2010 Census: Census Bureau Is Making Progress on the Local Update
of Census Addresses Program, but Improvements Are Needed
(26-JUN-07, GAO-07-1063T).
The Department of Commerce's U.S. Census Bureau (Bureau) seeks
updated information on the addresses and maps of housing units
from state, local, and tribal governments through the Local
Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) program. This testimony
discusses (1) the status of the LUCA program, and (2) the
Bureau's response to prior issues raised by GAO as well as new
challenges related to the program. The testimony is based on a
GAO report issued on June 14, 2007. GAO reviewed LUCA program
documents, met with and surveyed participants in the LUCA Dress
Rehearsal, and interviewed Bureau officials and local officials.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-07-1063T
ACCNO: A71426
TITLE: 2010 Census: Census Bureau Is Making Progress on the
Local Update of Census Addresses Program, but Improvements Are
Needed
DATE: 06/26/2007
SUBJECT: Census
Data collection
Housing
Local governments
Mailing lists
Program evaluation
Research programs
Software
Surveys
Training utilization
Program implementation
2010 Decennial Census
Census Bureau Local Update of Census
Addresses Program
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO 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. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-07-1063T
* [1]Background
* [2]The Bureau Has Completed Nearly All Planned Activities for t
* [3]Contact and Acknowledgments
* [4]Order by Mail or Phone
Testimony
Before the Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National
Archives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of
Representatives
United States Government Accountability Office
GAO
For Release on Delivery
Expected at 2:00 p.m., EDT
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
2010 CENSUS
Census Bureau Is Making Progress on the Local Update of Census Addresses
Program, but Improvements Are Needed
Statement of Mathew J. Scire
Director, Strategic Issues
GAO-07-1063T
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Turner, and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss the Census Bureau's (Bureau)
progress in testing and implementing its Local Update of Census Addresses
(LUCA) program. In 1994 Congress required the Bureau to develop a local
address review program in order to give local and tribal governments
greater input into the Bureau's address list development process.1 This
program, LUCA, gives these governments the opportunity to review the
accuracy and completeness of the Bureau's address information for their
respective jurisdictions, and suggest corrections where warranted. In
Census 2000, LUCA participants expressed frustrations about the program,
including the burden the program placed on the resources of local
governments. As a result, the Bureau undertook efforts in preparation for
the 2010 LUCA to reduce this burden. My testimony today discusses (1) the
current status of the LUCA effort, and (2) how the Bureau is addressing
prior issues and new challenges associated with implementing LUCA.
As you know, the census is a critical national effort mandated by the
Constitution. Census data are used to apportion seats in the Congress,
redraw congressional districts, allocate billions of dollars in federal
assistance to state and local governments, and for numerous other public
and private sector purposes. Hence, failure for the decennial is not an
option and the Bureau employs a number of quality assurance programs
throughout the course of the census to ensure it delivers quality data.
One such program is LUCA. The success of LUCA can help to contribute to
accurate address lists and precise maps, which are key to a quality
census. Together, accurate address lists and maps help ensure that (1)
questionnaires are properly delivered; (2) unnecessary and costly
follow-up efforts at vacant and nonexistent residences are reduced; and
(3) the population is counted in their proper locations, which is the
basis of congressional apportionment and redistricting.
My remarks today are based primarily on our recent report on how the
Bureau has improved its LUCA program since the last decennial.2 During the
autumn of 2006, we observed preparations for and the conduct of LUCA for
the 2008 Dress Rehearsal in sites located in North Carolina and
California. We reviewed LUCA program documents and interviewed Bureau
officials. Further, we conducted a Web-based survey of LUCA Dress
Rehearsal participants in California and North Carolina to gauge their
satisfaction with how the Bureau addressed prior recommendations and new
challenges for the LUCA program. We also performed structured phone
interviews with several localities that decided not to participate in the
LUCA Dress Rehearsal.3 We conducted our work in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.
1Census Address List Improvement Act, Pub. L. 103-430 (Oct. 31, 1994).
2GAO, 2010 Census: Census Bureau Has Improved the Local Update of Census
Addresses Program, but Challenges Remain, GAO-07-736 (Washington, D.C.:
June 14, 2007).
