2010 Census
Census Bureau's Decision to Continue with Handheld Computers for Address Canvassing Makes Planning and Testing Critical Gao ID: GAO-08-936 July 31, 2008The U.S. Census Bureau (Bureau) had planned to rely heavily on automation in conducting the 2010 Census, including using handheld computers (HHC) to verify addresses. Citing concerns about escalating costs, in March 2008 the Secretary of Commerce announced a redesign of the key automation effort. GAO was asked to (1) analyze Bureau and contractor data showing how HHCs operated and their impact on operations, and (2) examine implications the redesign may have on plans for address canvassing in the 2010 Census. GAO reviewed Bureau and contractor data, evaluations, and other documents on HHC performance and staff productivity; interviewed Bureau and contractor officials; and visited the two dress rehearsal sites to observe and document the use of the HHCs in the field.
Census and contractor data highlight problems field staff (listers) experienced using HHCs during the address canvassing dress rehearsal operation in 2007. Help desk logs, for example, revealed that listers most frequently reported issues with transmission, the device freezing, mapspotting (collecting mapping coordinates), and difficulties working with large blocks. When problems were identified, the contractor downloaded corrected software to the HHCs. Nonetheless, help desk resources were inadequate. The Bureau acknowledged that issues with the use of technology affected field staff productivity. After address canvassing, the Bureau established a review board and worked with its contractor to create task teams to analyze and address Field Data Collection Automation (FDCA) performance issues. Although the Bureau recognized that technology issues affected operations, and the contractor produced data on average transmission times, the Bureau and its contractor did not fully assess the magnitude of key measures of HHC performance. GAO previously recommended the Bureau establish specific quantifiable measures in such areas as productivity and performance. Also, the FDCA contract calls for the contractor to provide near real-time monitoring of performance metrics through a "dashboard" application. This application was not used during the census dress rehearsal. The Bureau has developed a preliminary list of metrics to be included in the dashboard such as daily measures on average transmission duration and number of failed transmissions, but has few benchmarks for expected performance. For example, the Bureau has not developed an acceptable level of performance on total number of failed transmissions or average connection speed. Technology issues and the Bureau's efforts to redesign FDCA have significant implications for address canvassing. Among these are ensuring that FDCA solutions for technical issues identified in the dress rehearsal are tested, the help desk adequately supports field staff, and a solution for conducting address canvassing in large blocks is tested. In June 2008, the Bureau developed a testing plan that includes a limited operational field test, but the plan does not specify the basis for determining the readiness of the FDCA solution for address canvassing and when and how this determination will occur.
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-08-936, 2010 Census: Census Bureau's Decision to Continue with Handheld Computers for Address Canvassing Makes Planning and Testing Critical
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-936
entitled '2010 Census: Census Bureau's Decision to Continue with
Handheld Computers for Address Canvassing Makes Planning and Testing
Critical' which was released on September 2, 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 Information Policy, Census, and National
Archives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of
Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
July 2008:
2010 Census:
Census Bureau's Decision to Continue with Handheld Computers for
Address Canvassing Makes Planning and Testing Critical:
GAO-08-936:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-936, a report to the Subcommittee on Information
Policy, Census, and National Archives, Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The U.S. Census Bureau (Bureau) had planned to rely heavily on
automation in conducting the 2010 Census, including using handheld
computers (HHC) to verify addresses. Citing concerns about escalating
costs, in March 2008 the Secretary of Commerce announced a redesign of
the key automation effort. GAO was asked to (1) analyze Bureau and
contractor data showing how HHCs operated and their impact on
operations, and (2) examine implications the redesign may have on plans
for address canvassing in the 2010 Census.
GAO reviewed Bureau and contractor data, evaluations, and other
documents on HHC performance and staff productivity; interviewed Bureau
and contractor officials; and visited the two dress rehearsal sites to
observe and document the use of the HHCs in the field.
What GAO Found:
Census and contractor data highlight problems field staff (listers)
experienced using HHCs during the address canvassing dress rehearsal
operation in 2007. Help desk logs, for example, revealed that listers
most frequently reported issues with transmission, the device freezing,
mapspotting (collecting mapping coordinates), and difficulties working
with large blocks. When problems were identified, the contractor
downloaded corrected software to the HHCs. Nonetheless, help desk
resources were inadequate. The Bureau acknowledged that issues with the
use of technology affected field staff productivity. After address
canvassing, the Bureau established a review board and worked with its
contractor to create task teams to analyze and address Field Data
Collection Automation (FDCA) performance issues.
Although the Bureau recognized that technology issues affected
operations, and the contractor produced data on average transmission
times, the Bureau and its contractor did not fully assess the magnitude
of key measures of HHC performance. GAO previously recommended the
Bureau establish specific quantifiable measures in such areas as
productivity and performance. Also, the FDCA contract calls for the
contractor to provide near real-time monitoring of performance metrics
through a ’dashboard“ application. This application was not used during
the census dress rehearsal. The Bureau has developed a preliminary list
of metrics to be included in the dashboard such as daily measures on
average transmission duration and number of failed transmissions, but
has few benchmarks for expected performance. For example, the Bureau
has not developed an acceptable level of performance on total number of
failed transmissions or average connection speed.
Technology issues and the Bureau‘s efforts to redesign FDCA have
significant implications for address canvassing. Among these are
ensuring that FDCA solutions for technical issues identified in the
dress rehearsal are tested, the help desk adequately supports field
staff, and a solution for conducting address canvassing in large blocks
is tested. In June 2008, the Bureau developed a testing plan that
includes a limited operational field test, but the plan does not
specify the basis for determining the readiness of the FDCA solution
for address canvassing and when and how this determination will occur.
Figure: Photograph of Contractor-Built Handheld Computer:
[See PDF for image]
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Public Information Office (PIO).
[End of figure]
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends the Secretary of Commerce direct the Bureau to specify
the basis for determining the readiness of the FDCA solution for
address canvassing and when and how this determination will occur, and
to include the ’dashboard“ of performance metrics in its operational
field test.
