2020 Census: Bureau Needs to Improve Scheduling Practices to Enhance Ability to Meet Address List Development Deadlines
Published: 2013-11-21T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: According to the Bureau, it is committed to limiting its per household cost for the 2020 Census to that of the 2010 Census, and believes that reducing the cost of updating the MAF can be of significant help. Because of tight deadlines and the involvement of several different Bureau units in this effort, effective scheduling and collaboration practices are important for the entire process to stay on track.
GAO was asked to examine scheduling and collaboration in the Bureau's efforts to develop a more cost-effective MAF. GAO (1) assessed the reliability of the schedules for two key MAF development programs, and (2) examined the extent to which the Bureau is following leading practices for collaboration for its MAF development work. GAO analyzed the schedules for the two programs most relevant to developing the address list, and reviewed strategic plans and other documents establishing coordination mechanisms and compared them to leading practices for intra-agency collaborative efforts.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Census Bureau (Bureau) is not producing reliable schedules for the two programs most relevant to building the Master Address File (MAF)--the 2020 Research and Testing program and the Geographic Support System Initiative.
The Bureau did not include all activities in either schedule. The schedules appeared to have reasonable durations for most activities, but they did not include information about required resources.
For both schedules, the Bureau logically linked many activities in a sequence. Yet in both schedules the Bureau did not identify the preceding and following activity for a significant number of activities. Without this logic, the effect of a change in one activity on future activities cannot be seen in the schedule, potentially resulting in unforeseen delays.
The Bureau is not in a position to carry out a quantitative risk analysis on the schedules.
As a result of these issues, the schedules are producing inaccurate dates, which could mislead Bureau managers to falsely conclude that all of the work is on schedule when it may not be. Without reliable schedule information, such as valid forecasted dates and the amount of flexibility remaining in the schedule, management faces challenges in assessing the progress of MAF development efforts and determining what activities most need attention. Staff managing the schedules said that they had not received thorough training or certification on scheduling best practices, and, according to schedule managers, staff turnover contributed to the issues GAO identified. Workforce planning and training can help the Bureau have the skills in place to ensure that characteristics of a reliable schedule are met to support key management decisions.
The Bureau has documented collaboration activities that follow many leading practices for collaboration. Because several divisions are involved in efforts to develop the MAF, collaboration across these divisions is critical. In recent months, the Bureau has put in place a variety of mechanisms to aid coordination, such as crosscutting task teams. For example, research projects relevant to developing the MAF have representation from multiple divisions. The Bureau has also established memorandums of understanding across divisions to provide a broad framework for working together. Continued management attention to collaboration practices will help to ensure that collaboration across units is occurring as MAF development continues.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that the Census Director take a number of actions to improve the reliability of its schedules, including steps to ensure that all relevant activities are included in the schedules, complete scheduling logic is in place, and a quantitative risk assessment is conducted. In addition, GAO recommends a robust workforce planning effort to identify and address gaps in scheduling skills for staff that work on schedules. The Department of Commerce concurred and suggested several clarifications, which GAO included in the report as appropriate.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The U.S. Census Bureau (Bureau) relies on a complete and accurate  address list, along with precise maps, as the fundamental building blocks  of a successful census. An accurate address list is critical 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 to the initial questionnaire. Precise maps are critical for  counting the population in the proper locations—the basis of  congressional reapportionment and redistricting. If the Bureau’s address  list and maps are inaccurate, people can be missed, counted more than  once, or counted at the wrong location. However, our prior work has  shown that developing an accurate address list has been both labor  intensive and costly. In the 2000 and 2010 Censuses, for example,  Bureau field staff verified every existing Master Address File (MAF)  housing unit address in the nation and added missing housing units by  going door-to-door. The 2010 effort, known as address canvassing,  required 140,000 temporary workers to verify 145 million addresses at a  cost of $444 million. The Bureau felt that in the absence of research  demonstrating where it could rely on something less than door-to-door  visits to update its address list, it needed to proceed with full canvassing  to develop a quality address list and maps. In addition, census workers  used handheld computers for the first time in the 2010 address  canvassing operation to capture global positioning system information to  improve Bureau maps and address lists.
With a life cycle cost around $13 billion, the 2010 Census was the most  expensive population count in U.S. history, costing over 50 percent more  than the $8.1 billion 2000 Census. According to the Bureau, it is  committed to limiting its per household cost for the 2020 Census to not  more than that of the $98 per household cost of the 2010 Census, in  constant 2010 dollars. The Bureau believes that reducing the cost of  address canvassing can help limit costs.
