2010 Census: Census Bureau Needs to Take Prompt Actions to	 
Resolve Long-standing and Emerging Address and Mapping Challenges
(15-JUN-06, GAO-06-272).					 
                                                                 
To conduct a successful census, it is important that the U.S.	 
Census Bureau (Bureau) produce the most complete and accurate	 
address file and maps for 2010. For this review, GAO's specific  
objectives were to determine the extent to which (1) the Bureau's
efforts to modernize the address file and maps are addressing	 
problems experienced during the 2000 Census, (2) the Bureau is	 
managing emerging address file and map issues, (3) the Bureau is 
able to collect and transmit address and mapping data using	 
mobile computing devices (MCD) equipped with global positioning  
system (GPS) technology, and (4) the Bureau has a plan to update 
the address file and maps in areas affected by hurricanes Katrina
and Rita. GAO reviewed the Bureau's progress in modernizing both 
the address file and maps.					 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-06-272 					        
    ACCNO:   A55563						        
  TITLE:     2010 Census: Census Bureau Needs to Take Prompt Actions  
to Resolve Long-standing and Emerging Address and Mapping	 
Challenges							 
     DATE:   06/15/2006 
  SUBJECT:   Census						 
	     Data collection					 
	     Data integrity					 
	     Global positioning system				 
	     Operational testing				 
	     Schedule slippages 				 
	     Maps						 
	     2000 Decennial Census				 
	     2010 Decennial Census				 
	     Census Bureau Master Address File			 
	     Census Bureau Topologically Integrated		 
	     Geographic Encoding and Referencing		 
	     System						 
                                                                 

******************************************************************
** 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-06-272

     

     * Results In Brief
     * Background
     * Uncertainties Surround Completion of Ongoing MAF/TIGER Moder
          * Research to Identify Hidden Housing Units Is Progressing, bu
          * Research to Prevent Valid Addresses from Being Deleted Is On
          * Research Efforts on Duplicate Addresses Have Mixed Results
          * Mixed Progress Is Being Made to Properly Identify and Locate
     * Emerging Issues Related to Overlapping and Compressed Schedu
     * Reliability of MCD to Conduct Address Canvassing Activities
          * Bureau Is Unable to Complete Address Canvassing Operation Be
     * Bureau Does Not Have a Specific Plan for Updating MAF/TIGER
     * Conclusions
     * Recommendations for Executive Action
     * Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
     * Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
     * Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Commerce
     * Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
          * GAO Contact
          * Acknowledgments
               * Order by Mail or Phone

nited States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Committees

U

GAO

June 2006

2010 CENSUS

Census Bureau Needs to Take Prompt Actions to Resolve Long-standing and
Emerging Address and Mapping Challenges

GAO-06-272

Contents

Letter 1

Results In Brief 3
Background 6
Uncertainties Surround Completion of Ongoing MAF/TIGER Modernization
Research 10
Emerging Issues Related to Overlapping and Compressed Schedules Pose a
Risk to MAF/TIGER Modernization Efforts 18
Reliability of MCD to Conduct Address Canvassing Activities is Unknown 20
Bureau Does Not Have a Specific Plan for Updating MAF/TIGER in the
Aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita 22
Conclusions 24
Recommendations for Executive Action 25
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 26
Appendix I Scope and Methodology 28
Appendix II Comments from the Department of Commerce 30
Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 38
GAO Contact 38
Acknowledgments 38

Table

Table 1: Status of Bureau Efforts to Resolve MAF/TIGER Issues 11

Figures

Figure 1: Key Operations Required for a Complete and Accurate MAF/TIGER
for the 2000 Census 7
Figure 2: Group Homes Can Resemble Housing Units 16
Figure 3: TIGER Map Overlay of an Aerial Photograph 17
Figure 4: Devastation in the Lower Ninth Ward in New Orleans, Louisiana 22

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

June 15, 2006

The Honorable Susan M. Collins Chairman The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman
Ranking Member Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
United States Senate

The Honorable Tom Coburn Chairman The Honorable Thomas R. Carper Ranking
Minority Member Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government
Information, and International Security Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs United States Senate

The Honorable Tom Davis Chairman The Honorable Henry A. Waxman Ranking
Minority Member Committee on Government Reform House of Representatives

The Honorable Michael R. Turner Chairman The Honorable William Lacy Clay
Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Federalism and the Census
Committee on Government Reform House of Representatives

The decennial census is an important, constitutionally mandated activity
undertaken by the federal government that is complex and costly-estimated
at $11.3 billion for the 2010 Census. The data that the census produces
are used to reapportion the seats of the U.S. House of Representatives;
realign the boundaries of the legislative districts of each state;
allocate hundreds of billions of dollars in federal financial assistance;
and provide a social, demographic, and economic profile of the nation's
people to guide policy decisions at each level of government. The U.S.
Department of Commerce's Census Bureau (Bureau) is responsible for
conducting the decennial census, and the success of the census depends in
large part on the ability of the Bureau to locate and deliver
questionnaires to every person residing in the United States. To
successfully accomplish this monumental task, the Bureau must maintain
accurate address and map information for every location where a person
could reside. During the 2000 Census, Bureau evaluations estimated that of
the 116 million housing units in the final census count, about 2.3 million
housing units were incorrectly included in the census and about 2.7
million housing units were missed.

One of the Bureau's principal objectives for the 2010 Census is
modernizing the Master Address File (MAF)-the Bureau's repository of
approximately 130 million addresses to which the Bureau expects to deliver
census forms for the 2010 Census. The Bureau also works to ensure the
accuracy of the associated mapping system, the Topologically Integrated
Geographic Encoding and Referencing (TIGER(R)) database.1 The Bureau hopes
to improve the completeness and accuracy of MAF/TIGER through a
combination of activities, including partnering with state and local
governments to verify the address lists and maps and updating maps to
reflect correct geographic features. The Bureau will also use
satellite-based global positioning system (GPS) technology to correctly
locate housing units and door-to-door canvassing to verify the status of
all housing units. The combined cost of these efforts is estimated to be
about $536 million (nominal dollars).

An important component of the Bureau's attempts to modernize its address
listing and mapping activities will be the planned use of relatively new
technology. For the first time, census workers will use a GPS-equipped
mobile computing device (MCD) to collect data in the field, including
address and map data. The Bureau anticipates that the MCDs will be used in
three major census operations, and their successful implementation would
allow the Bureau to reduce the amount of paper used, process data in real
time, and improve the quality of the information collected.

Because of the critical importance of complete and accurate address lists
and maps, under the Comptroller General's statutory authority, we reviewed
the Bureau's progress in modernizing both MAF and TIGER. As agreed with
your offices, we are providing this report to you which contains
information that will be useful for your oversight responsibilities of the
decennial census. Our specific objectives were to determine the extent to
which (1) the Bureau's efforts to modernize the address file and maps are
addressing problems experienced during the 2000 Census, (2) the Bureau is
managing emerging MAF/TIGER issues, (3) the Bureau is able to collect and
transmit address and mapping data using a MCD that is equipped with GPS
technology, and (4) the Bureau has a plan to update the address file and
maps in areas affected by hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

1 TIGER is a registered trademark of the U.S. Census Bureau.

To meet these objectives, we analyzed relevant evaluations from the 2000
Census and other studies conducted by the Bureau, the Department of
Commerce Office of Inspector General, and other organizations. We also
reviewed various documents describing the Bureau's MAF/TIGER modernization
efforts and interviewed knowledgeable Bureau officials about MAF/TIGER,
including the Bureau's plans to update MAF/TIGER in the wake of hurricanes
Katrina and Rita. Further, to obtain a firsthand look at how the Bureau's
address-building operations and MCDs performed in a real-world
environment, we observed address canvassing activities at the 2006 Census
Test sites located at the Cheyenne River American Indian Reservation and
Tribal Trust Lands in South Dakota and the central portion of Travis
County, Texas. Address canvassing is an operation where census workers
walk every street in the country, verifying addresses and updating maps.
We conducted our work from June 2005 through April 2006 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. Additional information
on our scope and methodology appears in appendix I.