In commenting on a draft of this report, Commerce had no substantive
disagreements with GAO‘s conclusions and recommendations and cited
actions it is taking to address the challenges GAO identified.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-936]. For more
information, contact Mathew J. Scirč at (202) 512-6806 or
sciremj@gao.gov or David A. Powner at (202) 512-9286 or
pownerd@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background6:
Field Operations Were Affected by Problems Encountered Using New
Technology, and the Bureau Did Not Sufficiently Specify What It
Expected of Technology:
The Redesign of the Decennial Census Carries with It Significant
Implications for 2010 Address Canvassing:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation22:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Commerce:
Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
Table:
Table 1: Dress Rehearsal Productivity Data by Area--Target and
Reported:
Figures:
Figure 1: San Joaquin County Selected for Dress Rehearsal in
California:
Figure 2: Nine Counties Selected for Dress Rehearsal in North Carolina:
Figure 3: Handheld Computer:
Abbreviations:
ALMI: Automated Listing and Mapping Instrument:
Bureau: U.S. Census Bureau:
Commerce: Department of Commerce:
DAAL: Demographic Area Address Listing:
FDCA: Field Data Collection Automation:
GPS: Global Positioning System:
HHC: Handheld computer:
MAF: Master Address File:
OCS: Operations Control System:
TIGERŪ: Topographically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
July 31, 2008:
The Honorable Wm. Lacy Clay:
Chairman:
The Honorable Michael R. Turner:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National Archives:
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:
House of Representatives:
In March 2008, we designated the 2010 Decennial Census as a high-risk
area, citing a number of long-standing and emerging challenges.
[Footnote 1] These include weaknesses in managing information
technology, operational planning, and cost estimating, as well as
uncertainty over dress rehearsal plans and the ultimate cost of the
census. Because the census is fundamental for many government
decisions, threats to a timely and reliable census can affect the
public's confidence in government.
From May to June 2007, the U.S. Census Bureau (Bureau) conducted the
address canvassing operation of the 2008 Dress Rehearsal. This
operation was the Bureau's final opportunity to test, under census-like
conditions, handheld computers (HHC) developed by the contractor that
will be deployed during the 2010 Census Address Canvassing operation--
scheduled to take place in the spring of 2009. In previous decennial
censuses, the Bureau relied on a paper-based operation. According to
the Bureau, the HHCs were to be a keystone to the reengineered census
because they were to be used in developing an accurate address list for
the Bureau and in obtaining information from households that fail to
return Census forms. The Bureau believed that the HHCs would reduce the
amount of paper used, process data in real time, and improve the
quality of the data. However, at a March 2008 hearing, the Department
of Commerce (Commerce) and the Bureau stated that the Field Data
Collection Automation (FDCA) program, under which the HHCs are being
developed, was likely to incur significant cost overruns and announced
a redesigning effort to get the 2010 Decennial Census back on track.
The Secretary of Commerce outlined several alternatives for redesigning
this central technology investment, and on April 3, 2008, he decided to
continue with the HHCs for address canvassing. During redesign
deliberations, Bureau officials pointed out that it was too late in the
decennial cycle to consider dropping the use of the HHCs for address
canvassing in 2009. They considered that with hard deadlines fast
approaching, there was not enough time to revert to a paper-based
address canvassing operation. The decision to use the HHCs in the 2010
Address Canvassing operation makes it critical that any problems
identified with the HHCs in the dress rehearsal are resolved quickly
and that the Bureau understand the implications of proceeding with this
technology.
Continued oversight of 2010 Census preparation is critical as the
Bureau is redesigning operations late in the decennial cycle and
relying on new technology to modernize its address listing and mapping
activities. To respond to your interest in performance of the HHCs
during 2008 Dress Rehearsal Address Canvassing, we examined whether the
HHCs worked in collecting and transmitting address and mapping data. As
part of this subcommittee's ongoing oversight of the 2010 Census, we
testified in April 2008 on our preliminary observation of weaknesses
with HHC performance and the potential implications for the 2010
Census.[Footnote 2] We also raised the importance of performance
measures and planning, recommending that the Bureau establish specific
quantifiable measures in such areas as productivity and performance. At
the subcommittee's request, we (1) analyzed Bureau and contractor data
showing how HHCs operated and its implications on operations, and (2)
examined implications the redesign may have on plans for address
canvassing in the 2010 Census.
In responding to these objectives, we reviewed Bureau planning
documents, data on HHC performance and staff productivity, evaluation
reports, and staff observations of address canvassing operations. We
reviewed contract documents, help desk logs, contractor data on
transmissions, and contractor evaluations of HHC performance. We also
interviewed Bureau and contractor officials to determine the
functionality of the HHCs during dress rehearsal address canvassing.
Finally, we visited the two dress rehearsal sites in California and
North Carolina to attend address canvassing lister training and to
observe and document the use of the HHCs in the field during the dress
rehearsal in the summer of 2007. Appendix I provides more detail on our
scope and methodology. We conducted this performance audit from April
2007 to July 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 reported, in its 2008 Census Dress Rehearsal Address
Canvassing Assessment Report,[Footnote 3] being able to use the HHC to
collect address information for 98.7 percent of housing units visited
and map information for 97.4 percent of the housing units visited. The
Bureau also reported meeting planned time frames but saw performance
problems that affected productivity. For example, Census and contractor
data highlighted problems field staff (listers) experienced using HHCs
during the address canvassing operation. The help desk logs, for
example, revealed that listers most frequently reported issues with
transmission, the device freezing, mapspotting (collecting mapping
coordinates), and working with large blocks (geographic areas with
large numbers of housing units more often found in urban areas). One
factor that may have contributed to these performance problems was a
compressed schedule that did not allow for thorough testing before the
dress rehearsal. Given the tighter time frames going forward, testing
and quickly remedying issues identified in these tests becomes even
more important. The Bureau also reported that 5,429 records were lost
and not recorded in the mapping and address database because multiple
HHCs had the same identification number assigned to them. As a result,
when a HHC transmitted information, it overwrote any data previously
recorded for HHCs with the same identification number. According to
Bureau officials this problem was identified and corrected during the
address canvassing dress rehearsal.
The Bureau acknowledged that issues with the use of technology affected
staff productivity in its assessment of the address canvassing dress
rehearsal operation. Data show staff productivity exceeded expectations
in rural areas but did not meet Bureau expectations in urban/suburban
areas, which represent a greater share of housing units across the
nation. For example, the reported productivity for urban/suburban areas
was more than 10 percent lower than the target and this difference will
have implications for the costs of the address canvassing operation. We
previously testified that the Bureau had not sufficiently measured the
performance of the HHCs during the dress rehearsal, nor fully specified
how it will measure performance during the 2010 Census.[Footnote 4] The
Bureau received data from the contractor on average transmission times,
but the Bureau has not used these data to analyze the full range of
transmission times, nor how transmissions may have changed throughout
the entire operation. Without this information, the magnitude of the
handheld computers' performance issues throughout the dress rehearsal
was not clear. The Bureau has few benchmarks (the level of performance
it is expected to attain) to help evaluate the performance of HHCs
throughout the address canvassing operation. For example, the Bureau
has not developed an acceptable level of performance for measures on
total number of failed transmissions or average connection speed. The
contract supporting the Bureau's field data collection calls for the
contractor to provide near real-time reporting and monitoring of
performance metrics and a "control panel/dashboard" application to
visually report metrics from any Internet-enabled personal computer.
