Government Statistics: Proposal to Form a Federal Statistical Service
(Testimony, 03/22/96, GAO/T-GGD-96-93).

GAO discussed proposed legislation that would create a Federal
Statistical Service by consolidating the Census Bureau, the Bureau of
Economic Analysis (BEA), and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). GAO
noted that: (1) any reorganization of these agencies should consider the
principles of coordination, goal orientation, organization,
implementation, and oversight; (2) coordination among statistical
agencies is limited by statues that restrict data sharing, and the
proposed legislation would not specifically remove those restrictions or
restrictions affecting other statistical agencies; (3) goals to consider
in establishing the new agency could include enhanced operational
efficiency, adherence to professional standards, national priorities for
statistical programs, and enhanced data quality; (4) alternatives for
addressing problems in the federal statistical system include
privatization, improving the current decentralized system by increasing
data sharing, consolidating Census, BEA, and BLS, or consolidating
additional federal statistical agencies; (5) while Canada's centralized
statistics agency appears to offer advantages over the U.S. system, the
United States is a much larger and more complex nation than Canada, the
Canadian statistical system is much smaller, and the Canadian public has
accepted that a government agency will have broad access to statistical
information; (6) adequate planning will be necessary for successful
implementation of a consolidated statistical agency; and (7) sustained
congressional oversight will be required to ensure successful
implementation of a consolidated agency.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  T-GGD-96-93
     TITLE:  Government Statistics: Proposal to Form a Federal 
             Statistical Service
      DATE:  03/22/96
   SUBJECT:  Federal agency reorganization
             Statistical data
             Strategic planning
             Confidential records
             Data integrity
             Data collection operations
             Proposed legislation
             Centralization
             Foreign governments
             Oversight by Congress
IDENTIFIER:  Canada
             Council of Economic Advisors Economic Statistics Initiative
             National Performance Review
             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed 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.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Before the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and
Technology, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery
Expected at
10:00 a.m., EST
March 22, 1996

GOVERNMENT STATISTICS - PROPOSAL
TO FORM A FEDERAL STATISTICAL
SERVICE

Statement of L.  Nye Stevens
Director, Federal Management and Workforce Issues
General Government Division

GAO/T-GGD-96-93

GAO/GGD-96-93T


(410030)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  OMB - x
  BEA - x
  BLS - x
  CPI - x

GOVERNMENT STATISTICS:  PROPOSAL
TO FORM A FEDERAL STATISTICAL
SERVICE
====================================================== Chapter SUMMARY

As Congress considers H.R.  2521, which would consolidate the Bureau
of the Census, Bureau of Economic Analysis, and Bureau of Labor
Statistics into a new Federal Statistical Service, GAO suggests that
Congress use as criteria five key principles that the Comptroller
General has identified as useful in efforts to reorganize or
streamline government agencies. 

First, reorganization demands a coordinated approach.  The current
federal statistical system is complex.  It consists of 72 agencies
and GAO has identified over 200 statutory references to uses of
statistics produced by the 11 principal agencies alone.  While H.R. 
2521 describes a continued role for the Chief Statistician of OMB in
coordinating the system, it would also be useful to more explicitly
describe the relationship Congress envisions between OMB and the
proposed Federal Statistical Service, which would be the dominant
statistical agency.  Also, H.R.  2521 does not remove any
confidentiality provisions which currently limit sharing data among
the three agencies. 

Second, the key to a successful reorganization is delineating
specific, identifiable goals.  GAO's work suggests several
possibilities that Congress may find useful:  enhancing the
efficiency of operations and achieving cost savings; enhancing
adherence to professional standards, such as those of the National
Academy of Sciences; establishing clear national statistical
priorities; and ensuring the quality of data, for example by fixing
deficiencies identified by the 1991 Economic Statistics Initiative. 

Third, choose the right vehicle--organizational structure and
tools--to meet the goals.  In addition to the consolidation proposed
in H.R.  2521, Congress may want to consider other potential options,
such as greater reliance on the private sector; improved coordination
and data sharing within the current system; or a broader
consolidation along the lines of Statistics Canada. 