The Bureau’s 2020 Research and Planning Office along with four other  principal Bureau units have several projects under way researching  options intended to more cost-effectively build the MAF and the map  system that supports it, called the Topologically Integrated Geographic  Encoding and Referencing (TIGER). (Hereafter, we refer to these as  MAF). Primary among the efforts is the Geographic Support System  Initiative (GSS-I), being carried out by the Bureau’s Geography Division.  A central goal of GSS-I is to enable the Bureau to use “targeted” address  canvassing to replace the more expensive “full” address canvassing from  prior censuses. Targeted address canvassing would limit the operation  only to areas where the Bureau believes door-to-door verification is  needed to develop an accurate and complete address list, such as areas  where there has been significant new housing development. In selecting  an approach to address canvassing, the Bureau is balancing cost and  quality trade-offs.
According to the Bureau, MAF development must begin to transition from  conducting research to inform the design of the 2020 Census to the  operational development phase in 2014 and 2015. Several decisions  about design options for the 2020 Census need to be made by 2015 so  that the Bureau can begin implementing them in time for the 2020  Census. Effective scheduling and collaboration practices are important for  the entire effort to stay on track. In our prior work, we recommended the  Bureau improve scheduling practices by including estimates of the   The Department of Commerce did not  resources in the schedule.respond to the recommendation at that time. Effective collaboration could  present a management challenge for the Bureau. For example, in 2011  the Bureau’s Director testified about the need to break down internal  barriers to coordination.
You asked us to examine the status of scheduling and collaboration in the  Bureau’s efforts to develop a more cost-effective MAF. We (1) assessed  the reliability of the schedules for two key MAF development programs,  and (2) examined the extent to which the Bureau is following leading  practices for collaboration for its MAF development work.
To meet the first objective, we analyzed the GSS-I schedule and the 2020  Research and Testing schedule and their supporting documents against  the characteristics of a reliable schedule. We also spoke with relevant  Bureau officials regarding the GSS-I and 2020 Research and Testing  schedules. For the second objective, we reviewed documents related to  collaboration including the Bureau’s 2020 Strategic Plan and 2013-2017  Strategic Plan, as well as other documents establishing coordination  mechanisms and compared them to leading practices for intra-agency   Additionally, we spoke with relevant officials  collaborative efforts.regarding collaboration in the Geography and 2020 Research and  Planning Office divisions as well as in the Center for Administrative  Records Research and Applications, Decennial Statistical Studies  Division, and Field divisions, which are participating in some MAF  development activities with the two primary divisions. For more details on  our scope and methodology, see appendix I.
We conducted our work from April 2013 to November 2013 in accordance  with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards  require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate  evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions  based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained  provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on  our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The MAF is a data file that contains a list of all known living quarters in  the United States and Puerto Rico. The Bureau uses the MAF to support  the decennial census as well as the American Community Survey and  other ongoing demographic surveys. The MAF contains address  information, census geographic location codes, and source and history  data. In conjunction with the MAF, the TIGER contains spatial  geographical information that allows information from the MAF to be  mapped.
For the 2010 Census, the Bureau updated the MAF through a complete  address canvassing that verified virtually every existing MAF address and  added new addresses and deleted those that no longer exist. While full  address canvassing helped ensure the accuracy of the address list, we  believe it was also very costly. According to Bureau decision documents  leading up to the 2010 Census, the Bureau canceled planned research on  the feasibility of targeting its canvassing when prioritizing its research  agenda early in the decade given its funding levels. As part of the  Bureau’s effort to conduct the 2020 Census at a cost lower than the 2010  Census, the Bureau is researching the feasibility of conducting targeted  address canvassing, verifying addresses in only select areas that are  more likely to require updates to the address list. To support targeted  address canvassing, the Bureau plans to increase its reliance on other  previously used sources of updates, including U.S. Postal Service files,  commercial database files, and significant input from state and local  governments. For example, GSS-I is working to allow government  agencies at all levels to more regularly share and update their address  lists with the Bureau throughout the decade (rather than solely 2 years  prior to the decennial, as had been the case in prior decennial censuses)  so that fewer areas need to be fully canvassed.
The life cycle for 2020 Census preparation is divided into five phases, as  illustrated in figure 1. The Bureau intends to use the early research and  testing phase through fiscal year 2015 to develop a proposal for  conducting targeted address canvassing that considers both cost and  quality implications. By the end of the early research and testing phase,  the Bureau plans to complete decisions about preliminary operational  designs rather than continuing critical research and testing until the end of  the decade as it did for the 2010 Census.
section_title: Because Schedules Are Not Reliable, Management Lacks Valid Information to Assess Progress and Manage Risk
paragraphs: The Bureau faces legally mandated deadlines for delivering census  tabulations. Effective scheduling is critical for ensuring that the Bureau  adheres to a timeline that meets these deadlines. The Bureau relies on  schedules to help monitor progress of its many interdependent activities.  The schedules are essential to help manage the risks to preparing and  implementing a successful decennial census. Certain dates within the  schedule could be subject to change or activities may be canceled as a  result of time or budget constraints. As dates change from the original  schedule or there are significant changes to the work planned, there  could be an associated increase in risk as the Bureau may have less time  than originally planned to complete future activities in time to make  decisions needed to execute the 2020 Census.