In summary, Mr. Chairman, our recent work has shown that the Bureau has
made progress in planning for and implementing LUCA. For example, the
Bureau has completed nearly all of its planned LUCA Dress Rehearsal
operations in accordance with its published timeline, and has taken steps
to reduce participant workload and burden and improve training. However,
the Bureau can do more to mitigate possible difficulties that participants
may have with new LUCA software and training. Specifically, the Bureau
could do more to assess the usability of software designed to assist LUCA
participants in reviewing and updating address and map data and to test
computer-based training. In addition, many participants in the Dress
Rehearsal experienced problems converting Bureau-provided address files
into their own software formats. The Bureau could do more to provide
information to localities on how to convert files from the Bureau to their
respective applications.
We also found that the Bureau could do more to understand the effect that
the LUCA program may have. For example, while the Bureau planned to assess
the contribution of LUCA to housing unit counts, it had not decided
whether to assess the contribution of the program to the population count,
and it did not plan to collect information on the number of participants
involved in LUCA that do not respond because they have no changes. The
Bureau agreed to implement recommendations we made that address each of
the concerns discussed above. We look forward to its action plan, due in
August 2007, for how it will implement our recommendations.
3Sixty-two localities were eligible to participate in the LUCA Dress
Rehearsal. The Bureau identified 44 state, county, and municipal
governments that had signed up to participate, had been shipped at least
some of the material needed to perform their reviews, and had not
subsequently formally indicated to the Bureau that they had decided to
drop out of the review process. As part of our Web-based survey,
questionnaires were sent to 42 local governments and completed by 31 such
governments, for a response rate of 74 percent. Of the 18 localities that
were eligible to participate in the LUCA Dress Rehearsal but did not take
part in the program, we also conducted 7 structured interviews (in person
and by telephone).
Background
The Bureau's approach to building complete and accurate address lists and
maps consists of a series of operations that sometimes overlap and are
conducted over several years. These operations include partnerships with
the U.S. Postal Service and other federal agencies; state, local and
tribal governments; local planning organizations; the private sector; and
nongovernmental entities. LUCA is one of those operations that give local
and tribal governments direct input into the Bureau's address database.
LUCA was first implemented for the 2000 Census.4 Under the LUCA program,
the Bureau is authorized (prior to the decennial census) to share
individual residential addresses with officials of tribal, state, and
local governments who agree to protect the Title 13 confidentiality of the
information.5 LUCA allows participants to review, comment on, and provide
updated information on the list of addresses and maps that the Bureau will
use to deliver questionnaires within their communities. According to the
Bureau, because of their knowledge of or access to data in their
jurisdictions, LUCA participants may be better positioned to identify some
housing units that are hard to find or are hidden. For example, local
governments may have alternate sources of address information--such as
utility bills, tax records, information from housing or zoning officials,
or 911 emergency systems--which can help the Bureau build a complete and
accurate address list.
For 2010, the Bureau plans to invite approximately 40,000 entities to
participate in LUCA.6 After localities that opt to participate in LUCA
have submitted their updated maps and address lists, the Bureau conducts a
field check called address canvassing. At that time, the address
canvassers for the 2010 Census, will go door-to-door (using handheld
computers equipped with a global positioning system) updating the address
list. Through the address canvassing operation, the Bureau can ensure that
all changes submitted for the LUCA program actually exist and that they
are assigned to the correct census block. After address canvassing the
Bureau will provide feedback to LUCA participants on the actions taken.
Should local governments disagree during LUCA 2010, they can appeal the
Bureau's actions to the Census Address List Appeals Office. In preparation
for the 2010 Census, both LUCA and the subsequent address canvassing
operation will be tested as part of the Bureau's Dress Rehearsal taking
place in nine counties in the Fayetteville, North Carolina, area and San
Joaquin County, California.
4The 2000 LUCA program had two separate components: the 1998 city-style
address operation and the 1999 non-city-style address operation.
513 U.S.C. S9(a).
6For the 2000 Census, of the 39,051 eligible entities--such as cities and
counties--for LUCA participation, 20,718 chose not to participate; 5,525
entities signed participation agreements; 2,877 entities returned
materials but recorded no updates or action; and 9,931 entities submitted
at least one address action or challenged at least one block.
The Bureau Has Completed Nearly All Planned Activities for the LUCA Dress
Rehearsal and the First Step of the 2010 LUCA Program
The Bureau has completed nearly all planned operations for the LUCA Dress
Rehearsal in accordance with the LUCA Dress Rehearsal timeline (see fig.
