2010 Census
Census Bureau Should Take Action to Improve the Credibility and Accuracy of Its Cost Estimate for the Decennial Census Gao ID: GAO-08-554 June 16, 2008The 2010 Census will be the most expensive census in our nation's history, even after adjusting for inflation. The Census Bureau (Bureau) estimates that the life cycle cost of the 2010 Census will be from $13.7 billion to $14.5 billion. GAO was asked to (1) assess the extent to which the Bureau's 2010 Census life cycle cost estimate adheres to characteristics defined for high-quality cost estimation, (2) report on the relationship between the estimate and the Bureau's budget, and (3) assess whether the Bureau's existing policies and resources are sufficient to conduct cost estimation. To assess the reliability of the Bureau's cost estimate, GAO analyzed the Bureau's methods and approaches to determine if the estimate is well-documented, comprehensive, accurate, and credible.
The Bureau's 2010 Census life cycle cost estimate is not reliable because it lacks adequate documentation and is not comprehensive, accurate, or credible. The Bureau could not provide detailed documentation on data sources, significant assumptions, or changes in assumptions for the cost estimate. The cost estimate is not comprehensive because the Bureau did not include the potential cost to fingerprint temporary workers or clearly define some of the cost elements in the model. The cost estimate is not accurate because it does not reflect updated information on address canvassing productivity that was identified during the dress rehearsal and that should result in a significant cost increase. Further, the Bureau does not maintain historical data in a centralized way that is easily accessible for analysis. The cost estimate is not credible because the Bureau did not perform sensitivity or uncertainty analyses, which would have helped quantify the risk and uncertainty associated with the cost model and provided a level of confidence for the estimate. The Bureau also did not validate the estimate with an independent cost estimate. The Bureau uses the life cycle cost estimate as the starting point for annual budget formulation and revises the life cycle cost estimate based on appropriations received and updated budget information. However, the Bureau does not update the cost estimate to reflect actual costs. Further, because the life cycle cost estimate is not reliable, annual budget requests based on that estimate are not fully informed. The Bureau has insufficient policies and procedures and inadequately trained staff for conducting high-quality cost estimation for the decennial census. The Bureau does not have established cost estimation guidance and procedures in place or staff certified in cost estimation techniques. While the Bureau is developing a new budget management tool called the Decennial Budget Integration Tool, which will support the cost estimation process, the Bureau will need to establish rigorous cost estimation policies and procedures and use skilled estimators to ensure that future cost estimates are reliable and of high quality. On April 3, 2008, the Secretary of Commerce announced a redesign of the 2010 Census plan that included significant cost increases of $2.2 billion to $3 billion. The details of this cost increase were not available at the time of this review; however, until the Bureau makes fundamental changes to its cost estimation process, uncertainties about the ultimate cost of the 2010 Census will remain. Without improvements to the cost estimation process, the Bureau's ability to effectively manage operations will be hampered and Congress's ability to oversee the 2010 Census will be constrained.
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-08-554, 2010 Census: Census Bureau Should Take Action to Improve the Credibility and Accuracy of Its Cost Estimate for the Decennial Census
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-554
entitled '2010 Census: Census Bureau Should Take Action to Improve the
Credibility and Accuracy of Its Cost Estimate for the Decennial Census'
which was released on July 17, 2008.
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.
Report to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
June 2008:
2010 Census:
Census Bureau Should Take Action to Improve the Credibility and
Accuracy of Its Cost Estimate for the Decennial Census:
2010 Census:
GAO-08-554:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-554, a report to the Subcommittee on Commerce,
Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations,
House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The 2010 Census will be the most expensive census in our nation‘s
history, even after adjusting for inflation. The Census Bureau (Bureau)
estimates that the life cycle cost of the 2010 Census will be from
$13.7 billion to $14.5 billion. GAO was asked to (1) assess the extent
to which the Bureau‘s 2010 Census life cycle cost estimate adheres to
characteristics defined for high-quality cost estimation, (2) report on
the relationship between the estimate and the Bureau‘s budget, and (3)
assess whether the Bureau‘s existing policies and resources are
sufficient to conduct cost estimation. To assess the reliability of the
Bureau‘s cost estimate, GAO analyzed the Bureau‘s methods and
approaches to determine if the estimate is well-documented,
comprehensive, accurate, and credible.
What GAO Found:
The Bureau‘s 2010 Census life cycle cost estimate is not reliable
because it lacks adequate documentation and is not comprehensive,
accurate, or credible. The Bureau could not provide detailed
documentation on data sources, significant assumptions, or changes in
assumptions for the cost estimate. The cost estimate is not
comprehensive because the Bureau did not include the potential cost to
fingerprint temporary workers or clearly define some of the cost
elements in the model. The cost estimate is not accurate because it
does not reflect updated information on address canvassing productivity
that was identified during the dress rehearsal and that should result
in a significant cost increase. Further, the Bureau does not maintain
historical data in a centralized way that is easily accessible for
analysis. The cost estimate is not credible because the Bureau did not
perform sensitivity or uncertainty analyses, which would have helped
quantify the risk and uncertainty associated with the cost model and
provided a level of confidence for the estimate. The Bureau also did
not validate the estimate with an independent cost estimate.
The Bureau uses the life cycle cost estimate as the starting point for
annual budget formulation and revises the life cycle cost estimate
based on appropriations received and updated budget information.
However, the Bureau does not update the cost estimate to reflect actual
costs. Further, because the life cycle cost estimate is not reliable,
annual budget requests based on that estimate are not fully informed.
The Bureau has insufficient policies and procedures and inadequately
trained staff for conducting high-quality cost estimation for the
decennial census. The Bureau does not have established cost estimation
guidance and procedures in place or staff certified in cost estimation
techniques. While the Bureau is developing a new budget management tool
called the Decennial Budget Integration Tool, which will support the
cost estimation process, the Bureau will need to establish rigorous
cost estimation policies and procedures and use skilled estimators to
ensure that future cost estimates are reliable and of high quality.
On April 3, 2008, the Secretary of Commerce announced a redesign of the
2010 Census plan that included significant cost increases of $2.2
billion to $3 billion. The details of this cost increase were not
available at the time of this review; however, until the Bureau makes
fundamental changes to its cost estimation process, uncertainties about
the ultimate cost of the 2010 Census will remain. Without improvements
to the cost estimation process, the Bureau‘s ability to effectively
manage operations will be hampered and Congress‘s ability to oversee
the 2010 Census will be constrained.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Secretary of Commerce direct the Bureau to (1)
thoroughly document the 2010 Census life cycle cost estimate; (2)
update assumptions; (3) update the estimate with actual costs; (4)
perform sensitivity and uncertainty analyses on the estimate; and (5)
for future estimates, establish policies and procedures for cost
estimation. Although the Department of Commerce raised concerns about
how GAO characterized the accuracy of the estimate, it generally agreed
with the report‘s findings and said that the Bureau would prepare an
action plan to address GAO‘s recommendations.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-554]. For more information,
contact Mathew Scire at (202) 512-6806 or sciremj@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
The Census Bureau's 2010 Census Life Cycle Cost Estimate Is Not
Reliable:
Unreliable 2010 Census Cost Estimate Does Not Fully Inform Annual
Budgets:
The Bureau Has Insufficient Policies and Inadequately Trained Staff for
Conducting High-Quality Cost Estimation; However, a New System May Help
Improve the Bureau's Cost Estimation Practices:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Commerce:
Table:
Table 1: Bureau's Revised August 2007 Estimate of Life Cycle Costs for
the 2010 Decennial Program (Nominal Year Dollars in Millions):
Figures:
Figure 1: Decennial Census Costs from 1970 through 2010 (Projected) in
Constant 2010 Dollars:
Figure 2: Decennial Census Average Cost per Housing Unit from 1970
through 2010 (Projected) in Constant 2010 Dollars:
Figure 3: 2010 Census Life Cycle Cost Estimate Adjustments for 2003,
2005, 2006, and 2007 (Differences from the 2001 Cost Estimate):
Figure 4: Total Estimated Life Cycle Costs of $11.5 Billion for 2010
Decennial Census, Broken Down by Component (as of August 2007):
Figure 5: Breakdown of Census Life Cycle Costs and Portion of Total
Costs Analyzed for Uncertainty:
Abbreviations:
ACS: American Community Survey:
DAU: Defense Acquisition University:
DBiT: Decennial Budget Integration Tool:
DOD: Department of Defense:
FDCA: Field Data Collection Automation:
HHC: handheld computer:
IG: Inspector General:
LUCA: Local Update of Census Addresses:
MAF: Master Address File:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
TIGER: Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding:
and Referencing:
WBS: work breakdown structure:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
June 16, 2008:
The Honorable Alan B. Mollohan:
Chairman:
The Honorable Rodney P. Frelinghuysen:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
At an estimated cost from $13.7 billion to $14.5 billion, the 2010
Census will be the most expensive census in our nation's history, after
adjusting for inflation. The U.S. Census Bureau (Bureau) faces the
challenge of cost effectively counting a population that is growing
steadily larger, more diverse, and increasingly difficult to enumerate
with a reengineered design that relies in part on automation to locate
housing units. In an environment of constrained resources, containing
costs is a stated goal of the Bureau's design for the 2010 Census.
Earlier this year, we designated the 2010 Census as a high-risk area,
in part because of uncertainty over costs and long-standing weaknesses
in the Bureau's management of information technology intended to
automate the census. In February 2008, the Director of the Bureau
initiated a replanning of the Field Data Collection Automation (FDCA)
program, a major acquisition that includes systems, equipment
(including handheld computers (HHC)), and infrastructure for field
staff to use in collecting data for the 2010 Census. After analyzing
several options to revise the design of the 2010 Decennial Census, the
Secretary of Commerce on April 3, 2008, announced that the Bureau would
no longer use HHCs in its largest field operation--nonresponse follow-
up--in which field workers interview households that did not return
census forms. Additionally, the Bureau decided to have the contractor
for the FDCA program reduce deployment of field technology
infrastructure; provide HHCs for address canvassing, in which field
workers verify addresses; and develop the information system for
controlling all field operations. The Bureau estimated that along with
updating its assumptions, this option would result in a cost increase
of $2.2 billion to $3 billion over the previously reported estimate of
$11.5 billion.
