Background A reliable schedule is critically important for a successful 2020 Census. In  February 2017, we added the 2020 Census to our High-Risk List because  operational and other issues including scheduling are threatening the  Bureau’s ability to deliver a cost-effective enumeration. We reported on  concerns about the quality of the Bureau’s schedule and cost  assessment, the Bureau’s capacity to implement innovative census-taking  methods, and uncertainties surrounding critical information technology  systems. Underlying these issues are challenges in such essential  management functions as the Bureau’s ability to  collect and use real-time indicators of schedule, cost, and  performance;  follow leading practices for scheduling, cost estimation, risk  management, and IT acquisition, development, testing, and security;  and  cost effectively deal with contingencies including, for example, fiscal  constraints, potential changes in design, and natural disasters that  could affect the enumeration. Reliable scheduling practices are essential for managing tradeoffs  between cost, schedule, and scope. Among other things, scheduling  allows program managers to decide between possible sequences of  activities, determine the flexibility of the schedule according to available  resources, predict the consequences of managerial action or inaction in  events, and allocate contingency plans to mitigate risk. Following  changes in a program, the schedule is used to forecast the effects of  delayed, deleted, and added effort, as well as possible avenues for time  and cost recovery. Scheduling is important because the cost of counting the nation’s  population has been escalating with each decade. The 2010 Census was  the most expensive in U.S. history at about $12.3 billion, and was about  31 percent more costly than the $9.4 billion 2000 Census (in 2020  constant dollars). According to the Bureau, the total cost of the 2020  Census is now estimated to be approximately $15.6 billion dollars, more  than $3 billion higher than previously estimated by the Bureau. Moreover, as shown in figure 1, the average cost for counting a housing  unit increased from about $16 in 1970 to around $92 in 2010 (in 2020  constant dollars). At the same time, the return of census questionnaires  by mail (the primary mode of data collection) declined over this period  from 78 percent in 1970 to 63 percent in 2010. Declining mail response  rates have led to higher costs because the Bureau needs to send  temporary workers to each nonresponding household to obtain census  data. The schedules we reviewed for this report—2020 Census Geographic  Programs, 2018 End-to-End Test Address Canvassing, and 2018 End-to- End Census Test Nonresponse Follow-up—relate to the key activities of  developing an accurate address list and following up with households that  did not mail back their census forms. The Bureau relies on a complete  and accurate address list to maximize the more cost-efficient self- response rate. The three projects we selected contribute to two of the Census Bureau’s  largest field operations. The Bureau’s Geographic Programs Operation  maintains the Bureau’s master address file and mapping data used to  conduct the 2020 Census. The Bureau’s Geographic Programs Operation  provides the most current address list to the Bureau’s Address  Canvassing Operation, where Bureau staff make updates to the address  list via in-office and in-field procedures. These updates are processed on  an ongoing basis throughout the decade. The Bureau conducts its  Nonresponse Follow-up Operation after Census Day by having  enumerators go door-to-door to determine the housing unit status for  addresses that do not self-respond to the 2020 Census, and enumerate  households that are determined to be occupied. Selected Census  Schedules Better  Reflect  Characteristics of a  Reliable Schedule  Compared to Prior  Assessment, though  Weaknesses Remain We have previously reported in our Schedule Assessment Guide that a  reliable schedule can provide a road map for systematic execution of a  program, and the means by which to gauge progress, identify and  address potential problems, and promote accountability. The guide  identifies four characteristics of a reliable schedule: Comprehensive: The schedule should identify all activities and  resources necessary to accomplish the project. The schedule should  cover the scope of work to be performed so that the full picture is  available to managers. Well-constructed: Activities should be logically sequenced and critical  activities that would affect the timelines of the schedule should be  identified. Credible: All schedules should be linked to a complete master  schedule for managers to reference and analyzed for how risk  impacts the outcome of the schedule. Controlled: There should be a documented process for changes to the  schedule so that the integrity of the schedule is assured. For a schedule to be reliable, it must substantially or fully meet all criteria  for these four characteristics. These characteristics, their related leading  practices, and their criteria are described in more detail in appendix II. In 2013, we assessed the Bureau’s 2020 Research and Testing and  Geographic Support System Initiative schedules using these criteria.  