2000 Census: Complete Costs of Coverage Evaluation Programs Are  
Not Available (31-OCT-02, GAO-03-41).				 
                                                                 
To assess the quality of the population data collected in the	 
2000 Census, the U.S. Census Bureau conducted the Accuracy and	 
Coverage Evaluation (A.C.E.) program, which focused on a survey  
of housing units designed to estimate the number of people	 
missed, counted more than once, or otherwise improperly counted  
in the census. GAO reviewed the life cycle costs of the A.C.E.	 
program and its predecessor, the Integrated Coverage Measurement 
(ICM) program. GAO found that the original estimated cycle costs 
of conducting the ICM/A.C.E. programs were $400 million. The	 
first evidence for the original $400 million estimate is in the  
original budget justifications for fiscal year 2000. The bureau  
based its estimates of ICM/A.C.E. costs on assumptions about the 
needs for personnel and benefits, contractual services, travel,  
office space, equipment, and other costs necessary to conduct and
support operations of the programs. The budgeted amounts that GAO
identified from bureau records for conducting the ICM/A.C.E.	 
programs are $277 million through fiscal year 2003. The obligated
costs that GAO identified from bureau records for conducting the 
ICM/A.C.E. programs are $207 million through fiscal year 2001.	 
$58 million of budgeted funds for the ICM/A.C.E. programs that	 
GAO identified from bureau records were not obligated through	 
fiscal year 2001. The ICM/A.C.E. program-related costs that GAO  
identified from bureau records for the 1998 dress rehearsal were 
$11 million budgeted and $9 million obligated.			 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-03-41						        
    ACCNO:   A05442						        
  TITLE:     2000 Census: Complete Costs of Coverage Evaluation       
Programs Are Not Available					 
     DATE:   10/31/2002 
  SUBJECT:   Census						 
	     Data collection					 
	     Life cycle costs					 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Census Bureau Accuracy and Coverage		 
	     Evaluation Program 				 
                                                                 
	     Census Bureau Integrated Coverage			 
	     Management Program 				 
                                                                 
	     2000 Decennial Census				 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** 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-03-41

                                       A

Report to Congressional Requesters

October 2002 2000 CENSUS Complete Costs of Coverage Evaluation Programs
Are Not Available

GAO- 03- 41

Letter

October 31, 2002 The Honorable William Lacy Clay, Jr. House of
Representatives The Honorable Carolyn B. Maloney House of Representatives

To assess the quality of the population data collected in the 2000 Census,
the U. S. Census Bureau conducted the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation (A.
C. E.) program, which focused on a survey of housing units designed to
estimate the number of people missed, counted more than once, or

otherwise improperly counted in the census. As agreed with your offices,
this report responds to your joint request to review A. C. E. life cycle
costs. Total life cycle costs for the 2000 Census cover a 13- year period
from fiscal year 1991 through fiscal year 2003 1 at an estimated cost of
$6.5 billion,

adjusted to 2000- year dollars. The A. C. E. program was first included in
bureau program documents in November 1998 and funded for fiscal years 2000
through 2003. A predecessor program, Integrated Coverage Measurement
(ICM), began in May 1995 and was funded by the bureau for fiscal years
1996 through 1999. We considered both programs to be within the scope of
your request. As agreed with your offices, we focused our review on the
following seven

questions concerning ICM/ A. C. E. program life cycle costs. 1. What were
the original estimated life cycle costs for the ICM/ A. C. E.

programs? 2. What was the source and support for $400 million in life
cycle costs

reported by the bureau for the ICM/ A. C. E. programs? 3. How were ICM/ A.
C. E. program costs estimated? 4. How much did the bureau budget 2 for the
ICM/ A. C. E. programs?

1 Proposed fiscal year 2003 funding was included in the President*s Budget
in February 2002, but has not yet been approved by the Congress. 2 Since
fiscal year 1996, the bureau has received its appropriation based on eight
broad frameworks of effort and then establishes budgets for individual
activities and projects within frameworks.

5. What were the obligated life cycle costs for the ICM/ A. C. E.
programs? 6. Were any budgeted funds for the ICM/ A. C. E. programs not
used as of the end of fiscal year 2001, and if so, how much?

7. What were the ICM/ A. C. E. program- related costs for the bureau dress
rehearsal in fiscal year 1998?

This report is part of a series of GAO studies on the lessons learned from
the 2000 Census that can help in the planning and development effort now
occurring for the 2010 Census.

