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.