2000 Census: Local Address Review Program Has Had Mixed Results to Date
(Testimony, 09/29/1999, GAO/T-GGD-99-184).

In 1994, Congress required the Census Bureau to give local and tribal
governments more input into the Bureau's process for developing address
lists. The Bureau's local addresses review program gives local and
tribal governments the opportunity to review the accuracy and
completeness of the Bureau's address information for their respective
jurisdictions and to suggest corrections, when warranted. The program is
important because a high-quality census begins with an accurate list of
addresses and precise maps. Together, they help ensure that (1)
questionnaires are properly delivered, (2) unnecessary and costly
follow-up efforts at vacant or nonexistent residences are reduced, and
(3) the correct portions of the population are counted in the proper
locations--the basis of congressional reapportionment and redistricting.
A GAO survey found that the Bureau invited nearly 16,700 local
governments to participate in the program in 1998. As of August 1999, 40
percent of these local governments had returned materials to the Bureau.
The Bureau does not know whether the other jurisdictions (1) did not
review the census address list or (2) did review the list and decided
not to respond. Local governments suggested 7.74 million changes to the
Bureau's address list, of which about 5.4 million were suggested
additions. The results of GAO's survey suggest that many local
governments appear to be satisfied with the quality of the materials and
the assistance that the Bureau provided. However, several jurisdictions
rated these items and the availability of local resources to review
program materials less favorably.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  T-GGD-99-184
     TITLE:  2000 Census: Local Address Review Program Has Had Mixed
	     Results to Date
      DATE:  09/29/1999
   SUBJECT:  Census
	     Surveys
	     Intergovernmental relations
	     Mailing lists
	     Data collection
	     Population statistics
	     Local governments
	     Data integrity
IDENTIFIER:  Census Bureau Local Update of Census Addresses Program
	     2000 Decennial Census

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.                 **
**                                                              **
** 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.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************
GAO/T-GGD-99-184

United States General Accounting Office
GAO

Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on the Census
Committee on Government Reform
House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery
10:00 a.m. EDT
Wednesday,
September 29, 1999
GAO/T-GGD-99-184

2000 CENSUS
Local Address Review Program Has Had Mixed

Results to Date

Statement of
J. Christopher Mihm
Associate Director, Federal Management
  and Workforce Issues
General Government Division

Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony
is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders
should be sent to the following address,
accompanied by a check or money order made out
to the Superintendent of Documents, when
necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are
accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to
be mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent.

Order by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office
P.O. Box 37050
Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100
700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)
U.S. General Accounting Office
Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-
6000 or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available
reports and testimony. To receive facsimile
copies of the daily list or any list from the
past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a
touch-tone phone. A recorded menu will provide
information on how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on
the INTERNET, send e-mail message with "info" in
the body to:

[email protected]

or visit GAO's World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

United States
General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
Address Correction Requested

                    Bulk Rate
               Postage & Fees Paid
                       GAO
                 Permit No. G100

(410508)

Statement
2000 Census: Local Address Review Program Has Had
Mixed Results to Date
Page 5                GAO/T-GGD-99-184 2000 Census
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the
Census Bureau's implementation of the Local Update
of Census Addresses (LUCA) program. As you are
aware, in 1994 Congress required the Bureau to
develop a local address review program in order to
give local and tribal governments greater input
into the Bureau's address list development
process. 1LUCA gives local and tribal governments
the opportunity to review the accuracy and
completeness of the Bureau's address information
for their respective jurisdictions, and suggest
corrections where warranted.

The success of LUCA is important because a high-
quality census begins with an accurate address
list and precise maps. Together, they help ensure
that (1) questionnaires are properly delivered;
(2) unnecessary and costly follow-up efforts at
vacant or nonexistent residences are reduced; and
(3) the correct portions of the population are
counted in their proper locations, which is the
basis of congressional reapportionment and
redistricting.