Concerned about the challenges of conducting a cost-effective census,
you asked us to assess the Bureau's life cycle cost estimate for the
2010 Census. As agreed with your offices, our objectives for this
report were to (1) assess the extent to which the Bureau's 2010 Census
life cycle cost estimate adheres to characteristics defined for high-
quality cost estimation, (2) report on the relationship between the
life cycle cost estimate and the Bureau's budget, and (3) assess
whether the Bureau's existing policies and resources are sufficient to
conduct high-quality cost estimation.
For this review, we evaluated the 2010 Census life cycle cost estimate
using the exposure draft of GAO's Cost Assessment Guide.[Footnote 1]
The guide contains criteria for developing reliable cost estimates,
which are aligned with four characteristics: high-quality cost
estimates should be well-documented, comprehensive, accurate, and
credible. During our review we shared the Cost Assessment Guide with
Bureau officials. There are three components of the life cycle cost
estimate: the American Community Survey (ACS),[Footnote 2] the Master
Address File/Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and
Referencing (MAF/TIGER) system,[Footnote 3] and the short form census.
To address our first objective, we performed sensitivity analysis to
identify significant cost drivers, and limited uncertainty analysis on
a portion of the 2006 version of the 2010 short form census life cycle
cost estimate that the Bureau provided to quantify the uncertainty and
provide a level of confidence for the estimate. We also analyzed Bureau
data sets and documents related to the life cycle cost estimate and
interviewed Bureau officials. To address our second objective, we
reviewed policies and procedures for preparing annual budgets and
analyzed Bureau documents related to the annual budget process,
including Bureau budget estimates and worksheets on life cycle costs
prepared for the budget process. We also interviewed Bureau census
program and budget officials to understand the relationship between the
cost estimate and the annual budget process. To address our third
objective, we analyzed Bureau documents related to the life cycle cost
estimate; attended a demonstration of a new Bureau automated budget
system currently being developed that should enable the Bureau, among
other initiatives, to produce better cost estimates; and interviewed
Bureau officials. Appendix I provides additional information on our
scope and methodology. Our analysis of the 2010 life cycle cost
estimate was conducted prior to the redesign of the census and the
subsequent revision of the FDCA program. Detailed cost information was
not available for the Bureau's proposed redesign in time to be analyzed
as part of our scope. We conducted our work from October 2006 to June
2008 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Results in Brief:
The Bureau's 2010 Census life cycle cost estimate is not reliable
because it lacks adequate documentation and is not comprehensive,
accurate, or credible. The Bureau was unable to provide documentation
to support two components of the 2010 Census life cycle cost estimate-
-the ACS and MAF/TIGER--which together accounted for almost 20 percent
of the 2007 total life cycle cost estimate. The Bureau also could not
provide detailed documentation on data sources, significant
assumptions, or changes in assumptions for the third component of the
life cycle cost estimate--the estimated cost of the short form census.
Without detailed documentation, the validity and reliability of the
entire cost estimate cannot be verified. The life cycle cost estimate
for the 2010 Census is not comprehensive because the Bureau did not
include the potential cost to fingerprint temporary workers[Footnote 4]
or clearly define some of the cost elements in the cost model for the
short form component of the census. Without the fingerprinting costs
and without clearly defined cost elements, the Bureau cannot be sure
that all relevant costs have been included, which increases the risk of
underfunding and cost overruns. The life cycle cost estimate for the
2010 Census is also not accurate because the estimated cost of the
short form component does not reflect updated information on
productivity identified during the address canvassing dress rehearsal
operation. As part of our review, we updated the assumption for address
canvassing productivity in the 2006 version of the cost model that was
provided by the Bureau to reflect productivity data from the dress
rehearsal. Updating productivity resulted in a significant increase to
the cost of the address canvassing operation of approximately $270
million. In addition, the Bureau cannot readily demonstrate the
accuracy of the estimate because it does not maintain historical data
in a centralized way that is easily accessible for analysis. Finally,
the life cycle cost estimate for the 2010 Census is not credible
because the Bureau did not perform sensitivity or uncertainty analysis
for the short form component of its cost estimate. Absent this
analysis, the Bureau's ability to identify and focus on major cost
drivers, better understand the potential for cost growth, quantify the
risk and uncertainty associated with the cost model, and provide a
level of confidence for the cost estimate is impeded. Further, the
Bureau did not have an independent cost estimate prepared to try to
validate the life cycle cost estimate.
The Bureau uses the life cycle cost estimate as the starting point for
the annual budget formulation process and revises the life cycle cost
estimate based on appropriations received and updated budget
information. However, the Bureau does not update the cost estimate to
reflect actual costs as they take place over the decade. Further,
because the Bureau does not meet best practices for developing and
maintaining the life cycle cost estimate, annual budget requests based
on the cost estimate are not fully informed.
The Bureau has insufficient policies and inadequately trained staff for
conducting high-quality cost estimation for the decennial census. The
Bureau does not have established cost estimation guidance and
procedures in place, a centralized office that is dedicated to cost
estimation, or staff skilled in cost estimation techniques. The Bureau
is developing a new Decennial Budget Integration Tool (DBiT),[Footnote
5] a budget management tool that will support the cost estimation
process. If properly implemented, DBiT should secure, standardize, and
consolidate budget information and enable the Bureau to maintain better
documentation for cost estimation. However, the Bureau will need to
establish rigorous cost estimation policies and procedures and use
skilled estimators to ensure that future life cycle cost estimates are
reliable and of high quality.
Without improvements in its cost estimation practices, the Bureau's
ability to produce and maintain well-documented, comprehensive,
accurate, and credible life cycle cost estimates for the 2010 and later
censuses, as well as its ability to make informed decisions and
effectively manage costs, will continue to be hampered. Further,
without reliable, valid cost estimates and well-informed budgets,
Congress's ability to oversee the decennial census will be constrained.
To improve the Bureau's life cycle cost estimate for the 2010 Census,
we are recommending that the Secretary of Commerce direct the Bureau to
thoroughly document the estimate, update the assumptions, input actual
cost data so that the estimate reflects current information, and
perform sensitivity and uncertainty analyses on the estimate. To help
ensure that the Bureau produces a reliable, high-quality life cycle
cost estimate for the 2020 decennial census, we recommend that the
Secretary direct the Bureau to establish guidance, policies, and
procedures for conducting cost estimation that would meet best
practices criteria and ensure that it has staff qualified in cost
estimation.
On May 23, 2008, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) forwarded
written comments on a draft of this report. Although Commerce raised
concerns about how GAO characterized the accuracy of the estimate,
Commerce generally agreed with our findings, and indicated that the
Bureau would prepare an action plan in response to the recommendations.
Overall, Commerce stated that as part of the Bureau's action plan, it
would examine GAO's Cost Assessment Guide to determine if it was
possible to make improvements in the short term to its cost estimate
and methods. Commerce further noted that the Bureau already has efforts
under way to improve future cost estimation methods and systems through
the development of the DBiT and was considering hiring additional
skilled cost estimators. Commerce made some suggestions where
additional context or clarification was needed and where appropriate we
made those changes.
Background:
The Bureau's cost projections for the 2010 decennial census continue an
escalating trend, with the 2010 Census currently estimated to cost
approximately $13.7 billion to $14.5 billion. At a March 2008 hearing,
Commerce and the Bureau stated that the FDCA program was likely to
incur significant cost overruns and that a redesigning effort was under
way to try to get the decennial census back on track. In early April,
the Secretary of Commerce chose from among several alternatives for
redesigning the FDCA program, and elected an option that involves
dropping the HHCs from the nonresponse follow-up operation.
Additionally, he decided that the Bureau would reduce deployment of
field technology infrastructure by the contractor and have the
contractor provide HHCs for address canvassing and develop the
information system for controlling field operations. The Bureau has
estimated that, with the redesign option, the total life cycle cost
estimate for the 2010 Census will be from $13.7 billion to $14.5
billion.
Prior to this recent, major redesign of the FDCA program, the Bureau
had estimated the life cycle cost of the 2010 Census to be $11.8
billion (in constant 2010 dollars). As shown in figure 1, this estimate
of $11.8 billion represented a more than tenfold increase over the $1
billion spent on the 1970 Census. Although some of the cost increase
could be expected because the number of housing units--and hence the
Bureau's workload--has increased, the cost growth far exceeded this
increase. Factors contributing to the increased costs include an effort
to accommodate more complex households, busier lifestyles, more
languages and greater cultural diversity, and increased privacy
concerns. The Bureau estimated that the number of housing units for the
2010 Census will increase by almost 14 percent over 2000 Census levels
(from 117.5 million to 133.8 million housing units). At the same time,
the average cost per housing unit for 2010 was expected to increase by
approximately 26 percent over 2000 levels, from $69.79 per housing unit
to $88.19 per housing unit (see fig. 2).
Figure 1: Decennial Census Costs from 1970 through 2010 (Projected) in
Constant 2010 Dollars:
This figure is a bar graph showing Decennial Census costs from 1970
through 2010 (projected) in constant 2010 dollars. The X axis
represents the census year, and the Y axis represents the cost in
billions of dollars.
Census year: 1970;
Cost in billions of dollars: $1.0.
Census year: 1980;
Cost in billions of dollars: $2.6.
Census year: 1990;
Cost in billions of dollars: $4.1.
Census year: 2000;
Cost in billions of dollars: $8.2.
Census year: 2010;
Cost in billions of dollars: $11.8.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Census Bureau figures.