Such real-time reporting may be helpful to the contractor and the
Bureau to monitor ongoing address canvassing operations in 2009, but
was not used during the dress rehearsal. The Bureau has developed a
preliminary list of dashboard metrics, which include such daily
measures as average transmission duration, and expects to use the
dashboard for address canvassing in 2009.
The Secretary of Commerce's decision to redesign the 2010 Decennial
Census carries with it significant implications for address canvassing.
Among these are ensuring that (1) the FDCA solution for address
canvassing works, (2) the solution for collecting data in large blocks
in parallel with other areas is tested and ready for use, and (3) the
help desk adequately supports field staff. We previously testified that
the Bureau needs to specify its plans for addressing these challenges.
In his April 9, 2008, congressional testimony, the Bureau's Director
outlined next steps that included developing an integrated schedule for
address canvassing and testing. On May 22, 2008, the Bureau issued this
integrated schedule, which identifies activities that need to be
accomplished for the decennial census. In addition, the Bureau
established milestones for completing tasks. However, the milestones
for preparing for address canvassing in 2008 are very tight and in one
case overlap the deployment of address canvassing. On June 6, 2008, the
Bureau produced an address canvassing testing plan, including a field
operations test. However, the plan does not specify the use of the
dashboard in the field test. The address canvassing testing plan is a
high-level plan that describes a partial redo of the dress rehearsal to
validate certain functionality. While it represents a reasonable
approach, it does not specify the basis for determining the readiness
of the FDCA solution for address canvassing or when and how this
determination will occur--when the Bureau would say that the
contractor's solution meets its operational needs.
To ensure that the Bureau addresses key challenges facing its
implementation of the address canvassing operation for the 2010 Census,
we recommend the Secretary of Commerce direct the Bureau to (1) specify
the basis for determining the readiness of the FDCA solution for
address canvassing and when and how this determination will occur--when
the Bureau would say that the contractor's solution meets its
operational needs; (2) specify how data collection in large blocks will
be conducted in parallel with the address canvassing operation, and how
this dual-track will be tested in order to ensure it will function as
planned; (3) specify the benchmarks for measures used to evaluate the
HHC performance during address canvassing; and (4) use the dashboard to
monitor performance of the HHCs in the operational field test of
address canvassing.
On July 25, 2008, the Secretary of Commerce provided written comments
on a draft of this report. Commerce had no substantive disagreements
with our conclusions and recommendations and provided several technical
corrections. We accepted the Department's revised language for one
recommendation and incorporated technical comments elsewhere. The
comments are reprinted in their entirety in appendix II.
Background:
In preparation for the 2010 Census, the address canvassing operation
was tested as part of the 2008 Dress Rehearsal. From May 7 to June 25,
2007, the Bureau conducted its address canvassing operation for its
2008 Dress Rehearsal in selected localities in California (see fig. 1)
and North Carolina (see fig. 2). The 2008 Census Dress Rehearsal took
place in San Joaquin County, California, and nine counties in the
Fayetteville, North Carolina, area. According to the Bureau, the dress
rehearsal sites provided a comprehensive environment for demonstrating
and refining planned 2010 Census operations and activities, such as the
use of HHCs equipped with Global Positioning System (GPS).
Figure 1: San Joaquin County Selected for Dress Rehearsal in
California:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a map of San Joaquin County, California.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau.
[End of figure]
Figure 2: Nine Counties Selected for Dress Rehearsal in North Carolina:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a map of the Fayetteville, North Carolina, site,
including the following counties:
Chatham;
Cumberland;
Harnett;
Hoke;
Lee;
Montgomery;
Moore;
Richmond, and;
Scotland.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau.
[End of figure]
Prior to Census Day, Bureau listers perform the address canvassing
operation, during which they verify the addresses of all housing units.
Address canvassing is a field operation to help build a complete and
accurate address list. The Bureau's Master Address File (MAF) is
intended to be a complete and current list of all addresses and
locations where people live or potentially live. The Topographically
Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (TIGERŪ) database is a
mapping system that identifies all visible geographic features, such as
type and location of streets, housing units, rivers, and railroads.
Consequently, MAF/TIGERŪ provides a complete and accurate address list
(the cornerstone of a successful census) because it identifies all
living quarters that are to receive a census questionnaire and serves
as the control mechanism for following up with households that do not
respond. If the address list is inaccurate, people can be missed,
counted more than once, or included in the wrong location(s).
Generally, during address canvassing, census listers go door to door
verifying and correcting addresses for all households and street
features contained on decennial maps. The address listers add to the
2010 Census address list any additional addresses they find and make
other needed corrections to the 2010 Census address list and maps using
GPS-equipped HHCs. Listers are instructed to compare what they discover
on the ground to what is displayed on their HHC.
As part of the 2004 and 2006 Census Tests, the Bureau produced a
prototype of the HHC that would allow the Bureau to automate
operations, and eliminate the need to print millions of paper
questionnaires, address registers, and maps used by temporary listers
to conduct address canvassing[Footnote 5] and non-response follow-up as
well as to allow listers to electronically submit their time and
expense information. The HHCs for these tests were off-the-shelf
computers purchased and programmed by the Bureau. While the Bureau was
largely testing the feasibility of using HHCs for collecting data, it
encountered a number of technical problems. The following are some of
the problems we observed during the 2004[Footnote 6] and 2006[Footnote
7] tests:
* slowness and frequent lock-up,
* problems with slow or unsuccessful transmissions, and:
* difficulty in linking a mapspot to addresses for multi-unit
structures.
For the 2008 Dress Rehearsal and the 2010 Census, the Bureau awarded
the development of the hardware and software for a HHC to a contractor.
In March 2006, the Bureau awarded a 5-year contract of $595,667,000 to
support the FDCA project. The FDCA project includes the development of
HHCs, and Bureau officials stated that the HHCs would ultimately
increase the efficiency and reduce costs for the 2010 Census. According
to the Director of the Census Bureau, the FDCA program was designed to
supply the information technology infrastructure, support services,
hardware, and software to support a network for almost 500 local
offices and for HHCs that will be used across the country. He also
indicated that FDCA can be thought of as being made up of three
fundamental components: (1) automated data collection using handheld
devices to conduct address canvassing, and to collect data during the
non-response follow-up of those households that do not return the
census form; (2) the Operations Control System (OCS) that tracks and
manages decennial census workflow in the field; and (3) census
operations infrastructure, which provides office automation and support
for regional and local census offices.
The 2008 Dress Rehearsal Address Canvassing operation marked the first
time the contractor-built HHCs and the operations control system were
used in the field. In 2006, we reported that not using the contractor-
built HHCs until 2008 Dress Rehearsal Address Canvassing would leave
little time to develop, test, and incorporate refinements to the HHCs
in preparation for the 2010 Census. We also reported that because the
Bureau-developed HHC had performance problems, the introduction of a
new HHC added another level of risk to the success of the 2010 Census.