We determined that a schedule not only provides a road map for  systematic execution of a program, but also provides a means by which  to gauge progress, identify and address potential problems, and promote  accountability. In the GAO Schedule Assessment Guide,four characteristics of a reliable schedule. A schedule should be:
Comprehensive: The schedule should identify all activities and  resources necessary to accomplish the project. The schedule should  cover the scope of work to be performed so that the full picture is  available to managers.
Well constructed: Activities should be logically sequenced and critical  activities that would affect the timelines of the schedule should be  identified.
Credible: All schedules should be linked to a complete master  schedule for managers to reference and analyzed for how risk  impacts the outcome of the schedule.
Controlled: There should be a documented process for changes to the  schedule so that the integrity of the schedule is assured.
For a schedule to be reliable, it must substantially or fully meet all criteria  for these four characteristics. These characteristics and their criteria are  described in more detail in appendix II.
We found that the Bureau’s 2020 Research and Testing and GSS-I  schedules exhibit some of the characteristics of a reliable schedule, yet  important weaknesses remain. Each of the schedules substantially met  one of the four characteristics (controlled) and minimally or partially met  the other three characteristics (comprehensive, well constructed, and  credible) (see table 1).
Examples of the extent to which these characteristics were met are  provided below. For a more detailed explanation, see appendix III.
subsections: section_title: Comprehensive– Partially Met
paragraphs: The Bureau is using a work breakdown structure to guide the activities of  the 2020 Research and Testing and GSS-I schedules. A work breakdown  structure defines in detail the work necessary to accomplish a program’s  objectives. However, not all activities listed in the work breakdown  structure are included in the 2020 Research and Testing and GSS-I  schedules. For example, in the GSS-I schedule, 20 of the 28 projects  have very few activities in them, indicating a lack of detail. Additionally,  two MAF-related projects in the 2020 Research and Testing schedule, the  MAF Business Rules Improvement project and the Frame Extract  Evaluation project, do not have activities assigned to them. If research  activities—or any other activities relevant to developing the MAF—are not  listed in a schedule, managers may not be able to readily identify causes  of delay. According to the Bureau, the schedules are still evolving, these  two projects have not yet started or been staffed, and activities and detail  will continue to be added to the schedule.
For both schedules, the Bureau appeared to record reasonable durations  for most activities, helping to ensure that managers can understand the  time activities are expected to take and can hold staff who are executing  these activities accountable for meeting deadlines. However, neither  schedule included information about what levels of resources are required  to complete the planned work. Information on resource needs and  availability in each work period assists with forecasting the likelihood that  activities will be completed as scheduled. Bureau officials stated that they  hope to begin the exercise of identifying the resources needed for each  activity in both schedules by early 2014 and are waiting for decisions and  guidance from the Bureau’s effort to standardize cost estimation practices  enterprise-wide. In 2012 we recommended, and the Bureau agreed, that  the Bureau establish and communicate a timeline for all enterprise activity   However, the Bureau  so that decennial managers can plan accordingly.has not yet produced this timeline.
section_title: Well Constructed– Minimally Met
paragraphs: In both of the schedules, the Bureau logically linked many of the activities  in a sequence. This helps staff identify next steps as they progress  through MAF development activities and helps managers identify the  impact of changes in one activity on subsequent activities. Yet in both  schedules, the Bureau did not identify the preceding and following activity  for a number of activities (20 percent for the GSS-I schedule and 9  percent for the 2020 Research and Testing schedule). Scheduling staff  were unable to explain why this information was missing. Without this  logic, the effect of a change in one activity on future activities cannot be  seen in the schedule. For example, in the GSS-I schedule, the “delivery of  the targeted address canvassing recommendation report” to managers  has no predecessor. According to the Bureau, this report is to outline the  research findings, impacts, operational considerations, and benefits of  conducting a targeted address canvassing. For those activities that lack  predecessors in the schedule, the real effects of changes or delays in  preceding activities would not be visible in the schedule, potentially  resulting in unforeseen delays in the recommendation report.
