    2010 Census: Census Bureau Has Improved the Local Update of
    Census Addresses Program, but Challenges Remain (14-JUN-07,
    GAO-07-736).

    The Department of Commerce's (Commerce) U.S. Census Bureau
    (Bureau) seeks updated information on the addresses and maps of
    housing units and group quarters from state, local, and tribal
    governments through the Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA)
    Program. Prepared under the Comptroller General's authority, this
    report assesses (1) the status of the LUCA Program, (2) the
    Bureau's response to prior recommendations by GAO and others and
    new challenges related to the program, and (3) the Bureau's plans
    for conducting the program in areas affected by hurricanes
    Katrina and Rita. GAO reviewed LUCA program documents, met with
    and surveyed participants in the LUCA Dress Rehearsal, and
    interviewed Bureau officials and local officials in the Gulf
    Coast region.
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-07-736
        ACCNO:   A70871
      TITLE:     2010 Census: Census Bureau Has Improved the Local Update
    of Census Addresses Program, but Challenges Remain
         DATE:   06/14/2007
      SUBJECT:   Census
    	     Data collection
    	     Housing
    	     Hurricane Katrina
    	     Hurricane Rita
    	     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

    	     Gulf Coast

    ******************************************************************
    ** 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-07-736

         * [1]Results in Brief
         * [2]Background
         * [3]The Bureau Has Completed Nearly All Planned Activities for t
         * [4]Bureau Modified the LUCA Program to Address Issues from the

              * [5]Bureau Addressed Issues about Workload and Burden, but Chall
              * [6]Bureau Plans Improvements to the 2010 LUCA Program Training
              * [7]Bureau Has Not Collected Information Needed to Fully Assess

         * [8]Bureau Has Proposed but Not Finalized Steps to Address Issue
         * [9]Conclusions
         * [10]Recommendations for Executive Action
         * [11]Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
         * [12]GAO Contact
         * [13]Acknowledgments
         * [14]GAO's Mission
         * [15]Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

              * [16]Order by Mail or Phone

         * [17]To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
         * [18]Congressional Relations
         * [19]Public Affairs

    Report to Congressional Addressees

    United States Government Accountability Office

    GAO

    June 2007

    2010 CENSUS

    Census Bureau Has Improved the Local Update of Census Addresses Program,
    but Challenges Remain

    GAO-07-736

    Contents

    Letter 1

    Results in Brief 3
    Background 6
    The Bureau Has Completed Nearly All Planned Activities for the LUCA Dress
    Rehearsal and the First Step of the 2010 LUCA Program 11
    Bureau Modified the LUCA Program to Address Issues from the 2000
    Experience but Faces New Challenges 13
    Bureau Has Proposed but Not Finalized Steps to Address Issues in
    Hurricane-Affected Areas 24
    Conclusions 29
    Recommendations for Executive Action 31
    Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 31
    Appendix I Scope and Methodology 33
    Appendix II Comments from the Department of Commerce 36
    Appendix III Web-Based Survey of LUCA Dress Rehearsal Participants 41
    Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 53
    Related GAO Products 54

    Figures

    Figure 1: Map of the Bureau's California Dress Rehearsal Site 9
    Figure 2: Map of the Bureau's North Carolina Dress Rehearsal Site 10
    Figure 3: Bureau's LUCA Dress Rehearsal Timeline and Status 12
    Figure 4: Bureau's 2010 LUCA Timeline 13
    Figure 5: LUCA Dress Rehearsal Participants' Views on the Adequacy of Time
    Allowed to Complete the Review 15
    Figure 6: Available Options for Participation in 2010 LUCA Program 16
    Figure 7: LUCA Dress Rehearsal Participants' Satisfaction with
    Participation Options 17
    Figure 8: Extent of LUCA Dress Rehearsal Participants' Problems with File
    Conversion 20
    Figure 9: LUCA Dress Rehearsal Participants' Reports of the Usefulness of
    the Training Session 21
    Figure 10: City Hall in Pass Christian, Mississippi, Destroyed by
    Hurricane Katrina (Below Left), and City Officials in Slidell, Louisiana,
    Forced to Operate Out of Trailers since the Hurricane (Below Right) 26
    Figure 11: Trailers in Front of Damaged Housing Units in New Orleans,
    Louisiana 27

    Abbreviations

    BAS Boundary and Annexation Survey
    CBT computer-based training
    GPS global positioning system
    LUCA Local Update of Census Addresses
    MAF Master Address File
    MTPS MAF/TIGER Partnership Software
    NRC National Research Council
    TIGER Topographically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing

    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.

    United States Government Accountability Office
    Washington, DC 20548

    June 14, 2007

    The Honorable Thomas R. Carper
    Chairman
    Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information,
    Federal Services, and International Security
    Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
    United States Senate

    The Honorable Henry A. Waxman
    Chairman
    The Honorable Tom Davis
    Ranking Member
    Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
    House of Representatives

    The Honorable Wm. Lacy Clay
    Chairman
    The Honorable Michael Turner
    Ranking Member
    Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National Archives
    Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
    House of Representatives

    The Honorable Carolyn B. Maloney
    House of Representatives

    The decennial census is a constitutionally mandated activity undertaken by
    the U.S. Census Bureau (Bureau). The data that the census collects are
    used to reapportion the seats of the U.S. House of Representatives; redraw
    congressional districts; allocate billions of dollars each year in federal
    financial assistance; and provide a social, demographic, and economic
    profile of the nation's people to guide policy decisions at each level of
    government. Further, businesses use census data to market new services and
    products and to tailor existing ones to demographic changes.

    To ensure it delivers quality data, the Bureau employs a number of quality
    assurance programs throughout the course of the census. One such program
    is the Bureau's Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) Program, which
    provides a mechanism for state, local, and tribal governments to
    contribute to complete enumeration of their jurisdictions by reviewing,
    commenting on, and providing updated information on the addresses and maps
    that the Bureau will use to deliver questionnaires within those
    communities.

    The Bureau is testing the LUCA Program as part of the 2008 Census Dress
    Rehearsal in San Joaquin County, California, and nine counties in the area
    surrounding Fayetteville, North Carolina. Bureau officials state that they
    selected these sites to provide a comprehensive environment for
    demonstrating and refining planned 2010 Census operations, such as the
    LUCA Program and address canvassing.1

    Because of the role LUCA plays in building complete and accurate address
    lists and maps, under the Comptroller General's statutory authority to
    initiate engagements, we reviewed the Bureau's LUCA Dress Rehearsal and
    2010 LUCA Program. As agreed with your offices, we are providing this
    report to you, which contains information that will be useful for your
    oversight responsibilities of the decennial census. Our specific
    objectives were to (1) document the current status of the LUCA effort, (2)
    determine how the Bureau is addressing prior issues and new challenges
    associated with implementing the LUCA Program, and (3) examine how the
    Bureau is addressing the challenges in the areas affected by hurricanes
    Katrina and Rita that may affect the Bureau's successful implementation of
    the 2010 LUCA Program and related decennial census operations.

    To address the first objective, we collected source documents from Bureau
    headquarters, the Charlotte Regional Office, and the Seattle Regional
    Office detailing the 2010 LUCA Program and LUCA Dress Rehearsal timelines.
    We also interviewed Bureau officials to determine the status of current
    operations for the 2010 LUCA Program and LUCA Dress Rehearsal. Finally, we
    visited and collected documents from 12 localities in California and North
    Carolina (the two LUCA Dress Rehearsal sites) to verify Bureau officials'
    testimonial evidence.

    For the second objective, we reviewed recommendations for improving the
    LUCA Program that were found in reports by GAO, the National Research
    Council (NRC),2 the Department of Commerce's (Commerce) Office of the
    Inspector General, and a contractor hired by the Bureau.3 We reviewed
    source documents and interviewed Bureau officials to determine how the
    Bureau addressed the recommendations and new challenges associated with
    the LUCA Program. We also conducted a Web-based survey of 42 LUCA Dress
    Rehearsal participants in California and North Carolina4 to gauge their
    satisfaction with how the Bureau addressed these recommendations and
    challenges, and performed structured telephone interviews with LUCA Dress
    Rehearsal nonparticipants to determine why they did not participate in
    LUCA.

    1 The address canvassing operation is a field check of all addresses done
    to verify housing unit addresses. The address canvassers add to the 2010
    Census address list any additional addresses they find and make other
    needed corrections to the 2010 Census address list and maps using
    global-positioning-equipped handheld computers.

    2 NRC is part of the National Academy of Sciences.

    In order to address the third objective, we undertook fieldwork in areas
    of the Gulf Coast region affected by hurricanes Katrina and Rita
    (Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas) by interviewing local officials and
    collecting photographic and documentary evidence to determine the
    challenges that implementing the LUCA Program in these areas presents.
    Additionally, we collected documents and interviewed officials from the
    Bureau's headquarters and Dallas Regional Office to determine Bureau plans
    for addressing these challenges and prior GAO recommendations addressing
    contingency planning for the affected areas. Appendix I provides
    additional details on our scope and methodology. We conducted our work
    from July 2006 through May 2007 in accordance with generally accepted
    government auditing standards.

    Results in Brief

    The Bureau conducted nearly all of its planned LUCA Dress Rehearsal
    operations in accordance with its published timeline. The Bureau has begun
    address canvassing, in which it will verify information that localities
    provided to the Bureau for the LUCA Program. The Bureau will also enable
    Dress Rehearsal participants to review feedback materials regarding their
    submissions from December 2007 through January 2008. The Bureau met the
    time frames listed in its published LUCA Dress Rehearsal timeline, but as
    we describe below, this timeline did not include testing of software to be
    used in the 2010 LUCA Program. Additionally, the Bureau completed the
    first step of the 2010 LUCA Program, sending local jurisdictions advance
    letters to notify them about the LUCA Program in January and February
    2007.

    3 See GAO, 2010 Census: Census Bureau Needs to Take Prompt Actions to
    Resolve Long-standing and Emerging Address and Mapping Challenges,
    [20]GAO-06-272 (Washington, D.C.: June 15, 2006); 2010 Census: Planning
    and Testing Activities Are Making Progress, [21]GAO-06-465T (Washington,
    D.C.: Mar. 1, 2006); and 2010 Census: Costs and Risks Must be Closely
    Monitored and Evaluated with Mitigation Plans in Place, [22]GAO-06-822T
    (Washington, D.C.: June 6, 2006). See also National Research Council,
    Assessment of the 2000 Census LUCA Program (Washington, D.C.: December
    2002), and Department of Commerce, Office of the Inspector General,
    Additional Steps Needed to Improve Local Update of Census Addresses for
    the 2000 Decennial Census (Washington, D.C.: September 1998).

