Foreign Assistance: Any Further Aid to Haitian Justice System	 
Should Be Linked to Performance-Related Conditions (17-OCT-00,	 
GAO-01-24).							 
								 
In 1994, the United States and other countries intervened	 
militarily in Haiti to restore the democratically elected	 
government that had been overthrown by the Haitian military	 
several years earlier. During the last 6 years, the United States
provided assistance to help Haiti establish its first		 
civilian-controlled police and improve its judicial system. About
$70 million in U.S. assistance helped Haiti recruit, train,	 
organize, and equip a basic police force, including specialized  
units. However, despite these achievements, the police and	 
judicial sector have displayed several weaknesses. The Haitian	 
government's lack of a clear commitment to addressing the major  
problems of its police and judicial institutions has been the key
factor affecting the success of the U.S. assistance provided to  
these institutions. The United States is reassessing several	 
aspects of its relationship with Haiti because of concerns about 
how votes were counted in Haiti's May 2000 elections. The United 
States and Haiti have been unable to negotiate an agreement for  
continuing this assistance. At this time, any further aid to the 
Haitian Justice System should be linked to performance-related	 
conditions.							 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-01-24						        
    ACCNO:   164178						        
  TITLE:     Foreign Assistance: Any Further Aid to Haitian Justice   
System Should Be Linked to Performance-Related Conditions	 
     DATE:   10/17/2000 
  SUBJECT:   Developing countries				 
	     Federal aid to foreign countries			 
	     Foreign governments				 
	     International relations				 
	     Judicial reform					 
	     Law enforcement					 
	     Police training					 
	     Haiti						 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Testimony.                                               **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-01-24
     
A

Report to Congressional Requesters

October 2001 2000 CENSUS Better Productivity Data Needed for Future Planning
and Budgeting

GAO- 02- 4

October 4, 2001 The Honorable Henry A. Waxman Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Government Reform House of Representatives

The Honorable Carolyn B. Maloney House of Representatives

Nonresponse follow- up was the most expensive and labor- intensive of all
Census 2000 operations. According to the Bureau of the Census, it cost $1. 2
billion (about 29 percent of the $4. 1 billion spent on decennial activities
in fiscal year 2000) and required over 500,000 enumerators to

obtain census information from about 42 million nonresponding households in
under 10 weeks. Because of this colossal workload, even small variations in
productivity can have significant cost implications. For example, if
enumerators had needed as little as half a day more to complete their
workloads, it would have added over 2 million staff hours and at least $16
million to the cost of the operation, assuming everyone worked at the

Bureau?s minimum pay rate of about $8.25 per hour. 1 Not surprisingly,
workload and enumerator productivity have historically been two of the
largest drivers of census costs, and the Bureau developed its budget for the
2000 Census using a model that contained key assumptions about these two
variables. In our January 2001 response to your request for information on

enumerator productivity, we reported that productivity data for the 2000
Census was unavailable because the Bureau had not yet assessed its
reliability. 2 Since then, the Bureau completed its reliability assessment
and

made certain refinements. As agreed with your offices, this report follows
up on that earlier request and presents information on (1) enumerator
productivity rates by type of local census office and (2) the Bureau?s
methodology for refining the productivity data.

1 Enumerator wage rates ranged from about $8. 25 to $18. 50 depending on
location. 2 Decennial Censuses: Historical Data on Enumerator Productivity
Are Limited (GAO- 01- 208R, Jan. 5, 2001).

We obtained information on enumerator productivity rates by analyzing Bureau
productivity data and the underlying assumptions used to calculate them. To
obtain information on the Bureau?s methodology for refining the data and
factors that could improve the collection and analysis of productivity data
in the future, we interviewed officials from the Bureau?s Decennial
Management Division and reviewed, but did not audit, relevant Bureau
documents. On August 20, 2001, we requested comments on a draft of this
report from the Secretary of Commerce. In his September 18, 2001, written
response, the Secretary of Commerce informed us that Department of Commerce
and Bureau of the Census officials generally agreed with the

report and had no specific comments on its content or recommendations. We
performed our work from April through July 2001, in Washington, D. C., in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Results in Brief Nationally, enumerators completed their nonresponse follow-
up workload at a rate of 1.04 housing units per hour- slightly exceeding the
Bureau?s

expected rate of 1.03 housing units per hour. Productivity varied for the
four primary types of local census offices, ranging from 0.90 housing units
per hour in inner- city and urban areas, to 1. 10 cases per hour in rural
areas. In refining the data thus far, the Bureau corrected for what it
believes was the most significant discrepancy: a misclassification of
certain employees? time charges that overstated the number of hours worked
by nonresponse

follow- up enumerators and understated enumerator production rates. The
Bureau has not yet made any adjustments for a second problem identified in
the data-- employees who worked on both earlier census operations and
nonresponse follow- up and who charged their time to codes for those earlier
activities rather than nonresponse follow- up. Better application of the
Bureau?s quality assurance procedures could have produced more reliable data
initially and eliminated the need to correct the data once nonresponse
follow- up was completed.

