Detailed Information on the
Census Bureau: Current Economic Statistics and Census of Governments Assessment

Improve the relevance of CES data by improving measurement of the services sector.

Conduct systematic evaluations of resource allocations within these programs.

Facilitate reporting and reduce burden through the use of electronic reporting.

Measure: Release data products for key Census Bureau programs on time to support effective decision-making of policymakers, businesses, and the public. This reflects the internal data release targets for ASM, ATS, ARTS, SAS, and APES.

Explanation:This reflects the internal data release targets for ASM, ATS, ARTS, SAS, and APES.

Measure: Customer Satisfaction, based on surveys of internal federal customers as well as external data consumers.

Explanation:This proxy measure serves as an indicator of overall performance of Census programs in delivering data in a timely, accurate, and relevant manner. Initial customer satisfaction measures were captured at 81%. By FY2010, measurement and delivery improvements will increase satisfaction by 3%.

Measure: Unit costs per survey

Explanation:This reflects the unit cost for 10 surveys. For each year, the target is first, followed by the actual. Current Service Trade Reports -- 2004: baseline/$27.31; 2005: $10.40/$8.97; 2006: $7.53/$7.87; 2007: $7.93/$7.47; 2008: $6.13/TBD; 2009: $8.77/TBD. Manufacturers' shipments, inventories, and orders (M3) -- 2006: $12.79/$10.63; 2007: $13.35/$13.42; 2008: $14.00/TBD; 2009: $14.08/TBD. Construction Statistics - 2004: Baseline/$7.59; 2005: $7.37/$7.69; 2006: $7.31/$7.67; 2007: $7.62/$7.21; 2008: $11.34/TBD; 2009: $11.09/TBD. Foreign Trade Statistics  2004: Baseline/$0.01; 2005: $0.01/$0.01; 2006: $0.01/$0.01; 2007: $0.01/$0.01; 2008: $0.01/TBD; 2009: $0.01/TBD. Business Register  2004: Baseline/$0.40; 2005: $0.34/$0.38; 2006: $0.40/$0.38; 2007: $0.43/$0.49; 2008: $0.44/TBD; 2009: $0.41/TBD. Current Retail Trade  2006: $10.67/$11.50; 2007: $11.14/$12.54; 2008: $11.64/TBD; 2009: $12.35/TBD. Current Wholesale Trade  2006 $16.09/$15.30; 2007: $16.79/$15.71; 2008: $16.92/TBD; 2009: $19.98/TBD. Ann Survey of Manufacturers  2004: Baseline/$3.24; 2005: $3.36/$3.11; 2006: $3.50/$3.60; 2007: $3.66/$3.29; 2008: $3.71/TBD; 2009 $2.51/TBD. Quarterly Fin. Report  2006: $2.88/$2.74; 2007: $3.00/2.77; 2008: $3.18/TBD; 2009: $3.14/TBD. Survey of Govt Finance  2004: Baseline/$2.53; 2005: $1.75/2.07; 2006: $1.99/$1.95; 2007: $2.07/$2.23; 2008: $2.04/TBD; 2009: $2.10/TBD.

Measure: Revision rate for Monthly Wholesale Trade Survey

Explanation:Indicates accuracy of initial measure against final measure of MWT data. Low revision rates increase the accuracy of Census data and the data and analysis of its key customers, such as BEA. Target is: By 2009, the absolute value of the revision in the month-to-month percent change in inventories (preliminary to final) will be less than 0.3% for 80% of the previous 36 months. Baseline is: From January 2003 to February 2005, four advance estimates were 0.3% or higher (80%).

Measure: Achieve pre-determined collection rates for Census Bureau censuses and surveys in order to provide statistically reliable data to support effective decision-making of policymakers, businesses, and the public. This measure tracks response rates for the Annual Trade Survey (ATS), Annual Retail Trade Survey (ARTS), Service Annual Survey (SAS), Annual Survey of Manufactures (ASM), and Annual Public Employment Survey (APES) surveys.

Explanation:*Note 1: FY 2004 Actuals: APES 79%, ATS 81%, ARTS 83%, SAS 78% and ASM 81%. **Note 2: FY 2005 Actuals: APES 82%, ATS 85%, ARTS 82%, SAS 80% and ASM 77%. ***Note 3: FY 2006 Actuals: APES 79%, ATS 85%, ARTS 81%, SAS 78% and ASM 79%. **** Note 4: FY 2007 Actuals: APES 78.2%, ATS 78.9%, ARTS 78.2%, SAS 77.0%, and ASM 81.0% .