Note: This figure does not reflect the Bureau's estimated increase in
the 2010 Census life cycle cost estimate to a range from $13.7 billion
to $14.5 billion, which the Bureau announced on April 3, 2008, with the
replan of the FDCA program.
[End of figure]
Figure 2: Decennial Census Average Cost per Housing Unit from 1970
through 2010 (Projected) in Constant 2010 Dollars:
This figure is a vertical bar graph showing Decennial Census average
cost per housing unit from 1970 through 2010 (projected) in constant
2010 dollars. The X axis represents the census year, and the Y axis
represents dollars.
Census year: 1970;
Dollars: $14.39.
Census year: 1980;
Dollars: $29.05.
Census year: 1990;
Dollars: $39.61.
Census year: 2000;
Dollars: $69.79.
Census year: 2010 (projected);
Dollars: $88.19.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Census Bureau figures.
Note: This figure does not reflect the Bureau's estimated increase in
the 2010 Census life cycle cost estimate to a range from $13.7 billion
to $14.5 billion, which the Bureau announced on April 3, 2008, with the
replan of the FDCA program.
[End of figure]
The bulk of total life cycle funds for the 2010 Census has yet to be
spent. As shown in table 1, which reflects the Bureau's life cycle cost
estimate for the 2010 Census that was released in September 2007, the
majority of spending will occur from fiscal year 2009 through fiscal
year 2013.
Table 1: Bureau's Revised August 2007 Estimate of Life Cycle Costs for
the 2010 Decennial Program (Nominal Year Dollars in Millions):
Program component: American Community Survey;
FY 2001: $23.6;
FY 2002: $29.0;
FY 2003: $56.8;
FY 2004: $64.1;
FY 2005: $144.1;
FY 2006: $167.8;
FY 2007: $176.4;
FY 2008 request: $187.2;
Subtotal FY01-08: $849.0;
FY2009-2013 (est.) $884.6;
Total (est.) $1,733.5.
Program component: MAF/TIGER enhancements program;
FY 2001: 0;
FY 2002: 15.0;
FY 2003: 47.0;
FY 2004: 82.4;
FY 2005: 81.2;
FY 2006: 78.8;
FY 2007: 64.6;
FY 2008 request: 58.7;
Subtotal FY01-08: 427.6;
FY2009-2013 (est.) 85.9;
Total (est.) $513.5.
Program component: 2010 Census (short form portion);
FY 2001: 0;
FY 2002: 21.0;
FY 2003: 41.6;
FY 2004: 106.0;
FY 2005: 163.0;
FY 2006: 201.2;
FY 2007: 272.3;
FY 2008 request: 551.3;
Subtotal FY01-08: 1,356.3;
FY2009-2013 (est.) 7,923.0;
Total (est.) $9,279.3.
Program component: Total;
FY 2001: $23.6;
FY 2002: $65.0;
FY 2003: $145.4;
FY 2004: $252.5;
FY 2005: $388.3;
FY 2006: $447.8;
FY 2007: $513.3;
FY 2008 request: $797.1;
Subtotal FY01-08: $2,623.9;
FY2009- 2013 (est.) $8,893.4;
Total (est.) $11,526.4.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau.
Notes: The estimates reflect actual appropriations through fiscal year
2007 and the President's budget request to Congress for fiscal year
2008. These figures have not been audited by GAO. Moreover, these
figures do not reflect the Bureau's estimated increase in the 2010
Census life cycle cost estimate to a range from $13.7 billion to $14.5
billion, which the Bureau announced on April 3, 2008, with the replan
of the FDCA program.
[End of table]
In reengineering the 2010 Census, the Bureau has four goals: to (1)
improve the relevance and timeliness of census long form data, (2)
reduce operational risk, (3) increase the coverage and accuracy of the
census, and (4) contain costs. To achieve these goals, three new
components are key to the Bureau's plans for 2010:
* modernizing and enhancing the nation's road map through the MAF/TIGER
enhancement program, which includes realigning the TIGER map to take
advantage of global positioning system capabilities, modernizing the
processing system, and expanding geographic partnerships;[Footnote 6]
* replacing the census long form questionnaire with a more frequent
sample survey, the ACS; and:
* conducting a short-form-only census using automation to collect
census data.
Prior to 2010, the decennial census collected data using both a short
and long form questionnaire: the short form counted the population, and
the long form obtained demographic, housing, social, and economic
information from a 1-in-6 sample of households. The ACS is a nationwide
survey that is replacing the decennial long form in the reengineered
2010 Census. The ACS, which was first implemented in 2005, collects
detailed characteristics data every year throughout the decade using a
large household survey. The ACS has allowed the Bureau to simplify the
2010 Census since it will now only involve the short form.
In June 2001, the Bureau issued a document describing the process for
reengineering the 2010 Census, which included a life cycle cost
estimate for the 2010 decennial census, projected at $11.28
billion.[Footnote 7] Since June 2001, the Bureau has updated the life
cycle cost estimate for the reengineered 2010 Census and issued formal
documents describing the estimate in June 2003, September 2005, June
2006, and September 2007.[Footnote 8] In February 2008, the Bureau's
Budget Estimates as Presented to Congress, Fiscal Year 2009 included a
new life cycle cost estimate for the 2010 Decennial Census of $11.546
billion, an increase of $20 million over the previous year's
estimate.[Footnote 9] As described above, in April 2008, the Secretary
of Commerce testified that the current estimate for the 2010 Census is
from $13.7 billion to $14.5 billion.
The 2001 through 2007 life cycle cost documents issued by the Bureau
illustrate that the costs of the three components--the ACS, MAF/TIGER
modernization, and short-form-only census--fluctuated slightly over
that period. The total life cycle costs ranged from a low of $11.2546
billion in the September 2005 and June 2006 documents to a high of
$11.5264 billion in the September 2007 document. Figure 3 depicts how
the estimated life cycle cost for the 2010 Census fluctuated in Bureau
documents from 2001 to 2007. This year, however, the Bureau estimates
that the life cycle cost of the census will increase by up to $3
billion--dwarfing all previous increases.
Figure 3: 2010 Census Life Cycle Cost Estimate Adjustments for 2003,
2005, 2006, and 2007 (Differences from the 2001 Cost Estimate):
This figure is a bar graph showing 2010 Census life cycle cost estimate
adjustments for 2003, 2005, 2006, and 2007. The dollars are represented
as dollars in millions.
2001 initial estimate: $11,280 million dollars;
Programs: ACS;
Dollars in millions: -$124.7;
2003 total estimate: $11,309.7.
Programs: MAF/TOGER;
Dollars in millions: $1.6;
2003 total estimate: $11,309.7.
Programs: 2010 Census;
Dollars in millions: $152.8;
2003 total estimate: $11,309.7.
Programs: Net difference from 2001;
Dollars in millions: $29.7;
2003 total estimate: $11,309.7.
: ACS;
Dollars in millions: -$12.7;
2005 total estimate: $11,254.6.
Programs: MAF/TOGER;
Dollars in millions: -$0.7;
2005 total estimate: $11,254.6.
Programs: 2010 Census;
Dollars in millions: -$12.1;
2005 total estimate: $11,254.6.
Programs: Net difference from 2001;
Dollars in millions: -$25.4;
2005 total estimate: $11,254.6.
Programs: ACS;
Dollars in millions: -$18.1;
2006 total estimate: $11,254.6.
Programs: MAF/TOGER;
Dollars in millions: -$0.7;
2006 total estimate: $11,254.6.
Programs: 2010 Census;
Dollars in millions: -$6.6;
2006 total estimate: $11,254.6.
Programs: Net difference from 2001;
Dollars in millions: -$25.4;
2006 total estimate: $11,254.6.
Programs: ACS;
Dollars in millions: $13.5;
2007 total estimate: $11,526.4.
Programs: MAF/TOGER;
Dollars in millions: -$21.5;
2007 total estimate: $11,526.4.
Programs: 2010 Census;
Dollars in millions: $254.3;
2007 total estimate: $11,526.4.
Programs: Net difference from 2001;
Dollars in millions: $246.4;
2007 total estimate: $11,526.4.
[See PDF for image]
Note: This figure does not reflect the Bureau's estimated increase in
the 2010 Census life cycle cost estimate to a range from $13.7 billion
to $14.5 billion, which the Bureau announced on April 3, 2008, with the
replan of the FDCA program.
[End of figure]
In January 2004, we reported that the Bureau's approach had the
potential to achieve the first three goals for reengineering the 2010
Census, although reducing operational risk could prove to be difficult
because each of the three components actually introduced new risks, and
the Bureau would be challenged to control the cost of the 2010
Census.[Footnote 10] To manage the 2010 Census and contain costs, we
recommended in our 2004 report that the Bureau develop a comprehensive,
integrated project plan for the 2010 Census that should include
itemized estimated costs of each component, including a sensitivity
analysis, and an explanation of significant changes in the assumptions
on which these costs are based. In response, the Bureau provided us
with the 2010 Census Operations and Systems Plan, dated August 2007.
This plan represented an important step forward at the time. It
included inputs and outputs and described linkages among operations and
systems. However, it did not include sensitivity analysis, risk
mitigation plans, a detailed 2010 Census timeline, or itemized
estimated costs of each component. With the redesign, this plan will
need to be updated.
The Census Bureau's 2010 Census Life Cycle Cost Estimate Is Not
Reliable:
The 2010 Census Life Cycle Cost Estimate Is Not Adequately Documented:
The Bureau's life cycle cost estimate for the 2010 Census is not
adequately documented. The Bureau could not provide adequate
documentation to support the costs of two of the three components of
the total life cycle cost estimate, the ACS and MAF/TIGER components,
which together accounted for close to 20 percent of total life cycle
costs in the 2007 life cycle cost estimate. Figure 4 shows the three
major components of the total life cycle cost of $11.5 billion as of
August 2007.