The Bureau used a large number of constraints which, if used  inappropriately, can affect the reliability of the schedule. Activities for  which constraints would be justified are Census Day and the delivery of  the Apportionment Count, because they have legally mandated  deadlines. But, for example, the Bureau also placed a constraint on the  delivery of a draft targeted address canvassing report. Such an activity  would likely not need a constraint because delays in preceding activities  could affect the actual timing of the delivery of the draft report. Placing a  constraint on this type of activity would mask in the schedule the effects  of any changes or delays that would affect the true delivery date. While  our schedule guide states that documenting the justification for  constraints is important, the Bureau has not provided justifications in the  schedule for its use of constraints. The Bureau told us that justifications  are in meeting notes and e-mails, rather than the schedule. If this  information is not included in the schedule, the justification for constraints  remains unclear to those who did not have access to the meeting notes or  e-mails. Also, leaving constraints within the schedule beyond when the  schedule is being tested can make the schedule unreliable for other  purposes.
Additionally, inappropriately used constraints make it difficult to identify  the schedules’ “critical path”—the sequence of steps needed to achieve  the end goal that, if they slip, could negatively affect the overall project  completion date. The absence of a critical path or a poorly constructed  one calls into question the reliability of the calculated schedule dates,  such as estimates of when research results will be available. When  certain constraints are placed on an activity, this can automatically trigger  the schedule software to place an activity on the calculated critical path  when it might otherwise not be. Because the Bureau used so many  constraints and the schedule is missing logic about preceding and  following activities, it is possible that the calculated critical path includes  activities that are not necessarily germane to the true critical path.  Eliminating the unnecessary constraints and including additional logic  would provide a more accurate picture of the degree of criticality in the  schedule. Until the Bureau can produce a true critical path, it will not be  able to provide reliable timeline estimates of effects of schedule changes.  This undermines the Bureau’s ability to focus on activities that will have  detrimental effects on the progress of designing targeted address  canvassing and other 2020 Census decisions.
Finally, a critical path with so many activities appearing on it is not useful  to managers in identifying what is truly necessary to develop the MAF in a  timely manner. For example, within the 2020 Research and Testing  schedule, 52 percent of activities not yet completed appear on the  calculated critical path. Similarly, for the GSS-I schedule, 19 percent of  the activities appear on the calculated critical path, almost half of which  could be because constraints are placed on them. Such a large share of  activities appearing on the critical path can reduce the flexibility managers  have to complete activities in parallel with each other or to reallocate  resources when the same resource is needed for multiple activities on the  path.
section_title: Credible–Minimally Met
paragraphs: The schedules have shortcomings with (1) the integration into  management reporting and (2) the ability to automatically change as  activities within the schedule change. First, management documents from  the 2020 Research and Planning Office indicate the Bureau does not  always derive information on milestones from the schedule. For example,  two documents dated July 2013 cite the same baseline date from the  schedule list major milestones, but the documents indicate a different  date for the same part of the research and testing schedule; one states  that the research and testing milestones for the current phase will be  complete in September 2014, while the other states that these milestones  will be completed in September 2015. Bureau managers acknowledged  that the planning milestones within the schedule had not been updated to  reflect ongoing Bureau management decisions about reprioritizing  research and testing plans in light of budget uncertainty during fiscal year  2013. Without keeping the schedule current and using the most recent  information to derive information for management such as schedule  milestones, there are limited assurances that management is receiving  reliable information. Second, we tested the schedules to determine how  they changed when dates within the schedule were changed. In our test,  the Research and Testing schedule responded automatically to changes  in dates of activities, following best practices. However, the GSS-I  schedule did not respond in the same way: When we adjusted the date of  an activity, subsequent related activities appearing necessary to achieve  the milestone did not change, even though the ultimate milestone date  changed based on the date shift.
More importantly, though, the Bureau is not in a position to carry out  systematic quantitative risk analysis on its schedule. A quantitative risk  analysis relies on statistical simulation to predict the level of confidence in  meeting a program’s completion date. The Bureau has identified risks to  MAF development efforts, but a quantitative risk analysis would have the  advantage of illustrating the impact of risks on the schedule and how that  would affect the Bureau’s ability to meet milestones and provide a  measure of how much time contingency should be built in the schedule to  help manage certain risks. Bureau officials said they were waiting for  decisions about scheduling software before making decisions about  conducting a schedule risk analysis. Without a more credible schedule,  the Bureau cannot determine the likelihood that information will be  available in time to inform decisions about building the MAF; moreover,  the Bureau may not be able to fully understand which risks could affect  when information will be available to make decisions and the likelihood  that the risks could occur.