Measure: Revision rate for MARTS survey (Advance Monthly Retail Trade Survey).

Explanation:Indicates accuracy of initial measure against final measure of MARTS data. Low revision rates increase the accuracy of Census data and the data and analysis of its key customers, such as BEA. Target is: By FY2009, the absolute value of the revision in the month-to-month percent change in sales (advance to final) will be less than 0.9% for 90% of the previous 36 months. Baseline is: As of 8/2005, over the past 36 months, there were 3 instances where the revision was 0.8% or greater.

Measure: Operate more efficiently by improving interactive performance of the program's computer systems.

Explanation:Improve interactive SAS performance. The amount of time analysts wait on computer systems to display and transact is directly related to our ability to conduct business efficiently and cost effectively. The long term target is by the end of FY 2008, to improve interactive SAS performance by 50%. Target is: 9 seconds for the SAS review and M3 correction routine.

Measure: Facilitate reporting and reduce burden through use of electronic reporting.

Explanation:By increasing use of electronic reporting, both individual and overall reporting burden are reduced. Long term target is that by the end of FY 2008, we will increase the number of reporting units filing electronically by 25%, from 24,919 units to 31,149 units.

Measure: Revison rate for M3 survey (Manufacturer's Shipments, Inventories, and Orders).

Explanation:Indicates accuracy of initial measure against final measure of M3 data. Low revision rates increase the accuracy of Census data and the data and analysis of its key customers, such as BEA. The target is: By FY2009, the absolute value of the revision between the advance estimate and the final value ("final 2") for shipments will be less than 1.1 percent for 75 percent of the previous 36 months. Baseline as of 8/2005: For the past 30 months, there were seven revisons of 1.0% or more (23%).

Measure: Improve the relevance of data by improving the measurement of the service sector.

Explanation:This measure focuses on services, the fastest growing sector of our economy. By increasing the number of service industries covered, we improve the relevancy of our data. The measure would be based on the percent of GDP being covered by the QSS. Currently, QSS covers 16% of the 31% covered by our annual surveys and 53.5% of GDP covered by the Economic Census, excluding retail and wholesale. The target would be expanding the quarterly coverage of GDP by more than fifty percent to 25% of GDP by 2009. Should appropriations become available in the future for service sector coverage expansion the entire 37.5 % gap in service sector GDP coverage could be closed within four years of funding.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The purpose of the Current Economic Statistics programs and Census of Governments is to provide public and private data users with relevant, accurate, and timely national statistical profiles for every non-farm sector of the U.S. economy including state and local governments.

Evidence: The program supports the strategic goals contained in the Census Bureau 2004 - 2008 Strategic Plan, including: 1) Provide and improve current measures of the U.S. population, economy, and governments that meet the needs of policy makers, businesses, and the public. Title 13, U.S.C. contains the authorizations to conduct Census Bureau data collection programs, specifically, section 182 authorizes current economic statistics.

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: These programs address the need to provide comprehensive economic statistics, critical to understanding the current conditions of the U.S. economy. In general, these statistics are not available from the private sector due to market failure in providing this type of public good. Further, the necessity of protecting the confidentiality of respondent's data and ensuring the impartiality of economic estimates is addressed by having the Federal government conduct these programs.

Evidence: Confidentiality protections in Title 13, U.S.C. ; Current Economic Statistics and Census of Governments Goal Statements in FY 2006 President's Budget. OMB has designated 13 Current Economic Statistics series as principal economic indicators, with a total of 116 monthly and quarterly releases per year. Economic indicators are some of the most closely followed statistics by public and private users.

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: These programs are part of a highly integrated statistical system designed to describe the economy. Census is the principal data collector of retail and wholesale trade and selected service industries; construction activity; quantity and value of industrial output, such as manufacturing activities; shipments, inventories, and orders; capital expenditures; e-commerce sales; foreign trade, including imports, exports, and trade monitoring; and state and local government activities. There is no significant overlap with other Federal or non Federal efforts to provide the same data. BLS collects labor related data including employment, unemployment, price changes, and productivity. BEA uses the current (and benchmark) data from Census to estimate the National Accounts statistics. For example, data from the current economic statistics program provides 75 percent of the source data used in the preparation of the Gross Domestic Product estimates, one of the Nation's most important estimates of current economic activity, and are also used in other important Federal measures of economic activity, including the producer price indexes and measures of industrial production. Census should continue to work with BLS and IRS to identify the differences in the business establishment lists (separate lists are developed by Census and BLS) to enhance efficiency and reduce reporting burden on the public.

