United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Report to Congressional Addressees

2010 CENSUS 

Census Bureau Has 

Improved the Local 

Update of Census 

Addresses Program, 

but Challenges 

Remain 

June 2007 

 

GAO-07-736 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

June 2007

2010 CENSUS

Census Bureau Has Improved the Local 

Update of Census Addresses Program, 

but Challenges Remain 

Highlights of GAO-07-736, a report to 

congressional addressees

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. 

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. 

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. 

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.
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 

Page i GAO-07-736 2010 Census
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. 

Page ii GAO-07-736 2010 Census
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 

Page 1 GAO-07-736 2010 Census
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) 

 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. 

Page 2 GAO-07-736 2010 Census
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. 

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. 

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 

Results in Brief 

 3

 See GAO, 2010 Census: Census Bureau Needs to Take Prompt Actions to Resolve Longstanding and Emerging Address and Mapping Challenges, GAO-06-272 (Washington,

D.C.: June 15, 2006); 2010 Census: Planning and Testing Activities Are Making Progress, 

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, 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.

Page 3 GAO-07-736 2010 Census
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. 

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 

 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. 

Page 4 GAO-07-736 2010 Census
the impact of the LUCA Program on the MAF database and the census 

population count. 

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 

Page 5 GAO-07-736 2010 Census
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. 

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. 

Background 

 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. 

Page 6 GAO-07-736 2010 Census
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 

 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. § 9(a), local governments that obtain access to Title 13 data are required

to ensure the confidentiality of such data. 

Page 7 GAO-07-736 2010 Census
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. 

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. 

Page 8 GAO-07-736 2010 Census
Figure 1: Map of the Bureau’s California Dress Rehearsal Site 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

2008 Census Dress Rehearsal

San Joaquin County, California Site

Page 9 GAO-07-736 2010 Census
Figure 2: Map of the Bureau’s North Carolina Dress Rehearsal Site 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

2008 Census Dress Rehearsal

Fayetteville, North Carolina Site

(including the counties of Chatham, Cumberland, Harnett,

Hoke, Lee, Montgomery, Moore, Richmond, and Scotland)

Page 10 GAO-07-736 2010 Census
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. 

The Bureau Has 

Completed Nearly All 

Planned Activities for 

the LUCA Dress

Rehearsal and the 

First Step of the 2010 

LUCA Program

 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). 

Page 11 GAO-07-736 2010 Census
Figure 3: Bureau’s LUCA Dress Rehearsal Timeline and Status 

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau and GAO analysis.

Time frame Activity Status

February 2006 LUCA advance notification letters and Completed

 informational materials mailed to highest

 elected officials.

March to Census Bureau invited local governments to Completed

May 2006 participate in the LUCA Program.

May 2006 Census Bureau conducted training workshops Completed

 for participants.

June 2006 Census Bureau shipped the LUCA review Completed

 materials to each participating government.

June to LUCA participants reviewed and updated the Completed

October 2006 address list and returned their comments to the

 Census Bureau’s regional office.

November to Census Bureau reviewed the participants’ Completed

December 2006 LUCA submission and updated the MAF/TIGER

 geographic database.

April to June 2007 Census Bureau conducts address canvassing Under way

 (field check) operation.

December 2007 to Participants review feedback materials. To be

January 2008 completed

2008 LUCA Dress Rehearsal Program Schedule

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). 

Page 12 GAO-07-736 2010 Census
Figure 4: Bureau’s 2010 LUCA Timeline 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Time Frame Activity

January 2007 to LUCA advance notice letters mailed to the highest elected 

February 2007 officials and other contacts in all active functioning governments.

July 2007 LUCA invitation letters and registration materials mailed to the

 highest elected official and other contacts of each government.

July 2007 to Invited governments register for LUCA and the Bureau ships

January 2008 the LUCA review materials to each participating government.

August 2007 to LUCA participants review and update the address list and

March 2008 maps and return their comments to the Census Bureau’s

 Regional Office.

April 2008 to Census Bureau reviews the participant’s LUCA submission

October 2008 and updates the Master Address File and the TIGER

 geographic database.

