U.S. CENSUS BUREAU 

High-Quality Maps and 

Accurate Addresses Are 

Needed to Achieve Census 

2020 Cost-Saving Goals 

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-12-024-I 

MAY 10, 2012 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Office of Inspector General 

Office of Audit and Evaluation 

For Public Release 
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Office of Inspector General 

Washington, D.C. 20230 

May 10, 2012 

MEMORANDUM FOR: 	 Robert M. Groves 


Director, U.S. Census Bureau 


FROM: 

Assistant 

Ron Prevost 

Inspector 

#~ General for Economic 

and Statistical Program Assessment 

SUBJECT: 	 High-Quality Maps and Accurate Addresses Are Needed to 


Achieve Census 2020 Cost-Saving Goals 


Fino/ Report No. 0/G-12-024-1 

We are providing our final report on the effectiveness of the Census Bureau's MAF/TIGER 

database (MTdb). Our objectives were to (I) review the bureau's progress toward achieving 

the objectives of its $496 million 20 I 0 geographic initiative (20 I 0 MAF/TIGER Enhancement 

Program), (2) evaluate the impact of various address-updating operations on the address file 

and map database and identify trends that introduced error, and (3) review Census's 

procedures for updating the map and address files. 

We reviewed the bureau's progress on the MAF/TIGER Enhancement Program and found that 

two of the objectives had not been fully realized: developing a measure to assess MTdb quality 

at low levels of geography and enhancing geographic partner programs with tribal, state, county, 

and local governments. Two other areas that require improvement are the number of 

ungeocoded addresses (new addresses that are not linked to a location on a map) in the MTdb 

and the current address-updating process, which accepts the most recent address changes 

without adequate verification. To implement cost-saving goals for the 2020 census, the bureau 

must address these issues. 

We have received your official response and technical comments to our draft report. Where 

appropriate, we have modified this final report based on the information provided to us. The 

official response is included as appendix B. (We summarized your response and OIG comments 

on page 12.) The final report will be posted on the OIG website pursuant to section 8L of the 

Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended. 

In accordance with the Department Administrative Order 213-5, please provide us with your 

action plan within 60 days of the date of this memorandum. We thank you and your staff for 

the courtesies extended to us during this review. Please direct any inquiries regarding the 

report to me at (202) 482-3052 or Carol Rice at (202) 482-6020. 

Attachment 

cc: 	 Mark E. Doms, Chief Economist, Economics and Statistics Administration 

Frank Vitrano, Associate Director for the 2020 Census, U.S. Census Bureau 

Pam Moulder, Senior Program Analyst, Economics and Statistics Administration 

Adam Miller, Audit Liaison, U.S. Census Bureau 
 

Report In Brief 

MAY 10, 2012 

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU 

High-Quality Maps and Accurate Addresses Are Needed to 

Achieve Census 2020 Cost-Saving Goals 

OIG-12-024-I 

WHAT WE FOUND 

The 2010 geographic initiative’s efforts to produce an adequate measure 

to assess MTdb quality were unsuccessful. In addition, the program’s goal 

of updating address and map information from tribal, state, county, and 

local government partners was not fully realized. Both of these goals must 

be met to implement a 2020 decennial census address-canvassing 

operation with reduced costs. Furthermore, 3.5 million ungeocoded 

records existed in the MAF as of June 2011, and that number is likely to 

rise, as it did during Census 2010. Without maintenance of the MTdb by 

continuous geocoding throughout the decade, the bureau will again have 

to rely on an expensive end-of-decade operation. Finally, the MAF 

updating process of accepting more recent address changes without 

adequate verification may result in a lower quality address list. 

WHAT WE RECOMMEND 

1. Develop an MTdb measure for determining address list quality at 

a low level of geography that (a) provides a fair and equal 

opportunity for targeting selection, (b) drives selection and 

planning decisions, and (c) is well-documented and verifiable. 

2. Work with the Department to determine the feasibility of 

improving methods of sharing MTdb information throughout the 

decade with governmental entities (partners) to create a uniform, 

national address list. 

3. Investigate and remedy the exclusion of 500,000 ungeocoded 

address records, which had been designated as valid U.S. Postal 

Service delivery addresses, from the 2010 census. 

4. Conduct the necessary research, develop a proven methodology, 

and allocate the necessary funds to continuously reduce the 

number of ungeocoded records throughout the decade. 

5. Develop and implement quality indicator tools, including use of 

administrative records, to ensure that updates to the MAF are 

accurate. 

Background 

The Census Bureau maintains a 

database containing a complete list 

of all living quarters (the master 

address file, or MAF) and geospatial 

data (the topologically integrated 

geographic encoding and referencing system, or TIGER) of the nation 

to use in all demographic and decennial programs. The bureau’s 

method of collecting and tabulating 

decennial census data is to link 

(geographically encode, or geocode) MAF addresses to TIGER. 

The Census budget for maintaining 

the MAF/TIGER database (MTdb) 

was $425 million for the period 

leading up to the decennial census 

(fiscal years 2000 through 2010). 

