Statistical Agencies: Consolidation and Quality Issues (Testimony,
04/09/97, GAO/T-GGD-97-78).

Statistical agencies are dispersed throughout the federal government.
The Office of Management and Budget has identified 70 federal agencies
that each spend at least $500,000 annually on statistical work. Of the
70 agencies, 11 are considered to be the lead statistical agencies
because they collect, produce, and disseminate statistical information
as their primary mission. These 11 agencies together spend about $1.2
billion annually on statistical work. The mission of these agencies is
to ensure that the statistical data they collect, produce, and
disseminate are accurate, reliable, and free from political interference
and impose the least possible burden on individuals, businesses, and
others responding to requests for data. This testimony discusses (1) the
quality of federal statistics, (2) how the federal statistical system's
decentralized structure affects statistical quality, (3) whether
consolidating the statistical functions now housed in the Commerce
Department with those of other federal agencies could provide a more
streamlined and effective federal statistical system, and (4) whether
the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Economic Analysis benefit from being
housed in the Commerce Department.

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

 REPORTNUM:  T-GGD-97-78
     TITLE:  Statistical Agencies: Consolidation and Quality Issues
      DATE:  04/09/97
   SUBJECT:  Statistical data
             Federal agencies
             Data integrity
             Data collection
             Decentralization
             Economic indicators
             Interagency relations
             Foreign governments
             Federal agency reorganization
             Agency missions
IDENTIFIER:  Council of Economic Advisors Economic Statistics Initiative
             Consumer Price Index
             National Income Account
             National Product Account
             
**************************************************************************
* 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.                                          *
*                                                                        *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document    *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your        *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015,             *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time.                                    *
**************************************************************************


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


Before the Subcommittee on Government Management,
Restructuring, and the District of Columbia
Committee on Government Affairs
United States Senate

For Release on Delivery
Expected at
1:30 p.m.  EDT
Wednesday
April 9, 1997

STATISTICAL AGENCIES -
CONSOLIDATION AND QUALITY
ISSUES

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

GAO/T-GGD-97-78

GAO/GGD-97-78T


(410126)


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

  BEA - Bureau of Economic Analysis
  BLS - Bureau of Labor Statistics
  NABE - National Association of Business Economists
  NIPA - National Income and Products Accounts
  OMB - Office of Management and Budget

STATISTICAL AGENCIES: 
CONSOLIDATION AND QUALITY ISSUES
====================================================== Chapter SUMMARY

GAO's statement applies its considerable body of work on statistical
issues to four questions the Subcommittee asked on data quality and
the decentralized U.S.  statistical system. 


   QUALITY OF STATISTICAL DATA
---------------------------------------------------- Chapter SUMMARY:1

While the principal statistical agencies GAO has reviewed have
generally adhered to applicable professional standards, there are
reasons to be concerned about the quality of statistical data. 
Public and private sector experts have said that the current system
needs a more coherent approach to measurement of investment,
productivity, and services.  Measurement problems, such as those
concerning consumer prices, can affect budget and economic
policymaking.  GAO's work has also demonstrated a deterioration in
the quality of the decennial census, which GAO designated as a
high-risk area in February 1997. 


   EFFECTS OF THE DECENTRALIZED
   STRUCTURE
---------------------------------------------------- Chapter SUMMARY:2

Although GAO's work does not indicate the extent to which the
decentralized structure is a major cause of the quality problems, it
does show that the decentralization contributes largely to other
problems, such as inefficiency, the lack of national priorities for
allocation of resources, burden on data users and providers, and
restrictions on the exchange of data among statistical agencies.  For
example, in part because of the inability to share data, both Census
and the Bureau of Labor Statistics have compiled and maintained their
own lists of businesses. 


   POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF
   CONSOLIDATION
---------------------------------------------------- Chapter SUMMARY:3

GAO has compared the dispersed U.S.  system with Canada's centralized
system.  The head of Statistics Canada has a higher level position
than that of the U.S.  Chief Statistician, can set and change
priorities and shift resources easily, has access to all of the
government's administrative records, and can share survey data
internally under strict and uniform privacy requirements.  Potential
disadvantages associated with consolidation would include possibly
diminished responsiveness to the needs of former parent departments
and possible objections to the concentration of data in a single
agency. 