While the results exhibited some of the characteristics of a reliable  schedule, important weaknesses remained. Both schedules substantially  met one of the four characteristics (controlled) and minimally or partially  met the other three characteristics (comprehensive, well-constructed, and  credible). For this review, we assessed the 2018 End-to-End Census Test Address  Canvassing, 2018 End-to-End Census Test Nonresponse Follow-up, and  2020 Census Geographic Programs projects’ schedules. We found that  overall the selected schedules better reflected two of the four  characteristics of a reliable schedule compared to our 2013 assessment  (see figure 2). Examples of the extent to which these characteristics were met are  provided below. For a more detailed explanation of our assessment  results, see appendix III. Comprehensive–Selected  Schedules Partially Meet  Characteristic but Do Not  Identify Needed  Resources As with our 2013 schedule assessment, our 2018 analysis found that the  Bureau is partially meeting the characteristics of a comprehensive  schedule. For example, the projects we assessed reflect the work to be  accomplished for the project schedules, and each project schedule  includes estimates of the duration of each activity. Additionally, the 2018  End-to-End Census Test Address Canvassing and the 2018 End-to-End  Census Test Nonresponse Follow-up project schedules contain clear start  and finish milestones, and map to the census program work breakdown  structure—a detailed definition of the work necessary to accomplish a  program’s objectives. This leading practice of capturing all activities was substantially met, not  fully met (see appendix III for a more detailed explanation), because while  for each project all activities and milestones are mapped to their work  breakdown structures by codes, there are no corresponding dictionaries  to define the work. The absence of such a dictionary could potentially  lead to confusion among staff in different census offices about the scope  of the work they are responsible for performing. Our schedule guide states that a work breakdown structure dictionary is a  valuable communication tool between systems engineers, program  management, and other stakeholders because it provides a clear picture  of what efforts have to be accomplished. Bureau officials stated that  although their 2020 Schedule Management Plan requires each project to  have a schedule work breakdown structure dictionary, as project  schedules are updated, they have not created these required dictionaries.  As an alternative, they noted that the 2020 Census Operational Plan  includes details and definitions of the projects. Additionally, none of the three schedules we assessed include  information about what levels of resources, such as labor and equipment,  are required to complete the planned work—including this information is  called resource loading. The Bureau’s 2020 Schedule Management Plan  states that it is the responsibility of a representative from a project team  and the schedule staff to assign resources to an individual project  schedule, and that defining and assigning resources should be done  following the testing phase of the 2020 Census Lifecycle. The Bureau is now in its implementation phase (see figure 3 below), so  according to its management plan, resource loading should have begun.  But it has not. For example, the 2018 End-to-End Census Test Address  Canvassing project schedule did not include any resource information on  the recruiting and hiring goals for the address canvassing field work. Instead, Bureau officials stated that they are estimating the cost of  activities using a software tool separate from the current schedule  management tool. They further stated that this Bureau-wide solution  includes all 2020 Decennial Census staff as Decennial funded resources.  However, the information in this separate tool has no effect on the  durations or forecasted start and finish dates of detailed activities within  individual projects. Furthermore, the separate tool does not always track  all activities at the lowest level in the schedule, so that Bureau managers  do not have reliable visibility with it on the efforts of the lowest level of  detailed activities. Resource loading is important for any agency, but is particularly important  for the Census Bureau, given its statutorily mandated deadlines. Missed  deadlines or schedule slippage can easily jeopardize the quality of the  2020 Census, and there is little room for error given that census data are  used to apportion the seats of the House of Representatives, redraw  congressional districts, and allocate billions of dollars each year in federal  financial assistance. In our schedule guide, we reported that including  resources such as labor, materials, and overhead costs can make a  schedule a more useful management tool. A resource-loaded schedule can help management with things such as  computing labor and equipment hours, calculating total project and per- period cost, resolving resource allocation conflicts, determining whether  all required resources will be available when they are needed, and  establishing the reasonableness of the plan. For example, information on  the resource needs of field operations in the 2018 End-to-End Census  Test would assist management in determining if the appropriate resource  allocations have been made for any given test activity. It would also aide  in forecasting the likelihood that those resources will be available to  complete the 2018 End-to-End Census Test Address Canvassing and  Nonresponse Follow-up