Census spent another $496 million 

on a 2010 geographic initiative: an 

8-year effort ending in 2010 to improve the accuracy of the MTdb. 

Finally, in 2009, a $444 million operation to visit and verify or add 

every place a person lives or could 

live was conducted. Totaling nearly 

$1.4 billion, these combined efforts 

produced the 2010 decennial census address list. 

For the 2020 census, the bureau 

intends to continuously update the 

MTdb, which will improve the address lists and maps throughout the 

decade and support a less costly 

targeted address-canvassing operation. Toward this effort, the bureau 

has introduced a $407 million 2020 

geographic initiative. 

Why We Did This Review 

Our objectives were to (1) review 

the bureau’s progress on its 2010 

geographic initiative, (2) evaluate 

the impact of various addressupdating operations on the MTdb 

and identify trends that introduced 

error, and (3) review Census’s procedures for updating the map and 

address files. 
         

       

           


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Contents 

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 1
 

Findings and Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 3
 

1. The 2010 Census Geographic Initiative Fell Short, Raising Concerns About CostSaving Measures for the 2020 Census............................................................................................... 3
 

A. The measure to assess MTdb quality was not developed but is needed to 

reengineer the next decennial.......................................................................................................... 3
 

B. Strained partner relations and Title 13 restrictions could hamper efforts to maintain 

an updated, accurate address list throughout the decade .........................................................5
 

II. Census Relied on Expensive End-of-Decade Operations to Validate Millions 

 of Postal Service Addresses in the MTdb ........................................................................................ 7
 

III. Census’s Process of Updating Addresses by Using the Most Recent Address May 

Result in a Lower Quality Address List ............................................................................................. 8
 

Recommendations......................................................................................................................................... 11
 

Summary of Agency and OIG Comments................................................................................................ 12
 

Appendix A: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ................................................................................ 13
 

Appendix B: Agency Response ................................................................................................................... 14
 

COVER: Detail of fisheries pediment,

U.S. Department of Commerce headquarters,

by sculptor James Earle Fraser, 1934
  

   

   

   

   

   

     

                                                           

                                 

       

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Introduction 

As the federal government’s largest statistical agency, the U.S. Census Bureau manages a full 

range of demographic programs—including the decennial census, the American Community 

Survey (ACS), and other population and income surveys—that drive major statistical programs 

across multiple federal agencies. Results of its surveys and programs serve as resources for 

determining how more than $400 billion of federal funds are distributed annually and how seats 

in the U.S. House of Representatives are distributed every 10 years and for a broad range of 

uses by businesses and the public. 

Essential to executing this work, the bureau maintains a database that contains a complete list 

of all living quarters (referred to as the master address file, or MAF) and geospatial data1 

(referred to as the topologically integrated geographic encoding and referencing system, or 

TIGER) of the nation to use in all Census Bureau demographic and decennial programs. The 

bureau’s method for collecting and tabulating decennial census data is to link (geographically 

encode, or geocode) MAF addresses to TIGER. 

The MAF/TIGER database (MTdb) is the backbone of Census demographic operations and is 

critical to implementing bureau surveys and generating data products (i.e., Census’s 

demographic results are collected at the household level, which allows data users to answer any 

number of questions, such as the number Figure 1. Multiple Sources Update the MTdb of school-age children in the nation, in a 

MTdb

Jurisdiction

(boundary)

updates

Local

government

map &

address

updates

Census field

operation

map &

address

updates

Decennial

Census file

Decennial

census and

survey (e.g.,

ACS) map &

address

updates

Postal

Service

address

updates

particular city, or even in a particular 

neighborhood). Most demographic surveys, 

including the decennial census, have unique 

requirements that determine the list of 

addresses extracted from the MTdb. 

Figure 1 illustrates how multiple sources 

update the MTdb to produce the lists of 

addresses used to collect household 

information. Because there is no single 

source for updating data in the MTdb, the 

bureau must coordinate with the providers 

of multiple data sources (referred to as 

partners), most of which are outside of 

Census’s direct control, or conduct its own 

operation to verify and update addresses 

and maps. Since each partner collects data 

for a different purpose and has different 

quality control practices, changes (e.g., 

revisions in housing unit addresses, roads 

1 The geospatial data are displayed graphically as maps. Therefore, throughout this report, we refer to the

geospatial data as “maps.”

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-12-024-I 1 
                                                           

                            

                               

	 

	 

	 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

 and highways, and government boundaries) come to the bureau with varying levels of 

precision. 

The Census division charged with maintaining the MTdb had a $425 million budget spread out 

across the period leading up to the decennial census (fiscal years 2000 through 2010). The 

division spent an additional $496 million on a 2010 geographic initiative (MAF/TIGER 

Enhancement Program), an 8-year effort ending in 20102 that sought to improve the accuracy of 

the MTdb. Finally, in 2009, the bureau initiated a $444 million operation to visit and verify or 

add every place a person lives or could live. Totaling nearly $1.4 billion, these combined efforts 

produced the 2010 decennial census address list. 