Results in Brief Although the U. S. Census Bureau tracked some costs of
conducting the ICM/ A. C. E. programs, it did not identify the complete
life cycle costs of the

programs due to three factors. First, program costs prior to fiscal year
1996 were not identified because the bureau considered costs from earlier
years to be part of its general research and development efforts and the
bureau did not assign unique project codes to identify ICM/ A. C. E.
program and related costs in its financial management system. Second,
although $3.6 million of fiscal year 1996 obligated costs were identified
in the bureau*s financial management system as an ICM special test, the
bureau

did not consider these costs as part of the ICM/ A. C. E. programs and it
also classified these costs as general research. We disagreed with the
bureau on this point and have included this amount in our report as part
of the ICM/ A. C. E. life cycle costs we could identify. Finally, we were
unable to identify ICM/ A. C. E. portions of costs, such as evaluations
and data

processing, which the bureau included in other 2000 Census programs. Based
on available information for the seven questions, we found the following:

 The original estimated cycle costs of conducting the ICM/ A. C. E.
programs were about $400 million.  The first evidence for the original
$400 million estimate is in the original

budget justifications for fiscal year 2000.  The bureau based its
estimates of ICM/ A. C. E. costs on assumptions

about the needs for personnel and benefits, contractual services, travel,
office space, equipment, and other costs necessary to conduct and support
operations of the programs.

 The budgeted amounts that we identified from bureau records for
conducting the ICM/ A. C. E. programs are about $277 million through
fiscal year 2003.

 The obligated costs that we identified from bureau records for
conducting the ICM/ A. C. E. programs are about $207 million through
fiscal year 2001.

 About $58 million of budgeted funds for the ICM/ A. C. E. programs that
we identified from bureau records were not obligated through fiscal year
2001.

 The ICM/ A. C. E. program- related costs that we identified from bureau
records for the 1998 dress rehearsal were about $11 million budgeted and
about $9 million obligated. Due to limitations in the bureau*s available
financial data, our responses to

the seven specific questions identified in your request do not include all
ICM/ A. C. E. program life cycle costs and are limited to cost information
covering fiscal years 1996 through 2003, except where indicated. The
Department of Commerce expressed disagreement with how we had presented
answers to the seven questions, but did not comment on the substance of
our answers. Regarding its concern that our report implied managerial or
reporting weaknesses, our answers were not prepared with the intent of
drawing conclusions beyond the information presented. We have addressed
the comments in the *Agency Comments and Our

Evaluation* section of this report and the full text of the comments and
our detailed evaluation is presented in appendix II.

Background Early in the 2000 Census cycle, the U. S. Census Bureau was
researching coverage measurement options for the 2000 Census, including
the Post

Enumeration Survey (PES) methods used in past decennial censuses. The
bureau explored a number of design options aimed at improving data
accuracy while controlling costs. In 1993, the bureau was also evaluating
the feasibility of conducting a one- number census, which combines the

features of both the traditional head count and statistical methods to
produce a single count before the mandated deadlines.

In May 1995, the bureau announced that it would conduct a sample survey of
750,000 housing units, called Integrated Coverage Measurement (ICM), to
estimate how many housing units and people it would miss or count more
than once in the 2000 Census. 3 In this initial design for the 2000
Census, the bureau planned to use statistical methods to integrate the
results of this survey with the traditional census enumeration to provide
a one- number census by December 31, 2000. The U. S. Supreme Court ruled
in January 1999 that 13 U. S. C. 195 prohibited the use of statistical
sampling to generate population data for reapportioning the U. S. House of
Representatives. 4 However, the court*s ruling did not prohibit the use of
statistical sampling for other purposes, such as adjusting formulas to
distribute billions of dollars of federal funding to state and local
governments.

Following the Supreme Court ruling, the bureau abandoned certain
statistical aspects of the ICM program, and announced the A. C. E. program
to assess the quality of the population data collected in the 2000 Census,
using a smaller sample of 300,000 housing units. 5 The bureau conducted A.
C. E., which corresponded to the PES in past censuses and the ICM in the
original 2000 Census Plan, to measure and correct the overall and
differential coverage of the U. S. resident population in the 2000 Census.

Although A. C. E. was generally implemented as planned, the bureau found
that A. C. E. overstated the census net undercount. This was due, in part,
to errors introduced during matching operations and from other remaining
uncertainties. The bureau has reported that additional review and analysis
would be necessary before any potential uses of A. C. E. data could be
considered. 6

Due to uncertainties or errors in the A. C. E. survey results, the acting
director of the bureau decided in separate decisions in March 2001 and
October 2001 that the 2000 Census tabulations would not be adjusted for

any purpose, including distribution of billions of dollars in federal
funding. 3 U. S. Census Bureau, The Reengineered 2000 Census (Suitland,
MD: May 19, 1995). 4 Department of Commerce v. United States House of
Representatives, 525 U. S. 316 (1999). 5 U. S. Census Bureau, Updated
Summary Census 2000 Operational Plan (Suitland, MD: Feb. 24, 1999). 6 U.
S. General Accounting Office, 2000 Census: Coverage Evaluation Matching
Implemented as Planned, but Census Bureau Should Evaluate Lessons Learned,
GAO- 02- 297 (Washington, D. C.: Mar. 14, 2002).

