Traditionally, the Bureau went door-to-door to homes across the country  to verify addresses. The Listers Generally Followed Procedures, but the Bureau Experienced Some Issues Reassigning Work, Estimating Workload and Lister Productivity, and Managing to Staffing Goals

The Bureau completed in-field address canvassing as scheduled by  September 29, 2017, canvassing approximately 340,400 addresses. According to Bureau procedures, listers were instructed to connect to the  Bureau’s Mobile Case Management (MCM) system to download work  assignments (address blocks) and to transmit their completed work at the  beginning and end of the work day but not during the work day. For the 2018 End-to-End Test, the Bureau completed in-field  address canvassing on time at two sites and early at one site; despite  workload increases at all three test sites and hiring shortfalls at two sites. Workload

For the 2020 Census, the Bureau estimates it will have to send 30  percent of addresses to the field for listers to verify. Bureau officials told us that the 30 percent in-field workload estimate is a  national average and is not specific to any of the three test sites. However, the Bureau was unable to provide us  with documentation to support how they arrived at the 30 percent  estimate. Lister Productivity

At the test sites, listers were substantially more productive than the  Bureau expected. In West Virginia, 60 percent of the required field staff  was hired and in Washington, 74.5 percent of the required field staff was  hired. According to Bureau officials, both the West Virginia and Washington  state test sites started hiring field staff later than expected because of  uncertainty surrounding whether the Bureau would have sufficient funding  to open all three test sites for the 2018 End-to-End Test. According to test data as of March 2018, the Bureau is short of its  recruiting goal for this operation which is being conducted in Providence  County, Rhode Island. Resolving Challenges from the Address Canvassing Test Will Better Position the Bureau for the 2020 Census

		The Bureau Does Not Have Procedures to Ensure All Collected Address Canvassing Data Are Retained

Bureau officials told us that during the test 11 out of 330 laptop computers  did not properly transmit address and map data collected for 25 blocks. Going into address canvassing for the End-to-End Test, Bureau officials  said they knew there was a problem with the LiMA software used to  update the Bureau’s address lists and maps. When transmission  problems were reported, staff was supposed to remotely retrieve the data  that were not transmitted. Bureau officials told us  that they do not know whether this was because the alert reports were not  viewed by responsible staff or whether the alert report to notify the  Bureau staff managing the operation was not triggered. While these new reports should help  ensure that Bureau staff are alerted when data has not properly  transmitted, the Bureau has not determined and addressed why the  procedures that required an alert report get triggered and then reviewed  by Bureau staff did not work as intended. As a result,  Bureau managers reported they did not rely on UTS and instead used  data from the source systems that fed into it. Bureau officials agreed that  inaccurate data is a problem and that this workaround was inefficient as  users had to take extra time to go to multiple systems to get the correct  data. However, the Bureau did not provide such instructions to  listers. Moreover, Bureau officials have not finalized (1) procedures for  reassigning work from one lister to another to prevent the unnecessary  duplication of work assignments, (2) instructions for using the Internet  when connectivity is a problem to ensure listers have access to training  and the secure transmission of data to and from the laptops, and (3)  plans for alternate training locations. To ensure address and map data  are not lost during transmission, Bureau officials will also need to either  (1) fix the problem with the LiMA software used to update the address  and map files or (2) determine and address why procedures that alert  reports be triggered and monitored were not followed. Recommendations for Executive Action

We are making the following seven recommendations to the Department  of Commerce and the Census Bureau:
Secretary of Commerce should ensure the Director of the U.S.
Census Bureau continues to evaluate and finalize workload estimates  for in-field address canvassing as well as evaluates the factors that  impacted productivity rates during the 2018 End-to-End Test and, if  necessary, make changes to workload and productivity assumptions  before the 2020 Census in-field address canvassing operation to help  ensure that assumptions that impact staffing and the number of  laptops to be procured are accurate. The Census Bureau also  provided technical comments that we incorporated, as appropriate.
Why GAO Did This Study

The success of the decennial census depends in large part on the Bureau's ability to locate every household in the United States. To accomplish this monumental task, the Bureau must maintain accurate address and map information for every location where a person could reside. For the 2018 End-to-End Test, census workers known as listers went door-to-door to verify and update address lists and associated maps in selected areas of three test sites—Bluefield-Beckley-Oak Hill, West Virginia; Pierce County, Washington; and Providence County, Rhode Island.
GAO was asked to review in-field address canvassing during the End-to-End Test. This report determines whether key address listing activities functioned as planned during the End-to-End Test and identifies any lessons learned that could inform pending decisions for the 2020 Census. To address these objectives, GAO reviewed key documents including test plans and training manuals, as well as workload, productivity and hiring data. At the three test sites, GAO observed listers conducting address canvassing.

What GAO Found

The Census Bureau (Bureau) recently completed in-field address canvassing for the 2018 End-to-End Test. GAO found that field staff known as listers generally followed procedures when identifying and updating the address file; however, some address blocks were worked twice by different listers because the Bureau did not have procedures for reassigning work from one lister to another while listers work offline. Bureau officials told GAO that they plan to develop procedures to avoid duplication but these procedures have not been finalized. Duplicating work decreases efficiency and increases costs.
GAO also found differences between actual and projected data for workload, lister productivity, and hiring.
For the 2020 Census, the Bureau estimates it will have to verify 30 percent of addresses in the field. However, at the test sites, the actual workload ranged from 37 to 76 percent of addresses. Bureau officials told GAO the 30 percent was a nationwide average and not site specific; however, the Bureau could not provide documentation to support the 30 percent workload estimate.
At all three test sites listers were significantly more productive than expected possibly because a design change provided better quality address and map data in the field, according to the Bureau.
Hiring, however, lagged behind Bureau goals. For example, at the West Virginia site hiring was only at 60 percent of its goal. Bureau officials attributed the shortfall to a late start and low unemployment rates.
Workload and productivity affect the cost of address canvassing. The Bureau has taken some steps to evaluate factors affecting its estimates, but continuing to so would help the Bureau refine its assumptions to better manage the operation's cost and hiring.
Listers used laptops to connect to the Internet and download assignments. They worked offline and went door-to-door to update the address file, then reconnected to the Internet to transmit their completed assignments. Bureau officials told GAO that during the test 11 out of 330 laptops did not properly transmit address and map data collected for 25 blocks. Data were deleted on 7 laptops. Because the Bureau had known there was a problem with software used to transmit address data, it created an alert report to notify the Bureau staff if data were not properly transmitted. However, Bureau officials said that either responsible staff did not follow procedures to look at the alert reports or the reports were not triggered. The Bureau is working to fix the software problem and develop new alert reports, but has not yet determined and addressed why these procedures were not followed.
The Bureau's data management reporting system did not always provide accurate information because of a software issue. The system was supposed to pull data from several systems to create a set of real-time cost and progress reports for managers to use. Because the data were not accurate, Bureau staff had to rely on multiple systems to manage address canvassing. The Bureau agreed that not only is inaccurate data problematic, but that creating workarounds is inefficient. The Bureau is developing new requirements to ensure data are accurate but these requirements have not been finalized.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making seven recommendations to the Department of Commerce and Bureau including to: (1) finalize procedures for reassigning work, (2) continue to evaluate workload and productivity data, (3) fix software problem, or determine and address why procedures were not followed, and (4) finalize report requirements to ensure data are accurate. The Department of Commerce agreed with GAO's recommendations, and the Bureau provided technical comments that were incorporated, as appropriate.