Fourth, implementation planning will be crucial to any successful
reorganization.  Past reorganizations have suffered from poor
implementation.  Planning for implementation should ensure that the
new agency has an effective and reliable financial management system. 

Finally, congressional oversight is needed to ensure effective
implementation.  Effective oversight may entail realignment of
committee jurisdictions and regular oversight hearings. 


GOVERNMENT STATISTICS:  PROPOSAL
TO FORM A FEDERAL STATISTICAL
SERVICE
==================================================== Chapter STATEMENT

Mr.  Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

We are pleased to be here today to discuss the proposed creation of a
new Federal Statistical Service, which would be formed by
consolidating the Bureau of the Census and the Bureau of Economic
Analysis (BEA) from the Department of Commerce and the Bureau of
Labor Statistics (BLS) from the Department of Labor.  H.R.  2521
would bring these agencies together into a new independent agency to
be headed by an Administrator appointed by the President and
confirmed by the Senate. 

Our testimony today applies five key principles that the Comptroller
General has identified as useful for consideration in efforts to
reorganize or streamline government agencies.\1 These principles are: 

  Reorganization demands a coordinated approach. 

  Reorganization plans should be designed to achieve specific,
     identifiable goals. 

  Once the goals are identified, the right vehicle or vehicles must
     be chosen for accomplishing them, including organizational
     structure and tools. 

  Implementation is critical to the success of any reorganization. 

  Oversight is needed to ensure effective implementation. 

In applying these principles to the proposed bill to create the
Federal Statistical Service, we have drawn on our previous work on
the statistical agencies (see appendix) as well as ongoing work
requested by the Chairman of the House Committee on the Budget, who
raised no objection to our discussing the preliminary results from
this work on statistical agency funding, legal mandates, and the
organization of the Canadian statistical system. 


--------------------
\1 Government Reorganization:  Issues and Principles
(GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-95-166, May 17, 1995). 


   BACKGROUND
-------------------------------------------------- Chapter STATEMENT:1

Statistical activities are spread throughout the federal government. 
The mission of the agencies forming the federal statistical system
is, in general, to collect, produce, and disseminate statistical
information that is relevant to the needs of data users both within
and outside the government itself.  The agencies are to ensure that
the information is accurate, reliable, and free from political
interference and are to impose the least possible burden on
individuals, businesses, and others responding to data collection
requests. 

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has identified 72 agencies
as comprising the federal statistical system.  Its criterion in
identifying these agencies was that each spend at least $500,000
annually on statistical activities.  Together, these 72 agencies
requested over $2.7 billion for fiscal year 1996.  Of the 72
agencies, 11 are considered to be the principal statistical agencies. 
These 11 agencies, which include Census, BEA, and BLS, together spend
approximately $1.1 billion.\2 Census, BEA, and BLS accounted for
$796.6 million of this total. 


--------------------
\2 The other eight principal statistical agencies are the National
Center for Health Statistics (Department of Health and Human
Services), Energy Information Administration (Department of Energy),
National Agricultural Statistical Service and the Economic Research
Service (both in the Department of Agriculture), Statistics of Income
Division (Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury),
Bureau of Justice Statistics (Department of Justice), and Bureau of
Transportation Statistics (Department of Transportation). 


   A COORDINATED APPROACH
-------------------------------------------------- Chapter STATEMENT:2

Meeting the government's needs for information in an efficient manner
is a complex undertaking that requires coordination among the
different statistical agencies.  H.R.  2521 takes note of this,
finding that "improved coordination and planning among the
statistical programs of the Government is necessary to strengthen and
improve the quality and utility of federal statistics and to reduce
duplication and waste in information collected for statistical
purposes."