                                Results In Brief

While the Bureau's MAF/TIGER modernization efforts have progressed in a
number of areas, it is not clear if research designed to resolve
address-related issues from the last census will be completed in
sufficient time to improve 2010 address-building activities. During the
2000 Census, the Bureau encountered a number of problems with the MAF,
including addresses that were duplicated, missed, deleted, and incorrectly
located on the maps. To address those problems, the Bureau has been
conducting research and testing some operational changes. For example, the
Bureau is researching ways to capture missed addresses for housing units
that were hard to find-often associated with apartments in small,
multi-unit structures. However, some deadlines for completing research are
not firm, while other deadlines that have been set continue to slip. As a
result, it is not known whether the research and evaluation efforts
currently under way will be completed in sufficient time to allow the
Bureau to develop new methodologies and procedures for improving the MAF
by June 2007, the Bureau's announced deadline for baselining all program
requirements. In addition, one major research effort using software to
identify duplicate addresses (an estimated 1.4 million duplicate addresses
were removed during the 2000 Census) did not work any better at
identifying true duplicates than what the Bureau already had in place and
will not be used in 2010. As a result, duplicate addresses may still be a
problem for the 2010 MAF, and if not detected, can result in reduced
accuracy and increased cost.

As the Bureau has planned for the 2010 Census, issues surrounding the
schedule of address activities have emerged and have not been fully
addressed. One such issue revolves around the planning and development of
the census amid tight and overlapping schedules for updating addresses and
map files. For example, Bureau officials estimate that TIGER maps for 600
to 700 counties of 3,232 counties in the United States will not be updated
in time to be part of the local update of census addresses (LUCA)-the
Bureau's program to give local, state, and tribal government officials the
opportunity to review the address lists and maps and suggest corrections.
LUCA participation is important because local knowledge contributes to a
more complete and accurate address file, and not having the most current
TIGER maps could affect the quality of a local government's review. Also,
the Bureau has compressed the time frame for completing address
canvassing-an operation where census workers walk every street in the
country to verify addresses and update maps. The Bureau has allotted 6
weeks for verifying the nation's inventory of 116 million housing units,
although the Bureau took 18 weeks to complete this operation for the 2000
Census. The time to complete address canvassing is a concern because the
workload for address canvassing has significantly expanded from including
only urban areas in 2000 to including the entire country for 2010. Bureau
officials acknowledged the compressed time frame and that, in some areas
of the country, bad weather could result in more time being needed to
complete address canvassing. Bureau officials did not provide a
justification for reducing the amount of time by 12 weeks, but did state
that they would need to adjust staffing levels to meet workload demands.

The Bureau's ability to collect and transmit address and mapping data
using the MCD is not known. The performance of these devices is crucial to
the accurate, timely, and cost-effective completion of address listing,
nonresponse follow-up, and coverage measurement activities. During 2006
testing, the MCD used to collect address and map data was slow and locked
up frequently. As a result, the Bureau was unable to complete address
canvassing, even with a 10-day extension. Also, some census workers were
not always able to get GPS signals for collecting coordinates for housing
units. Bureau officials have acknowledged that the MCD's performance is an
issue, but believe that a new version of the MCD, to be developed under
the Field Data Collection Automation (FDCA) contract awarded on March 30,
2006, will be reliable and functional. However, because the 2008 Dress
Rehearsal will be the first time this new MCD will be tested under
census-like conditions, it is uncertain how effective that MCD will be,
and if problems do emerge, little time will be left for the contractor to
develop and test any refinements. Further, if after the dress rehearsal
the MCD is found not to be reliable, the Bureau could be faced with the
remote, but daunting, possibility of having to revert to a costly
paper-based census used in 2000.

Finally, Bureau officials do not believe they need to have a specific plan
to update the address and maps files for those areas affected by
hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Securing a complete count is difficult under
normal circumstances, and the destruction caused by the hurricanes makes
it even more difficult because the baseline information the Bureau must
work with-streets, housing, and the population itself-will be in flux for
some time to come. Bureau officials stated that by 2009, when address
fieldwork is set to begin, residents will have decided whether to return
to the affected region. Therefore, they believe that by 2009, they will be
in a better position to add or delete addresses in the Gulf region
affected by the hurricanes. However, Bureau officials could not provide
support for the 2009 date, nor have they identified local partners with
whom they can monitor this situation. Given the magnitude of the area
affected and the degree of destruction, this approach may not be adequate.
As a result, the quality of the address and map files could be reduced if
the Bureau is not prepared to conduct address operations in those areas
affected by hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

In conversations with Bureau officials, it became apparent to us that they
are keenly aware of the existing time constraints and challenges detailed
in this report. However, the Bureau had not developed risk mitigation
plans to address these challenges. Our recommendations, therefore, are
intended to make transparent for Bureau and congressional decision makers
how those challenges can and should be addressed. At a minimum, the Bureau
should have a risk-based mitigation plan in place that includes specific
dates for completing research on the address file and an approach for
exploring the difficulties the Bureau may face in updating MAF/TIGER along
the Gulf Coast. Because time is running short, it is imperative that the
Bureau continue to stay focused on identifying and resolving problems to
help ensure that the most accurate and complete address file and maps are
produced for the 2010 Census. To facilitate this, we recommend that the
Secretary of Commerce direct the Bureau to address methodological, timing,
and procedural improvements to building its address file and maps.
Specific actions include (1) establishing firm deadlines to complete
research, testing, and evaluations of the MAF to prevent missed, deleted,
or duplicate addresses and map errors, and develop an action plan that
will allow sufficient time to affect the 2010 MAF/TIGER design; (2)
reevaluating the 2010 address canvassing schedule in areas affected by bad
weather as well as staffing levels to ensure that the status of all
housing units are accurately verified throughout the entire country; and
(3) developing a plan, prior to the start of LUCA in August 2007, that
will assess whether new procedures, additional resources, or local
partnerships are needed to update MAF/TIGER along the Gulf Coast for areas
affected by hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

On June 2, 2006, the Department of Commerce forwarded written comments
from the Bureau on a draft of this report. The Bureau agreed with each of
our three recommendations and also noted actions it was taking to address
the recommendations. The Bureau's comments also included some technical
corrections and suggestions where additional context was needed, and we
revised the report to reflect these comments as appropriate. The comments
are reprinted in their entirety in appendix II.

                                   Background

A complete and accurate address list is the cornerstone of a successful
census, because it both identifies all households that are to receive a
census questionnaire and serves as the control mechanism for following up
with households that fail to respond. If the address list is inaccurate,
people can be missed, counted more than once, or included in the wrong
location. MAF is intended to be a complete and current list of all
addresses and locations where people live or could live. The TIGER
database is a mapping system that identifies all visible geographic
features, such as type and location of streets, housing units, rivers, and
railroads. To link these two separate databases, the Bureau assigns every
housing unit in the MAF to a specific location in the TIGER, a process
called "geocoding."