These decisions were consistent with those for the 1990 Census, which was
not adjusted due to other problems. According to senior bureau officials,
the bureau is continuing to evaluate issues related to A. C. E. and the
census, and the results of its evaluation are expected to influence the
bureau*s planning for the 2010 Census. Bureau Appropriations and

The bureau receives two appropriations from the Congress: (1) salaries
Accounting

and expenses and (2) periodic censuses and programs. The salaries and
expenses appropriation provides 1- year funding for a broad range of
economic, demographic, and social statistical programs. The periodic
censuses and programs appropriation includes primarily no- year funding 7
to plan, conduct, and analyze the decennial censuses every decade and for

other authorized periodic activities. Since fiscal year 1996, the bureau
has prepared its annual budget request for the 2000 Census in eight broad
frameworks of effort that were submitted to the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) and the Congress. For management, program, financial,
staffing, and performance purposes, frameworks are further divided by the
bureau into activities and then projects within these activities. 8 7 No-
year funds are available for their original purpose until they are either
expended,

rescinded, transferred, or reprogrammed, or the account is closed. 8 For
example, for fiscal year 2000, the bureau used 8 frameworks, 23
activities, and 119 projects.

The bureau accounts for the costs of conducting the ICM/ A. C. E. programs
in its Commerce Administrative Management System (CAMS), which became
operational in fiscal year 1997. Bureau financial management reports
generated by CAMS have provided appropriated amounts, expended and
obligated amounts, and variances to a project level from

fiscal year 1997 to the current period. The ICM/ A. C. E. programs are an
activity comprised of eight projects contained within three frameworks.
Fiscal year 1996 was the first year the bureau set up a specific project
code to identify ICM program costs through fiscal year 1999. However, it
was

difficult to identify the change to the A. C. E. program beginning in
fiscal year 2000 because the bureau did not change many of the project
descriptions in CAMS from the ICM program. As discussed in our December
2001 report, we identified specific control weaknesses for fiscal year
2000 related to the lack of controls over financial reporting and

financial management systems. 9 Scope and

To meet the objective of responding to seven questions concerning
Methodology

ICM/ A. C. E. program life cycle costs, we reviewed and analyzed budget
and program data for all coverage measurement programs that existed during
the 2000 Census (for fiscal years 1991 to 2003), which included the ICM
and

A. C. E. programs. We did not audit budget and other financial data
provided by the bureau. We also reviewed planning and methodology
documents and other available information in order to determine the
history of the programs. Also, we identified ICM and A. C. E. project
accounts and analyzed amounts by fiscal year using the financial
management reports generated by CAMS. We discussed the results of our
analysis with senior bureau officials and interviewed bureau officials to
obtain their views and observations regarding the ICM and A. C. E.
programs. It was not our objective to assess the efficiency of
expenditures and obligations against planned budget appropriations.

We encountered several limitations in the scope of our work on this
assignment as follows.

 We were unable to determine the complete life cycle costs of the ICM/ A.
C. E. programs because the bureau considered any ICM/ A. C. E.

9 U. S. General Accounting Office, 2000 Census: Analysis of Fiscal Year
2000 Budget and Internal Control Weaknesses at the U. S. Census Bureau,
GAO- 02- 30 (Washington, D. C.: Dec. 28, 2001).

related costs from fiscal years 1991 through 1995 as part of its general
research and development programs and thus did not separately track these
costs. Although some costs were tracked in fiscal year 1996, the bureau
still considered these costs as research and development and did not
include these costs as ICM/ A. C. E. program costs.

 We were further unable to identify ICM/ A. C. E. portions of costs, such
as evaluations and data processing, which the bureau included with other
2000 Census programs.

Our work was performed in Washington, D. C. and at U. S. Census Bureau
headquarters in Suitland, Maryland, from February 2002 through July 2002.
Our work was done in accordance with U. S. generally accepted government
auditing standards. On November 17, 2002, the Department of Commerce
provided written comments on a draft of this report and we

have reprinted the comments in appendix II. Technical comments were also
provided by the department and incorporated into the report where
appropriate, but have not been reprinted.

Life Cycle Costs Although the bureau tracked some costs of conducting the
ICM/ A. C. E. programs, we found that the bureau did not identify the
complete life cycle

costs of the programs due to the following three factors. First, the
bureau only tracked the costs of conducting the ICM/ A. C. E. programs,
which covers the period from fiscal year 1997 through 2003. Although life
cycle costs for the 2000 Census cover a 13- year period from fiscal years
1991 through 2003, senior bureau officials said that the

ICM/ A. C. E. program was not viable for implementation until fiscal year
1997. Therefore, the bureau considered costs from earlier years as part of
its general research and development programs and the bureau did not
assign unique project codes to identify ICM/ A. C. E. programs and related
costs in its financial management system.

Second, although $3.6 million of fiscal year 1996 obligated costs were
identifiable in the bureau*s financial management system as an ICM special
test, the bureau did not consider these costs as part of the ICM/ A. C. E.
programs. Instead, these costs were considered general research and
development. However, because the bureau separately identified these costs
as ICM program costs, we have included the $3.6 million as part of the
ICM/ A. C. E. program costs we could identify in this report.