The needs for statistical information for government decisionmaking
and administration are extensive.  Some of these needs are well
known, such as the use of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) to adjust
individual income tax brackets and Social Security payments to offset
inflation or the use of Census data in formula grants to states and
to apportion congressional and other legislative representation. 
There are many others.  Work that we are doing at the request of the
Chairman of the House Committee on the Budget has identified over 200
statutory references to uses of statistical information and reporting
requirements relative to the 11 principal statistical agencies. 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, OMB is charged with
coordinating the budgets and statistical activities of the agencies
in the federal statistical system.  As we have noted in the past,
there are concerns that OMB's effectiveness in this role is limited
by the small staff available to carry out the function of
coordination.\3 While H.R.  2521 describes a continued role for the
Chief Statistician in OMB in coordinating the system, it also would
be useful if the bill were to more explicitly describe the
relationship that Congress envisions between OMB and the proposed
Federal Statistical Service, which would be the dominant statistical
agency.  It would also be instructive to consider whether the
protections the bill contains to ensure that the new Service would be
free from political interference might also complicate OMB's task of
coordinating the federal statistical system. 

Coordination within the federal statistical system has also been
limited by statutes that restrict data sharing among statistical
agencies in order to protect the confidentiality of individuals,
businesses, and organizations that provide data.  Sharing data would
allow statistical agencies to meet the needs of data users without
imposing added burdens on data providers.  We would expect that
consolidating Census, BEA, and BLS is intended to enable these three
agencies to share data more efficiently than they can today and to
coordinate their data collection and analysis activities more
effectively.  However, H.R.  2521 does not specifically authorize the
three agencies to share data or specify any revision to current
confidentiality limitations.  Nor does it authorize data sharing
among or between the other 69 agencies in the rest of the federal
statistical system.  Without the explicit authority to share data,
the three agencies may not be able to realize the coordinative
benefits H.R.  2521 aims to achieve. 


--------------------
\3 Statistical Agencies:  Adherence to Guidelines and Coordination of
Budgets (GAO/GGD-95-65, Aug.  9, 1995). 


   SPECIFIC, IDENTIFIABLE GOALS
-------------------------------------------------- Chapter STATEMENT:3

As the Comptroller General has noted, the key to any successful
reorganization plan--and the key to building a broad consensus
supporting it--is the delineation of specific, identifiable goals the
reorganization is intended to achieve.  By designing the proposed
consolidation with such goals in mind, there is a greater chance of a
shared understanding among decisionmakers of what changes will be
sought in a reorganization or consolidation.  Focusing on these goals
would then provide the Administrator of the proposed Federal
Statistical Service with guidance on how to balance competing
objectives, such as cutting costs or ensuring better quality of
services, and how to create not only short-term advantages but
sustained, long-term gains.  Specific, identifiable goals will also
help Congress and the President hold the new agency accountable for
meeting them. 

While deciding on the goals to be reached by consolidating federal
statistical activities is a policy decision for Congress to make, our
work

suggests several possibilities that Congress may find useful in its
deliberations.  These include: 

  enhancing the efficiency of operations,

  enhancing adherence to professional standards,

  establishing clear national priorities for statistical programs,
     and

  ensuring the quality of data. 


      ENHANCING THE EFFICIENCY OF
      OPERATIONS
------------------------------------------------ Chapter STATEMENT:3.1

In a time of declining budgets, making government operations more
efficient is a constant goal.  Eliminating duplication of government
operations through a consolidation presents opportunities for
increasing such efficiency.  Two potential sources of greater
efficiency and cost savings are the avoidance of duplicative data
collection by agencies and the use by one agency of another agency's
staff to collect data when that use would be more economical.  Our
work has shown significant areas in which these three agencies have
avoided duplication by relying on one another for data collection, on
both a reimbursable and nonreimbursable basis.  For example, Census
now conducts the Consumer Expenditure Survey for BLS; data from this
survey are used in developing the market baskets that underlie the
Consumer Price Index.  Thus, some of the savings that might be sought
in a consolidation may have already been realized.  However, the
statistical agencies' inability to share data has led to a
duplication in data collection efforts; such duplication can increase
both the cost of operating the statistical activities and the burdens
on data providers.  While we do not know how much might be saved if
these three agencies had a greater ability to share data, we have
identified instances where duplication of effort exists between
Census and the other agencies included in the proposed consolidation. 
For example, because of an inability to share data, both Census and
BLS survey businesses, and each has had to compile its own list of
businesses. 