activities as scheduled. If the schedule does not  allow insight into the current or projected allocation of resources for these  test activities, the Bureau’s risk of key end-to-end test milestones slipping  increases significantly. In 2009, we reviewed the Bureau’s schedule and recommended that the  Bureau include estimates of the resources in the 2020 integrated  schedule for each activity as the schedule was built. The Department of  Commerce did not respond to the recommendation at that time. In our  2013 assessment of the Bureau’s schedule, Bureau officials stated that  they hoped to begin identifying the resources needed for each activity in  their schedules by early 2014. However, as of May 2018, the Bureau  has not yet implemented this recommendation. Senior Bureau officials  have now stated that the Bureau would require additional staffing in the  Schedule Management Branch in the Decennial Census Management  Division in order to plan for and implement resource loading. When the  Bureau has resource loaded its schedule, it will be able to use the  schedule more effectively as a management tool. Well-Constructed–The  Bureau Demonstrated  Improvement in Selected  Schedules Compared to  Prior Assessment Our 2013 assessment of the Bureau’s schedule reported that the Bureau  only minimally met the characteristics of a well-constructed schedule. Our  2018 assessment found that two of the selected project schedules now  substantially met this characteristic and one partially met it. In this  assessment, Bureau officials linked many of the activities clearly and in a  straightforward sequence in the schedule, which was not always the case  in prior assessments. This improvement is important because it helps staff identify next steps as  they progress through such things as acquiring and mobilizing the staff  needed to conduct the address canvassing and nonresponse follow-up  test field work, and helps managers identify the impact of changes in one  activity on subsequent activities. For example, the schedule lays out the  sequence of activities needed, such as developing training materials,  recruiting field staff, training staff and equipping them with the tools  needed to complete the test. Our assessment also concluded that two of  the three project schedules we assessed have valid critical paths, which  is the sequence of activities in the schedule that, according to their  current status, lead to the program’s earliest completion date. A valid  critical path allows management to focus on activities that will lead to the  project’s success. The 2020 Census Geographic Programs project schedule partially met  the well-constructed characteristic due to problems existing within the  schedule’s sequencing logic. In particular, we found a large number of  unjustified date constraints and lags. In part because of these  sequencing issues, total float calculations—that is, the amount of time a  predecessor activity can slip before its delay affects the program’s  estimated finish date—appear unreasonably high. Additionally, this  project schedule has activities on the critical path with long durations. For  example, the project schedule for Geographic Programs included several  long-duration activities on its critical path that relate to the Bureau’s  collection of community boundary data—information essential to  delineating geographic boundaries used in the tabulation of census data.  These critical long-duration activities make it difficult to measure time- critical progress on such activities in the near term. These issues with how the schedule is constructed can also cause  schedule users to lack confidence in the forecasted dates. Bureau  officials acknowledged that the 2020 Census Geographic Programs  project schedule had logic issues at the time because it was in the middle  of a revision. Bureau officials stated that the standard process is to  update the project schedule in an offline version and then assess the  quality and impacts of changes before acceptance. According to Bureau  officials, the Geographic Programs project schedule did not follow this  process and was instead updated in the live version of the schedule  because of time constraints. Credible–Selected  Schedules Partially Meet  Characteristic, but the  Bureau Has Not Carried  Out a Schedule Risk  Analysis Our 2013 assessment of the Bureau’s schedule found that the Bureau  minimally met the characteristics of a credible schedule. Our 2018  assessment of the Bureau’s schedule found that the Bureau’s scheduling  practices for a credible schedule have improved. We found that there is  now a clear relationship between lower-level activities and higher-level  activities and milestones, and there is generally better consistency of  dates between the project schedule and higher-level management  documents. However, the Bureau has not carried out a systematic quantitative risk  analysis on its schedule. A schedule risk analysis is a statistical  simulation of the possible effects of threats, opportunities, and general  uncertainty to a program’s schedule that results in a quantifiable level of  confidence in meeting the program’s key milestone dates. While the  Bureau has identified and continues to track risks to its 2018 End-to-End  Test address canvasing and nonresponse follow-up efforts in risk  registers, a quantitative risk analysis would illustrate the impact of risks on  the project schedule, and how those risks would affect the Bureau’s ability  to meet milestones on time. Such an analysis would also provide a  measure of how much time contingency should be built in the schedule to  help manage prioritized risks, and, implicitly, provide indications of where  additional resources might be needed to stay on schedule. In response to our 2013 schedule assessment, Bureau officials said they  were waiting for decisions about scheduling software before making  decisions about a schedule risk analysis. As of May 2018, the Bureau has  conducted three risk analyses to prove the software’s capability.  