To reduce costs for the 2020 census, the bureau intends to continuously implement a more 

robust update of the MTdb. A continuously updated, accurate MTdb would improve the 

address lists and maps throughout the decade and support a less costly targeted addresscanvassing operation. To support this effort, the bureau has introduced a $407 million 2020 

geographic initiative (Geographic Support System). 

This report presents the results of our evaluation of the Census Bureau’s efforts to maintain 

updated, accurate addresses and maps of all living quarters.3

 Our objectives were to 

1.	 review the bureau’s progress toward achieving the objectives of its $496 million 2010 

geographic initiative, 

2.	 evaluate the impact of various address-updating operations on the MTdb and identify 

trends that introduced error, and 

3.	 review Census’s procedures for updating the map and address files. 

The purpose of our evaluation is to inform the next decennial. Additional information on our 

scope and methodology can be found in appendix A. 

2 Some limited funding for one of the objectives was planned through FY 2012. 3 The bureau defines living quarters as “any site where people live, stay, or could live.”

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-12-024-I 2 
 

                                                           

                               

           

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Findings and Recommendations 

1. The 2010 Census Geographic Initiative Fell Short, Raising Concerns About 

Cost-Saving Measures for the 2020 Census 

Of the nearly $1.4 billion spent on Census geographic programs over the past decade, $496 

million was for the 2010 geographic initiative. The main objective of this program was to align 

all street features to GPS map coordinates—a prerequisite for collecting coordinate locations 

of residential structures during the address-canvassing operation. By aligning streets and 

residential structures to GPS, the bureau sought to improve the accuracy of the coordinate 

information in the MTdb. By 2008, the streets in every county in the United States were aligned 

to GPS map coordinates. The bureau accomplished two other objectives: integrating the MAF 

and TIGER databases in a single Oracle database and developing and implementing, through FY 

2006, a field operation to capture addresses in predominantly rural areas of the nation where 

city-style addresses generally are not used for mail delivery (referred to as the Community 

Address Updating System).4 However, the remaining two objectives—improving MAF and 

TIGER quality metrics and developing and enhancing geographic partnership (tribal, state, 

county, and local governments) programs throughout the decade—fell short. 

Leading up to the next decennial census, the bureau received approval in FY 2011 for a 2020 

geographic initiative with three overall goals (continual spatial feature updates, improved 

address coverage, and enhanced quality assessment and evaluation) for a total expected lifecycle cost of $407 million. The initiative contained several new as well as some familiar 2010 

objectives (see table 1) that aim to address last decade’s shortfalls. 

A. The measure to assess MTdb quality was not developed but is needed to reengineer the 

next decennial 

An objective of the 2010 geographic initiative was to implement a comprehensive plan for 

periodic MAF/TIGER evaluation that would identify areas where the address list was missing 

housing units or was outdated. However, the measure developed to achieve this goal (National 

Estimate of Coverage) evaluated MTdb quality at the state level. This $44 million effort was not 

at a low enough level of geography to identify specific areas requiring improvement. To ensure 

a complete and accurate address list for 2010 decennial, the bureau implemented a $444 million 

address-canvassing operation. This operation sent temporary census workers out to 

systematically traverse every street in the nation to add, delete, and correct addresses for 

places a person lives or could live and correct maps to ensure their completeness and accuracy. 

4 In FY 2007, the Community Address Updating System was temporarily stopped because of funding constraints.

The program resumed in FY 2010.

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-12-024-I 3 
                                                           

                                   

           

             

 
 


 


 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Table 1. Census 2010 and 2020 Geographic Initiative Objectives and Status 

2010 Geographic Initiative ($496 million) 

MAF/TIGER Enhancement Program 

2020 Geographic Initiative ($407 million) 

Geographic Support System 

Correct the street center line location for every county 

in the nation. 

Continual spatial feature updates: add new or improve 

existing street attributes (e.g., street names and address 

ranges) and correct and improve spatially inaccurate 

streets. 

Objective met—all counties were completed as planned. Ongoing. 

Create a modern processing environment by integrating 

the MAF and TIGER databases. No corresponding goal. 

Objective met—Commercial off-the-shelf software 

combined the two databases. 

Develop and enhance geographic partnership programs. Improved address coverage: improve address list using 

updates from state, local, and tribal governments. 

Objective partially met—a Web-based program for 

partners to upload data was deployed, but strained 

partner relations exist. 

Ongoing. 

Implement the Community Address Updating System 

Program. 

Improved address coverage: update the address 

inventory not covered by the U.S. Postal Service. 

Objective met.—the Community Address Updating 

System Program was developed and implemented. Ongoing. 

Improve quality metrics. 

Enhanced quality assessment and evaluation: assess 

address quality to target areas for update and refine the 

address universe; assess street location and attribute 

accuracy from various sources to guide updating 

decisions. 

Objective not met—the measure developed was unable 

to assess MTdb quality. Ongoing. 

No corresponding goal. 

Improved address coverage: assign locations to new 

addresses so they can be used in censuses and surveys, 

develop and implement methods to update the group 

quarter inventory of addresses, and update and maintain 

the Puerto Rico address list. 

Ongoing. 

