Geo_2015.mp3 Transcript


Information required for addresses, street center lines and metadata files. And this allows us to use your address and structure points for the purposes of matching geocoding and or updating the addresses in the master address file.

This is our current progress to date. It's dated as of April 20, 15, and it's pretty much up to date. There's a couple of more entities that need to be added to the map the county providers are indicated by a solid blue fill, while the state providers use a solid landfill, and the city participants are indicated by a red dot.

And our tribal partners are in a crosshatch pattern. It's important to note that the legend refers to the data provided or pending so there are some key use on this governmental units on this map that are participating, but we may have not received a file from them yet in fiscal year. 15, we've processed over 15,000 tracts of partner data, and as of today we've processed 46% of the population ocean and 48% of the housing units through this program.

And in terms of California, we contacted 12 counties this last fiscal year and we receive files from six counties Contra Costa, Fresno, Inyo, San Luis Obispo, Sutter and Tillery along with participating in the GSC program. We do provide feedback files. They consist of block tallies which contain the addresses. Sorry, but the partner provided the number of records matched or did not match.

And then the current housing unit tallies the math tiger update field is populated in the feature feedback Tiger Line products, so you can map the data to the last update that was made by the Census Bureau OK, and moving on to Luca. Luca, the local update of Census Address program provides the opportunity for state, local and tribal governments to review the address list used to take the census.

And we up to now, we've had two iterations of the program so for some background, Luca 9899 was the first opportunity for governments to review the census address list. It was straight forward and that you could review and comment on the address list or review and challenge the number of addresses we had in a block based on feedback from that program.

We decided to expand the 2010 lookup to participation via three different options. So option one was similar to the previous program and that you could review and comment on the address list within a title 13 environment. Option two was a little different that instead of commenting, you could just provide your entire address list to us. And then option three is a non title 13 option or we provided only an address count list and then you could provide us with your list of residential addresses.

And for your reference, 78% of the participants chose option one. 13% chose option two and 8% chose option three So the next chart looking at the first two bars, the 2010 Lucas Census program provided over six times as many addresses than the 2000 Lucca program. This was expected as we were asking for full address lists. So the burden of matching and sorting through the address was placed on the Census Bureau.

And then if you look at the next two bars, the 2010 census lookup program provided nearly twice as many new to centers addresses than the 2000 census Lucca program. And so these are addresses that we didn't have in the map which had to go out and be verified in the field. And then the last two bars show what happened after field verification so that the total number of addresses that we actually added to the master address file, the 2000 Census Lucca program provided more new to census enumerated Lucca records than the 2010 Census program so is 3.4 million, which was a 63.2% enumeration rate versus 2.9 million, which was a 38.1% enumeration rate so we designed much

of our program research around improving the program for both participants and the Census Bureau, focusing on cost effective ways to increase participation, coverage and quality while decreasing program costs for the next iteration of the 2020 lookup program. So there were four cross departmental project teams that we involved in this research. We had a looking back team and they focused on mining knowledge that we received in the past and looking at it across departmental wide.

And then we had a team that looked at the GSA eyes impact on Lucca. So we have all these local address files that we've received for GSI and it's really eye opening to see how local governments format their address list and maintain their address information. And so we're looking at how to better utilize that data and modify our existing software to be able to process.

Lucca In the past, we've also validated Lucas submissions by Field Address Canvasing, but now based on our re-engineered address canvasing, we're going to need to redesign how we validate Lucas submissions. So a lot of this group's research is focused on in office validation. And then the last group, we convened seven meetings across the country to obtain input from local state and tribal governments on the possible changes to the program.

We came out with this list of 12 primary recommendations the first recommendation was to continue the 2010 improvements that were successful. So the 120 day review period was a popular time frame along with a six month advance notice. We're going to continue to provide different media types to review the maps and addresses. And Lucca as well as continue with the state participation and look up.

The first recommendation regarding changing Lucca was to eliminate the full address list list options that were available in 2010 Lucca. For us, this will reduce the number of deleted Lucca records that go out to be field verified and will and will reduce the burden and cost of processing the addresses. This is something we weren't sure that our partners would would like, but after talking to them in the focus groups, we found that they were really confused about all the different options.

