The Paper Based Operations Control System (PBOCS) has not functioned reliably in tests Despite hardware and software upgrades, it "may not be able to perform as needed under full operational loads," the US Government Accountability Office said. "So far, it is not as stable as it needs to be," GAO Strategic Issues Director Robert Goldenkoff said before the start of a recent Congressional hearing on the Census.
The paper-based system's hasty design began in early 2008, after the Census Bureau scrapped plans to use handheld-computers that didn't work. That blunder alone cost taxpayers more than $700 million. Returning to a paper-based method has increased the cost of the 2010 Census by about $3 billion.
PBOCS will generate assignments for the roughly 635,000 enumerators hired to visit about 48 million homes to count people who did not return their forms by mail. Instead of getting instructions from the cell phone-like handheld machines as planned, enumerators will receive assignments on paper.
More than 63 percent of US households returned their census forms by mail, well within the Bureau's target range. According to the GAO, the Bureau has hired enough enumerators to complete the at-home visits. Census enumerators began their field work on May 1, 2010.
What's your opinion? Now that the Obama Regime has forcibly taken over the US healthcare system, will it be managed better than the 2010 Census? Is there anything the Federal government runs efficiently?
Actually, 72% filled them out by mail! Considering the incredibly difficult task of counting more than 300,000,000 people in the United States I think they're doing a pretty darn good job.ReplyDelete
Kaleena - thanks for the comment. It's not an easy job to count 300 million people, and we didn't say it was. We were simply pointing out that once again, a Federal agency is NOT managing the job well, and is incurring huge cost overruns.ReplyDelete
What is that supposed to mean, Fred? We've NEVER had a cost overrun in the billions of dollars on any project we've managed. Have you?ReplyDelete