Finally, we were unable to identify the ICM/ A. C. E. portions of costs,
such as evaluations and data processing, which the bureau included with
other 2000 Census programs. For example, in late fiscal year 2000 and
after, the bureau did not separate A. C. E. evaluations from its other
2000 Census evaluations in its financial management system. Bureau
officials stated that the contracts for evaluations included overall 2000
Census and A. C. E.

evaluations, and did not have a separate code identifying A. C. E. costs.
Similarly, the bureau did not capture all costs for items such as data
processing by programs like ICM/ A. C. E. These type of operations were
conducted for the 2000 Census overall, were budgeted by framework, were
not separated by program in the bureau*s financial management system, and
were not allocated back to individual projects. Therefore, we were unable
to identify these types of costs for the ICM/ A. C. E. programs.

Seven Issues Related Due to the limitations in the bureau*s data, our
responses to the seven To ICM/ A. C. E.

specific questions identified in your request do not include all ICM/ A.
C. E. life cycle costs and are limited to available cost information
covering fiscal Programs years 1996 through 2003, except where indicated,
and exclude such costs as A. C. E. evaluations and some data processing.
The following sections include our responses to the seven questions on
ICM/ A. C. E. program life cycle costs.

1. What were the original estimated life cycle costs for the ICM/ A. C. E.
programs?

The bureau originally estimated the costs of conducting the ICM program to
be about $400 million when it planned to use statistical methods to
integrate the results of a survey based on 750,000 housing units with the
traditional census enumeration to provide a one- number census. This
original estimate included fiscal years 1997 through 2003. However, this
estimate was incomplete, as the bureau did not include program costs prior
to fiscal year 1997 because it considered them as general research and
development costs. The bureau also combined costs for A. C. E. evaluation
and data processing with other program costs in different frameworks.

The U. S. Supreme Court ruled in January 1999 that statistical sampling
could not be used to generate population data for reapportioning the House
of Representatives. As a result of the ruling, in June 1999, as part of
its amended fiscal year 2000 budget request, the bureau decreased the ICM/
A. C. E. program by about $214 million, due to a reduction in the sample
size from 750,000 to 300,000 housing units. We could not identify from

bureau records an original estimate for only A. C. E. life cycle costs for
completing the scaled- back survey.

2. What was the source and support for $400 million in life cycle costs
reported by the bureau for the ICM/ A. C. E. programs?

In 1995, the bureau estimated life cycle costs for the 2000 Census in 13
frameworks; however, bureau documents did not break out the frameworks
into activities and projects. 10 The first evidence for the $400 million
cost estimate for conducting the ICM/ A. C. E. program for the 2000 Census
was submitted as part of the original fiscal year 2000 budget
justification for overall census operations to the Congress in February

1999. This original budget was prepared based on the initial design for
ICM, which planned to incorporate statistical methods to integrate the
results of a survey based on 750,000 housing units with the traditional
census enumeration to provide a one- number census. 3. How were ICM/ A. C.
E. program costs estimated? According to bureau officials, estimates of
ICM/ A. C. E. costs are based on

assumptions about the needs for headquarters and support staff and related
benefits, contractual services, travel, office space, and equipment costs
necessary to conduct and support operations of the program. The

bureau used an electronic cost model to calculate many of the estimates
for the ICM/ A. C. E. programs.

For personnel costs, the A. C. E. program costs were divided into costs
for data collection and costs for headquarters full- time equivalent (FTE)
staff and support staff as follows.

 The A. C. E. field staff needed to conduct each A. C. E. data collection
operation included enumerators, crew leaders, field operations
supervisors, and assistants. The cost model was designed to estimate the
number of field staff positions, hours, FTEs, salary costs, and mileage
costs. In the cost model, each operation had its own distinct production
assumptions based on the data collection needs for that operation. Based
on operational needs, the bureau determined the assumptions for production
rates, mileage rates, production and

training days, and hours worked per day. 10 U. S. Census Bureau, The
Reengineered 2000 Census (Suitland, MD: May 19, 1995).

 The magnitude of the A. C. E field production labor was determined by
the A. C. E. field operation workload. Based on the workload, the number
of A. C. E. enumerators was calculated for each operation. Then, based on
the number of enumerators, the bureau determined the number of crew
leaders, field operations supervisors, and assistants needed. The number
of production positions became the bureau*s basis for the number of staff
to be trained. The number of positions, both production and trainee, was
then used to estimate the salary cost as a function of the total
production and trainee hours and applicable labor rates.  Once labor
rates were determined, a percentage was used to calculate

benefit costs. For nonpersonnel costs, the bureau estimated the costs
based on the following.  Contract costs were estimated based upon
procurement needs for

goods and services, including contractors hired to assess the feasibility
of A. C. E. operations and to evaluate the results of the program.

 Travel costs were estimated using the numbers of production and trainee
positions to calculate the average miles per case and the mileage
reimbursement rate.  Office space estimates were based on the number of
people who needed

space, the number of square feet per person, and the cost per square foot.