   BENEFITS FROM LOCATION IN THE
   COMMERCE DEPARTMENT
---------------------------------------------------- Chapter SUMMARY:4

Commerce historically has not been managed on the basis of a unifying
mission or shared goals and has decentralized its key administrative
functions.  While the Commerce relationship is not meaningless, GAO
is not aware of any reasons that would prevent Census and the Bureau
of Economic Analysis from performing their missions as part of
another department. 


STATISTICAL AGENCIES: 
CONSOLIDATION AND QUALITY ISSUES
==================================================== Chapter STATEMENT

Mr.  Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

We are pleased to be here today to discuss the federal statistical
system.  Over the years, we have developed a considerable body of
work on statistical issues.  The related products list that follows
my statement contains our most recent products.  As you requested,
our testimony today brings this body of work to bear on four issues
you asked us to address:  (1) the quality of federal statistics, (2)
how the federal statistical system's decentralized structure affects
statistical quality, (3) whether consolidating the statistical
functions currently housed in the Department of Commerce with those
of other federal agencies could provide a more streamlined and
effective federal statistical system, and (4) whether or not the
Bureau of the Census and the Bureau of Economic Analysis benefit from
being housed in the Department of Commerce. 


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

Statistical activities are dispersed throughout the federal
government.  The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has identified
70 federal agencies that each spend at least $500,000 annually on
statistical activities.  Together, these agencies requested over
$2.75 billion for fiscal year 1997 for statistical activities.  Of
the 70 agencies, 11 are considered to be the principal statistical
agencies because they collect, produce, and disseminate statistical
information as their primary mission.  These 11 agencies together
spend approximately $1.2 billion annually on statistical activities. 
Two Commerce agencies--the Bureau of the Census and the Bureau of
Economic Analysis (BEA)--and the Department of Labor's Bureau of
Labor Statistics (BLS) account for about $825 million of this
total.\1

The missions of the principal statistical agencies are to ensure that
the statistical information they collect, produce, and disseminate is
accurate, reliable, and free from political interference and impose
the least possible burden on individuals, businesses, and others
responding to requests for data.  Most of the other agencies that
produce and disseminate statistical data do so as an ancillary part
of their missions. 


--------------------
\1 The other eight principal statistical agencies are the National
Center for Health Statistics (in the Department of Health and Human
Services), Energy Information Administration (in the Department of
Energy), National Agricultural Statistics Service and the Economic
Research Service (both in the Department of Agriculture), Statistics
of Income Division (Internal Revenue Service in the Department of the
Treasury), Bureau of Justice Statistics (in the Department of
Justice), the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (Department of
Transportation), and the National Center for Education Statistics (in
the Department of Education). 


   QUALITY OF STATISTICAL DATA
-------------------------------------------------- Chapter STATEMENT:2

The principal statistical agencies have done many things well.  For
example, in August 1995, we reported that four statistical agencies
we reviewed-Census, BEA, BLS, and the National Center for Health
Statistics--generally adhered to applicable professional standards.\2
Nevertheless, a series of studies of the federal statistical system
going back several decades have identified concerns over the quality
of statistical data.  One of the concerns is that economic statistics
have not kept pace with changes in the economy.  This has led some
experts to question whether current statistics adequately reflect the
importance of international transactions to the economy, or whether
current productivity measures are adequate given the increase in
importance of service industries.  Experts who have worked in the
federal statistical system have also said that the current system
needs to update its approach to measuring savings and investment.  We
are finding that agencies are devoting more attention than ever to
the quality and coverage of statistical data series as they search
for appropriate outcome-based performance measures in their efforts
to comply with the Government Performance and Results Act that
originated with this Committee. 

In 1991, the Economic Statistics Initiative, which was led by Michael
Boskin who chaired the Council of Economic Advisers under President
Bush, made 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; and (4)
making it easier for statistical agencies to share data for
statistical purposes.  In reviewing the status of these
recommendations, we found that only about half of the recommendations
were funded and that the funding levels varied considerably among the
different agencies producing economic statistics, thereby hampering
improvement efforts.\3

We reported in 1995 that measurement problems can affect budget and
economic policymaking.\4 In that report, we pointed out that many of
the studies we reviewed indicated that technical problems associated
with the development of the Consumer Price Index could cause it to
overstate inflation.  We also pointed out that measures of economic
output and productivity failed to account for the increasing
importance of the service sector to the nation's economy. 