Evidence: Title 13, U.S.C.; DoC Strategic Plan; Census Bureau Strategic Plan; Economic Programs Directorate Strategic Plan; and FY 2006 President's Budget; Statement before Committee on Government Reform. The OMB publication, "Statistical Programs of the U.S. Government, 2005" describes the purposes of the current economic statistics program, BLS, and BEA.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: The Current Economic Statistics program collects data from businesses and State and local governments. The program uses administrative records, including payroll and tax return data, for data editing and where feasible, they are used in lieu of data collection to reduce reporting burden. In general, reporting burden is also minimized by the extensive use of sampling. The programs also have sophisticated computerized macro and micro-editing routines to ensure data quality. Regular comparisons and reconciliations are made to other data sources. For example, monthly surveys are compared to annuals and annuals are compared to the censuses. Comparisons are also made to auxiliary data sources, including trade and BLS employment statistics. There is no evidence that any other approach would be more efficient to achieve the intended purpose of the program. However, the program should continue to leverage administrative records, pursue data sharing opportunities with other Federal agencies, specifically with BLS with the business establishment lists, work with respondents to ensure data requests reflect corporate and government accounting conventions and expanding electronic filing capabilities for all surveys, and conduct regular systematic reviews of its programs to shift resources from lower priority to higher priority programs.

Evidence: OMB has designated 13 Current Economic Statistics series as principal economic indicators, with a total of 116 monthly and quarterly releases per year. Economic indicators are some of the most closely followed statistics by public and private users. The program also provides 75 percent of the source data used in the preparation of GDP estimates, which are critical to U.S. fiscal and monetary policy.

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: The Current Economic Statistics program strives to collect and produce accurate, timely, and relevant statistics. The program routinely collaborates with both public- and private-sector partners to ensure that user needs are being met and has identified data gaps that are needed to improve economic statistics, e.g. the recent development of a new service sector economic indicator. However, the program needs to consistently evaluate its programs to shift resources from lower priority to higher priority activities. The program has begun this process by evaluating the Current Industrial Reports series. However, more evaluation of base resources and activities are necessary.

Evidence: Approximately 55 percent of all economic activity is accounted for by services, yet the program's coverage of the services sector is inadequate. For example, annual surveys currently do not include finance and insurance and real estate industries, and quarterly surveys do not include these sectors as well as transportation, utilities, and educational services. The program has extensive coverage of the manufacturing sector. While the program has developed plans to expand the annual and quarterly surveys, it needs to do a better job of systematically evaluating its programs to ensure that resources are being used effectively to meet the program's purpose (i.e. covering the entire non-farm economy). Quarterly meetings are held with the BEA, the program's primary beneficiary. Also, program staff regularly meet with other key stakeholders including the Federal Reserve Board, BLS, SBA, Customs, and public interest groups like the National League of Cities. Customer surveys are also conducted to provide current feedback on data usage and how to improve the programs. Examples include the Economic Programs Directorate "Data User Evaluation Survey" and the Automated Export System (AES) Direct customer survey. The Census Bureau's Advisory Committee also reviews the program to ensure it addresses the agencies goals and objectives and meets the needs of data users.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The primary goal of these programs is to meet the needs of policymakers, businesses, non-profit organizations, and the public for current and benchmark measures of the U.S. economy and governments. Since the current economic statistics program is an information producing program, it primarily uses output performance measures relating to relevance (coverage of service sector), timeliness (ability to meet release schedules), quality (response rates), accuracy (revision rates), reporting burden (electronic filing rates), and efficiency (unit costs of surveys). Also, a proxy outcome measure of customer satisfaction has been instituted, and annual and long-term goals have been set to this end. The program also adheres to standard methodological guidelines concerning coefficients of variation and standard errors when publishing its data.

Evidence: Performance measures are documented in DoC Strategic Plan; Census Bureau Strategic Plan; FY 2005-2006 Annual Performance Plans; FY 2003 and 2004 Performance & Accountability Reports; and FY 2004-2006 Economic Programs Directorate Strategic Plan. The Interagency Council on Statistical Policy, as documented in Analytical Perspectives of the 2006 Budget, recommend that statistical agencies have performance measures and targets that address six dimensions of their programs, including: relevance, accuracy, timeliness, cost, dissemination, and mission achievement (this involves meeting recognized societal information needs and also addresses the linkage between statistical outputs and programmatic outcomes).