[Footnote 8]
For the 2008 Dress Rehearsal, the FDCA contractor developed the
hardware and software used in census offices and on the HHCs. See
figure 3 for more details. The HHC included several applications that
varied depending on the role of the user: software enabling listers to
complete their time and expense electronically; text messaging software
enabling listers to communicate via text message; software enabling
staff to review all work assigned to them and enabling crew leaders to
make assignments; software enabling staff to perform address
canvassing; and an instrument enabling quality control listers to
perform quality assurance tasks.
Figure 3: Handheld Computer:
[See PDF for image]
This figure contains an image of a handheld computer, as well as the
following information:
The HHCs performed several functions during dress rehearsal address
canvassing including:
* receive maps and address files from MAF/TIGERŪ;
* verify addresses;
* Global Positioning System (GPS) mapspot addresses;
* transmit information;
* quality control, and;
* time and expense data.
Source: Harris Corporation.
[End of figure]
Field Operations Were Affected by Problems Encountered Using New
Technology, and the Bureau Did Not Sufficiently Specify What It
Expected of Technology:
The dress rehearsal address canvassing started May 7, 2007, and ended
June 25, 2007, as planned. The Bureau reported in its 2008 Census Dress
Rehearsal Address Canvassing Assessment Report being able to use the
HHC to collect address information for 98.7 percent of housing units
visited and map information for 97.4 percent of the housing units
visited. There were 630,334 records extracted from the Bureau's address
and mapping database and sent to the Bureau's address canvassing
operation and 574,606 valid records following the operation.[Footnote
9] Mapspots (mapping coordinates) were collected for each structure
that the Bureau defined as a Housing Unit, Other Living Quarters, or
Uninhabitable. Each single-family structure received its own mapspot,
while multi-unit structures shared a single mapspot for all the living
quarters within that structure.[Footnote 10] According to the Bureau's
2008 Dress Rehearsal Address Canvassing Assessment Report, the address
canvassing operation successfully collected GPS mapspot coordinates in
the appropriate block for approximately 92 percent of valid structures;
most of the remaining 8 percent of cases had a manual coordinate that
was used as the mapspot. It is not clear whether this represents
acceptable performance because the Bureau did not set thresholds as to
what it expected during the address canvassing dress rehearsal.
Listers Encountered Problems Using HHCs to Update Addresses and Collect
Mapspots during the Dress Rehearsal Address Canvassing Operation:
Listers experienced multiple problems using the HHCs. For example, we
observed and the listers told us that they experienced slow and
inconsistent data transmissions from the HHCs to the central data
processing center. The listers reported the device was slow to process
addresses that were a part of a large assignment area. Bureau staff
reported similar problems with the HHCs in observation reports, help
desk calls, and debriefing reports. In addition, our analysis of Bureau
documentation revealed problems with the HHCs consistent with those we
observed in the field:
* Bureau observation reports revealed that listers most frequently had
problems with slow processing of addresses, large assignment areas, and
transmission.
* The help desk call log revealed that listers most frequently reported
issues with transmission, the device freezing, mapspotting, and large
assignment areas.
* The Bureau's debriefing reports illustrated the impact of the HHCs
problems on address canvassing. For example, one participant commented
that the listers struggled to find solutions to problems and wasted
time in replacing the devices.
Collectively, the observation reports, help desk calls, debriefing
reports, and Motion and Time Study raised serious questions about the
performance of the HHCs during the address canvassing operation. The
Bureau's 2008 Dress Rehearsal Address Canvassing Assessment Report
cited several problems with HHCs. For example, the Bureau observed the
following problems:
* substantial software delays for assignment areas with over 700
housing units;
* substantial software delays when linking mapspots at multi-unit
structures;
* unacceptable help desk response times and insufficient answers, which
"severely" affected productivity in the field, and:
* inconsistencies with the operations control system that made
management of the operation less efficient and effective.
The assessment reported 5,429 address records with completed field work
were overwritten during the course of the dress rehearsal address
canvassing operation, eliminating the information that had been entered
in the field. The Bureau reported that this occurred due to an
administrative error that assigned several HHCs the same identification
number. Upon discovering the HHC mistake, the FDCA contractor took
steps during the dress rehearsal address canvassing operation to ensure
that all of the HHC devices deployed for the operation had unique
identification numbers. Left uncorrected, this error could have more
greatly affected the accuracy of the Bureau's master address list
during dress rehearsal.
The HHCs are used in a mobile computing environment where they upload
and download data from the data processing centers using a commercial
mobile broadband network. The data processing centers housed
telecommunications equipment and the central databases, which were used
to communicate with the HHCs and manage the address canvassing
operation. The HHCs download data, such as address files, from the data
processing centers, and upload data, such as completed work and time
and expense forms, to the data processing centers. The communications
protocols used by the HHCs were similar to those used on cellular
phones to browse Web pages on the Internet or to access electronic
mail. For HHCs that were out of the coverage area of the commercial
mobile broadband network or otherwise unable to connect to the network,
a dial-up capability was available to transfer data to the data
processing centers. FDCA contract officials attributed HHC transmission
performance problems to this mobile computing environment,
specifically:
* telecommunication and database problems that prevented the HHC from
communicating with the data center;
* extraneous data being transmitted (such as column and row headings),
and:
* an unnecessary step in the data transmission process.
When problems with the HHC were identified during address canvassing,
the contractor downloaded corrected software in five different
instances over the 7-week period of the dress rehearsal address
canvassing operation. After address canvassing, the Bureau established
a review board and worked with its contractor to create task teams to
address FDCA performance issues such as (1) transmission problems
relating to the mobile computing environment, (2) the amount of data
transmitted for large assignment areas, and (3) options for improving
HHC performance. One factor that may have contributed to these
performance problems was a compressed schedule that did not allow for
thorough testing before the dress rehearsal. Given the tighter time
frames going forward, testing and quickly remedying issues identified
in these tests becomes even more important.
The Bureau Achieved Productivity Expectations for Rural Areas but Not
Urban/suburban Areas:
Productivity results were mixed when Census listers used the HHC for
address canvassing activities. A comparison of planned versus reported
productivity reveals lister productivity exceeded the Bureau's target
by almost two housing units per hour in rural areas, but missed the
target by almost two housing units per hour in urban/suburban areas.
Further, the reported productivity for urban/suburban areas was more
than 10 percent lower than the target, and this difference will have
cost implications for the address canvassing operation. Table 1 shows
planned and reported productivity data for urban/suburban and rural
areas.