In February 1997, the National Association of Business Economists
(NABE) reported that nearly 70 percent of its members who responded
to its survey were dissatisfied with the scope and quality of
economic data in the United States.  NABE said that the current
system does a better job of measuring manufacturing than it does of
measuring services and the information technology aspects of the
economy. 

Our work has also demonstrated a deterioration in the quality of the
Decennial Census, which provides a baseline for countless other
statistical programs.  The 1990 Census, though it was the most
expensive in history, for the first time produced results that were
less accurate than those of the preceding Census.\5 Almost 10 million
persons were missed in that Census, although the net effect of this
was somewhat masked by the counting of about 6 million persons twice. 
These 16 million gross errors represent a minimum tally, since they
do not include such errors as persons erroneously included or
assigned to the wrong locations.  In February 1997, we designated the
2000 Decennial Census as being at high risk of producing
unsatisfactory results.\6


--------------------
\2 Statistical Agencies:  Adherence to Guidelines and Coordination of
Budgets (GAO/GGD-95-65, Aug.  9, 1995). 

\3 Economic Statistics:  Status Report on the Initiative to Improve
Economic Statistics (GAO/GGD-95-98, July 7, 1995). 

\4 Economic Statistics:  Measurement Problems Can Affect the Budget
and Economic Policymaking (GAO/GGD-95-99, May 2, 1995). 

\5 Decennial Census:  1990 Results Show Need for Fundamental Reform
(GAO/GGD-92-94, June 9, 1992). 

\6 High-Risk Series (GAO/HR-97-2, Feb.  1997). 


   HOW THE DECENTRALIZED STRUCTURE
   OF THE FEDERAL STATISTICAL
   SYSTEM AFFECTS STATISTICAL
   QUALITY
-------------------------------------------------- Chapter STATEMENT:3

Over the years, a number of problems with the quality of statistical
data have been associated with the organizational structure of the
federal statistical system.  Although our work does not indicate the
extent to which a decentralized structure is a major cause of the
quality problems, it does indicate that not all of the quality
problems that exist stem from the decentralized structure of the
statistical system.  For example, the deteriorating quality of
decennial census data relates largely to limitations in the basic
processes used to collect census data, not to the decentralized
structure of the statistical system.  On the other hand, our work as
well as that of others has shown that the decentralized structure of
the system contributes largely to other problems, such as
inefficiency, the lack of national priorities for allocation of
resources, burden on data users and providers, and restrictions on
the exchange of data among statistical agencies. 

Clearly, our decentralized statistical system has sometimes affected
the quality of statistical data produced by the system.  For example,
in estimating the National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA), which
includes the estimate of gross domestic product, BEA relies on data
collected by other agencies.  Frequently, those data are collected
for other purposes, and according to a BEA official, much of the data
are not in the form that BEA needs to calculate NIPA.  In some cases,
gaps exist in the data, and these gaps, in turn, affect the NIPA
estimates.  As another example, some of the data quality problems
that were identified by the Economic Statistics Initiative have yet
to be corrected because the corrective action requires steps by more
than one agency.  In some cases, one agency received funding to
correct its data problems, but another agency, which may contribute
source data, did not get funds to address the issue. 

Many experts have expressed concern about inefficiencies in the
statistical system due to its decentralized structure.  The experts
often cite duplicative or overlapping data collection activities or
system infrastructure, such as field structures; computer systems; or
administrative, technical, and program personnel as sources of
potential cost savings.  Those who have studied the systems, however,
often disagree on how much could be saved through consolidation.  In
this regard, we have noted that many agencies have used reimbursable
agreements with other agencies, such as the Census Bureau, to handle
their data collection activities, thereby avoiding having to
establish and maintain their own systems and structure for these
purposes.\7 These types of arrangements would tend to limit the
savings that could come from consolidation.  Further, we are not
aware of any savings estimates that have been verified by an
independent party. 