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The program's most significant challenge is to increase its coverage of the economy, particularly the service sector. It has committed to increasing service sector coverage in the Quarterly Services Survey (QSS) and the Services Annual Survey (SAS), to be fully implemented by FY2009. Targets apply in the absence of increased resources. In the presence of dedicated resources, full coverage of GDP can occur within four years. The program needs to continue to work toward closing the data gap in the service sector as quickly as possible. Revision rate targets (between advance or preliminary estimates and final estimates) have been implemented for the M-3 survey, the MARTS, and the MWTS. Continuous improvement in revision rates is crucial for increasing the accuracy of economic measures. The program has committed to completing all of its releases on schedule. The program has also committed to increasing its survey response rates in an effort continuously improve data quality. Moderate increases in response rates present a significant challenge for the program, given ongoing revision of survey protocols, new sample introductions, and the voluntary nature of many of the surveys. Long-term customer satisfaction targets have been set at a level that incrementally improves upon baseline measures obtained recently. This represents a commitment to an ongoing high level of service quality on all elements of the program. Finally, the program has committed to increasing electronic reporting capabilities and usage, as well as improving data processing capability. This set of measures and targets permits program management to monitor performance against key deliverables to ensure continuously improving service. The program should continue to asses its ability to meet and exceed these targets, particularly as relates to service sector coverage and revision rates. Further, the utilization of such measures should not preclude an ongoing analysis of overall program performance. For example, ongoing monitoring of comprehensive GDP coverage should be undertaken, beyond the service sector, to ensure a long-term orientation toward covering a constantly evolving economy. Also, a focus on electronic reporting goals should not obscure larger considerations of reporting burden for those who submit data. Existing measures and targets are therefore seen in this light as a means of measuring larger constructs that determine the success of the program. Both the measures (and a rigorous approach to meeting and exceeding targets), and the overall success of the program, should continue to guide management decisions.

Evidence: Performance targets are contained in the FY 2006 President's Budgets; FY 2005-2006 Annual Performance Plans; and Economic Programs Directorate Strategic Plan.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: Annual performance measures support progress toward achieving long-term goals (outlined in Q2.2). Annual measures for the program include: unit costs of surveys, survey response rates, data release schedules, service sector coverage by surveys, and customer satisfaction levels. With the exception of unit cost measures, all annual measures exist in duration sufficient to serve as long-term measures as well. As discussed in Q 2.1, the current economic statistics program is an information producing program that primarily uses output measures to track strategic goals, such as relevance (coverage of service sector), timeliness (ability to meet release schedules), quality (response rates), accuracy (revision rates), reporting burden (electronic filing rates), and efficiency (unit costs of surveys).

Evidence: Annual performance measures are documented in the 2006 Budget, FY 2005 - 2006 Annual Performance Plans and FY 2004 Performance and Accountability Report.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: With the exception of unit cost measures, baseline data is in place for all annual measures. Unit cost targets exist for some surveys but not all. The program should work toward obtaining full baseline data for unit costs, and continue to examine opportunities for efficiencies in data production. The program has committed to increasing its coverage of the service sector, even in the absence of dedicated resources. To maintain the relevancy of its data, the program should place a high priority on increasing GDP coverage in a timely manner. This involves ongoing monitoring of the optimal use of available resources to ensure a high level of data quality. Survey response rate targets are ambitious, given the challenges involved in maintaining present response levels. These challenges include the voluntary nature of many of the surveys in the program, the ongoing evolution of survey protocols, and new sample introductions. Targets that seek to increase response rates in this context are therefore ambitious. Overall, the program is in a good position to monitor its performance on key deliverables on an annual basis. It should continue to examine opportunities to exceed targets, particularly as relates to unit costs.