Our training guides were really, really thick and they just didn't have time to really ingest those different options. So really their message was to make it easier and just to make it simpler for them. So that goes to the next recommendation, which is to reduce the complexity of the Lucca program, specifically to reduce the options and use plain language when writing letters and training materials focus on the benefits and provide something that they can bring to their officials to get the budget to do the program.

Include Census, housing, unit location coordinates in the census address list and allow partners to return the coordinates back to us. So that's something that we learned from the focus groups and through SSI research because coordinates can be overlaid and matched to see where there's missing data. We get addresses from the delivery sequence file twice a year, and we have to get them down to the block level.

And sometimes when we don't have the road or the road name or the address range in our Tiger system, we can't do that. So by providing all of these NGO coded addresses to the local governments, it can help focus your review to those areas that have new growth. We're also providing the address list in more standard formats. I think 40% of the calls that came into our helpdesk had to do with just understanding the format that we provided and getting it into the local government system, including in office verification of Lucca submitted addresses.

So determine if we can use assessor sites local sites, the internet and imagery to verify Lucca submissions. We found that in a lot of cases we can. In some cases we can't, but we're still figuring out that process and utilize the Geographic US Support System Initiative Data and tools to validate local update of Census Address Information OK. More recommendations encourage governments at the lowest level to work with higher level governments to consolidate their submission we did such a good job of that in California.

There was a lot of smaller governments that just didn't have the resources or address matching software to give software so we're encouraging towns or small cities to work with their county or regional planning organizations. Eliminate the block count challenge. That's sort of an artifact that we had back in our 98 lookup program. Eliminate the use of the Asterisk designation for Multi-unit submitted without unit designations.

So in 2010 since we were doing 100% address canvasing, if a governmental unit had a multi unit structure but they didn't know what the unit numbers were, they could just designate these multi units with an asterisk and then we would fill in the actual unit number. But now that we're not going out to all these areas, we don't have the luxury to accept these units and we need the unit numbers so we can get mail to these particular units.

Encourage local update of census address participants to identify addresses, use for mailing location or both. This is another recommendation coming from GSI because we're seeing lots of address lists being developed by the 911 program that might work for locating an address but not for delivering mail to that address. So with this information, we can determine how we use that address to enumerate that housing unit OK, so moving on to current activities, we're working with our in-office validation processes, procedures and tools, development and we plan we're just doing a small in office test right now, but we plan to do a larger testing with some 2017 test data.

And we're looking at the relationship between administrative records and validation to determine whether administrative records can be used as an independent source to validate, look at addresses as well as the relationship between address canvasing and Luka. Taking into consideration the timing of Lugo OK, we also want to determine the feasibility of the use of background imagery on paper maps that partners in our focus groups suggested we want the ability to provide structural locations with local materials, and that's something that we want to do.

And we we're just figuring out the best way to to deliver that information. We're looking at a web based registration. It seems simple, but we have this Title 13 application and it's a little more complicated than you might think. We're testing out the Luca Geographic Update program software component this year, and we're finalizing our requirements for that determine the feasibility of using areas where we have planned field activities to validate local records.

We've also started work with the Office of Management and Budget to develop a 2020 LUCA appeals process. But we're still waiting on decisions of how we plan on validating the records and what's going to happen with our address canvasing operation before.

We.

Finalize what that program's going to be. And it's probably going to look a little bit different. Lastly, we want to determine the relationship between late date, late decade GSI and Luca. So if GSI is happening while we have Luca happening, we just want to make sure that there's not any confusion between the two programs and just make sure governments understand the differences between the two OK, so how can you help?

I think I put this slide on last year, encourage the development use within structural identifiers. That's something that we see missing on a lot of files that we receive for GSI and encourage the development and use of structure type codes and address development processes. Again, that's something that we we do see missing in some of the address files that we receive that could be really helpful for both GSI and the LUCA program.

And just to give you a timeline, I don't have a slide, so I'm just going to you can write this down as I go. We're going to send out the advanced notice package in December of 16 through January of 17. And then six months later, we'll actually mail the invitation packages, packages to all the governmental units asking them to sign up for the lookup program.

De Luca materials will come out between October 17 and March of 2018. So mail Luca review materials between October and October of 2017 through March of 2018 and then we'll deliver the feedback materials between November 17 and August of 2019 and then we'll complete the processing of link appeals between December of 20, 17 and March of 20, 20 OK so moving on to the boundary and annexation survey, it's conducted annually and we collect information about selected legally defined geographic areas.