 Equipment and supply costs were based on the needs of each employee and
the specific needs of each A. C. E. operation. This included laptop
computers that were provided to field data collection staff to conduct
interviews and to monitor the operational progress of the program.

4. How much did Census budget for the ICM/ A. C. E. programs? As shown in
figure 1, we identified from bureau records budgeted amounts of $276.5
million for conducting the ICM/ A. C. E. programs. Of this amount, $64.2
million was for the ICM program from fiscal year 1996 through 1999, and
$212.3 million was for the A. C. E. program from fiscal year 2000 through
2003. Also, see table 1 in appendix I for additional details of ICM/ A. C.
E. budgeted costs by framework and project.

Figure 1: Budgeted Costs of ICM/ A. C. E. Programs (Dollars in millions)
$64.2

ICM (fiscal years 1996- 1999)

(23%) $212.3

(77%)

A. C. E. (fiscal years 2000- 2003)

Total budgeted costs $276.5

Source: GAO analysis of unaudited bureau data.

5. What were the obligated life cycle costs for the ICM/ A. C. E.
programs? As shown in figure 2, we identified from bureau records
obligated amounts of $206.9 million, of which $58.4 million was for the
ICM program from fiscal year 1996 through 1999, and $148.5 million was for
the A. C. E. program for fiscal years 2000 and 2001. We did not include
obligated costs for fiscal year 2002 as they are not yet final and fiscal
year 2003 obligations have yet to be incurred. Also, see table 2 in
appendix I for additional details of obligated costs for the ICM/ A. C. E.
programs.

Figure 2: Obligated Costs of ICM/ A. C. E. Programs (Dollars in millions)
$58.4

ICM (fiscal years1996- 1999)

(28%) $148.5

(72%)

A. C. E. (fiscal years 2000- 2001)

Total obligated costs $206.9

Source: GAO analysis of unaudited bureau data.

As shown in figure 3, of the $206.9 million of obligated ICM/ A. C. E.
program costs through fiscal year 2001, 65 percent or about $135 million
were for salaries and benefits. The next largest category was for
contractual services, which constituted about $22.3 million or 11 percent
of ICM/ A. C. E. program costs. The third largest category was for
equipment, which constituted about $22 million, or 11 percent of ICM/ A.
C. E. program costs. Other costs - including office space, travel, and
supplies - made up about

$27.6 million or 13 percent of program costs.

Figure 3: Obligated Costs of ICM/ A. C. E. Programs by Category (Dollars
in Millions) $22.0

Equipment

$22.30

Contractual services

$27.60

Other

$135.0

Salaries and benefits

Total obligated costs $206.9

Source: GAO analysis of unaudited bureau data.

6. Were there any budgeted funds for the ICM/ A. C. E. programs not used
as of the end of fiscal year 2001, and if so, how much?

About $57.7 million of budgeted funds that we identified from bureau
records for the ICM/ A. C. E. programs were not obligated through fiscal
year 2001.  For fiscal years 1996 and 1997, there were no unused funds
for the ICM

program.  For fiscal year 1998, about $2.7 million remained unobligated
for the ICM program because of the following reasons.  $1.5 million was
due to the dress rehearsal housing unit follow- up workload being smaller
than anticipated; a bureau bonus program 11 not being implemented although
budgeted; and less mileage

reimbursement than budgeted under project code 6205 (ICM Dress Rehearsal).

11 This program was intended to provide certain temporary employees a cash
incentive to stay at the bureau until the end of 2000 Census operations.

 $400,000 was due to unused budgeted funds for salaries related to
project code 6352 (ICM Coverage Measurement).

 $400,000 was due to unused budgeted funds for salaries and a delay in
awarding contract services under project code 6444 (ICM Procedures and
Training).

 $400,000 was due to unused budgeted funds for regional office manager
and assistant manager salaries and travel costs due to delays in hiring
under project code 6480 (ICM Collection). 12

 For fiscal year 1999, about $3.6 million budgeted for the ICM program
remained unobligated due to the following reasons.

 About $2.3 million related to project code 6480 (ICM Collection) was not
used, including $1.6 million due to unspent salaries related to hiring
delays, hiring fewer staff than authorized for selected positions, and
hiring qualified candidates at less than budgeted levels. Another $0.7
million was due to less mileage reimbursement

than budgeted.  About $1.2 million was due to equipment costs and
hardware for 2000

being less than budgeted under project code 6608 (ICM Processing).  For
fiscal year 2000, about $42.5 million remained unobligated for the

A. C. E. program, consisting of almost $40 million for project code 6480
(A. C. E. Collection), which was budgeted for the program but was not used
primarily because of the following reasons.

 About $32 million was due to unspent salaries and benefits for office
staff in field offices from hiring fewer positions and hiring at lower
grades than budgeted and from lower data collection costs due to a
reduction in cases requiring personal visits.