November 2008 to Census Bureau prepares for and conducts the Address

May 2009 Canvassing Operation using GPS-equipped handheld

 computers.

June 2009 to Census Bureau ships feedback materials to the LUCA

October 2009 participants showing how the Bureau processed each

 government’s LUCA submissions.

September 2009 to LUCA participants review their LUCA feedback and have the

December 2009 opportunity to appeal the results to the LUCA Appeals Office.

September 2009 to LUCA Appeals Office reviews and adjudicates the appeals.

January 2010

Tentative 2010 Census LUCA Program Schedule

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

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. 

Bureau Modified the 

LUCA Program to 

Address Issues from 

the 2000 Experience 

but Faces New 

Challenges 

Page 13 GAO-07-736 2010 Census
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 

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

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.

Page 14 GAO-07-736 2010 Census
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). 

Figure 5: LUCA Dress Rehearsal Participants’ Views on the Adequacy of Time 

Allowed to Complete the Review

Source: GAO Web-based survey of LUCA Dress Rehearsal participants. 

4

5

22

Don’t know

Inadequate time

Adequate time

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 

 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.

Page 15 GAO-07-736 2010 Census
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. 

Figure 6: Available Options for Participation in 2010 LUCA Program 

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Census Bureau materials.

Name of option

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

Full address list review with

count review

Title 13 local address list

submission 

Non-Title 13 local address

list submission

Intended audience Participants that have the time 

and resources to review and 

comment on the 2010 Census

address list

Participants that may not have 

the time or resources to 

update the 2010 Census

address list, but wish to review 

and compare the list to their 

local address list

Participants that do not want 

to sign confidentiality 

agreements in accordance 

with Title 13, United States

Code

Items participants receive 

from Bureau

Address list, address counts, 

maps

Address list, address counts, 

maps

Address counts, maps

Bureau-provided formats of

address list

Paper (for localities with less

than 6,000 addresses), 

computer-readable

Computer-readable N/A

Bureau-provided formats of 

address counts

Paper, computer-readable Computer-readable Computer-readable

Bureau-provided formats of 

maps

Paper, shapefile Paper, shapefile Paper, shapefile

Items participants can update 

for bureau

Address list, address counts, 

maps

Maps Maps

Allowed to submit own 

address list in Bureau

predefined format?

No Yes Yes

Allowed to use MTPS? Yes Yes Yes

Allowed to appeal Bureau

review of submitted materials?

Yes Yes No

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). 

Page 16 GAO-07-736 2010 Census
Figure 7: LUCA Dress Rehearsal Participants’ Satisfaction with Participation

Options

0

5

10

15

20

 

Source: GAO Web-based survey of LUCA Dress Rehearsal participants. 

Number of respondents

6

16

9

0 0

Very dissatisfied

Generally

Neither satisfied

Generally

dissatisfied

nor dissatisfied

satisfied

Very satisfied

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 

 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. 

Page 17 GAO-07-736 2010 Census
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. 

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 

 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. 

Page 18 GAO-07-736 2010 Census
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. 

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 

 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. 

Page 19 GAO-07-736 2010 Census
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 Bureauprovided 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. 

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

Conversion 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Small No extent 

extent

Moderate

extent

Great

extent

Very

great

extent

Source: GAO Web-based survey of LUCA Dress Rehearsal participants. 

Number of respondents

3

6

5

3

7

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

Page 20 GAO-07-736 2010 Census
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). 

Bureau Plans 

Improvements to the 2010 

LUCA Program Training 

but Did Not Fully Test 

Improvements in the LUCA 

Dress Rehearsal 

Figure 9: LUCA Dress Rehearsal Participants’ Reports of the Usefulness of the 

Training Session 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Source: GAO Web-based survey of LUCA Dress Rehearsal participants. 

Number of respondents

0

9

11

4

0

7

No basis

Slightly

Moderately

Extremely

to judge

useful

Not at all

useful

useful

useful

Very

useful

 25 GAO/T-GGD-99-184. 

Page 21 GAO-07-736 2010 Census
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,

 26 See Dillon. 

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

Page 22 GAO-07-736 2010 Census
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. 