The Census Bureau uses the boundary information collected in the bass to tabulate data for the decennial and economic censuses and annual estimates and surveys such as the population estimates program and the American Community Survey for the 2015 bust cycle. It was limited in scope, but we updated almost 3000 governments with over 16,500 individual boundary transactions since the 2016 program.

We'll see the return of paper maps. We did we for 2015. We did receive some paper maps, although we were it was supposed to be a digital exchange only and we processed processed all the paper maps that we could if it had the appropriate boundary information. So this will be the first opportunity that you'll see this geographic update partnership software tool which is going to be available for all geographic programs.

But this will be the first opportunity to, to actually use it this is just an example in the geographic update program software of the selection of an area that you want to annex all the pertinent information just can be entered into the window and then the legal documentation can be attached to the annexation. And then that just gets uploaded and sent off to the Census Bureau for updates.

And we're expecting to roll out some of the training this month to the state data centers.

OK.

So here's the the bass 2016 schedule. We're going to mail invitations towards the end of the year and then annexation need to be effective by January 1st or earlier in order to be included in the BASS program March one, is the deadline for bass submissions to be included in the Population Estimates Program and the American Community Survey. And then March April of 2016 would be the nonresponse follow up done by the state data centers with the 31st of May being the final deadline for the submission for the year for the bass submission to be included in next year's material this is a change of at the recommendation of many states the Census Bureau is introducing introducing a boundary

and annexation survey review through phase one of the block boundary suggestion program and phase two with the voting district program and the Census Bureau will coordinate any boundary work through both programs.

This might be a new acronym for you. It's the Boundary Quality Assessment and Reconciliation Program, and we're currently we call it be carpe for sure. It'll roll off the tongue very well. It's currently being done at the state level. And it's been something that we've been asked to do for a really long time, which is to correct the boundaries to parcel and public land survey system boundaries where needed so this is just showing a screenshot of an example of a local place boundary aligning to the parcel so you can see that the census representation of the boundary did not align with the parcel.

So those are the types of things that we're correcting this slide just shows the different stages of where we are in the process from states that are in discussion to evaluation of the files, to completion of the files this slide shows the various boundary types that are being adjusted to be Carpe, which is mostly there. So school districts as well as legal boundaries from counties to cities, cities OK, and this is the final program I'm going to be talking about.

The 2020 Redistricting Data program provides states with the opportunity to determine, delineate and update geographic boundaries for data tabulation and allows for continuous process improvement through a state evaluation of the program. The program also provides the states the legally required PEL 94 171 data tabulations by the mandated deadline and traditionally it's a multiphase program, but the content of the phases change.

So we'll go through the phases the first phase is the block boundary suggestion program, which allows states to influence the 2020 tabulation blocks and the best runs from December of this year to me 2016 and we've aligned it with the boundary and annexation survey update cycle. So you're voting district boundaries are going to be more ocular, accurately defined along, accurately established legal boundaries.

We also begin work with the Geography Geography Division early to establish a block algorithm for use as part of the BSP. So hopefully this will give you a more realistic view than in the past. Phase two The Voting District Project is where the states provide election districts and that program runs from December 2017 through May of 2019 again with the ability to adjust legal boundaries phase three is the distribution of the 2020 data and supporting geographic products.

There will be group quarters on the PL 94 171 data file back in the 2020 census we did provide in advanced group quarters list in May of 2011 with the total population only but new for the 2020 census we'll provide seven major group quarters categories along with racial characteristics along with the non APL 94 171 data delivery schedule and those will be correctional facilities for adults, juvenile facilities nursing facilities, skilled nursing facilities, other institutional facilities, college, university student housing, military quarters, and other non institutional facilities.

And we'll assist those states with the requirements for their reallocation of individuals and group quarters in terms of geographic support projects. To support the data, we'll be providing the shape files of the new redistricting geography as well as PDF maps we'll be providing block assignment files and then also the block relationship files, which are the crosswalk identifying the relationship between the 2020 tabulation block and the 2020 ten tabulation block in the 2020 tabulation block.