section_title: Controlled– Substantially Met
paragraphs: Both schedules were baselined—creating a comparison schedule to  measure, monitor, and report the project’s progress—in March 2013, and  there is evidence the Bureau has a schedule management process in  place and a method for logging changes to the schedule that is in line  with best practices. By baselining the schedule, the Bureau helps provide  some accountability and transparency to the measurement of the  program’s progress. The Bureau has implemented a formal change  control process which helps ensure the measurement of meaningful  progress through comparisons to past versions of the schedule. The  Bureau clearly documented its criteria for justifying changes. A team of  senior managers is to approve the change and Bureau teams are to  acknowledge the change’s effect if the schedule indicates they will be  affected by the change. The Bureau provides narratives that go along  with some schedule updates and includes these in monthly status reports,  ensuring that management are informed of schedule changes on a  regular basis in accordance with leading practices. This practice helps  Bureau officials use their schedules to produce reports that can be used  to identify work that should have started or finished by that time. Bureau  managers acknowledged that not all changes reflecting Bureau decisions  on dealing with budget uncertainty have been processed and reflected yet  in the schedule. Yet with processes in place—and being used—that  ensure the schedule is updated, management can be reasonably assured  that it is looking at current data when examining the schedule, contingent  upon the accuracy of the updates.
section_title: Scheduling Challenges Demonstrate Lack of Expertise among Staff
paragraphs: In conversations with Bureau officials responsible for managing the 2020  Research and Testing and GSS-I schedules, they said that they had not   although staff  received training or certification in scheduling practices,have received training in the software they are using for scheduling and  many staff have been trained in project management. The scheduling  managers referred to GAO’s Schedule Assessment Guide as a key  resource for their efforts; however, staff answers to interview questions  about leading practices demonstrated a lack of knowledge of the  practices. For example, staff explained the presence of the large number  of constraints in the schedule they provided to us was related to their  occasional “testing” of the schedule, but guidelines for a baselined  schedule state that it represents the original configuration of the program  plan, and would, thus, not include temporary changes such as the staff  described. Both the 2020 Research and Planning Office and the  Geography Division have contracted for scheduling support in recent  years, and maintain that their contractors have a number of certifications  in the advanced use of appropriate software and project management  methods. Further, Bureau officials described high turnover and extended  vacancies in the management team over the 2020 Research and  Planning Office’s scheduling contractors and staff until shortly before we  began our audit and obtained a copy of their schedule to review. After we  completed our audit work at the Bureau, officials told us that subject to  the availability of funding, schedule team members will pursue  professional certification to further develop and refine their project  scheduling skills. Geography Division managers also stressed to us their  commitment to schedule management.
GAO, Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic Workforce Planning,  GAO-04-39 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11, 2003). We developed the key principles of  workforce planning by reviewing documents from organizations with expertise in workforce  planning models and federal agencies with promising workforce planning practices, as  well as our past work. to achieve programmatic goals. A key principle for strategic workforce  planning includes systematically identifying gaps in competencies in staff  with the goal of minimizing or eliminating these gaps. Our prior work has  shown that organizations can use methods such as training, contracting,  staff development, and hiring to help align skills in order to eliminate gaps  in competencies needed for mission success. By conducting a workforce  planning process that includes an analysis of skills and training needed,  such as what the Bureau describes for its scheduling staff in the future,  and the identification of gaps to be addressed, the Bureau can better  ensure that staff who manage the schedules understand the leading  practices and the importance of adhering to them. Thus, the Bureau can  better ensure it has the capacity to develop schedules able to support key  management decisions.
section_title: The Bureau Generally Documented Leading Practices for Collaboration in Its Master Address File Plans
paragraphs: Several divisions are involved in efforts to build the 2020 MAF, making  collaboration critical to ensuring that participating divisions work together  to achieve the Bureau’s goals. In our past work, we identified leading  practices to foster collaborative relationships across organizational  boundaries. We determined that four of these practices were directly  relevant to the Bureau’s internal efforts to build its MAF. Table 2 identifies  and describes these four practices and shows our assessment of the  extent to which Bureau documentation demonstrates the Bureau engaged  in these leading practices.
The Bureau has documented its goals for building a more cost-effective  MAF as part of its strategic plans. The Bureau’s 2020 Census Strategic  Plan set forth Bureau-wide goals for the MAF and the 2020 Census.  These goals provide a common rationale for Bureau teams to work  across organizational boundaries. Specifically, the Bureau has  documented its intention to  improve the coverage and accuracy of the address list;  continuously update the address list through the decade; and  improve the cost-effectiveness of the address list.