Figure 4: Total Estimated Life Cycle Costs of $11.5 Billion for 2010
Decennial Census, Broken Down by Component (as of August 2007):
This figure is a pie chart of total estimated life cycle cost of $11.5
billion for 2010 Decennial Census broken down by component (as of
August 2007).
Estimated life cycle costs for 2010 Decennial Census Program August
2007 (Nominal year dollars in millions):
2010 Census Short Form: ($9,279.30): 81%;
MAF/TIGER: ($513.50): 4%;
ACS: ($1,733.50): 15%.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Census Bureau figures.
Note: This figure does not reflect the Bureau's estimated increase in
the 2010 Census life cycle cost estimate to a range from $13.7 billion
to $14.5 billion, which the Bureau announced on April 3, 2008, with the
replan of the FDCA program.
[End of figure]
Costs for the ACS and MAF/TIGER are estimated outside of the cost model
that is used for the 2010 short form census. According to Bureau
officials, they were not able to locate specific documentation for how
the Bureau first calculated the costs for those components of the 2010
Census life cycle cost estimate in 2001, although they explained that
experienced staff derived the estimates based on professional
expertise, similar surveys, comparative costs for similar projects, and
other factors.
We requested documentation that supported the assumptions for the
initial 2001 life cycle cost estimate as well as the updates, but
Bureau officials were unable to demonstrate that support existed. The
Bureau did not provide detailed documentation for data sources and
significant assumptions used in estimating the cost of the short form
2010 Census. For example, the Bureau's first document describing the
life cycle cost estimate for the 2010 Census, which was issued in June
2001,[Footnote 11] includes a number of assumptions for expected areas
of savings that would be achieved by the reengineered design. One
assumption is that the follow-up workload for the Local Update of
Census Addresses (LUCA) program[Footnote 12] will be reduced by 25
percent as a result of updating the address list throughout the decade
and using HHCs to reduce time and travel costs. However, the document
does not fully describe how the 25 percent reduction was calculated or
what the associated savings might be.
Similarly, the Bureau did not provide detailed documentation for the
updated life cycle cost estimate for the 2010 short form that was
issued in 2003, which includes several changes to assumptions.[Footnote
13] For example, the Bureau describes how increases of $128 million
have been made to the life cycle cost estimate based on new
requirements, including the need for more research on ways to reduce
duplicate enumerations, more testing and development on how to identify
and enumerate special places/group quarters, and additional efforts to
research and test methods for enumerating Americans overseas. However,
the document does not describe how the $128 million increase was
derived, the costs associated with each of the new requirements, or the
data sources and calculation methods used.
Cost estimates are well documented when they can be easily repeated or
updated and can be traced to original sources. The documentation should
explicitly identify the primary methods, calculations, assumptions, and
sources of the data used to generate each cost element. The estimating
process should be described and an explanation provided for why
particular methods and data sets were chosen and why these choices are
reasonable. All the steps involved in developing the estimate should be
documented so that a cost analyst unfamiliar with the program could re-
create it with the same result. In addition, documentation for the cost
estimate should reflect changes in technical or program assumptions or
new program phases or milestones.
Officials acknowledged that the Bureau does not have a centralized
location in which to keep detailed documentation to support the
assumptions and decision-making process. Further, Bureau officials
stated that there is no written documentation of the process used by
management to agree upon particular assumptions for use in the life
cycle cost estimate, and that there is no systematic documentation
regarding management decisions to make changes to the cost model or
life cycle cost estimates. According to an official, changes to the
cost model have not always been well documented, and sometimes a
decision memo is created to justify a change but not always. Best
practices call for management approval of the cost estimate. Management
approval of the cost estimate should also be documented, including
management approval memorandums or recommendations for change, as well
as management feedback.
Lack of documentation was also identified as an issue for the 2000
Census life cycle cost estimate. An independent assessment of the prior
Census 2000 life cycle cost model that was issued in 1997 found that
input data and assumptions used in the 2000 model typically came from
other offices and were based on historical observation, professional
judgment, or both. The assessment concluded that the Bureau did not
have documentation readily available for external use on the underlying
basis of the 2000 cost estimate, input assumptions, or process
characteristics.[Footnote 14]
As a result of insufficient documentation, the validity and reliability
of the Bureau's life cycle cost estimate for the 2010 Decennial Census
cannot be verified. Not having adequate documentation also impedes the
Bureau's ability to support the decennial decision-making process,
inform future estimates, and facilitate oversight by Congress.
Bureau officials indicated that they understand that the Bureau's cost
estimation process needs to be improved and are currently developing
DBiT, which should improve documentation for the cost estimates. DBiT,
which is described in more detail later in this report, is being
incrementally implemented and will not be fully functional until after
2010.
The 2010 Census Life Cycle Cost Estimate Is Not Comprehensive:
The 2010 Census life cycle cost estimate is not comprehensive because
the Bureau did not include all potential costs or clearly define some
of the cost elements in the model for the short form Census. In
February 2008, Commerce's Inspector General (IG) reported that the
fiscal year 2009 budget request did not include the cost to fingerprint
some 900,000 temporary workers to be hired for the 2010 Census. In
addition, the Bureau provided documentation that the life cycle cost
estimate did not include the cost to fingerprint temporary workers. A
cost estimate is comprehensive when it accounts for all possible costs.
According to the IG, the Bureau has not included the cost for
fingerprinting temporary staff. After discussions with Commerce, the
Office of Personnel Management, and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the Bureau decided to require fingerprinting.[Footnote
15] In the previous two decennials, the Bureau obtained criminal
history records for temporary decennial applicants using only a name
check. The Bureau estimates that the cost to fingerprint all temporary
staff could be about $450 million. Thus, there is a risk that the life
cycle cost estimate has been substantially understated.
The Bureau also did not have detailed descriptions for some of the cost
elements in the model or explanations of how individual cost elements
were related. For example, when we analyzed the fiscal year 2006
version of the cost model for the short form component of the 2010
Census, we found that $2.7 billion in the Other Objects category were
fixed dollar amounts. The Bureau did not provide detailed descriptions,
equations, or support to explain how individual cost elements within
the Other Objects category were produced or related. Bureau officials
stated that most of the costs in this category were associated with
contracts, travel, supplies, and training. Further, the Bureau does not
have a work breakdown structure (WBS) that clearly identifies and
defines all costs contained in the short form cost estimate. A WBS
defines the work necessary to accomplish a program's objectives.
A comprehensive cost estimate's level of detail ensures that all
pertinent cost elements are included and that no costs are double
counted. A comprehensive cost estimate also includes a clearly defined
WBS. A WBS reflects the requirements, resources, and tasks that must be
accomplished to develop a program. The WBS should have a dictionary
that defines each cost element and how it relates to others, clearly
describes what is and is not included in each element, describes
resources and processes necessary to produce the element, and links
each element to other relevant technical documents. A WBS clearly
defines the logical relationship of all program elements and provides a
systemic and standardized way for collecting data, communicates to
everyone what needs to be done and how activities relate to one
another, and is an essential part of developing a cost estimate for a
program.
When we asked for documentation for the cost elements in the Other
Objects category, the Bureau was not able to provide support for all
the cost elements and agreed that the documentation supporting cost
elements in the model was not clear. Without clearly defined cost
elements or a well-developed WBS, the Bureau cannot be sure that the
cost estimate captures all relevant costs, which increases the risk of
underfunding and cost overruns. Having cost, schedule, and technical
information organized by the WBS hierarchical structure would allow the
Bureau to summarize data, provide valuable information at any phase of
the program, and assess progress against the cost estimate plan. This
would help keep program status current and visible, so that risks could
be managed or mitigated quickly. Without a WBS, it is difficult (if not
impossible) for Bureau managers to analyze the causes of cost,
schedule, or technical problems and choose an optimum solution to fix
the problems. As part of the new DBiT system, the Bureau expects to
have the capacity to develop a WBS that includes a data dictionary that
defines variables, key terms, and categories.
The 2010 Census Life Cycle Cost Estimate Is Not Accurate:
The Bureau's 2010 Census life cycle cost estimate is not accurate
because it does not reflect an important change to a key assumption
that affects cost. The assumption for productivity during address
canvassing that was in the Bureau's fiscal year 2009 President's Budget
life cycle cost estimate of $11.546 billion did not reflect recent
productivity data from last year's address canvassing dress rehearsal.
According to the Bureau, the 2010 Census cost model initially assumed
productivity for address canvassing to be 25.6 addresses per hour for
urban/suburban areas. However, results from the 2008 address canvassing
dress rehearsal showed productivity of 13.4 addresses per hour for
urban/suburban areas. According to the 2009 President's Budget request,
the life cycle cost estimate did increase by $20 million, but this
increase was attributed to other factors and not to lower-than-expected
address canvassing productivity.
An estimate is accurate when it is based on an assessment of the costs
most likely to be incurred. When costs change, best practices require
cost model assumptions to be updated as new information becomes
available. Although the Bureau assessed productivity for the address
canvassing operation, it is not clear why the cost estimate was not
updated. A senior Bureau official confirmed that the estimate had not
been updated but was now being updated to reflect changes in
assumptions. It is important that as part of the replan, the Bureau
update assumptions for productivity. The Bureau also expects to update
assumptions for the number of hours field staff may work in a given
week. The model assumes 27.5 hours per week, but the Bureau now expects
this to be 18. This will make it necessary to hire more workers and,
therefore, procure more HHCs.
As a result of not updating the cost estimate to reflect an expected
decrease in productivity, the cost estimate for the 2010 address
canvassing operation in the fiscal year 2009 President's Budget is
understated. As part of our review, we updated the assumption for
address canvassing productivity in the 2006 version of the cost model
that was provided to us by the Bureau to reflect the productivity data
for the number of addresses completed per hour from the dress
rehearsal. Updating this productivity assumption resulted in a
significant increase of approximately $270 million to the cost of the
address canvassing operation.