Traditionally those were produced well after the delivery of the 90 peel 94 171 data, but we're looking into producing it earlier for delivery in the same time frame as the redistricting data file so the delivery schedule starts in November of 2020 and ends on March 31st 2021 with the legal deadline for data delivery by April 1st phase four continues on a two year cycle for collecting changes to the congressional and state legislative district plans and then Phase five provides the states with the opportunity to encourage the redistricting data program meets their needs and shapes the next decennial program so here's a visual timeline of some of the dates that I provided in the previous slides.

Two things I didn't mention earlier is that the prototype products there's a there's a date for October of 2017 to finalize the prototype product design, and then we'll deliver the prototype products to the States in March 2019 as you can notice, there's activity on the geographic exchange from December of this year all the way into 2019 and then our geographic support products will begin to be released in November of 20, 20, and then the tabulations will be completely delivered by April 1st of 20, 21 OK, this next slide is just a graphic of how the program has evolved into an 100% digital exchange.

So you can work through the program with it with any software that you choose. And then of course we're going to provide that gap supplied software option for the redistricting program as well.

Focusing on the recommended workflow just for phase one of the block boundary suggestion project. I'm just going to take you through what we recommend. The first tier is focusing on geographic data reviews so per se ingestion states wanted the additional ability to and time to correct or remove line segments that did not align with physical features or parcel boundaries.

And then secondly, the review to review area landmarks and determine any must holes. And then thirdly, to review the legal boundaries and then a limited point. Landmark review has also been added to the workflow and then moving on to the block review and update phase, you again have the ability to delete flag and ignore extensions from 2010 OK, there will be a size indicator that's provided to flag potential review blocks and then moving into the flagging of must hold and do not hold block boundaries and then the ability to now group island blocks into a single block the final phase would be of the workflow would be the quality control.

So the quality control workflow consists of a review of the flags that you've applied and then there's a validation check at the end to ensure all proposed block boundaries form close polygons so here's the flow in the graph in a graphic form at the top, the files and software will be posted for download, and then the redistricting program liaison can complete the work themselves, or they can designate it to a lower level government here's our suggested linear review, which is to make corrections to the geography first, which is used as the building blocks, and then remove or add flags as necessary to determine your block boundaries.

And then finishing up with the quality control review and the verification check. And at the bottom, any delegated work is returned back to the RTP liaison and who submits the data or can do an additional review before the final submission the communications plan for this program is a bit different for this iteration versus 2010. You'll be contacting the Census, Redistricting and Voting Rights Data Office directly for any questions or concerns, and they'll be working with you through this program.

And with that, I just wanted to provide you some links to where to where you can find some more detailed information that I spoke about today. And regarding the redistricting data program, there's actually a new chief of the redistricting data office, so he wanted me to share his information with you that's on this slide. And he wanted me to make sure that if you had any questions or concerns that you you contact him and he'll be able to answer those for you.

But of course, I can follow up with any questions that you have about any of the programs that I've talked about today. So I think that's. So thank you.

Have a question. Yeah. So we talked about this a little bit yesterday. Are a regional support group together in the B.b.c. program or the part of the redistricting scheme it's happening a lot faster, and it doesn't seem like there's this much review time that's going to be available as there was for the 2010 process. And you said something about being going through the state data centers with the new software.

Oh yeah, I think they're going to. So, so from what I heard actually I think Julie requested that I, that I actually do a little bit of more deeper dove into this geographic uptake program software. But, and we didn't do that today because they're going to launch the program and give some training actually this month. So you should be hearing about it soon.

You can take a look and I'll take you through some slides of actually what the how the software is going to work for the block boundaries suggestion program. In terms of review, I think we've extended it for those of you that got the timeline yesterday, I think the the voting district plan, the arrow needs to go a little farther into 2019 for the voting district.

So it actually goes I think a year and a half for voting districts the block boundary part is six, a six month review and I think there's a six. You can talk to James, but there might be a sliding scale based on submission burden for for some of this. So but again I think as we get closer to the program we can probably talk about that.

OK thank you yes. So closing program, I mean the program started.

Yeah, two months and.

It's a lot sooner than it used to so I have to say, yes, the more you see, the less processing all of the files. So I'm a little shocked by the springing up.

And December 15. I'm also extremely concerned about the timeline and will definitely be calling James about that extension in terms of that software, which is just and it's, it's pretty strict and so it's not like we just wanted to go.