    4 See app. III for a full list of survey responses.

    The Bureau has taken steps to reduce participants' workloads and burdens
    and improve training--all areas NRC, GAO, and others had identified as
    needing improvement. Building on the progress it has made, the Bureau
    could take additional steps to address new challenges in these areas, as
    well as challenges related to measuring overall program effectiveness. For
    instance, to reduce participant workload and burden, the Bureau provided a
    longer period for reviewing and updating LUCA materials; provided options
    for how participants may submit updated information to the Bureau;
    combined the collection of addresses from two separate operations into one
    integrated and sequential operation; and created the MAF/TIGER5
    Partnership Software (MTPS), which is designed to assist LUCA participants
    in reviewing and updating address and map data. However, 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. Additionally,
    many participants experienced problems with converting Bureau-provided
    address files to their own software formats. Also, the Bureau has planned
    improvements to the 2010 LUCA Program training (i.e., specialized
    workshops for informational and then technical training), and plans to
    supplement the workshops with computer-based training (CBT). However, the
    Bureau did not test these improvements in the LUCA Dress Rehearsal.
    Finally, although the Bureau has not finalized its evaluation plans
    regarding the 2010 LUCA Program, Bureau officials have stated that the
    Bureau intends to assess the LUCA Program's contribution to address counts
    and will consider a plan to assess the program's contribution to the
    census population count. Such analysis would provide a measure of the
    ultimate impact of the LUCA Program on achieving a complete count of the
    population. Further, the Bureau does not currently collect information
    needed to measure the percentage of eligible local governments that had
    assessed the accuracy of Bureau-provided addresses and maps but had no
    changes to the addresses and maps. Without these data, the Bureau may not
    be able to fully estimate the impact of the LUCA Program on the MAF
    database and the census population count.

    5 The 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.

    In response to hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the Bureau has proposed steps
    to address LUCA-related issues in hurricane-affected areas. During the
    course of commenting on a draft of this report, the Bureau finalized plans
    for implementing these steps. Hurricane Katrina alone destroyed or made
    uninhabitable an estimated 300,000 homes; in New Orleans, the hurricanes
    damaged an estimated 123,000 housing units. The 2010 LUCA Program still
    faces challenges caused by the continuous changes in the housing stock in
    areas affected by storm damage or population influxes, which may hinder
    local governments' ability to accurately update their address lists and
    maps. Further, the condition of the housing stock is likely to present
    additional challenges to address canvassing and other decennial census
    operations in the form of decreased productivity for Bureau staff, issues
    associated with identifying vacant and uninhabitable structures, and
    workforce shortages. Officials in Bureau headquarters and the Dallas
    Regional Office have proposed and implemented several changes to the 2010
    LUCA Program in the Gulf Coast region, such as conducting conference calls
    with the states of Louisiana and Mississippi and providing additional
    promotional workshops in areas hardest hit by hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
    Additionally, the Bureau is considering changes to its 2010 Census address
    canvassing operation in the Gulf Coast region (an operation that begins in
    April 2009).

    We are recommending that the Secretary of Commerce direct the Bureau to
    (1) assess potential usability issues with the LUCA Program's CBT and MTPS
    by selecting localities to test the software packages or by providing
    alternative means to assess such issues before participants begin
    reviewing and updating materials for the 2010 LUCA Program in August 2007,
    and provide information on how localities can mitigate issues identified
    in such assessments via its public Web site and its LUCA technical help
    desk; (2) provide localities not using MTPS, via its public Web site, its
    LUCA technical help desk, and other appropriate means, instructions on
    converting files from the Bureau's format to the appropriate format for
    software most commonly used by participating localities to update address
    information; (3) assess the contribution of the LUCA Program to the final
    census population counts, as recommended by NRC (to permit an evaluation
    of the 2010 LUCA Program in preparation for 2020); (4) establish a process
    for localities that agreed to participate in the LUCA Program, but found
    no changes in their reviews to explicitly communicate to the Bureau that
    they have no changes; and (5) develop strategy, plans, and milestones for
    operations in areas in the Gulf Coast that address the challenges field
    staff are likely to encounter in conducting address canvassing and
    subsequent decennial operations in communities affected by the hurricanes.

    The Secretary of Commerce provided written comments on a draft of this
    report (see app. II). Commerce generally agreed with our recommendations
    for the Bureau to (1) assess usability issues with MTPS and CBT; (2)
    provide localities not using MTPS with instructions on file conversion;
    (3) assess the contribution of the LUCA Program to the final census
    population counts; (4) establish a process for localities to indicate that
    they participated in the LUCA Program but found no changes; and (5)
    develop strategy, plans, and milestones for operations in the Gulf Coast
    that address the challenges that field staff are likely to face. The
    Bureau also agreed with the draft report's recommendation that the Bureau
    finalize its plans for conducting the LUCA Program in the areas affected
    by Katrina and Rita, noting that its plans were now final. We therefore
    deleted this recommendation. Commerce also provided some technical
    comments and suggestions where additional context might be needed, and we
    revised the report to reflect these comments where appropriate.

    Background

    A complete and accurate address list is the cornerstone of a successful
    census, because it identifies all living quarters that are to receive a
    census questionnaire and serves as the control mechanism for following up
    with living quarters that do not respond. If the address list is
    inaccurate, people can be missed, counted more than once, or included in
    the wrong locations. MAF is intended to be a complete and current list of
    all addresses and locations where people live or potentially live. The
    Topographically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (TIGER)
    database is a mapping system that identifies all visible geographic
    features, such as type and location of streets, housing units, rivers, and
    railroads.6 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. One such operation is the
    Bureau's LUCA Program.

    6 The MAF and TIGER databases are also linked into what is called the
    MAF/TIGER database, through a process where the Bureau assigns every
    housing unit in MAF to a specific location in TIGER.

    The LUCA Program is mandated by the Census Address List Improvement Act of
    19947 that expanded the methods the Bureau uses to exchange information
    with tribal, state, and local governments in order to support its overall
    residential address list development and improvement process. The LUCA
    Program is a decennial census geographic partnership program that allows
    participants to contribute to complete enumeration of their jurisdictions
    by reviewing, commenting on, and providing updated information on the list
    of addresses and maps that the Bureau will use to deliver questionnaires
    within those communities. The LUCA Program was first implemented for the
    2000 Census;8 under the program, the Bureau is authorized (prior to the
    decennial census) to share individual residential addresses with officials
    of tribal, state, and local governments who agreed to protect the
    confidentiality of the information.9

    According to Bureau officials, one reason that participation in the LUCA
    Program is important is that local government officials may be better
    positioned to identify some housing units that are hard to find or are
    hidden because of their knowledge of or access to data in their
    jurisdictions. 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. In addition,
    according to Bureau officials, providing local governments with
    opportunities to actively participate in the development of the MAF/TIGER
    database can have the added benefit for the Bureau of building local
    governments' understanding of and support for the census. Local
    governments have key roles in ensuring a successful census--not just in
    developing the address list, but during subsequent operations as well,
    especially those designed to boost public participation in the census.

    The LUCA Program was first implemented for the 2000 Census, and of the
    39,051 eligible entities--such as cities and counties--for the 2000 LUCA
    Program, 18,33310 (47 percent) agreed to participate.11 Subsequently, for
    2010, the Bureau has sent LUCA advance notification letters to
    approximately 40,000 entities and has set a participation goal of 60
    percent. After localities that opted to participate in the LUCA Program
    have submitted their updated maps and address lists, the Bureau conducts a
    field check called address canvassing. At that time, the address
    canvassers--using handheld computers equipped with a global positioning
    system (GPS)--will go door to door updating the Census 2010 address list,
    verifing the information localities provided the Bureau during the LUCA
    Program, adding any additional addresses they find, and making other
    needed corrections to the address list and maps. The address canvassing
    operation will ensure that all addresses submitted during the LUCA Program
    actually exist and that they are assigned to the correct census block.

    7 Census Address List Improvement Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-430,
    October 31, 1994.

    8 The 2000 LUCA Program had two separate components: the 1998 city-style
    address operation and the 1999 non-city-style address operation.

    9 Under 13 U.S.C. S 9(a), local governments that obtain access to Title 13
    data are required to ensure the confidentiality of such data.

    In preparation for the 2010 Census, both the LUCA Program and the
    subsequent address canvassing operation will be tested as part of the
    Bureau's Dress Rehearsal. The 2008 Census Dress Rehearsal is taking place
    in San Joaquin County, California, and nine counties in the Fayetteville,
    North Carolina area (see figs. 1 and 2). The Bureau states that the Dress
    Rehearsal will help ensure a more accurate and cost-effective 2010 Census
    by demonstrating the methods to be used in the nation's decennial
    headcount, and that the main goal of the Dress Rehearsal is to fine-tune
    the various operations planned for the decennial census in 2010 under as
    close to census-like conditions as possible. According to the Bureau, the
    Dress Rehearsal sites provide a comprehensive environment for
    demonstrating and refining planned 2010 Census operations and activities,
    such as the use of GPS-equipped handheld computers.

    This report is the latest of several studies we have issued on the 2010
    Census. See Related GAO Products at the end of this report for a list of
    selected products we have issued to date.

    10 Of the 39,051 eligible entities, 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.

    11 National Research Council, Assessment of the 2000 Census LUCA Program.

    Figure 1: Map of the Bureau's California Dress Rehearsal Site

    Figure 2: Map of the Bureau's North Carolina Dress Rehearsal Site

    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.
    3).12 The only components that are not yet completed are address
    canvassing (which is scheduled to take place from April through June 2007)
    and the Dress Rehearsal participants' review of feedback materials
    regarding their submissions (which is scheduled to take place from
    December 2007 through January 2008). The Bureau met the first date on its
    timeline when it sent out the LUCA advance notification letters and
    informational materials to the highest elected officials in February 2006.
    The Bureau sent out the official invitation to localities, 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. Most recently, the
    Bureau finished its review of participants' LUCA submissions and updated
    the MAF/TIGER geographic database in December 2006. Bureau officials state
    that they expect to meet the dates on the timeline for the remaining
    component--address canvassing.