 About $4 million was due to the fact that contract obligations for
laptop computers and support services were less than budgeted.

 About $2 million resulted from lower GSA rents than budgeted. 12 This
project covers the implementation of certain ICM/ A. C. E. field
operations and support activities.

 For fiscal year 2001, about $8.9 million of unobligated funds remained
for the A. C. E. program, consisting mostly of $6.4 million for project
code 6480 (A. C. E., Collection), which was budgeted for the program but
was not used.

7. What were the ICM/ A. C. E. program- related costs for the bureau dress
rehearsal in fiscal year 1998?

As shown in appendix I, the ICM program- related costs for the 1998 dress
rehearsal were captured under project code 6205 (ICM Dress Rehearsal). Of
the total $10.8 million budgeted, we were able to identify obligations of
$9.4 million from bureau records. Most of these obligations were incurred
in fiscal year 1998, with some follow- up amounts in the first quarter of
fiscal year 1999. According to bureau officials, the dress rehearsal
project activities included data collection and case management, data
processing, and implementation of estimation operations. This project also
covered the implementation of ICM and some elements of A. C. E. at the
Sacramento, California, and Menominee County, Wisconsin dress rehearsal
sites.

Agency Comments and The Department of Commerce comments expressed
disagreement with

Our Evaluation how we presented answers to the seven questions in the
report, but did not

comment on the substance of our answers. It said that our report*s
conclusions imply financial management or reporting failures and suggest
specific control weaknesses in the bureau*s financial management systems.
It also said we inferred an inability to properly manage from large
unexplained discrepancies between budgeted and obligated amounts for the
ICM/ A. C. E. programs. Our answers were not prepared with the intent of
drawing conclusions beyond the information presented and we did not make
interpretive conclusions or qualitative judgments about the ICM/ A. C. E.
programs. Although not within the scope of this report, our December 2001
report identified internal control weaknesses for fiscal year 2000 related
to the bureau*s lack of controls over financial reporting and financial
management systems. 13

The department*s written comments and our more detailed evaluation of its
concerns are presented in appendix II.

13 GAO- 02- 30.

As agreed with your offices, unless you announce its contents earlier, we
plan no further distribution of this report until 7 days after its
issuance date. At that time, we will send copies to the Chairman and
Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs,
the House Committee on Government Reform, and the House Subcommittee on
Civil Service, Census, and Agency Organization. We will also send copies
to the Director of the U. S. Census Bureau, the Secretary of Commerce, the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Secretary of the
Treasury, and other interested parties. This report will also be available
on GAO*s home page at http:// www. gao. gov.

If you or your staffs have any questions concerning this report, please
contact me at (202) 512- 9095 or by e- mail at kutzg@ gao. gov or Roger R.
Stoltz, Assistant Director, at (202) 512- 9408 or by e- mail at stoltzr@
gao. gov. A key contributor to this report was Cindy Brown- Barnes.

Gregory D. Kutz Director Financial Management and Assurance

Appendi xes Budgeted and Obligated Life Cycle Costs by Framework and
Project for Fiscal Years 1996

Appendi x I

through 2003 Table 1: Census 2000 ICM/ A. C. E. Program Budgeted Life
Cycle Costs for Fiscal Years 1996 through 2003 Dollars in millions

Project Description FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 Total

6311 A. C. E. Coverage Management $8. 5 $8.5

6348 A. C. E. Operations .4 .4

6480 ICM Collection $1. 6 $13.9 132. 3 $29.6 177.4

Total Framework 3 1.6 13.9 141. 2 29. 6 186.3

6444 ICM Procedures & Training $. 2 1.7 1.8 2. 6 2.1 $. 7 $1. 7 10.8

6608 ICM Processing .2 5.3 10. 4 3.9 1.4 3.0 24.2

Total Framework 5 .4 1.7 7.1 13. 0 6.0 2.1 4.7 35.0

6205 ICM Dress Rehearsal .1 9.4 1. 4 10.9

6236 ICM Special Test $3.3 7. 0 10.3

6352 ICM Coverage Measurement 3. 0 6. 0 9.3 10.0 3. 2 2.5 34.1 Total
Framework 6 3. 3 10. 1 15. 4 10.7 10.0 3. 2 2.5 55.2

Total $3.3 $10. 5 $18.7 $31.7 $154. 2 $45.6 $5.3 $7.2 a $276.5

Note: ICM projects became A. C. E. projects in fiscal year 2000 and
thereafter. a This full year original cost estimate of the A. C. E.
program was developed around May 2001. On June 12, 2002, a senior official
told us that the bureau was revising this amount to about $2 million to
cover

the period October 1 through December 31, 2002, when the A. C. E. program
will end. Source: GAO compiled from U. S. Census Bureau financial
management records.

