Gulf  Coast affected by hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: On June 2, 2006, the Department of Commerce forwarded written  comments from the Bureau on a draft of this report. The Bureau agreed  with each of our three recommendations and also noted actions it was  taking to address the recommendations. The Bureau’s comments also  included some technical corrections and suggestions where additional  context was needed, and we revised the report to reflect these comments  as appropriate. The comments are reprinted in their entirety in appendix  II.
In responding to the first recommendation to develop an action plan that  will allow sufficient time to revise or establish methodologies or  procedures for building the 2010 MAF, the Bureau stated that it would  revise its action plan to reflect final milestones for research to be  completed in time for the 2010 Census. Regarding the second  recommendation to reevaluate the 2010 address canvassing schedule, as  well as its staffing, the Bureau stated that this will be a challenge but that  it is committed towards developing a new schedule. Finally, in addressing  our third recommendation to develop a plan to assess whether new  procedures, additional resources or local partnerships may be required to  update the MAF/TIGER databases for areas affected by hurricanes Katrina  and Rita, the Bureau stated that it was working on a proposal for  additional work in the areas affected by hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The  Bureau also noted that conducting additional work will be subject to  obtaining funding.
We are sending copies of this report to other interested congressional  committees, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Director of the U.S.  Census Bureau. 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.
Please contact me at (202) 512-6806 or farrellb@gao.gov if you have any  questions about this report. Contact points for our Office of Congressional  Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report.  Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To determine the extent to which the Bureau’s MAF/TIGER modernization  efforts are addressing problems experienced during the 2000 Census, we  reviewed pertinent documents, including evaluations of the 2000 Census  conducted by GAO, the Bureau, the National Academy of Sciences, and  the Department of Commerce’s Office of Inspector General. To determine  the status of those efforts, we also interviewed cognizant Bureau officials  in the Geography Division and Decennial Management Division  responsible for implementing the modernization efforts. To assess the  extent to which past problems were being addressed, we compared the  Bureau’s current efforts—including, but not limited to, the 2010 LUCA  draft plan, 2004 and 2006 test plans, other research efforts, and TIGER  improvement documents—to problems identified in evaluations of the  2000 Census conducted by GAO, the Bureau, the National Academy of  Sciences, and the Department of Commerce’s Office of Inspector General.
We reviewed the MAF/TIGER contract that was awarded in June 2002 to  update the street and geographic features for the TIGER maps, as well as  monthly earned-value management system (EVMS) cost and performance  reports, to determine whether the deliverable schedule for the contract  was on time and on budget. We did not independently verify the accuracy  of the data contained in the EVMS cost and performance reports, but we  did obtain a certification from the contractor that its EVMS was adequate  to provide timely and accurate data from the Defense Logistics Agency.
To determine the extent to which the Bureau is managing emerging  MAF/TIGER issues, we focused on planning documents that described  proposed 2010 plans. Specific documents we reviewed included the 2010  LUCA draft proposal, 2010 Census decision memorandums, and Bureau  papers from National Academy of Sciences and Census Advisory  Committee meetings. We also reviewed and compared the timeline for  conducting 2000 Census address operations to the proposed plan for  conducting 2010 Census address operations. We interviewed officials from  the Bureau’s Geography Division and the Decennial Management Division  on the 2010 plans, 2010 time lines, current status of work, and areas of  concern.
To assess the extent to which the Bureau is able to collect and transmit  address data using new, GPS-enabled mobile computing devices, we made  site visits to census offices on the Cheyenne River Reservation, South  Dakota, and in Travis County, Texas, where we observed the address  canvassing operation conducted during the summer of 2005 as part of the  2006 Census Test. During these site visits, we also interviewed local and  regional census managers and staff, observed address data collection  activities using the MCD, and attended census worker training sessions.  We observed and interviewed a total of 38 census workers (16 in South  Dakota and 22 in Texas) about the address canvassing operation and the  use of the MCD to collect address data. However, the results of these  observations are not necessarily representative of the larger universe of  census workers. After our visits, we discussed our observations with the  Bureau’s Technology Management Office, Field Division, Geography  Division, and Decennial Management Division.
Finally, to determine the extent to which the Bureau has a plan to update  the address file and maps in areas impacted by hurricanes Katrina and  Rita, we interviewed Bureau top management officials. Specifically, we  discussed whether the Bureau had taken any steps to assess the  difficulties it may encounter as it attempts to update the address file and  maps and count persons affected by hurricanes Katrina and Rita. We  conducted our work from June 2005 through April 2006 in accordance  with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Commerce
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Carlos Hazera, Assistant Director;  Sheranda Smith Campbell; Betty Clark; Tim DiNapoli; Robert Goldenkoff;  Shirley Hwang; Sonya Phillips; Lisa Pearson; Ilona Pesti; and Brendan St.  Amant made key contributions to this report.