Yeah, I just I guess. Well, a little yeah, a little more advanced learning would have been nice. I didn't feel that didn't quite work program at all for this year. So I'll have to do a lot of juggling.

That's well.

And it's not just that. I mean I, I think you're thinking.

Back to the last year and so on and we're lucky for that.

Yes, he is one of those programs where you're running around, he said, so you still go to somebody, you know it's not like people have a lot of their chairs and already we get to look at all of our this. So it's going to take a lot to actually get this done. Well, in California, I think we could have done a lot better than last time.

But, you know, resources are always.

Tight with it being out early. It's going to be difficult personally.

I got to bring in the registered voters and then just try to focus up in the morning. I think we do a lot of outreach to them because they're actually the ones who end up finding these completely, you know, these these programs that have.

Been called these fixes which.

We're still trying.

To do, our partners issues, which you probably know about. And then we call it, you know, we have to on the speed dial and we.

Have to say this is how sick. And so they.

Have requested to be involved. And next year is an election year.

So so registrars of voters and they're going to be looking at what have we distributed self. So I'm concerned about this, OK? And I think we have to have a conversation about it because we're very, very concerned on behalf of the legislature. I'm telling you that we need to get to the bottom of this.

And I don't know how we're going to do that with this time. So OK.

And I'll just give James a heads up that you'll be calling to go over the schedule change a lot. Yeah. And I was in.

Seattle and we talked about this, but this I just I don't know, I was.

On my way out, but I don't know once in a.

While because obviously since.

Another question over here.

I had a question about the poll. 94 and the reporters files are going to be included. Now, there's new legislation that I mean, 20, 20 for California and other states regarding prison inmates and where they will be counted. It's in the new law that there will be kind of their last non residents will they be separate files for the people.

94 including those out there where they're counted in with their group quarters as well as their last known residents or how are how the census going to handle that.

Do you know the answer to that and.

Much less this afternoon with a group caucus us.

About.

Experts coming on. All right that's that's let's say that question this afternoon and it will be one of them I think since feel like I mentioned that right now it's good.

Actually I'm might as well as actually were charged with this one I think that part as well as far as I know they're just to of the way that they've always.

Counted so they're counted at the facility itself.

And then it's up to us to figure out what the last known residence was and there's sometimes up to 7000 yeah. For each record and the legislation actually actually says is supposed to be the court record which is not available to us so it's getting very interesting very quickly. Yeah. So there's probably going to be clean up legislation to actually be able to find something that we can still get.

Right, because that's another.

That's another area of great concern to listeners in our office is how would you describe.

It, especially in some of the local areas that are smaller that have these facilities? And, you know, how is that going to affect everything exactly.

And we'll take our usually when looking backwards to what type mentioned about the goals we want.

Let's just take this one. I think it's either this month or next one. So I've heard I haven't seen anything on it yet, but local government can participate. I will find I will send an email and find out for you how they're going to do it. I'm guessing it's some sort of webinar, but I will find out.

OK, sorry, I have another question.

And that's about the partners that you have. A lot of times are relying on partnerships a lot.

And for some of these programs, I, I would just, I'm just wondering what the participation rate would be. You give as well because you know what people said.

But you can say like what was the justification? And so I can also, you know, how many, what results you could give participation working out how much. And I'm just concerned about how this.

Works in terms of Lucca, we actually have those numbers and I yeah, and Julie, I don't know if you have you know, Julie and the state data center was really good at filling a lot of the gaps where we didn't have participation. We would look at the next higher level. So of a city, cities and a particular county weren't participating.

We would look up to the county to kind of fill in some of those gaps. So we had a very good participation rate in the state of California. But we do have those numbers and we can get those to you.

So I guess are the contacts the same for you want to about this or is this a different person?

No, it can be a different person. It could be the same person. And generally what we do is we send out an advance notice letter and then the invitation to the highest elected official of every legal government asking them to present Ticipate in the program. And sometimes the coordination, you know, in a county or a local government between the person who's participating and looking, the person who's participating in best are different.

And and sometimes we need to, at the regional office, get the two together to to talk. So if someone from that's participate in the program sees an issue with a boundary, we usually get them in touch with the the boundary person that that has been designated to make sure that, you know, any updates that need to be updated, go through the proper channel thanks to.