Accurate productivity information is important for future planning
decisions. At the same time, the complexity and importance of nonresponse
follow- up requires that the Bureau place a premium on completing the
enterprise according to its operational plan. Nevertheless, with proper
planning, the two functions could be complementary, since the

Bureau?s personnel/ payroll and management information systems already
collect the raw data needed to assess enumerator productivity. Therefore, as
the Bureau plans for 2010 nonresponse follow- up, to ensure that the Bureau
develops a baseline of reliable productivity data for informing

future planning decisions consistent with the operational demands of
nonresponse follow- up, we recommend that the Secretary of Commerce direct
the Bureau to (1) determine the productivity measures needed to gauge
nonresponse follow- up and (2) design procedures, information systems, and
quality control mechanisms to reliably capture and analyze those measures in
accordance with nonresponse follow- up?s operational requirements.

Background In our January 2001 review, we described how the Bureau planned
to assess and refine its data on enumerator productivity because a
significant number of individuals on enumerator applicant lists at some
local census

offices were hired instead as crew leader assistants- a different position.
3 In some instances, the position change was not reflected in the Bureau?s
personnel/ payroll system. To the extent that this occurred, Bureau
officials said that it would overstate the number of hours that enumerators
actually worked and understate productivity (it did not, however, affect
actual payments to employees because enumerators and crew leader assistants
were paid at the same wage rate). Bureau officials also had questions

concerning the extent to which enumerators who worked on more than one
census operation charged the codes for these earlier operations rather than
the code for nonresponse follow- up. Our review also noted that enumerator
productivity rates could not be calculated for the 1940 through 1990
censuses because needed data on staffing levels and hours worked were
unavailable, incomplete, or not comparable. 4

Because productivity information will be important for informing the
Bureau?s planning and budgeting processes for the next national head count
in 2010, 5 we recommended that the Secretary of Commerce ensure that the
Bureau, in refining its productivity figures, identify the extent and nature
of any data anomalies, the impact they have on data quality, and the extent
to which the data can be compared by type of local census office. To help
ensure the comparability of data for the 2000 and future censuses, we also
recommended that the Bureau fully document how it calculates enumerator
productivity rates, and report the data by type of local census 3 GAO- 01-
208R. 4 GAO- 01- 208R. 5 GAO- 01- 208R.

office. In response to our recommendations, as part of its analysis of
enumerator productivity data, the Bureau included information on enumerator
production rates at the local office and national levels. This information
included an explanation of the extent and nature of certain anomalies in the
data, the impact they had on data quality, and the adjustments made for
them. In addition, the Bureau?s analysis included a detailed methodology
that documented how these rates were adjusted and

calculated. Enumerator The Bureau issued preliminary enumerator productivity
data in May 2001. Productivity Rates

Nationally, enumerators completed 1. 04 housing units per hour- slightly
exceeding the 1.03 housing units per hour that the Bureau estimated for
budgetary purposes. The Bureau calculated productivity by dividing its
nonresponse follow- up workload (42. 4 million housing units nationally) by
enumerator production hours (40. 7 million hours nationally). The Bureau
derived this information from its personnel/ payroll and management
information systems.

Enumerator production hours refer to the total time enumerators spent in the
field collecting data and meeting with supervisors, and covers the actual
duration of the operation (April 24 through July 2, 2000). The hours exclude
time spent in training and conducting follow- up activities after the Bureau
completed the initial operation. The Bureau also said it excluded

subsequent fieldwork that it believes was inadvertently charged to the
nonresponse follow- up code after its completion. Bureau officials noted
that the productivity rates are subject to minor change as the Bureau
further refines its data, in part by conducting a comprehensive analysis of
payroll and personnel data.

According to the Bureau, productivity varied by type of local office-
ranging from 0.90 to 1.21 housing units per hour. For the 2000 Census, the
Bureau had four primary types of local census offices (referred to as types
A, B, C, and D)-- which differed by enumeration methods used and geographic
makeup. Type A offices, located in the hardest- to- enumerate, inner- city,
and urban areas, used mailout/ mailback and urban/ update leave

enumeration methodologies. 6 Type B offices, located in urban and
metropolitan areas, also used mailout/ mailback and urban/ update leave
methodologies. Type C offices, located in suburban areas, small and medium-
size cities, towns, and rural areas, used update/ leave, mailout/ mailback,
and rural update/ enumerate methodologies. 7 Type D offices, located in more
rural areas, used list/ enumerate, update/ leave, and some mailout/ mailback
methodologies. 8 Type E offices- a fifth office type- were located in Puerto
Rico and used update/ leave methodology.