LUCA's overall impact on the accuracy and
completeness of the address list will not be fully
known until after the census, when the Bureau will
have completed additional verification procedures
and can evaluate the accuracy and completeness of
the address list. Therefore, as agreed with the
Subcommittee, my statement today focuses on two
initial measures of how well LUCA is working: (1)
the Bureau's operational experience to date in
implementing LUCA, and (2) local governments'
views of the adequacy of local resources to
conduct LUCA and of the quality of materials and
assistance the Bureau has provided.

Our views are based on our examination of those
jurisdictions with city-style address areas; that
is, jurisdictions where the U.S. Postal Service
uses house-number and street-name addresses for
most mail delivery. Because this program was
initiated in 1998, the Bureau refers to it as
"LUCA 1998." According to the Bureau, about 80
percent of the nation's housing units are located
within city-style jurisdictions.

We obtained information on the Bureau's
implementation of LUCA by interviewing Bureau
officials and analyzing Bureau data on local
governments' participation in the program and the
number of address list changes they suggested. We
obtained local governments' views of LUCA by
surveying a stratified random sample of 150 city-
style jurisdictions of varying sizes. Of these,
128 jurisdictions responded, yielding a response
rate of 85 percent. Our survey results are
generalizable to the 8,248 local governments that
were sent LUCA 1998 materials and were
participating in LUCA at the time our sample was
drawn in January 1999. It is important to keep in
mind that the data we present on the perceptions
of local governments are estimates that are based
on the results of our survey. We describe our
survey methodology more fully in attachment I.

In brief, the Bureau invited nearly 16,675 local
governments to participate in LUCA 1998. Of these,
6,673 (40 percent) returned material to the Bureau
as of August 1999. The remaining jurisdictions did
not provide the Bureau with any input. The Bureau
does not know whether these jurisdictions (1) did
not review the census address list, or (2) did
review the list and decided not to respond to the
Bureau. Local governments suggested about 7.74
million changes to the Bureau's address list, of
which about 5.4 million were suggested additions.
The results of our survey suggest that many local
governments appeared to be satisfied with the
quality of the materials and assistance the Bureau
provided. However, a number of jurisdictions rated
these items, and the availability of local
resources to review LUCA materials, less
favorably.

Background
To develop the address list for the 2000 Census,
the Bureau is using a series of operations,
including LUCA. LUCA is one of only two components
of the Bureau's address list development program
that gives local governments direct input into the
Bureau's address database.

For LUCA 1998, the Bureau sent participating
governments address list information and
associated maps for their jurisdictions. Local
governments had the option of reviewing either
paper address lists or electronic address lists.
Maps were available only in paper format. The
local governments were to review this information
for accuracy and completeness, and suggest
additions, deletions, corrections, and other
changes, where appropriate, to the Bureau. Bureau
personnel were then to verify these
changes-generally by visiting each address in
question-and provide feedback to LUCA participants
on the Bureau's actions.

Should local governments disagree with the
Bureau's final decisions, they can appeal the
Bureau's actions to an independent office
established by the Office of Management and
Budget. Appeals officers-who can be detailed or
temporary federal employees, as well as
contractors that have received special
training-are to base their decisions on the
validity of the map or address references supplied
by the Bureau and local governments. The appeals
process for LUCA 1998 has not yet begun. All
appeals are to be resolved no later than January
14, 2000.

     LUCA was tested during the dress rehearsal
for the 2000 Census that was conducted in
Sacramento, CA; Columbia, SC, and 11 surrounding
counties; and Menominee County in Wisconsin,
including the Menominee American Indian
Reservation. In our testimony on the status of the
dress rehearsal before the Subcommittee in March
1998, we reported that LUCA encountered various
implementation problems that adversely affected
local governments' review efforts.2They included
problems with the accuracy and completeness of the
Bureau's address list and maps, as well as with
the level of Bureau assistance. Following the
dress rehearsal, Bureau officials said the Bureau
took steps to address some of these shortcomings
in time for LUCA 1998.