Further, the Bureau cannot readily demonstrate the accuracy of its cost
estimates because it does not maintain historical data, which include
previous versions of the estimate, in a centralized, standard format
that is readily available. We requested all documentation for the life
cycle cost estimate, including support for the initial estimate created
in 2001 and for updates in 2003, 2005, 2006, and 2007. However, the
Bureau did not have previous versions of the estimate available for
analysis. Best practices for ensuring an accurate cost estimate call
for historical data to be maintained for evaluation purposes,
documenting lessons learned, and informing future cost estimates.
Bureau officials told us that the Bureau maintains historical cost data
in data warehouses that are separate from the cost model, and that this
information was not easily accessible. Not having historical data
readily available in a standardized, accessible format hampers the
Bureau's ability to track and evaluate changes in the cost estimate
over time, document lessons learned, and inform future cost estimates.
The 2010 Census Life Cycle Cost Estimate Is Not Credible:
The Bureau has not carried out analyses that would demonstrate that its
life cycle cost estimate for the 2010 short form Census is credible.
Specifically, Bureau officials told us that the Bureau has not
conducted formal sensitivity analysis to fully assess how sensitive the
short form cost estimate is to changes in key assumptions and
parameters. The Bureau also has not conducted uncertainty analysis to
quantify the uncertainty of its short form cost estimate or provide a
level of confidence associated with the point estimate.[Footnote 16]
Finally, the Bureau did not have the 2010 short form Census life cycle
cost estimate validated through an independent cost estimate.
Cost estimates are credible when major assumptions have been varied and
other outcomes recomputed to determine how sensitive outcomes are to
changes in the assumptions, when risk and uncertainty analyses have
been performed to determine the level of risk associated with the
estimate, and when the estimate's results have been cross-checked and
an independent cost estimate has been developed to determine whether
other estimating methods produce similar results. Sensitivity analysis
should be included in all cost estimates as a best practice because all
estimates have some uncertainty. A sensitivity analysis addresses some
of the estimating uncertainty by testing discrete cases of assumptions
and other factors that could change. By examining each assumption or
factor independently, while holding all others constant, the cost
estimator can evaluate the results to discover which assumptions or
factors most influence the estimate.[Footnote 17] However, because many
parameters could change at the same time, uncertainty analysis should
also be performed to capture the cumulative effect of additional risks.
Uncertainty analysis adds to the credibility of a cost estimate because
it quantifies the uncertainty and provides a level of confidence
associated with the point estimate. The results of a high-quality,
reliable cost estimate should also be cross-checked, and an independent
cost estimate should be developed to determine whether other estimating
methods produce similar results. An independent cost estimate is
considered to be one of the most reliable validation methods. An
independent cost estimate is typically performed by organizations
higher in the decision-making process than the office performing the
baseline cost estimate, using different estimating techniques and,
where possible, different data sources from those used to develop the
baseline cost estimate.
Bureau officials told us that while staff have not conducted formal
sensitivity analysis, they have carried out some "what-if" analysis to
assess the impact of changes to some assumptions. According to Bureau
officials, DBiT, which is under development, will provide the Bureau
with the capability to perform sensitivity and uncertainty analyses for
the life cycle cost estimate for the decennial census in the future,
although officials did not confirm that the Bureau plans to do these
analyses.
Given the importance of sensitivity and uncertainty analyses for
producing a high-quality cost estimate, we conducted these analyses for
the short form census life cycle cost estimate, using cost model data
provided by the Bureau in November 2006. However, as described in
earlier sections, the Bureau provided incomplete documentation on cost
elements and assumptions included in the short form life cycle cost
estimate. As a result, we would only be able to conduct uncertainty
analysis on a portion of the total life cycle costs of the 2010 Census.
We determined that the results of uncertainty analysis conducted on
only a portion of the total life cycle costs would not be meaningful.
See appendix I for a more detailed explanation of the portion of total
life cycle costs for which the Bureau provided information that would
permit uncertainty analysis.
Performing sensitivity analysis for the 2010 Census life cycle cost
estimate would help Bureau managers identify and focus on key elements
with the greatest effects on cost and understand the potential for cost
growth and the reasons for it. It could also influence Bureau decisions
affecting the design and operation of the census. Because the Bureau
has not conducted uncertainty analysis, it is unable to provide
Congress with a confidence level for its total 2010 Census life cycle
cost estimate. Performing uncertainty analysis would enable the Bureau
to quantify the risk and uncertainty associated with the cost model;
provide a level of confidence for its cost estimate; and give decision
makers perspective on the potential variability of the cost estimate
should facts, circumstances, and assumptions change. It would also
identify the amount of increased investment needed to reach specific
higher levels of certainty and could help establish a defensible level
of contingency reserves. The results of an independent cost estimate
could help validate the Bureau's 2010 Census life cycle cost estimate
and provide an objective and unbiased assessment of whether the cost
estimate can be achieved, reducing the risk that the census would be
underfunded.
Unreliable 2010 Census Cost Estimate Does Not Fully Inform Annual
Budgets:
The Bureau uses the life cycle cost estimate as the starting point for
annual budget formulation. However, the Bureau does not follow best
practices for developing and maintaining the life cycle cost estimate,
as previously described, so annual budget requests based on the cost
estimate are not fully informed. In addition, while the Bureau revises
the life cycle cost estimate based on appropriations received and
updated budget information, the Bureau does not update the cost
estimate to reflect actual costs.
The Bureau uses the 2010 Census life cycle cost estimate to set initial
allocations when preparing the annual budget submission. The decennial
census life cycle cost estimate is the starting point for the budget
formulation process each year. Officials explained that the Decennial
Management Division sends information from the life cycle cost estimate
to the Budget Division, which uses that information to determine
program allocations by subactivity in the "budget call" memo that goes
out to program offices in January or February.[Footnote 18] However,
because the life cycle cost estimate is not valid and reliable, as
described above, budget requests based on that estimate are not fully
informed.
The Bureau updates the 2010 life cycle cost estimate to reflect
appropriations for specific fiscal years but does not update the cost
estimate with actual costs as they take place over the decade.
According to Bureau officials, they continually revise the life cycle
cost estimate based on changes resulting from the Commerce and Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) passback processes,[Footnote 19] and
once they submit the budget to Congress, they revise the life cycle
cost estimate to match what is in the budget submission, including
outyears. Bureau 2010 Census life cycle cost estimate documents for
2003, 2005, 2006, and 2007 contain tables showing enacted
appropriations figures for past years and text explanations that the
updated estimates reflect actual appropriations and submitted budget
requests. However, Bureau officials said that the Bureau does not
analyze the accuracy of the life cycle cost estimate each year, such as
by comparing the estimate to actual costs at the end of the year, or
update the estimate with actual costs.
A high-quality cost estimate is the foundation of a good budget. A
major purpose of a cost estimate is to support the budget process by
providing an estimate of the funding required to efficiently execute a
program. Because most programs do not remain static but tend to evolve
over time, developing a cost estimate should not be a onetime event but
rather a recurrent process. Our Cost Assessment Guide explains that a
cost estimate should be a "living" document that is continually updated
as actual costs begin to replace original estimates, so that it remains
relevant and current. Effective program and cost control requires
ongoing revisions to the cost estimate and budget.
When we asked why the Bureau does not update the 2010 life cycle cost
estimate with actual cost data, a budget official told us that actual
cost information can be incurred over multiple fiscal years, and it
would be difficult to compare this information to the annual framework
used for the cost estimate. For budget purposes, the Bureau updates the
life cycle cost estimate every year based on appropriations figures
instead of actual cost data, because appropriations data are attributed
to single fiscal years and are easier to work with than actual cost
data.
Using a reliable life cycle cost estimate to formulate the budget could
help the Bureau ensure that all costs are fully accounted for so that
resources are adequate to support the program. Credible cost estimates
could also help the Bureau effectively defend budgets to a department
secretary, OMB, or Congress. In addition, the Bureau could use the cost
estimate to help determine how budget cuts might hinder the census
program's progress or effectiveness. Moreover, because the Bureau does
not update the life cycle cost estimate with actual cost data, the
Bureau will not have the ability to keep the estimate current or
document lessons learned for cost elements whose actual costs differ
from the estimate.
Concerns about the soundness of the life cycle cost estimate and the
quality of annual budgets related to the 2010 Census are particularly
important because the bulk of funds will be spent from fiscal years
2009 through 2013, as shown in table 1.
The Bureau Has Insufficient Policies and Inadequately Trained Staff for
Conducting High-Quality Cost Estimation; However, a New System May Help
Improve the Bureau's Cost Estimation Practices:
The Bureau has insufficient policies and inadequately trained staff for
conducting high-quality cost estimation. The Bureau does not have
formal cost estimation policies and procedures. The Bureau also does
not have skilled cost estimators or a centralized office dedicated to
cost estimation. According to Bureau officials, although multiple staff
members with various census backgrounds and experiences from across 25
divisions develop information for use in the cost estimate, we found
that staff are not adequately trained in cost estimation. Bureau
officials told us that most of the managers have project management
certificates or training, which includes classes in cost estimation.
However, the classes were designed more to provide program management
with a general understanding of cost estimation rather than to provide
in-depth training to the actual cost estimators.
In order to consistently develop reliable cost estimates, it is
important for an agency to have defined policies and procedures to
govern the process. Cost estimating best practices were developed to
help agencies establish appropriate policies and procedures for
producing estimates that adhere to the characteristics of high-quality
cost estimation. An agency's cost assessment team should include
members who are experienced and trained in conducting cost estimation.
Further, centralizing the cost estimating team and process (including
cost analysts working in one group but supporting many programs)
represents a cost estimating team best practice. Since the experience
and skills of the members of a cost estimating team are important, some
organizations have chosen to establish training programs and
certification procedures. For example, the Department of Defense (DOD)
established the Defense Acquisition University (DAU), which provides
basic, intermediate, and advanced certification training as well as
continuous learning opportunities. Although DAU's primary mission is to
train DOD employees, all federal employees are eligible to attend,
including Bureau employees.