1).7 On June 26, 2007 the Bureau expects to complete address
canvassing--an operation designed to verify all housing units at the Dress
Rehearsal sites, including changes provided by LUCA participants. Next,
the Dress Rehearsal participants will have the opportunity to review
materials regarding their submissions--this is scheduled to take place
from December 2007 through January 2008.
The Bureau met the first date on its LUCA Dress Rehearsal timeline when it
mailed the advance notification letters and informational materials to the
highest elected officials in February 2006. The Bureau officially invited
localities to participate in LUCA, provided participant training, and
shipped LUCA materials on schedule. Additionally, localities reviewed and
updated LUCA materials within the June to October 2006 period specified on
the timeline. The Bureau also finished its review of participants' LUCA
submissions and updated the MAF/TIGER8 geographic database in December
2006.
7Bureau headquarters and the Charlotte regional office provided us with
internal timelines for the 2010 LUCA Program and the LUCA Dress Rehearsal
operations held in parts of California and North Carolina from June
through October 2006. Additionally, we obtained a public version of the
Bureau's timelines for both the LUCA Dress Rehearsal and the 2010 LUCA
Program from its Web site,
[5]http://www.census.gov/geo/www/luca2010/luca.html .
8The Bureau's address list is known as the Master Address File (MAF); its
associated geographic information system is called the Topologically
Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (TIGER) database. TIGER is
a registered trademark of the U.S. Census Bureau.
Figure 1: Bureau's LUCA Dress Rehearsal Timeline and Status
It is important to note that while the Bureau generally met the time
frames listed in its published LUCA Dress Rehearsal timeline, some
activities were not included in that timeline. For example, plans to test
newly developed software, which is intended to assist participating
localities in their 2010 LUCA reviews, and test the new computer-based
LUCA training were not included in the Bureau's LUCA Dress Rehearsal
schedule--precluding the opportunity to test these software products under
census-like conditions.
To begin preparation for the 2010 Census, LUCA has already sent the
advance notification letters to the highest elected officials in each of
the eligible localities (see fig. 2). For Census 2000, slightly over half
of the eligible localities chose not to participate; for the 2010 Census,
the Bureau has set a participation goal of 60 percent.
Figure 2: Bureau's 2010 LUCA Timeline
Note: See the Bureau's Web site,
[6]http://www.census.gov/geo/www/luca2010/luca.html .
Bureau Modified LUCA to Address Issues from the Census 2000 Experience,
but Faces New Challenges for 2010
The Bureau has taken steps to reduce participants' workloads and burdens
and improve training--all areas that the National Research Council (NRC),
we, and others had identified as needing improvement for Census 2000.
Building on the progress it has made, the Bureau could take additional
steps to address new challenges in these areas, as well as issues related
to measuring overall program effectiveness.
To reduce the workload and burden on LUCA participants, the Bureau
provided a longer period--from 90 to 120 days--for reviewing and updating
LUCA materials. This extension was well received by LUCA Dress Rehearsal
participants, as the majority of respondents to our survey indicated that
120 days allowed adequate time for them to complete the LUCA review (see
fig. 3).
Figure 3: LUCA Dress Rehearsal Participants' Views on the Adequacy of Time
Allowed to Complete the Review
Another change aimed at reducing workload and burden is providing
localities with more options for how they may participate in the LUCA
program. Those options are: (1) full address list review with count
review, (2) Title 13 local address list submission, and (3) non-Title 13
local address list submission. The options differ in the level of review
of Bureau materials by participating localities and in requirements to
adhere to rules concerning confidentiality of information. For example,
under option 1, participants directly edit Bureau-provided address lists
and maps. Under option 2, participants review Bureau-provided maps but
submit their own address lists in Bureau-provided formats. Under option 3,
participants do not receive address lists from the Bureau, but may provide
their own address lists to the Bureau and edit Bureau-provided maps. A
majority of LUCA Dress Rehearsal participants that we surveyed were
satisfied with the options that the Bureau provided.
To assist LUCA participants in updating the Bureau's address list and maps
electronically, the Bureau has created MAF/TIGER Partnership Software
(MTPS). This software will enable users to import address lists and maps
for comparison to the Bureau's data and participate in both the LUCA and
another geographic program, the Boundary and Annexation Survey (BAS)9 at
the same time. The Bureau has also planned improvements to the 2010 LUCA
program training by separately offering specialized workshops for
informational and technical training and by supplementing the workshops
with computer-based training (CBT). Finally, based on complaints about the
multiphased LUCA program from the 2000 experience (where some participants
found the two separate operations for city-style and non-city-style
addresses to be confusing), the Bureau designed the 2010 LUCA program to
be a single operation for all addresses.
