1. Complete, Correct, and Current Addresses  Complete the address  Leverage software and data to provide the missing information  ZIP + 4®, street name, city, state, directional  Correct the address  Is the address deliverable?  Misspellings and approved abbreviations (Publication 28)  Make sure the city, state, and ZIP Code™ are correct  Keep the address current  Has the person, family, or business moved?  Are there municipality introduced changes?  This is an ongoing process

2. StandardizeStandardize Address Quality Foundation CASS-Certified Software TM Validate LACS Link TM DPV TM AEC / AEC II TM Update NCOA Link TM ANK Link TM ACS TM

3. New Address Quality Tools and Initiatives  Identification of “vacant” addresses  Leverages the no-stat and vacant files as part of DPV  Are available via CASS-certified software  Not officially required at this time, though  Suite Link – secondary addresses for businesses  Optional under CASS cycle L  Required for vendors under CASS cycle M  Move Update – November 23, 2008  Required for First Class and Standard  Must use USPS approved method every 95 days  USPS has implemented Move Update compliance validation

4. CASS Cycle M  August 1, 2009 implementation date  Software implementation in April / May of 2009  We’re not too busy then, right?  Preferred alias addresses  Validate secondary addresses of “0”  DPV Tie Breaking  Firm matching  30 character abbreviation  13 character city names and abbreviations

5. Going Beyond CASS  Address quality can impact do-not-mail  How do you think “Forest Ethics” will leverage 6 billion pieces of mail “thrown away” every year?  Leveraging USPS and industry data services  AEC and AEC II  Leveraging OneCode ACS returns  Sending them back to the source database  Establishing a “next best step” approach based on the software return codes

6. What If We Didn’t Have CASS/MASS?  This was the question raised by the NCSC  Is a certified product important for the industry?  Could this cause an increase in UAA?  No longer care how you get to a ZIP + 4  Would this improve address assignments?  “No holds barred” approach to assignment  Would it put the mailers in a potentially dangerous and liable situation?  The USPS could use the IMB to automatically levy a rate correction on a given mailpiece

7. Future Approach to Address Quality  NAVS: Just-in-time access to the latest addresses  Provides a Method for the Mailing Community to Validate the Existence of Newly-Created Addresses in the USPS Master Addressing Database Prior to the Availability of These Addresses in the Normal Monthly Products Such as ZIP+4, DPV, and DSF2  Compares Submitted Addresses Against DPFNOW Data  Accepts Electronic Transactions Via the Internet  Return Transactions Contain the Results of the Query  Standardized Address Format  Applicable Return Codes  DPV transactional file update  Weekly updates at less than 1% of the original file size