      ENHANCING ADHERENCE TO
      PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS
------------------------------------------------ Chapter STATEMENT:3.2

The statistical agencies do many things well today, and efforts to
consolidate them should recognize and ensure that the consolidated
agency will be at least as able, and ideally better able, to adhere
to professional standards compared to its predecessor agencies.  In
August 1995, we evaluated the adherence of four statistical agencies,
including Census, BEA, and BLS, to guidelines for the operation of an
effective federal statistical agency.\4 The guidelines were proposed
by the Committee on National Statistics of the National Academy of
Sciences and represent statements of ï¿½best practices."\5 While they
are not scientific rules or legal requirements, the guidelines are
intended to be consistent with current laws and statistical theory
and practice.  Our review concluded that the agencies generally
adhered to the guidelines, although in some cases individual agencies
had not sufficiently communicated to data users the procedures that
they had in place to ensure their independence from political
interference.  We also concluded that laws intended to protect
confidentiality had limited agency efforts to coordinate their
activities and share data, contrary to the committee's guidelines. 


--------------------
\4 GAO/GGD-95-65, August 9, 1995. 

\5 Committee on National Statistics, National Academy of Sciences,
Principles and Practices for a Federal Statistical Agency
(Washington, D.C.:  1992). 


      ESTABLISHING CLEAR NATIONAL
      PRIORITIES FOR STATISTICAL
      PROGRAMS
------------------------------------------------ Chapter STATEMENT:3.3

Our work as well as work done by others has shown that the United
States lacks an effective means for setting national priorities for
the use of funds for statistical activities.  This is due, in part,
to the independent manner in which each agency in the federal
statistical system decides how to use its funds and, in part, to the
limits on OMB's ability to influence decisions on allocating funds by
other agencies.  The proposed bill should resolve this issue for the
three agencies to be consolidated to the extent that the head of the
proposed Service would be able to set priorities for the use of its
funds.  Although H.R.  2521 would create a Federal Council on
Statistical Policy, the proposed bill does not directly address the
issue of setting funding priorities for the other 69 federal
statistical agencies. 


      ENSURING THE QUALITY OF DATA
------------------------------------------------ Chapter STATEMENT:3.4

Another goal that could be set for a consolidated agency is resolving
existing concerns with the quality of statistical data collected. 
Most notable are the concerns identified in the Economic Statistics
Initiative, led by Michael Boskin who was Chairman of the Council of
Economic Advisers for President Bush.  Completed in 1991, this
initiative resulted in 38 recommendations to address well-known
problems in economic statistics for which action was feasible in the
near term.  Among the recommended actions were (1) accelerating
improvements in estimates of international trade in services,
including financial services; (2) better measuring service sector
production and prices; (3) separating quality and inflationary
changes in prices; (4) revising the current U.S.  National Income and
Product Accounts to be consistent with the System of National
Accounts used by most other major industrialized nations; and (5)
making it easier for statistical agencies to share data for
statistical purposes.  In reviewing the status of these
recommendations, we found that the agencies had made plans to
implement most of the recommendations.\6 However, only about half of
the recommendations were funded, and the funding levels varied
considerably among the different agencies producing economic
statistics.  Agency consolidation alone would not address the
problems with the quality of data.  Accordingly, the Subcommittee may
want to include provisions in the bill to address these issues of
quality, such as a requirement for an action plan for fixing them. 


--------------------
\6 Economic Statistics:  Status Report on the Initiative to Improve
Economic Statistics (GAO/GGD-95-98, July 7, 1995). 


   RIGHT VEHICLE
-------------------------------------------------- Chapter STATEMENT:4

In considering any change in the organizational structure of the
federal statistical system, an important question is whether
consolidation is the most effective way of ensuring that the system
produces the high-quality statistical information needed by
decisionmakers and that it does so in a cost-effective manner that
avoids needlessly burdening individuals and businesses.  At least
four options, viewed independently or in some combination, seem
conceivable for addressing problems associated with the federal
statistical system.  Understanding these options, we believe, will
provide a conceptual framework useful for considering the merits of
H.R.  2521. 

