1. Geographic Partnerships In Support of the 2020 Census U.S. Census Bureau, Geography Division SDC/CIC Steering Committee April 2015

2. Agenda  Geographic Program Schedule  State Agreements  Geographic Updates Partnership Software (GUPS)  Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA)  Geographic Support System Initiative (GSS-I)  Community TIGER Implementation  Boundary and Annexation Survey (BAS)  Boundary Quality Assessment and Reconciliation Project (BQARP)

3. Geographic Programs Laura L. Waggoner ADC for Geographic Partnerships Geography Division 3

4. High Level Schedule 4 Redistricting Block Boundary Suggestion Project (BBSP) – Materials available to states in December 2015 – Verification in December 2016 Redistricting Voting District Project (VTD) – Materials available to states in December 2017 – Verification in December 2018 Boundary and Annexation Survey (BAS) – Annual response in December and January of each year – Submit material through May Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) Program – Invitation Fall of 2017 – Materials Available Winter 2018 – Feedback shipped Summer 2019 School District Review Program (SDRP) – Every two years with states Participant Statistical Areas Program (PSAP) and Tribal Statistical Areas Program (TSAP) – In planning materials available to December 2018 Boundary Validation Program (BVP) – Highest Elected Officials initial notification January 2020 – Final review of BAS 2020 May or June 2020

5. State Agreements or Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Laura L. Waggoner Geography Division 5

6. Existing Agreements Address and Street Formal agreement New York Informal agreement Utah Montana New Mexico Vermont Rhode Island New Jersey West Virginia Maryland Virginia North Carolina Ohio Indiana Michigan Minnesota 6 Boundary Formal agreements Alaska Georgia Kentucky Michigan Maine Massachusetts Utah Louisiana Mississippi Washington Informal agreements Montana New Jersey Virginia New Hampshire Ohio New Mexico Nevada In discussion with Arizona Arkansas Oregon North Carolina

7. What’s in it for You? (and Us?) State Level BAS Benefits 7 State can participate digitally (boundary accuracy!) Incentive for governments to provide their legal changes to the state on a timely basis State is providing a service to the governments in the state, promoting efficiency Provides “Roll-Up” of boundaries to State and then to Federal Government All levels of government are using the same boundary set Provides continuity of BAS contact and response at the state level

8. Memorandum of Understandings 8 Options for enacting a State-Level BAS: 1)Provide a list of governments in the State that enacted legal changes in the BAS year 2)Provide the geospatial changes in the TIGER Partnership file (transaction file) for the legal changes and the ordinance #s and effective dates. May also submit boundary corrections. 3)Provide just the transaction polygons from your file (you do not work with the TIGER Partnership file) and the legal documents (not just the ordinance #s and dates, but the actual documents) Note: Does not include providing boundary corrections. Also, you are accepting our interpretation of the materials you provide.

9. Geographic Update Partnership Software (GUPS) Laura L. Waggoner Geography Division 9

10. GUPS Program Interfaces GUPS will support updates to the following geographic programs:  Redistricting Block Boundary Suggestion Project (BBSP)*  Redistricting Voting District Project (VTD)*  Boundary and Annexation Survey (BAS)  Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) Program*  School District Review Program (SDRP)  Participant Statistical Areas Program (PSAP)*  Tribal Statistical Areas Program (TSAP)*  Boundary Validation Program (BVP)  New Construction Project (NC)  Public Use Micro-data Area (PUMA) Program  Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ)/Traffic Analysis District (TAD) Program  2020 Census Count Question Resolution (CQR) Program *Program requires a GUPS interface as well as verification or feedback interface 10

11. GUPS Background and Description 1.Partners from tribal, state, and local governments contribute to the enhancement of the Census Bureau’s MAF/TIGER geospatial database by updating boundaries, addresses, streets and other geographies. 2.The Geography Division is requesting a software application that is designed to collect transaction-based geographic updates from state and local partners and can be utilized by GIS users of all levels. 3.GUPS will provide a web-based application and a stand-alone application that allow the Census Bureau partners to choose either method to submit updates for geographic programs. 11

12. GUPS Project Scope To provide a common geographic update tool, with shared core functionality, that will allow over 40,000 tribal, state, and local governments to submit digital updates for geographic programs. To make geographic program participation more convenient for participants and for the Census Bureau by offering the following electronic tools for Census Bureau geospatial and tabular data: Viewing Updating Correcting Verifying 12

13. Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) Brian Timko Chief, Tribal/Local Geographic Partnership Branch Geography Division 13

14. LUCA Background The LUCA program was designed based on requirements specified by the Census Address List Improvement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-430) which provides an opportunity for designated representatives of local, state, and tribal governments to review the addresses used to conduct the decennial census.Census Address List Improvement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-430) 14

15. Background (continued) LUCA 1998/99: First opportunity for tribal and local governments to review and update the Census Bureau’s address list. 2010 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 Titile-13 addresses  Option 3: Non-Title-13, full address list submission  Partners provide their entire residential address list without access to Census Title-13 addresses 15