However, the Bureau still had not conducted a schedule risk assessment  on the current integrated master schedule used to manage the 2020  Census program. Without a schedule risk analysis, the Bureau cannot determine the  likelihood of each project’s completion date; how much schedule risk  contingency is needed to provide an acceptable level of certainty for  completion by a specific date; which risks are most likely to affect the  schedule; how much contingency time each risk requires; and the  sequence of activities that are most likely to delay the project. Senior  Bureau officials stated that a schedule risk assessment plan and process  was approved by Bureau management in late May 2018 and that they  hope to implement this plan in summer 2018. They intend to conduct an  internal review over the next couple months to determine how to best use  the information this risk assessment would yield. Follow through on their  plans is critical to ensuring our recommendation is implemented. Controlled–Selected  Schedules Substantially  Meet the Characteristic As with our 2013 schedule assessment, our 2018 analysis reported that  the Bureau’s scheduling practices are substantially meeting the  characteristics of a controlled schedule. Our analysis determined that  there are no date anomalies in the project schedules, such as planned  dates in the past or actual dates in the future. We found the schedule was  current as of the date delivered to us, and according to Bureau  documents, the schedule is updated weekly following an established  schedule process. Additionally, the Bureau reported that it has a schedule management  process in place and a method for logging changes to the schedule in  accordance with leading practices. Bureau officials reported that they  monitor schedule trends, including bi-weekly schedule reliability checks  using the Defense Contract Management Agency 14-Point assessment, a  commonly used set of schedule integrity and reliability measures. Bureau  officials also provided the May 2014 Program Change Management  Process Strategy which defines the process for initiating changes to the  integrated performance measurement baseline configuration; analyzing  the impact of changes to project cost, schedule and scope; approving or  disapproving changes; and updating project or product specifications and  baselines. However, our assessment found that the Bureau did not fully meet this  characteristic for a controlled schedule. The Bureau lacked sound  documentation of the schedule in the form of a schedule basis document,  and changes to the current schedules in the form of a schedule narrative.  The current schedule should be documented in a schedule narrative with  each update, including changes made to the schedule during status  updates and changes that are justified along with their likely effect on  future activities. The Bureau had not prepared such narratives.  Additionally, none of the three schedules were supported by a schedule  baseline document—a single document that defines the organization of a  schedule, describes the logic of the network, describes the basic  approach to managing resources, and provides a basis for all parameters  used to calculate dates. Sound documentation helps with analyzing  changes in the program schedule and identifying the reasons why actual  schedule results vary from their estimates, thereby contributing to the  collection of data that can be useful to evaluations of schedule efforts,  and that can be used to support future estimates. While the Bureau has made improvements to implement the  recommendations regarding the comprehensiveness and construction  characteristics of the Bureau’s scheduling practices, the Bureau’s lack of  resource loading and a risk assessment of the schedule continue to affect  the reliability of the Bureau’s schedule. The schedule would be a more  useful management tool if the Bureau increased the schedule’s reliability  by addressing these weaknesses. To address these remaining  weaknesses, we continue to believe that these recommendations are  valid in order to ensure the 2020 schedule can support key management  decisions. Agency Comments  and Our Evaluation We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Commerce. In its  written comments, reproduced in appendix IV the Department of  Commerce agreed with our findings. We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Commerce, the  Under Secretary of Economic Affairs, the Acting Director of the U.S.  Census Bureau, and interested congressional committees. The report  also is available at no charge on GAO’s website at http://www.gao.gov. If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202)  512-2757 or goldenkoffr@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. GAO staff that made major contributions to this report are  listed in appendix V. Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and  Methodology This report assesses the extent to which the Bureau is using leading  practices for scheduling key projects. We did this by focusing on three  2020 projects. We selected the three projects from the December 17,  2017, version of the 2020 Census integrated master schedule. That  schedule consists of 255 total projects, of which 134 were remaining to be  completed. We made our selections based on the cost of the projects,  their significance to the 2020 Census, and the fact that they were in  progress. The 3 projects selected for review are 2018 End-to-End Census  Test Address Canvassing, 2018 End-to-End Census Test Nonresponse  Follow-up, and 2020 Census Geographic Programs. We reviewed the project schedules and underlying sub-schedules to  assess them against the 10 scheduling leading practices by: Checking for specific problems that could hinder the schedule’s ability  to respond to changes. For example, we: Examined if there are any open-ended activities (i.e., activities  with no predecessor and/or successors), Searched for activities with poor logic: For example, Start to Start successor only or Finish to Finish  predecessor only which represent dangling logic, or Logic on summary tasks rather than attached to detailed tasks  (summary tasks are for organizing the schedule and should  not drive the logic). Looked for activities with constraints which keep the schedule rigid  (e.g., start no earlier than, finish no later than, etc.),  Identified any lags or leads which should only be used to show  how two tasks interact and not to represent work, Determined if activities were resource loaded—which helps to cost  out the schedule—and examine whether resources are over  allocated or not available when needed, Examined the length of activity durations and compared them to  the program management review cycle, Checked for horizontal and vertical integration within the schedule, Examined the schedule critical path to determine whether or not it  was reliable and logical, Examined schedule float and determine if it was reasonable, and Examined whether the schedule was baselined, its status cycle,  and what deviations there were from the original plan. We also  determined if there were any actual start or finish dates recorded  in the future and whether there was any broken logic between  planned tasks. We also interviewed Bureau officials responsible for the 2020 schedule.  We scored each scheduling leading practice on a five-point scale ranging  from “not met” to “met.” We determined the characteristic assessment  rating by assigning each best practice rating a number and taking the  average. The numerical ratings and ranges of the resulting averages are  as follows. We then compared these results with our prior assessments of the  Bureau’s schedule, particularly those where recommendations were  made, and we updated the status of those recommendations. Assessing only three key projects limits possible statements about the  Bureau’s entire schedule. For example, if the Bureau is not following best  practices in creating and maintaining the three project schedules, we can  conclude that the larger integrated schedule is unreliable. This is because  an integrated master schedule consolidates lower-level project schedules;  errors and reliability issues in lower levels will be transferred to higher- level schedules. However, if the selected lower-level projects are deemed  reliable, we cannot definitively determine the reliability of the integrated  master schedule because the other projects that were not assessed may  be unreliable. Appendix II: Description of Scheduling  Leading Practices Characteristic  Comprehensive  Capturing all activities Description  A schedule should reflect all activities defined in the project’s work breakdown  structure and include all activities to be performed by the government and contractor. The schedule should realistically reflect the resources (i.e., labor, material, and  overhead) needed to do the work, whether all required resources will be available  when needed, and whether any funding or time constraints exist. The schedule should reflect how long each activity will take to execute. The schedule should be planned so that all activities are logically sequenced in the  order they are to be carried out. The schedule should identify the critical path, or those activities that, if delayed, will  negatively impact the overall project completion date. The critical path enables  analysis of the effect delays may have on the overall schedule. The schedule should identify float—the amount of time an activity can slip in the  schedule before it affects other activities—so that flexibility in the schedule can be  determined. As a general rule, activities along the critical path have the least amount  of float. Credible The detailed schedule should be horizontally traceable, meaning that it should link  products and outcomes associated with other sequenced activities. The integrated  master schedule should also be vertically traceable—that is, varying levels of  activities and supporting subactivities can be traced. Such mapping or alignment of  levels enables different groups to work to the same master schedule. The schedule should include a schedule risk analysis that uses statistical techniques  to predict the probability of meeting a completion date. A schedule risk analysis can  help management identify high