Evidence: Annual performance targets are documented in the 2006 Budget, 2006 annual performance plan, and 2004 Performance and Accountability Report

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: The current economic statistics program does not have many partners, or entities that receive funding, with the exception of IT contractors and data sharing agreements with BLS. IT contracts contain performance milestones and are regularly monitored using earned value management. An MOU between Census and BLS defines how the two agencies share industry classification information to improve the completeness and accuracy of their establishment lists. Census, together with BEA and BLS, is a member of the Economic Classification Policy Committee (ECPC) chartered by OMB, which developed a more up-to-date industrial classification system in the mid-1990s to better profile the economy. The ECPC is continuing this effort for product classifications. Several public and private entities rely on the program's data. The program regularly consults and collaborates with these entities to ensure it meets the needs of data users. More detail about this collaboration process is discussed in Question 3.5.

Evidence: 1) December 2002 NAPCS Discussion Paper "NAPCS Application in the U.S. Statistical System: A Proposal;" 2) MOU between Census and BLS that contains performance agreements as to how the two agencies share business establishment data; 3) Example of IT contracts; and 4) Feedback from interagency meetings with BEA and BLS that describe actions Census, BEA, and BLS jointly take to improve economic statistics.

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The Economic Programs Directorate has used independent and internal evaluations on an as-needed basis to support program improvements. Also, an internal audit process has been initiated for economic surveys and government programs (one audit completed as of August 2005). External scrutiny of programs is facilitated by the Census Advisory Committee of Professional Associations, which consults on methodological and operational issues. In the future, the Bureau should work to implement the audit process in a rigorous manner, and engage its government, academic, and private data consumers in a more proactive fashion. Specific evaluations that focus on the coverage of the economy would be useful. Following are examples of evaluations that have been completed on the program. 1) In 1992, National Research Council's Committee on National Statistics (CNSTAT) completed its evaluation of the foreign trade statistics programs. This evaluation and its recommendations resulted in improvements in coverage, timeliness, and efficiency and reporting burden for trade statistics. 2) In spring 2005, the NRC initiated a study of the state and local government statistics, examining goals, content, statistical methodology, data quality, and data products. 3) Self-assessments of economic indicators are required every three years by OMB Statistical Policy Directive #3. 4) The program conducted an internal evaluation of the Current Industrial Reports (CIR) in 2004, a program that includes over 50 surveys of manufacturing companies. The evaluation used metrics on the importance of the data to users, response rates, cost, and whether the subject matter was large, of growing economic activity, and a source of large changes that impact the economy. The evaluation resulted in dropping 13 CIR surveys, restructuring 7 surveys, adding a new survey on the plastics sector, and establishing a sunset policy for surveys within the program. 5) In 2004, the program initiated an internal Business Process Improvement project to identify ways to improve various operation processes such as automated workflow and electronic tracking systems and ways to standardize current survey collections. The status of these improvements varies, but the majority are not complete. The program also instituted an internal quality audit review process following OMB Quality Guidelines. This is currently in a pilot phase. 6) Studies from the Center for Economic Studies (CES) and Research Data Systems (RDCs) at the Census Bureau also contribute to the ability of the program to produce accurate and relevant statistics. CES research helps the program identify gaps in existing statistics, assess the quality of data, and help improve the general understanding of underlying economic and social processes. Recent examples include reclassifying historical data series on a NAICS basis, the joint Census-BLS business register comparison project, overhauling the Pollution Abatement Costs and Expenditures survey to be more up-to-date, changing questions on the Medical Expenditure Survey, and on-going projects to analyze the quality of the operation and production data collected in the Survey of Plant Capacity and Utilization.

Evidence: Summary of Major Conclusions - Behind the Numbers - U.S. Trade in the World Economy - NRC/CNSTAT 1992: Business Process Improvement team charter and interim report; Economic Lessons Learned team charter; Quality Processes team charter and report; CNSTAT prospectus "Two-Phase Study to Review the State and Local Government Statistics Programs of the U.S. Census Bureau;" Review of the Current Industrial Reports; Research at the Center for Economic Studies and the Research Data Centers: 2000-2004; April 2005 Advisory Committee agenda and charter; Census Bureau audit schedule and completed audits.

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: Budget requests for this program are tied to the accomplishment of strategic and annual performance goals and are presented in an integrated manner within the budget. Specific performance measures, targets, and unit costs are embedded on a program level basis within the budget. The full costs are included and the impact of funding decisions on performance is clear, particularly for initiatives.