Bureau officials understand that the Bureau's cost estimation process
needs to be improved and are currently developing DBiT, a budget
management tool that will support the process underlying the generation
of cost estimates by facilitating, managing, and documenting changes in
variables and assumptions that support the cost estimates. If properly
implemented, DBiT should secure, standardize, and consolidate budget
information and enable the Bureau to maintain better documentation for
cost estimation. Further, DBIT is supposed to enhance access to budget
data and increase the ability to model, formulate, execute, and report
the decennial census budget. Officials told us that DBiT would have the
ability to download data from the budget database, thus facilitating
linkages between the life cycle cost estimate and budget preparation
processes. Bureau officials also said that the Cost and Progress
system, which tracks the actual cost of operations, would not link to
DBiT. Without this capability, the Bureau will not be able to
systematically update the estimate with actual costs. However, Bureau
officials indicated that they might consider linking the two systems in
the future.
Bureau officials also said that DBiT will enable the Bureau to save
different versions of the cost model and will provide them with the
capability to use software packages such as Crystal Ball to perform
sensitivity and uncertainty analyses on its estimates. However,
officials did not assert their intention to conduct these analyses.
DBiT is being incrementally implemented and will not be fully
functional until after 2010.
While DBiT should improve the Bureau's systems for developing budgets
and the life cycle cost estimate for the 2020 Census, the Bureau will
still need established policies and procedures for conducting cost
estimation and skilled estimators. Policies and procedures to govern
the process as well as a dedicated office that is supported by properly
trained staff are the foundation for a reliable cost estimate. Not
having the tools and people in place for the 2010 Census has impeded
the Bureau's ability to produce a sufficiently documented,
comprehensive, accurate, and credible cost estimate.
Conclusions:
On April 3, 2008, the Secretary of Commerce presented a redesigned 2010
Census plan with significant cost increases. However, until the Bureau
makes fundamental changes to how it estimates and updates cost
information, uncertainties about the ultimate cost of the 2010 Census
will remain. The Bureau's ability to produce well-documented,
comprehensive, accurate, and credible cost estimates for the 2010 and
future decennial censuses and its ability to effectively manage
operations and contain costs will continue to be hampered unless
improvements are made to its cost estimation processes and systems.
Specifically, without full documentation of the data sources,
assumptions, and calculation methods the Bureau uses, the 2010 life
cycle cost estimate cannot be validated, nor can the Bureau understand
and explain differences between estimated and actual costs--an
important step in improving future cost estimates. Also, without
updating assumptions for the 2010 life cycle cost estimate and making
clear what the underlying assumptions are, the Bureau cannot ensure
that it is providing the most up-to-date and accurate cost estimates to
OMB and Congress. Further, without conducting sensitivity and
uncertainty analyses on the 2010 life cycle cost estimate, the Bureau
is unable to identify and focus on major cost drivers, understand the
potential for cost growth, and quantify the risk and uncertainty
associated with the cost estimate. Finally, without established
policies and procedures and qualified staff, the Bureau's ability to
produce high-quality cost estimates for the 2010 Census and future
censuses will be limited.
Along with the new cost estimate, the Secretary of Commerce outlined
major changes to the 2010 Census design. Changes this late in the
decade significantly increase the risk to the success of the 2010
Census. These changes, during an era of serious national budget
challenges, make it important for Bureau managers to efficiently manage
the new design in order to contain costs. Furthermore, careful
monitoring and oversight by Commerce, Congress, and other key
stakeholders are more critical than ever.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To improve the Bureau's life cycle cost estimates for the decennial
census, we recommend that the Secretary of Commerce direct the U.S.
Census Bureau to take the following five actions:
1. To improve the quality and transparency of the Bureau's 2010 Census
life cycle cost estimate, assist the Bureau in managing costs during
design revisions resulting from problems with the HHCs, and help
establish a sound basis for the 2020 Census cost estimate, the Bureau
should thoroughly document the 2010 Census life cycle cost estimate.
Specifically, documentation should be maintained in a centralized
standard format and specify all data sources, assumptions, calculation
methods, and cost elements used to prepare the 2010 cost estimate.
2. To ensure that the life cycle cost estimate reflects current
information, the Bureau should update assumptions as appropriate,
including updating productivity assumptions to reflect results from the
address canvassing dress rehearsal. The Bureau should also document the
basis for prior and future changes made to assumptions used in the life
cycle cost estimate.
3. To keep the life cycle cost estimate current and to document lessons
learned for cost elements whose actual costs differ from the estimate,
the Bureau should update the estimate to reflect actual costs.
4. To improve the quality of and provide a confidence level for the
2010 Census life cycle cost estimate, the Bureau should perform
sensitivity and uncertainty analyses on the estimate.
5. To help ensure that the Bureau produces a reliable, high-quality
life cycle cost estimate for the 2020 decennial census, the Bureau
should establish guidance, policies, and procedures for conducting cost
estimation that would meet best practices criteria and ensure that it
has staff resources qualified in cost estimation.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
The Secretary of Commerce provided written comments on a draft of this
report on May 23, 2008. The comments are reprinted in appendix II.
Although Commerce raised concerns about how GAO characterizes the
accuracy of the estimate, Commerce stated that it agrees with many of
our findings, and that the Bureau will prepare a formal action plan to
document specific steps (with estimated completion dates) it will take
in response to the recommendations. Commerce stated that the Bureau
will determine if it will be possible to make improvements in the short
term to its cost estimates and methods. Further, Commerce made some
suggestions where additional context or clarification was needed and
where appropriate we made those changes.
Commerce commented that our report, in its discussion of increasing
census costs, does not mention other significant factors that have
contributed to substantial cost increases over the last 40 years. We
agree and have clarified in our report that other factors have
contributed to increased costs, such as accommodating more complex
households, busier lifestyles, more languages and greater cultural
diversity, and increased privacy concerns.
Commerce also stated that it would have been premature to include the
cost of fingerprinting temporary workers in the 2010 Census life cycle
cost estimate. However, best practices state that having a realistic
estimate of projected costs makes for effective resource allocation and
increases the probability of a program's success. To be prudent and
conservative, an agency should include possible program costs that may
have an impact on the overall life cycle cost estimate. We
appropriately characterize the cost for fingerprinting temporary
workers for the 2010 Census by stating that it is a "potential" cost.
Also, understanding that the life cycle cost estimate is, in fact, an
estimate, the draft report states that "there is risk that the life
cycle cost estimate has been substantially understated." We therefore
made no change to the report.
In commenting on our description of how the Bureau updates the estimate
to reflect costs, Commerce stated that it believes that for budget
purposes, using enacted appropriations is the best way to adjust the
life cycle cost estimate. However, best practices require that an
estimate be updated to reflect actual costs when a difference occurs.
This enables an agency to determine the precise reasons why actual
costs differ for the estimate and document lessons learned. Because the
draft report already reflected the Bureau's practice of using enacted
appropriations, we made no changes.
Commerce did not agree with our statement that the 2010 life cycle cost
estimate is not accurate as it relates to assumed productivity rates
for the fiscal year 2009 address canvassing operation. Commerce stated
that at the time of GAO's review of the life cycle cost estimate, the
Bureau had not completed its analysis of the dress rehearsal
productivity data. However, productivity data from the address
canvassing dress rehearsal were provided to us in December 2007. These
productivity data were significantly different from the assumptions
used in the life cycle cost model. The updated productivity assumptions
should have been included in the estimate that was included in the
fiscal year 2009 President's Budget request, which was issued in
February 2008.
In addressing our recommendations, Commerce generally agreed with our
five recommendations, and indicated that the Bureau will prepare
specific steps in response to the recommendations. Commerce stated that
as part of the Bureau's action plan it would examine GAO's Cost
Assessment Guide to determine if it would be possible to make
improvements in the short term to its cost estimate and methods.
Commerce further noted that the Bureau already has efforts under way to
improve future cost estimation methods and systems through the
development of DBiT. In addition, Commerce acknowledged that at the
lower level of detail estimates in the model, the Bureau will need to
develop both a way to input costs in the model (or the DBiT system) in
time to inform estimates for the 2020 cycle, and a way to update this
information regularly over the coming decade. Further, Commerce noted
that the Bureau was updating the life cycle cost estimate to reflect
revised assumptions for the address canvassing operation.
In response to our recommendation to perform sensitivity and
uncertainty analyses on the estimate, Commerce said that the Bureau
would use the Cost Assessment Guide and seek detailed information on
the experiences of other agencies that have used sensitivity analysis.
Commerce further commented that while it does not disagree that
conducting sensitivity analysis and providing a possible range of costs
would be useful to external audiences, the Bureau must submit budget
requests and out-year estimates as fixed amounts rather than ranges. We
understand that fixed amounts rather than ranges are submitted for
budget requests. However, conducting sensitivity analysis on the cost
estimate would be beneficial to the Bureau in its management of costs
associated with the census, not just to external audiences. Sensitivity
analysis provides valuable information to an agency about which
assumptions or factors have the biggest effects on cost. Further, the
Bureau should also conduct uncertainty analysis to quantify the overall
uncertainty of the cost estimate and provide a level of confidence
associated with the point estimate. Providing a range of costs around a
point estimate is useful to decision makers because it conveys the
level of confidence in achieving the most likely cost, and uncertainty
analysis can also help managers identify a defensible level of
contingency funding needed to reach a desired confidence level. The
Bureau should ensure that it conforms to best practices by making
sensitivity and uncertainty analyses part of required processes for
cost estimation.
