Scope and Methodology

As agreed with your offices, our objectives for this report were to review  the Bureau’s current plans for the 2010 Census and the extent to which they  might address shortcomings with the 2000 Census, analyze the Bureau’s  cost estimates, and assess the rigor of the Bureau’s 2010 planning process. 2010 Design Has Potential, but Introduces New Risks

In designing the 2010 Census, Bureau officials had four principal goals in  mind:  (1) increase the relevance and timeliness of census long-form data,  (2) reduce operational risk, (3) increase the coverage and accuracy of the  census, and (4) contain costs. The Bureau’s experience in conducting the 2000 Census highlighted the  need to update and modernize MAF/TIGER prior to 2010. Challenge #2: Resolving Uncertainties That Surround ACS

Most of the reforms, savings, and improvements in accuracy the Bureau  anticipates will not be possible unless it conducts a short-form-only census. While certain aspects of  the Bureau’s coverage measurement plans are still being developed, the  Bureau is not currently planning to develop a procedure that would allow it  to adjust census numbers for purposes of redistricting. This makes it difficult to evaluate the  costs and benefits of alternative designs, determine the level of resources  needed to achieve this goal, measure the Bureau’s progress, or hold  managers accountable for results. The Bureau appears to be further along in planning the 2010 Census  compared to a similar point during the 2000 Census cycle, and its efforts to  enhance past planning practices are commendable. However, the Bureau’s plans for 2010, while not unreasonable on the  surface, lack a substantial amount of supporting analysis, budgetary  transparency, and other information, making it difficult for us, Congress,  and other stakeholders to properly assess the feasibility of the Bureau’s  design and the extent to which it could lead to greater cost-effectiveness  compared to alternative approaches. Our draft report emphasized this exact point  noting that “The growing cost of the head count, at a time when the nation  is facing historic budget deficits, highlights the importance of  congressional deliberations on the extent to which each additional dollar  spent on the census results in better data, as well as how best to balance  the need for a complete count, with the need to ensure the cost of a  complete count does not become unreasonable.” Similarly, we concluded  that “it will also be important for policymakers to consider, early in the  decade, the long-term costs associated with the census and finding the  right balance between controlling mushrooming costs and improving  accuracy.”
The Bureau also believes the report implies that the cost increases are  caused by the reengineering effort.
Why GAO Did This Study

The key to a successful census is meticulous planning as it helps ensure greater cost-effectiveness. However, the 2000 and previous censuses have been marked by poor planning, which unnecessarily raised the costs and risks of those efforts. GAO was asked to (1) review the U.S. Census Bureau's (Bureau) current plans for 2010 and whether they might address shortcomings of the 2000 Census, (2) analyze the Bureau's cost estimates, and (3) review the rigor of the Bureau's 2010 planning process.

What GAO Found

While preparations for the 2010 Census appear to be further along compared to a similar point prior to the 2000 Census, cost and design information had to be pieced together from various documents. The Bureau's plans also lack a substantial amount of supporting analysis, budgetary transparency, and other information that made it difficult to verify the Bureau's assertions concerning the costs and benefits of its proposed approach. Further, unlike in previous censuses, the Bureau does not intend to develop coverage measurement procedures that would allow it to adjust census data for certain purposes. Although its experience in 2000 shows that its coverage measurement methodology needs improvement, GAO believes the Bureau should have researched alternative approaches more thoroughly and disclosed the results of its research before making a decision. In designing the 2010 Census, the Bureau hoped to address several shortcomings of the 2000 enumeration, namely to (1) increase the relevance and timeliness of data, (2) reduce operational risk, (3) increase coverage and accuracy, and (4) contain costs. To achieve these goals, three components--all new operations--are key to the Bureau's plans for 2010. They include enhancing procedures for building the census address list and associated maps, replacing the census long-form questionnaire with a more frequent sample survey, and conducting a short-form-only census. The Bureau's approach has the potential to achieve the first three goals, but reducing operational risk could prove to be more difficult as each of the three components actually introduces new risks. The Bureau will also be challenged to control the cost of the 2010 Census, now estimated at over $11 billion. The current budget reporting process masks the long-term costs of the census, most of which will be incurred in 2010; making it difficult for Congress to monitor the Bureau's planned expenditures. Certain actions by the Office of Management and Budget could produce greater fiscal transparency, and thus help inform congressional deliberations on how to best balance the need for an accurate census, with the need to ensure a reasonable cost for this endeavor.