2010 Census
Census Bureau Needs to Take Prompt Actions to Resolve Long-standing and Emerging Address and Mapping Challenges Gao ID: GAO-06-272 June 15, 2006To 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.
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.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-06-272, 2010 Census: Census Bureau Needs to Take Prompt Actions to Resolve Long-standing and Emerging Address and Mapping Challenges
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-272
entitled '2010 Census: Census Bureau Needs to Take Prompt Actions to
Resolve Long-Standing and Emerging Address and Mapping Challenges'
which was released on June 15, 2006.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States Government Accountability Office:
Report to the Congressional Committees:
GAO:
June 2006:
2010 Census:
Census Bureau Needs to Take Prompt Actions to Resolve Long-standing and
Emerging Address and Mapping Challenges:
GAO-06-272:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-272, a report to congressional committees.
Why GAO Did This Study:
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.
What GAO Found:
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.
Figure: Mobile Computing Devices for Collecting and Transmitting Field
Data:
[See PDF for Image]
[End of Figure]
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.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Secretary of Commerce direct the Bureau to
mitigate risks in building its address file and maps. Specific actions
include setting firm dates to complete research and evaluations and
develop resulting action plans; reevaluating the schedule and staffing
workloads for conducting address canvassing; and developing plans to
assess resources needed to update the address file and maps along the
Gulf Coast. In commenting on a draft of this report, Commerce agreed
with each of GAO‘s three recommendations.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-272].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Brenda S. Farrell at
(202) 512-6806 or farrellb@gao.gov.
[End of Section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results In Brief:
Background:
Uncertainties Surround Completion of Ongoing MAF/TIGER Modernization
Research:
Emerging Issues Related to Overlapping and Compressed Schedules Pose a
Risk to MAF/TIGER Modernization Efforts:
Reliability of MCD to Conduct Address Canvassing Activities is Unknown:
Bureau Does Not Have a Specific Plan for Updating MAF/TIGER in the
Aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Commerce:
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Acknowledgments:
Table:
Table 1: Status of Bureau Efforts to Resolve MAF/TIGER Issues:
Figures:
Figure 1: Key Operations Required for a Complete and Accurate MAF/TIGER
for the 2000 Census:
Figure 2: Group Homes Can Resemble Housing Units:
Figure 3: TIGER Map Overlay of an Aerial Photograph:
Figure 4: Devastation in the Lower Ninth Ward in New Orleans,
Louisiana:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
June 15, 2006:
The Honorable Susan M. Collins:
Chairman:
The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Tom Coburn:
Chairman:
The Honorable Thomas R. Carper:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information,
and International Security:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Tom Davis:
Chairman:
The Honorable Henry A. Waxman:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Government Reform:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Michael R. Turner:
Chairman:
The Honorable William Lacy Clay:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Federalism and the Census:
Committee on Government Reform:
House of Representatives:
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.[Footnote 1] 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.
Results In Brief:
While the Bureau's MAF/TIGER modernization efforts have progressed in a
number of areas, it is not clear if research designed to resolve
address-related issues from the last census will be completed in
sufficient time to improve 2010 address-building activities. During the
2000 Census, the Bureau encountered a number of problems with the MAF,
including addresses that were duplicated, missed, deleted, and
incorrectly located on the maps. To address those problems, the Bureau
has been conducting research and testing some operational changes. For
example, the Bureau is researching ways to capture missed addresses for
housing units that were hard to find--often associated with apartments
in small, multi-unit structures. However, some deadlines for completing
research are not firm, while other deadlines that have been set
continue to slip. As a result, it is not known whether the research and
evaluation efforts currently under way 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. 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 if not
detected, can result in reduced accuracy and increased cost.