As shown in figure 1, for the 2000 Census the Bureau's approach to
building complete and accurate address lists and maps consisted of a
number of labor- and data-intensive operations that sometimes overlapped
and were conducted over several years. This effort included partnerships
with the U.S. Postal Service and other federal agencies; state, local, and
tribal governments; local planning organizations; the private sector; and
nongovernmental entities. The Bureau employed thousands of temporary
census workers to walk every street in the country to locate and verify
places where people could live. Determining this was no simple task as

Figure 1: Key Operations Required for a Complete and Accurate MAF/TIGER
for the 2000 Census

people can reside in cars, sheds, illegally converted basements and
garages, and similar nontraditional and often hidden living arrangements.

For the 2000 Census, the Bureau found that the MAF/TIGER databases were
less than complete and accurate. Although the number of errors was small
in proportion to the total number of housing units at the national level,
the errors could be problematic at lower levels of geography for certain
purposes for which census data are used, such as allocating federal
assistance to state and local governments.

According to Bureau evaluations conducted after the 2000 Census, the final
census count contained approximately 116 million housing units. However,
the address file used to conduct the 2000 Census also contained a number
of errors.2 Bureau evaluations estimate that there were

           o  0.7 million duplicate addresses,
           o  1.6 million vacant housing units misclassified as occupied,
           o  1.4 million housing units not included,
           o  1.3 million housing units improperly deleted, and
           o  5.6 million housing units incorrectly located on census maps.

           In light of these and other problems, the Bureau made enhancing
           the MAF/TIGER one of three critical components to support the 2010
           Census. The other two components are replacing the long form
           questionnaire with the American Community Survey3 and conducting a
           short-form-only decennial census that is supported by early
           research and testing.

           For the 2010 Census, the Bureau is making extensive use of
           contractors to provide a number of mission-critical functions and
           technologies. One of the technologies to be provided by a
           contractor is the MCD. Under a contract awarded on March 30, 2006,
           a new MCD will be developed for the 2008 Dress Rehearsal. To date,
           the Bureau has tested two models of the MCD-one during the 2004
           Census Test and another during the 2006 Census Test. In January
           2005, we reported that the MCD used during the 2004 Census Test to
           collect nonresponse follow-up data experienced problems
           transmitting, and the mapping feature was slow. Consistent with
           our recommendations, the Bureau took steps to improve the
           dependability of transmissions and correct the speed of the
           mapping feature.4

           Due to the critical role of contractors to help carry out the 2010
           Census, we conducted a review of major acquisitions for the 2010
           Census.5 footnote number should not start a line) In that report
           issued in May 2006, we highlighted the tight time frames the FDCA
           contractor has for developing and implementing systems to support
           the upcoming 2008 Dress Rehearsal and recommended that the Bureau
           ensure that all systems are fully functional and ready to be
           assessed in time for the Dress Rehearsal. In addition, on March 1,
           2006, we testified on the status of the FDCA project. 6 In that
           testimony, we discussed the need for the Bureau to

           o  validate and approve a baseline set of operational requirements
           for the FDCA contract, because if not, the FDCA project would be
           at risk of having changes to requirements, potentially affecting
           its ambitious development and implementation schedule;
           o  implement an effective risk management process that identifies,
           prioritizes, and tracks project risks; and
           o  select detailed performance measures for tracking the
           contractor's work.

           In response to our work, the Bureau stated that they plan to
           complete these activities as soon as possible.

           While the Bureau's MAF/TIGER modernization efforts have progressed
           in a number of areas, uncertainties and risks remain in dealing
           with address-related problems that affected the 2000 Census.
           Currently it is not known whether ongoing research to resolve
           those problems will be completed in sufficient time to allow the
           Bureau to develop new methodologies and procedures for improving
           the MAF by June 2007-the Bureau's announced deadline for
           baselining all program requirements. One significant cause for
           this uncertainty is that some deadlines for completing research do
           not have firm dates, while other deadlines that have been set
           continue to slip. In addition, one major research effort using
           software to identify duplicate addresses (an estimated 1.4 million
           duplicate addresses were removed during the 2000 Census) did not
           work any better at identifying true duplicates than what the
           Bureau already had in place and will not be used in 2010. As a
           result, duplicate addresses may still be a problem for the 2010
           MAF, and to the extent they are not detected, can result in
           reduced accuracy and increased cost.

           During the 2000 Census, the Bureau encountered a number of
           problems with the MAF including (1) missed addresses, where the
           Bureau failed to include addresses in the MAF; (2) improperly
           deleted addresses, where the Bureau removed otherwise valid
           addresses from the MAF; (3) duplicate addresses, with two or more
           addresses for the same housing unit; and (4) geocoding errors,
           where addresses were improperly located on a census map.7 All of
           the errors affect the quality of census data. When detected, the
           errors can increase the cost of the census to the extent they
           result in rework. Moreover, these errors are associated with a
           variety of living arrangements and addresses, including small,
           multi-unit dwellings; dormitories, prisons, and other group living
           facilities, known collectively as "group quarters," as well as
           hidden housing units, such as converted basement apartments. As
           shown in table 1, to address those problems the Bureau has been
           conducting research and making some operational changes.

2 The address file used to conduct the decennial census is referred to as
the decennial master address file or DMAF. In this report we refer to the
address file as the master address file (MAF).

3 The American Community Survey (ACS) will contain the same questions as
the long form, but will be mailed monthly to an annual sample of 3 million
housing units. With the smaller sample, the ACS is designed to provide the
same information at the same level of geographic detail as the long form
by means of continuous measurement methodology in which survey responses
will be accumulated over time.

4 GAO, 2010 Census: Basic Design Has Potential, but Remaining Challenges
Need Prompt Resolution, GAO-05-9 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 12, 2005).

5 GAO, 2010 Census: Census Bureau Generally Follows Selected Leading
Acquisition Planning Practices, but Continued Management Attention Is
Needed to Help Ensure Success, GAO-06-277 (Washington, D.C.: May 18,
2006).

6 GAO, Census Bureau: Important Activities for Improving Management of Key
2010 Decennial Acquisitions Remain to be Done, GAO-06-444T (Washington,
D.C.: Mar. 1, 2006).

 Uncertainties Surround Completion of Ongoing MAF/TIGER Modernization Research

7 Another type of MAF error identified by the Bureau is misclassifying a
housing unit as occupied when it is vacant. However, our focus is on
whether an address has been properly captured in the MAF and not the
occupancy status of the address. Therefore, we do not discuss occupancy
errors in this report.