The Bureau's Operational Experience in
Implementing LUCA 1998
Although the Bureau invited all 16,675
jurisdictions with city-style addresses to
participate in LUCA 1998, as shown in table 1,
most did not provide the Bureau with any input.
Indeed, according to Bureau data, of the 16,675
jurisdictions eligible for LUCA 1998, 9,796 (about
59 percent) volunteered to participate in the
program and signed the Bureau's confidentiality
agreement, which is a prerequisite for reviewing
the Bureau's address lists. However, 1,017 initial
participants decided to drop out of the program,
and the Bureau ultimately mailed LUCA material to
8,779 local governments. Of these, 5,791 reviewed
and annotated at least a portion of the address
material, and 882 returned unannotated material.
Thus, of the original universe of 16,675
jurisdictions, 6,673 (40 percent) returned
something to the Bureau.

Table 1: Local Governments' Participation in LUCA
1998
Eligible jurisdictions                      16,675
Jurisdictions that returned                  9,796
confidentiality agreements
Jurisdictions that were                      8,779
shipped materials
Jurisdictions that returned                  5,791
annotated materials
Jurisdictions that returned                    882
unannotated materials
Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Bureau officials said that they were generally
pleased with LUCA 1998 participation rates, in
part because they exceeded figures from a similar
program during the 1990 Census. Still, the Bureau
cannot at this time determine the extent to which
LUCA 1998 has contributed to the accuracy of the
Bureau's address list. This is because important
data, such as the number of housing unit addresses
they actually reviewed, are unavailable. Also,
2,106 local governments were shipped LUCA
materials but did not provide the Bureau with any
input. The Bureau does not know whether these
jurisdictions (1) did not review the census
address list, or (2) did review the list and
decided not to respond to the Bureau.

The Number of Changes Suggested by Local
Governments
The LUCA 1998 participants that furnished the
Bureau with updated address list information
suggested a total of about 7.74 million changes to
the census address list, according to Bureau data
(see table 2).

Table 2: Address List Changes Suggested by LUCA
1998 Participants
Type of suggested change                   Number
Address additions                       5,384,864
Address deletions                         427,626
Other (e.g., corrections,               1,931,559
geographic changes, etc.)
Total                                   7,744,049
Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

As originally planned, the Bureau was to confirm
the validity of these changes as part of a
subsequent address list development operation
called block canvassing, which took place between
January and May 1999. In this operation, temporary
Bureau employees were to verify all city-style
addresses by systematically traveling each street
in an assigned area, comparing their on-site
inspections with the address list, and thus
identifying incorrect, missing, nonexistent, or
duplicate addresses. Addresses that were not
accepted by the Bureau during block canvassing
were to be rechecked during a subsequent on-site
inspection operation called "reconciliation."

However, according to Bureau officials, the Bureau
underestimated the amount of time it would take to
get agreements from local governments to
participate in the program and then to prepare
address lists for local governments' review. As a
result, LUCA 1998 took several months longer to
complete than the Bureau initially expected. In
turn, a number of changes were submitted too late
to be included in block canvassing and instead
will be verified during the reconciliation
process.

For example, of the approximately 5.4 million
suggested additions, the Bureau determined that
about 2.76 million were valid-2.0 million during
block canvassing and another 760,000 from matching
LUCA 1998 submissions with block canvassing
results. The Bureau has not accepted about 2.2
million of the suggested address additions. This
figure includes about 400,000 suggested additions
checked during block canvassing. It also includes
about 1.8 million additions that were not
submitted in time to be included in block
canvassing, and that were not independently found
by the Bureau during block canvassing. According
to Bureau officials, these 2.2 million addresses
are to be included in its reconciliation
operation.

LUCA Participants Had Mixed Perceptions of the
Program
In addition to the Bureau's experience in
implementing LUCA 1998, the degree to which local
governments were satisfied with the LUCA process
is another early indicator of how well the program
is working. We surveyed LUCA 1998 participants on
their views of the (1) availability of local
resources to review LUCA materials; (2) adequacy
of LUCA time frames; (3) user-friendliness of LUCA
address lists and maps, and the media on which
they were provided; (4) adequacy of Bureau
support; and (5) overall completeness and accuracy
of LUCA address lists and maps. While many local
governments generally gave favorable reviews to
the materials and assistance the Bureau provided
to them, a number of jurisdictions held less
positive views. Further, the availability of human
resources to review LUCA materials appeared to be
particularly problematic for many local
governments.