As shown in table 1, according to the Bureau, actual enumerator productivity
was 20 percent higher than expected at the Bureau's urban or type A offices.
Productivity was about 11 percent lower than expected at rural or type D
offices. A Bureau official told us that, as part of its evaluation of the
2000 Census, the Bureau is studying reasons for these variations.

6 For the mailout/ mailback methodology, the Bureau used U. S. Postal
Service (USPS) letter carriers to deliver questionnaires to the vast
majority of housing units that had city- style addresses (house number and
street name) for household members to mail back. For the urban update/ leave
methodology, in pre- identified census blocks in urban areas-- where the
USPS might usually deliver a quantity of questionnaires to a building
lobby-- enumerators delivered questionnaires to each unit and updated the
address list. 7 The Bureau conducted an update/ leave methodology in areas
with primarily non- city- style addresses. For this methodology, enumerators
delivered questionnaires to housing units and updated their address list in
their assignment areas at the same time. For the rural update/ enumerate
operation, in pre- identified census blocks, enumerators canvassed an area,
updated the address list and associated maps, and completed census
questionnaires for all occupied and vacant housing units. 8 For the list/
enumerate methodology, in very remote or very sparsely populated areas,
enumerators visited every household to update census maps, conduct
interviews, and list

each address or location.

Table 1: Enumerator Productivity During Nonresponse Follow- up Varied by
Type of Local Census Office Difference between Enumerator

Budgeted budgeted

Total Total housing

production housing units

Actual housing and actual

Percentage Office type offices unit workload

hours a per hour units per hour a

productivity difference

National level 520 42, 382, 492 40, 698, 936 1. 03 1. 04 0.01 0. 97% Type A
102 6, 347, 900 7, 078,897 0. 75 0. 90 0. 15 20 Type B 51 4, 080, 754 4,
012,296 1. 11 1. 02 (0.09) (8.1) Type C 316 28, 008, 736 26, 073, 280 1. 11
1. 07 (0. 04) (3.6) Type D 42 3, 247, 754 2, 960,354 1. 24 1. 10 (0.14)
(11.3) Type E 9 697, 348 574,109 N/ A 1. 21 N/ A N/ A

N/ A = Data was not available from the Bureau at the time of our review. a
Preliminary data.

Source: U. S. Bureau of Census data.

Bureau officials cautioned against comparing the productivity of individual
offices because of location- specific circumstances. The officials said that
the data are more reliable when aggregated by local census office type and
at the national level. For the 1990 Census, the Bureau reported that
enumerators completed 1.56 housing units per hour. However, Bureau officials
said the 1990 figure should not be directly compared to the 2000 rate
because the Bureau does not have documentation on how the 1990 figure was
calculated, and thus does not know if a direct comparison would be valid.
How the Bureau According to Bureau officials, the Bureau made a ?coarse?
adjustment for Refined Its

what it considered to be the most significant anomaly-- the
misclassification of crew leader assistant hours. As noted earlier, some
local census offices Productivity Data

hired a substantial number of crew leader assistants from lists of
applicants for enumerator positions. In some cases, the position change was
not entered into the Bureau?s personnel/ payroll system. To the extent this
happened, Bureau officials said that it would overstate the number of hours
that enumerators actually worked and thus understate enumerator
productivity. To adjust for the misclassified crew leader assistant hours,
the Bureau analyzed productivity rates to distinguish between those hours
that

belonged to crew leader assistants and those hours that belonged to
enumerators. Based on its analysis of daily productivity rates at six local
census offices (three that had reliable crew leader assistant data and three
with no crew leader assistant data), employees with a production rate
greater or equal to 0.2 cases per hour were considered to be enumerators,
and their noncase hours (production in which no households were completed)
were included in the Bureau?s adjusted production hour variable. Employees
with a production rate less than 0.2 cases per hour were considered to be
crew leader assistants, and their noncase hours were excluded from the
adjusted production hour variable.

Compared to the original, unadjusted data, using the refined figures,
enumerators completed nonresponse follow- up in 40.7 million production
hours versus 44.3 million production hours, a difference of 3.6 million
production hours or 8.1 percent. This revised estimate of production hours
could be important for future budgeting and planning purposes. For example,
using the lowest enumerator wage rate of about $8. 25 per hour, the 3.6
million production hour difference would change the Bureau?s cost estimates
by about $29.7 million.

