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. 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). 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. In order for the Bureau to address the remaining challenges facing its implementation of the 2010 LUCA Program, we recommend that the Secretary of Commerce direct the Bureau to take the following five actions: Assess potential usability issues with the LUCA Program’s CBT and MTPS by randomly selecting localities in which to test the software packages or by providing alternative means to assess such issues before participants begin reviewing and updating materials for the 2010 LUCA Program in August 2007, and provide information on how localities can mitigate issues identified in such assessments via its public Web site and its LUCA technical help desk. Provide localities not using MTPS, via its public Web site, its LUCA technical help desk, and other appropriate means, instructions on converting files from the Bureau’s format to the appropriate format for software most commonly used by participating localities to update address information. Assess the contribution of the LUCA Program to the final census population counts, as recommended by NRC (to permit an evaluation of the 2010 LUCA Program in preparation for 2020). Establish a process for localities that agreed to participate in the LUCA Program but found no changes in their review to explicitly communicate to the Bureau that they have no changes. Develop strategy, plans and milestones for operations in areas in the Gulf Coast that address the challenges field staff are likely to encounter in conducting address canvassing and subsequent decennial operations in communities affected by the hurricanes. In written comments on a draft of this report, the Bureau generally agreed with our recommendations for the Bureau to assess usability issues with MTPS and CBT; provide localities not using MTPS with instructions on file conversion; assess the contribution of LUCA to the final census population counts; establish a process for localities to indicate that they participated in LUCA but found no changes; and develop strategy, plans, and milestones for operations in the Gulf Coast that address the challenges that field staff are likely to face. The Bureau also agreed with the draft report’s recommendation that the Bureau finalize its plans for conducting the LUCA Program in the areas affected by the hurricanes, noting that its plans were now final. We therefore deleted this recommendation. The 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. 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. 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. 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.

Summary: 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. 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.