Evidence: FY 2006 President's Budget request; and FY 2005 -2006 Annual Performance Plans.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: The program is working to develop more ambitious long-term and annual targets and a more comprehensive program evaluation plan. Periodic internal reviews are also conducted by senior staff that solicit comments from staff and data users to identify and correct any strategic planning deficiencies. These reviews resulted in changes to the Economic Programs Directorate strategic plan and development of objectives that support the plan, e.g. that the program should improve cooperation with respondents and maintain high response which resulted in objectives to develop a more customer service environment and work to ensure the Bureau uses accounting conventions that are used by its respondents. In 2004, six strategic teams were also formed to sytematically incorporate business process improvements, lessons learned, employee feedback, external customer satisfaction metrics, succession management, and quality process review. The program has also begun to tackle issues that impact its information technology infrastructure. These issues include LAN consolidation, Unix consolidation, and data dissemination standards.

Evidence: DoC, Census Bureau, and Economic Programs Directorate's strategic plans; FY 2006 President's Budget and APP.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: The program collects performance data on response rates (by type of questionnaire, establishment, and paper and electronic submissions), release dates of scheduled publications, benchmark revisions, and unit cost data. Extensive feedback from public and private data users is also collected, largely from customer satisfaction surveys, interagency meetings, and advisory group meetings. Actual performance is reported in various monthly, quarterly, and annual cost and performance reports, financial reports and Performance Accountability Reports. These data are used to assess and adjust priorities and to serve as a basis for taking action should the meeting of a performance goal be at risk. Feedback from the 2004 customer survey indicated that users want more timely data products and improved interactive query capability. The program is developing ways to make these improvements in FY 2005.

Evidence: FY 2005-2006 Annual Performance Plans; and FY 2006 President's Budget. Economic Programs Customer Satisfaction Survey: 2004.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: The program has identified the managers who are responsibility for achieving key program results, and annual performance plans for managers include goals and measures linked to the strategic goals of the program, which are linked to the Census Bureau and DOC strategic goals. Individual performance plans contain specific performance standards and targets for areas the manager is responsible for. Performance plans are a part of each manager's annual review and evaluation. The current economic statistics program does not have many partners, or entities that receive funding, with the exception of IT contractors and data sharing agreements with BLS. IT contracts contain performance milestones and are regularly monitored using earned value management. An MOU between Census and BLS defines how the two agencies share industry classification information to improve the completeness and accuracy of their establishment lists. All work, including contracts, is carefully monitored using earned value management. For example, the contract with Flagship Custom Services, Inc. to provide the infrastructure and necessary support and maintenance for the Automated Export System (AES) program has detailed performance metrics embedded in the contract. These metrics are monitored regularly through scheduled status meetings, periodic scheduled testing, user testing feedback, systems recovery testing and testing and acceptance of new components by Foreign Trade Division staff.

Evidence: 1) Individual performance plans; 2) MOU with BLS 3) Examples of IT contracts

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: Program funds are obligated consistently with the overall program plan, and actual obligations are consistent with budget requests and appropriations. The program has established procedures for developing spending plans and reporting and tracking expenditures. Managers periodically review the spending plans to ensure that funds are spent appropriately and that obligations are consistent with the overall program plan. Over 99% of the budgetary resources for this program were obligated for FY 2003 and 2004.

Evidence: FY 2003 and 2004 spending plans and year end financial reports

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The program uses efficiency measures (unit cost and timeliness measures) for its large surveys. The program's IT investments are made to improve efficiencies, such as improving the automated workflow and electronic tracking system and the standardization and generalization of data collection. For example, the Automated Export System has improved response and accuracy in export reporting. The program also utilizes project management techniques to improve scheduling, cost control, risk management, and contract management. Contracts are monitored using earned value management. The program should investigate additional competitive sourcing opportunities.

Evidence: Efficiency measures are contained in the 2006 Budget. Examples of other procedures to improve efficiencies include the following: 1) the program has begun an effort to standardize current survey collections in terms of materials, follow-up strategies, presentation and processing to improve efficiencies; and 2) the program is also working to improve its Business Register maintenance procedures to obtain more timely information about small and medium companies by comparing its register to BLS's register. If the program can use BLS information, this will result in better efficiencies maintaining its business registers. Exhibit 300 Operational Analysis Reports also document IT improvements.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The Current Economic Statistics program works extensively with other federal statistical agencies including BEA, BLS, IRS, and the Federal Reserve Board to collaborate and coordinate related programs. The Directorate participates in the Interagency Council on Statistical Policy (ICSP), the Federal Economic Statistics Advisory Committee, the Conference on Research in Income and Wealth (CRIW), Economic Classification Policy Committee (ECPC), and other joint organizations; and works closely with the National Association for Business Economics (NABE) and other private sector organizations and meets regularly with staff from these agencies to ensure everyone is working toward the program goals. The interagency meetings and with BEA and BLS have resulted in new improvements to the quarterly and annual services survey and expansion of the annual capital expenditure survey to collect business expenditures information. These improvements in Census surveys are important to BEA to improve GDP estimates and to BLS to improve productivity measures.