    12 Bureau 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 (see figs. 3 and 4).

    Figure 3: Bureau's LUCA Dress Rehearsal Timeline and Status

    It is important to note that while the Bureau 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 the newly developed
    MTPS (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.

    The 2010 LUCA Program is now under way. In January and February 2007, the
    Bureau sent advance notification letters for the 2010 LUCA Program to the
    highest elected officials in each of the eligible localities. Bureau
    officials expect to meet the remaining dates listed on the published
    timeline (see fig. 4).

    Figure 4: Bureau's 2010 LUCA Timeline

    Note: See the Bureaui's Web site,
    http://www.census.gov/geo/www/luca2010/luca.html .

    Bureau Modified the LUCA Program to Address Issues from the 2000 Experience but
    Faces New Challenges

    The Bureau has modified the 2010 LUCA Program to address issues stemming
    from the 2000 experience but faces new challenges with the program. To
    reduce the workload and burden on LUCA participants, the Bureau provided a
    longer period for reviewing and updating LUCA materials; provided options
    to submit materials for the LUCA Program; combined the collection of
    addresses from two separate operations into one integrated and sequential
    operation; and created MTPS, which is designed to assist LUCA participants
    in reviewing and updating address and map data. However, the Bureau tested
    MTPS with only one potential user for the 2010 LUCA Program, and did not
    test MTPS with any localities during the LUCA Dress Rehearsal. In
    addition, many participants experienced problems with converting
    Bureau-provided address files. Further, the Bureau has planned modified
    training for the 2010 LUCA Program, but the Bureau did not test each of
    these modifications in the LUCA Dress Rehearsal. Finally, although the
    Bureau will likely plan to assess the contribution that the LUCA Program
    makes to address counts, the Bureau does not have a plan to assess the
    contribution that the program makes to population counts. Such analysis
    would provide a measure of the ultimate impact of the LUCA Program on
    achieving a complete count of the population. Also, the Bureau has not
    collected the information needed to fully measure LUCA participation rates
    and is therefore limited in its ability to assess the cost and benefits of
    the LUCA Program to the Bureau. Without this information, the Bureau may
    not be able to fully measure the extent to which local review contributed
    to the MAF database and the census population count. Moreover, an
    additional improvement to the LUCA Program that the Bureau cited was the
    agency's expansion of direct LUCA participation to state governments. The
    Bureau noted that allowing states to participate directly can fill the gap
    when local governments do not participate because of a lack of resources
    or technical challenges.

    Bureau Addressed Issues about Workload and Burden, but Challenges with Software
    and File Conversion Remain

    Studies by us, NRC, and others highlighted concerns with the burden and
    workload placed on participants in the 2000 LUCA Program. In testimony
    given before the Subcommittee on the Census, House Committee on Government
    Reform in September 1999, we noted that LUCA may have stretched the
    resources of local governments and that the workload was greater than most
    local governments had expected.13 According to a report contracted by the
    Bureau, two reasons cited by localities for not participating in the 2000
    LUCA Program were the volume of work required and the lack of sufficient
    personnel to conduct the LUCA review.14

    Recognizing that not all localities have the resources to participate
    effectively in the LUCA Program within imposed time constraints, the
    Bureau made several changes to the program. First, the Bureau provided a
    longer review period for LUCA participants. In 2004, NRC reported on the
    2000 LUCA experience and concluded that the Bureau should clearly
    articulate realistic schedules for the periods when localities can review
    and update LUCA materials.15 Concurrently, the Bureau itself recommended
    that it allow sufficient time for participants to complete LUCA updates
    before the Bureau begins address canvassing activities. As a result, the
    Bureau extended the review period for LUCA Program participants from 90 to
    120 calendar days. The implementation of the review extension was well
    received by LUCA Dress Rehearsal participants; the majority of respondents
    to our survey of LUCA Dress Rehearsal participants indicated that 120 days
    allowed adequate time to complete the LUCA review (see fig. 5).

    13 GAO, 2000 Census: Local Address Review Program Has Had Mixed Results to
    Date, [24]GAO/T-GGD-99-184 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 29, 1999).

    14 ITS Services, Inc., Results of the Survey of Selected Governments
    Eligible for the Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) Program (Fairfax,
    Va.: 2002), v.

    Figure 5: LUCA Dress Rehearsal Participants' Views on the Adequacy of Time
    Allowed to Complete the Review

    Second, the Bureau provided localities with options for how they may
    participate in the LUCA Program, as recommended in a 2002 contractor study
    of the program.16 Specifically, the Bureau now provides three options for
    how localities can submit address and map information to the Bureau: (1)
    full address list review with count review, (2) Title 13 local address
    list submission, and (3) non-Title 13 local address list submission (see
    fig. 6). The three 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 options one or two,
    participants may use MTPS to assist in their reviews.

    15 National Research Council, Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and
    Challenges (Washington, D.C.: 2004), 96.

    16 ITS Services, Inc., Recommended Communication Methods to Support
    Participation in the Ongoing LUCA Program (Fairfax, Va.: 2002), 6.

    Figure 6: Available Options for Participation in 2010 LUCA Program

    Our survey of LUCA Dress Rehearsal participants found that the majority of
    localities were satisfied with the participation options provided by the
    Bureau (see fig. 7).

    Figure 7: LUCA Dress Rehearsal Participants' Satisfaction with
    Participation Options

    Third, the Bureau combined the collection of addresses from two separate
    operations for city-style and non-city-style addresses17 into one
    integrated and sequential operation. In a 2004 report, NRC suggested that
    the Bureau coordinate efforts related to the decennial census so that the
    LUCA Program and other Bureau programs would not be unduly redundant and
    burdensome to localities.18 Based on complaints about the multiphased LUCA
    Program from the 2000 experience (where some participants found the two
    separate operations confusing), the Bureau designed the 2010 LUCA Program
    to be a single review operation for all addresses. Bureau officials also
    told us that the combined LUCA operation would be fully integrated with
    the decennial census schedule with address canvassing. As a result of the
    Bureau's efforts, localities could face a reduced burden, and
    participation in the 2010 LUCA Program could be less confusing. Further,
    the Bureau may be able to more effectively verify address information
    collected from LUCA Program participants during address canvassing.

    17 City-style addresses represent both the location of the housing unit on
    the ground and the mailing address for the housing unit (i.e., 101 Main
    St., Anytown, MD 12345). Non-city-style addresses, such as Post Office box
    and rural route numbers, indicate where mail is delivered to an addressee
    but do not necessarily designate the location of the addressee's housing
    unit on the ground.

    18 National Research Council, Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and
    Challenges, 97.

    Finally, the Bureau has created MTPS, which is a geographic information
    system application that will allow LUCA Program participants to update the
    Bureau's address list and maps electronically.19 The application will also
    enable users to import address lists and maps for comparison to the
    Bureau's data and participate in both the LUCA Program and the Boundary
    and Annexation Survey (BAS)20 at the same time. The Bureau noted that
    participants who sign up to participate in the LUCA Program by October 31,
    2007, will be allowed to provide their boundary updates with their LUCA
    updates and thereby avoid having to separately respond to the 2008 BAS. A
    2004 study by NRC recommended that the Bureau coordinate efforts so that
    the LUCA Program, BAS, and other programs are not unduly redundant and
    burdensome for local and tribal entities.21 Consistent with that
    recommendation, the Bureau created MTPS, which Bureau officials said
    benefits participants by reducing their workloads and burdens in
    participating in the 2010 LUCA Program by allowing them to review and
    update address and map information together in one software package.

    Building on the progress it has already made, the Bureau can take
    additional steps to address new challenges in reducing workload and
    burdens for LUCA participants. First, although the Bureau performed
    internal tests of the 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 addition, multiple users are required
    to tease out remaining problems in a product that is ready for
    distribution.22 The Bureau's statement of work regarding MTPS specifically
    required milestones for testing and review of the software by 10 local
    sites during its development. However, the Bureau's contract did not
    specify how many local sites would test the LUCA portion of MTPS. Further,
    meeting minutes between the Bureau and the MTPS contractor revealed that
    the contractor did not necessarily plan to test the LUCA portion of MTPS
    with local users during its development. The Bureau ultimately identified
    three local sites to test the LUCA portion of MTPS, but only performed the
    test with one. Of the other two proposed sites, one explicitly canceled
    testing, and the other did not respond to the Bureau's attempts at
    communication. Additionally, Bureau officials told us that user testing
    for the LUCA Program portions of MTPS was constrained by existing resource
    limitations and timing issues associated with the schedule for development
    of MTPS. Bureau officials also informed us that they will provide
    frequently asked questions regarding MTPS for the LUCA technical help
    desk.

    19 MTPS also incorporates the functions of the Boundary and Annexation
    Survey.

    20 The 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.

    21 National Research Council, Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and
    Challenges, 97.

    Second, a majority of LUCA Dress Rehearsal participants experienced
    problems with converting Bureau address files from the Bureau's format to
    their own software formats. If participants in the 2010 LUCA Program
    choose not to use MTPS to update address and map information, they can
    review and update computer-readable files of census address lists in a
    pipe-delimited text file format.23 While the Bureau included instruction
    for converting files in its LUCA Dress Rehearsal participation guide, it
    did not include information on specific commonly available types of
    software that localities are likely to use.24 Participants in the LUCA
    Dress Rehearsal experienced problems with converting the 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 (see
    fig. 8). Our fieldwork also revealed issues pertaining to file conversion;
    for example, one local official noted that it took him 2 days to determine
    how to convert the Bureau's pipe-delimited files. To mitigate the
    potential burden on localities that choose not to use MTPS, the Bureau
    will provide technical guidance on file conversion through its LUCA
    technical help desk, but 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
    the 2010 LUCA Program, but those localities may face the same challenges
    faced by participants in the LUCA Dress Rehearsal.

    22 See A. Dillon, "Usability Evaluation," Encyclopedia of Human Factors
    and Ergonomics, ed. W. Karwowski, 1930-1933 (London: Taylor and Francis,
    2001). Andrew Dillon, PhD, is the dean of the University of Texas School
    of Information; he is also a professor of information, psychology,
    information, and risk and operations management at the University of
    Texas.

    23 Tab-delimited text is one of the more common data formats, defined by
    text separated by tabs. Pipe-delimited format is essentially the same kind
    of format, but uses the pipe symbol ("|") as its delimiting property.

    24 Such software may include Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Access, Lotus
    1-2-3, Quattro Pro, and Oracle.

    Figure 8: Extent of LUCA Dress Rehearsal Participants' Problems with File
    Conversion

    Note: Seven of the 31 respondents either had no basis to judge or did not
    respond to this question.

    Bureau Plans Improvements to the 2010 LUCA Program Training but Did Not Fully
    Test Improvements in the LUCA Dress Rehearsal

    Leading up to the 2000 Census, we reported that LUCA training received
    less favorable reviews than the other components of the LUCA Program.25
    The 2000 LUCA Program had one training session that encompassed all
    aspects of the LUCA Program. For the 2010 LUCA Program, the Bureau plans
    to separate LUCA classroom training into informational and technical
    training sessions and provide user guides tailored to the participation
    option chosen by LUCA Program participants. The Bureau provided localities
    with information on the participation options during the LUCA Dress
    Rehearsal. However, during the LUCA Dress Rehearsal, the Bureau conducted
    training sessions that combined promotional and technical components of
    training because it did not have time to conduct the promotional workshop
    prior to the LUCA Dress Rehearsal. Consequently, the Bureau was not able
    to obtain feedback from Dress Rehearsal participants about separating
    classroom training before the 2010 LUCA Program. Nevertheless, overall
    respondents to our survey found the LUCA Dress Rehearsal training session
    useful (see fig. 9).

    Figure 9: LUCA Dress Rehearsal Participants' Reports of the Usefulness of
    the Training Session

    25 [25]GAO/T-GGD-99-184 .

    The Bureau plans to further improve the 2010 LUCA Program by offering CBT
    modules to program participants. Though participants were not provided
    with CBT in the LUCA Dress Rehearsal, our work has 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. However, the Bureau's plans for testing the LUCA CBT include only
    one user. Properly executed user-based methods of software testing can
    provide the truest estimate of the extent to which real users can employ
    an application effectively.26 The contractor responsible for creating the
    LUCA CBT was to have provided preliminary versions of the CBT to the
    Bureau for testing beginning in May 2007--7 months after the end of the
    LUCA Dress Rehearsal review and 3 months before participants begin
    reviewing and updating address lists and maps for the 2010 LUCA Program.
    This timing did not allow the Bureau to test the CBT under census-like
    conditions, and will leave little time to make any changes before the CBT
    is distributed to LUCA participants.

    Bureau Has Not Collected Information Needed to Fully Assess LUCA Costs,
    Benefits, and Contributions

    A 2002 study by a Bureau contractor recommended that the Bureau evaluate
    the cost and benefits of its LUCA-related activities. An NRC study of the
    LUCA Program recommended that the Bureau quantify the value of the program
    in both housing and population terms. The study indicated that quantifying
    the value of the LUCA Program is useful to show that the cost for the
    effort is worthwhile and persuade local officials that it is worth their
    time and resources to become involved in the LUCA Program27 (for example,
    by showing how LUCA contributes to a more accurate count of their
    communities' populations).

    The Bureau said that it would mark and evaluate contributions (such as
    added, corrected, or deleted addresses) of the LUCA Program to the MAF
    database. The Bureau has not finalized its evaluation plans regarding the
    2010 LUCA Program; these plans would include decisions about whether to
    conduct assessments of the program's contribution to the census population
    count. The Bureau also stated that measuring whether the LUCA Program is
    cost beneficial "has not been a priority" for the agency, given that the
    program is legally mandated. In addition, Bureau officials stated that
    they will not budget the LUCA Program separately until fiscal year 2008.
    They noted that the LUCA Program budget is currently combined with those
    of other geographic programs in the Decennial Management Division budget.

    26 See Dillon.

    27 National Research Council, Assessment of the 2000 Census LUCA Program,
    134.

    Our work in the area of managing for results has found that federal
    agencies can use performance information, such as that described above, to
    make various types of management decisions to improve programs and
    results. For example, performance information can be used to identify
    problems in existing programs, identify the causes of problems, develop
    corrective actions, develop strategies, plan and budget, identify
    priorities, and make resource allocation decisions to affect programs in
    the future. Finally, managers can use performance information to identify
    more effective approaches to program implementation and share those
    approaches more widely across the agency.28

    One aspect of assessing the LUCA Program is determining the extent to
    which localities assess Bureau-provided counts, addresses, and maps.
    However, LUCA Program participation rates are currently difficult to
    measure because the Bureau does not have a method of tracking localities
    that agreed to participate in the program but did not submit updates to
    the Bureau because they found no needed changes to Bureau-provided
    information. Officials from the Bureau measure LUCA Program participation
    by whether localities agree to participate in the program, regardless of
    whether they actually take the time to review the materials the Bureau
    provides them. Inventory forms used by localities to inform the Bureau of
    updated LUCA materials do not include an option for localities to indicate
    whether they reviewed the materials and chose not to provide updates or
    had not identified any needed changes. This information would allow the
    Bureau to distinguish between localities that initially agreed to
    participate but did not and localities that agreed to participate and
    either did not review the materials or found no changes to submit. The
    Bureau would then have a unique estimate of localities that found the
    Bureau's data to be accurate. Without more precise information on
    localities that do not provide information, the Bureau cannot fully track
    localities that actually reviewed materials during participation in the
    LUCA Program, and therefore cannot ascertain the actual participation
    rates. More important, without this information, the Bureau cannot fully
    measure the extent to which local reviews have contributed to accurate
    address lists and population counts.

    28 GAO, Managing for Results: Enhancing Agency Use of Performance
    Information for Management Decision Making, [26]GAO-05-927 (Washington,
    D.C.: Sept. 9, 2005).

    Bureau Has Proposed but Not Finalized Steps to Address Issues in
    Hurricane-Affected Areas

    Hurricane Katrina made landfall in Mississippi and Louisiana on August 29,
    2005, and caused $96 billion in property damage--more than any other
    single natural disaster in the history of the United States. On September
    24, 2005, Hurricane Rita followed when it made landfall in Texas and
    Louisiana and added to the devastation. Still today, the storms' impact is
    visible throughout the Gulf Coast region. Hurricane Katrina alone
    destroyed or made uninhabitable an estimated 300,000 homes. In New
    Orleans, the hurricanes damaged an estimated 123,000 housing units. The
    2010 LUCA Program faces challenges caused by the continuous changes in the
    housing stock in areas affected by storm damage or population influxes,
    which may hinder the ability of local governments to accurately update
    their address lists and maps. Further, the condition of the housing stock
    is likely to present additional challenges for address canvassing and
    other decennial census operations in the form of decreased productivity
    for Bureau staff, issues associated with identifying vacant and
    uninhabitable structures, and workforce shortages. Early in 2006, based on
    our prior recommendations, the Bureau chartered a team to assess the
    impact of the storm damage on its address list and maps for the area. This
    team (working with other officials from Bureau headquarters and the Dallas
    Regional Office) proposed several changes to the 2010 LUCA Program and
    address canvassing in the Gulf Coast region. Officials in the Bureau
    headquarters and Dallas Regional Office have implemented several of these
    changes.

    Many officials of local governments we visited in hurricane-affected areas
    said they have identified numerous housing units that have been or will be
    demolished as a result of hurricanes Katrina and Rita and subsequent
    deterioration. Conversely, many local governments estimate that there is
    new development of housing units in their respective jurisdictions. The
    officials we interviewed from localities in the Gulf Coast region
    indicated that such changes in the housing stock of their jurisdictions
    are unlikely to subside before local governments begin updating and
    reviewing materials for the Bureau's 2010 LUCA Program--in August 2007.29
    Local government officials told us that changes in housing unit stock are
    often caused by difficulties that families have in deciding whether to
    return to hurricane-affected areas. Local officials informed us that a
    family's decision to return is affected by various factors, such as the
    availability of insurance; timing of funding from Louisiana's Road Home
    Program;30 lack of availability of contractors; school systems that are
    closed; and lack of amenities, such as grocery stores.31 As a result of
    the still-changing housing unit stock, local governments in
    hurricane-affected areas may be unable to fully capture reliable
    information about their address lists before the beginning of the LUCA
    Program this year or address canvassing in April 2009. Furthermore,
    operation of local governments themselves has been affected by the
    hurricanes (see fig. 10). These local governments are focused on
    reconstruction, and officials we spoke with in two localities questioned
    their ability to participate in the LUCA Program.

    29 The period for local review and update of addresses and maps for the
    2010 LUCA Program is August 2007 through March 2008.

    30 The Road Home Program was implemented by the State of Louisiana to
    provide compensation of up to $150,000 for eligible homeowners affected by
    hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

    31 GAO, Gulf Coast Rebuilding: Preliminary Observations on Progress to
    Date and Challenges for the Future,  [27]GAO-07-574T (Washington, D.C.:
    Apr. 12, 2007).

    Figure 10: City Hall in Pass Christian, Mississippi, Destroyed by
    Hurricane Katrina (Below Left), and City Officials in Slidell, Louisiana,
    Forced to Operate Out of Trailers since the Hurricane (Below Right)

    The mixed condition of the housing stock in the Gulf Coast region could
    cause a decrease in productivity rates during address canvassing. During
    our fieldwork, we found that hurricane-affected areas have many
    neighborhoods with abandoned and vacant properties mixed in with occupied
    housing units. Bureau staff conducting address canvassing in these areas
    may have decreased productivity because of the additional time necessary
    to distinguish between abandoned, vacant, and occupied housing units. We
    also observed many areas where lots included a permanent structure with
    undetermined occupancy, as well as a trailer. Bureau field staff may be
    presented with the challenge of determining whether a residence or a
    trailer (see fig. 11), or both, are occupied. Another potential issue is
    that because of continuing changes in the condition in the housing stock,
    housing units that are deemed vacant or abandoned during address
    canvassing may be occupied on Census Day (April 1, 2010).