All of these steps are intended to help reduce the burden on localities'
participation in LUCA. However, there are additional steps the Bureau
could take to ease participant burden. For example, the Bureau could do
more to assess the usability of the MTPS software. The Bureau did not test
MTPS as part of the LUCA Dress Rehearsal, and tested MTPS with only one
locality in preparation for the 2010 LUCA program. Properly executed
user-based methods for software testing can give the truest estimate of
the extent to which real users can employ a software application
effectively, efficiently, and satisfactorily. In response to
recommendations to our report on the 2010 LUCA program, the Bureau agreed
to better assess the usability of the MTPS for 2010.
Some participants will not rely on the MTPS. For these participants, the
Bureau could do more to help them use their own software. We found that
participants in the LUCA Dress Rehearsal experienced problems converting
files from the Bureau's format to their respective applications--our
survey of LUCA Dress Rehearsal participants revealed that the majority of
respondents had, to some extent, problems with file conversions to
appropriate formats. Our fieldwork also revealed issues pertaining to file
conversion. For example, one local official noted that it took him two
days to determine how to convert the Bureau's pipe-delimited files. The
Bureau previously informed us that, to mitigate the potential burden on
localities that choose not to use MTPS, it would provide technical
guidance on file conversion through its LUCA technical help desk; however,
it does not plan to provide instructions for converting Bureau-provided
address files through other means. At present, the Bureau does not know
how many localities will opt not to use MTPS for LUCA as part of the 2010
Census, but those localities may face the same challenges faced by
participants in the LUCA Dress Rehearsal. In response to recommendations
in our report on the 2010 LUCA program, the Bureau agreed to disseminate
instructions on file conversion on its Web site and provide instructions
to help desk callers.
9The Bureau conducts the BAS annually to collect information about
selected defined geographic areas. The BAS is used to update information
about the legal boundaries and names of all governmental units in the
United States.
The Bureau did not test the CBT it developed to supplement its new
workshops for informational and technical training during the Dress
Rehearsal. Though participants were not provided with CBT in the LUCA
Dress Rehearsal, our work found that this method of training is viewed by
participants as helpful. Specifically, respondents to our survey ranked
CBT higher than classroom training, in terms of being "extremely" or
"very" useful. Additionally, local officials told us that CBT was more
convenient for them because they need not leave their offices or adjust
their schedules to learn how the LUCA program works. Because this is a new
aspect of the LUCA program and will be used nationally, it is important to
test and improve the training prior to implementing it for multiple local
jurisdictions. In response to recommendations in our report on the 2010
LUCA program, the Bureau agreed to test the CBT software with local
governments.
Overall, the effect that the LUCA program may have on housing unit and
population counts is not known. To perform such analysis, the Bureau
should collect additional data. Specifically, we found that although the
Bureau has not finalized its evaluation plans regarding the 2010 LUCA
program, Bureau officials have stated that it intends to assess the LUCA's
contribution to housing unit counts and would consider a plan to assess
the program's contribution to the census population count. Such analysis
is important because it would provide a measure of the ultimate effect of
LUCA on achieving a complete count of the population. However, the Bureau
does not have a method of distinguishing between localities that agreed to
participate in the program but do not submit an update because they have
no changes, and localities that did not submit an update because they did
not review the materials. Without this information, the Bureau cannot
fully measure the extent to which local reviews have contributed toward
accurate address lists and population counts. In response to
recommendations in our report on the 2010 LUCA program, the Bureau agreed
to establish a process for localities to indicate that they participated
in LUCA but found no changes to address lists and maps.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, the success of the census depends in large part
on the ability of the Bureau to locate and deliver questionnaires to every
household in the United States. To accomplish this monumental task, the
Bureau must maintain accurate address and map information for every
location where a person could reside. We applaud the moves the Bureau has
undertaken to improve its LUCA program so that user workload and burden
are reduced, thus, making it easier for local and tribal governments to
provide input into the accuracy and completeness of the Bureau's address
information for their respective jurisdictions. However, there is more the
Bureau can do to address information- technology-based challenges to the
LUCA program prior to the 2010 Census. The Bureau performed little user
testing of MTPS and no user testing of the CBT module for the LUCA Dress
Rehearsal. Testing new technology will help the Bureau identify any issues
related to the usability of the MTPS and CBT software. Finally, without
better data on why some localities that agree to participate do not
provide updated information, the Bureau may be hampered in its ability to
estimate the effect of the LUCA program on the MAF database and the census
population count.