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, 

 28 GAO, Managing for Results: Enhancing Agency Use of Performance Information for 

Management Decision Making, GAO-05-927 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 9, 2005). 

Page 23 GAO-07-736 2010 Census
without this information, the Bureau cannot fully measure the extent to 

which local reviews have contributed to accurate address lists and 

population counts. 

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. 

Bureau Has Proposed 

but Not Finalized 

Steps to Address 

Issues in HurricaneAffected Areas 

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 

 29 The period for local review and update of addresses and maps for the 2010 LUCA 

Program is August 2007 through March 2008. 

Page 24 GAO-07-736 2010 Census
difficulties that families have in deciding whether to return to hurricaneaffected 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. 

 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, GAO-07-574T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 12, 2007).

Page 25 GAO-07-736 2010 Census
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). 

Page 26 GAO-07-736 2010 Census
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 GAO-06-272 and GAO-06-822T. 

Page 27 GAO-07-736 2010 Census
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 hurricaneaffected 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 

 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, GAO-07-361 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 27,

2007). 

Page 28 GAO-07-736 2010 Census
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 hurricaneaffected 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. 

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. 

Conclusions 

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 

Page 29 GAO-07-736 2010 Census
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. 

Page 30 GAO-07-736 2010 Census
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: 

• 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. 

• 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. 

• 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). 

• 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. 

• 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. 

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 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

Page 31 GAO-07-736 2010 Census
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. Scirè 

Director, Strategic Issues 

Page 32 GAO-07-736 2010 Census
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 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 

Page 33 GAO-07-736 2010 Census
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

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. 

 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. 

Page 34 GAO-07-736 2010 Census
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

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. 

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. 

Page 35 GAO-07-736 2010 Census
Appendix II: Comments from the Department Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Commerce 

of Commerce 

Page 36 GAO-07-736 2010 Census
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce 

Page 37 GAO-07-736 2010 Census
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce 

Page 38 GAO-07-736 2010 Census
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce 

Page 39 GAO-07-736 2010 Census
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce 

Page 40 GAO-07-736 2010 Census
Appendix III: Web-Based Survey of LUCA Appendix III: WDress Rehearsa eb-Based Survey of LUCA l Participants 

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) 

Page 41 GAO-07-736 2010 Census
Appendix III: Web-Based Survey of LUCA 

Dress Rehearsal Participants 

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 format ( 8) 

2. Option 1 - Title 13 Full Address List Review in computer readable format (14) 

3. Option 2 - Title 13 Local Address List Submission ( 5) 

Page 42 GAO-07-736 2010 Census
Appendix III: Web-Based Survey of LUCA 

Dress Rehearsal Participants 

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 skip to Question 15.) (21) 

2. Partial review (targeted or sample checked) (Click here to skip to Question 14.) ( 7) 

Page 43 GAO-07-736 2010 Census
Appendix III: Web-Based Survey of LUCA 

Dress Rehearsal Participants 

3. Neither (we are not reviewing the maps) (Click here to skip to Question 17.) ( 3) 

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 between 2003 and 

 2005 (Click here to skip to Question 19.) 

(12) 

Page 44 GAO-07-736 2010 Census
Appendix III: Web-Based Survey of LUCA 

Dress Rehearsal Participants 

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 LUCA dress rehearsal 

 maps 

( 9) 

2. Some submitted changes were reflected in the LUCA dress rehearsal maps ( 6) 

3. Few or none of the submitted changes were reflected in the dress rehearsal maps ( 0) 

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 and/or count) 

 (Click here to skip to Question 21.) 

(21) 

2. Partial review (targeted or sample checked) (Click here to skip to Question 20.) ( 7) 

3. Neither (we are not reviewing the Bureau’s address list and/or count) 

 (Click here to skip to Question 25.) 

( 3) 

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.)

Page 45 GAO-07-736 2010 Census
Appendix III: Web-Based Survey of LUCA 

Dress Rehearsal Participants 

1. A single source of address data for all or almost all addresses in paper format 

 (Click here to skip to Question 23.) 