Evidence: OMB publication "Statistical Programs of the U.S. Government" describes how statistical agencies work together. Coordination efforts with the ICSP has resulted in the FedStats website, initiated by the ICSP in May 1997, and has contributed to the passage of the Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (CIPSEA), which in part permits the sharing of business data among BEA, BLS, and Census. Interagency meeting information are used to plan and coordinate budget proposals, included in FY 2005 and FY 2006 President's Budgets. The program has an MOU with BLS that outlines the purpose, objectives, and performance milestones of comparing their business registers.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: Census Bureau financial information is accurate and timely and performance and financial information are integrated to support day-to-day operations. Spending reports are reviewed monthly to ensure accuracy. The Census Bureau's financial management practices have resulted in a clean opinion on its financial audit since FY 1999.

Evidence: FY 2004 Department of Commerce Financial Report, Performance Accountability Report; Commerce/Census CAMS documentation

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: The program initiated a Business Process Improvement Team in 2004 to identify ways to reduce costs and improve efficiencies. Recommendations (e.g. on standardizing data collection and improving data editing) are being refined and implemented. In addition to these recommendations, the program recently adopted a standardized IT processing model for its surveys that replaces several legacy systems. The program also uses competency based guides and survey tools like 360 degree assessments and the OPM organizational assessment survey to identify management deficiencies. Where issues of competency have been identified, steps have been taken to correct them through additional training. The program is working to incorporate the program's goals and performance measures into all employee performance plans and hold employees accountable for results appropriate to their level of responsibility.

Evidence: Background materials about business process improvement team, training programs, 360 degree assessment, the project management certificate program, March 2005 paper "Successful Use of Project Management In the Economic Directorate."

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: In general, the program is on track in meeting the long-term performance goals noted in Q 2.1 to improve relevance, quality, accuracy, and timeliness of statistics; and to minimize reporting burden. Notably, the program routinely meets its release schedules for its economic indicators, maintains a relatively high survey response rate, and works to minimize data revisions. The existing coverage gap in the service sector is the most significant challenge to the program. The program has set in place milestones to close this gap, and should work toward this goal in a timely manner.

Evidence: FY 2003 and 2004 Performance and Accountability Reports, FY 2006 President's Budget, and Economic Programs Directorate Strategic Plan.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: During FY 2004 all annual performance targets for the Current Economic Statistics programs were met. These included the on time release of 116 principal economic indicators and the achievement of targeted response rates of at least 75% in order to provide statistically reliable data for the Annual Trade Survey (81%), the Annual Retail Trade Survey (83%), the Service Annual Survey (78%), and the Annual Survey of Manufactures (81%). In addition, all 2002 Census of Governments data products were released on time. However, the response rates for the Census of Governments, a program where response is voluntary, did not meet planned targets. The target for the employment phase was 80% and the finance phase was 82%. The actual response rate for the employment phase was 77%, and the finance phase was 77%. The program should continue to examine opportunities for efficiencies, particularly in unit costs of surveys. Also, the program should continually examine its resource allocation to ensure program relevancy, specifically as pertains to GDP coverage of surveys.

Evidence: DoC Strategic Plan; Census Bureau Strategic Plan; Economic Programs Directorate's Strategic Plan 2004-2008; Census Bureau FY 2005-2006 Annual Performance Plans; FY 2004 Performance and Accountability Report; and Current Economic Statistics release schedules.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: Some unit costs for the surveys have decreased on an year-to-year basis, though in the long-term costs fluctuate due to programmatic changes. High fixed costs in survey administration (related primarily to personnel) present a challenge to efficiency capture, though the program has begun to evaluate opportunities for cost savings. The program has conducted an extensive evaluation of the Current Industrial Reports. This review resulted in 11 surveys being canceled and a number of other surveys changing. However, electronic filing is currently only offered in 8 series (out of 30 survey series) and rates of electronic reporting are often below 30%. The program is working to improve these rates and institute a more customer service-oriented environment. Benefits to electronic reporting may not create broad-based savings, given infrastructure requirements for a conversion from paper. However, savings were produced through the Automated Export System (savings estimated at $1.10 per survey), which also produced greater timeliness and accuracy of data reporting. The program has also begun several initiatives to improve its business processes, including ways to improve data collection and standardization across the surveys. These efforts should help to improve operational efficiency in the future. Also, planned expansion of service sector coverage in the absence of dedicated resources requires operational efficiency and savings in other areas. This effort necessitates a process of ongoing evaluation of resource allocation, which will help to ensure that funds are directed appropriately to meet strategic goals. The Bureau should expedite this effort to ensure cost savings as well as operational integrity.

