NYSDC Affiliate Meeting Michael Horgan Geographer, Address Programs Management Division May 7-8,

Topics  Background and progress on The Geographic Support System Initiative (GSS-I)  Update on the 2020 Local Update of Census Address (LUCA) program 2

The GSS-I Partnership Program  Opportunity for tribal, state, county, and local governments to continually exchange address & spatial data with the Census Bureau  Recognizes partner governments as a definitive authority for quality address and street data within their communities 3

What is the Basic Process? 1.Acquire partner data and perform Content Verification to determine general usability 2.Crosswalk, standardize, match, and geocode partner addresses and structure points using the Master Address File (MAF) 3.Match street centerline data to identify differences, calculate spatial accuracy (CE95 method) of partner data using GPS control points 4.Ideal Scenario: new addresses are added to the MAF, new streets are added to TIGER, address and spatial inconsistencies are submitted for resolution 4

Key Components of the GSS-I An integrated program that utilizes a partnership program for: – Improved address coverage – transaction-based address and spatial feature updates – Enhanced quality assessment and measurement 5 Address Updates 123 Testdata Road Anytown, CA Lat 37 degrees, 9.6 minutes N Lon 119 degrees, 45.1 minutes W Street/Feature Updates Quality Measurement

Reengineered Canvassing in 2019? 2009 Address Canvassing 100% Canvassing vs 2019 Reengineered Canvassing 6

Reengineering Address Canvassing  In-office and In-field work  MAF/TIGER updates from GSS-I  Maximizing the use of the DSF  Research and use other sources of addresses, including administrative records and commercial data  Using the MAF and imagery to detect change 7

8

GSS-I in New York State  2013, MOU with New York State Office of Information Technology Services (ITS) –NY Street Address Mapping (SAM)  Counties received –45 counties – NY ITS –5 counties directly from local government 9

10 New York Counties received - GSS-I Albany Allegany Bronx * Cattaraugus Cayuga Chemung Clinton Columbia Cortland Delaware Dutchess Erie Essex Franklin Genesee Greene Hamilton Herkimer Jefferson Livingston Kings* Lewis Livingston Madison Monroe Montgomery Nassau New York* Niagara Oneida Ontario Orange Orleans Oswego Putnam Queens* Richmond* Rockland St. Lawrence Saratoga Seneca Steuben Suffolk Sullivan Tioga Tompkins Ulster Warren Washington Westchester Wyoming

Block Level Address Feedback 11 Consists of block tallies detailing: What the partner provided Number of records matched or added to the Census address list Number of records not accepted Total number of residential records currently in the MAF

Feature Feedback 12 partnership shape files include date of last update ad.html>

Census Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) Program

Background LUCA 1998/99: First opportunity for tribal and local governments to review and update the Census Bureau’s address list LUCA: Based on Census 2000 feedback, three participation options were offered:  Option 1: Title-13 Full Address List Review (similar to LUCA 1998)  Option 2: Title-13 review, full address list submission  Partners provide their entire residential address list with access to Title-13 addresses  Option 3: Non-Title-13, full address list submission  Partners provide their entire residential address list without access to Title- 13 addresses 14

2020 LUCA Improvement Research  To develop potential alternative designs for LUCA 2020 based on research by four subteams Looking Back at 2010 (assessments, surveys, lessons learned) Impact of Geographic Support System Initiative (GSS-I) on LUCA (utilizing address data, software and processes for LUCA) Reengineered Address Canvassing’s impact on LUCA (in- office validation) Focus Groups 15

LUCA Recommendations 1. Continue the 2010 Census LUCA Program improvements that were successful Continue to provide a 120-day review time for participants. Continue the six month advance notice about the LUCA program registration Continue a comprehensive communication program with participants Continue to provide a variety of LUCA media types Continue to improve the partnership software application Continue State participation in the LUCA program 2.Eliminate the full address list submission options that were available in 2010 LUCA (Options 2 and 3). This will: Reduce the number of deleted LUCA records in field verification activities Reduce the burden and cost of processing addresses and LUCA address validation 16

LUCA Recommendations (continued) 3.Reduce the complexity of the Local Update of Census Addresses Program 4.Include census housing unit location coordinates in the census address list and allow partners to return their housing unit location coordinates as part of their submission 5.Provide any ungeocoded United States Postal Service Delivery Sequence File addresses to State and County partners 6.Provide the address list in more standard formats 7.Conduct an in-office validation of LUCA submitted addresses 8.Utilize GSS-I data and tools to validate LUCA submissions 17

9.Encourage governments at the lowest level to work with higher-level governments to consolidate their submission. 10.Eliminate the Block Count Challenge 11.Eliminate the use of the asterisk (*) designation for multi-units submitted without unit designations 12.Encourage LUCA participants to identify addresses used for mailing, location, or both LUCA Recommendations (continued) 10

Current Activities/Next Steps  Investigate the technical recommendations for 2020 LUCA: Use of background imagery on paper maps Ability to provide structure locations within LUCA materials Feasibility of web based registration  Determine feasibility of using areas where we have planned field activities to validate LUCA records  Work with OMB to develop a 2020 LUCA Appeals process 19

For more information, please visit: For more information, please visit: Thank You