For example, the Bureau’s Geography  Division is working with USPS, other federal agencies, and state, local,  and tribal governments on a new program called the Geographic Support  System Initiative (GSS-I). This initiative allows government agencies at all  levels to regularly share and continuously update their address lists and  road data with the Bureau. The Bureau Is Considering a Variety of Sources to Meet Key Address and Mapping Needs, but Has Not Systematically Documented Its Decisions

		The Bureau Has Begun Making Decisions About Data Sources to Meet Key Address and Mapping Needs

The Bureau is taking a number of actions to help it develop a better  understanding of the different sources available for updating address and  mapping data and to better position it for cost reduction opportunities in  data acquisition while increasing the quality of the MAF/TIGER database. GSS-I partnerships. Additional data sources. The Bureau has also taken steps to work with commercial vendors to  review potential sources of commercial data that the Bureau could use to  augment or verify data collected through GSS-I. Federal internal control standards and Office of  Management and Budget guidance on geospatial dataBureau should be supporting its significant data source decisions—such  as for its address and mapping needs—in terms of both cost and quality,  as well as with clear management approval for the decisions. Cost considerations. By having a systematic  process to consider the quality of the data that the Bureau relies on from  various sources, the Bureau can help ensure that effective choices are  being made and that possible limitations in data that might affect their use  are better understood. We found that at the  time decisions were made, the Bureau did not document management  approval in support of sourcing decisions for any of the data sources  discussed above. Yet we found the Bureau  does not have guidance outlining the need or the process for ensuring (1)  systematic justification for decisions related to using specific data sources  in terms of cost, quality, or other important considerations, and (2)  documentation of management approval for such decisions. By  developing more rigorous support and evidence of such decisions, the  Bureau can ensure transparency to Congress, commercial vendors, and  other stakeholders. However, we found that the Bureau’s approach to meeting its address  and mapping needs is missing key elements that comprise a rigorous,  integrated plan, including clear and measurable goals, decision  milestones at a level where decisions on GSS-I data sources might be  tracked, and performance data that management could use to track  progress. Measurable goals. While the Bureau has taken some positive  that provide  steps, such as preparing a series of planning documentshigh-level examples of measurable goals, schedules, and deadlines, it  has not put in place all elements integral to large complex projects. The  absence of detailed goals, schedules, deadlines, metrics, or data on  monitoring progress toward outcomes and the absence of a detailed  integrated plan that incorporates these elements means any limitations of  the GSS-I strategy may not be fully known or apparent until late in the  decade. Without these elements, it will be difficult for the Bureau to  ensure that it evaluates the costs and benefits of alternative data sources  and measures and reports the Bureau’s progress. Recommendations for Executive Action

To help ensure that the Bureau more rigorously considers data sources  and remains on schedule to meet its address and mapping needs, the  Secretary of Commerce and Undersecretary of Economic Affairs should  direct the Census Bureau to take the following three actions:  In order to ensure transparency of future decision making, implement  a process for documenting the support for data source decisions  intended to meet key address and mapping needs and the support for  assessing the cost and quality of data sources the Bureau is  considering. The Department of Commerce  generally agreed with our findings and recommendations and provided  technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This report reviewed (1) the extent to which the Bureau is considering  non-Bureau sources of data to meet its key address and mapping needs  for the 2020 Census, and (2) the status of the Bureau’s plans for meeting  those needs, paying particular attention to leading practices for project  management. To review the Bureau’s approaches for developing its address and  mapping needs for 2020 Census operations and preparing it for data  sourcing decisions, we compared the Bureau’s organizational documents  for its approaches–such as strategic, program management, and  operational plans–to elements of project planning we identified from  industry guides for project management and business process  reengineering, as well as other leading management practices we  identified in our prior work on establishing a coherent agency mission and  integrated strategic goals, and on adopting leading practices for results- oriented strategic planning and reporting.
Why GAO Did This Study

A complete and accurate address list is a key building block of a successful census, but developing such a list is costly and labor intensive. For the 2020 Census, the Bureau is reexamining approaches to control cost and maintain accuracy, including approaches to meet its address and mapping needs.
GAO was asked to examine potential private sector roles in 2020 Census address list and map development. GAO (1) evaluated the extent to which the Bureau is considering non-Bureau data source opportunities to meet such 2020 needs, and (2) reviewed the status of the Bureau's plans for meeting its key 2020 address and mapping needs.
GAO compared Bureau documentation to leading practices for planning, management, and scheduling from industry guides for project management, reviewed relevant documentation, and interviewed Bureau officials familiar with decennial census needs and data source decisions.

What GAO Found

The U.S. Census Bureau (Bureau) is working with stakeholders to identify various data sources to meet its address and mapping needs. For example, the Bureau has worked with state, local, and tribal governments and with commercial vendors to identify potential data sources to augment or verify data collected through its Geographic Support System Initiative (GSS-I) program. GSS-I allows government agencies at all levels to regularly share and continuously update their address lists and road data with the Bureau. Federal internal control standards and Office of Management and Budget guidance on geospatial data suggest that the Bureau should support significant data source decisions in terms of both data cost and quality.
However, the Bureau has inconsistently documented cost and quality support for decisions already made to use address and mapping data from state, tribal, and local governments, other federal agencies, and a commercial vendor. Without a systematic consideration of the quality of the variously sourced data that the Bureau plans to rely on, it cannot ensure that effective choices are being made and that possible data limitations that might affect their use are fully understood. Further, the Bureau did not document management approval in support of its data source decisions at the time that the decisions were made; without such documentation, the Bureau lacks accountability and transparency for future sourcing decisions. The Bureau does not have guidance clearly outlining the need or process for ensuring consideration of cost and quality—primary concerns of the Bureau's reexamination—or documentation of management approval for those data sources selected. By implementing a process for documenting such steps, the Bureau can ensure that data source decisions are transparent to Congress, commercial vendors, and other stakeholders.
The Bureau's approach for meeting its address and mapping needs lacks key elements of effective project management outlined in guidance GAO reviewed. Specifically, while the Bureau prepared planning documents to guide GSS-I, it did not include
clear and measurable performance goals to help it effectively meet its address and mapping needs;
milestones detailed at a level where decisions on GSS-I data sources might be tracked; and
performance measures, data, and reporting to help guide planning and track progress toward filling gaps in the Bureau's data needs.
While the Bureau has taken some positive steps—such as preparing a series of planning documents that provide high-level examples of measurable goals, schedules, and deadlines—the absence of detailed goals, schedules, deadlines, metrics, or data on monitoring progress toward outcomes, as well as the absence of a detailed integrated plan that incorporates these elements, means any limitations of the GSS-I strategy may not be fully known or apparent until late in the decade. Without these elements, it will be difficult for the Bureau to ensure that it is adequately evaluating the costs and benefits of alternative data sources, measuring and reporting its progress, or holding managers accountable for results.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends the Bureau implement processes for reviewing the cost and quality of data source selections and for documenting support for those decisions; document management approval of key data source decisions; and—for remaining data source decisions—develop a detailed plan with measurable goals, track performance against these goals, and set a timeline.
The Department of Commerce generally agreed with GAO's findings and recommendations.