Source: OIG analysis of U.S. Census Bureau information 

A major reengineering effort for the 2020 census is to shift from a complete address-canvassing 

operation to a targeted operation. These efforts are in line with prior OIG recommendations: 

in Census 2010: Final Report to Congress5

 we recommended that the bureau avoid a large-scale 

end-of-decade field operation by continuously updating the address lists and maps. A targeted 

operation of 5 to 20 percent of the addresses, according to the bureau, could result in a savings 

of between $373 and $442 million.6

 These savings could be even greater—for the bureau and 

5 U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Inspector General, June 27, 2011. Census 2010: Final Report to Congress,
 

OIG‐11‐0030‐I. Washington, D.C.: Department of Commerce OIG.
 6 U.S. Census Bureau, G.S.S. Initiative Cost Reduction (PowerPoint presentation).
 

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-12-024-I 4 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

local governments—if an accurate address list also 

results in a smaller end-of-decade Local Update of 

Census Addresses (LUCA) program. 

The decision to conduct a targeted operation 

hinges on establishment of measures that can 

determine address list quality at low levels of 

geography (such as the block or census tract7

 level). 

Given the lack of success in developing a usable 

MTdb assessment measure last decade, the bureau 

has reinstituted the objective in the 2020 

geographic initiative. In addition to developing a 

measure, the bureau must ensure that stakeholders 

LUCA is a legislatively mandated 

decennial census geographic

partnership program that invites 

local, state, and tribal governments 

to review and correct Census’s list

of residential housing units and 

group quarters addresses, which 

will be used to deliver

questionnaires in their jurisdiction. 

accept the measure and are confident that it 

accurately represents the existing housing inventory. Essentially, the bureau is determining 

which areas have an accurate inventory and require no additional fieldwork—a decision that 

could raise local, state, and congressional concerns about quality and fairness. We recommend 

that the bureau develop a measure that 

•	 provides a fair and equal opportunity for an area to be included or excluded in a 

targeted address-canvassing operation, 

•	 drives the selection and planning decisions for a targeted address-canvassing operation, 

and 

•	 is well-documented and verifiable. 

B.	 Strained partner relations and Title 13 restrictions could hamper efforts to maintain an 

updated, accurate address list throughout the decade 

The 2010 census geographic initiative allocated $43.7 million in funds last decade to develop 

and enhance geographic partnership programs. The bureau stated that the delivery of a Webbased application that managed partner data—allowing Census staff to gather information on 

partners, post communications via a secure site, and permit partners to download/upload data 

(such as boundary changes) to a secure server—satisfied this goal. Although the Web 

application was delivered on schedule, it appears that the primary goal, to develop and enhance 

geographic partnership programs, was not fully achieved. During interviews, staff from 6 of the 

12 Census regional offices who work with the partners unanimously reported partner 

dissatisfaction, specifically citing the following: 

•	 rigid schedule of Census requests, 

                                                            

7 Census tracts are small, relatively permanent statistical subdivisions of a county; boundaries normally follow

visible features but may follow governmental unit boundaries. As of the 2010 census, the bureau tabulated 73,057

census tracts in the United States.

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-12-024-I 5 
                                                           

         

           

       

	 

	 

	 


 


 


 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

•	 lack of notice of upcoming projects, thereby not allowing partners to properly allocate 

resources (partners indicated they would like to know about Census requirements 

before the beginning of the fiscal year), 

•	 incompatibility of Census and partner electronic data formats, and 

•	 perception that Census does not fully use partner data. 

Partners are often motivated to participate in the bureau’s geography programs, because they 

realize the benefits of ensuring that their jurisdictions are correctly counted. For example, the 

number of children in low-income families is one basis for allocating federal funds to each 

school district, so it is imperative that this number is accurate. However, partner dissatisfaction, 

in addition to budget constraints, may lead to decreased participation and the loss of “free” 

updates (only in that there are no field data collection activities and cost) to the bureau. 

Currently, the sharing of address lists between Census and tribal, state, county, and local 

governments, and even other federal government agencies, is limited. With a few very narrow 

exceptions, Title 13 forbids the Census from disclosing information furnished by respondents 

and imposes significant penalties—including criminal penalties—for violation of these 

confidentiality requirements.8

 Consequently, although partners share addresses with Census, 

Census is restricted by law from reciprocating with many partners. The Census Address List 

Improvement Act of 19949 did amend Title 13 to provide a limited exception to these 

restrictions for local governments. That act authorized the LUCA program, which allows twoway sharing of addresses information between the bureau and officials designated by local 

government units.10 However, the LUCA program has several requirements. The bureau must 

publish address standards, develop and publish a timeline for reviewing submissions, and 

provide a response back to participants. In addition, the Office of Management and Budget is 

required to implement an appeals process through which address-sharing disputes among the 

bureau and participants may be resolved. The 2010 LUCA program occurred from January 

2007 through March 2010. Although it may require legislative action, a more informal method 

of two-way sharing of address lists earlier in the decade could improve address updating and 

geocoding as well as the cost-effectiveness of Census’s demographic censuses and surveys 

throughout the decade. 

The 2020 geographic initiative goal to use updates from state, local, and tribal governments 

supports yearly processing of partner data and creating a Web-based interface and new 

software application to accept and upload various partner formats. However, to move toward a 

continuously updated and more accurate MAF, we suggest that Census determine the feasibility 

of sharing MTdb information throughout the decade with governmental entities (partners) to 

create a uniform, national address list. If the 2020 census cost reduction strategy is to be 

realized, the bureau must ensure the MTdb is continually updated with partner data, 

acknowledging the risk that acquiring this data may be more challenging if partner resources 

diminish. 

8 13 U.S.C. § 9.
 9 Pub. L. No. 103‐430 (1994).
 10 See 13 U.S.C. § 16.
 

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-12-024-I 6 
                                                           

                                 

                           

           

       

     

       

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

II. Census Relied on Expensive End-of-Decade Operations to Validate Millions 

of Postal Service Addresses in the MTdb 

Allocating population and housing to the correct location is the 

bureau’s way of satisfying its constitutional mandate to count 

people where they live for purposes such as redistricting and 

apportionment. Geocoding is the process by which housing units 

are associated with a location on the ground. Ungeocoded 

records occur in the MTdb when a mailing address cannot be 

linked to a location on a map. Ungeocoded addresses are 

excluded from the decennial census and some bureau survey 

samples, increasing the likelihood that those housing units will not 

receive a questionnaire. 

As shown in figure 2, the Census Bureau informed us that 10 

million ungeocoded residential addresses existed in the MAF in 

March 2008. We tracked the volume of those ungeocoded 

records throughout the remainder of the decennial. At the end of 

the 2010 census operations, after all housing units were 

accounted for, 500,000 of the 10 million records identified in 2008 

remained ungeocoded in the MTdb. At the same time, semiannual updates from the Postal Service were adding more 

ungeocoded records to the MTdb. For some of these records, a 

valid, duplicate record may have existed in the MAF. For example, 

we previously found that Postal Service addresses may use a 

residential complex name rather than a house number/street 

name address (e.g., ABC Apartments instead of 10 Main Street).11 

In the MTdb, house number and street name addresses are 

required to electronically match an address to the map. 

However, it is unlikely that 500,000 duplicate records exist. To 

determine other possible reasons for why these housings units 

were not accounted for in the MTdb, we compared the records 

against a number of demographic characteristics—such as 

population density, population and housing changes between 2000 

and 2010, ethnic composition, vacant housing units, median 

income, and unemployment rate—but did not find any evidence 

that strongly predicted where or why ungeocoded records were 

likely to occur. We suggest that the bureau investigate the 

exclusion of these records, which had been designated as valid 

Postal Service delivery addresses, in the final decennial housing 

count. Identifying characteristics specific to these records would 

Figure 2. Impact of End-ofDecade Activities on 10 

Million Ungeocoded Records 

500,000

After all Census operations

(September 2010)

3.3 million

After 100% address canvassing

(September 2009)

6 million

After local government updating

operation

(October 2008)

10 million

(March 2008)

11 U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Inspector General, October 17, 2008. Census 2010: Dress Rehearsal of

Address Canvassing Revealed Persistent Deficiencies in Approach to Updating the Master Address File, OSE‐18599.

Washington, D.C.: Department of Commerce OIG.

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-12-024-I 7 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

facilitate developing a methodology to geocode these and similar types of records that will 

continue to accumulate in the MTdb. 

Census cannot rely on end-of-decade operations to geocode addresses for the 2020 census. As 

the 10 million ungeocoded records identified in 

2008 steadily decreased, the updating activities 

continued to add more ungeocoded records to 

the MAF. Consequently, as of June 2011, there 

were 3.5 million ungeocoded records. If steps are 

not taken to continuously improve geocoding 

throughout the coming decade, we expect the 

number of ungeocoded records to rise as it did 

during the last census. For the 2010 census, 

For the 2020 census, the bureau 

must maintain the MTdb 

throughout the decade by

continuously geocoding—or 

address lists may become

inaccurate.

funding constraints canceled geocoding 

operations mid-decade, resulting in 10 million 

ungeocoded records 2 years before the decennial census. 

For the 2020 census, the bureau must maintain the MTdb throughout the decade by 

continuously geocoding—or address lists may become inaccurate, and the bureau will again 

have to rely on expensive end-of-decade operations, abandoning plans to reengineer the census 

and realize costs savings. Targeted address canvassing can only occur if the MTdb is updated 

and accurate. Census should conduct the necessary research, develop a proven methodology, 

and allocate the necessary funds to continuously improve address quality and reduce the 

number of ungeocoded addresses throughout the decade. 

III. Census’s Process of Updating Addresses by Using the Most Recent Address 

May Result in a Lower Quality Address List 

In our review of the procedures for updating the MTdb, we found that when different 

operations submit changes to the address list, Census may replace a valid address in the MTdb 

with one that is invalid or of lower quality. This occurs because Census accepts the latest 

update without determining the quality of the change. Consequently, recently collected flawed 

address information may replace an existing valid address. 

Our review of a 2008 Census test found that changes made by a later operation were 

sometimes incorrect.12 Specifically, we reviewed the actions (e.g., verify, delete, add, duplicate, 

uninhabitable, or nonresidential) taken by several operations for nearly 19,000 addresses from 

the North Carolina test site and found examples where the final action was incorrect. To 

analyze the impact of this during the 2010 census, we again compared the actions made to an 

address during the address-canvassing operation with an ACS update file. The files contained 

                                                            

12Commerce OIG, Census 2010: Dress Rehearsal of Address Canvassing Revealed Persistent Deficiencies in

Approach to Updating the Master Address File.

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-12-024-I 8 
 

                                                           

                                   

                 

 

 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

the results of the two field operations conducted at the same approximate time, during the 

months of March through July 2009.13 

We were unable to compare identical addresses by matching the address identification 

number—the ACS update file contained only the address identification number (not the 

complete address) with a designation of the change made (e.g., designating a residential address 

as nonresidential). Although our address-canvassing file was limited to 599 counties, we 

identified 2,457 address records contained in both files. For those addresses, we compared the 

actions taken by the address-canvassing staff with the actions taken by the ACS staff, to 

determine whether two field operations conducted at the same time could have differing 

results. Our analysis found agreement on the designation of the address only 56 percent of the 

time (e.g., both designated the address as nonresidential). We were unable to assess the level of 

agreement for 30 percent of the addresses because of variations in the codes used for the two 

operations. For the remaining 14 percent, our analysis found clear disagreement—meaning that 

address canvassers verified the address as residential, while ACS staff deleted or changed the 

address status to some other nonresidential classification (see table 2).

 Table 2. Comparison of Two Census Designations for the Same Addresses 

Designation by 

AddressCanvassing 

Staff 

Designation by 

American 

Community 

Survey Staff 

Comparison 

Percentage 

(Number of 

Addresses) 

Valid residential 

address 

Delete, 

uninhabitable, 

nonresidential, 

group quarter 

Disagree 14% 

(346) 

Delete, 

uninhabitable, 

nonresidential 

Delete, 

uninhabitable, 

nonresidential 

Agree 56% 

(1,380) 

Other Other Unable to 

assessa 

30% 

(731) 

Total 100% 

(2,457) 

Source: OIG aDifferences between the two operations made it difficult to assess the level of 

disagreement for some status codes. For example, address canvassing identified 

duplicates as a result of visiting every housing unit; ACS visited housing units based 

on a targeted list of nonresponding housing units and did not identify duplicate 

addresses. Also note that ACS updates were not entered into the MTdb because a 

moratorium on updates was enacted in preparation for the 2010 census. 

13 Address canvassing occurred between March 30, 2009, and July 10, 2009; ACS (time of interview operation) took

place from March 1, 2009, through May 30, 2009.

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-12-024-I 9 
                                                           

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

We reviewed 80 of the 346 addresses that showed clear disagreement. We do not have 

enough information to conclude which operation was more accurate, or why; we found that 50 

addresses were included in the 2010 census (i.e., were valid housing units) while 30 were not. 

Although these findings cannot be projected to the entire MTdb, they clearly indicate that field 

operations produce conflicting information, some of which may be incorrect. Moving forward, 

the bureau needs to confirm that any update made to an address is of better quality than the 

information currently existing in the MTdb. 

Census is considering implementation of some quality indicators for addresses that might 

eliminate automatically accepting the most recent updates. Specifically, the following questions 

would be answered before a change to an existing address was made: 

•	 Is the existing MTdb address in a valid Postal Service format (mailable)? 

•	 Is the Postal Service delivering mail to the address (deliverable)? 

•	 Are field staff able to navigate to, and identify/distinguish, the address (locatable)? 

•	 Is the address linked to a location on the TIGER map (geocodable)? 

We support this effort. However, we suggest that the bureau consider an additional indicator: 

verifiability. More specifically: 

•	 Is the address a valid address in recent Census surveys or other government 

administrative records (verifiable)? 

Both the bureau and OIG have identified administrative records14 as a valuable tool for future 

Census operations, and we believe address information contained in these data files could 

indicate the quality of an MTdb record. The Census Bureau has been using one form of 

administrative record from the U. S. Postal Service since 1995 to provide new addresses for the 

MAF. Data collected by Census and other agencies provide a complementary universe of 

information: addresses where individuals indicate they live and/or want their mail directed. 

Administrative records could be used to verify MAF records, leveraging the general public’s 

notification (validation) of their residence to the government. 

We suspect shifting from a last-in model will likely encounter some resistance for fear that an 

address will be missed. Consequently, the long-standing practice of accepting all field changes as 

fact may be difficult to overcome. However, to prevent inaccurate information from replacing 

accurate information, quality standards must be implemented. 

14 Data collected for the administration of programs and provisions of services by federal, state, and local 

governments and commercial entities. 

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-12-024-I 10 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Director of the Census Bureau take the following actions: 

1.	 Develop an MTdb measure for determining address list quality at a low level of 

geography that (a) provides a fair and equal opportunity for targeting selection, (b) 

drives selection and planning decisions, and (c) is well-documented and verifiable. 

2.	 Work with the Department to determine the feasibility of improving methods of sharing 

MTdb information throughout the decade with governmental entities (partners) to 

create a uniform, national address list. 

3.	 Investigate and remedy the exclusion of 500,000 ungeocoded address records, which 

had been designated as valid U.S. Postal Service delivery addresses, from the 2010 

census. 

4.	 Conduct the necessary research, develop a proven methodology, and allocate the 

necessary funds to continuously reduce the number of ungeocoded records throughout 

the decade. 

5.	 Develop and implement quality indicator tools, including use of administrative records, 

to ensure that updates to the MAF are accurate. 

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-12-024-I 11 
 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Summary of Agency and OIG Comments 

In its April 30, 2012, response to our draft report, the Census Bureau concurred with four of 

our recommendations and has taken some preliminary actions to address them. Although the 

bureau generally agreed with recommendation 2, it stated that this recommendation warranted 

further discussion within the Census Bureau and with the Department of Commerce rather 

than describing preliminary actions. In addition, the bureau stated that recommendation 3 

inaccurately reported that 500,000 housing units were missed during the decennial census. We 

did not say that the housing units were missed but instead that 500,000 valid Postal Service 

address records were not included in the 2010 census. We recognize that the addresses may 

have duplicated an existing MTdb record that was counted, may have been demolished or 

destroyed during the decennial census time frame, may have been excluded due to Postal 

Service error, or may have been missed—hence our recommendation to investigate why the 

records were not geocoded during the 100 percent address-canvassing operation or included in 

the final decennial housing count. The bureau’s response is included as appendix B. 

In a separate document, the bureau provided a number of technical comments that we 

addressed in the report where appropriate. It also discussed the accomplishments of the 2010 

MAF/TIGER Enhancement Program’s (MTEP’s) five objectives. MTEP had many successes and 

improved the overall quality of the MTdb, but it did not develop a measure to assess MTdb 

quality at low levels of geography. 

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-12-024-I 12 
                                                           

                             

                       

                                       

                           

                          

 

 

 

 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appendix A: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

The objectives of this evaluation were to (1) review the bureau’s progress toward achieving the 

objectives of its $496 million 2010 geographic initiative, (2) evaluate the impact of various 

address updating operations on the MTdb and identify trends that introduced error, and 

(3) review Census’s procedures for updating the MTdb files. 

We met with and interviewed various Census headquarters personnel with broad and varied 

MTdb responsibilities, including those involved in its design, development, testing, and 

operation. We visited the Philadelphia regional office staff and conducted telephone interviews 

with geographers at five other regional offices. We also observed the batch update of the U.S. 

Postal Service’s Delivery Sequence File and the interactive update of information obtained from 

Census’s Boundary and Annexation Survey operation. 

We obtained and reviewed the policies and procedures for updating the MTdb system, the 

controls used to protect data accuracy and integrity, and related security documentation. We 

did not test the operational effectiveness of security controls and policies. Rather, we reviewed 

the documentation for reasonableness and adequacy. 

To evaluate the impact of various address-updating operations on the MTdb and to identify 

trends that introduced error, we requested and analyzed nine data files, including files 

containing MTdb updates from various 2010 census operations and Postal Service update files. 

Data files from two 2010 decennial ad hoc activities15 did not meet data reliability standards 

and, therefore, were not used. 

Early in our evaluation, Census informed us that many of the 2010 geographic initiative 

(MAF/TIGER Enhancement Program) project managers were no longer with the bureau and 

that producing extensive documentation about the initiatives would be difficult and timeconsuming. Given this constraint, we reviewed the information that was provided to us and 

focused primarily on the areas of the initiative that were not fully implemented. 

We performed the evaluation at Census Bureau headquarters in Suitland, Maryland, and the 

Philadelphia regional office. We conducted this review from January 2011 to October 2011, 

under the authorities of the Inspector General of 1978, as amended; Department Organization 

Order 10-13, August 31, 2006, as amended; and in accordance with the Quality Standards for 

Inspection and Evaluation (January 2011) issued by the Council of the Inspectors General on 

Integrity and Efficiency. 

15 One file came from the Address‐Canvassing Delete Check operation that was implemented during the

nonresponse follow‐up operation. This operation determined whether address canvassers deleted housing units

located in the wrong Census block but did not subsequently add the units back into the correct Census block. The

second data file was created from documents collected during the address‐canvassing operation, when technology

barred adding housing units or correcting deleted housing units during quality control activities.

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-12-024-I 13 
APR 3 0 2012 

ME\10RANDUM FOR 

Through: 

From: 

Subject: 

Ann Eilers 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Economics and Statistics AdmlnistTatlon 

U .S. Census Bureau 

Wastnni)IOn, DC 20233-0001 

OFFICE OF ThE DIRECTOR 

Principal Assistant inspector General for Audit and evaluation 

Cbjcf 

Mark E. 