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 such issue revolves around the planning and development
of the census amid tight and overlapping schedules for updating
addresses and map files. For example, Bureau officials estimate that
TIGER maps for 600 to 700 counties 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)--the Bureau's program to give local, state, and
tribal government officials the opportunity to review the address lists
and maps and suggest corrections. LUCA participation is important
because local knowledge contributes to a more complete and accurate
address file, and not having the most current TIGER maps could affect
the quality of a local government's review. Also, the Bureau has
compressed the time frame for completing address canvassing--an
operation where census workers walk every street in the country to
verify addresses and update maps. The Bureau has allotted 6 weeks for
verifying the nation's inventory of 116 million housing units, although
the Bureau took 18 weeks to complete this operation for the 2000
Census. The time to complete 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. Bureau officials acknowledged the compressed time frame and that,
in some areas of the country, bad weather could result in more time
being needed to complete address canvassing. Bureau officials did not
provide a justification for reducing the amount of time by 12 weeks,
but did state that they would need to adjust staffing levels to meet
workload demands.
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 and test any
refinements. Further, if after the dress rehearsal the MCD is found not
to be reliable, the Bureau could be faced with the remote, but
daunting, possibility of having to revert to a costly paper-based
census used in 2000.
Finally, Bureau officials do not believe they need to have a specific
plan to update the address and maps files for those areas affected by
hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Securing a complete count is difficult
under normal circumstances, and the destruction caused by the
hurricanes makes it even more difficult because the baseline
information the Bureau must work with--streets, housing, and the
population itself--will be in flux for some time to come. Bureau
officials stated that by 2009, when address fieldwork is set to begin,
residents will have decided whether to return to the affected region.
Therefore, they believe that by 2009, they will be in a better position
to add or delete addresses in the Gulf region affected by the
hurricanes. However, Bureau officials could not provide support for the
2009 date, nor have they identified local partners with whom they can
monitor this situation. Given the magnitude of the area affected and
the degree of destruction, this approach may not be adequate. As a
result, the quality of the address and map files could be reduced if
the Bureau is not prepared to conduct address operations in those areas
affected by hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
In conversations with Bureau officials, it became apparent to us that
they are keenly aware of the existing time constraints and challenges
detailed in this report. However, the Bureau had not developed risk
mitigation plans to address these challenges. Our recommendations,
therefore, are intended to make transparent for Bureau 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 the
Bureau may face in 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 help ensure that
the most accurate and complete address file and maps are produced for
the 2010 Census. To facilitate this, we recommend that the Secretary of
Commerce direct the Bureau to address methodological, timing, and
procedural improvements to building its address file and maps. Specific
actions include (1) establishing firm deadlines to complete research,
testing, and evaluations of the MAF to prevent missed, deleted, or
duplicate addresses and map errors, and develop an action plan that
will allow sufficient time to affect the 2010 MAF/TIGER design; (2)
reevaluating 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;
and (3) developing a plan, prior to the start of LUCA in August 2007,
that will assess whether new procedures, additional resources, or local
partnerships are needed to update MAF/TIGER along the Gulf Coast for
areas affected by hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
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.
Background:
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.
Figure 1: Key Operations Required for a Complete and Accurate MAF/TIGER
for the 2000 Census:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
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.[Footnote 2] 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[Footnote 3] 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.[Footnote 4]
Because of the critical role of contractors to help carry out the 2010
Census, we conducted a review of major acquisitions for the 2010
Census. [Footnote 5] 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. [Footnote 6] 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.
Uncertainties Surround Completion of Ongoing MAF/TIGER Modernization
Research:
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.[Footnote 7] 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.
Table 1: Status of Bureau Efforts to Resolve MAF/TIGER Issues:
Types of errors identified in 2000: Missed addresses;
Primary reasons for those errors: Some housing units are difficult to
identify;
Type of dwelling most likely affected: Small multi-unit structures;
Actions taken by Bureau: Testing new method to identify clusters of
small multi-units;
Status of current effort: Testing to be completed by end of 2006.