One option would be to consider alternatives to the dominant paradigm
of having federal employees collect, analyze, and disseminate
information through the use of appropriated funds.  Alternatives
include the privatization of at least some aspects of data
collection, analysis, or dissemination; additional contracting out;
or the imposition of user fees.  We have not explored these
alternatives for the federal statistical system and are, therefore,
not in a position to elaborate on them.  However, we believe that the
Subcommittee should consider charging the proposed consolidated
agency with exploring the best tools for accomplishing the goals
desired from consolidation. 

A second option would be to consider alternatives for improving the
current decentralized federal statistical system.  One approach could
entail enacting legislation that allows the three agencies to share
data and information with appropriate safeguards to protect against
breaches of confidentiality.  Proposals to enable greater data
sharing among statistical agencies have been made in the past; both
the Economic Statistics Initiative under President Bush and the
National Performance Review under President Clinton have recommended
such actions.  The proposals have not been adopted, in part because
of general concerns that greater data sharing might endanger the
privacy of individuals.  Other actions could be to strengthen OMB's
ability to set priorities for use of the agencies' funds and provide
mechanisms that would enable the agencies to shift resources,
including staff, easily.  OMB previously played a stronger role in
setting priorities for use of statistical agency funding when it had
more staff assigned to this function. 

A third option would be to consolidate the three major agencies as
proposed in H.R.  2521.  Potential advantages of such a consolidation
seem to include better quality data through such means as the use of
common data collection methods and more efficient survey designs; a
better use of funds through clearer priorities; and cost savings and
reduced burden on data providers through a greater sharing of data
and agency resources, thereby avoiding duplication.  Potential
disadvantages could include the possible lessening of the
responsiveness of the consolidated agencies to the needs of their
current parent departments and their constituencies, the possibility
of breaches of confidentiality by housing so much information about
individuals and businesses in one agency, and the possible power such
an agency might have, given its possession of so much information. 

A fourth option would be to consolidate more than the three agencies
covered in H.R.  2521.  In exploring this option, it might be helpful
to consider models in other countries.  Because Canada has long had a
single statistical agency, Statistics Canada, it is often used as a
reference point for considering proposed consolidations in the United
States.  We are currently preparing a report for the Chairman of the
House Committee on the Budget that describes the Canadian statistical
system.  While this report is not yet complete and we did not
evaluate the effectiveness of the Canadian system, we did identify
several clear differences between the Canadian and the U.S.  systems. 

The Canadian system is much more centralized, with Statistics Canada
containing many of the activities currently divided among the 11
principal U.S.  statistical agencies and being responsible for the
majority of the government's statistical information.  The head of
Statistics Canada has a higher level position than that of the U.S. 
Chief Statistician, has direct control over the agency's budget, and
can set and change priorities and shift resources easily.  Statistics
Canada also (1) has access to all of the government's administrative
records, (2) can share survey and other data among its components and
other government agencies and nongovernmental organizations, and (3)
is subject to strict and uniform privacy requirements.  According to
Statistics Canada officials, these privacy requirements also help
ensure a high voluntary response rate to data collection efforts. 

While Canada's centralized system may appear to offer several
advantages over the U.S.  system, several factors need to be
considered as part of the comparison.  These factors include the
following: 

  Canada's parliamentary system of government may lead to a clearer
     definition of government policy and priorities and the ensuing
     needs for statistical information than our system, which
     contains different branches of government sharing power. 

  The United States is a much larger nation and has a larger and more
     complex economy than Canada.  Canada, with a population of 29
     million people, is also much smaller than the United States,
     which has a population of 264 million.  The task facing the
     federal statistical system in the United States thus is larger
     and more complex than that facing Statistics Canada.  For
     example, financial markets in the United States involve greater
     reliance on sophisticated financial products, such as futures
     and other derivatives, than their Canadian counterparts.  The
     volume of transactions conducted in the United States using
     derivatives and similar financial products is difficult to
     measure for statistical purposes. 

  The Canadian statistical system is much smaller than the U.S. 
     system.  For example, the fiscal year 1996 budget for Statistics
     Canada was about $210 (in U.S.  dollars) million compared to the
     nearly $800 million combined budget for BEA, BLS, and Census;
     the approximately $1.1 billion budget for the 11 principal
     agencies; and the $2.7 billion budget for the entire federal
     statistical system. 

  The Canadian public has accepted that a government agency will have
     broad access to all government records for statistical purposes. 
     Statistics Canada officials attribute this acceptance to strong
     controls designed to ensure confidentiality of individual data
     and to the Canadian policy of identifying the intended uses of
     data to data providers.  While similar confidentiality controls
     exist in the United States, proposals that would allow data
     sharing and broaden statistical agency access to other data have
     not been approved. 


   PLANNING FOR IMPLEMENTATION
-------------------------------------------------- Chapter STATEMENT:5

In earlier testimony before this Subcommittee,\7 we noted that our
1981 report on six new or reorganized agencies formed under the
Reorganization Act of 1977 found that reorganized agencies
experienced problems as a result of inadequate planning for the
implementation of the reorganization.\8 The problems that the new
agencies experienced included delays in (1) obtaining the
participation of key agency officials and adequate staffing and
office space and (2) establishing support functions, such as
accounting and payroll systems.  In our 1981 report, we recommended
that future reorganization plans establish a high-level task force or
other mechanism to facilitate implementation of the reorganization. 
In particular, we said that agencies that would lose or gain
resources or functions and support agencies, such as OMB, the General
Services Administration, and the Office of Personnel Management,
should be represented on the task force. 

In our view, reorganizing statistical agencies would impose similar
requirements for successful implementation.  Under the proposed bill,
staff and responsibilities would be moved out of two cabinet
departments and into a newly created Federal Statistical Service. 
This Service would need to provide the supporting systems, such as
personnel, payroll, and accounting, required for continued operation
of Census, BEA, and BLS functions.  Requiring that the heads of these
agencies, appropriate personnel from the Departments of Labor and
Commerce, and representatives from OMB and other support agencies
participate in planning the consolidation should increase the chances
that the proposed reorganization would occur while minimizing
disruption of the work of the consolidated agencies and their current
parent departments. 

Similarly, we have frequently noted that government financial systems
need to be strengthened to provide agency leadership with the timely
and accurate information needed to control costs, measure
performance, and achieve needed management improvements.  In too many
cases, however, weaknesses in these systems prevented the achievement
of these goals.  Again, ensuring that an effective and reliable
financial system is in place should enhance the ability of the
proposed Administrator of the Federal Statistical Service and other
managers of the new agency to accomplish their missions.  Such a
system will be essential if the new Service is to be able to comply
with standards established by the Government Performance and Results
Act, the Government Management Reform Act, and the Chief Financial
Officers Act.  These three laws are intended to establish a framework
for enhancing the management, performance, and operations of federal
agencies.  In this regard, the Subcommittee may wish to require that
a Chief Financial Officer be appointed for the Federal Statistical
Service. 

Finally, as part of planning for the implementation of the proposed
consolidation, it would be important to identify the operating
efficiencies and cost savings anticipated, the specific areas from
which the savings are to be achieved, the specific steps that need to
be taken to produce the desired savings, and the individuals
responsible for achieving them.  In our opinion, the likelihood of
actually making operations more efficient and capturing savings is
critically dependent on careful and comprehensive implementation
planning.  This planning must also take into account the resulting
need for realignment of support functions at the Departments of
Commerce and Labor.  Such realignment could be significant.  Census
and BEA together account for 22 percent of the full-time equivalent
staff of Commerce, and BLS accounts for nearly 15 percent of Labor's
total staff. 


--------------------
\7 Commerce Dismantlement:  Observations on Proposed Implementation
Mechanism (GAO/T-GGD-95-233, Sept.  6, 1995). 

\8 Implementation:  The Missing Link in Planning Reorganizations
(GAO/GGD-81-57, Mar.  20, 1981). 