    Figure 11: Trailers in Front of Damaged Housing Units in New Orleans,
    Louisiana

    Workforce shortages may also pose significant problems for the Bureau's
    hiring efforts for address canvassing. The effects of hurricanes Katrina
    and Rita caused a major shift in population away from the
    hurricane-affected areas. This migration displaced many low-wage workers.
    Should this continue, it could affect the availability of such workers for
    address canvassing and other decennial census operations.

    In 2006, we recommended that the Bureau develop plans (prior to the start
    of the 2010 LUCA Program in August 2007) to assess whether new procedures,
    additional resources, or local partnerships may be required to update the
    MAF/TIGER database in the areas affected by hurricanes Katrina and Rita.32
    The Bureau responded to our recommendations by chartering a team to assess
    the impact of the storm damage on the Bureau's address lists and maps for
    areas along the Gulf Coast and develop strategies with the potential to
    mitigate these impacts. The chartered team recommended that the Bureau
    consult with state and regional officials (from the Gulf Coast region) on
    how to make the LUCA Program as successful as possible and hold special
    LUCA workshops for geographic areas identified by the Bureau as needing
    additional assistance.

    32 [28]GAO-06-272 and [29]GAO-06-822T .

    In addition to the recommendations made by the Bureau's chartered team,
    officials from Bureau headquarters and the Dallas Regional Office proposed
    steps to address LUCA-related issues in hurricane-affected areas. For
    example, they proposed that the Bureau provide LUCA training in several
    areas of Louisiana and Mississippi during promotional workshops for the
    LUCA Program. Finally, Bureau documentation indicated that the Bureau is
    considering an "Update/Enumerate" operation to enumerate addresses in the
    most severely devastated parishes and counties in hurricane-affected
    areas.33

    The Bureau has implemented several of the proposed changes, cited above,
    to the 2010 LUCA Program in the Gulf Coast region based on recommendations
    from its chartered team, other Bureau headquarters officials, and regional
    office officials. For example, the Bureau conducted conference calls with
    the states of Louisiana and Mississippi (in October and December 2006,
    respectively) to discuss the LUCA Program, and had the Dallas and Atlanta
    regional offices hold additional promotional workshops in
    hurricane-impacted areas. In addition, Bureau officials have stated that
    the regional offices will also encourage participants in these areas to
    sign up for LUCA as early as possible so that if they need more than 120
    days for conducting their LUCA review, they can request an extension from
    the Bureau.

    In addition to the changes in the 2010 LUCA Program, the Bureau has
    considered changes to the address canvassing and subsequent operations in
    the Gulf Coast region. For example, Bureau officials stated that they
    recognize issues with identifying uninhabitable structures in
    hurricane-affected zones and, as a result, that they may need to change
    procedures for address canvassing. The Bureau is still brainstorming
    ideas, including the possibility of using an "Update/Enumerate" operation
    in areas along the Gulf Coast. Bureau officials also said that they may
    adjust training for Bureau staff conducting address canvassing in
    hurricane-affected areas to help field staff distinguish between
    abandoned, vacant, and occupied housing units. Without proper training,
    field staff can make errors and will not operate as efficiently.34 The
    Bureau's plans for how it may adjust address canvassing operations in the
    Gulf Coast region can also have implications for subsequent operations.
    For example, instructing field staff to be as inclusive as possible in
    completing address canvassing could cause increased efforts to follow up
    on nonrespondents because the Bureau could send questionnaires to housing
    units that could be vacant on Census Day. In terms of the Bureau's
    workforce in the Gulf Coast region, officials from the Bureau's Dallas
    Regional Office recognize the potential difficulty of attracting field
    staff, and have recommended that the Bureau be prepared to pay hourly wage
    rates for future decennial staff that are considerably higher than usual.
    Further, Bureau officials noted that the Bureau's Dallas Regional Office,
    which has jurisdiction over hurricane-affected areas in Louisiana,
    Mississippi, and Texas, will examine local unemployment rates to adjust
    pay rates in the region and use "every single entity" available to
    advertise for workers in the New Orleans area. However, Bureau officials
    stated that there are "no concrete plans" to implement changes to address
    canvassing or subsequent decennial operations in the Gulf Coast region.
    For instance, Bureau documentation revealed that the Bureau has not yet
    decided whether to implement "Update/Enumerate" operations in areas along
    the Gulf Coast.

    33 In an "Update/Enumerate" operation, interviewers enumerate a housing
    unit and update address registers and census maps at the time of their
    visit.

    34 GAO, 2010 Census: Census Bureau Should Refine Recruiting and Hiring
    Efforts and Enhance Training of Temporary Field Staff, [30]GAO-07-361
    (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 27, 2007).

    Conclusions

    The Bureau has met the time frames for the LUCA Dress Rehearsal and the
    distribution of advance letters for the 2010 LUCA Program. The Bureau has
    also taken a number of steps to improve the LUCA Program, including
    providing a longer review period for program participants, providing
    localities options for program participation, combining the collection of
    addresses from two separate operations into one integrated and sequential
    operation, creating MTPS for participant use in the program, and modifying
    LUCA training.

    However, there is more the Bureau can do to address information
    technology-based challenges to the LUCA Program prior to the 2010 Census
    and beyond. The Bureau performed little user testing of MTPS and no user
    testing of the CBT module for the 2010 LUCA Program; however, the Bureau
    can do more to assess the usability of MTPS and the LUCA CBT. For example,
    the Bureau could test MTPS and LUCA CBT software with localities before
    participants begin reviewing and updating materials for the 2010 LUCA
    Program in August 2007. These tests would help the Bureau identify issues
    associated with MTPS and LUCA CBT software. Following the tests, the
    Bureau can provide information on how localities can mitigate such issues
    via its public Web site and its LUCA technical help desk. Without these
    tests, localities participating in LUCA 2010 may unnecessarily encounter
    issues with the CBT software that may otherwise have been identified
    through testing. The Bureau can also provide additional information, via
    its public Web site, its LUCA technical help desk, and other means, on
    converting Bureau address files from the Bureau's format to specific
    software applications used by LUCA Program participants in order to
    mitigate difficulties in file conversion previously identified by LUCA
    Dress Rehearsal participants. Without such guidance, localities may have
    difficulty with the file conversion process, creating additional and
    unnecessary burdens for the localities that choose not to use MTPS.

    NRC, in its assessment of the LUCA Program, concluded that quantifying the
    value of the LUCA program is worthwhile, citing for example its use in
    persuading local officials of the value of participating in the LUCA
    program. NRC suggests that an evaluation of the LUCA Program consider not
    only its contributions to address counts but also to population counts. We
    agree that the Bureau can use such information to measure the LUCA
    Program's contribution to the decennial census. In addition, the Bureau is
    limited in its ability to fully assess the impact of the program because
    it does not collect information on why localities that agreed to
    participate do not provide updated information. Without these data, the
    Bureau cannot determine whether nonresponding localities assessed the
    Bureau's information or whether these localities did assess the
    information but had no changes. Without these data, the Bureau may be
    hampered in its ability to estimate the impact of the LUCA Program on the
    MAF database and the census population count.

    Bureau efforts to consult with state officials and consider changes in
    decennial census operations, including LUCA, in hurricane-affected areas
    along the Gulf Coast have helped the Bureau better understand issues
    associated with implementing these operations in the Gulf Coast region.
    However, the Bureau can do more to successfully implement address
    canvassing and other decennial census operations in the Gulf Coast. For
    example, Bureau efforts to address issues associated with address
    canvassing, such as adjusting wage rates for future decennial staff, may
    help the Bureau fulfill staffing requirements for the address canvassing
    operation (which is scheduled to take place in 2009) and other decennial
    census operations. Because the changing stock may affect the Bureau's
    ability to effectively conduct address canvassing and other operations in
    the Gulf Coast region, it is important for the Bureau to complete its
    planning for addressing the challenges that field staff would likely face.

    Recommendations for Executive Action

    In order for the Bureau to address the remaining challenges facing its
    implementation of the 2010 LUCA Program, we recommend that the Secretary
    of Commerce direct the Bureau to take the following five actions:

               o Assess potential usability issues with the LUCA Program's CBT
               and MTPS by randomly selecting localities in which to test the
               software packages or by providing alternative means to assess such
               issues before participants begin reviewing and updating materials
               for the 2010 LUCA Program in August 2007, and provide information
               on how localities can mitigate issues identified in such
               assessments via its public Web site and its LUCA technical help
               desk.

               o Provide localities not using MTPS, via its public Web site, its
               LUCA technical help desk, and other appropriate means,
               instructions on converting files from the Bureau's format to the
               appropriate format for software most commonly used by
               participating localities to update address information.

               o Assess the contribution of the LUCA Program to the final census
               population counts, as recommended by NRC (to permit an evaluation
               of the 2010 LUCA Program in preparation for 2020).

               o Establish a process for localities that agreed to participate in
               the LUCA Program but found no changes in their review to
               explicitly communicate to the Bureau that they have no changes.

               o Develop strategy, plans and milestones for operations in areas
               in the Gulf Coast that address the challenges field staff are
               likely to encounter in conducting address canvassing and
               subsequent decennial operations in communities affected by the
               hurricanes.

    Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

    In written comments on a draft of this report, the Bureau generally agreed
    with our recommendations for the Bureau to assess usability issues with
    MTPS and CBT; provide localities not using MTPS with instructions on file
    conversion; assess the contribution of LUCA to the final census population
    counts; establish a process for localities to indicate that they
    participated in LUCA but found no changes; and develop strategy, plans,
    and milestones for operations in the Gulf Coast that address the
    challenges that field staff are likely to face. The Bureau also agreed
    with the draft report's recommendation that the Bureau finalize its plans
    for conducting the LUCA Program in the areas affected by the hurricanes,
    noting that its plans were now final. We therefore deleted this
    recommendation. The Bureau also provided some technical comments and
    suggestions where additional context might be needed, and we revised the
    report to reflect these comments as appropriate. The Bureau's comments are
    reprinted in their entirety in appendix II.

    We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional
    committees and members, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Director of the
    U.S. Census Bureau. Copies will be made available to others on request.
    This report will also be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at
    http://www.gao.gov .

    If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact
    me at (202) 512-6806 or sciremj@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 who made major contributions to this report are
    listed in appendix IV.