Types of errors identified in 2000: Improperly deleted addresses;
Primary reasons for those errors: Varied;
Type of dwelling most likely affected: Varied;
Actions taken by Bureau: Tested new method for verifying the status of
all housing units marked as deleted in 2006 address canvassing testing;
Status of current effort: Evaluation was due January 2006 and that date
has been moved to April 2006. The evaluation was not available at the
time of this review.
Types of errors identified in 2000: Duplicate addresses;
Primary reasons for those errors: Redundancy and overlap in the address
list building process; Address lists were created separately for group
quarters and housing units. and some addresses were listed on both
lists;
Type of dwelling most likely affected: Housing unit with a city-style
address. (e.g., 123 Main Street); Group quarters;
Actions taken by Bureau: Tested address-matching software in 2004;
Tested procedures during 2004 and 2006 Census Tests to integrate group
quarters and housing unit address lists;
Status of current effort: Results indicate matching software is not
ready for 2010 Census. 2004 evaluation indicated progress is being made
for integrating address lists. Evaluation of 2006 testing was due May
2006 but was not available at the time of this review.
Types of errors identified in 2000: Geocoding errors;
Primary reasons for those errors: Maps not accurate;
Type of dwelling most likely affected: Varied;
Actions taken by Bureau: Collected GPS coordinates for housing units in
the 2004 and 2006 tests;
Hired contractor to update maps;
Status of current effort: 2004 test results indicate that workers only
used GPS 55 percent of the time. Evaluation was due January 2006 and
that date has been moved to April 2006. The evaluation was not
available at the time of this review. Contractor updating maps and will
be finished in April 2008.
Source: GAO analysis of Census Bureau data.
[End of table]
Research to Identify Hidden Housing Units Is Progressing, but
Completion Date Is Uncertain:
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.[Footnote 8] 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.
Research to Prevent Valid Addresses from Being Deleted Is Ongoing, but
Completion Date Has Slipped:
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[Footnote 9] 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.
Research Efforts on Duplicate Addresses Have Mixed Results:
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[Footnote 10] 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[Footnote 11]). 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.
Figure 2: Group Homes Can Resemble Housing Units:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
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.
Mixed Progress Is Being Made to Properly Identify and Locate Housing
Units on TIGER Maps:
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.[Footnote 12]
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.
Figure 3: TIGER Map Overlay of an Aerial Photograph:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
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.
Emerging Issues Related to Overlapping and Compressed Schedules Pose a
Risk to MAF/TIGER Modernization Efforts:
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.[Footnote 13] 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.
Reliability of MCD to Conduct Address Canvassing Activities is Unknown:
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.
Bureau Is Unable to Complete Address Canvassing Operation Because of
Technical Difficulties with the MCD:
During the address canvassing operation, the technical problems with
the MCDs were so significant that the operation did not finish as
scheduled.[Footnote 14] 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,[Footnote 15] 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.
Bureau Does Not Have a Specific Plan for Updating MAF/TIGER in the
Aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita:
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.
Figure 4: Devastation in the Lower Ninth Ward in New Orleans,
Louisiana:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
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.
Conclusions:
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.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
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.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
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.
Signed by:
Brenda S. Farrell, Acting Director:
Strategic Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
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, when 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.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Commerce:
United States Department Of Commerce:
The Under Secretary for Economic Affairs:
Washington, D.C. 20230:
June 2, 2006
Ms. Brenda S. Farrell:
Acting Director:
Strategic Issues:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Farrell:
The U.S. Department of Commerce appreciates the opportunity to comment
on the United States Government Accountability Office's draft report
entitled 2010 Census: Census Bureau Needs to Take Prompt Actions to
Resolve Long-standing and Emerging Address and Mapping Challenges (GAO-
06-272). I enclose the Department's comments on this report.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Elizabeth R. Anderson:
Enclosure:
Ms. Brenda S. Farrell:
Commerce Control Number 06-001709:
Census Control Number 49503:
DMD:TAngueira:PWhite:5/19/06:
CQAS:Review:lmh:5/19/06;tdw:5/22/06;kem:5/22/06:
CQAS:Final:nth:5/24/06:
cc:
ES, US/EA, CQAS (3), A. Moxam, T. Johnson, M. Raines, N. Gordon, R.