Table 1: Dress Rehearsal Productivity Data by Area--Target and
Reported:
Area: Urban/suburban areas;
Housing units per hour: Target: 15.0;
Housing units per hour: Reported: 13.4.
Area: Rural areas;
Housing units per hour: Target: 8.0;
Housing units per hour: Reported: 9.8.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau.
[End of table]
While productivity results were mixed, the lower than expected
productivity in urban/suburban areas represents a larger problem as
urban/suburban areas contain more housing units--and therefore a larger
workload. According to the Bureau's dress rehearsal address canvassing
assessment report, HHC problems appear to have negatively affected
listers' productivity. The Bureau's assessment report concluded that
"productivity of listers decreased because of the software problems."
However, the extent of the impact is difficult to measure, as are other
factors that may have affected productivity.
The effect of decreases in productivity can mean greater costs. The
Bureau, in earlier cost estimates, assumed a productivity rate of 25.6
housing units per hour, exceeding both the expected and reported rates
for the dress rehearsal. We previously reported that substituting the
actual address canvassing productivity for the previously assumed 25.6
units per hour resulted in a $270 million increase in the existing life-
cycle cost estimate.[Footnote 11] The Bureau has made some adjustments
to its cost estimates to reflect its experience with the address
canvassing dress rehearsal, but could do more to update its cost
assumptions. We recommended the Bureau do so in our prior report.
[Footnote 12]
The Bureau Collected Some Data on HHC Performance Issues, but Did Not
Develop Benchmarks:
The Bureau took some steps to collect data, but did not fully evaluate
the performance of the HHCs. For instance, the contractor provided the
Bureau with data such as average transmission times collected from
transmission logs on the HHC, as required in the contract. But the
Bureau has not used these data to analyze the full range of
transmission times, nor how this may have changed throughout the entire
operation. Without this information, the magnitude of the handheld
computers' performance issues throughout dress rehearsal was not clear.
Also, the Bureau had few benchmarks (the level of performance it is
expected to attain) to help evaluate the performance of HHCs throughout
the operation. For example, the Bureau has not developed an acceptable
level of performance for total number of failed transmissions or
average connection speed. Additionally, the contractor and the Bureau
did not use the dashboard specified in the contract for dress rehearsal
activities. Since the dress rehearsal, the Bureau has specified certain
performance requirements that should be reported on a daily, weekly,
monthly, and on an exception basis.
In assessing an "in-house built" model of the HHC, we recommended in
2005 that the Bureau establish specific quantifiable measures in such
areas as productivity that would allow it to determine whether the HHCs
were operating at a level sufficient to help the Bureau achieve cost
savings and productivity increases.[Footnote 13] Further, our work in
the area of managing for results has found that federal agencies can
use performance information, such as that described above, to make
various types of management decisions to improve programs and results.
For example, performance information can be used to identify problems
in existing programs, identify the causes of problems, develop
corrective actions, plan, identify priorities, and make resource
allocation decisions. Managers can also use performance information to
identify more effective approaches to program implementation.[Footnote
14]
The Bureau had planned to collect certain information on operational
aspects of HHC use, but did not specify how it would measure HHC
performance. Specifically, sections of the FDCA contract require the
HHCs to have a transmission log with what was transmitted, the date,
time, user, destination, content/data type, and outcome status. In the
weeks leading up to the January 16, 2008, requirements delivery, Bureau
officials drafted a document titled "FDCA Performance Reporting
Requirements," which included an array of indicators such as average
HHC transmission duration, total number of successful HHC
transmissions, total number of failed HHC transmissions, and average
HHC connection speed. Such measures may be helpful to the Bureau in
evaluating its address canvassing operations. While these measures
provide certain useful information, they only cover a few dimensions of
performance. For example, to better understand transmission time
performance, it is important to include analyses that provide
information on the range of transmission times.
The original FDCA contract also requires that the contractor provide
near real-time reporting and monitoring of performance metrics on a
"control panel/dashboard" application to visually report those metrics
from any Internet-enabled PC. Such real-time reporting would help the
Bureau and contractor identify problems during the operation, giving
them the opportunity to quickly make corrections. However, the "control
panel/dashboard" application was not used during the dress rehearsal.
The Bureau explained that it needed to use the dress rehearsal to
identify what data or analysis would be most useful to include on the
dashboard it expects to use for address canvassing in 2009. In January
and February 2008, the Bureau began to make progress in identifying the
metrics that will be used in the dashboard. According to Bureau
officials, the dashboard will include a subset of measures from the
"FDCA Performance Reporting Requirements" such as average HHC
transmission time and total number of successful and failed HHC
transmissions, which would be reported on a daily basis. Between April
28, 2008, and May 1, 2008, the Bureau and its contractor outlined the
proposed reporting requirements for the dashboard. The Bureau indicated
that the dashboard will be tested during the systems testing phase,
which is currently scheduled for November and December 2008. They did
not specify if the dashboard will be used in the operational field test
of address canvassing, which is the last chance for the Bureau to
exercise the software applications under Census-like conditions.
The dress rehearsal address canvassing study assessment plan outlines
the data the Bureau planned to use in evaluating the use of the HHC,
but these data do not allow the Bureau to completely evaluate the
magnitude of performance problems. The plan calls for using data such
as the number of HHCs shipped to local census offices, the number of
defective HHCs, the number of HHCs broken during the dress rehearsal
address canvassing operation, the number checked in at the end of the
operation, whether deployment affected the ability of staff to complete
assignments, software/hardware problems reported through the help desk,
the amount of time listers lost due to hardware or software
malfunctions, and problems with transmissions. The plan also called for
the collection of functional performance data on the HHCs, such as the
ability to collect mapspots.
Despite reporting on the data outlined in the study plan, the Bureau's
evaluation does not appear to cover all relevant circumstances
associated with the use of the HHC. For example, the Bureau does not
measure when listers attempt transmissions but the mobile computing
environment does not recognize the attempt. Additionally, the Bureau's
evaluation does not provide conclusive information about the total
amount of downtime listers experienced when using the HHC. For example,
in the Bureau's final 2008 Census Dress Rehearsal Address Canvassing
Assessment Report, the Bureau cites its Motion and Time Study as
reporting observed lister time lost due to hardware or software
malfunctions as 2.5 percent in the Fayetteville and 1.8 percent in the
San Joaquin County dress rehearsal locations. The report also notes
that the basis for these figures does not include either the downtime
between the onset of an HHC error and the last/successful resolution
attempt, nor does it include the amount of time a lister spent unable
to work due to an HHC error. These times were excluded because they
were not within the scope of the Motion and Time Study of address
canvassing tasks. However, evaluating the full effect of HHC problems
should entail accounting for the amount of time listers spend resolving
HHC errors or are not engaged in address canvassing tasks due to HHC
errors.