As in the past, we look forward to supporting this subcommittee's
oversight efforts to promote a timely, complete, accurate, and
cost-effective census.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Turner, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be
pleased to respond to any questions that you or other members of the
subcommittee might have.
Contact and Acknowledgments
For questions regarding this testimony, please contact Mathew J. Scire, on
(202) 512-6806, or by e-mail at sciremj@gao.gov. Individuals making
contributions to this testimony include Lisa Pearson, David Bobruff, Betty
Clark, Jennifer Edwards, Ernie Hazera, Mark Ryan, and Tim Wexler.
(450610)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.
GAO's Mission
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site ( [7]www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To
have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
[8]www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000
TDD: (202) 512-2537
Fax: (202) 512-6061
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
Contact:
Web site: [9]www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: [10]fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
Congressional Relations
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [11]JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
D.C. 20548
Public Affairs
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [12]AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
[13]www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1063T .
To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.
For more information, contact Mathew J. Scire at (202) 512-6806 or
sciremj@gao.gov.
Highlights of [14]GAO-07-1063T , a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Information Policy, Census, and National Archives, Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform, House of Representatives
June 26, 2007
2010 CENSUS
Census Bureau Is Making Progress on the Local Update of Census Addresses
Program, but Improvements Are Needed
The Department of Commerce's U.S. Census Bureau (Bureau) seeks updated
information on the addresses and maps of housing units from state, local,
and tribal governments through the Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA)
program. This testimony discusses (1) the status of the LUCA program, and
(2) the Bureau's response to prior issues raised by GAO as well as new
challenges related to the program.
The testimony is based on a GAO report issued on June 14, 2007. GAO
reviewed LUCA program documents, met with and surveyed participants in the
LUCA Dress Rehearsal, and interviewed Bureau officials and local
officials.
[15]What GAO Recommends
At this time, GAO is not making any new recommendations, but GAO's June
2007 report recommended that the Secretary of Commerce direct the Bureau
to take several actions to improve the LUCA program, including further
assessing usability issues of the MAF/TIGER Partnership Software (MTPS)
and the computer-based training (CBT) software, as well as providing
further instructions on converting files. GAO also recommended that the
Bureau collect additional data on localities that agree to participate but
provide no response.
The Bureau has conducted its planned LUCA operations in accordance with
its published timeline. The Bureau has also taken steps to reduce burden
and improve training for localities that participate in LUCA--all areas
GAO and others had identified as needing improvement. For instance, to
reduce participant burden, the Bureau provided a longer period for
reviewing and updating LUCA materials; provided options for submitting
materials for the LUCA program; combined the collection of LUCA addresses
from two separate operations into one integrated program; and created
MAF/TIGER Partnership Software (MTPS), which is designed to assist LUCA
program participants in reviewing and updating address and map data. Also,
the Bureau has planned improvements to the 2010 LUCA program training and
plans to supplement the workshops with computer-based training (CBT).
LUCA participants that GAO surveyed report that they had adequate time to
complete the LUCA review, and a majority of the participants were
satisfied with the options for submitting materials. However, the Bureau
faces new challenges. For instance, the Bureau tested MTPS with only one
local government and did not test its CBT software in the LUCA Dress
Rehearsal. Also, many participants had difficulty converting
Bureau-provided files to their own software formats. Finally, the Bureau
does not collect certain data on localities that agree to participate in
LUCA but provide no response. This information is needed to fully assess
the effect of the LUCA program on address lists and population counts.
References
Visible links
5. http://www.census.gov/geo/www/luca2010/luca.html
6. http://www.census.gov/geo/www/luca2010/luca.html
7. http://www.gao.gov/
8. http://www.gao.gov/
9. http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
10. mailto:fraudnet@gao.gov
11. mailto:JarmonG@gao.gov
12. mailto:AndersonP1@gao.gov
13. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1063T
14. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1063T
*** End of document. ***