The Geography Division and the 2020 Research and Planning Office  have incorporated these common outcomes as part of their individual  efforts. Officials in these units indicated an understanding of these goals  and communicated them to us. Each also documented these goals in  their planning documents. For example, the Geography Division’s  governance document for GSS-I connects its purpose to working towards  building the 2020 MAF. Moreover, in the 2020 Research and Planning  Office’s Research and Testing management plan, the Bureau sets goals  for the division’s research associated with improving the accuracy and  cost-effectiveness of the MAF. The Bureau, through its strategic plan, has  set goals for the 2020 MAF, communicating these to organizational units  in a way that will help focus the work in support of upcoming design  decisions.
subsections: section_title: Establish Mutually Reinforcing or Joint Strategies
paragraphs: Similar to its goals, the Bureau has established and documented joint  strategies as part of its strategic plans. These strategies help outline how  the Bureau will achieve the goals of an accurate, continuously updated  and cost-effective MAF. The Bureau’s 2013-2017 Strategic Plan and  2020 Census Strategic Plan specifically identify these strategies for  achieving its goals for the MAF: defining components of error in the MAF; assessing how rules for using addresses contained in the MAF should  implementing targeted address canvassing;  change to accommodate new address sources; and  identifying more effective approaches to incorporate addresses from  state, local, and tribal governments.
The Bureau is executing five research projects related to these strategies.  The Bureau is also reinforcing implementation of these strategies by  creating new coordination groups as well as placing staff from relevant  units on MAF-related research projects. For example, the MAF error  model research team has representation from the Geography Division,  the Decennial Statistical Studies Division, and the Field Division, among  others. The importance of having joint strategies clearly documented is  underscored by the differences in perspectives that these divisions can  bring to common challenges they may work on together, such as  developing a proposal for targeted address canvassing. For example, the  Geography Division is responsible for, among other things, administering  geographic and cartographic activities needed for the 2020 Census. Its  research when working with other teams will focus on geographic  concepts, methods, and standards needed for the 2020 Census.  Meanwhile, the Field Division, with its responsibility for effectively  deploying field personnel to support efficient field data collection, will  focus on the “on the ground” feasibility and challenge of targeting certain  types of housing units for address canvassing.
In addition, coordination bodies are working to share information. In May  2013, relevant Bureau officials began to meet regularly to discuss issues  related to implementing targeted address canvassing. Bureau officials  involved in these meetings said that the team acts as a vehicle to provide  status updates across organizational boundaries. Another team working  to identify models to predict where addresses were most in need of being  updated was chartered in May 2013. The charter indicated that  membership was to include representation from staff in the Field Division  and would work with relevant research projects. By defining strategies  and reinforcing the collaborative nature of these strategies through such  actions as coordination groups and matrixed research teams, the Bureau  is helping to align the activities and resources of various divisions to  achieve the goals of the 2020 MAF.
section_title: Agree on Roles and Responsibilities and Participants
paragraphs: The Bureau’s 2013-2017 Census Strategic Plan identifies relevant  divisions within the Bureau with responsibilities related to developing a  more cost-effective 2020 MAF and implementing targeted address  canvassing. The 2020 Research and Planning Office has identified the  relevant divisions participating in active research projects and  coordination groups through documents such as charters. For example,  the Targeted Address Canvassing Research, Model, and Area  Classification team—a coordination team headed by the Geography  Division—was chartered in May 2013 and defines what is both in and out  of the scope of its activities. Members are responsible for analyzing  potential datasets to be used for targeted address canvassing, but are not  responsible for analyzing the costs of targeted address canvassing.
In addition, the Bureau recently established memorandums of  understanding between the 2020 Research and Planning Office and other  relevant divisions, generally finalizing them in May 2013 and signing them  in June and July 2013. These agreements are not limited to MAF  building efforts, but they provide the broad framework for working  together and defining coordination. The agreements define the  responsibilities of the 2020 Research and Planning Office and the  relevant divisions and include provisions for communication between the  two organizational units, resource sharing, and modifying agreements as  changes in work dictate.
However, the Bureau has not taken advantage of some opportunities to  use its schedules to reinforce roles or clarify responsibilities. Detailed  schedules for 2020 Research and Testing and GSS-I do not completely  reflect roles and responsibilities of other divisions or organizational units,  such as by reflecting dependencies of activities or handing off to each  other. Information on dependencies between projects is available in the  project plans for research projects, but such dependencies are not  reflected in the schedules. Bureau officials said they would address this  by directing project teams to more clearly identify dependencies on  various divisions, and review activities to be flagged as having “external”  dependencies within the Research and Testing schedule.
section_title: Reinforce Collaborative Efforts through Performance Management Systems
paragraphs: The Bureau reinforces individual accountability for collaborative activities  through individual performance expectations including both broad ones  and others specific to MAF development efforts. Bureau-wide, individuals  are rated on their “customer service,” a work competency that includes  their performance working in collaboration with those outside of their  division to respond to internal and external needs. Managers we spoke  with said that collaboration across units within the Bureau is assessed  within this competency. Bureau officials also provided examples of  performance management plans where staff were to be rated specifically  on collaboration. For example, one staff member was expected to attend  interdivisional coordination meetings and to implement new projects  based on these meetings. The inclusion of specific performance  expectations and metrics dependent on collaborative activity can  reinforce synergy across organizational boundaries within the Bureau.  This should help ensure that individuals with responsibility for developing  the MAF have a vested interest in achieving the overall goals set by the  Bureau.
