Audit of Data Collection and Quality Control Procedures for the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey

View Report

Title Full

Date Issued

Tuesday, March 10, 2026

Submitting OIG

Department of Commerce OIG

Agencies Reviewed/Investigated

Department of Commerce

Components

U.S. Census Bureau

Report Number

OIG-26-010-A

Report Description

Our objective was to determine whether the U.S. Census Bureau has implemented adequate data collection procedures to ensure that American Community Survey (ACS) estimates are reliable. We found that the bureau did not effectively implement its data collection and quality control procedures to ensure that ACS estimates were reliable. We also found that the bureau did not sufficiently monitor ISR data collection procedures and did not effectively implement personal visit data collection and quality control procedures.

Report Type

Audit

Agency Wide

Yes

Number of Recommendations

Questioned Costs

Funds for Better Use

Report updated under NDAA 5274

External Link

https://www.oig.doc.gov/reports/?entry=63670

Open Recommendations

This report has 16 open recommendations.

Recommendation Number	Significant Recommendation	Recommended Questioned Costs	Recommended Funds for Better Use
2	No	$0	$0
We recommend that the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau develop and implement procedures for maintaining documentation of testing, the issues identified, and the resolution of errors identified.
3	No	$0	$0
We recommend that the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau develop and implement a process to monitor and evaluate the quality of the data during the data collection phase.
4	No	$0	$0
We recommend that the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau establish and implement oversight to ensure that issues identified during the data collection phase are resolved and documentation is maintained.
5	No	$0	$0
We recommend that the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau develop and implement a process to conduct recurring tests of ARC responses to ensure that the bureau’s systems are processing data as intended.
6	No	$0	$0
We recommend that the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau develop and implement recurring ACS training for FRs to ensure that vacant HUs are correctly identified and coded.
7	No	$0	$0
We recommend that the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau update policies and procedures to include controls to ensure that FRs make personal visits to HUs when required, know when to contact a recommended contact and know what information should be included in an interview note.
8	No	$0	$0
We recommend that the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau Update policies and procedures and implement controls to ensure that field supervisors review interview notes for vacant HU interviews and request FRs to reclassify interviews and obtain additional information to support the vacant status for HUs, when necessary.
9	No	$0	$0
We recommend that the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau update policies and procedures and implement controls to monitor supervisory reviews of noninterview cases and ensure that notes include sufficient information and follow-up actions when Type A cases are submitted.
10	No	$0	$0
We recommend that the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau reevaluate and update timelines and training for supervisory review of noninterviews to ensure that all noninterview procedures are implemented and cases are reviewed by supervisors before closeout.
11	No	$0	$0
We recommend that the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau develop and implement procedures to track and monitor supervisory review within ROSCO to ensure that approval of noninterview procedures were followed before closing out a case for supervisory review in ROSCO.
12	No	$0	$0
We recommend that the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau develop and implement recurring testing of system controls in ROSCO to ensure that noninterview cases are reviewed by a supervisor before being closed out.
13	No	$0	$0
We recommend that the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau reevaluate and update the design of the reinterview operation to meet the bureau’s goal of detecting and deterring falsification, considering (1) staffing and funding constraints, (2) FR behavior and experience, and (3) respondents’ reluctance to respond to reinterviews.
14	No	$0	$0
We recommend that the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau evaluate and determine the extent to which FR data falsification occurs during resident-level GQ interviews and revise the reinterview operation to include GQ residents, as appropriate.
15	No	$0	$0
We recommend that the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau develop and implement controls to ensure that reinterviews are conducted for remote Alaska cases in a timely manner.
16	No	$0	$0
We recommend that the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau develop and implement FR Data Tool policies and procedures that require supervisors to respond within 2 weeks of the initial inquiry.
17	No	$0	$0
We recommend that the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau update policies and procedures to ensure that field supervisors and regional survey managers are notified of response deadlines for inquiries developed through the FR Data Tool and implement controls to ensure that they respond within 2 weeks.