The lack of an effective mechanism for setting national priorities
for the federal statistical system has been another concern expressed
over the years about the system's decentralized structure.  Our work
as well as work done by others has shown that the United States has
lacked an effective apparatus for setting national priorities for use
of the statistical agency resources.  For example, in August 1995, we
reported on limitations on OMB's ability to coordinate the budgets of
statistical agencies.\8 A number of factors contribute to the lack of
clear national priorities for the U.S.  statistical system.  One of
these factors is the nature of the budget formulation process, in
which each statistical agency has its own budget which has been
generally determined in the context of the competing needs and
priorities of other components within its home agency or department,
as opposed to the needs and priorities of the overall federal
statistical system.  Another related factor is the dispersion of
responsibility among multiple congressional committees and
subcommittees for authorizing, funding, and overseeing the
statistical agencies. 

Another problem arising from decentralization is the increased burden
on data providers as a result of duplicative data collection efforts. 
For example, Janet Norwood, a former Commissioner of Labor
Statistics, has identified surveys that she believes could be
consolidated.  She believes that the consolidation of such surveys
would reduce cost as well as burden to survey respondents while
improving the possibility for integrating the data collected.  At
least to some extent, overlap in the types of information asked for
in surveys has occurred because of the decentralized structure of the
statistical system. 

Another related factor that contributes to the overlap problem is the
inability of statistical agencies to share data with one another
because of legislated confidentiality restrictions.  Federal
statistical agencies generally operate under a number of laws,
policies, or regulations that govern the collection, use, and
confidentiality of the statistical information for which these
agencies are responsible.  Some of these laws, policies, and
regulations apply only to a specific agency.  The legal framework for
the federal statistical system also limits the extent of data sharing
among agencies because statutes exist to protect the confidentiality
of data providers and, in many instances, allow only the agency
collecting the data to have access to them.  For example, in part
because of the inability to share data, both Census and BLS have
compiled and maintained their own lists of businesses. 


--------------------
\7 Federal Statistics:  Principal Statistical Agencies' Missions and
Funding (GAO/GGD-96-107, July 1, 1996). 

\8 GAO/GGD-95-65, August 9, 1995. 


   POTENTIAL OF CONSOLIDATION TO
   PROVIDE A MORE STREAMLINED AND
   EFFECTIVE SYSTEM
-------------------------------------------------- Chapter STATEMENT:4

You asked whether consolidating the statistical functions currently
housed in the Department of Commerce with those of other agencies
could provide a more streamlined and effective federal statistical
system.  To respond to your question, we drew on our work comparing
the decentralized U.S.  system with Canada's centralized system.  The
Canadian statistical system is often used as a reference point for
considering proposed consolidations in the United States and is
highly regarded in the international statistics community.  However,
there are some differences between the U.  S.  and Canada that need
to be considered when making such a comparison.  Also, there may be
disadvantages associated with a consolidation, and there are
alternative approaches to making the system more streamlined and
effective. 

A consolidated agency could help streamline and improve effectiveness
in a number of ways.  For example, better quality data could be
achieved by bringing together the expertise needed to address
important issues, such as the use of common data collection methods
and more efficient survey designs, so that data that are produced are
based on similar concepts, time periods, and classification
structures.  Cost savings and reduced burden on data providers may be
achieved through a greater sharing of data and agency resources in a
consolidated agency, thereby avoiding duplication and enabling
greater integration.  Consolidation could also resolve the issue of
setting national priorities and achieving greater coordination for
the system to the extent that a head of the proposed consolidated
agency would be able to set priorities for the use of its funds and
require its components to cooperate with one another. 

Our August 1996 report comparing the Canadian statistical system with
the U.  S.  system offers some insights on consolidation.\9 While we
did not evaluate the effectiveness of the Canadian system, we did
identify several clear differences between the Canadian and U.S. 
systems in our review.  The Canadian system is much more centralized,
with Statistics Canada containing many of the activities currently
divided among the 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 request, 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, (3) has consolidated
technical and administrative support functions, and (4) 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.  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 institutionalizes tension between different
branches of government.  The United States is a much larger nation
and has a larger and more complex economy than Canada.  Also, the
Canadian statistical system is much smaller than the U.S.  system. 
For example, the fiscal year 1997 budget for Statistics Canada was
about $246 million (in U.S.  dollars) compared to the nearly $1.2
billion budget for the U.  S.  principal statistical agencies. 
Finally, the Canadian public has accepted that a government agency
will have broad access to all government records for statistical
purposes. 