The Bureau has not yet made any corrections for a second problem identified
in its productivity data: employees who worked on earlier census operations
who continued to charge their time to those codes rather than nonresponse
follow- up. According to Bureau officials, the extent and impact of this
problem is unknown. With both problems, better application of quality
assurance procedures at the time the productivity data were collected could
have produced more

reliable data initially, and eliminated the need to correct the data later
in the census cycle. Indeed, enumerators charged codes other than
nonresponse follow- up despite the fact that supervisors were to review
payroll forms to ensure that enumerators entered the correct task codes.

Conclusions Accurate productivity information is important for gauging the
performance of nonresponse follow- up, validating planning assumptions,
preparing and justifying budgets, and devising more cost- effective
censustaking techniques for the future. However, in past censuses, the
Bureau has encountered problems obtaining complete and comparable
productivity data, and the Bureau appears to have repeated this pattern in

2000. As a result, the Bureau needed to spend additional resources to

refine the information, and even then, the adjustment was coarse and
addressed just one of the two known problems.

At the same time, given the size and decentralization of nonresponse follow-
up, a certain amount of procedural error and unreliable data is unavoidable.
Moreover, because of the complexity and importance of nonresponse follow-
up, it is important for the Bureau to emphasize completing the endeavor
according to its operational plan.

As the Bureau develops nonresponse follow- up plans for the 2010 Census, a
key challenge will be developing systems and procedures for collecting
reliable productivity data needed for evaluation and planning, without

detracting from higher- priority operational demands. However, these goals
are not necessarily incompatible. In fact, as the Bureau?s personnel/
payroll and management information systems already collect the raw data
needed

to assess enumerator productivity, with proper planning, the two functions
can be complementary. Consequently, it will be important for the Bureau to
(1) determine the productivity information it needs to evaluate nonresponse
follow- up during the 2010 decennial and plan for future

censuses and (2) integrate those evaluative requirements into its
operational plans and management information systems.

Recommendations for To ensure that the Bureau develops a baseline of
reliable productivity data Executive Action

for evaluating nonresponse follow- up and informing future planning
decisions, we recommend that the Secretary of Commerce direct the Bureau to,
as part of its planning effort for the 2010 Census, (1) determine the
productivity measures needed to assess nonresponse follow- up and (2) design
procedures, information systems, and quality control mechanisms to capture
and analyze those measures consistent with nonresponse follow- up?s
operational requirements. Possible measures

include average number of hours worked by enumerators, cases completed per
production hour, and number of cases completed per enumerator. The data
should, at a minimum, support the analysis of variation in these measures by
census region and type of local census office (type A, B, C, D, or E).

We are sending copies of this report to the Chairman of the House Committee
on Government Reform; Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the
Subcommittee on the Census, House Committee on

Government Reform; Secretary of Commerce; and Acting Director of the Bureau
of the Census. Copies will be made available to others upon request. Robert
Goldenkoff and Victoria E. Miller made major contributions to this letter.
If you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact me at (202)
512- 6806. J. Christopher Mihm

Director Strategic Issues

(450066) Lett er

a

GAO United States General Accounting Office

Page 1 GAO- 02- 4 Census Productivity Follow- up United States General
Accounting Office

Washington, D. C. 20548 Page 1 GAO- 02- 4 Census Productivity Follow- up

A

Page 2 GAO- 02- 4 Census Productivity Follow- up

Page 3 GAO- 02- 4 Census Productivity Follow- up

Page 4 GAO- 02- 4 Census Productivity Follow- up

Page 5 GAO- 02- 4 Census Productivity Follow- up

Page 6 GAO- 02- 4 Census Productivity Follow- up

Page 7 GAO- 02- 4 Census Productivity Follow- up

Page 8 GAO- 02- 4 Census Productivity Follow- up

Page 9 GAO- 02- 4 Census Productivity Follow- up

The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, exists to
support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help
improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal
programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other
assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO?s commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents is through the
Internet. GAO?s Web site (www. gao. gov) contains abstracts and full- text
files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older
products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents
using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their
entirety, including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ?Today?s Reports,? on its Web
site daily. The list contains links to the full- text document files. To
have GAO E- mail this list to you every afternoon, go to our home page and
complete the easy- to- use electronic order form found under ?To Order GAO
Products.?

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:

U. S. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050 Washington, D. C. 20013

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512- 6000 TDD: (301) 413- 0006 Fax: (202)
258- 4066

GAO Building Room 1100, 700 4th Street, NW (corner of 4th and G Streets, NW)
Washington, D. C. 20013

Contact: Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm, E- mail:
fraudnet@ gao. gov, or 1- 800- 424- 5454 (automated answering system). GAO?s
Mission

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone Visit GAO?s Document Distribution Center

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548- 0001

Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid GAO Permit No. GI00
*** End of document. ***