   OVERSIGHT
-------------------------------------------------- Chapter STATEMENT:6

Sustained congressional oversight will be needed to ensure the
effective implementation of the reorganization envisioned under H.R. 
2521.  Congress may need to realign its committee jurisdictions and
budget account structure if it is to provide coherent direction to
and consistent oversight of the new Federal Statistical Service. 

In earlier statements on principles for government reorganizations,
we also have suggested that one key step would be for congressional
committees of jurisdiction to hold comprehensive oversight hearings,
annually or once during each Congress.  In the case of the proposed
Service, such hearings should examine performance information that
the Service would be required to generate to comply with the
Government Performance and Results Act.  Such hearings should also
examine the audited financial statements that are to be developed to
comply with the Government Management Reform Act.  Additional
information from congressional support agencies including us;
Inspector General reports; performance evaluations of the proposed
Service's operations, which it would conduct; and expert assessments
of its operations and the quality of its statistical products should
be key components of such hearings. 


------------------------------------------------ Chapter STATEMENT:6.1

Mr.  Chairman, this concludes my statement.  I would be pleased to
respond to any questions you or Members of the Subcommittee may have. 


RELATED GAO PRODUCTS
==================================================== Appendix Appendix

Decennial Census:  Fundamental Design Decisions Merit Congressional
Attention (GAO/T-GGD-96-37, Oct.  25, 1995). 

Commerce Dismantlement:  Observations on Proposed Implementation
Mechanism (GAO/GGD-95-233, Sept, 6, 1995). 

Statistical Agencies:  Adherence to Guidelines and Coordination of
Budgets (GAO/GGD-95-65, Aug.  9, 1995)

Government Reorganization:  Observations on the Department of
Commerce (GAO/T-GGD/RCED/AIMD-95-248, July 25, 1995)

Economic Statistics:  Status Report on the Economics Statistics
Initiative (GAO/GGD-95-98, July 7, 1995). 

Government Reorganization:  Issues and Principles
(GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-95-166, May 17, 1995)

Economic Statistics:  Measurement Problems Can Affect the Budget and
Economic Policymaking (GAO/GGD-95-99, May 2, 1995). 

Measuring U.S.-Canada Trade:  Shifting Trade Winds May Threaten
Recent Progress (GAO/GGD-94-4, Jan.  19, 1994)

Bureau of the Census:  Legislative Proposal to Share Address List
Data Has Benefits and Risks (GAO/T-GGD-94-184, July 21, 1994)

Decennial Census:  Focused Action Needed Soon to Achieve Fundamental
Breakthroughs (T-GAO-GGD-93-32, May 27, 1993)

Gross Domestic Product:  No Evidence of Manipulation in First Quarter
1991 Estimates (GAO/GGD-93-58, Mar.  10, 1993)

Census Reform:  Major Expansion in Use of Administrative Records for
2000 is Doubtful (T-GAO-92-54, June 26, 1992)

Decennial Census:  1990 Results Show Need for Fundamental Reform
(GAO/GGD-92-94, June 9, 1992)

Formula Programs:  Adjusted Census Data Would Redistribute Small
Percentage of Funds to States (GAO/GGD-92-12, Nov.  7, 1991). 

1990 Census:  Reported Net Undercount Obscured Magnitude of Error
(GAO/GGD-91-113, Aug.  22, 1991). 

Expanding the Role of Local Governments:  An Important Element of
Census Reform (GAO/T-GGD-91-46, June 15, 1991). 

1990 Census Adjustment:  Estimating Census Accuracy - A Complex Task
(GAO/GGD-91-42, Mar.  11, 1991). 

The Decennial Census:  Potential Risks to Data Quality Resulting From
Budget Reductions and Cost Increases (GAO/T-GGD-90-30, Mar.  27,
1990). 

1990 Census:  Overview of Key Issues (GAO/GGD-89-77BR, July 3, 1989). 

Status of the Statistical Community After Sustaining Budget
Reductions (GAO/IMTEC-84-17, July 18, 1984)


*** End of document. ***