Table 1: Status of Bureau Efforts to Resolve MAF/TIGER Issues

Types of                 Type of                                           
errors     Primary       dwelling most                                     
identified reasons for   likely        Actions taken by   Status of
in 2000    those errors  affected      Bureau             current effort
Missed     Some housing  Small         Testing new method Testing to be    
addresses  units are     multi-unit    to identify        completed by end 
              difficult to  structures.   clusters of small  of 2006.         
              identify.                   multi-units.       
Improperly Varied.       Varied.       Tested new method  Evaluation was   
deleted                                for verifying the  due January 2006 
addresses                              status of all      and that date    
                                          housing units      has been moved   
                                          marked as deleted  to April 2006.   
                                          in 2006 address    The evaluation   
                                          canvassing         was not          
                                          testing.           available at the 
                                                             time of this     
                                                             review.          
Duplicate  Redundancy    Housing unit  Tested             Results indicate 
addresses  and overlap   with a        address-matching   matching         
              in the        city-style    software in 2004.  software is not  
              address list  address.                         ready for 2010   
              building      (e.g., 123    Tested procedures  Census.          
              process.      Main Street)  during 2004 and                     
                                          2006 Census Tests  2004 evaluation  
              Address lists Group         to integrate group indicated        
              were created  quarters.     quarters and       progress is      
              separately                  housing unit       being made for   
              for group                   address lists.     integrating      
              quarters and                                   address lists.   
              housing                                        Evaluation of    
              units, and                                     2006 testing was 
              some                                           due May 2006 but 
              addresses                                      was not          
              were listed                                    available at the 
              on both                                        time of this     
              lists.                                         review.          
Geocoding  Maps not      Varied.       Collected GPS      2004 test        
errors     accurate.                   coordinates for    results indicate 
                                          housing units in   that workers     
                                          the 2004 and 2006  only used GPS 55 
                                          tests.             percent of the   
                                                             time.            
                                          Hired contractor                    
                                          to update maps.    Evaluation was   
                                                             due January 2006 
                                                             and that date    
                                                             has been moved   
                                                             to April 2006.   
                                                             The evaluation   
                                                             was not          
                                                             available at the 
                                                             time of this     
                                                             review.          
                                                                              
                                                             Contractor       
                                                             updating maps    
                                                             and will be      
                                                             finished in      
                                                             April 2008.      

Source: GAO analysis of Census Bureau data.

Research to Identify Hidden Housing Units Is Progressing, but Completion Date Is
Uncertain

Although research to find hidden housing units holds promise for a more
accurate census, whether the results will be delivered in time to be
useful for the 2010 Census is uncertain. While Bureau officials do not
have a firm date for completing this research, they do estimate it will be
completed by the end of 2006.

According to Bureau evaluations, approximately 1.4 million housing units
were missed in the 2000 Census. Missed addresses often result when
temporary census workers do not recognize that particular structures, such
as tool sheds, are being used as residences. Addresses can also be missed
when census workers fail to detect hidden housing units, such as basement
apartments, within what appear to be single housing units. This is
especially true for urban areas, where row houses have been converted into
several different apartments. If an address is not in the MAF, its
residents are less likely to be included in the census.

In May 2003, Bureau staff met with the New York City Planning Department
to discuss and observe the address problems associated with small
multi-unit structures in Queens, New York. After the visit, the Bureau
concluded that delivering questionnaires to small multi-unit structures
was a problem that needed to be addressed. In response, the Bureau is
using the MAF to identify urban areas, including Baltimore, an area west
of Chicago, and counties in New Jersey, where small multi-unit dwellings
exist, fitting the description of those that were missed.8 According to
Bureau officials, to accurately identify and count these missed housing
units, the Bureau would use update/enumerate procedures-where census
workers update the address list and conduct interviews to collect census
data-instead of using mailout/mailback procedures, where census forms are
mailed to the housing units. Update/enumerate procedures are more
labor-intensive and costly than mailout/mailback procedures.

In reviewing the research plan on small multi-unit structures,we found no
milestones for completing this research. Bureau officials could not
provide a firm completion date, but estimated that the research would be
completed by the end of 2006. Without clear milestones for completing this
research and action plans based on research results, it is uncertain
whether the Bureau will have sufficient time to develop a methodology for
identifying all the problematic locations across the country where
update/enumerate methodology would be necessary and to inform decision
makers on the cost of converting these areas from mailout/mailback
procedures to update/enumerate procedures.

8 The research project regarding small multiunit structures is also about
avoiding duplicate enumerations caused by confusion during mail delivery,
as well as follow-up operations.

Research to Prevent Valid Addresses from Being Deleted Is Ongoing, but
Completion Date Has Slipped

The Bureau has tested new procedures to validate whether an address
initially marked "delete" should be removed from the address file.
However, the results from that testing, due January 2006, were delayed
until April 2006, and were not available at the time of this review.

For the 2000 Census, the Bureau found that it had mistakenly deleted 1.3
million existing housing units from the address file used to conduct the
census. In some instances, this occurred when the Bureau deleted an
address that the U.S. Postal Service had coded as a business address,
although people were living at that address. According to a Bureau
evaluation, when this happens, the Bureau relies on census workers to find
and add back those units. Bureau officials stated that identifying
residential housing units is difficult for some structures, such as
apartments in businesses.

The Bureau would also delete an address if no census form was returned
from the unit and if two other census operations determined that the
address should be deleted. A Bureau evaluation found that this process
identified and removed 8.3 million nonexistent addresses; however, about
653,0009 of those addresses were valid and should not have been deleted.
The evaluation does not provide an explanation for why these valid
addresses were deleted or what could be done in the future to prevent
valid addresses from being removed. Concerned that valid addresses were
deleted, the Bureau, for the 2006 Census Test of address canvassing,
tested a new follow-up quality check procedure designed to verify the
status of all addresses that were identified as "delete" during the
address canvassing operation. The 2000 Census did have a follow-up
operation, but not one specifically for all deleted addresses during the
canvassing operation. By building this quality control operation into the
address canvassing operation, the Bureau hopes to prevent valid addresses
from getting inadvertently deleted. An assessment report of address
procedures that were tested in 2005 as part of the 2006 address canvassing
operation was to be completed by January 2006. However, the deadline for
this assessment slipped until the end of April 2006, and was not available
at the time of this review.

9 These approximately 653,000 valid addresses that were deleted are a
subset of the 1.3 million addresses mistakenly deleted.

Research Efforts on Duplicate Addresses Have Mixed Results

The Bureau has taken actions to prevent duplicate addresses. However, one
research effort to identify duplicates using software was found to be
ineffective because approximately 10 percent of the time the software
would incorrectly identify a valid address as a duplicate address, and as
a result, this software will not be used in 2010. According to Commerce
officials, it is their philosophy to favor the inclusion of addresses in
the census process over the exclusion of addresses. Nevertheless,
preventing duplicate addresses in the MAF saves the Bureau from having to
make unnecessary and expensive follow-up visits to households already
surveyed. Furthermore, preventing duplicate responses also enhances the
accuracy of the data.

Bureau studies initially estimated that during the 2000 Census, about 2.4
million duplicate addresses existed in the MAF. The problem was so
significant that in the summer of 2000, the Bureau initiated a special
follow-up operation10 to identify and remove duplicate addresses. Research
from this special operation confirmed that 1.4 million addresses were
duplicates, and the Bureau removed those addresses from the census.
However, the operation was not able to determine with certainty whether
the remaining 1 million addresses were duplicates. As a result, according
to Commerce officials, the 1 million addresses were not removed from the
census because those addresses were believed to be a combination of
apartment mix-ups and misdelivery of questionnaires, and not duplicates.
Had the Bureau identified these 1.4 million housing units before
nonresponse follow-up had occurred, it could have saved $39.7 million
(based on our estimate that a 1 percentage point increase in workload
could add at least $34 million in direct salary, benefits, and travel
costs to the price tag of nonresponse follow-up).11 Even after the special
operation to remove duplicates was completed, the Bureau still estimated
that approximately 0.7 million duplicates remained in the MAF in error.