Evidence: FY 2006 President's Budget submission; Census Bureau Strategic Plan FY 2004-2008; Economic Programs Directorate's Strategic Plan 2004-2008; FY 2005-2006 Annual Performance Plans; FY 2003 and 2004 Performance & Accountability Reports; Review of the Current Industrial Report Program 2003-2004; and Business Process Improvement Team Interim Report - January 12, 2005.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: While other countries conduct current economic surveys and benchmark censuses, the Census Bureau has few if any peers in terms of its programs scope and coverage, level of collected and published data, and cost effectiveness. The Census Bureau is the primary source of information regarding the nation's economy and governments. The program also compares favorably to other Federal statistical agencies in terms of response rates, timeliness of data releases, and survey unit costs. Further, the economic data produced by the Bureau serves as a model for many national and international statistical programs.

Evidence: FY 2003 PAR; FY 2006 President's Budget submission, Census Bureau and Economic Directorate strategic plans, 2005 OMB Report Budgets for Statistical Programs. The program largely follows the performance measure guidelines of the Interagency Council on Statistical Policy, as documented in Analytical Perspectives of the 2006 Budget. U.S. statistics are considered the most comprehensive and timely as shown by IMF Special Data Dissemination Standard National Summary Data. The on-time delivery of the 116 principal indicators and the five major annual surveys, ASM, ARTS, ATS. SAS, and Employment compares favorably to the IMF's "Special Data Dissemination Standard" as of first quarter 2005, which showed for the 60 subscribing surveys the on-time data dissemination for monthly data to be 88% and for quarterly data to be 89%. See links to IMF for further information.(http://dsbb.imf.org/Applications/web/soomulticountryreport/0,2695,,00.html) (www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdds/q/2005/eng/01/index.htm)

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: Independent evaluations of the programs' processes and performance have in the past indicated they are efficient and achieving expected results. In 1992, National Research Council's Committee on National Statistics (CNSTAT) completed its evaluation of the foreign trade statistics programs. This evaluation and its recommendations resulted in improvements in coverage, timeliness, and efficiency and reporting burden for trade statistics. Self-assessments of economic indicators are required every three years by OMB Statistical Policy Directive #3. These have shown that the program is meeting its performance objectives, and have pointed out areas for improvement, for example, expanding the coverage of the Quarterly Financial Report to include more of the service sector. Studies from the Center for Economic Studies (CES) and Research Data Systems (RDCs) at the Census Bureau also contribute to the ability of the program to produce accurate and relevant statistics. Recent examples include reclassifying historical data series on a NAICS basis, the joint Census-BLS business register comparison project, overhauling the Pollution Abatement Costs and Expenditures survey to be more up-to-date, changing questions on the Medical Expenditure Survey, and on-going projects to analyze the quality of the operation and production data collected in the Survey of Plant Capacity and Utilization. On-going efforts include contracting with a CPA to provide expert advice on accounting and income tax issues that impact data collection efforts, and entering into an Agreement with CNSTAT to study the state and local government statistics programs. An internal audit process and schedule have been initiated for the programs, with one evaluation completed to date. Audit results on program surveys will enable an informed assessment of performance. Also, the Bureau should pursue opportunities for external scruity of its programs to ensure customer input and to incorporate new developments and external expertise that exist outside of its immediate partners.

Evidence: Summary of Major Conclusions - Behind the Numbers - U.S. Trade in the World Economy - NRC/CNSTAT 1992; CNSTAT prospectus "Two-Phase Study to Review the State and Local Government Statistics Programs of the U.S. Census Bureau;" Research at the Center for Economic Studies and the Research Data Centers: 2000-2004; OMB principal economic indicator evaluations.