Various Customer Surveys

Generic Clearance for Data User and Customer Evaluation Surveys

LUCA Survey--Final luca_d_online

Various Customer Surveys

OMB: 0607-0760

Document [pdf]

Download: pdf | pdf

Web Page 1:

Survey of Participants in the 2010 Census Local Update of
Census Addresses (LUCA) Program

The U.S. Census Bureau has contracted with Avar Consulting, Inc. to obtain the
views of governments regarding the LUCA Program for the 2010 Census. This
information will help the Census Bureau make improvements to similar
programs in the future.
Avar will report final results of the survey in summary fashion.
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to
average 13 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed,
and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Respondents are
not required to respond to any information collection unless it displays a valid
approval number from the Office of Management and Budget. Send comments
regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of
information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Paperwork
Project 0607-0760, U.S. Census Bureau, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Room 3K138,
Washington, DC 20233. You may e-mail comments to [email protected];
use "Paperwork Project 0607-0760" as the subject.

Web Page 2:

Survey of Participants in the 2010 Census Local Update of
Census Addresses (LUCA) Program

Completed

INSTRUCTIONS
ABOUT THE PROGRAM
The Census Address List Improvement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-430) strengthened
the Census Bureau's partnership capabilities with tribal, state, and local governments by
expanding the methods the Census Bureau could use to exchange address information.
Designed to improve the accuracy of the Census Bureau's address list, the Act
authorized the Census Bureau to provide individual addresses to officials of tribal, state,
and local governments who agreed to conditions of confidentiality. Census 2000 marked
the first decennial census for which the Census Bureau could provide its address list for
review to governments that signed the required confidentiality agreement.
ABOUT THE SURVEY
Please complete this questionnaire to communicate your government's views about:
-Opportunities to review the U.S. Census Bureau's addresses and maps,
-Your government's participation in the LUCA Program,
-Communications with the Census Bureau staff related to the LUCA Program, and
-Future interest in programs designed to update the Census Bureau's address
information.
WHO SHOULD COMPLETE THIS SURVEY
-The ideal respondent is the person most knowledgeable about the LUCA Program,
usually the person designated by your government as the LUCA Program point of
contact.
-If you are not the person most knowledgeable concerning the LUCA Program, please
forward this questionnaire to the most appropriate person.

Web Page 3:

Survey of Participants in the 2010 Census Local Update of
Census Addresses (LUCA) Program

Completed

OMB Clearance Number: 0607-0760
Expiration Date: February 28, 2014

1. The Census Bureau sent notification of the 2010 Census LUCA Program six months in
advance of registration to allow governments to consider issues such as budget and
staffing needs, confidentiality and security requirements, participation option choices,
and LUCA liaison designation. Based on your experience, how much advance notice time
did you need before the LUCA program registration?
(Please indicate the number of months)

Web Page 3 -- continued:
2. The Census Bureau allowed 120 calendar days to review the 2010 Census LUCA
INITIAL review materials. Based on your experience, how much time did you need for
the review of these materials?
(Please indicate the number of calendar days)

3. Did any of the following factors listed below influence your decision to participate in
the LUCA Program?
Did
not
do
Yes No this

This was the
MOST important
factor. Mark ONE
box only

Reading the program information in the advance mailing
Attending a Promotional Workshop
Reading the program information in the registration mailing
Attending a Technical Training Workshop
Attending a Census Bureau presentation at a professional
conference(s)
Receiving encouragement from other levels of government
or professional groups
Receiving resources such as staff or funding provided by
other levels of government or other organizations
Participating in Census related activities as part of my dayto-day responsibilities
Reading information from the LUCA website
Other, please describe:

4. The 2010 Census LUCA Program offered three participation options:
-Option 1-Title 13 Full Address List Review
-Option 2-Title 13 Local Address List Submission
-Option 3-Non-Title 13 Local Address List Submission
Did any of the following activities help you to understand the differences among the
three participation options available to you?
Did
not
do
Yes No this

This was the
MOST helpful
activity. Mark
ONE box only

Reading the program information in the advance mailing
Attending a Promotional Workshop
Reading the program information in the registration mailing
Attending a Technical Training Workshop
Contacting a Regional Census Center
Contacting the Technical Help Desk
Reading information from the LUCA website
5. At the time of your registration for the 2010 Census LUCA Program, did you
understand all three participation options?
Yes, we understood all three.
No, we did not understand all three.