As the Bureau moves to testing and implementation, roles and  responsibilities will change, and the respective roles of divisions may also  change in prominence. Continued management attention to follow leading  practices for collaboration will help to ensure that collaboration across  units is occurring as the Bureau strives to achieve its goal of a more cost- effective 2020 MAF and Census.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Planning efforts related to targeted address canvassing and building a  more cost-effective MAF are important to the Bureau’s efforts to control  the costs of the 2020 decennial. As key design decisions are to be made  in the coming years, it is important that the Bureau has a reliable  schedule in place upon which management can depend to make those  decisions. Our analysis of two Bureau schedules key to MAF  development efforts indicates that there are problems with the schedules’  reliability. It will be important to ensure that schedules are comprehensive  in order for management to be reasonably assured that they have  complete information to make decisions. Similarly, problems with the  schedules’ construction mean that the progression of critical events could  be unclear to management. Finally, the schedules lack credibility,  meaning that risks, including those the Bureau has already identified,  could impact the schedules in ways not yet considered. Some of the  identified deficiencies indicate that staff and managers have not been  available and prepared to sufficiently construct and maintain the  schedules. Conducting a workforce planning process of staff working on  MAF schedules could help the Bureau to identify staff skills needed to  help ensure related gaps are addressed. Without staff knowledge of the  leading practices and the importance of adhering to them, the schedules  may prove problematic for decennial managers’ ability to assess  progress, make decisions, identify future risks, or anticipate potential  delays.
With its planning documents, memorandums of understanding, and  various charters, the Bureau has put in place a framework to support  collaborative efforts following leading practices, particularly in recent  months, which will aid the efforts. These methods could be bolstered by  building collaboration into the schedule. By improving practices in the  area of constructing a schedule, the Bureau can help address these gaps.  As the Bureau continues its implementation efforts up to and beyond key  decisions about how to build a cost-effective MAF, it is vital to ensure that  the practices incorporated into Bureau planning documents and  processes thus far are continued.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To help maintain a more thorough and insightful 2020 Census  development schedule in order to better manage risks to a successful  2020 Census, the Secretary of Commerce and Undersecretary of  Economic Affairs should direct the U.S. Census Bureau to improve its  scheduling practices in three areas:  the comprehensiveness of schedules, including ensuring that all  relevant activities are included in the schedule;  the construction of schedules, including ensuring complete logic is in  place to identify the preceding and subsequent activities as well as a  critical path that can be used to make decisions; and  the credibility of schedules, including conducting a quantitative risk  assessment.
In addition, we recommend that the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau  initiate a robust workforce planning process for those working on  schedules related to the Master Address File, including actions such as  an analysis of skills needed, to identify and address gaps in scheduling  skills.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Commerce and  received the department’s written comments on November 5, 2013. The  comments are reprinted in appendix IV. The Department of Commerce  concurred with our findings and recommendations and provided several  clarifications, which are reflected in this report as appropriate. As agreed  with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report  earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date.  At that time, we will send copies to the Secretary of Commerce, the  Under Secretary of Economic Affairs, the Director of the U.S. Census  Bureau, and interested congressional committees. The report also is  available at no charge on GAO’s website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions about this report please contact me at   (202) 512-2757 or goldenkoffr@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. The GAO staff that made major contributions to this report  are listed in appendix V.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: This report (1) assesses the reliability of the schedules for two key Master  Address File (MAF) development programs, and (2) examines the extent  to which the Census Bureau (Bureau) is following leading practices for  collaboration for its MAF development work. To determine the extent to  which the Bureau is following leading practices for scheduling as  identified in the GAO Schedule Assessment Guide, we analyzed the  Geographic Support System Initiative (GSS-I) schedule and the 2020  Research and Planning Office (Research and Testing) schedule. We  scored each scheduling best practice on a five-point scale ranging from  “not met” to “fully met.” To determine the extent to which the Bureau’s key  efforts to build a cost-effective MAF/Topologically Integrated Geographic  Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) incorporate leading practices for  collaboration, we identified leading practices to apply to intra-agency  collaborative efforts based on our past work on leading collaboration   We identified organizational units and activities relevant to  practices.building a cost-effective MAF in consultation with the Bureau. We also  identified documentation of their research projects. We reviewed key  management documents for content pertaining to collaboration, including  the Bureau’s strategic plan for the decennial and current (2013-2017)  strategic plan. In addition, we reviewed documents directly addressing  coordination efforts, such as charters and meeting minutes from  coordination groups and memorandums of understanding between  divisions. We compared the documented plans and activities to best  practices in order to rate the extent to which leading practices were  incorporated or were intended to be incorporated into Bureau documents.  We rated each practice on a three-point scale from “Not Documented” to  “Generally Documented.”