Availability of Local Resources to Review LUCA
Material
As shown in figure 1, about 44 percent of local
governments participating in LUCA rated the human
resources in their jurisdiction as not at all
sufficient or only sufficient to a small extent.
In contrast, only about 23 percent indicated that
their human resources were sufficient to a very
great or great extent. About 27 percent indicated
that they were sufficient to a moderate extent.

On the other hand, our survey suggests that the
local staff that were available had sufficient
skills to review the LUCA material. Indeed, about
63 percent reported that the local staff assigned
to LUCA had, to a great or very great extent, the
skills needed for LUCA reviews, while 19 percent
replied "to a moderate extent."

In terms of the sufficiency of local governments'
technological resources to review addresses, the
results were mixed. Just over a third of local
governments indicated that, to a great or very
great extent, their technological resources were
sufficient, while about a quarter reported that
their resources were sufficient to a small extent
or not at all.

Figure  1:  Extent to Which Local Governments Had
Sufficient Resources to Review LUCA Materials

Note: Percentages in figure have confidence
intervals of less than + 12 percent.
Source: GAO survey of LUCA 1998 participants.

The availability of local resources appeared to be
a factor in whether or not local governments fully
reviewed the addresses and maps for their
jurisdictions. About 14 percent of the local
governments reported conducting a partial review
of the Bureau's address list for their
jurisdiction, while about 6 percent reported
partially reviewing the Bureau's maps. Of those
local governments that partially reviewed address
lists, most cited limited resources for doing so.
About 9 percent reported that they did not review
the address lists, while about 16 percent did not
review the maps.

Local governments that reported partial reviews
typically focused their efforts on those areas
that were new or changed since 1990, or had
experienced high growth. Some local governments
also limited their reviews to those areas where
the local government's count of housing units
differed from the Bureau's housing count, or to
areas with multiple-family dwellings. According to
Bureau officials, during training provided to
local governments, the Bureau recommended that
local jurisdictions conduct their reviews along
these lines if they could not conduct full
reviews.

Overall, the survey results suggest that LUCA can
be a burdensome process for local governments.
Indeed, about 71 percent of respondents indicated
that the LUCA workload was much or somewhat more
than they had expected, while 24 percent said it
was about what they expected, and 5 percent
reported that the workload was somewhat or much
less than expected.

Adequacy of LUCA Time Frames
The Bureau gave local governments 3 months to
review LUCA material. As shown in figure 2, about
38 percent of local governments reported that this
time frame was adequate to a very great or great
extent, while about 25 percent indicated that it
was adequate to a small extent or not at all.

Figure  2:  Extent to Which Local Governments
Found the Time frame to Complete Their LUCA
Reviews Adequate

Note: Percentages in figure have confidence
intervals of less than + 12 percent.
Source: GAO survey of LUCA 1998 participants.

User-friendliness of LUCA Media
Many local governments had positive views of the
user-friendliness of LUCA address lists and maps,
and the paper or electronic media on which they
were provided. As shown in figure 3, roughly half
of the local governments reported that both the
Bureau's address lists and maps were easy to work
with to a great or very great extent. Likewise,
most local governments reported that they
encountered few or no problems with either the
electronic or paper media on which the information
was provided, nor the media for returning the
information.

Figure  3:  Extent to Which Local Governments
Found LUCA Media Easy to Work With

Note: Percentages in figure have confidence
intervals ranging from + 6 percent to + 18
percent.
Source: GAO survey of LUCA 1998 participants.

Adequacy of Bureau Support
To help local governments in their LUCA reviews,
the Bureau provided various forms of support, such
as formal training. Help was also available
through different sources, such as reference
manuals and direct Bureau assistance.

With regard to training, figure 4 shows that about
28 percent of local governments were satisfied
with the extent of LUCA training to a very great
or great extent, while about 13 percent were
satisfied to a small extent or not at all. Local
governments gave more favorable reviews to their
ability to schedule LUCA training.

Figure 4:  Extent to Which Local Governments Found
LUCA Training to Be Adequate

Note: Percentages in figure have confidence
intervals of less than + 12 percent.
Source: GAO survey of LUCA 1998 participants.

The Bureau made available a variety of resources
that local governments could turn to for help in
completing their reviews. The sources of
information ranged from formal workshops and
reference manuals, to a video. As shown in figure
5, it appears that LUCA reference manuals were
used more than any other source of information.
Moreover, 45 percent of localities found the
manuals to be of great use. Local governments
appear to have turned to the other sources of
information, such as the Bureau's Internet web
site and e-mail contact with the Bureau far less
frequently, and reported finding them to be less
useful.

Figure 5:  Local Governments' Views of the
Usefulness of Bureau Assistance

Note: Percentages in figure have confidence
intervals of less than + 12 percent.
Source: GAO survey of LUCA 1998 participants.

Overall, as shown in figure 6, about half of the
localities appeared to be satisfied with various
aspects of the Bureau's assistance. For example,
about 48 percent indicated that they were
satisfied with the extent of Bureau assistance to
a great or very great extent, while about 52
percent reported that the Bureau's responses to
their questions met their needs to a great or very
great extent. Local governments gave similar
reviews to the timeliness of the Bureau's response
to their questions.

Figure 6:  Extent to Which Local Governments Were
Satisfied With the Bureau's Assistance Overall

Note: Percentages in figure have confidence
intervals of less than + 12 percent.
Source: GAO survey of LUCA 1998 participants.

Overall Completeness and Accuracy of LUCA Address
Lists and Maps
Local governments gave the accuracy of the
Bureau's address lists and maps mixed reviews. For
example, as can be seen in figure 7, about 43
percent indicated they encountered few problems
with the accuracy and completeness of the address
lists, while, about 18 percent reported
encountering problems to a very great or great
extent. Somewhat less problematic was the
perceived completeness and accuracy of the
Bureau's maps, where about 50 percent said that
they encountered problems to a small extent or not
at all, compared with 16 percent who indicated
encountering problems to a very great or great
extent.

Figure 7:  Local Governments' Views of the
Accuracy and Completeness of Bureau Address Lists
and Maps

Note: Percentages in figure have confidence
intervals of less than + 12 percent.
Source: GAO survey of LUCA 1998 participants.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, the overall results to
date of LUCA 1998 appear to be mixed. On the one
hand, many local governments said they were
satisfied with specific aspects of the materials
and assistance the Bureau provided to them. On the
other hand, other components, such as training,
received less favorable reviews. Moreover, LUCA
may have stretched the resources of local
governments, and overall, the LUCA 1998 workload
was greater than most local governments had
expected. In terms of participation rates and
suggested changes, the full impact that these
indicators had on the overall completeness and
accuracy of the Bureau's address list will not be
known until well after Census Day.

We will continue tracking the LUCA program as part
of our overall review of the 2000 Census, and will
keep Congress informed of the results of our work.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared
statement. I would be pleased to respond to any
questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee
may have.

Contact and Acknowledgement

For further information regarding the testimony,
please contact J. Christopher Mihm at (202) 512-
8676. Individuals making key contributions to this
testimony included Tom Beall, Robert Goldenkoff,
Marcia McWreath, Anne Rhodes-Kline, and Lynn
Wasielewski.

_______________________________
1Census Address List Improvement Act, P.L. 103-
430, Oct. 31, 1994.
2Decennial Census: Preparations for Dress
Rehearsal Underscore the Challenges for 2000
(GAO/T-GGD-98-84, Mar. 26, 1998).

Attachment I
Scope and Methodology
Page 15               GAO/T-GGD-99-184 2000 Census
     To meet our objective of obtaining
information on the Bureau's experience to date in
implementing the Local Update of Census Addresses
(LUCA) program, we interviewed officials in the
Bureau's Directorate for Decennial Census,
including officials in the Geography Division, and
in the Bureau's Regional Census Center in Dallas,
TX. We asked these officials about the Bureau's
time frames for providing local governments with
address lists and maps for review, reasons why the
Bureau's schedule was revised for completing the
program, difficulties encountered, and lessons
learned from the Bureau's dress rehearsal. We also
asked Geography Division officials about lessons
they had learned for improving the program for
future Bureau survey work.