priority risks and opportunities. Controlled Progress updates and logic provide a realistic forecast of start and completion dates  for program activities. Maintaining the integrity of the schedule logic at regular  intervals is necessary to reflect the true status of the program. To ensure that the  schedule is properly updated, people responsible for updating should be trained in  critical path method scheduling. A baseline schedule represents the original configuration of the program plan and is  the basis for managing the project scope, the time period for accomplishing it, and  the required resources. Comparing the current status of the schedule to the baseline  can help managers target areas for mitigation. Appendix III: Assessment of the Extent to  Which the Bureau Followed Scheduling  Leading Practices Appendix IV: Comments from the  Department of Commerce Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff  Acknowledgments GAO Contact Staff  Acknowledgments Other key contributors to this report include Ty Mitchell, Assistant  Director; Juaná Collymore; Rob Gebhart; Yvette Gutierrez; Jason Lee;  Kayla Robinson; Cynthia Saunders; and Timothy Wexler.
The Bureau is required by law to count the population as of April 1, 2020; deliver state apportionment counts to the President by December 31, 2020; and provide redistricting data to the states within 1 year of Census Day, April 1, 2021. To meet these statutory deadlines, the Bureau carries out hundreds of projects, which it manages with an integrated master schedule. Because census operations need to proceed in concert with one another, significant delays could propagate to other activities resulting in increased costs, reduced operational quality, or changes to the design of the census in order to compensate for lost time. This report determines the extent to which the Bureau is using leading practices for scheduling key projects. GAO selected three projects for review based on their cost and in-progress status. GAO analyzed schedules and their supporting documents against GAO's Schedule Assessment Guide. GAO also spoke with relevant Bureau officials regarding the three selected projects. GAO provided a draft of this report to the Department of Commerce, which agreed with the findings. The three census project schedules GAO reviewed better reflect characteristics of a reliable schedule compared to a GAO schedule assessment performed in 2013, but weaknesses remain. GAO reviewed three projects that contribute to two of the Census Bureau's (Bureau) largest field operations—address canvassing and nonresponse follow-up. The schedules for all three projects are better constructed and more credible than previously reviewed project schedules. For example, the Bureau has improved the logic of the relationship between activities, and better ensured that all schedules are linked together in a master schedule so that their interactions can be better managed. However, the three selected schedules have some of the same weaknesses GAO identified in other Bureau schedules in 2009 and 2013. For example, none of the selected schedules contain information on resource needs and availability. GAO has reported that such information assists program offices in forecasting the likelihood that activities will be completed as scheduled. It can also help management compute total labor and equipment hours, calculate total project and per-period cost, resolve resource conflicts, and establish the reasonableness of the plan. If the schedule does not allow insight into current or projected allocation of resources, then the likelihood is significantly increased that the program may slip or need additional resources to complete on time. In GAO's 2009 review of the Bureau's schedule, GAO recommended that the Bureau include in the 2020 master schedule estimates of the resources, such as labor, materials, and overhead costs for each activity as the 2020 schedule was built. The Department of Commerce did not respond to the recommendation at that time. Then, regarding GAO's 2013 assessment of the Bureau's schedule, Bureau officials stated that they hoped to begin identifying the resources needed for each activity in their schedules by early 2014. However, as of May 2018, the Bureau had not taken these steps. Senior Bureau officials have now stated that it would require additional staffing in order to plan for and implement this recommendation. Additionally, the Bureau has not conducted risk assessments for the project schedules GAO assessed. Schedule risk analysis—the systematic analysis of “what if” scenarios—is an established leading practice. Risk assessments are needed to determine the likelihood of the project's completion date; how much schedule risk contingency is needed to provide an acceptable level of certainty for completion by a specific date; risks most likely to delay the project; how much contingency reserve each risk requires; and the paths or activities that are most likely to delay the project. In 2013, GAO recommended the Bureau conduct risk assessments for its schedules. The Bureau said it had no disagreement with this recommendation. However, while Senior Bureau officials stated that a schedule risk assessment plan and process were approved by Bureau management in late May 2018, it has not yet implemented this recommendation. GAO believes that these prior recommendations still apply and can help the Bureau improve the reliability of its 2020 schedule.