Table 2: Census 2000 ICM/ A. C. E. Program Obligated Life Cycle Costs for
Fiscal Years 1996 through 2001

Dollars in millions

Project Description FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 Total

6311 A. C. E. Coverage Management $7.7 $. 1 $7.8

6348 A. C. E. Operations .4 .4

6480 ICM Collection $1. 2 $11.6 92.5 23.2 128.5

Total Framework 3 1. 2 11.6 100.6 23. 3 136.7

6444 ICM Procedures & Training $. 4 1. 3 1.9 2.9 1.8 8.3

6608 ICM Processing .2 4.1 8.4 3.8 16.5

Total Framework 5 .6 1. 3 6.0 11.3 5.6 24.8

6205 ICM Dress Rehearsal .1 7.9 1. 4 9.4

6236 ICM Special Test $3.6 7.1 10.7

6352 ICM Coverage Measurement 3.0 5. 6 9.0 -. 1 7.8 25.3 Total Framework 6
3. 6 10.2 13. 5 10.4 -. 1 7.8 45.4

Total $3. 6 $10.8 $16. 0 $28.0 $111.8 $36. 7 $206.9

Note: ICM projects became A. C. E. projects in fiscal year 2000 and
thereafter. Source: GAO compiled from U. S. Census Bureau financial
management records.

Comments From the Department of

Appendi x II

Commerce Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear
at the end of this appendix.

See comment 1. See comment 2.

See comment 3. See comment 4. See comment 5.

The following are GAO*s comments on the letter dated October 17, 2002,
from the Department of Commerce.

GAO Comments 1. Our report does not make interpretive conclusions or
qualitative judgments about the ICM/ A. C. E. programs. With bureau
assistance, we

compiled unaudited budgeted and obligated amounts for projects that the
bureau reported in its financial management system as being ICM/ A. C. E.
related. Our review of these reported costs indicated that life cycle
costs of the ICM/ A. C. E. programs were not complete due to three factors
as discussed in the body of our report. One of the factors

we cited that contributed to incomplete life cycle costs was $3.6 million
of fiscal year 1996 obligated costs for an ICM special test. In its
comments, the bureau pointed out that prior to fiscal year 1996 it had not
defined the coverage measurement program, did not allocate any
expenditures to the ICM project codes, and could not identify any costs
prior to fiscal year 1996. Thus, it was the bureau*s decision to not track
specific costs during this time period and to consider them as general
research.

We also stated that $57.7 million of budgeted funds were not obligated or
spent through fiscal year 2001, and, with input from bureau officials, we
obtained reasons why these funds were not spent. The bureau did

not take exception to these facts in its response and we noted no
improprieties in this report.

Regarding a reference to specific control weaknesses in its financial
management systems, the scope of this report did not include an assessment
of internal control weaknesses in the bureau*s financial management
systems. However, in a December 2001 report, we identified specific
internal control weaknesses for fiscal year 2000 related to the bureau*s
lack of controls over financial reporting and

financial management systems. 14 2. We still disagree with the bureau on
this point, as we stated in the draft

report. Because these costs were separately tracked by a specific ICM
project code in the bureau*s financial management system, we included them
in the costs of the ICM/ A. C. E. programs that we could identify.

14 GAO- 02- 30.

3. We did not cite discrepancies between the $400 million original cost
estimate of the ICM/ A. C. E. programs provided in early 1999 and the $277
million budgeted amount we identified for fiscal years 1996

through 2003. An objective of our report was to determine what were the
original estimated life cycle costs for the ICM/ A. C. E. programs. The
earliest amount that we could identify from bureau records was $400
million and in our report we explained that this amount was estimated by
the bureau before the January 1999 Supreme Court decision. As a result of
this decision and as disclosed in our report, the bureau decreased the
ICM/ A. C. E. program by about $214 million due to a reduction in the
sample size from 750, 000 to 300,000 housing units.

4. We did not suggest that the difference between $277 million of budgeted
life cycle costs and $207 million of obligated life cycle costs
demonstrated the bureau*s inability to properly manage and record
expenditures relating to the ICM/ A. C. E. programs. As presented in our
report, the budgeted amount of $277 million included fiscal years 1996

through 2003 and the obligated amount of $207 million included amounts for
2 fewer fiscal years (1996 through 2001). As the bureau pointed out in its
response, it is too soon to determine obligated amounts for fiscal years
2002 and 2003 that were budgeted for $12.5 million. Variances for the
remaining $57.7 million of unspent funds are

discussed in comment 1. 5. The bureau agreed that it did not capture the
life cycle costs of

evaluations for the ICM/ A. C. E. programs because evaluations for all
2000 Census programs were charged to one project code. However, the bureau
believes that data processing costs were included in the life cycle costs
of the ICM/ A. C. E. programs and stated that not being able to identify
portions of these costs is not demonstrative of a financial management or
reporting failure. We agree with the bureau that some data processing
costs were captured in the life cycle costs of the ICM/ A. C. E. programs
as evidenced by project codes for ICM/ A. C. E. data processing for
procedures, training, and processing as part of Framework 5. However, we
do not believe that all data processing costs were included. Similar to
evaluation costs, the bureau attributed much of its computer hardware and
support costs to overall 2000 Census programs, and did not allocate costs
to specific projects or programs.