According to Bureau officials, duplicate addresses resulted from the
multiple operations used to build the MAF. While the redundancy of having
multiple address-building operations helps produce a more complete and
accurate address list because more opportunities exist for an address to
be added to the MAF, any variations in city-style addresses, which are
addresses with house numbers and street names, could produce a duplicate
entry. For example, the Postal Service, which is the source of many
addresses in the MAF, might refer to an address in its database as 123
Waterway Point. A census worker in another address operation might record
that address as 123 South Waterway Point. If not detected, two addresses
would remain in the MAF for this single residence. To help resolve this
problem, in 2004, the Bureau tested whether it could detect duplicate
addresses in the MAF by using computerized matching software to link
variations in street addresses. In test results, the Bureau found that 90
percent of the potential duplicates identified by the process of
"probablistic matching" were actual duplicates, while 10 percent were
valid addresses. Because the number of false duplicates was significantly
high, the Bureau decided against incorporating this approach into its
plans for 2010 and planned no further testing of the software. As a result
of not being able to use this software, duplicate addresses may still be a
problem for the 2010 MAF, and duplicate addresses that are not detected
can reduce accuracy and increase costs.

10 An unduplication operation in the summer of 2000 was implemented to
identify and remove duplicate addresses. This operation was not a part of
the original 2000 Census plan, but was considered necessary.

11 GAO, 2000 Census: Contingency Planning Needed to Address Risks That
Pose a Threat to a Successful Census, GAO/GGD-00-6 (Washington, D.C.: Dec.
14, 1999).

At the same time, the Bureau has made some progress toward preventing
duplicates. The Bureau is testing new methods to resolve difficulties in
distinguishing group quarters (which include dormitories, prisons, group
homes, and nursing homes) from housing units, such as single-family homes
and apartments. In the 2000 Census, the Bureau used different operations
and compiled separate address lists for group quarters and housing units.
Group quarters are sometimes difficult for census workers to identify
because they often look the same as conventional housing units (see fig.
2). As a result, these homes were sometimes counted twice during the 2000
Census-once as a group quarter and once as a housing unit.

Figure 2: Group Homes Can Resemble Housing Units

One approach to help prevent duplicates that the Bureau tested during the
2004 and 2006 Census Tests is integrating the two address lists and then
verifying potential group quarters on that list. Evaluation results from
the 2004 testing showed progress was being made for integrating the
address lists. The operational assessment report on the 2006 group
quarters testing validation/advance visit operation that occurred in 2005,
as a part of the address canvassing operation for the 2006 Census Test,
was expected by May 30, 2006, and was not available at the time of this
review.

Mixed Progress Is Being Made to Properly Identify and Locate Housing Units on
TIGER Maps

The Bureau is using a contractor to update its TIGER maps and intends to
use GPS technology to locate every housing unit across the country
precisely. Collectively, these two efforts are designed to avoid the
geocoding errors of the 2000 Census, when residences were sometimes
counted in the wrong census block. However, progress can be hindered if
technical problems associated with the GPS continue.

Bureau evaluations estimated that in 2000, of the nation's approximately
116 million housing units, 5.6 million (about 4.8 percent) housing units
in the country were counted in the wrong locations. Resolving geocoding
errors will be important, as census data are used to redraw congressional
lines and allocate federal assistance and state funding. For example, in
June 2005, we reported that Soledad, California, lost more then $140,000
in state revenue when a geocoding error caused over 11,000 Soledad
residents to be miscounted in two nearby cities.12

Geocoding errors are partly attributable to inaccuracies in the TIGER maps
that census workers use to verify the locations of residences. As shown in
figure 3, roads and other features on TIGER maps did not always reflect
their true geographic locations.

Figure 3: TIGER Map Overlay of an Aerial Photograph

To help improve TIGER maps, in June 2002, the Bureau awarded an 8-year,
$200 million contract to correct in TIGER the location of every street,
boundary, and other map feature so that they are aligned with their true
geographic locations, among other contractual tasks. This work is to be
completed on a county-by-county schedule. According to Bureau officials,
as of March 2006, nearly 1,700 county maps have been completed, with about
another 1,600 to be completed by April 2008.

12 GAO, Data Quality: Improvements to Count Correction Efforts Could
Produce More Accurate Census Data, GAO-05-463 (Washington, D.C.: June 20,
2005).

In conjunction with updating TIGER, the Bureau, as part of its 2010
address canvassing operations, plans to have census workers capture the
exact location of every structure on the address list by using GPS
receivers. This approach has the potential to resolve the cause of many
geocoding errors; however, as we discuss later in this report, when this
operation was tested as part of the 2006 Census Test, the GPS receiver did
not always operate properly, leaving some housing units without a GPS
coordinate to determine their locations. As part of the address canvassing
operational assessment report, the Bureau will provide the number and type
of map spots collected (GPS, manual, or attached multi-unit). This report,
initially due in January 2006, has been delayed and was not available at
the time of our review.

Testing GPS coordinates was a part of the 2004 Census Test, and
evaluations showed that workers only used the GPS receiver to capture the
location of housing units 55 percent of time. The evaluation, however, did
not address why census workers did not use the GPS receiver.

 Emerging Issues Related to Overlapping and Compressed Schedules Pose a Risk to
                        MAF/TIGER Modernization Efforts

As the Bureau has planned for the 2010 Census, issues surrounding the
schedule of address activities have emerged and have not been fully
addressed. One key challenge in conducting the 2010 Census is the Bureau's
ability to keep the myriad of census activities on track amid tight and
overlapping schedules for updating addresses and maps. For example, in
planning the various 2010 address list activities, Bureau officials
estimate that TIGER maps for 600 to 700 counties (out of 3,232 counties in
the United States) will not be updated in time to be part of the local
update of census addresses (LUCA)-a program through which the Bureau gives
local, state, and tribal government officials the opportunity to review
and suggest corrections to the address lists and maps for their
jurisdictions.13 LUCA is to begin in August 2007, when, according to the
current schedule, the Bureau will still have to update 368 counties in
2008 alone. Because all updates will not have been completed, some
counties will not have the most current maps to review, but instead will
be given the most recent maps the Bureau has available. According to
Bureau officials, some maps have been updated for the American Community
Survey, but others have not been updated since the 2000 Census. LUCA
participation is important because local knowledge contributes to a more
complete and accurate address file. Not having the most current TIGER maps
could affect the quality of a local government's review. The Bureau is
aware of the overlapping schedules, but officials stated that they need to
start LUCA in 2007 in order to complete the operation in time for address
canvassing-an operation where census workers walk every street in the
country to verify addresses and update maps. Further, Commerce officials
stated that the primary focus of the LUCA program is to review and update
the address list and not to review and update maps; therefore, not having
the improved maps should not affect the ability of LUCA participants to
add or make corrections to the census address list. We, however, believe
that improved maps would help LUCA participants to provide more accurate
address data.

13 LUCA is an example of how the Bureau partners with external entities,
tapping into their knowledge of local populations and housing conditions
in order to secure a more complete count. In the Census Address List
Improvement Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-430, codified as 13 U.S.C. S: 16,
Congress required the Bureau to develop a local address review program to
give local and tribal governments greater input into the Bureau's address
list development process.