6. To what extent did the option you selected meet your needs? (Please choose one)
To a great extent
To a good extent
To a moderate extent
To a minimal extent
Not at all

Web Page 3 -- continued:
7. What changes to any of the three options would you recommend? (Please describe)

Web Page 4:

Survey of Participants in the 2010 Census Local Update of
Census Addresses (LUCA) Program

Completed

8. Were any of the following resources helpful in understanding the INITIAL LUCA
materials and procedures?
Did
not
do
Yes No this

This was the
MOST helpful
resource. Mark
ONE box only

Attending a Technical Workshop
Reading the Users Guide
Contacting a Regional Census Center
Contacting the Technical Help Desk
Reading information from the LUCA website
9. Were you aware that you could limit the INITIAL LUCA review to selected areas within
your jurisdiction?
Yes, we were aware that the review could be limited.
No, we were not aware that the review could be limited.

10. Were you aware that you could coordinate with other LEVELS of government or
regional agencies to review Census Bureau address materials and prepare a joint or
regional LUCA submission?
Yes, we were aware that that the review could be coordinated.
No, we were not aware that the review could be coordinated.

Web Page 5:

Survey of Participants in the 2010 Census Local Update of
Census Addresses (LUCA) Program

Completed

10a. Did you coordinate with any other levels of government?
Yes, another level reviewed for us.
Yes, we reviewed for other levels.
No, we did not coordinate with other levels or regional agencies.

Web Page 6:

Survey of Participants in the 2010 Census Local Update of
Census Addresses (LUCA) Program

Completed

10b. Would you have participated in LUCA without this assistance?
Yes
No

10c. Were you satisfied with the review by a different level of government?
Yes
No

Web Page 7:

Survey of Participants in the 2010 Census Local Update of
Census Addresses (LUCA) Program

Completed

11. During the 120-day INITIAL review period, the Census Bureau sent reminder letters
approximately 45 days and 90 days after your receipt of the materials. What number of
reminder letters would have best met your needs?
One
Two
Three

12. The Census Bureau provided participants with a LUCA Computer Based Training CDROM. How helpful do you think the training was in your participation?
Very helpful
Somewhat helpful
Not helpful
Did not view the training CD-ROM

13. The Census Bureau provided two ways for participants to obtain assistance and ask
questions on how to prepare and conduct a local review of addresses, features, and legal
boundaries: a) a Technical Help Desk and b) your Regional Census Center. Please tell us
which of these you used, if any, and whether the response you received helped you
prepare and ship your LUCA submission.
Did you use
this
assistance?

Yes

Was the
response
helpful or
not?
Not
Helpful helpful

Technical Help Desk
Your Regional Census Center (RCC)
14. For the 2010 Census LUCA Program the Census Bureau structured the work in such a
way that a governmental unit could submit changes or updates to the legal boundary for
their jurisdiction as part of LUCA by collaborating with the Census Bureau's Boundary
and Annexation Survey (BAS) contact.
Did you submit any legal boundary changes or updates as part of the LUCA program?
Yes, we submitted legal boundary changes or updates.
No, we did not submit legal boundary changes or updates.

Web Page 8:

Survey of Participants in the 2010 Census Local Update of
Census Addresses (LUCA) Program

Completed

14a. When you submitted legal boundary updates, please tell us whether any of the
following were true for you or your jurisdiction in 2010. (Choose all that apply)
Advantages of collaboration with BAS contact
Collaboration enabled us to save staff time or resources for consultants by preparing and returning one
submission for two programs.
Collaboration made the process easier since the LUCA liaison and the BAS contact were the same
individual.
Collaboration helped in another way. (Please describe)

Disadvantages of collaboration with BAS contact
Collaboration complicated both submissions because the LUCA liaison and the BAS contact were different
individuals.
Collaboration complicated the process because of time issues, such as getting both the LUCA liaison and
the BAS contact to meet the same deadlines.
Collaboration caused another problem. (Please describe)

Web Page 9:

Survey of Participants in the 2010 Census Local Update of
Census Addresses (LUCA) Program

Completed

15. During the INITIAL review phase of the 2010 Census LUCA Program, indicate
whether the following materials were easy to understand and useful. Please choose
"yes" or "no" for each item.
Was the
format
easy to
understand?
Yes
No

Address List
Address Count List
Maps/Shapefiles

Was the
content
easy to
understand?
Yes
No

Was the
material
useful?
Yes No

Web Page 9 -- continued:
16. Please list any suggestions you have in regard to the INITIAL review materials.