(192052)

GAO*s Mission 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.

Obtaining Copies of The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO
documents at no cost is

through the Internet. GAO*s Web site (www. gao. gov) contains abstracts
and fulltext GAO Reports and

files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older
Testimony

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 www. gao. gov and select *Subscribe to
daily E- mail alert for newly released products* under the GAO Reports
Order GAO Products heading.

Order by Mail or Phone 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 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D. C.
20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512- 6000 TDD: (202) 512- 2537 Fax: (202)
512- 6061

To Report Fraud, Contact:

Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm

E- mail: fraudnet@ gao. gov Federal Programs

Automated answering system: (800) 424- 5454 or (202) 512- 7470 Public
Affairs Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov (202) 512-
4800

U. S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.
C. 20548

a

GAO United States General Accounting Office

Page i GAO- 03- 41 Census 2000 ICM/ A. C. E. Programs

Contents Letter 1

Results in Brief 2 Background 3 Scope and Methodology 6 Life Cycle Costs 7
Seven Issues Related To ICM/ A. C. E. Programs 8 Agency Comments and Our
Evaluation 15

Appendixes

Appendix I: Budgeted and Obligated Life Cycle Costs by Framework and
Project for Fiscal Years 1996 through 2003 17

Appendix II: Comments From the Department of Commerce 19 Tables Table 1:
Census 2000 ICM/ A. C. E. Program Budgeted Life Cycle

Costs for Fiscal Years 1996 through 2003 17 Table 2: Census 2000 ICM/ A.
C. E. Program Obligated Life Cycle

Costs for Fiscal Years 1996 through 2001 18 Figures Figure 1: Budgeted
Costs of ICM/ A. C. E. Programs 11

Figure 2: Obligated Costs of ICM/ A. C. E. Programs 12 Figure 3: Obligated
Costs of ICM/ A. C. E. Programs by Category 13

Abbreviations

A. C. E. Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation CAMS Commerce Accountability
Management System FTE full- time equivalent ICM Integrated Coverage
Measurement OMB Office of Management and Budget PES Post Enumeration
Survey

Page 1 GAO- 03- 41 Census 2000 ICM/ A. C. E. Programs United States
General Accounting Office

Washington, D. C. 20548 Page 1 GAO- 03- 41 Census 2000 ICM/ A. C. E.
Programs

A

Page 2 GAO- 03- 41 Census 2000 ICM/ A. C. E. Programs

Page 3 GAO- 03- 41 Census 2000 ICM/ A. C. E. Programs

Page 4 GAO- 03- 41 Census 2000 ICM/ A. C. E. Programs

Page 5 GAO- 03- 41 Census 2000 ICM/ A. C. E. Programs

Page 6 GAO- 03- 41 Census 2000 ICM/ A. C. E. Programs

Page 7 GAO- 03- 41 Census 2000 ICM/ A. C. E. Programs

Page 8 GAO- 03- 41 Census 2000 ICM/ A. C. E. Programs

Page 9 GAO- 03- 41 Census 2000 ICM/ A. C. E. Programs

Page 10 GAO- 03- 41 Census 2000 ICM/ A. C. E. Programs

Page 11 GAO- 03- 41 Census 2000 ICM/ A. C. E. Programs

Page 12 GAO- 03- 41 Census 2000 ICM/ A. C. E. Programs

Page 13 GAO- 03- 41 Census 2000 ICM/ A. C. E. Programs

Page 14 GAO- 03- 41 Census 2000 ICM/ A. C. E. Programs

Page 15 GAO- 03- 41 Census 2000 ICM/ A. C. E. Programs

Page 16 GAO- 03- 41 Census 2000 ICM/ A. C. E. Programs

Page 17 GAO- 03- 41 Census 2000 ICM/ A. C. E. Programs

Appendix I

Appendix I Budgeted and Obligated Life Cycle Costs by Framework and
Project for Fiscal Years 1996 through 2003

Page 18 GAO- 03- 41 Census 2000 ICM/ A. C. E. Programs

Page 19 GAO- 03- 41 Census 2000 ICM/ A. C. E. Programs

Appendix II

Appendix II Comments From the Department of Commerce

Page 20 GAO- 03- 41 Census 2000 ICM/ A. C. E. Programs

Appendix II Comments From the Department of Commerce

Page 21 GAO- 03- 41 Census 2000 ICM/ A. C. E. Programs

Appendix II Comments From the Department of Commerce

Page 22 GAO- 03- 41 Census 2000 ICM/ A. C. E. Programs

Appendix II Comments From the Department of Commerce

Page 23 GAO- 03- 41 Census 2000 ICM/ A. C. E. Programs

Appendix II Comments From the Department of Commerce

Page 24 GAO- 03- 41 Census 2000 ICM/ A. C. E. Programs

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

Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Service Requested Presorted Standard

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