     We also requested and obtained data from
Bureau Geography Division officials on
participation rates in the program, including data
on the number of eligible entities to participate
in the program, the number of entities that signed
confidentiality agreements to participate in the
program, and the number that were provided address
lists and/or maps for review. We also requested
and obtained data on the number of entities that
returned annotated and unannotated address lists
and/or maps.

To meet our objective of obtaining information on
local governments' LUCA participation experience,
we faxed a questionnaire to a stratified, random
probability sample of 150 local governments that
were participating in the Census Bureau's 1998
LUCA city-style address operation (LUCA 1998).

We drew our sample from a database, prepared for
us by the Bureau, of local governments
participating in LUCA 1998. We defined
participants as those local governments that had
signed confidentiality agreements, had been
shipped at least some of the material needed to
perform their review, and had not subsequently
indicated to the Bureau that they had decided to
drop out of the review process.

This database identified 8,248 local governments
that were participating in LUCA 1998 in January
1999. This constituted the population from which
we drew our sample. Each responding local
government was subsequently weighted in the
analysis to account statistically for all the
members of this population, including those that
were not selected.

As shown in table I.1, the population was
stratified into eight groups based on the number
of geocoded residential address records taken from
the Bureau's master address file and delivered to
the local government for its review. Also shown in
table I.1 is the sample allocation for each
stratum and the number of local governments that
provided usable, completed questionnaires.

Table I.1: Sample Allocation and Usable Returns,
by Strata
Number of             Number of    Number of local
address records           local        governments
                 governments in   providing usable
                         sample            returns
500,000 or more              17                 17
100,000-499,999              31                 28
50,000-99,999                10                  7
25,000-49,999                11                 10
10,000-24,999                17                 13
5,000-9,999                  14                 12
1,000-4,999                  32                 28
0-999                        18                 13
Total                       150                128

The majority of items on the questionnaire were
closed-ended, meaning that, depending on the
particular item, respondents could choose one or
more response categories or rate the strength of
their perception on a 5-point extent scale. The
remaining items were in an open-ended format;
i.e., the respondent writes in the answer. We
analyzed the open-ended responses by sorting them
into categories based on the content of the
responses.

After designing our questionnaire, we pretested it
with local governments in the Washington, D.C.,
and Dallas, TX, areas. For each local government
in our sample, we contacted the individual
identified on the Bureau's database as the local
liaison for the LUCA 1998 review. Based on our
conversation with this contact person, we sent our
questionnaire to this individual or a person
designated by this individual as being the most
appropriate person to respond to our questionnaire
for the local government. We sent out our
questionnaires between February 22, 1999, and
March 23, 1999.

We received usable returns from 85 percent of the
total eligible sample. Although we did not test
the validity of the local governments' responses
or the comments they made, we took several steps
to check the quality of our survey data.
Specifically, we (1) reviewed and edited completed
questionnaires, (2) made internal consistency
checks on selected items, and (3) checked the
accuracy of data entry on returned questionnaires.

The overall survey results are generalizable to
the 8,248 local governments that were
participating in LUCA 1998 as of January 1999.
Because we sampled a portion of local governments,
all results are estimates and subject to some
uncertainty or sampling error, as well as
nonsampling error. Depending on the particular
analysis being performed, percentages reported for
the entire sample have confidence intervals
generally ranging from + 2 to + 18 at the 95
percent confidence level. In other words, if we
had surveyed all the local governments, we are 95
percent confident that the result obtained would
not differ from our sample estimate, in the most
extreme case, by more than + 18 percent.

Our choice of sample size was adequate to support
our objective of obtaining simple, overall
estimates of participating local governments'
views of their LUCA 1998 experience. However, this
sample size is generally not large enough to
provide the degree of statistical sensitivity that
would be preferable for engaging in more detailed
analyses of differences between various groupings
of local governments or relationships between
responses to two or more questionnaire items.

We conducted our work between September 1998 and
September 1999 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.

*** End of Document ***