The census schedule will be a challenge for address canvassing in 2010.
The Bureau has allotted 6 weeks for census workers to verify the nation's
inventory of approximately 116 million housing units. This translates into
a completion rate of over 2.75 million housing units every day. The
challenge in maintaining this schedule can be seen in the fact that for
the 2000 Census, the Bureau took 18 weeks just to canvass "city-style"
address areas, which are localities where the U.S. Postal Service uses
house-number and street-name addresses for most mail delivery. However, a
Bureau official could not explain why the schedule had been shortened by
12 weeks, compared to the 2000 Census.

Although Bureau officials agreed that more time will be needed to conduct
the address canvassing operation, especially in the northern sections of
the country where bad weather can hinder those operations, they have not
reevaluated the schedule. A Bureau official stated that the Bureau would
need to assess staffing levels to ensure it will be able to meet workload
demands. Meeting the demands of the shortened time frame for completing
address canvassing is a concern because the workload for address
canvassing has significantly expanded from including only urban areas in
2000 to including the entire country for 2010. Furthermore, in the summer
of 2005, when address canvassing was conducted for the 2006 test, the
Bureau was unable to finish in 6 weeks because of problems with the new
MCD and GPS technology. In its comments to a draft of this report,
Commerce officials said it would work to expand the address canvassing
schedule to ensure that it can be done without having a negative impact on
other critical decennial activities.

     Reliability of MCD to Conduct Address Canvassing Activities is Unknown

The Bureau's ability to collect and transmit address and mapping data
using the MCD is not known. The performance of these devices is crucial to
the accurate, timely, and cost-effective completion of address listing,
nonresponse follow-up, and coverage measurement activities. During 2006
testing, the MCD used to collect address and map data was slow and locked
up frequently. As a result, the Bureau was unable to complete address
canvassing, even with a 10-day extension. Also, some census workers were
not always able to get GPS signals for collecting coordinates for housing
units. Bureau officials have acknowledged that the MCD's performance is an
issue but believe that a new version of the MCD, to be developed under the
Field Data Collection Automation (FDCA) contract awarded on March 30,
2006, will be reliable and functional. However, because the 2008 Dress
Rehearsal will be the first time this new MCD will be tested under
census-like conditions, it is uncertain how effective that MCD will be,
and if problems do emerge, little time will be left for the contractor to
develop, test, and incorporate any refinements. Moreover, if after the
Dress Rehearsal the MCD is found to be unreliable, the Bureau could be
faced with the remote, but daunting possibility of having to revert to the
costly paper-based census used in 2000.

Bureau Is Unable to Complete Address Canvassing Operation Because of Technical
Difficulties with the MCD

During the address canvassing operation, the technical problems with the
MCDs were so significant that the operation did not finish as scheduled.14
The 6 week operation was expected to run through September 2, 2005, but
had to be extended by 10 days (through Sept. 12, 2005). However, the
Bureau was still unable to finish the operation, leaving six assignment
areas in Travis County, Texas and four assignment areas at the Cheyenne
River Reservation, South Dakota not canvassed.

To conduct address canvassing, each MCD was loaded with address
information and maps and was also equipped with GPS. Census workers were
trained to locate every structure in their assignment area, as well as to
compare the locations of housing units to address and map data on the MCD
and update the data accordingly. They also were instructed to capture each
housing unit's GPS coordinates. However, workers we observed and
interviewed had problems updating address and map data as well as
collecting GPS coordinates, largely because the device's software and GPS
receiver were unstable. For example, we observed census workers unable to
complete their planned assignments for the day because it took too long to
complete address and map updates, as the device was slow to pull up and
exit address registers, accept the data entered by the worker, and link a
map spot to addresses for multi-unit structures. Furthermore, the devices
would often lock up, requiring workers to reboot them.

14As noted earlier in this report, during the 2004 Census Test the Bureau
also experienced problems with the MCD (different model than the one used
in the 2006 Census Test) used to collect nonresponse follow-up data.
Specifically, that MCD had difficulties transmitting work and was slow to
load maps.

Census workers also experienced problems with the GPS receiver acquired by
the Bureau. Some workers had problems getting a signal, but even when a
signal was available, the GPS receiver was slow to locate assignment areas
and provide coordinates for map spots. Bureau officials were not certain
why the Bureau's equipment was unreliable, but provided several possible
explanations: (1) the software, hardware, or both did not function
properly, (2) GPS units were not correctly inserted into the device, and
(3) too few satellites were available for capturing coordinates. Given the
importance of GPS to collecting precise coordinates for housing units, it
will be important for the Bureau to understand and correct the source of
the problems that affected the reliability of the GPS.

Going into address canvassing, the Bureau was aware that the MCDs had
software problems and delayed the address canvassing operation by a month
to try to resolve them. The Bureau was unable to resolve the problems, but
wanted to test the feasibility of the MCD and decided to go forward with
the operation with the goal of learning as much as possible. For the 2008
Dress Rehearsal, the Bureau plans to test a new MCD that is being
developed under the FDCA contract. However, less than a year remains for
the contractor to develop the MCD that will be used in April 2007 for the
canvassing operation of the 2008 Dress Rehearsal. In a May 2006 report,15
we reported on the tight time frames to develop the MCD and recommended
that systems being developed or provided by contractors for the 2010
Census-including the MCD-be fully functional and ready to be assessed as
part of the 2008 Dress Rehearsal. In commenting on a draft of this report,
Commerce noted that the Bureau designed the FDCA acquisitions strategy to
reduce risks related to cost, schedule and performance, stating that the
Bureau required offerors to develop and demonstrate a working prototype
for address canvassing. Nevertheless, because the previous two MCD models
had performance problems, the introduction of a new MCD adds another level
of risk to the success of the 2010 Census.

15 GAO-06-277 .

Bureau Does Not Have a Specific Plan for Updating MAF/TIGER in the Aftermath of
                          Hurricanes Katrina and Rita

The Bureau does not have a plan to update the MAF/TIGER for areas affected
by hurricanes Katrina and Rita. On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina
devastated the coastal communities of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama.
A few weeks later, Hurricane Rita plowed through the border areas of Texas
and Louisiana. Damage was widespread. In the wake of Katrina, for example,
the Red Cross estimated that nearly 525,000 people were displaced. Their
homes were declared uninhabitable, and streets, bridges, and other
landmarks were destroyed. Approximately 90,000 square miles were affected
overall and, as shown in figure 4, entire communities were obliterated.

Figure 4: Devastation in the Lower Ninth Ward in New Orleans, Louisiana

The task of updating MAF/TIGER for 2010 to reflect these changes will be a
formidable one, as much has changed since the 2000 Census. For the 2010
Census, locating housing units and the people who reside in them will be
critical to counting the population of places hit by the hurricanes,
especially since it is estimated that hundreds of thousands of people
have-either temporarily or permanently-migrated to other areas of the
country. To ensure an accurate count, it will be important for the Bureau
to have accurate maps and an updated address file for the 2010 Census in
those areas affected by hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Bureau officials do not believe a specific plan is needed to update the
address and map files for those areas affected by hurricanes Katrina and
Rita. Although Census Day is still several years away, preliminary
activities, such as operations for building the MAF, have to occur sooner.
Consequently, a key question is whether the Bureau's existing operations
are adequate for capturing the dramatic changes to roads and other
geographic features caused by the hurricanes, or whether the Bureau needs
to develop enhanced or additional procedures before August 2007 when LUCA
is scheduled to begin. For example, new housing and street construction in
the areas affected by the hurricanes could require more frequent updates
of the Bureau's address file and maps. Also, local governments'
participation in LUCA might be affected because of the loss of key
personnel, information systems, or records needed to verify the Bureau's
address lists and maps. Further, the Bureau has not identified local
partners with whom it can monitor this situation.