Not Documented: The Bureau provided no documentary evidence that  satisfies any of the criteria.
Partially Documented: The Bureau provided documentary evidence  that satisfies a portion of the criteria.
Generally Documented: The Bureau provided documentary evidence  that satisfies all or nearly all of the criteria.
We then interviewed Bureau officials in the Geography and 2020  Research and Planning Office divisions to discuss schedules and their  collaboration efforts. Additionally, regarding scheduling and collaboration,  we spoke with relevant officials in the Center for Administrative Records  Research and Applications, Decennial Statistical Studies Division, and  Field Division. These divisions are participating in some MAF  development activities with the Geography and 2020 Research and  Planning Office divisions. Our review of scheduling and collaboration  practices was limited to 2020 Decennial Census activities and focused on  MAF development activities and cannot be generalized to other, non- decennial Bureau activities and operations.
section_title: Appendix II: Description of Scheduling Best Practices
paragraphs: Description  A schedule should reflect all activities defined in the project’s work  breakdown structure and include all activities to be performed by the  government and contractor.
The schedule should realistically reflect the resources (i.e., labor,  material, and overhead) needed to do the work, whether all required  resources will be available when needed, and whether any funding or  time constraints exist.
The schedule should reflect how long each activity will take to  execute.
The schedule should be planned so that all activities are logically  sequenced in the order they are to be carried out.
The schedule should identify the critical path, or those activities that,  if delayed, will negatively impact the overall project completion date.  The critical path enables analysis of the effect delays may have on  the overall schedule.
The schedule should identify float—the amount of time an activity can  slip in the schedule before it affects other activities—so that flexibility  in the schedule can be determined. As a general rule, activities along  the critical path have the least amount of float.
The detailed schedule should be horizontally traceable, meaning that  it should link products and outcomes associated with other  sequenced activities. The integrated master schedule should also be  vertically traceable—that is, varying levels of activities and supporting  subactivities can be traced. Such mapping or alignment of levels  enables different groups to work to the same master schedule.
The schedule should include a schedule risk analysis that uses  statistical techniques to predict the probability of meeting a  completion date. A schedule risk analysis can help management  identify high priority risks and opportunities.
Progress updates and logic provide a realistic forecast of start and  completion dates for program activities. Maintaining the integrity of  the schedule logic at regular intervals is necessary to reflect the true  status of the program. To ensure that the schedule is properly  updated, people responsible for updating should be trained in critical  path method scheduling.
A baseline schedule represents the original configuration of the  program plan and is the basis for managing the project scope, the  time period for accomplishing it, and the required resources.  Comparing the current status of the schedule to the baseline can help  managers target areas for mitigation.
section_title: Appendix III: Assessment of the Extent to Which the Bureau Followed Scheduling Best Practices
paragraphs: Verifying that the schedule is  traceable horizontally and  vertically   Conducting a schedule risk  analysis   Updating the schedule with  actual progress and logic   Legend:  Fully Met: The Bureau provided complete evidence that satisfies the entire criteria.  ◕ Substantially Met: The Bureau provided evidence that satisfies a large portion   of the criteria.  ◓ Partially Met: The Bureau provided evidence that satisfies about half of the criteria.  ◔ Minimally Met: The Bureau provided evidence that satisfies a small portion of the criteria.   Not Met: The Bureau provided no evidence that satisfies any of the criteria.
Assigning resources to all  activities  Establishing the durations of all  activities  Confirming that the critical path  is valid  Verifying that the schedule is  traceable horizontally and  vertically   Conducting a schedule risk  analysis   Updating the schedule with  actual progress and logic   Legend:  Fully Met: The Bureau provided complete evidence that satisfies the entire criteria.  ◕ Substantially Met: The Bureau provided evidence that satisfies a large portion   of the criteria.  ◓ Partially Met: The Bureau provided evidence that satisfies about half of the criteria.  ◔ Minimally Met: The Bureau provided evidence that satisfies a small portion of the criteria.   Not Met: The Bureau provided no evidence that satisfies any of the criteria.
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Commerce
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgment
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: Other key contributors to this report include Ty Mitchell, Assistant  Director; Tom Beall; Juaná Collymore; Rob Gebhart; David Hulett; Andrea  Levine; Jeffrey Niblack; Karen Richey; and Timothy Wexler.