16. Comparison LUCA 1998 and 2010 LUCA LUCA 19982010 LUCA 6.2 Million addresses submitted by 6,230 participants 41.7 Million addresses submitted by 7,641 participants 0.9 Million matched to existing MAF records 32.6 Million matched to existing MAF records 5.3 Million new addresses added to the MAF 9.1 Million new addresses added to the MAF 3.4 Million addresses enumerated (63.2 percent) 2.9 Million addresses enumerated (31.8 percent) 1.9 Million deleted addresses (36.8 percent deleted) 6.2 Million deleted addresses (68.2 percent deleted) 63.2 percent Enumeration rate 31.8 percent Enumeration rate

17. 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) Geographic Support System Initiative’s (GSS-I) impact on LUCA (utilizing address data, software and processes for LUCA) Reengineered address canvassing’s impact on LUCA (in- office validation) Focus Groups 17

18. 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 18

19. 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 19

20. 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)

21. Current Activities/Next Steps  In-office validation processes, procedures and tools development.  Current small scale testing with the In-Office Verification Group (consisting of Non-ID, LUCA and In-Office Canvassing staff)  Larger test using partner supplied addresses prior to the 2017 Census Test, and comparing the results to the Address Canvassing results  Define relationship between Administrative Records and LUCA and determine whether Administrative Records can be used as an independent source of validating LUCA submitted addresses  Define relationship between Address Canvassing and LUCA, taking into consideration the timing of LUCA feedback and the appeals operation.

22. Current Activities/Next Steps (continued)  Determine the feasibility of implementing technical recommendations for 2020 LUCA need to be investigated: Use of background imagery on paper maps Ability to provide structure locations within LUCA materials Feasibility of web based registration Develop and Test LUCA component of the Geographic Update Partnership Software (GUPS software) 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, defining the appropriate appeals office will largely depend on the design of LUCA and the design of Address Canvassing and how Address Canvassing will be used to validate LUCA submissions. Determine the relationship between late decade GSS-I and LUCA.

23. Geographic Support System Initiative (GSS-I) Partnership Program Update Brian Timko Geography Division

24. GSS-I Placeholder 1

25. GSS-I Placeholder 2

26. Community TIGER: Brian Timko Geography Division 26

27. What is Community TIGER?  Address and spatial data management and exchange tool for each government in the United States o Currently, no one system solution that also allows partner involvement o Different missions o Different formats o Varying positional and temporal accuracies o Inconsistent attribution o Over/under geographic coverage 27

28. Data Migration: Spatial Data Mapping

29. Data Analysis

30. Boundary Activities Boundary and Annexation Survey (BAS) and Boundary Quality Assessment and Reconciliation Project (BQARP) Laura L. Waggoner Geography Division

31. Digital-only updates and submissions Secure Web Incoming Module – https://respond.census.gov/swim BAS training and informational videos – http://www.census.gov/geo/partnerships/bas/bas_ videos.html New processing review and update methods 2015 BAS – What’s New? 31

32. 2015 BAS – How’s It Going? 32 The Census Bureau conducted two training webinars the second week of January As of March 2015, we have received almost 900 digital entity submissions All boundary updates must be received by March 1, 2015 to be reflected in the American Community Survey and Population Estimates Program All boundary updates must be received by May 31, 2015 to be reflected in the 2016 BAS materials

33. Geographic Update Partnership Software (GUPS) tool replaces the MAF/TIGER Partnership System (MTPS) tool The return of BAS paper maps – Minor updates to design – PDF available online Redistricting Data state contacts may submit boundary corrects for reconciliation with BAS contacts Research the redesign of the BAS forms – Implement new design in BAS 2017 2016 BAS – What’s Different? 33

34. December 2014/January 2015 - Annual response information is emailed to participants. January 1, 2015 - Annexations must be effective by this date in order to be submitted during the 2015 BAS. January/February 2015 - Non-Response email and telephone follow- up. March 1, 2015 - Boundary annexation information received by the Census Bureau by this date will be included in the Population Estimates Program and the American Community Survey. March/April 2015 - State Data Center non-response follow-up. May 31, 2015 - Boundary annexation information received by the Census Bureau by this date will be included in the 2016 BAS materials. BAS Schedule 34

35. BQARP – Summary  Review spatial data sources as well as legal documents and descriptions to assess and analyze the MAF/TIGER Database (MTDB) corrections  Compare locally sourced data to Census boundaries and adjust where necessary  Coordinate effort with State partners  Improve the spatial quality of legal and administrative boundaries within the MTDB  Set the boundaries spatial accuracy  Lock the boundaries so unsupported reshape doesn’t occur 35

36. BQARP – Status  Complete updates for Montana and Utah  Assess and process updates for Arizona, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Virginia, North Carolina, Washington and Federal Public Lands  Establish list of target States for 2016 and contact State partners 36

37. Questions?