Scope and Methodology

As agreed with your offices, we assessed whether the program was  consistently implemented across the country, paying particular attention to  the extent to which the Bureau reviewed the census data for errors that  could have been caused by broader, more systemic problems, such as  shortcomings with a particular census-taking procedure. We also evaluated  how well the Bureau transitioned from an earlier quality assurance  program used in the 2000 Census, Full Count Review. At the same time, however, we identified several  shortcomings with the CQR program, including inconsistent handling of  internal cases by the Bureau’s regional offices and inaccurate data being  posted to the Bureau’s public Web site. Moreover, while CQR found the  counting of group quarters in their correct location—a problem known as  geocoding error—to be particularly challenging, the Bureau did not  perform a nationwide review of these known trouble spots, and thus  missed an opportunity to improve the accuracy of the data for these  dwellings. The corrections affected over 1,180 governmental units in the United  States. Although this is a small percentage of the nation’s more than  39,000 governmental units, the impact of those changes on local  governments was, in some cases, substantial, and could have implications  for federal assistance and state funding programs that use census numbers  in their allocation formulas, as well as other applications of census data. 4) at the University of North Carolina  (UNC) at Chapel Hill. The population count of Morehead, Kentucky, increased by more than  1,600 when CQR found that a large number of students from Morehead  State University’s dormitories were erroneously excluded from the city’s  population. However, given the  number of prisons and other group quarters geocoded to the wrong  location, refinements are needed. Better Strategic Planning and Other Actions Could Improve Future Count Correction Efforts

The CQR program was preceded by a quality assurance program called Full  Count Review, which ran from June 2000 through March 2001 and, like  CQR, was designed to find problems with the census data. However,  although the Bureau planned to fold unresolved full count issues into CQR,  many full count issues were rejected from CQR because the latter program  had more stringent documentation requirements. Because these numbers were later found to be flawed for some  jurisdictions, as the Bureau proceeds with its plans for the 2010 Census, it  will be important for it to explore options for reviewing and correcting this  essential information before it is released. Conclusions

The CQR program played an important role in improving the quality of data  from the 2000 Census. Third, it will be important for the Bureau to address persistent  strategic planning challenges. 2.
Why GAO Did This Study

The U.S. Census Bureau (Bureau) conducted the Count Question Resolution (CQR) program to correct errors in the count of housing units as well as dormitories and other group living facilities known as group quarters. GAO was asked to assess whether CQR was consistently implemented across the country, paying particular attention to whether the Bureau identified census errors that could have been caused by more systemic problems. GAO also evaluated how well the Bureau transitioned to CQR from an earlier quality assurance program called Full Count Review.

What GAO Found

The CQR program, which ran from June 30, 2001, to September 30, 2003, played an important role in improving the quality of data from the 2000 Census in that it corrected numbers affecting 47 states and over 1,180 governmental units. Although this is a small percentage of the nation's more than 39,000 government entities, the count revisions impacted private homes, prisons, and other dwellings and, in some cases, were significant. For example, when the Bureau deleted duplicate data on students at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and made other corrections, that state's head count dropped by 2,828 people. Similarly, CQR found that more than 1,600 people in Morehead, Kentucky, were counted in the wrong location. GAO identified several shortcomings with the CQR program, including inconsistent implementation by the Bureau's regional offices and the posting of inaccurate data to the Bureau's Web-based errata report. Moreover, while CQR found the counting of group quarters to be particularly problematic, the Bureau did not perform an active, nationwide review of these known trouble spots, and thus missed an opportunity to potentially improve the accuracy of the data for these dwellings. Further, because CQR had more stringent documentation requirements compared to a preceding program called Full Count Review, CQR rejected hundreds of unresolved full count issues, missing another opportunity to improve the data. As its plans proceed for the 2010 Census, it will be important for the Bureau to address the operational issues GAO identified. Moreover, because the data for apportionment and redistricting were later found to be flawed for some jurisdictions, it will be important for the Bureau to develop a count correction program that is designed to systematically review and correct these essential figures.