( 9) 

2. A single source of address data for all or almost all addresses ( 6) 

3. Multiple sources of address data in electronic format 

 (Click here to skip to Question 23.) 

(13) 

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.) 

Page 46 GAO-07-736 2010 Census
Appendix III: Web-Based Survey of LUCA 

Dress Rehearsal Participants 

Very easy Easy

Neither easy 

nor difficult 

Difficult

Very

difficult

No basis

to 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.)

Very great 

extent Great extent Moderate extent Small extent No extent

No basis 

to 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.) 

Page 47 GAO-07-736 2010 Census
Appendix III: Web-Based Survey of LUCA 

Dress Rehearsal Participants 

Very 

sufficient Sufficient

Moderately 

sufficient

Somewhat 

sufficient 

Not at all 

sufficient

No basis to

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.) 

Very 

satisfied Satisfied

Neither satisfied

nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied

Very 

dissatisfied

No basis 

to 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)

Page 48 GAO-07-736 2010 Census
Appendix III: Web-Based Survey of LUCA 

Dress Rehearsal Participants 

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.)

Extremely 

helpful 

Very 

helpful 

Moderately 

helpful 

Slightly 

helpful 

Not at all 

helpful 

No basis to

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.) 

Extremely 

helpful 

Very 

helpful 

Moderately 

helpful 

Slightly 

helpful 

Not at all 

helpful 

No basis to

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) 

Page 49 GAO-07-736 2010 Census
Appendix III: Web-Based Survey of LUCA 

Dress Rehearsal Participants 

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.) 

Extremely 

useful 

Very 

useful

Moderately 

useful

Slightly 

useful

Not at all 

useful

No basis 

to 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.)

Page 50 GAO-07-736 2010 Census
Appendix III: Web-Based Survey of LUCA 

Dress Rehearsal Participants 

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 receiving LUCA documentation (16) ( 8) ( 7)

38d. Solicit technical assistance from Census regional staff earlier in the process (15) ( 9) ( 6) 

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. 

Page 51 GAO-07-736 2010 Census
Appendix III: Web-Based Survey of LUCA 

Dress Rehearsal Participants 

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 

Page 52 GAO-07-736 2010 Census
Appendix IV: 

A

GAO Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 53 GAO-07-736 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

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

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. 

GAO Contact 

Acknowledgments 

2010 Census
Related GAO Products Related GAO Products 

Gulf Coast Rebuilding: Preliminary Observations on Progress to Date 

and Challenges for the Future. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. GAO-06-277. Washington, D.C.: May 18, 

2006. 

2010 Census: Planning and Testing Activities Are Making Progress. 

GAO-06-465T. Washington D.C.: March 1, 2006. 

2010 Census: Basic Design Has Potential, but Remaining Challenges 

Need Prompt Resolution. 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. GAO-04-898. Washington, D.C.: 

August 19, 2004. 

2010 Census: Overseas Enumeration Test Raises Need for Clear Policy 

Direction. GAO-04-470. Washington, D.C.: May 21, 2004. 

2010 Census: Cost and Design Issues Need to Be Addressed Soon. GAO04-37. Washington, D.C.: January 15, 2004. 

Decennial Census: Lessons Learned for Locating and Counting Migrant 

and Seasonal Farm Workers. GAO-03-605. Washington, D.C.: July 3, 2003. 

Page 54 GAO-07-736 2010 Census
Related GAO Products 

Decennial Census: Methods for Collecting and Reporting Hispanic 

Subgroup Data Need Refinement. 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.

GAO-03-227. Washington, D.C.: January 17, 2003. 

2000 Census: Lessons Learned for Planning a More Cost-Effective 2010 

Census. GAO-03-40. Washington, D.C.: October 31, 2002. 

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

Date. GAO/T-GGD-99-184. Washington, D.C.: September 29, 1999. 

(450511) Page 55 GAO-07-736 2010 Census
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. 

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.” 

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 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

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 

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 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER