2010 Census: Census Bureau Has Improved the Local Update of Census Addresses Program, but Challenges Remain
Published: 2007-06-14T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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. 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The decennial census is a constitutionally mandated activity undertaken  by the U.S. Census Bureau (Bureau). The data that the census collects are  used to reapportion the seats of the U.S. House of Representatives; redraw  congressional districts; allocate billions of dollars each year in federal  financial assistance; and provide a social, demographic, and economic  profile of the nation’s people to guide policy decisions at each level of  government. Further, businesses use census data to market new services  and products and to tailor existing ones to demographic changes.
To ensure it delivers quality data, the Bureau employs a number of quality  assurance programs throughout the course of the census. One such  program is the Bureau’s Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA)  Program, which provides a mechanism for state, local, and tribal  governments to contribute to complete enumeration of their jurisdictions  by reviewing, commenting on, and providing updated information on the  addresses and maps that the Bureau will use to deliver questionnaires  within those communities.
The Bureau is testing the LUCA Program as part of the 2008 Census Dress  Rehearsal in San Joaquin County, California, and nine counties in the area  surrounding Fayetteville, North Carolina. Bureau officials state that they  selected these sites to provide a comprehensive environment for  demonstrating and refining planned 2010 Census operations, such as the  LUCA Program and address canvassing.
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), the Department of Commerce’s (Commerce)
Office of the Inspector General, and a contractor hired by the Bureau. 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  Carolina 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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: 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. 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.
The LUCA Program is mandated by the Census Address List Improvement  Act of 1994 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; 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.
According to Bureau officials, one reason that participation in the LUCA  Program is important is that local government officials may be better  positioned to identify some housing units that are hard to find or are  hidden because of their knowledge of or access to data in their  jurisdictions. For example, local governments may have alternate sources  of address information (such as utility bills, tax records, information from  housing or zoning officials, or 911 emergency systems), which can help the  Bureau build a complete and accurate address list. In addition, according  to Bureau officials, providing local governments with opportunities to  actively participate in the development of the MAF/TIGER database can  have the added benefit for the Bureau of building local governments’  understanding of and support for the census. Local governments have key  roles in ensuring a successful census—not just in developing the address  list, but during subsequent operations as well, especially those designed to  boost public participation in the census.
The LUCA Program was first implemented for the 2000 Census, and of the  39,051 eligible entities—such as cities and counties—for the 2000 LUCA  Program, 18,333 (47 percent) agreed to participate. 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.
section_title: The Bureau Has Completed Nearly All Planned Activities for the LUCA Dress Rehearsal and the First Step of the 2010 LUCA Program
paragraphs: The Bureau has completed nearly all planned operations for the LUCA  Dress Rehearsal in accordance with the LUCA Dress Rehearsal timeline  (see fig. 3). 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.
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).
section_title: Bureau Modified the LUCA Program to Address Issues from the 2000 Experience but Faces New Challenges
paragraphs: The Bureau has modified the 2010 LUCA Program to address issues  stemming from the 2000 experience but faces new challenges with the  program. To reduce the workload and burden on LUCA participants, the  Bureau provided a longer period for reviewing and updating LUCA  materials; provided options to submit materials for the LUCA Program;  combined the collection of addresses from two separate operations into  one integrated and sequential operation; and created MTPS, which is  designed to assist LUCA participants in reviewing and updating address  and map data. However, the Bureau tested MTPS with only one potential  user for the 2010 LUCA Program, and did not test MTPS with any localities  during the LUCA Dress Rehearsal. In addition, many participants  experienced problems with converting Bureau-provided address files.
Further, the Bureau has planned modified training for the 2010 LUCA  Program, but the Bureau did not test each of these modifications in the  LUCA Dress Rehearsal. Finally, although the Bureau will likely plan to  assess the contribution that the LUCA Program makes to address counts,  the Bureau does not have a plan to assess the contribution that the  program makes to population counts. Such analysis would provide a  measure of the ultimate impact of the LUCA Program on achieving a  complete count of the population. Also, the Bureau has not collected the  information needed to fully measure LUCA participation rates and is  therefore limited in its ability to assess the cost and benefits of the LUCA  Program to the Bureau. Without this information, the Bureau may not be  able to fully measure the extent to which local review contributed to the  MAF database and the census population count.  Moreover, an additional  improvement to the LUCA Program that the Bureau cited was the agency’s  expansion of direct LUCA participation to state governments.  The Bureau  noted that allowing states to participate directly can fill the gap when local  governments do not participate because of a lack of resources or technical  challenges.
subsections: section_title: Bureau Addressed Issues about Workload and Burden, but Challenges with Software and File Conversion Remain
paragraphs: 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. 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.
Recognizing that not all localities have the resources to participate  effectively in the LUCA Program within imposed time constraints, the  Bureau made several changes to the program. First, the Bureau provided a  longer review period for LUCA participants. In 2004, NRC reported on the  2000 LUCA experience and concluded that the Bureau should clearly  articulate realistic schedules for the periods when localities can review  and update LUCA materials. 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).
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. Specifically, the Bureau now provides three  options for how localities can submit address and map information to the  Bureau: (1) full address list review with count review, (2) Title 13 local  address list submission, and (3) non-Title 13 local address list submission  (see fig. 6). The three options differ in the level of review of Bureau  materials by participating localities and in requirements to adhere to rules  concerning confidentiality of information. For options one or two,  participants may use MTPS to assist in their reviews.
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).
Third, the Bureau combined the collection of addresses from two separate  operations for city-style and non-city-style addresses 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. Based on complaints about the multiphased  LUCA Program from the 2000 experience (where some participants found  the two separate operations confusing), the Bureau designed the 2010  LUCA Program to be a single review operation for all addresses. Bureau  officials also told us that the combined LUCA operation would be fully  integrated with the decennial census schedule with address canvassing. As  a result of the Bureau’s efforts, localities could face a reduced burden, and  participation in the 2010 LUCA Program could be less confusing. Further,  the Bureau may be able to more effectively verify address information  collected from LUCA Program participants during address canvassing.
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. 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) 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.  Consistent with that recommendation, the Bureau created MTPS, which  Bureau officials said benefits participants by reducing their workloads and  burdens in participating in the 2010 LUCA Program by allowing them to  review and update address and map information together in one software  package.
Building on the progress it has already made, the Bureau can take  additional steps to address new challenges in reducing workload and  burdens for LUCA participants. First, although the Bureau performed  internal tests of the software, the Bureau did not test MTPS as part of the  LUCA Dress Rehearsal and tested MTPS with only one locality in  preparation for the 2010 LUCA Program. Properly executed user-based  methods for software testing can give the truest estimate of the extent to  which real users can employ a software application effectively, efficiently,  and satisfactorily. In addition, multiple users are required to tease out  remaining problems in a product that is ready for distribution. 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. 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. Participants in the LUCA Dress Rehearsal  experienced problems with converting the files from the Bureau’s format  to their respective applications; our survey of LUCA Dress Rehearsal  participants revealed that the majority of respondents had, to some extent,  problems with file conversions to appropriate formats (see fig. 8). Our  fieldwork also revealed issues pertaining to file conversion; for example,  one local official noted that it took him 2 days to determine how to  convert the Bureau’s pipe-delimited files. To mitigate the potential burden  on localities that choose not to use MTPS, the Bureau will provide  technical guidance on file conversion through its LUCA technical help  desk, but does not plan to provide instructions for converting Bureau- provided address files through other means. At present, the Bureau does  not know how many localities will opt not to use MTPS for the 2010 LUCA  Program, but those localities may face the same challenges faced by  participants in the LUCA Dress Rehearsal.
section_title: Bureau Plans Improvements to the 2010 LUCA Program Training but Did Not Fully Test Improvements in the LUCA Dress Rehearsal
paragraphs: Leading up to the 2000 Census, we reported that LUCA training received  less favorable reviews than the other components of the LUCA Program.  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).
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. 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.
section_title: Bureau Has Not Collected Information Needed to Fully Assess LUCA Costs, Benefits, and Contributions
paragraphs: 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 Program  (for example, by showing how LUCA contributes to a more accurate count  of their communities’ populations).
The Bureau said that it would mark and evaluate contributions (such as  added, corrected, or deleted addresses) of the LUCA Program to the MAF  database.  The Bureau has not finalized its evaluation plans regarding the  2010 LUCA Program; these plans would include decisions about whether  to conduct assessments of the program’s contribution to the census  population count. The Bureau also stated that measuring whether the  LUCA Program is cost beneficial “has not been a priority” for the agency,  given that the program is legally mandated. In addition, Bureau officials  stated that they will not budget the LUCA Program separately until fiscal  year 2008. They noted that the LUCA Program budget is currently  combined with those of other geographic programs in the Decennial  Management Division budget.
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.
One aspect of assessing the LUCA Program is determining the extent to  which localities assess Bureau-provided counts, addresses, and maps.  However, LUCA Program participation rates are currently difficult to  measure because the Bureau does not have a method of tracking localities  that agreed to participate in the program but did not submit updates to the  Bureau because they found no needed changes to Bureau-provided  information. Officials from the Bureau measure LUCA Program  participation by whether localities agree to participate in the program,  regardless of whether they actually take the time to review the materials  the Bureau provides them. Inventory forms used by localities to inform the  Bureau of updated LUCA materials do not include an option for localities  to indicate whether they reviewed the materials and chose not to provide  updates or had not identified any needed changes. This information would  allow the Bureau to distinguish between localities that initially agreed to  participate but did not and localities that agreed to participate and either  did not review the materials or found no changes to submit. The Bureau  would then have a unique estimate of localities that found the Bureau’s  data to be accurate. Without more precise information on localities that do  not provide information, the Bureau cannot fully track localities that  actually reviewed materials during participation in the LUCA Program, and  therefore cannot ascertain the actual participation rates. More important,  without this information, the Bureau cannot fully measure the extent to  which local reviews have contributed to accurate address lists and  population counts.
section_title: Bureau Has Proposed but Not Finalized Steps to Address Issues in Hurricane- Affected Areas
paragraphs: Hurricane Katrina made landfall in Mississippi and Louisiana on August 29,  2005, and caused $96 billion in property damage—more than any other  single natural disaster in the history of the United States. On   September 24, 2005, Hurricane Rita followed when it made landfall in  Texas and Louisiana and added to the devastation. Still today, the storms’  impact is visible throughout the Gulf Coast region. Hurricane Katrina  alone destroyed or made uninhabitable an estimated 300,000 homes.  In  New Orleans, the hurricanes damaged an estimated 123,000 housing units.  The 2010 LUCA Program faces challenges caused by the continuous  changes in the housing stock in areas affected by storm damage or  population influxes, which may hinder the ability of local governments to  accurately update their address lists and maps. Further, the condition of  the housing stock is likely to present additional challenges for address  canvassing and other decennial census operations in the form of  decreased productivity for Bureau staff, issues associated with identifying  vacant and uninhabitable structures, and workforce shortages. Early in  2006, based on our prior recommendations, the Bureau chartered a team  to assess the impact of the storm damage on its address list and maps for  the area. This team (working with other officials from Bureau  headquarters and the Dallas Regional Office) proposed several changes to  the 2010 LUCA Program and address canvassing in the Gulf Coast region.   Officials in the Bureau headquarters and Dallas Regional Office have  implemented several of these changes.
Many officials of local governments we visited in hurricane-affected areas  said they have identified numerous housing units that have been or will be  demolished as a result of hurricanes Katrina and Rita and subsequent  deterioration. Conversely, many local governments estimate that there is  new development of housing units in their respective jurisdictions. The  officials we interviewed from localities in the Gulf Coast region indicated  that such changes in the housing stock of their jurisdictions are unlikely to  subside before local governments begin updating and reviewing materials  for the Bureau’s 2010 LUCA Program—in August 2007. Local government  officials told us that changes in housing unit stock are often caused by  difficulties that families have in deciding whether to return to hurricane- affected areas. Local officials informed us that a family’s decision to return  is affected by various factors, such as the availability of insurance; timing  of funding from Louisiana’s Road Home Program; lack of availability of  contractors; school systems that are closed; and lack of amenities, such as  grocery stores. 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.
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).
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. 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.
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.
The Bureau has implemented several of the proposed changes, cited  above, to the 2010 LUCA Program in the Gulf Coast region based on  recommendations from its chartered team, other Bureau headquarters  officials, and regional office officials. For example, the Bureau conducted  conference calls with the states of Louisiana and Mississippi (in October  and December 2006, respectively) to discuss the LUCA Program, and had  the Dallas and Atlanta regional offices hold additional promotional  workshops in hurricane-impacted areas. In addition, Bureau officials have  stated that the regional offices will also encourage participants in these  areas to sign up for LUCA as early as possible so that if they need more  than 120 days for conducting their LUCA review, they can request an  extension from the Bureau.
In addition to the changes in the 2010 LUCA Program, the Bureau has  considered changes to the address canvassing and subsequent operations  in the Gulf Coast region. For example, Bureau officials stated that they  recognize issues with identifying uninhabitable structures in hurricane- affected zones and, as a result, that they may need to change procedures  for address canvassing. The Bureau is still brainstorming ideas, including  the possibility of using an “Update/Enumerate” operation in areas along  the Gulf Coast. Bureau officials also said that they may adjust training for  Bureau staff conducting address canvassing in hurricane-affected areas to  help field staff distinguish between abandoned, vacant, and occupied  housing units. Without proper training, field staff can make errors and will  not operate as efficiently. The Bureau’s plans for how it may adjust  address canvassing operations in the Gulf Coast region can also have  implications for subsequent operations. For example, instructing field staff   to be as inclusive as possible in completing address canvassing could  cause increased efforts to follow up on nonrespondents because the  Bureau could send questionnaires to housing units that could be vacant on   Census Day.  In terms of the Bureau’s workforce in the Gulf Coast region,  officials from the Bureau’s Dallas Regional Office recognize the potential  difficulty of attracting field staff, and have recommended that the Bureau  be prepared to pay hourly wage rates for future decennial staff that are  considerably higher than usual. Further, Bureau officials noted that the  Bureau’s Dallas Regional Office, which has jurisdiction over hurricane- affected areas in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, will examine local  unemployment rates to adjust pay rates in the region and use “every single  entity” available to advertise for workers in the New Orleans area.  However, Bureau officials stated that there are “no concrete plans” to  implement changes to address canvassing or subsequent decennial  operations in the Gulf Coast region. For instance, Bureau documentation  revealed that the Bureau has not yet decided whether to implement  “Update/Enumerate” operations in areas along the Gulf Coast.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The Bureau has met the time frames for the LUCA Dress Rehearsal and the  distribution of advance letters for the 2010 LUCA Program. The Bureau  has also taken a number of steps to improve the LUCA Program, including  providing a longer review period for program participants, providing  localities options for program participation, combining the collection of  addresses from two separate operations into one integrated and sequential  operation, creating MTPS for participant use in the program, and  modifying LUCA training.
However, there is more the Bureau can do to address information  technology-based challenges to the LUCA Program prior to the 2010  Census and beyond. The Bureau performed little user testing of MTPS and  no user testing of the CBT module for the 2010 LUCA Program; however,  the Bureau can do more to assess the usability of MTPS and the LUCA  CBT. For example, the Bureau could test MTPS and LUCA CBT software  with localities before participants begin reviewing and updating materials  for the 2010 LUCA Program in August 2007. These tests would help the  Bureau identify issues associated with MTPS and LUCA CBT software.  Following the tests, the Bureau can provide information on how localities  can mitigate such issues via its public Web site and its LUCA technical  help desk. Without these tests, localities participating in LUCA 2010 may  unnecessarily encounter issues with the CBT software that may otherwise  have been identified through testing. The Bureau can also provide  additional information, via its public Web site, its LUCA technical help  desk, and other means, on converting Bureau address files from the  Bureau’s format to specific software applications used by LUCA Program  participants in order to mitigate difficulties in file conversion previously  identified by LUCA Dress Rehearsal participants. Without such guidance,  localities may have difficulty with the file conversion process, creating  additional and unnecessary burdens for the localities that choose not to  use MTPS.
NRC, in its assessment of the LUCA Program, concluded that quantifying  the value of the LUCA program is worthwhile, citing for example its use in  persuading local officials of the value of participating in the LUCA  program. NRC suggests that an evaluation of the LUCA Program consider  not only its contributions to address counts but also to population counts.  We agree that the Bureau can use such information to measure the LUCA  Program’s contribution to the decennial census. In addition, the Bureau is  limited in its ability to fully assess the impact of the program because it  does not collect information on why localities that agreed to participate do  not provide updated information. Without these data, the Bureau cannot  determine whether nonresponding localities assessed the Bureau’s  information or whether these localities did assess the information but had  no changes. Without these data, the Bureau may be hampered in its ability  to estimate the impact of the LUCA Program on the MAF database and the  census population count.
Bureau efforts to consult with state officials and consider changes in  decennial census operations, including LUCA, in hurricane-affected areas  along the Gulf Coast have helped the Bureau better understand issues  associated with implementing these operations in the Gulf Coast region.  However, the Bureau can do more to successfully implement address  canvassing and other decennial census operations in the Gulf Coast. For  example, Bureau efforts to address issues associated with address  canvassing, such as adjusting wage rates for future decennial staff, may  help the Bureau fulfill staffing requirements for the address canvassing  operation (which is scheduled to take place in 2009) and other decennial  census operations. Because the changing stock may affect the Bureau’s  ability to effectively conduct address canvassing and other operations in  the Gulf Coast region, it is important for the Bureau to complete its  planning for addressing the challenges that field staff would likely face.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: In written comments on a draft of this report, the Bureau generally agreed  with our recommendations for the Bureau to assess usability issues with  MTPS and CBT; provide localities not using MTPS with instructions on file  conversion; assess the contribution of LUCA to the final census population  counts; establish a process for localities to indicate that they participated  in LUCA but found no changes; and develop strategy, plans, and  milestones for operations in the Gulf Coast that address the challenges  that field staff are likely to face. The Bureau also agreed with the draft  report’s recommendation that the Bureau finalize its plans for conducting  the LUCA Program in the areas affected by the hurricanes, noting that its  plans were now final. We therefore deleted this recommendation. The  Bureau also provided some technical comments and suggestions where  additional context might be needed, and we revised the report to reflect  these comments as appropriate. The Bureau’s comments are reprinted in  their entirety in appendix II.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional  committees and members, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Director of  the U.S. Census Bureau. Copies will be made available to others on  request. This report will also be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site  at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me  at (202) 512-6806 or sciremj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are  listed in appendix IV.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To assess the current status of the U.S. Census Bureau’s (Bureau) Local  Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) Program, we requested and obtained  source documents from the Bureau’s headquarters in Suitland, Maryland,  and the Bureau’s Web site regarding the updated timelines of the 2010  LUCA Program and the LUCA Dress Rehearsal. We also visited the  Bureau’s regional office in Charlotte, North Carolina; conducted a phone  interview with the Bureau’s regional office in Seattle, Washington; and  obtained documents, including the Bureau’s timeline for headquarters and  regional office activities associated with the 2010 Census LUCA Program.  Additionally, we analyzed the data to determine if the Bureau’s actual  timelines met the planned timelines for the LUCA Dress Rehearsal and the  2010 LUCA Program.
Additionally, we interviewed officials from the Bureau headquarters in  Suitland, Maryland, to determine the extent to which activities associated  with the 2010 LUCA Program and LUCA Dress Rehearsal (held June  through October 2006) met their timelines. We also visited and obtained  documentation from localities associated with the LUCA Dress Rehearsal  in California and North Carolina.
To assess how the Bureau is addressing prior issues and new challenges  associated with implementing the LUCA Program, we performed a review  of publications created by GAO and other entities (i.e., the National  Research Council, the Department of Commerce’s Office of the Inspector  General, and Anteon Corporation) regarding the LUCA Program to  ascertain critiques of the program and recommendations for improving the  program for the 2010 Census. We also obtained source documents and  interviewed officials from the Bureau’s headquarters in Suitland,  Maryland, to determine how the Bureau addressed prior issues and new  challenges related to the LUCA Program and what modifications the  Bureau has made to the 2010 LUCA Program. To determine how the 2010  LUCA Program is being implemented, we undertook fieldwork in 12  localities (in California and North Carolina) that were eligible to  participate in the LUCA Dress Rehearsal, which was held from June  through October 2006. The 12 localities were selected because they were  geographically diverse and varied in population. During our visits to the  localities, we interviewed and obtained documentation from local  government officials to determine how the Bureau implemented the LUCA  Dress Rehearsal and addressed prior issues and new challenges related to  the LUCA Program. We also conducted interviews and collected  documentation from the Bureau’s regional offices in Charlotte, North  Carolina, (in person) and Seattle, Washington, (via telephone) to  determine the Bureau’s implementation of the LUCA Dress Rehearsal from  the perspective of Bureau officials responsible for the LUCA Dress  Rehearsal sites.
To obtain further information on the experiences of participants with  LUCA Dress Rehearsal activities, we administered a World Wide Web  questionnaire accessible through a secure server to 42 local governments  participating in the LUCA Dress Rehearsal. We collected data on  participants’ experiences with the review process, the census maps and  addresses, work materials, and interactions with the Bureau and other  agencies.
Because this was not a sample survey, it has no sampling errors. However,  the practical difficulties of conducting a survey may introduce errors,  commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For example, difficulties in  interpreting a particular question, or sources of information available to  respondents, can introduce unwanted variability into the survey results.  We took steps in developing the questionnaire, collecting the data, and  analyzing them to minimize such nonsampling errors.
For example, the survey was tested with two LUCA Dress Rehearsal  participants in order to check that the questions were clear and  unambiguous, the information could be obtained by the respondents, and  the questionnaire did not place an undue burden on the respondents.  When we analyzed the data, an independent analyst checked all computer  programs. Once the questionnaire was finalized, each of the 42 local  governments was notified that the questionnaire was available online and  provided with a unique password and user name. Therefore, respondents  entered their answers directly into the electronic questionnaire,  eliminating the need to key data into a database.
We included in our study population those local governments in California  and North Carolina that participated in the LUCA Dress Rehearsal. We  defined participants as those local governments that had signed up to  participate and had not later indicated that they in fact did not participate  in the LUCA Dress Rehearsal. The Bureau identified 44 state, county, and  municipal governments that met our criteria as participating in the LUCA  Dress Rehearsal. Questionnaires were sent to 42 local governments and  were completed by 31 such governments, for a response rate of 74 percent.
There were a total of 62 localities eligible to participate in the LUCA Dress  Rehearsal. In addition to our survey, we also performed structured  interviews (in person and via telephone) with officials in 7 localities that  were eligible to participate in the LUCA Dress Rehearsal but did not take  part in the program.
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.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Commerce
section_title: Appendix III: Web-Based Survey of LUCA Dress Rehearsal Participants
subsections: section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: 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. GAO- 04-37. 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.
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.