Economis:wt 

Doms ~ 

R?bcrt 

Drrcctor 

M. Orov f iM 

f l ~ 

Draft Rep<m: High-Quality Maps and Accurate Addresses Are 

Needed to Achieve Census 2020 Cost-Suving Gauls 

The attached comments are in response to your draft audit rcp011, High-Quality Maps and 

Accurate Addresses Arc Needed to Achieve Census 2020 Cost-Saving Goals. 'lhc U.S. Census 

Bureau appreciates the comments 1md recommendations developed by tho Office of the Principal 

Assistant inspector General in producing this audit repo11. 

Attachment 

cc: US/F.A 

USCENSUSBUREAU 

www.cmsu.s.gov 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appendix B: Agency Response 

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-12-024-I 14 

 

O IG Draft Report 

fligb-Qua lity Maps :And Accurate Addresses Arc Needed 

to Achieve CcnBus 2020 Cost-Saving Goals 

U.S. Cc ~ Bureau Response 

Tbe Census Bureau has reviewed the Depmtmcnt of Commerce, Office of1nspcclor General 

(OlG), Draft Report cntiUed "U.S. Cans11s Hureau High Quality Maps and Accurate Addresses 

Are Needed 10 Achieve Census 2020 Co.w-Savlng Goals." dated March 23, 20 12. We 

acknowledge the goals of the draft report, ugr..:~: with many o[lhe points raised in the rcpott, and 

agree Utnt the report contributes to future directions in improving addresses that suppo1t cost 

avoidance goals of tile 2020 Census. 

There is, however, some infonnation Lhal requires funher clarification, and there are other points 

that require correction. Our commen1s follow: 

Comments Specific to the Rcconunentlntiuns: 

Recommendation 1: Develop an MTdh measure for determining address list quality at a 

low level of geography that (u) JlrOvides u fair aod equal opportunity for t argeti ng 

selection, (b) drives selection nnd phmniog dccisioos, aud (c) is well-documented and 

' 'criflllble. 

Census Bureau Response: The Census Bureau agrees wTtb this recommendatjon. As part of 

the Geogmphic Support System Jnitjative. the Geography Division fonncd ten working groups to 

support research and development activities. The Quality. Assessments, and Evaluations 

Working Group recommended 1hc development of Quality Indicators to measure the quality of 

the address list. Ao !mplememation Project Team is currently developing the criteria and 

requirements l!JiSOCiated with the Quality Indicators. Ln addition, after a thorough analysis, the 

Geography Division decided to track the Quality Indicators at the census tracl level, a low level 

of geography that can provide .suflicicnl deta il to support decision-making. 

RctOUllUcndation 2: Work with the DcJlartment to detcrmioc tbc fcasibjJity of improving 

methods of sharing MTdb infonnatie>n throughout the decade with gove rnment al coli tic.~ 

(or partners) to create a uniform, national address list. 

Census Bureau Response: The Census Bureau appreciates this recommcndation and believes it 

warrants further discussion within the Census Bureau and with the Department of Commerce. 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
 

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-12-024-I 15 

 

Recommendation 3: Investigate aud t"emcdy the exclusion of 500,0 00 ungcocod ed address 

records, which had been t-s ~: d as valid U.S. l'ostnl Service d elivery res~e§, from 

t he fina l hnusing count fo r the 2010 Census. 

Census Bureau Response: It is inaccurate lo stme that these 500,000 housing units were missed 

as part of the decennial census. Ther·c are many reasons an addJCss may be uogcocoderJ in the 

MTdb, including missing features. S1roct names. ~md/or address ranges. The housing units 

these addresses represent may be pfcscnt within the MTdb as non-city style addresses. such as 

location descriptions, where a city-style address could not be obtained. 

T he Censu~ Bureau agrees that we need 10 analy2.1! wtgcocoded addresses within the MTdb. We 

are in the process of implementing the MAF(IlGER Address Gcocoding (MT/\0) program to 

continuously review and eliminate ungeocoded addresses throughout the decade. 

Hccommendatioo 4: Conduct the necessary r csea rcll, d evelop a proven methodology, and 

ullocatc tbc ncccssnry fuu ch tr1 continuo usly reduce the u umllcr of uo geocod ed records 

hr ~; ut th e decade. 

Census Bureau Response: The Censu.~ Bureau agrees with this recommendation. As 

mentioned above, we 8 l'C in the process of implementing the MT/\0 program to continuously 

review nnd eliminate ungcocodcd addresses throughout U1e decndc. 

Recommcodatioo 5: Develop and implement quality indicatOJ' Iools. including use or 

administrlltive r ecords, to c:nsur e tbat updates to t·be MAF arc accurnte. 

Census Bu reau Response: 1l1e Census Hureau agrees with this reconunendntion. As 

mentioned above, an Implementation Project Team is currently developing the criteria and 

requirements associated with Quality Indicators. We will consider the recommendation to 

include one additional indicmor (verifiable) to dctcnnioc if an address is valid in recent Census 

surveys or other government administrative records. 

2 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
 

1200100-119 

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-12-024-I 16