17. During the FEEDBACK phase of the 2010 LUCA Program, indicate whether the
following address materials were easy to understand and useful. Please choose "yes" or
"no" for each item.
Was the
format
easy to
understand?
Yes
No

Was the
content
easy to
understand?
Yes
No

Was the
material
useful?
Yes

Full Address List
Detailed Feedback Address List
Full Address Count List
Detailed Feedback Address Count Challenge List
Feedback Address Update Summary Report
Maps/Shapefiles
18. Please list any suggestions you have in regard to the FEEDBACK materials.

19. When did you understand the FEEDBACK materials? (Please choose one)
We understood the FEEDBACK materials after reading the supporting documentation.
We understood the FEEDBACK materials after getting help.
We never fully understood the FEEDBACK materials.

20. Were any of the following resources helpful in understanding the FEEDBACK
materials and procedures?
Did
not
use
Yes No this

This was the
MOST helpful
resource. Mark
ONE box only

Quick reference guide
Users Guide
Regional Census Center
Technical Help Desk
LUCA website
21. The Census Bureau allotted a maximum of 30 calendar days to review the FEEDBACK
materials and to file an address appeal. Based on your experience, how much time did
you need for review of the FEEDBACK materials, and where applicable, to file an appeal?
(Please indicate the number of calendar days)

Web Page 10:

Survey of Participants in the 2010 Census Local Update of
Census Addresses (LUCA) Program

Completed

22. Please indicate whether you had to take any of the following measures to comply
with the confidentiality requirements (Title 13, U.S. Code) to protect the Census
Bureau's address list.
Yes No

Obtain additional computer hardware
Obtain additional computer software
Obtain outside assistance
Procure extra stand-alone computers and/or servers to ensure that Title 13 data were
kept separate from our other data
Bring in other staff or consultants at a cost to modify existing hardware and/or
software
23. What was your primary software for reviewing and editing the computer-readable
address list? (Please choose one)
The Census Bureau's MAF/TIGER Partnership Software (MTPS)
A text editor (for example, WordPad, MS Word, WordPerfect)
A spreadsheet program (for example, Excel, Quattro Pro)
A database editor (for example, Access, Paradox)
Other, please describe:

24. The Census Bureau provided computer-readable address materials during the 2010
Census LUCA Program in pipe-delimited text files. Was this format acceptable, or would
you have preferred a different format?
The pipe-delimited text file was acceptable.
We would have preferred a different format. (Please identify/describe)

25. Did you use the MAF/TIGER Partnership Software (MTPS) in any part of your review?
Yes
No

Web Page 11:

Survey of Participants in the 2010 Census Local Update of
Census Addresses (LUCA) Program

Completed

25a. Regarding the MAF/TIGER Partnership Software:
Did
not
use
Yes No this

Were the user instructions clear and understandable?
Were the demonstrations at the Technical Training Workshop sufficient?
Was the Computer-Based Training built into the MTPS sufficient?
Would you use the MTPS again?

Web Page 12:

Survey of Participants in the 2010 Census Local Update of
Census Addresses (LUCA) Program

26. What was your primary software for making boundary and/or feature updates?
ArcGIS
MapInfo
Autodesk
MTPS
Other, please describe:

27. How did you geocode your addresses to the census tracts and blocks?
We used the MTPS
We geocoded to address ranges using the Census Bureau's shapefiles.
We geocoded point-to-polygon using the Census Bureau's shapefiles.
Other, please describe:

28. Please list any suggestions you have regarding a future LUCA program.

29. As you may know, your LUCA submission was verified during the Census Bureau's
Address Canvassing Operation. The Census Bureau provided you with the results during
the LUCA FEEDBACK phase. In the future, if the Census Bureau shared its address list
information for you to update on an annual basis, do you think this would eliminate the
need for a 100 percent address canvassing operation in the year prior to the 2020
Decennial Census?
Yes
No

Web Page 13:

Survey of Participants in the 2010 Census Local Update of
Census Addresses (LUCA) Program

Thank you for participating in the Survey of Participants in the 2010 Census
Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) Program.

File Type	application/pdf
File Title	luca_d.sp5
Author	vilky001
File Modified	2011-03-09
File Created	2011-03-09