    Mathew J. Scire
    Director, Strategic Issues

    Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

    To assess the current status of the U.S. Census Bureau's (Bureau) Local
    Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) Program, we requested and obtained
    source documents from the Bureau's headquarters in Suitland, Maryland, and
    the Bureau's Web site regarding the updated timelines of the 2010 LUCA
    Program and the LUCA Dress Rehearsal. We also visited the Bureau's
    regional office in Charlotte, North Carolina; conducted a phone interview
    with the Bureau's regional office in Seattle, Washington; and obtained
    documents, including the Bureau's timeline for headquarters and regional
    office activities associated with the 2010 Census LUCA Program.
    Additionally, we analyzed the data to determine if the Bureau's actual
    timelines met the planned timelines for the LUCA Dress Rehearsal and the
    2010 LUCA Program.

    Additionally, we interviewed officials from the Bureau headquarters in
    Suitland, Maryland, to determine the extent to which activities associated
    with the 2010 LUCA Program and LUCA Dress Rehearsal (held June through
    October 2006) met their timelines. We also visited and obtained
    documentation from localities associated with the LUCA Dress Rehearsal in
    California and North Carolina.

    To assess how the Bureau is addressing prior issues and new challenges
    associated with implementing the LUCA Program, we performed a review of
    publications created by GAO and other entities (i.e., the National
    Research Council, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector
    General, and Anteon Corporation) regarding the LUCA Program to ascertain
    critiques of the program and recommendations for improving the program for
    the 2010 Census. We also obtained source documents and interviewed
    officials from the Bureau's headquarters in Suitland, Maryland, to
    determine how the Bureau addressed prior issues and new challenges related
    to the LUCA Program and what modifications the Bureau has made to the 2010
    LUCA Program. To determine how the 2010 LUCA Program is being implemented,
    we undertook fieldwork in 12 localities (in California and North Carolina)
    that were eligible to participate in the LUCA Dress Rehearsal, which was
    held from June through October 2006. The 12 localities were selected
    because they were geographically diverse and varied in population. During
    our visits to the localities, we interviewed and obtained documentation
    from local government officials to determine how the Bureau implemented
    the LUCA Dress Rehearsal and addressed prior issues and new challenges
    related to the LUCA Program. We also conducted interviews and collected
    documentation from the Bureau's regional offices in Charlotte, North
    Carolina, (in person) and Seattle, Washington, (via telephone) to
    determine the Bureau's implementation of the LUCA Dress Rehearsal from the
    perspective of Bureau officials responsible for the LUCA Dress Rehearsal
    sites.

    To obtain further information on the experiences of participants with LUCA
    Dress Rehearsal activities, we administered a World Wide Web questionnaire
    accessible through a secure server to 42 local governments participating
    in the LUCA Dress Rehearsal. We collected data on participants'
    experiences with the review process, the census maps and addresses, work
    materials, and interactions with the Bureau and other agencies.

    Because this was not a sample survey, it has no sampling errors. However,
    the practical difficulties of conducting a survey may introduce errors,
    commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For example, difficulties in
    interpreting a particular question, or sources of information available to
    respondents, can introduce unwanted variability into the survey results.
    We took steps in developing the questionnaire, collecting the data, and
    analyzing them to minimize such nonsampling errors.

    For example, the survey was tested with two LUCA Dress Rehearsal
    participants in order to check that the questions were clear and
    unambiguous, the information could be obtained by the respondents, and the
    questionnaire did not place an undue burden on the respondents. When we
    analyzed the data, an independent analyst checked all computer programs.
    Once the questionnaire was finalized, each of the 42 local governments was
    notified that the questionnaire was available online and provided with a
    unique password and user name. Therefore, respondents entered their
    answers directly into the electronic questionnaire, eliminating the need
    to key data into a database.

    We included in our study population those local governments in California
    and North Carolina that participated in the LUCA Dress Rehearsal. We
    defined participants as those local governments that had signed up to
    participate and had not later indicated that they in fact did not
    participate in the LUCA Dress Rehearsal. The Bureau identified 44 state,
    county, and municipal governments that met our criteria as participating
    in the LUCA Dress Rehearsal. Questionnaires were sent to 42 local
    governments1 and were completed by 31 such governments, for a response
    rate of 74 percent. There were a total of 62 localities eligible to
    participate in the LUCA Dress Rehearsal. In addition to our survey, we
    also performed structured interviews (in person and via telephone) with
    officials in 7 localities that were eligible to participate in the LUCA
    Dress Rehearsal but did not take part in the program.

    1 The questionnaire was sent to 42 local governments, not 44, because one
    local official was responsible for 3 localities, and we sent the
    questionnaire to that official only once.

    To assess how the Bureau is addressing the challenges in areas affected by
    hurricanes Katrina and Rita that may affect the Bureau's successful
    implementation of the 2010 LUCA Program, we undertook fieldwork in eight
    localities situated in portions of the Gulf Coast region (Louisiana,
    Mississippi, and Texas) affected by hurricanes Katrina and Rita. We
    selected these localities because they varied in size and location in the
    Gulf Coast region. During the fieldwork, we obtained documentation and
    interviewed officials from each locality about what challenges, if any,
    the hurricane damage poses to the locality's successful participation in
    the 2010 LUCA Program.

    We obtained source documents and interviewed officials from Bureau
    headquarters in Suitland, Maryland (in person), and the Bureau regional
    office in Dallas, Texas (via telephone), about how the Bureau is
    addressing the aforementioned challenges that are faced by eligible
    participants in the 2010 LUCA Program in the areas affected by hurricanes
    Katrina and Rita. We also obtained information, from the sources mentioned
    above, on the extent to which the Bureau has addressed prior GAO
    recommendations regarding performing decennial census operations in
    hurricane-affected areas.

    We conducted our work from July 2006 through May 2007 in accordance with
    generally accepted government auditing standards.

    Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Commerce

    Appendix III: Web-Based Survey of LUCA Dress Rehearsal Participants

    Experiences with LUCA review
          1. Between the time that the Census Bureau sent its invitation to take
          part in the LUCA dress rehearsal and your decision to participate, did
          the Bureau contact you to explain the importance of LUCA and encourage
          your participation?
    (Check only one answer.)
                               (Number of participants that selected that answer)
    1. Yes                                                        (23)
    2. No (Click here to skip to Question 3.)                     ( 0)
    3. Not sure (Click here to skip to Question 3.)               ( 8)
          2. In what ways, if any did the Census Bureau contact you?
    (Check all that apply.)
    1. Telephone                                                  (11)
    2. E-mail                                                     ( 9)
    3. Mail                                                       (22)
    4. In-person                                                  ( 7)
    5. Other                                                      ( 0)
    6. Not sure                                                   ( 0)
          3. Did the Census Bureau notify you about LUCA classroom training
          opportunities in you area?
    (Check only one answer.)
    1. Yes                                                        (27)
    2. No (Click here to skip to Question 5.)                     ( 1)
    3. Not sure (Click here to skip to Question 5.)               ( 3)
          4. Did your participate in any LUCA classroom training provided by the
          Census Bureau?
    (Check only one answer.)
    1. Yes                                                        (24)
    2. No                                                         ( 3)
    3. Not sure                                                   ( 0)
          5. Did the Census Bureau contact you at any time after you agreed to
          participate in the LUCA dress rehearsal?
    (Check only one answer.)
    1. Yes                                                        (28)
    2. No (Click here to skip to Question 7.)                     ( 0)
    3. Not sure (Click here to skip to Question 7.)               ( 3)
          6. In what ways, if any did the Census Bureau contact you after you
          agreed to participate in the LUCA dress rehearsal?
    (Check all that apply.)
    1. Telephone                                                  (11)
    2. E-mail                                                     (11)
    3. Mail                                                       (23)
    4. In-person                                                  ( 4)
    5. Other                                                      ( 0)
    6. Not sure                                                   ( 1)
          7. Have you completed and submitted the LUCA dress rehearsal materials
          to the Census Bureau?
    (Check only one answer.)
    1. Yes                                                        (30)
    2. No                                                         ( 1)
    3. Not sure                                                   ( 0)
          8. Which LUCA dress rehearsal participation option did you choose?
    (Check only one answer.)
    1. Option 1 - Title 13 Full Address List Review in paper      ( 8)
    format
    2. Option 1 - Title 13 Full Address List Review in computer   (14)
    readable format
    3. Option 2 - Title 13 Local Address List Submission          ( 5)
    4. Option 3 - Non-Title 13 Local Address List Submission      ( 4)
          9. What are the reasons that you chose that participation
          option?
          10. How satisfied were you with the participation options that were
          offered by the Census Bureau?
    (Check only one answer.)
    1. Very satisfied                                             ( 6)
    2. Generally satisfied                                        (16)
    3. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied                         ( 9)
    4. Generally dissatisfied                                     ( 0)
    5. Very dissatisfied                                          ( 0)
          11. What other options, if any, would you have preferred
          to have offered to you and why?
          12. How clear was guidance on the schedule for initiating
          and completing the LUCA dress rehearsal review?
    (Check only one answer.)
    1. Very clear                                                 (11)
    2. Clear                                                      (15)
    3. Neither clear nor unclear                                  ( 3)
    4. Unclear                                                    ( 2)
    5. Very unclear                                               ( 0)
    6. No basis to judge                                          ( 0)
    Experiences with maps during your LUCA review
          13. Did you do a full review or a partial review of the
          maps?
    (Check only one answer.)
    1. Full review (reviewed 100% of the maps) (Click here to     (21)
    skip to Question 15.)
    2. Partial review (targeted or sample checked) (Click here to ( 7)
    skip to Question 14.)
    3. Neither (we are not reviewing the maps) (Click here to     ( 3)
    skip to Question 17.)
          14. If you did a partial review of the maps, what did you review and
          how did you decide which maps to review?
          15. Did you request either shape files of the maps or paper maps from
          the Census Bureau?
    (Check only one answer.)
    1. Shape files                                                (11)
    2. Paper                                                      (17)
    3. None                                                       ( 1)
          16. Was the workload for reviewing the maps more or less
          than you expected?
    (Check only one answer.)
    1. Much more than we expected                                 ( 4)
    2. Somewhat more than we expected                             (11)
    3. Neither more nor less than we expected                     (13)
    4. Somewhat less than we expected                             ( 0)
    5. Much less than we expected                                 ( 0)
          17. Which of the Census Bureau's Boundary and Annexation Surveys, if
          any, did your jurisdiction participate in over the last 3 years?
    (Check all that apply.)
    1. Participated in 2003 Boundary and Annexation Survey        (11)
    2. Participated in 2004 Boundary and Annexation Survey        (14)
    3. Participated in 2005 Boundary and Annexation Survey        (16)
    4. Did not participate in any Boundary and Annexation Surveys (12)
    between 2003 and 2005 (Click here to skip to Question 19.)
          18. Were map changes that your jurisdiction submitted between 2003 and
          2005 as part of a Boundary and Annexation Survey incorporated into the
          LUCA dress rehearsal maps?
    (Check only one answer.)
    1. All or almost all submitted changes were reflected in the  ( 9)
    LUCA dress rehearsal maps
    2. Some submitted changes were reflected in the LUCA dress    ( 6)
    rehearsal maps
    3. Few or none of the submitted changes were reflected in the ( 0)
    dress rehearsal maps
    4. Don't know                                                 ( 4)
    5. Other (please specify in question below)                   ( 1)
    To what extent were your jurisdiction's Boundary and Annexation map
    changes incorporated into the LUCA dress rehearsal maps?
    (If you reach the end of the text box and need to type more,
    please continue; the box will scroll forward as needed.)
    Experiences with address lists during your LUCA review
          19. Did your jurisdiction do a full or partial review of the address
          list and/or address count?
    (Check only one answer.)
    1. Full review (reviewed 100% of the addresses on the list    (21)
    and/or count) (Click here to skip to Question 21.)
    2. Partial review (targeted or sample checked) (Click here to ( 7)
    skip to Question 20.)
    3. Neither (we are not reviewing the Bureau's address list    ( 3)
    and/or count) (Click here to skip to Question 25.)
          20. If you conducted a partial review of the address list and/or
          address count, what factors contributed to your decision to conduct a
          partial review?
          21. In verifying the Census Bureau's address list, did you
          use a single or multiple sources of address data?
    (Check only one answer.)
    1. A single source of address data for all or almost all      ( 9)
    addresses in paper format (Click here to skip to Question
    23.)
    2. A single source of address data for all or almost all      ( 6)
    addresses
    3. Multiple sources of address data in electronic format      (13)
    (Click here to skip to Question 23.)
          22. What format did you use most for the multiple sources
          of address data?
    (Check only one answer.)
    1. All or almost all sources in electronic format             ( 4)
    2. Majority of sources are in electronic format               ( 7)
    3. An approximately equal mix of electronic and paper formats ( 2)
    4. Majority of sources are in paper format                    ( 4)
    5. All or almost all sources are in paper format              ( 2)
          23. What sources did you use to obtain the address data for your LUCA
          review?
          24. Was the workload for reviewing the address list and/or count more
          or less than what you expected?
    (Check only one answer.)
    1. Much more than we expected                                 (10)
    2. More than we expected                                      (6)
    3. Neither more nor less than we expected                     (12)
    4. Less than we expected                                      ( 0)
    5. Much less than we expected                                 ( 0)
    Work Materials and Relationships
          25. How easy or difficult did you find the following to
          work with?
    (Check one for each row.)