Swartz, J. Waite, J. Taylor, T. Mesenbourg, H. Hogan:
U.S. Department of Commerce Comments on the United States Government
Accountability Office Draft Report Entitled 2010 Census:
Census Bureau Needs to Take Prompt Actions to Resolve Long-standing and
Emerging Address and Mapping Challenges (GAO-06-272) May 2006:
The U.S. Census Bureau generally agrees with the recommendations in
this report, but has some concerns and comments about various
statements and conclusions.
Regarding the recommendations that begin on page 32:
GAO Recommendation: "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
which will allow sufficient time for the Bureau to revise or establish
methodologies and procedures for building the 2010 MAF."
Census Bureau Response: We agree with this recommendation. Throughout
this testing cycle, we have maintained a Coverage Improvement Action
Plan. In this plan are milestones for conducting research related to
improving coverage of housing units in the census. Although this action
plan may not be at the level of detail that GAO is suggesting, it has
served as well in this decade. We have updated it periodically to
reflect results from tests and changes in priorities. Now that the
research is winding down, we agree that we should revise this action
plan again to reflect final milestones for any research we plan to
complete in time for the 2010 Census.
GAO Recommendation: "Reevaluate the 2010 address canvassing schedule in
areas affected by bad weather, as well as its staffing, to ensure that
the status of all housing units are accurately verified throughout the
entire [seems to be a word missing . probably `country']."
Census Bureau Response: We agree with this recommendation. We have
started working on the scheduling challenges associated with extending
the Address Canvassing operation to allow for waves. We are not at the
point where we can commit to a new schedule, but we are committed to
working toward a new schedule.
GAO Recommendation: "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 affected by hurricanes Katrina and Rita."
Census Bureau Response: We agree with this recommendation. We should
have a proposal for any additional work in the areas affected by
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in the near future. Of course, doing
additional work will be subject to obtaining additional funding.
Our specific comments and concerns about the report are as follows:
Highlights page - Here, and throughout this report, there are
statements about testing the Hand Held Computers (HHCs) in 2005. In
order to avoid confusion with our 2005 National Census Test (which did
not include any address listing or field interviewing), these
statements would be clearer if they referred to this testing as part of
the Address Canvassing operation for the 2006 Census Test.
Page 2 - The approximate housing unit count in 2000 was 116 million.
Currently, we estimate there will be close to 130 million housing units
to be enumerated in the 2010 Census.
Page 4 - The research project regarding small multiunit structures is
about avoiding missed units, but is also about duplicate enumerations
caused by confusion during mail delivery, during the non-response
follow-up (NRFU), or during the coverage follow-up operation. If unit
designations are unclear, the Census Bureau will not always be able to
determine which questionnaire was delivered to a particular unit, so it
will not be certain which units to visit during NRFU. This sort of
situation can result in some units being enumerated twice and some not
at all.
Page 4 - Concerning the issue of our study of software to identify
duplicate addresses, we do not think it is accurate to conclude it did
not work. Rather, we found that different types of software did not
work any better at identifying true duplicates than what we already
have in place. Because of the risks of excluding valid addresses by
eliminating duplicates, we will always take a very careful approach to
deleting records from the address list based on matching. While it is
true that duplicate addresses may still be a problem for 2010, a number
of other improvements are tackling that same issue, such as sequential
address list operations, Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates on
structures and maps, and integration of the address lists for housing
units and group quarters. Additionally, the 1.4 million duplicate
addresses deleted from Census 2000 that are referred to did not result
entirely from the lack of this type of address matching.