The Bureau's short-term strategy for dealing with the effect of the
hurricanes on MAF/TIGER is to see who returns and whether communities
decide to rebuild. Bureau officials stated that by 2009, as census workers
prepare to go out in the field for address canvassing for the 2010 Census,
residents will have decided whether to return to the region. The Bureau
believes that by then it will be in a better position to add or delete
addresses for areas in the Gulf region affected by the hurricanes.
However, Bureau officials could not provide us with information on the
basis of their conclusion that by 2009, most affected persons will have
made final decisions about whether they are returning to the region. This
approach may not be adequate, given the magnitude of the area, population,
and infrastructure affected. Therefore, it would be prudent for the Bureau
to begin assessing whether new procedures will be necessary, determining
whether additional resources may be needed, and identifying whether local
partners will be available to assist the Bureau in its effort to update
address and map data, as well as in other census-taking activities. In its
comments on a draft of this report, Commerce officials stated that there
was a team working on how to reflect the impact of the hurricanes in the
MAF and that they were aware of the sensitive nature of working with local
officials on using data that had not been updated since the catastrophe.

Securing a complete count, a difficult task under normal circumstances,
could face additional hurdles along the Gulf Coast, in large part because
the baseline the Bureau will be working with-streets, housing, and the
population itself-will be in flux for some time to come. According to
Bureau officials, different parts of the agency work on hurricane-related
issues at different times, but no formal body has been created to deal
with the hurricanes' impact on the 2010 Census.

                                  Conclusions

The success of the 2010 Census relies on an accurate and complete MAF, and
the Bureau has taken steps to improve the MAF. For example, many of the
problems identified in the 2000 Census are being addressed through
sequential address list building, the collection of GPS coordinates, and
the verifications of deleted addresses. However, several key challenges
and sources of uncertainty remain. The management of some of the Bureau's
research efforts to resolve problems from the 2000 Census are negatively
affected by a lack of specific end dates for that research or because
those end dates have slipped. Also, one research effort to prevent
duplicate addresses was found to be ineffective and was abandoned
altogether. Time to complete research and take the appropriate resulting
action is of the essence, as the Bureau has announced that all design
features should be baselined by June 2007. If long-standing problems are
not resolved, the address file could experience the same problems with
missed and incorrectly included housing units as it did in the 2000
Census.

The Bureau must also manage the planning and development of the census
amid tight and overlapping schedules. In our view, changing milestones to
complete MAF research, the Bureau's tight development schedule for the
MCD, and the interdependence of the various address activities could
affect the Bureau's ability to develop a fully functional set of
address-building operations that can be tested along with other census
operations during the 2008 Dress Rehearsal-the Bureau's last opportunity
to assess MAF/TIGER under near census-like conditions. If the MCDs do not
function as planned in the Dress Rehearsal, little time will remain for
the Bureau to develop, test, and incorporate any refinements. This
uncertainty places the accuracy and completeness of data collected using
the MCD at risk.

Because the MCD has not yet been developed, it will be important for the
Bureau to closely monitor the contractor's progress for developing the
MCD. In May 2006, we reported on the tight time frames to develop the MCD
and recommended that systems being developed or provided by contractors
for the 2010 Census-including the MCD-be fully functional and ready to be
assessed as part of the 2008 Dress Rehearsal. However, if after the Dress
Rehearsal the MCD is found to be unreliable, the Bureau could be faced
with the remote but daunting possibility of having to revert to the costly
paper-based census used in 2000.

Finally, the destruction and chaos caused by hurricanes Katrina and Rita
underscore the nation's vulnerability to all types of hazards and
highlight how important it is for government agencies to consider
emergency preparedness and continuity of operations as part of their
planning. However, the immediate concern for the 2010 Census is that the
Bureau has no plan for how it will successfully update MAF/TIGER in the
affected hurricane zone. If problems updating the address file and maps do
occur, the census count in those areas affected by hurricanes Katrina and
Rita could be inaccurate or incomplete.

In conversations with Bureau officials, it became apparent to us that they
are keenly aware of the existing time constraints and challenges detailed
above. However, the Bureau had not developed risk mitigation plans to
address these challenges. Our recommendations, therefore, are intended to
make transparent for Bureau managers and congressional decision makers how
those challenges can and should be addressed. At a minimum, the Bureau
should have a risk-based mitigation plan in place that includes specific
dates for completing research on the address file and an approach for
exploring the difficulties that the Bureau may face updating MAF/TIGER
along the Gulf Coast. Because time is running short, it is imperative that
the Bureau continue to stay focused on identifying and resolving problems
to ensure that the most accurate and complete address file and maps are
produced for the 2010 Census.

                      Recommendations for Executive Action

To mitigate potential risks facing the Bureau as it plans for 2010 and to
ensure a more complete and accurate address file for the 2010 Census, we
recommend that the Secretary of Commerce direct the U.S. Census Bureau to
take the following three actions:

           o  Establish firm deadlines to complete research, testing, and
           evaluations of the MAF to prevent missed, deleted, and duplicate
           addresses, as well as map errors, and develop an action plan that
           will allow sufficient time for the Bureau to revise or establish
           methodologies and procedures for building the 2010 MAF.
           o  Reevaluate the 2010 address canvassing schedule in areas
           affected by bad weather, as well as staffing levels, to ensure
           that the status of all housing units are accurately verified
           throughout the entire country.
           o  Develop a plan, prior to the start of LUCA in August 2007, that
           will assess whether new procedures, additional resources, or local
           partnerships may be required to update the MAF/TIGER databases for
           areas along the Gulf Coast affected by hurricanes Katrina and
           Rita.

           On June 2, 2006, the Department of Commerce forwarded written
           comments from the Bureau on a draft of this report. The Bureau
           agreed with each of our three recommendations and also noted
           actions it was taking to address the recommendations. The Bureau's
           comments also included some technical corrections and suggestions
           where additional context was needed, and we revised the report to
           reflect these comments as appropriate. The comments are reprinted
           in their entirety in appendix II.

           In responding to the first recommendation to develop an action
           plan that will allow sufficient time to revise or establish
           methodologies or procedures for building the 2010 MAF, the Bureau
           stated that it would revise its action plan to reflect final
           milestones for research to be completed in time for the 2010
           Census. Regarding the second recommendation to reevaluate the 2010
           address canvassing schedule, as well as its staffing, the Bureau
           stated that this will be a challenge but that it is committed
           towards developing a new schedule. Finally, in addressing our
           third recommendation to develop a plan to assess whether new
           procedures, additional resources or local partnerships may be
           required to update the MAF/TIGER databases for areas affected by
           hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the Bureau stated that it was working
           on a proposal for additional work in the areas affected by
           hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The Bureau also noted that conducting
           additional work will be subject to obtaining funding.

           We are sending copies of this report to other interested
           congressional committees, the Secretary of Commerce, and the
           Director of the U.S. Census Bureau. Copies will be made available
           to others upon request. This report will also be available at no
           charge on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov .

           Please contact me at (202) 512-6806 or [email protected] if you
           have any questions about this report. Contact points for our
           Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
           on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report
           are listed in appendix III.