                                                                               No
                                                                            basis
                                                                       Very
                                Very       Neither easy                        to
                                easy Easy nor difficult Difficult difficult judge
    25a Address list         ( 0) ( 7)          (12)      ( 9)      ( 2)  ( 0)
    25b. Address count       ( 1) (10)          (13)      ( 4)      ( 1)  ( 1)
    25c. Maps                ( 1) ( 5)          (16)      ( 6)      ( 0)  ( 1)
    25d. Instructions on
    completing LUCA dress
    rehearsal submission     ( 0) ( 7)          (14)      ( 7)      ( 2)  ( 0)

          26. To what extent, if any, did you experience problems with the
          following?
    (Check one for each row.)

                                                                               No
                                         Very                               basis
                                        great  Great Moderate  Small     No    to
                                       extent extent   extent extent extent judge
    26a. Scheduling of LUCA
    training                          ( 0)   ( 0)     ( 4)   ( 5)    16)  ( 5)
    26b. Accuracy and completeness
    of the addresses on the list      ( 1)   ( 3)     ( 7)   (11)   ( 5)  ( 3)
    26c. Accuracy and completeness
    of the address count              ( 1)   ( 1)     ( 7)   (11)   ( 5)  ( 5)
    26d. Accuracy and completeness
    of the maps                       ( 1)   ( 2)     (10)   ( 6)   ( 7)  ( 2)
    26e. Media on which the Census
    Bureau provided information       ( 3)   ( 1)     ( 5)   ( 9)   (10)  ( 1)
    26f. Meeting Census Bureau
    requirements concerning the
    format and media for returning
    information                       ( 4)   ( 5)     ( 8)   ( 5)   ( 8)  ( 0)
    26g. File conversion to
    appropriate formats               ( 3)   ( 6)     ( 5)   ( 3)   ( 7)  ( 6)
    26h. Other (specify in question
    below)                            ( 0)   ( 3)     ( 1)   ( 0)    (4)  ( 6)

    What other problems, if any, did you experience?
    (If you reach the end of the text box and need to type more, please
    continue; the box will scroll forward as needed.)
          27. How sufficient, if at all, are the following resources in your
          jurisdiction to conduct the LUCA dress rehearsal review?
    (Check one for each row.)

                                                                               No
                                                                            basis
                           Very            Moderately   Somewhat Not at all    to
                     sufficient Sufficient sufficient sufficient sufficient judge
    27a. Human
    resources
    available           ( 2)       (12)       ( 3)       ( 6)       ( 7)  ( 1)
    27b.
    Technical
    resources
    available           ( 2)       (16)       ( 2)       ( 5)       ( 4)  ( 2)

          28. To what extent, if any, did your staff doing the LUCA dress
          rehearsal review have the skills necessary for this type of work?
    (Check only one answer.)
    1. Very great extent                                           ( 3)
    2. Great extent                                                (12)
    3. Moderate extent                                             ( 9)
    4. Small extent                                                ( 4)
    5. Not at all                                                  ( 0)
    6. No basis to judge                                           ( 3)
          29. How satisfied, if at all, were you with the following
          Census Bureau actions?
    (Check one for each row.)

                                            Neither                              No
                                          satisfied                           basis
                        Very                    nor                      Very    to
                   satisfied Satisfied dissatisfied Dissatisfied dissatisfied judge
    29a. Extent
    of training
    regarding
    address
    list and/or
    count
    review           ( 0)      ( 9)         (14)         ( 4)         ( 1)  ( 3)
    29b. Extent
    of training
    regarding
    map review       ( 0)      (10)         (14)         ( 1)         ( 1)  ( 5)
    29c. Extent
    of training
    regarding
    the
    procedures
    used for
    submissions
    to the
    Bureau           ( 0)      ( 8)         (15)         ( 4)         ( 1)  ( 2)
    29d. Extent
    of Census
    Bureau
    assistance       ( 3)      (15)         (10)         ( 0)         ( 2)  ( 1)
    29e.
    Timeliness
    of the
    Census
    Bureau's
    response to
    your
    questions        ( 6)      (14)         ( 7)         ( 1)         ( 0)  ( 3)
    29f.
    Adequacy of
    responses
    provided by
    the Census
    Bureau to
    any
    questions
    you asked        ( 7)      (11)         ( 8)         ( 2)         ( 0)  ( 3)

          30. Considering your experience completing the LUCA dress rehearsal,
          how helpful to you would the following types of training activities
          have been before you began your LUCA review?
    (Check one for each row.)

                                                                            No
                                                                    Not at  basis
                              Extremely Very    Moderately Slightly all     to
                              helpful   helpful helpful    helpful  helpful judge
    30a. Classroom
    training at a regional
    site                        ( 3)    ( 9)       (12)     ( 2)    ( 1)  ( 2)
    30b. Interactive
    computer-based
    training provided on
    CD-ROM or DVD               ( 5)    (11)       ( 3)     ( 5)    ( 2)  ( 4)
    30c. Interactive
    internet training           ( 2)    (11)       ( 7)     ( 3)    ( 2)  ( 5)
    30d. Self instruction
    using Census Bureau
    training guides             ( 1)    ( 9)       ( 9)     ( 8)    ( 2)  ( 2)

          31. How helpful to you would the following types of training activities
          have been during your LUCA review?
    (Check one for each row.)

                                                                            No
                                                                    Not at  basis
                              Extremely Very    Moderately Slightly all     to
                              helpful   helpful helpful    helpful  helpful judge
    31a. Classroom
    training at a regional
    site                        ( 4)    (11)       ( 5)     ( 5)    ( 2)  ( 2)
    31b. Interactive
    computer-based
    training provided on
    CD-ROM or DVD               ( 5)    (12)       ( 3)     ( 3)    ( 2)  ( 3)
    31c. Interactive
    internet training           ( 5)    (13)       ( 4)     ( 2)    ( 2)  ( 3)
    31d. Self instruction
    using Census Bureau
    training guides             ( 2)    ( 7)       ( 8)     ( 9)    ( 3)  ( 1)

          32. How helpful would guidance specific to your office's software have
          been in completing your LUCA review?
    (Check only one answer.)
    1. Extremely helpful                                                  (11)
    2. Very helpful                                                       ( 8)
    3. Moderately helpful                                                 ( 1)
    4. Slightly helpful                                                   ( 3)
    5. Not at all helpful                                                 ( 1)
    6. No basis to judge                                                  ( 7)
          33. Did your state data center assist you in completing the LUCA
          dress rehearsal review?
    (Check only one answer.)
    1. Yes                                                                ( 3)
    2. No                                                                 (24)
    3. Don't Know                                                         ( 3)
          34. How useful have the following sources of assistance been in
          doing your review and update of the address list and/or count and
          maps?
    (Check one for each row.)