On the other hand, disadvantages may also be associated with a
consolidation.  For example, the consolidated agencies could be less
responsive to the needs of their parent departments from which they
came and their constituencies.  Another potential disadvantage is the
potential for abuse, such as breaches of confidentiality, that could
occur when so much information about individuals and businesses is
concentrated in one agency.  Finally, some of the benefits expected
from consolidation are unlikely to materialize unless the components
of the consolidated statistical agency are authorized to share data
and if legislative responsibility for the consolidated agency
continues to be dispersed among multiple congressional committees. 
In addition, the extent to which benefits of a consolidation could be
realized would depend on how comprehensive the consolidation is.  If
significant statistical activities remain outside the consolidated
agency, some of the problems of inefficiency and priority setting in
the statistical system could persist. 

Given the potential drawbacks of consolidation, the Subcommittee may
also want to consider alternative approaches for improving
statistical data collection and analysis.  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 might be privatizing at
least some aspects of data collection, analysis, or dissemination;
additional contracting out; or the imposition of user fees.  We have
not explored such alternatives for the federal statistical system and
are therefore not in a position to elaborate on them. 

Concerning data sharing, one step could entail enacting legislation
that allows statistical 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.  These proposals were not adopted, in part because of
general concerns that greater data sharing might endanger the privacy
of individuals.  In 1996, OMB and the Department of the Treasury sent
to Congress proposed legislation that would permit limited sharing of
data among designated statistical agencies for statistical purposes
subject to procedural safeguards contained in the proposals. 
Although Congress did not enact the legislative proposals, OMB
officials have told us that the administration plans to submit these
data sharing proposals in 1997.  We as well as others who have
studied or are knowledgeable about the federal statistical system
believe that the inability of statistical agencies to share data is
one of the most significant issues facing the statistical system and
one of the major factors affecting the quality of data, the
efficiency of the system, and the amount of burden placed on those
who provide information to the agencies.  Since 1979, we have
recommended changes to existing statutes that would enable
statistical agencies to share data.\10

Another approach to improve the current system would be to strengthen
OMB's ability to set priorities for use of the agencies' funds and
provide mechanisms that would enable the agencies more easily to
shift resources, including staff.  The appropriations process
constrains OMB's ability to independently make such resource shifts,
and we, as well as others, have reported on limitations on OMB's
ability to set priorities for allocation of funding among statistical
agencies.\11 In recognition of this concern, OMB launched an
initiative during preparation of the administration's fiscal year
1998 budget in which some priorities were set for statistical agency
funding.  The effect of OMB's efforts, however, will not be known
until after Congress completes the appropriations process. 

Greater coordination among statistical agencies is another way to
improve their effectiveness and streamline operations.  In this
regard, it should be noted that some consolidation already has taken
place and additional efforts are underway.  For example, statistical
agencies have already acted to reduce duplication and inefficiency by
collecting information for one another.  An illustration of this is
the decennial census long form questionnaire.  Ten of the principal
statistical agencies and many other federal agencies use information
collected through the form as source of data for their own
statistical activities.  We reported in July 1996 that if agencies
had to collect or arrange for the collection of these data on their
own the total cost would exceed the cost of having Census collect
these data.\12

OMB also has a number of coordinative efforts under way through the
Interagency Statistical Policy Council, which OMB chairs.  The
council consists of the heads of the principal statistical agencies
as well as representatives from the National Science Foundation and
the Social Security Administration, and exists to foster greater
coordination among statistical agencies.  One such initiative has
been the development of the "one-stop shopping" service for users of
federal statistical data.  This effort entails establishing an
electronic link to all federal statistical agencies through the
Internet.  OMB plans to have this service fully operational in 1997. 
With this system a user should be able to go to one source that will
identify the types of data available and will electronically link the
user to the data maintained by the appropriate agency.  While OMB's
coordination efforts appear promising, it is unclear at this point
how effective they will be in resolving problems that result from the
decentralized structure of the system. 


--------------------
\9 Statistical Agencies:  A Comparison of the U.S.  and Canadian
Statistical Systems (GAO/GGD-96-142, Aug.  1, 1996.)

\10 After Six Years, Legal Obstacles Continue to Restrict Government
Use of the Standard Statistical Establishment List (GAO/GGD-79-17,
May 25, 1979.)

\11 GAO/GGD-95-65. 

\12 GAO/GGD-96-107, July 1, 1996. 


   DO THE CENSUS BUREAU AND THE
   BUREAU OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
   BENEFIT FROM LOCATION IN THE
   COMMERCE DEPARTMENT? 
-------------------------------------------------- Chapter STATEMENT:5

In testimony before the full Governmental Affairs Committee on July
25, 1995,\13 we described the Commerce Department as essentially a
holding company for many disparate programs, and subject to almost
constant organizational changes in its 84-year history.  Because of
the wide diversity of its functions, Commerce historically has not
been managed on the basis of a unifying mission or shared goals.  Its
components are overseen and authorized by several committees in
Congress, none of which has jurisdiction over the entire department. 
Within Commerce, Census and BEA together account for less than 10
percent of departmental obligations and less than 20 percent of
departmental staff. 

Commerce has decentralized its key administrative functions.  Major
Commerce components, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, the Patent and Trademark Office, and the Economics
and Statistics Administration which comprises both Census and BEA,
have been granted the authority and responsibility by Commerce for
meeting most of their own administrative needs.  Thus, Commerce
headquarters provides some services but primarily sets policy and
provides overall direction and oversight.  In some cases, the major
components pay for the services provided by headquarters through a
working capital fund.  Census and BEA receive their legal services
this way, for instance.  In addition, BEA purchases most of its
administrative services from other components of Commerce through a
series of cross-servicing arrangements.  Commerce's decentralized
approach to providing administrative services is a result of its
response to significant budget reductions that occurred in the early
1980s.  The relative independence of the major components minimizes
the disruption that would occur if one or more were broken away in a
reorganization.  Neither the Census Bureau nor BEA is physically
housed in the Commerce headquarters building. 

We are not aware of any reasons that would prevent Census and BEA
from performing their missions if they were not components of the
Commerce Department.  This is not to say, however, that the Commerce
relationship is meaningless.  In fact, Commerce officials have argued
that the absence of regulatory programs within the department has
been a factor in preserving the reputation for independence of its
two statistical agencies.  Because they are located in Commerce,
Census and BEA must compete for attention and resources with other
functions of that department, functions as disparate as weather
service modernization, fisheries preservation, technological
innovation, and trade sponsorship. 

The department's superior stature, resources, and access to the
highest policy levels within the administration have at times been of
value to Census and BEA; for example, our high-risk report on the
2000 Census recognized that the Bureau itself was not capable of
securing all the stakeholder decisions it needs to proceed with
plans, tests, and commitments, and that attention from the
administration was needed.  The value of attachment to a
Cabinet-level department to promote an agency's interests at the
highest policy-making levels is well established in organizational
theory and practice.  Statistics Canada, for example, takes pride in
its independence but it is nevertheless a component of the Department
of Industry Canada.  Granting the value of departmental affiliation,
it does not necessarily follow that the Commerce Department is the
only organization to provide it. 


--------------------
\13 Government Reorganization:  Observations on the Department of
Commerce (GAO/T-GGD/RCED/AIMD-95-248, July 25, 1995). 


------------------------------------------------ Chapter STATEMENT:5.1

Mr.  Chairman, that concludes my prepared statement.  I would be
pleased to respond to questions on it or on aspects of our
statistical policy work that I have not covered. 


RELATED GAO PRODUCTS
=========================================================== Appendix 0

Statistical Agencies:  A Comparison of the U.S.  and Canadian
Statistical Systems (GAO/GGD-96-142, Aug.  1, 1996). 

Statistical Agencies:  Statutory Requirements Affecting Government
Policies and Programs (GAO/GGD-96-106, July 17, 1996). 

Federal Statistics:  Principal Statistical Agencies' Missions and
Funding (GAO/GGD-96-107, July 1, 1996). 

Government Statistics:  Proposal to Form a Federal Statistical
Service (GAO/T-GGD-96-93, Mar.  22, 1996). 

Commerce Dismantlement:  Observations on Proposed Implementation
Mechanism (GAO/T-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). 

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). 

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

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

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

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


*** End of document. ***