In response to our recommendation to establish guidance, policies, and
procedures for conducting cost estimation and ensure that it has staff
resources qualified in cost estimation, Commerce stated that the Bureau
has efforts under way to improve future cost estimation methods and
systems through the development of DBiT. However, these efforts will
not be completed in time to be used in preparing the 2010 budget
request--an effort already underway. Commerce further stated that the
Bureau would examine the Cost Assessment Guide to determine if it will
be possible to make improvements in the short term to the estimate and
methods, including possibly hiring additional skilled cost estimators.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report
to other interested congressional committees, the Secretary of
Commerce, the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau, and the Director of
the Office of Management and Budget. Copies will be made available to
others upon request. This report will also be available at no charge on
GAO's Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-6806 or sciremj@gao.gov. Key contributors to
this report were Vidhya Ananthakrishnan, Thomas Beall, Jennifer Echard,
Richard Hung, Anne Inserra, Jason Lee, Andrea Levine, Donna Miller,
Lisa Pearson, Michelle Petre, Sonya Phillips, Karen Richey, John
Sperry, Niti Tandon, Shannon VanCleave, and Michael Volpe. Contact
points for our Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may
be found on the last page of this report.
Siged by:
Mathew J. Scirč:
Director, Strategic Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
The objectives of this report were to (1) assess the extent to which
the U.S. Census Bureau's (Bureau) 2010 Census life cycle cost estimate
adheres to characteristics defined for high-quality cost estimation,
(2) report on the relationship between the life cycle cost estimate and
the Bureau's budget, and (3) assess whether the Bureau's existing
policies and resources are sufficient to conduct high-quality cost
estimation.
To address our first objective, we evaluated the Bureau's 2010 Census
life cycle cost estimate to determine whether it met key
characteristics identified in the exposure draft of our Cost Assessment
Guide. Our guide, which is based on extensive research of best
practices for estimating program schedules and costs, states that a
high-quality, valid, and reliable cost estimate should be well
documented, comprehensive, accurate, and credible. We obtained and
analyzed the version of the 2010 Census short form cost model that was
given to us in November 2006. (The Bureau provided a cost model
containing data for fiscal years 2009 through 2013, and separate models
for fiscal years 2007 and 2008. The models, which were in Excel, did
not include costs for fiscal years 2001 through 2006.) We also analyzed
Bureau documents related to the 2010 Census life cycle cost estimate
and cost estimates for previous censuses. We interviewed Bureau
officials from the Decennial Management and Budget Divisions about the
process used to prepare the life cycle cost estimates and the
assumptions used to prepare the estimates. We shared the Cost
Assessment Guide and the criteria against which we would be evaluating
the Bureau's cost estimate with Bureau officials.
To assess the adequacy of the Bureau's 2010 Census life cycle cost
estimate, we compared the Bureau's methods and approaches for preparing
the estimate with the guidance contained in our Cost Assessment Guide.
We assessed whether the 2010 estimate met the four desired
characteristics of being well documented, comprehensive, accurate, and
credible. Given those criteria, the main purpose of this objective was
to assess the reliability of the cost estimate. We assessed the extent
to which the entire life cycle cost estimate was well documented,
including the short form cost estimate, and the estimates for the
American Community Survey (ACS) and the Master Address File/
Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/
TIGER) system. Our analysis for the other three characteristics--
comprehensiveness, accuracy, and credibility--was limited to the short
form cost estimate, due to lack of available documentation on the ACS
and MAF/TIGER components of total life cycle costs.
As part of our assessment of the credibility of the Bureau's 2010
Census life cycle cost estimate, we conducted sensitivity analysis to
identify significant cost drivers and limited uncertainty analysis on a
portion of the 2006 version of the short form cost estimate that the
Bureau provided. Portions of the total $11.3 billion life cycle cost
estimate were excluded from the uncertainty analysis, as detailed below
and shown in figure 5:
* $1.7 billion of the total had already been spent from fiscal years
2001 through 2007 (these sunk costs had to be excluded from the
uncertainty analysis);
* $1.2 billion of the total was allocated to costs for MAF/TIGER ($0.1
billion) and ACS ($1.1 billion) for fiscal years 2008 through 2013
(since these costs were estimated separately and not included in the
short form cost model, they were excluded from the uncertainty
analysis);
* $0.6 billion of the total represented estimated fiscal year 2008
costs for the short form Census, and the Bureau gave us estimated
fiscal year 2008 costs in a separate model; and:
* $2.3 billion of the total consisted of costs that the Bureau did not
model but instead just provided as "throughput" or fixed
costs.[Footnote 20]
Subtracting the above components from the total left $5.4 billion to be
analyzed. We determined that the results of uncertainty analysis
performed on this limited portion of the total costs would not be
meaningful.
Figure 5: Breakdown of Census Life Cycle Costs and Portion of Total
Costs Analyzed for Uncertainty:
This figure is a flowchart of a breakdown of Census life cycle costs
and portion of total costs analyzed for uncertainty.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of Census Bureau data.
Notes: These figures do not reflect the Bureau's estimated increase in
the 2010 Census life cycle cost estimate to a range from $13.7 billion
to $14.5 billion, which the Bureau announced on April 3, 2008, with the
replan of the Field Data Collection Automation (FDCA) program. Numbers
may not add to totals because of rounding.
[A] "Not modeled" means that these costs are not estimated by using
relationships between input and output variables. The values for these
costs are provided by Bureau headquarters as if they were fixed costs
and contain outdated contract information. Because these costs could
not be modified by manipulating variables in the cost model, we did not
include them in the uncertainty analysis.
[End of figure]
Our analysis of the Bureau's 2010 life cycle cost estimate was
conducted prior to the redesign of the census and the subsequent
revision of the FDCA program. Detailed information on revised
assumptions, cost data, methods of calculation, or the process used to
revise the estimate was not available for the Bureau's proposed
redesign in time to be analyzed as part of our scope. Because we did
not analyze the Bureau's updated range for the total cost estimate of
from $13.7 billion to $14.5 billion, we cannot verify whether the
revised estimate is accurate, valid or reliable.
To address the second objective, we reviewed policies and procedures
for preparing annual budgets. We analyzed Bureau documents related to
the budget preparation system and the process for preparing the
decennial census life cycle cost estimate, including the Budget
Formulation and Performance Planning Manual, and internal
correspondence from the Budget Division to other Bureau offices
concerning annual budget preparation. We also analyzed Bureau budget
estimates as presented to Congress, life cycle cost estimate documents,
and worksheets on life cycle costs prepared for budget formulation, and
confirmed that appropriations figures for completed fiscal years did
appear in subsequent life cycle cost estimate documents. Further, we
interviewed officials from the Bureau's Budget and Decennial Management
Divisions about the relationship between the cost estimate and the
annual budget process. We did not independently verify budget
information provided by the Bureau because that would have been outside
the scope of our review.
To address our third objective, we analyzed Bureau documents related to
the life cycle cost estimate. We compiled information on the Bureau's
process for developing its decennial cost estimate and the credentials
of the Bureau's cost estimation staff. We requested the Bureau's
policies and procedures for cost estimation, but determined that the
Bureau does not have specific policies and procedures for cost
estimating. We evaluated Bureau information against the best practices
criteria presented in our Cost Assessment Guide for developing a high-
quality cost estimate and designating an experienced, well-trained cost
estimation team. We also interviewed Bureau officials.
To determine what steps the Bureau is taking to improve its cost
estimation practices, we attended a demonstration of the Decennial
Budget Integration Tool, the new Bureau automated budget system
currently being developed that should enable the Bureau to produce
better cost estimates. We also interviewed Bureau officials.
We conducted our work from October 2006 to June 2008 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,
appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence
obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions
based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Commerce:
The Secretary Of Commerce:
Washington, D.C. 20230:
May 23, 2008:
Mr. Mathew J. Scire:
Director:
Strategic Issues:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Scire:
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 Should Take Action to Improve the
Credibility and Accuracy of Its Cost Estimate for the Decennial Census,
(GAO-08-554). I enclose the Department's comments on this report.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Carlos M. Gutierrez:
Enclosure:
U.S. Department of Commerce:
Comments on the United States Government Accountability Office Draft
Report Entitled 2010 CENSUS: Census Bureau Should Take Action to
Improve the Credibility and Accuracy of Its Cost Estimate for the
Decennial Census, (GAO-08-554) May 2008:
The U.S. Department of Commerce and its U.S. Census Bureau appreciate
the United States Government Accountability Office's (GAO) efforts to
review our cost estimates for the 2010 Census and this opportunity to
review GAO's draft report.
We agree with many of the general findings in this report. Efforts to
improve the quality and rigor of our cost estimates for the decennial
census have been, and continue to be, an important objective for the
program and for our stakeholders, including the Congress. As the report
notes, the Census Bureau has been developing a new budget management
tool called the Decennial Budget Integration Tool (DBiT), based on the
Census Bureau's own identification of many of the same concerns and
issues identified in this GAO report. Additional information about the
DBiT effort is provided later in these comments.
General Comments:
On the "Highlights" page and elsewhere in the report, GAO states that
the Census Bureau did not include the potential cost for fingerprinting
temporary workers in its 2010 Census life cycle cost estimate. However,
until very recently, no decision had been made whether to use a
fingerprint- based background check for the 2010 Census, nor about what
operational approach might be used. Now that a decision has been made,
we are examining the costs and operational aspects of different
approaches, and once those details are decided, we will update the life
cycle cost estimate appropriately. At any point in time, the life cycle
cost estimate for the 2010 Census is based on the program as planned at
that time. It would have been premature to include in the program life
cycle estimate a cost estimate for a program change not yet made.
The "Highlights" page and later parts of the report also state that the
Census Bureau's life cycle cost estimate is inaccurate because it does
not reflect updated information about address canvassing productivity
rates that were identified during the Dress Rehearsal operation.
However, at the point in time GAO reviewed the life cycle estimate for
the program, it accurately reflected our program plan and assumptions
at that time. We had not completed our analysis of the Dress Rehearsal
productivity data, so had not yet made any decision to revise the
assumed rates for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 Address Canvassing
operation. We subsequently completed that review and are in the process
of updating the life cycle estimate to reflect revised assumptions.
Throughout the report, including on the "Highlights" page, GAO notes
that the Census Bureau did not conduct sensitivity analysis for its
life cycle estimates, which would allow external audiences to assess
the possible range of costs for the program. While we do not disagree
with the potential usefulness to external audiences of such efforts,
ultimately we must submit budget requests, including out-year
estimates, for fixed amounts based on our best judgment of the amounts
needed to accomplish our planned program. These are the figures we
include in our formal budget requests, and which we then use as part of
our life cycle cost estimate. If the program changes over time, or if
we revise our estimates of a key parameter that affect costs, the
results will be reflected both in our budget requests and in our life
cycle cost estimate for the program. In reviewing GAO's July 2007 draft
Cost Assessment Guide, we noted a number of case studies where GAO has
determined that sensitivity analysis might have been useful if it had
been employed. We intend to seek detailed information on the
experiences of agencies that have used this tool. GAO's draft Cost
Assessment Guide should provide useful information and tools to the
Census Bureau and other agencies for improving future cost estimation
capabilities and methods. We certainly expect that the best practices
in this guide will be used to inform the 2020 Census life cycle
estimating process.
Specific Comments:
On page 6, the discussion about the growth in decennial census costs
reflects the increase in population and housing, and increases due to
inflation, but does not mention other significant factors that have
contributed to substantial cost increases over the last 40 years. Over
that time, the interest in and demand for improved accuracy of
decennial census counts has steadily grown. The task of completing the
census has become increasingly difficult over this period due to more
complex households, busier lifestyles, more languages and greater
cultural diversity, increased privacy concerns, and numerous other
factors. Though difficult to quantify individually, the combination of
such factors has had a profound impact on the level of efforts the
Census Bureau has had to make to ensure the census is completed
accurately and in time to meet its legal deadlines for producing
apportionment and redistricting data.
On page 23, the report states: When we asked why the Bureau does not
update the 2010 life cycle cost estimate with actual cost data, a
budget official told us that actual cost information can be incurred
over multiple fiscal years, and it would be difficult to compare this
information to the annual framework used for the cost estimate. For
budget purposes, the Bureau updates the life cycle cost estimate every
year based on appropriations figures instead of actual cost data,
because appropriations data are attributed to single fiscal years and
are easier to work with than actual cost data.
Regarding these statements, we note that the information we provided
was made in the context of an overall, high-level life cycle cost
estimate table maintained in our Budget Division as a basis for setting
budget allocations. That table is produced and maintained at a much
higher level than the individual elements of our cost model. The
context in which we provided this information to GAO was a discussion
about that high-level table, rather than a discussion about the more
detailed cost model we use for cost estimation.
We also note that we stated we do not update the life cycle estimate
for actual spending. For the sake of clarification we add that, if we
did update the table for actual spending, we would use obligations, not
"costs," which have a specific meaning. However, we use enacted
appropriations rather than actual obligations. These can differ in
several ways, but to provide two examples:
There may be unobligated budget authority at the end of the year, which
is carried over to subsequent years and obligated in those years. The
Census Bureau has this authority in most years as its appropriations
allow for funds to be retained until spent.
There may be de-obligations of budget authority that can become
available for re-obligation, subject to apportionment approval.
As a result of these situations, at the level of detail maintained in
our life cycle cost estimate tables, we believe enacted appropriations
represent the best way to adjust for these sources of potential
overstatement or understatement in the overall life cycle estimates.
Comments on Recommendations (Pages 27-28):
After the GAO issues its final version of this audit report, the Census
Bureau will prepare a formal action plan to document specific steps
(including estimated completion dates) it will take in response to
these recommendations.
We acknowledge that at the lower levels of detail estimated in the cost
model, we need to develop a way to input costs in the model (or the
DBiT system) in time to inform estimates for the 2020 Census cycle, as
well as find a way to update this information regularly over the coming
decade.
We already have efforts underway to improve our future cost estimation
methods and systems through the development of the DBiT tool. However,
these efforts will not be completed in time to be used in preparing our
FY 2010 budget request -- an effort already underway. As part of our
action plan, however, the Census Bureau will examine GAO's July 2007
draft Cost Estimation Guide to determine if it will be possible to make
improvements in the short term to these cost estimates and methods,
including the possibility of hiring additional skilled cost estimators.
The DBiT is a commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) enterprise-wide budget
management tool that will replace manual and labor intensive processes,
provide enhanced traceability throughout the budget process, produce
automated documentation of the budget process as it evolves, and
incorporate best practices and institutional knowledge into the budget
process. DBiT secures, standardizes, and consolidates budget
information on all Decennial Directorate programs and improves budget
data access, analysis, and tracking for program managers and
participating divisions, Decennial Directorate budget offices, and
senior management.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] GAO, Cost Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Estimating and
Managing Program Costs: Exposure Draft, GAO-07-1134SP (Washington,
D.C.: July 2007).
[2] The ACS is a monthly sample survey of 250,000 households that has
replaced the census long form questionnaire.
[3] The MAF/TIGER system is the Bureau's address file and geographic
database. MAF is the address list, and TIGER is the associated
geographic information system, or mapping system, that identifies all
visible geographic features, such as type and location of streets,
housing units, rivers, and railroads. To link TIGER to MAF, the Bureau
assigns every housing unit in MAF to a specific location in TIGER, a
process called geocoding. TIGER is a registered trademark of the U.S.
Census Bureau.
[4] In the previous two decennials, the Bureau obtained criminal
history records for temporary decennial applicants using only a name
check.
[5] The Census Bureau's Decennial Budget Directorate Offices began
developing DBiT in 2003 with assistance from BoozAllen Hamilton. DBiT
is an enterprise-wide budget management tool for modeling, formulating,
executing and reporting the Decennial Census budget that will also
support the cost estimation process. DBiT is already supporting part of
the 2010 Census budget and the Bureau plans to incrementally implement
and verify it by running it in parallel with the existing budget system
through 2008, at which time it will phase out the old system.
[6] 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 TIGER to MAF, the Bureau assigns
every housing unit in MAF to a specific location in TIGER, a process
called geocoding. TIGER is a registered trademark of the U.S. Census
Bureau.
[7] U.S. Census Bureau, Potential Life Cycle Savings for the 2010
Census (Washington, D.C.: June 2001).
[8] U.S. Census Bureau, Estimated Life Cycle Costs for the Reengineered
2010 Census of Population and Housing (Washington, D.C.: June 2003);
Estimated Life Cycle Costs for Reengineering the 2010 Decennial Census
Program (Washington, D.C.: Revised Sept. 2005); Estimated Life Cycle
Costs for Reengineering the 2010 Decennial Census Program (Washington,
D.C.: Revised June 2006); and Estimated Life Cycle Costs for
Reengineering the 2010 Decennial Census Program (Washington, D.C.:
Revised Sept. 2007).
[9] U.S. Census Bureau, Budget Estimates as Presented to Congress,
Fiscal Year 2009 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2008).
[10] GAO, 2010 Census: Cost and Design Issues Need to Be Addressed
Soon, GAO-04-37 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 15, 2004).
[11] U.S. Census Bureau, Potential Life Cycle Savings for the 2010
Census (Washington, D.C.: June 2001).
[12] The LUCA program is a local address review program that was
required by Congress in 1994 to give local and tribal governments
greater input into the Bureau's address list development process. The
LUCA program gives local governments an opportunity to review the
accuracy and completeness of the Bureau's address information for their
respective jurisdictions and suggest corrections where warranted.
[13] U.S. Census Bureau, United States Census 2010: Estimated Life
Cycle Costs for the Reengineered 2010 Census of Population and Housing
(Washington, D.C.: June 2003).
[14] Advanced Resource Technologies, Inc., Census 2000 Cost Model
Independent Verification and Validation Report, submitted to the U.S.
Census Bureau (Alexandria, Va.: Apr. 1997).
[15] At a June 11, 2008 hearing before the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform and the Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census,
and National Archives, the Director of the Census Bureau said that it
had included funding for fingerprinting in its amended fiscal year 2009
budget request that was submitted on June 10, 2008.
[16] A point estimate is the best guess or most likely value for the
cost estimate, given the underlying data. The level of confidence for
the point estimate is the probability that the point estimate will
actually be met. For example, if the confidence level for a point
estimate is 50 percent, there is a 50 percent chance that the point
estimate will be met and a 50 percent chance that costs will exceed the
point estimate.
[17] Sensitivity analysis examines the effect of changing one
assumption or cost driver at a time while holding all other variables
constant.
[18] The Budget Division sends a call memo to program offices that
includes general guidance for preparing the budget submission and
provides initial allocation levels by subactivity, which the program
offices break down further and allocate to their participating
divisions. According to a Bureau official, initial allocations are
adjusted to reflect any policy guidance received from the Office of
Management and Budget, such as any inflation or deflation factors.
Program managers and budget staff then prepare the Bureau's budget
request using this guidance.
[19] During the spring, program offices and divisions prepare detailed
budgets, and then the Budget Division develops the Bureau's overall
budget proposal, known as the secretarial submission, which is
submitted to Commerce in May/June. From June through August, Commerce
staff review the budget requests and put together a departmental budget
request. According to officials, Commerce then sends the budget
submission to OMB for review by September, and briefings are held with
OMB on program, budget, and management issues. In late fall, OMB
informs the Bureau of its budget decisions (a passback). Bureau
officials explained that the Budget Division then sends out to program
managers a memo that outlines the changes resulting from OMB's passback
decisions.
[20] These costs were not estimated using relationships between input
and output variables and could not be modified by manipulating
variables in the model. Therefore, it was not possible to apply
uncertainty bounds to these unsubstantiated costs.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
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: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