                                                                            No
                                                                     Not at basis
                                Extremely Very   Moderately Slightly all    to
                                useful    useful useful     useful   useful judge
    34a. LUCA dress
    rehearsal training
    session                       ( 0)   ( 9)       (11)     ( 4)   ( 0)   (7)
    34b. LUCA dress
    rehearsal reference
    manuals                       ( 0)  ( 12)       (11)     ( 7)   ( 0)  ( 1)
    34c. State data center        ( 0)   ( 0)       ( 1)     ( 4)   ( 2)  (22)
    34d. Other government
    entities, such as
    regional partnerships or
    county governments            ( 2)   ( 6)       ( 3)     ( 2)   ( 0)  (17)
    34e. Census Bureau's
    regional office               ( 2)   ( 4)       (12)     ( 6)   ( 1)   (6)
    34f. E-mail contact with
    the Census Bureau             ( 0)   ( 5)       ( 6)     ( 6)   ( 1)  (12)
    34g. Census Bureau's web
    site                          ( 0)   ( 2)       ( 5)     ( 3)   ( 4) ( 17)
    34h. Other (please
    specify what type of
    assistance and who
    provided it in question
    below)                        ( 0)   ( 3)       ( 0)     ( 0)   ( 0)  (15)

    What type of other assistance did you receive and who
    provided the assistance?
          35. If a source of assistance in question 34 was of "little or no use",
          please elaborate on each type of assistance providing examples or
          illustrations where possible.
          36. Which of the following best describes how much of the Census
          Bureau's LUCA materials your locality's review covered?
    (Check only one answer.)
    1. Covered more than originally planned or expected         ( 6)
    2. Covered about what was originally planned or expected    (20)
    3. Covered less than originally planned or expected         ( 5)
          37. Was adequate time allowed to complete the review?
    (Check only one answer.)
    1. Yes                                                      (22)
    2. No                                                       ( 5)
    3. Don't know                                               ( 4)
          38. Given your experiences completing the LUCA dress rehearsal, do you
          anticipate doing any of the following for the 2010 LUCA?
    (Check one for each row.)

                                                             Yes  No   Don't know
    38a. Start our LUCA review earlier                    (19) ( 8) ( 4)
    38b. Make completing LUCA a higher priority for staff (14) ( 9) ( 8)
    38c. Better prepare local materials prior to          (16) ( 8) ( 7)
    receiving LUCA documentation
    38d. Solicit technical assistance from Census         (15) ( 9) ( 6)
    regional staff earlier in the process
    38e. Other (please specify in question below)         ( 1) ( 5) (12)

    What other activities would you do differently in future
    LUCA reviews?
          39. Given your experiences with the LUCA dress rehearsal, what actions,
          if any, could the Bureau take to improve the program?
          40. If you have any additional comments regarding any previous
          questions or other comments concerning LUCA, the Census Bureau, or this
          survey, please use the space provided below.
    Background Information
          41. Did your jurisdiction participate in any of the 2000 Decennial
          Census LUCA programs?
    (Check only one answer.)
    1. Yes                                                      (10)
    2. No                                                       ( 9)
    3. Not sure                                                 (11)
          42. Have you had previous experience with any LUCA
          reviews?
    (Check only one answer.)
    1. Yes                                                      (12)
    2. No                                                       (17)
    3. Not sure                                                 ( 1)
          43. How long have you served in your current position?
    Contact Information
          44. What is the name of the person we should contact if we have any
          questions?
    Name
    What is the telephone number of the person we should contact if we have
    any questions?
    Phone number
    What is the e-mail address of the person we should contact if we have any
    questions?
    E-mail

    Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

    GAO Contact

    Mathew J. Scire, (202) 512-6806 or sciremj@gao.gov

    Acknowledgments

    In addition to the individual named above, Ernie Hazera, Assistant
    Director; Timothy Wexler; Tom Beall; Michael Carley; Cynthia Cortese;
    Peter DelToro; Tom James; Andrea Levine; Amanda Miller; Matt Reilly; Mark
    Ryan; and Michael Volpe made key contributions to this report.

    Related GAO Products

    Gulf Coast Rebuilding: Preliminary Observations on Progress to Date and
    Challenges for the Future. [32]GAO-07-574T . Washington, D.C.: April 12,
    2007.

    2010 Census: Census Bureau Should Refine Recruiting and Hiring Efforts and
    Enhance Training of Temporary Field Staff. [33]GAO-07-361 . Washington,
    D.C.: April 27, 2007

    2010 Census: Redesigned Approach Holds Promise, but Census Bureau Needs to
    Annually Develop and Provide a Comprehensive Project Plan to Monitor
    Costs. [34]GAO-06-1009T . Washington, D.C.: July 27, 2006.

    2010 Census: Census Bureau Needs to Take Prompt Actions to Resolve
    Long-standing and Emerging Address and Mapping Challenges. [35]GAO-06-272
    . Washington, D.C.: June 15, 2006.

    2010 Census: Costs and Risks Must be Closely Monitored and Evaluated with
    Mitigation Plans in Place. [36]GAO-06-822T . Washington, D.C.: June 6,
    2006.

    2010 Census: Census Bureau Generally Follows Selected Leading Acquisition
    Planning Practices, but Continued Management Attentions Is Needed to Help
    Ensure Success. [37]GAO-06-277 . Washington, D.C.: May 18, 2006.

    2010 Census: Planning and Testing Activities Are Making Progress.
    [38]GAO-06-465T . Washington D.C.: March 1, 2006.

    2010 Census: Basic Design Has Potential, but Remaining Challenges Need
    Prompt Resolution. [39]GAO-05-9 . Washington, D.C.: January 12, 2005.

    2010 Census: Counting Americans Overseas as Part of the Decennial Census
    Would Not Be Cost-Effective. [40]GAO-04-898 . Washington, D.C.: August 19,
    2004.

    2010 Census: Overseas Enumeration Test Raises Need for Clear Policy
    Direction. [41]GAO-04-470 . Washington, D.C.: May 21, 2004.

    2010 Census: Cost and Design Issues Need to Be Addressed Soon.
    [42]GAO-04-37 . Washington, D.C.: January 15, 2004.

    Decennial Census: Lessons Learned for Locating and Counting Migrant and
    Seasonal Farm Workers. [43]GAO-03-605 . Washington, D.C.: July 3, 2003.

    Decennial Census: Methods for Collecting and Reporting Hispanic Subgroup
    Data Need Refinement. [44]GAO-03-228 . Washington, D.C.: January 17, 2003.

    Decennial Census: Methods for Collecting and Reporting Data on the
    Homeless and Others without Conventional Housing Need Refinement.
    [45]GAO-03-227 . Washington, D.C.: January 17, 2003.

    2000 Census: Lessons Learned for Planning a More Cost-Effective 2010
    Census. [46]GAO-03-40 . Washington, D.C.: October 31, 2002.

    (450511)

    2000 Census: Local Address Review Program Has Had Mixed Results to Date.
    [47]GAO/T-GGD-99-184. Washington, D.C.: September 29, 1999.

    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 ( 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
    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: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
    E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
    Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

    Congressional Relations

    Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, 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, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
    U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
    Washington, D.C. 20548

    www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-736 .

    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 [55]GAO-07-736 , a report to congressional addressees

    June 2007

    2010 CENSUS

    Census Bureau Has Improved the Local Update of Census Addresses Program,
    but Challenges Remain

    The Department of Commerce's (Commerce) U.S. Census Bureau (Bureau) seeks
    updated information on the addresses and maps of housing units and group
    quarters from state, local, and tribal governments through the Local
    Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) Program. Prepared under the Comptroller
    General's authority, this report assesses (1) the status of the LUCA
    Program, (2) the Bureau's response to prior recommendations by GAO and
    others and new challenges related to the program, and (3) the Bureau's
    plans for conducting the program in areas affected by hurricanes Katrina
    and Rita.

    GAO reviewed LUCA program documents, met with and surveyed participants in
    the LUCA Dress Rehearsal, and interviewed Bureau officials and local
    officials in the Gulf Coast region.

    [56]What GAO Recommends

    GAO recommends that the Secretary of Commerce direct the Bureau to take
    several actions to improve the LUCA Program, including further testing the
    MAF/TIGER Partnership Software (MTPS) and the computer-based training
    (CBT) software to assess ease of use and establishing a schedule for plans
    for conducting address canvassing and related operations in
    hurricane-affected areas. In commenting on a draft of this report,
    Commerce generally agreed with GAO's recommendations and offered technical
    comments.

    The Bureau has conducted its planned LUCA operations in accordance with
    its published timeline. The Bureau has also taken steps to reduce
    workloads and burdens and improve training for localities that participate
    in LUCA--all areas GAO and others had identified as needing improvement.
    For instance, to reduce participant workload and 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 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
    (i.e., specialized workshops for informational and then technical
    training) and plans to supplement the workshops with CBT.

    Improvements made to LUCA program (such as MTPS), but challenges remain
    (such as uncertainty about the ability of localities in the Gulf Coast
    region to participate in LUCA).

    However, the Bureau faces new challenges. For instance, the Bureau tested
    MTPS with only one local government. Other local officials we spoke with
    had problems converting Bureau-provided address files. In addition, the
    Bureau did not test its CBT software in the LUCA Dress Rehearsal.
    Additional challenges stem from the damage to the Gulf Coast region caused
    by hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Officials in localities in
    hurricane-affected areas questioned their ability to participate in the
    LUCA Program. The continuous changes in housing stock may hinder local
    governments' ability to accurately update their address lists and maps.
    The condition of the housing stock is likely to present additional
    challenges for the Bureau's address canvassing operation (in which the
    Bureau verifies addresses) in the form of decreased productivity for
    Bureau staff, workforce shortages, and issues associated with identifying
    vacant and uninhabitable structures. The Bureau created a task force to
    assess the implications of storm-related issues that proposed a number of
    mitigating actions. However, the Bureau has no plans for modifying the
    address canvassing operation or subsequent operations in the Gulf Coast
    region.

    References

    Visible links
      20. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-272
      21. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-465T
      22. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-822T
      24. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-GGD-99-184
      25. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-GGD-99-184
      26. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-927EUR
      27. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-574T
      28. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-272
      29. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-822T
      30. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-361EUR
      32. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07574t.pdf
      33. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07361.pdf
      34. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-1009T
      35. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-272
      36. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-822T
      37. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-277
      38. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-465T
      39. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-9
      40. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-898
      41. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-470
      42. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-37
      43. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-605
      44. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-228
      45. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-227
      46. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-40
      47. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-GGD-99-184
      55. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-736
    *** End of document. ***