Page 5 - In paragraph 1, the report states that the Census Bureau
completed Address Canvassing in 18 weeks in 2000, but on the
"Highlights" page up front, it states 8 weeks (which may just be a
typo). Overall, it is not clear whether GAO is comparing the 2010
Census Address Canvassing operation to just the Census 2000 Block
Canvassing operation which lasted 18 weeks, or to the Census 2000
Address Listing operation which lasted 18 weeks, or to both (which
lasted 36 weeks combined).
Page 6 - We will not be identifying housing units as vacant, occupied,
or under construction during our 2009 activities. We only will be
updating the address list by adding or deleting addresses.
Page 6 - We believe the discussion about updating the maps and lists in
the Katrina/Rita areas is not clear. First of all, we need to create
contingency plans for any disaster that impacts our list at any time,
not just this one. Our research to date on the Katrina/Rita areas has
shown that the address list has been impacted much more severely than
the maps. We believe our Address Canvassing operation for the 2010
Census can deal with the impacts on the address file and maps, though
of course we need to be prepared for more extensive updating in these
areas. In addition, we are aware of the sensitive nature of working
with local officials using data that have not been updated since the
catastrophe. We are in the process of addressing this problem on a
number of levels.
Page 9 - The United States Postal Service (LISPS) discussion in this
report should refer specifically to their Delivery Sequence File (DSF)
because there are many other data products that the LISPS provides to
us. We received and processed DSFs through April 2000 for Census 2000,
including a special extract in February 2000 that included only added
units. Later DSF adds were enumerated as part of the Coverage
Improvement Followup operation (CIFU) conducted from July 6 through
August 22, 2000, so it should be listed as well. In addition, the list
should include List/Enumerate areas and remote Alaska. The Local Update
of Census Addresses (LUCA) time line includes the dates for the
separate additional effort to get newly constructed units added to the
list (and enumerated in CIFU), but New Construction was a separate
operation that should be mentioned as such in this section if the time
line is going to include its dates.
Page 10 - The report sometimes refers to the Master Address File (MAF)
and Decennial Master Address File (DMAF) as though they are
interchangeable names for the same thing, and we believe this is
confusing some of the issues you are discussing. Nothing was deleted
from the MAF, and the MAF contains units that were not on the DMAF
(which is an extract from the MAF created for conducting the census).
When the report discusses estimates of misclassifications, this should
refer to the DMAF, not the MAR:
Page 16 - The example given for how the Census Bureau could have
mistakenly deleted an address would better be described as an example
of how any address could be on the MAF but missing from the census.
That is, if the LISPS DSF listed a unit as commercial (nonresidential),
and no contradictory information was received from any of our other
address list development efforts, the address remained on the MAF but
was never added to the DMAF. It is not accurate to say that the Census
Bureau deleted this type of unit.
Page 17 - The report implies that we did not verify deletes in 2000 and
that the 2006 delete verification is new. This is not accurate. For
Census 2000, delete verification was conducted during a separate
operation which followed the operation that identified the potential
delete. For example, addresses classified as delete during Block
Canvassing were verified during the:
1998 LUCA field verification. Similarly, addresses identified as
deletes during NRFU were verified during a separate operation (CIFU),
which did not begin until NRFU was completed. With the use of
automation, we now are able to identify the deletes quickly and send
them back for verification immediately. We believe that doing this
concurrently with the operation (in effect, as a Quality Control
operation) will improve effectiveness and quality because the
verification will happen closer in time to Census Day.
Pages 17 to 20 - The automated detection of duplicates is largely
dependent on the amount and quality of the information being matched.
Our philosophy has been to "favor" the inclusion of addresses in the
census process over the exclusion of addresses. The "unplanned" housing
unit unduplication operation that was done in Census 2000 was
successful at confirming additional duplicates (1.4 million) in large
part because it had the added benefit of decennial person information
to consider during the match. For example, an automated process may not
be able to absolutely determine if 123 Waterway Point is different from
123 South Waterway Point, but when we include as part of the matching
process that a person named John Doe, aged 24, lived at both addresses,
we can be more confident in calling it a duplicate address. The report
indicates we would save money if this unduplication were done prior to
NRFU, but the benefit of the person information is not available before
NRFU and, therefore, we could not get similar results if this operation
were conducted prior to NRFU.
