The quality of the coverage measurement data improved for the 1990  Census, and the Bureau recommended statistically adjusting the results. Coverage Measurement Programs for the 2000 Census Did Not Meet Bureau Objectives

In planning the 2000 Census, the Bureau developed a new coverage  measurement program, I.C.M., that was designed to address the major  shortcomings of the 1990 coverage measurement program. As the Bureau’s current  approach for the 2010 Census includes coverage measurement to assess  the accuracy of the census (but not necessarily to adjust the numbers  themselves), it will be important for the Bureau to consider these lessons  as its planning efforts continue. The lessons include (1) developing a  coverage measurement methodology that is both technically and  operationally feasible, (2) determining the level of geography at which  coverage measurement is intended, (3) keeping stakeholders, particularly  Congress, informed of the Bureau’s plans, and (4) adequately testing the  eventual coverage measurement program. According to Bureau officials, an important result of the A.C.E. Contractor Costs Are Not Complete

From fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 2001, the Bureau obligated about  $207 million for I.C.M./A.C.E. As shown in table 2, of that  $207 million, we identified about $22.3 million (11 percent) in obligated  amounts for contracts involving more than 170 vendors. Therefore, the Bureau  considered contractor costs from earlier years as part of its general  research and development programs, and the Bureau did not assign  unique project codes to identify I.C.M./A.C.E. programs and related  costs in its financial management system. special test, the Bureau did not consider these costs as part of the  I.C.M./A.C.E. evaluations, and did not have a separate code  identifying A.C.E. Second, it would be important to set up project codes to capture  coverage measurement activities as early in the planning process as  possible. Recommendations for Executive Action

To help ensure that any future coverage measurement efforts achieve their  intended objectives and costs can be properly tracked, we recommend that  the Secretary of Commerce direct the Bureau to   in conjunction with Congress and other stakeholders, come to a  decision soon on whether and how coverage measurement will be used  in the 2010 Census;  consider incorporating lessons learned from its coverage measurement  experience during the 2000 Census, such as (1) demonstrating both the  operational and technical feasibility of its coverage measurement  methods, (2) determining the level of geography at which coverage can  be reliably measured, (3) keeping Congress and other stakeholders  informed of its plans, and (4) adequately testing coverage measurement  prior to full implementation; and  ensure that the Bureau’s financial management systems can capture and  report program activities early in the decennial process and ensure that  project costs are monitored for accuracy and completeness. Because the A.C.E.
Why GAO Did This Study

To help measure the quality of the 2000 Census and to possibly adjust for any errors, the U.S. Census Bureau (Bureau) conducted the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation (A.C.E.) program. However, after obligating around $207 million for A.C.E. and its predecessor program, Integrated Coverage Measurement (I.C.M.), from fiscal years 1996 through 2001, the Bureau did not use either program to adjust the census numbers. Concerned about the amount of money the Bureau spent on I.C.M. and A.C.E. programs and what was produced in return, the subcommittee asked us to review the objectives and results of the programs, the costs of consultants, and how best to track future coverage measurement activities.

What GAO Found

The two programs the Bureau employed to measure the quality of the 2000 Census population data did not meet their objectives. The A.C.E. program achieved results other than those laid out in the Bureau's formal objectives that highlight important lessons learned. They include (1) developing a coverage measurement methodology that is both operationally and technically feasible, (2) determining the level of geography at which coverage measurement is intended, (3) keeping stakeholders, particularly Congress, informed of the Bureau's plans, and (4) adequately testing coverage measurement methodologies. It will be important for the Bureau to consider these as its current plans for the 2010 Census include coverage evaluation to measure the accuracy of the census but not necessarily to adjust the results. Of the roughly $207 million the Bureau obligated for I.C.M./A.C.E. programs from fiscal years 1996 through 2001, we identified about $22.3 million that was obligated for contracts involving over 170 vendors. We could not identify any obligations prior to 1996 in part because the Bureau included them with its general research and development efforts and did not assign the I.C.M./A.C.E. operations unique project codes in its financial management system. To track these costs in the future, it will be important for the Bureau to (1) have a financial management system that has specific project codes to capture coverage measurement costs, (2) establish the project codes as early in the planning process as possible, and (3) monitor the usage of the codes to ensure that they are properly charged.