           Brenda S. Farrell, Acting Director Strategic Issues

           To determine the extent to which the Bureau's MAF/TIGER
           modernization efforts are addressing problems experienced during
           the 2000 Census, we reviewed pertinent documents, including
           evaluations of the 2000 Census conducted by GAO, the Bureau, the
           National Academy of Sciences, and the Department of Commerce's
           Office of Inspector General. To determine the status of those
           efforts, we also interviewed cognizant Bureau officials in the
           Geography Division and Decennial Management Division responsible
           for implementing the modernization efforts. To assess the extent
           to which past problems were being addressed, we compared the
           Bureau's current efforts-including, but not limited to, the 2010
           LUCA draft plan, 2004 and 2006 test plans, other research efforts,
           and TIGER improvement documents-to problems identified in
           evaluations of the 2000 Census conducted by GAO, the Bureau, the
           National Academy of Sciences, and the Department of Commerce's
           Office of Inspector General.

           We reviewed the MAF/TIGER contract that was awarded in June 2002
           to update the street and geographic features for the TIGER maps,
           as well as monthly earned-value management system (EVMS) cost and
           performance reports, to determine whether the deliverable schedule
           for the contract was on time and on budget. We did not
           independently verify the accuracy of the data contained in the
           EVMS cost and performance reports, but we did obtain a
           certification from the contractor that its EVMS was adequate to
           provide timely and accurate data from the Defense Logistics
           Agency.

           To determine the extent to which the Bureau is managing emerging
           MAF/TIGER issues, we focused on planning documents that described
           proposed 2010 plans. Specific documents we reviewed included the
           2010 LUCA draft proposal, 2010 Census decision memorandums, and
           Bureau papers from National Academy of Sciences and Census
           Advisory Committee meetings. We also reviewed and compared the
           timeline for conducting 2000 Census address operations to the
           proposed plan for conducting 2010 Census address operations. We
           interviewed officials from the Bureau's Geography Division and the
           Decennial Management Division on the 2010 plans, 2010 time lines,
           current status of work, and areas of concern.

           To assess the extent to which the Bureau is able to collect and
           transmit address data using new, GPS-enabled mobile computing
           devices, we made site visits to census offices on the Cheyenne
           River Reservation, South Dakota, and in Travis County, Texas,
           where we observed the address canvassing operation conducted
           during the summer of 2005 as part of the 2006 Census Test. During
           these site visits, we also interviewed local and regional census
           managers and staff, observed address data collection activities
           using the MCD, and attended census worker training sessions. We
           observed and interviewed a total of 38 census workers (16 in South
           Dakota and 22 in Texas) about the address canvassing operation and
           the use of the MCD to collect address data. However, the results
           of these observations are not necessarily representative of the
           larger universe of census workers. After our visits, we discussed
           our observations with the Bureau's Technology Management Office,
           Field Division, Geography Division, and Decennial Management
           Division.

           Finally, to determine the extent to which the Bureau has a plan to
           update the address file and maps in areas impacted by hurricanes
           Katrina and Rita, we interviewed Bureau top management officials.
           Specifically, we discussed whether the Bureau had taken any steps
           to assess the difficulties it may encounter as it attempts to
           update the address file and maps and count persons affected by
           hurricanes Katrina and Rita. We conducted our work from June 2005
           through April 2006 in accordance with generally accepted
           government auditing standards.
           Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
		    
                                  GAO Contact
                                
           Brenda S. Farrell, (202) 512-6806 or [email protected]

           Acknowledgments
		   
		   In addition to the contact named above, Carlos Hazera, Assistant
           Director; Sheranda Smith Campbell; Betty Clark; Tim DiNapoli;
           Robert Goldenkoff; Shirley Hwang; Sonya Phillips; Lisa Pearson;
           Ilona Pesti; and Brendan St. Amant made key contributions to this
           report.

           GAO's Mission
		   
		   The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
           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 GAO Reports and Testimony
		   
		   The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at
           no cost is through GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ). Each weekday,
           GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on
           its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted
           products every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe
           to Updates."

           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. Government Accountability 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, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
		   
		   Contact:

           Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail:
           [email protected] Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or
           (202) 512-7470

           Congressional Relations
		   
		   Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400
           U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
           Washington, D.C. 20548

           Public Affairs
		   
		   Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
           512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW,
           Room 7149 Washington, D.C. 20548

                       Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Commerce



(450420)


www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt? GAO-06-272 .

To view the full product, including the scope

and methodology, click on the link above.

For more information, contact Brenda S. Farrell at (202) 512-6806 or
[email protected].

Highlights of GAO-06-272 , a report to congressional committees

June 2006

2010 CENSUS

Census Bureau Needs to Take Prompt Actions to Resolve Long-standing and
Emerging Address and Mapping Challenges

To conduct a successful census, it is important that the U.S. Census
Bureau (Bureau) produce the most complete and accurate address file and
maps for 2010. For this review, GAO's specific objectives were to
determine the extent to which (1) the Bureau's efforts to modernize the
address file and maps are addressing problems experienced during the 2000
Census, (2) the Bureau is managing emerging address file and map issues,
(3) the Bureau is able to collect and transmit address and mapping data
using mobile computing devices (MCD) equipped with global positioning
system (GPS) technology, and (4) the Bureau has a plan to update the
address file and maps in areas affected by hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
GAO reviewed the Bureau's progress in modernizing both the address file
and maps.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the Secretary of Commerce direct the Bureau to
mitigate risks in building its address file and maps. Specific actions
include setting firm dates to complete research and evaluations and
develop resulting action plans; reevaluating the schedule and staffing
workloads for conducting address canvassing; and developing plans to
assess resources needed to update the address file and maps along the Gulf
Coast. In commenting on a draft of this report, Commerce agreed with each
of GAO's three recommendations.

The Bureau's address and map modernization efforts have progressed in some
areas. The Bureau is researching how to correct addresses that were
duplicated, missed, deleted, and incorrectly located on maps. However,
some deadlines for completing research are not firm, while other deadlines
that had been set continue to slip. Thus, whether research will be
completed in enough time to allow the Bureau to develop new procedures to
improve the 2010 address file is unknown. Also, the Bureau has not fully
addressed emerging issues. For one such issue, the Bureau has acknowledged
the compressed time frame for completing address canvassing-an operation
where census workers walk every street in the country to verify addresses
and maps-but has not reevaluated the associated schedule or staffing
workloads. Also, the Bureau has allotted only 6 weeks to conduct address
canvassing it completed in 18 weeks in 2000 and expanded the operation
from urban areas in 2000 to the entire country in 2010.

Mobile Computing Devices for Collecting and Transmitting Field Data

Whether the Bureau can collect and transmit address and mapping data using
the MCD is unknown. The MCD, tested during 2006 address canvassing, was
slow and locked up frequently. Bureau officials said the MCD's performance
is an issue, but a new MCD to be developed through a contract awarded in
March 2006 will be reliable. However, the MCD will not be tested until the
2008 Dress Rehearsal, and if problems emerge, little time will remain to
develop, test, and incorporate refinements. If after the Dress Rehearsal
the MCD is found unreliable, the Bureau could face the remote but daunting
possibility of reverting to the costly paper-based census of 2000.

Bureau officials do not believe a specific plan is needed to update the
addresses and maps for areas affected by the hurricanes. Securing a count
is difficult under normal conditions, and existing procedures may
insufficient to update addresses and maps after the hurricanes'
destruction-made even more difficult as streets, housing, and population
will be in flux.
*** End of document. ***