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

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

Statement 

2000 Census: Local Address Review Program

Has Had Mixed Results to Date

Page 1 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 citystyle 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

 

1

Census Address List Improvement Act, P.L. 103-430, Oct. 31, 1994.
Statement

2000 Census: Local Address Review Program Has Had Mixed Results to Date

Page 2 GAO/T-GGD-99-184 2000 Census

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.

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.

Background
Statement

2000 Census: Local Address Review Program Has Had Mixed Results to Date

Page 3 GAO/T-GGD-99-184 2000 Census

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.2

They 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.

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.

Eligible jurisdictions 16,675

Jurisdictions that returned confidentiality agreements 9,796

Jurisdictions that were shipped materials 8,779

Jurisdictions that returned annotated materials 5,791

Jurisdictions that returned unannotated materials 882

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

 

2

Decennial Census: Preparations for Dress Rehearsal Underscore the Challenges for 2000 (GAO/TGGD-98-84, Mar. 26, 1998).

The Bureau’s

Operational

Experience in

Implementing LUCA

1998

Table 1: Local Governments’

Participation in LUCA 1998
Statement

2000 Census: Local Address Review Program Has Had Mixed Results to Date

Page 4 GAO/T-GGD-99-184 2000 Census

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 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).

Type of suggested change Number

Address additions 5,384,864

Address deletions 427,626

Other (e.g., corrections, geographic changes, etc.) 1,931,559

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

The Number of Changes

Suggested by Local

Governments

Table 2: Address List Changes

Suggested by LUCA 1998 Participants
Statement

2000 Census: Local Address Review Program Has Had Mixed Results to Date

Page 5 GAO/T-GGD-99-184 2000 Census

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.

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.

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.

LUCA Participants Had

Mixed Perceptions of

the Program

Availability of Local

Resources to Review LUCA

Material
Statement

2000 Census: Local Address Review Program Has Had Mixed Results to Date

Page 6 GAO/T-GGD-99-184 2000 Census

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

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

2000 Census: Local Address Review Program Has Had Mixed Results to Date

Page 7 GAO/T-GGD-99-184 2000 Census

reviews to those areas where the local government’s count of housing

units differed from the Bureau’s housing count, or to areas with multiplefamily 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.

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.

Note: Percentages in figure have confidence intervals of less than + 12 percent.

Source: GAO survey of LUCA 1998 participants.

Adequacy of LUCA Time

Frames

Figure 2: Extent to Which Local

Governments Found the Time frame to

Complete Their LUCA Reviews

Adequate
Statement

2000 Census: Local Address Review Program Has Had Mixed Results to Date

Page 8 GAO/T-GGD-99-184 2000 Census

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.

Note: Percentages in figure have confidence intervals ranging from + 6 percent to + 18 percent.

Source: GAO survey of LUCA 1998 participants.

User-friendliness of LUCA

Media

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

2000 Census: Local Address Review Program Has Had Mixed Results to Date

Page 9 GAO/T-GGD-99-184 2000 Census

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.

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

Adequacy of Bureau

Support

Figure 4: Extent to Which Local

Governments Found LUCA Training to

Be Adequate
Statement

2000 Census: Local Address Review Program Has Had Mixed Results to Date

Page 10 GAO/T-GGD-99-184 2000 Census

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.

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

Figure 5: Local Governments’ Views of the Usefulness of Bureau Assistance
Statement

2000 Census: Local Address Review Program Has Had Mixed Results to Date

Page 11 GAO/T-GGD-99-184 2000 Census

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.

Note: Percentages in figure have confidence intervals of less than + 12 percent.

Source: GAO survey of LUCA 1998 participants.

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

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

Overall Completeness and

Accuracy of LUCA Address

Lists and Maps
Statement

2000 Census: Local Address Review Program Has Had Mixed Results to Date

Page 12 GAO/T-GGD-99-184 2000 Census

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.

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.

Figure 7: Local Governments’ Views of

the Accuracy and Completeness of

Bureau Address Lists and Maps
Statement

2000 Census: Local Address Review Program Has Had Mixed Results to Date

Page 13 GAO/T-GGD-99-184 2000 Census

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.
Attachment I

Scope and Methodology

Page 14 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
Attachment I

Scope and Methodology

Page 15 GAO/T-GGD-99-184 2000 Census

and the number of local governments that provided usable, completed

questionnaires.

Number of address

records

Number of local

governments in sample

Number of local governments

providing usable 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

Table I.1: Sample Allocation and Usable

Returns, by Strata
Attachment I

Scope and Methodology

Page 16 GAO/T-GGD-99-184 2000 Census

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.
Page 17 GAO/T-GGD-99-184 2000 Census
Page 18 GAO/T-GGD-99-184 2000 Census
Page 19 GAO/T-GGD-99-184 2000 Census
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 touchtone 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:

info@www.gao.gov

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)