Page 18 - Partly in response to the lessons we learned about
duplication during Census 2000, we are designing our address list
development operations to be sequential in 2010. Also, this paragraph
fails to mention that we maintained one million cases in the census
universe because we believed them to be apartment mix-ups/misdelivery
cases (that should not, therefore, be removed from the census), rather
than just cases where we were uncertain of their existence.
Pages 23 to 24 - The draft report expresses a concern about some areas
not having been completed through the MAF/TIGER Accuracy Improvement
Program (MTAIP, which focuses primarily on improving the positional
accuracy of the roads in TIGER) prior to the start of the LUCA program:
"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.... Not having the most
current TIGER maps could affect the quality of a local government's
review."
The primary focus of the LUCA program is the review and update of the
address list, not the review and update of the associated maps. While
it is true that the LUCA maps for some communities will not reflect the
road positional accuracy improvements and road updates that MTAIP will
yield, this in no way interferes with the ability of the affected LUCA
participants to add to and correct the census address list. The MTAIP,
from its inception, was planned to be completed before the Address
Canvassing operation and is on schedule to meet that objective.
Pages 24 to 27 - The statements about the problems we had with the HHC
for Address Canvassing do not provide sufficient context. Over a year
ago, we stated publicly (on more than one occasion) that we were having
difficulty developing the automated instrument and applications for
address canvassing. At that time, we also made it clear that we would
soon have to decide if enough could be learned by going forward-even
with an imperfect instrument-or whether we would have to cancel the
test. We later decided to go forward with a goal of learning as much as
we could and shared that decision publicly. Therefore, while many of
the problems and issues you raise in your report certainly did arise
during Address Canvassing, we are disappointed that the report provides
none of this background or context for the general reader of the
report.
Page 24 (and on Page 5) - The Census Bureau agrees that the six-week
period of time initially allotted for conducting Address Canvassing in
the 2010 Census was very ambitious. This issue has been under
discussion for quite a while, and those discussions continue. As noted
in this report, some of the reasons for lengthening the operation are
related to staffing and weather concerns, but other reasons relate to
the management effort in the regional offices that would be necessary
to successfully manage and complete an operation of this size in six
weeks.
For example, because Address Canvassing is the first field operation of
the decennial census, an expanded period of time for conducting the
operation would give the regional offices a critically needed
opportunity to train staff, such as area managers and Local Census
Office managers, on a flow basis and improve on what was done in
previous waves, rather than trying to accomplish this task all at once
in a short time frame.
We are committed to working on expanding the length of the Address
Canvassing operation and are currently reviewing the schedule to ensure
that this can be done without a negative impact on other critical
decennial activities. The proposal currently being considered is to
conduct Address Canvassing in three six-week waves, similar to Census
2000. The final wave likely would be primarily for areas that are prone
to severe weather conditions, which make it difficult for field staff
to perform their jobs earlier in the year.
Pages 24 to 27 - Regarding the Field Data Collection Automation (FDCA)
contractor's ability to be ready for the Address Canvassing operation,
the Census Bureau designed the FDCA acquisition strategy to reduce
risks related to cost, schedule, and performance. For example, we
required offerors to develop and demonstrate a working prototype for
Address Canvassing. The acquisition strategy also provided for a series
of technical exchange meetings with each offeror over a period of three
months. As a result of these meetings, offerors had the opportunity to
learn details associated with the field data collection business
processes. The Census Bureau reviewed the completed prototypes in
January 2006, prior to contract award.
On March 30, 2006, the Census Bureau awarded the FDCA contract to the
Harris Corporation. The Harris Team developed the prototype system with
the final solution in mind and plans to refine it, based on prototype
lessons learned and based on the requirements decomposition activity
that must occur between now and the end of the baseline planning phase
in June 2006. The software development for Address Canvassing will
occur between June and December 2006. The build cycle includes
incremental coding and testing of functionality so that we have
visibility into the evolving product, as well as extensive usability
and load testing.
Page 29 - As mentioned in the discussion about page 6 above, we will
not be identifying vacant, occupied, and under-construction units in
advance of the census. Also, we expect that by 2009, the situation on
the ground will resemble what will exist in 2010 much more closely than
what it would be if we were to make corrections to the list at this
point in time. There is, in fact, a team working on the question of how
to reflect the impact of the hurricanes in the MAF. Final
recommendations should be out soon.
Page 30 - Many problems identified in Census 2000 are being tackled on
a variety of fronts, from sequential address list-building operations
to the collection of GPS coordinates for streets and structures and the
recycling of deletes to be validated concurrently with the NRFU
operation. This will simplify our efforts to create complete address
lists; reduce geocoding error, which contributes to a variety of
coverage problems; reduce units deleted in error; and reduce
duplication.
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Brenda S. Farrell, (202) 512-6806 or farrellb@gao.gov:
Acknowledgments:
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.
FOOTNOTES
[1] TIGER is a registered trademark of the U.S. Census Bureau.
[2] The address file used to conduct the decennial census is referred
to as the decennial master address file or DMAF. In this report we
refer to the address file as the master address file (MAF).
[3] The American Community Survey (ACS) will contain the same questions
as the long form, but will be mailed monthly to an annual sample of 3
million housing units. With the smaller sample, the ACS is designed to
provide the same information at the same level of geographic detail as
the long form by means of continuous measurement methodology in which
survey responses will be accumulated over time.
[4] GAO, 2010 Census: Basic Design Has Potential, but Remaining
Challenges Need Prompt Resolution, GAO-05-9 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 12,
2005).
[5] GAO, 2010 Census: Census Bureau Generally Follows Selected Leading
Acquisition Planning Practices, but Continued Management Attention Is
Needed to Help Ensure Success, GAO-06-277 (Washington, D.C.: May 18,
2006).
[6] GAO, Census Bureau: Important Activities for Improving Management
of Key 2010 Decennial Acquisitions Remain to be Done, GAO-06-444T
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 2006).
[7] Another type of MAF error identified by the Bureau is
misclassifying a housing unit as occupied when it is vacant. However,
our focus is on whether an address has been properly captured in the
MAF and not the occupancy status of the address. Therefore, we do not
discuss occupancy errors in this report.
[8] The research project regarding small multiunit structures is also
about avoiding duplicate enumerations caused by confusion during mail
delivery, as well as follow-up operations.
[9] These approximately 653,000 valid addresses that were deleted are a
subset of the 1.3 million addresses mistakenly deleted.
[10] An unduplication operation in the summer of 2000 was implemented
to identify and remove duplicate addresses. This operation was not a
part of the original 2000 Census plan, but was considered necessary.
[11] GAO, 2000 Census: Contingency Planning Needed to Address Risks
That Pose a Threat to a Successful Census, GAO/GGD-00-6 (Washington,
D.C.: Dec. 14, 1999).
[12] GAO, Data Quality: Improvements to Count Correction Efforts Could
Produce More Accurate Census Data, GAO-05-463 (Washington, D.C.: June
20, 2005).
[13] LUCA is an example of how the Bureau partners with external
entities, tapping into their knowledge of local populations and housing
conditions in order to secure a more complete count. In the Census
Address List Improvement Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-430, codified as
13 U.S.C. § 16, Congress required the Bureau to develop a local address
review program to give local and tribal governments greater input into
the Bureau's address list development process.
[14] As noted earlier in this report, during the 2004 Census Test the
Bureau also experienced problems with the MCD (different model than the
one used in the 2006 Census Test) used to collect nonresponse follow-up
data. Specifically, that MCD had difficulties transmitting work and was
slow to load maps.
[15] GAO-06-277.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