The Redesign of the Decennial Census Carries with It Significant
Implications for 2010 Address Canvassing:
Because of the performance problems observed with HHCs during the 2008
Dress Rehearsal, and the Bureau's subsequent redesign decision to use
the HHCs for the actual address canvassing operation, HHC use will have
significant implications for the 2010 Address Canvassing operation.
[Footnote 15] In his April 9, 2008, congressional testimony, the
Bureau's Director outlined next steps that included developing an
integrated schedule for address canvassing and testing. On May 22,
2008, the Bureau issued this integrated schedule, which identifies
activities that need to be accomplished for the decennial and
milestones for completing tasks. However, the milestones for preparing
for address canvassing are very tight and in one case overlap the onset
of address canvassing. Specifically, the schedule indicates that the
testing and integrating of HHCs will begin in December 2008 and be
completed in late March 2009; however, the deployment of the HHCs for
address canvassing will actually start in February 2009, before the
completion of testing and integration. It is uncertain whether the
testing and integration milestones will permit modification to
technology or operations prior to the onset of operations. Separately,
the Bureau on June 6, 2008, produced a testing plan for the address
canvassing operation. This testing plan includes a limited operational
field test of address canvassing; however, the plan does not specify
that the dashboard described earlier will be used in this test. The
address canvassing testing plan is a high-level plan that describes a
partial redo of the dress rehearsal to validate certain functionality
and represents a reasonable approach. However, it does not specify the
basis for readiness of the FDCA solution for address canvassing and
when and how this determination will occur--when the Bureau would say
that the contractor's solution meets its operational needs.
Field staff reported problems with HHCs when working in large
assignment areas during address canvassing. According to Bureau
officials, the devices could not accommodate more than 720 addresses--
3 percent of dress rehearsal assignment areas were larger than that.
The amount of data transmitted and used slowed down the HHCs
significantly. In a June 2008, congressional briefing, Bureau officials
indicated once other HHC technology issues are resolved the number of
addresses the HHCs can accommodate may increase or decrease from the
current 720. Identification of these problems caused the contractor to
create a task team to examine the issues, and this team recommended
improving the end-to-end performance of the mobile solution by
controlling the size of assignment area data delivered to the HHC for
address canvassing. One specific recommendation was limiting the size
of assignment areas to 200 total addresses. However, the redesign
effort took another approach and decided that the Bureau will use
laptops and software used in other demographic surveys to collect
information in large blocks (assignment areas comprise one or more
blocks). Specifically, the collection of information in large blocks
(those with over 700 housing units) will be accomplished using existing
systems and software known as the Demographic Area Address Listing
(DAAL)[Footnote 16] and the Automated Listing and Mapping Instrument
(ALMI).[Footnote 17] Prior to the start of the address canvassing
operation, blocks known to have more than 700 housing units would be
removed from the scope of the FDCA solution. These blocks will be
flagged in the data delivered to the contractor and will not be
included for the address canvassing operation. Because this plan
creates dual-track operations, Bureau officials stated that differences
exist in the content of the extracts and that they are currently
working to identify the differences and determine how to handle those
differences. Additionally, they said that plans for the testing of the
large block solution are expected to occur throughout various phases of
the testing for address canvassing and will include performance
testing, interface testing, and field testing.
The costs for a help desk that can support listers during address
canvassing were underestimated during planning and have increased
greatly. Originally, the costs for the help desk were estimated to be
approximately $36 million, but current estimates have the cost of the
help desk rising as high as $217 million. The increased costs are meant
to increase the efficiency and responsiveness of the help desk so that
listers do not experience the kind of delays in getting help that they
did during the address canvassing dress rehearsal. For example, the
Bureau's final assessment of dress rehearsal address canvassing
indicated that unacceptable help desk response times and insufficient
answers severely affected productivity in the field. Field staff told
us that help desk resources were unavailable on the weekends and that
they had difficulty getting help. The increased costs cited above are
due in part to improvements to the help desk, such as expanded
availability and increased staffing.
Lower than expected productivity has cost implications. In fact, the
Bureau is beginning to recognize part of this expected cost increase.
Specifically, the Bureau expects to update assumptions for the number
of hours listers 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 listers and, therefore, procure more HHCs. The
Bureau adjusted its assumptions based on its experience in the dress
rehearsal. Our related report recommends updating assumptions and cost
estimates.[Footnote 18]
Conclusions:
The dress rehearsal represents a critical stage in preparing for the
2010 Census. This is the time when Congress and others should have the
information they need to know how well the design for 2010 is likely to
work, what risks remain, and how those risks will be mitigated. We have
highlighted some of the risks facing the Bureau in preparing for its
first major field operation of the 2010 Census--address canvassing.
Going forward, it will be important for the Bureau to specify how it
will ensure that this operation will be successfully carried out. If
the solutions do not work in resolving HHC technology issues the Bureau
will not achieve productivity targets, and decennial costs will
continue to rise. Without specifying the basis and time frame for
determination of readiness of the FDCA address canvassing solution, the
Bureau will not have the needed assurance that the HHCs will meet its
operational needs. Such testing is especially critical for changes to
operations that were not part of the address canvassing dress
rehearsal. For example, because data collection in large blocks will be
conducted in parallel with the address canvassing operation, and the
Bureau is currently working to identify the differences in the content
of the resulting extracts, it is important that this dual-track be
tested to ensure it will function as planned. Furthermore, without
benchmarks defining successful performance of the technology, the
Bureau and stakeholders will be less able to reliably assess how well
the technology worked during address canvassing. Although the Bureau
field tested the HHCs in its dress rehearsal last year, it did not then
have in place a dashboard for monitoring field operations. The Bureau's
proposal for a limited field operations test this fall provides the
last opportunity to use such a dashboard in census-like conditions. To
be most effective, test results, assessments, and new plans need to be
completed in a timely fashion, and they must be shared with those with
oversight authority as soon as they are completed.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To ensure that the Bureau addresses key challenges facing its
implementation of the address canvassing operation for the 2010 Census,
we recommend that the Secretary of Commerce direct the Bureau to take
the following four actions:
* Specify the basis for determining the readiness of the FDCA solution
for address canvassing and when and how this determination will occur-
-when the Bureau would say that the contractor's solution meets its
operational needs.
* Specify how data collection in large blocks will be conducted in
parallel with the address canvassing operation, and how this dual-track
will be tested in order to ensure it will function as planned.
* Specify the benchmarks for measures used to evaluate the HHC
performance during address canvassing.
* Use the dashboard to monitor performance of the HHCs in the
operational field test of address canvassing.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
The Secretary of Commerce provided written comments on a draft of this
report on July 25, 2008. The comments are reprinted in appendix II.
Commerce had no substantive disagreements with our conclusions and
recommendations and cited actions it is taking to address challenges
GAO identified. Commerce offered revised language for one
recommendation, which we have accepted. Commerce also provided
technical corrections, which we incorporated.
Specifically, we revised our recommendation that the Bureau "Specify
the basis for acceptance of the FDCA solution for address canvassing
and when that acceptance will occur--when the Bureau would say it meets
its operational needs and accepts it from the contractor" to "Specify
the basis for determining the readiness of the FDCA solution for
address canvassing and when and how this determination will occur--when
the Bureau would say that the contractor's solution meets its
operational needs." Also, after further discussion with Bureau
officials, we provided more specific measures of address and map
information successfully collected. We revised our discussion of the
2004 and 2006 census tests to make clear that the HHC prototype was
only used for non-response follow-up in the 2004 test. Finally, we
revised our language on their decision to contract the development of
HHC hardware and software to address the Bureau's concerns about how we
characterized the timing of its decision.
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, and the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau. Copies will be
made available to others upon request. This report will also be
available at no charge on GAO's Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you have any questions on matters discussed in this report, please
contact Mathew J. Scirč at (202) 512-6806 or sciremj@gao.gov, or David
A. Powner at (202) 512-9286 or pownerd@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to
this report are listed in appendix III.
Signed by:
Mathew J. Scirč:
Director, Strategic Issues:
Signed by:
David A. Powner:
Director, Information Technology Management Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Our objectives for this report were to analyze U.S. Census Bureau
(Bureau) and contractor data showing how handheld computers (HHC)
operated and its implications on operations, and examine implications
the redesign may have on plans for address canvassing in the 2010
Census. To determine how well the HHC worked in collecting and
transmitting address and mapping data, and what data the Bureau and
contractor used in assessing HHC performance during address canvassing,
we examined Bureau documents, observed HHCs in use, and interviewed
Bureau and contractor officials. For example, we reviewed Census Bureau
memos that outline the data on HHC performance the Bureau planned to
collect. We reviewed the Field Data Collection Automation (FDCA)
contract, focusing specifically on what performance specifications and
requirements were included in the contract. We observed HHC use during
dress rehearsal address canvassing, and interviewed Bureau officials
and contractor officials about HHC use and performance during the dress
rehearsal of address canvassing. Specifically, we observed five
different listers over the course of 2 days in the Fayetteville, North
Carolina, dress rehearsal site and six different listers over 3 days in
the San Joaquin County, California, dress rehearsal site. We also
analyzed data on HHC use including data on HHC functionality/usability,
HHC log data, the Bureau's Motion and Time Study, the Bureau's 2008
Dress Rehearsal assessments, observational and debriefing reports, a
log of help desk tickets, and lessons-learned documents. Additionally,
we interviewed knowledgeable Bureau and contractor officials. We did
not independently verify the accuracy and completeness of the data
either input into or produced by the operation of the HHCs.
To better understand how HHC performance affected worker productivity,
we attended the dress rehearsal address canvassing training for
listers, interviewed Bureau officials about HHC performance, and
examined data provided in the Bureau's Motion and Time Study and other
sources related to predicted and reported productivity. In addition, we
identified and analyzed the factors that contribute to HHC performance
on aspects of address canvassing productivity. We examined the Bureau's
Motion and Time Study results, conducted checks for internal
consistency within the reported results, and met with Bureau officials
to obtain additional information about the methodology used. The
results reported in the study are estimates based on a non-random
sample of field staff observed over the course of the address
canvassing operation. Within the context of developing estimates for
the time it takes address listers to perform address canvassing tasks
and successfully resolve certain HHC problems, we determined that these
data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our analysis.
However, the study's methodology did not encompass a full accounting of
the time field staff spent on the job, nor did the report explain how
some results attributed to the Motion and Time Study were derived.
We also compared the Bureau's expected productivity rates to
productivity rates reported to us by the Bureau in response to our
request for actual productivity data from the 2008 Dress Rehearsal
Addressing Canvassing operation. After analyzing the Bureau's
productivity data, we requested information about how the productivity
data figures were calculated in order to assess their reliability. In
reviewing documentation on the methodology and data, we identified
issues that raise concerns. The Bureau acknowledged that data for all
address field staff were not included in its analysis. Even though the
productivity figures reported to us and presented in this report are
generally in line with the range of productivity figures shown in the
Bureau's Motion and Time Study, the missing data, along with the
Bureau's lack of response to some of our questions about calculations
of productivity figures, limit the reliability of these data. We
determined that they are adequate for purposes of this report in that
they provide a rough estimate of field worker productivity, but are not
sufficiently reliable to be characterized as definitive representation
of the actual productivity experienced in the 2008 Dress Rehearsal
Address Canvassing operation.
To ascertain the implications the redesign may have on plans for
address canvassing in the 2010 Census, we observed meetings with
officials of the Bureau, Commerce, Office of Management and Budget, and
the contractor who were working on the FDCA redesign at Bureau
headquarters. We also met with the Director of the Census Bureau and
analyzed key Department of Commerce, Bureau, and contractor documents
including the 2010 Census Risk Reduction Task Force Report and a
program update provided by the contractor (as well as new and clarified
requirements). The Bureau is in the process of revising some of its
plans for conducting address canvassing and had not finalized those
plans prior to the completion of this audit.
We conducted this performance audit from April 2007 to July 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:
July 25, 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's Decision to Continue with
Handheld Computers for Address Canvassing Makes Planning and Testing
Critical (GAO-08-936). 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 Census 2010: Census Bureau's Decision to Continue with
Handheld Computers for Address Canvassing Makes Planning and Testing
Critical (GA0-08-936), July 2008:
The U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. Census Bureau continue to
work closely with all stakeholders to ensure the 2010 census is
successful. As highlighted in this study conducted by the United States
Government Accountability Office (GAO), we are especially focused on
ensuring a successful address canvassing operation in April 2009 using
handheld computers (HHCs). We have no substantive disagreements with
the conclusions and recommendations made by GAO in this report. In
fact, we have already taken a number of important steps to address the
challenges identified.
Many of the problems with the HHCs surfaced during the Address
Canvassing Dress Rehearsal. These challenges were further clarified and
evaluated by our Integrated Program Team, the Risk Reduction Task
Force, an Expert Panel established by the Secretary of Commerce, and
other internal and external reviews.
The first major step taken was to implement the Task Force's
recommendation-supported by the members of the Expert Panel and by the
Secretary-to move to a paper-based Nonresponse Follow-Up operation
while retaining the use of the HHCs in address canvassing. This
decision reduced the risks associated with systems development work
while allowing us to leverage Global Positioning System (GPS)
technologies by using HHCs. This approach will improve the accuracy of
our address list, which is fundamental to an accurate census.
On June 8, 2008, we completed and began implementing a comprehensive
testing plan for the Address Canvassing operation. The current plan
relies primarily on the Field Data Collection Automation (FDCA)
contract to supply a substantial portion of software for the operation.
From our experience in the Dress Rehearsal, we have learned that a
comprehensive, logical test plan is critical as we prepare for the
production field activity in April 2009. The Census Bureau's test plan
is organized into five comprehensive categories: FDCA testing, Large
Block testing, Geography Division's testing, Interface testing
(primarily FDCA interfaces with the Census Bureau), and an Operational
Field Test. This plan lays out a logical flow of test activities,
involves Census Bureau stakeholders throughout, details the dates and
purposes of each test, and ends with a confirmation test that puts all
the pieces together in an environment that replicates actual census
conditions.
As outlined in the Address Canvassing testing plan, we have developed
and continue to develop specific criteria to evaluate the effectiveness
of ongoing tests and determine progress in developing and deploying
HHCs. Part of this process entails working closely with the Mitre
Corporation and others to refine and improve performance metrics that
will be captured in a dashboard.
We are also closely monitoring the contractor's efforts by embedding
Census Bureau staff at key sites to observe firsthand all their testing
and requirements verification processes. During the last two weeks of
January 2009, we will participate in a thorough Operational Readiness
Review with the contractor which will include verifying specific
readiness criteria that will be documented in advance.
Specific Comments on the Draft Report:
Page 3 - Results In Brief: Please clarify the statement, "During dress
rehearsal address canvassing operations using HHC technology, the
Bureau reported being able to use the HHC to collect address and map
information for over 90 percent of housing units visited."
Census Bureau Comment: We have been unable to determine how GAO derived
this figure, so we would request clarification on how it was
calculated.
Page 8, second full paragraph: This paragraph implies that a prototype
of the HHC was used for address canvassing during both the 2004 and
2006 Census Tests.
Census Bureau Comment: While the Bureau did have a prototype of the
handheld computers (HHC) during the 2004 Census Test, it was used only
for the Nonresponse Follow-Up operations. It was not until the 2006
Census Test that we began using the HHC prototype to collect addresses
and automate the maps. Also, please add "address canvassing registers"
to the list of items that no longer required printing.
Page 8, third full paragraph: The statement reads, "After unsuccessful
attempts to develop its own HHC, the Bureau decided to award the
development of the hardware and software for a HHC to be used in the
2008 Census Dress Rehearsal and the 2010 Census to a contractor."
Census Bureau Comment: Please note that the development of the FDCA
contract was conceived-and the request for proposals offered-before the
2006 Address Canvassing was completed. The decision to contract was not
based on the Bureau's assessment of that software.
Pages 5 and 21 - Recommendations for Executive Action: Recommendation 1
reads, "Specify the basis for acceptance of the FDCA solution for
address canvassing and when that acceptance will occur-when the Bureau
would say it meets its operational needs and accepts it from the
contractor."
Census Bureau Comment: Based on the contract type of cost plus award
fee, the Bureau views "acceptance" as a contractual term. We would not
officially accept that the contractor's solution worked until after we
successfully completed Address Canvassing and received the data. As
noted, we continue to work closely with the contractor to verify
specific readiness criteria that will be documented in advance. We
request that you modify the statement to read, "Specify the basis for
determining the readiness of the FDCA solution for address canvassing
and when and how this determination will occur-when the Bureau would
say that the contractor's solution meets its operational needs.
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Mathew J. Scirč, (202) 512-6806 or sciremj@gao.gov:
David A. Powner, (202) 512-9286 or pownerd@gao.gov:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact names above, Assistant Director Signora May,
Stephen Ander, Thomas Beall, Jeffrey DeMarco, Richard Hung, Barbara
Lancaster, Andrea Levine, Amanda Miller, Niti Tandon, Lisa Pearson,
Cynthia Scott, Timothy Wexler, and Katherine Wulff made key
contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] GAO, Information Technology: Significant Problems of Critical
Automation Program Contribute to Risks Facing 2010 Census, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-550T] (Washington, D.C.: Mar.
5, 2008).
[2] GAO, Census 2010: Census at Critical Juncture for Implementing Risk
Reduction Strategies, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-
08-659T] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 9, 2008).
[3] K. Dixon, M. Blevins, et al., 2008 Census Dress Rehearsal Address
Canvassing Assessment Report, SSD 2008 Census Dress Rehearsal Memoranda
Series, No. 55, U.S. Census Bureau (Apr. 16, 2008).
[4] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-659T].
[5] The prototype of the HHC used during the 2004 Census Test, was used
only for the Non-response Follow-up operations. It was not until the
2006 Census Test that the Bureau began using the HHC prototype to
collect addresses and automate the maps.
[6] GAO, 2010 Census: Basic Design Has Potential, but Remaining
Challenges Need Prompt Resolution, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-05-9] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 12, 2005).
[7] GAO, 2010 Census: Census Bureau Needs to Take Prompt Actions to
Resolve Long-standing and Emerging Address and Mapping Challenges,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-272] (Washington,
D.C.: June 15, 2006).
[8] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-272].
[9] During the dress rehearsal address canvassing, 378,742 records were
verified; listers added 49,406 records to the Bureau's database;
removed 102,631 records; corrected 138,094 records; and there were
8,283 records that had no action.
[10] When the lister was collecting the mapspot, there were symbols
that displayed to indicate the status of the GPS signal. In the case
when a GPS signal was not available (and all attempts made by the
lister to obtain a signal were unsuccessful), the lister would manually
spot the structure (by tapping the HHC screen with its stylus) without
the benefit of the GPS coordinate collection. When a GPS signal was
available, the listers action of tapping on the screen collected both a
manual and GPS map spot.
[11] GAO, 2010 Census: Census Bureau Should Take Action to Improve the
Credibility and Accuracy of Its Cost Estimate for the Decennial Census,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-554] (Washington,
D.C.: June 16, 2008).
[12] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-554].
[13] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-9].
[14] GAO, Managing for Results: Enhancing Agency Use of Performance
Information for Management Decision Making, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-927] (Washington, D.C.: Sept.
9, 2005).
[15] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-659T].
[16] DAAL is a post-Census 2000 program that coordinates various
operations related to the review and automated update of the geographic
content of the TIGERŪ database and the addresses in the MAF; the
results of the reviews and updates are recorded using laptop computers.
[17] ALMI is a post-Census 2000 system of files and software used by
the Bureau to enable regional office field staff to update the address
information in the MAF and the street, address location, and related
information in the TIGERŪ database for an area. The field staff use
laptop computers to view address and map information derived from the
TIGERŪ database and the MAF, and to record updates and corrections to
those files.
[18] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-554].
[End of section]
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:
