2010 Census
Census Bureau Is Making Progress on the Local Update of Census Addresses Program, but Improvements Are Needed Gao ID: GAO-07-1063T June 26, 2007The Department of Commerce's U.S. Census Bureau (Bureau) seeks updated information on the addresses and maps of housing units from state, local, and tribal governments through the Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) program. This testimony discusses (1) the status of the LUCA program, and (2) the Bureau's response to prior issues raised by GAO as well as new challenges related to the program. The testimony is based on a GAO report issued on June 14, 2007. GAO reviewed LUCA program documents, met with and surveyed participants in the LUCA Dress Rehearsal, and interviewed Bureau officials and local officials.
The Bureau has conducted its planned LUCA operations in accordance with its published timeline. The Bureau has also taken steps to reduce burden and improve training for localities that participate in LUCA--all areas GAO and others had identified as needing improvement. For instance, to reduce participant burden, the Bureau provided a longer period for reviewing and updating LUCA materials; provided options for submitting materials for the LUCA program; combined the collection of LUCA addresses from two separate operations into one integrated program; and created MAF/TIGER Partnership Software (MTPS), which is designed to assist LUCA program participants in reviewing and updating address and map data. Also, the Bureau has planned improvements to the 2010 LUCA program training and plans to supplement the workshops with computer-based training (CBT). LUCA participants that GAO surveyed report that they had adequate time to complete the LUCA review, and a majority of the participants were satisfied with the options for submitting materials. However, the Bureau faces new challenges. For instance, the Bureau tested MTPS with only one local government and did not test its CBT software in the LUCA Dress Rehearsal. Also, many participants had difficulty converting Bureau-provided files to their own software formats. Finally, the Bureau does not collect certain data on localities that agree to participate in LUCA but provide no response. This information is needed to fully assess the effect of the LUCA program on address lists and population counts.
GAO-07-1063T, 2010 Census: Census Bureau Is Making Progress on the Local Update of Census Addresses Program, but Improvements Are Needed
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-1063T
entitled '2010 Census: Census Bureau Is Making Progress on the Local
Update of Census Addresses Program, but Improvements Are Needed' which
was released on June 26, 2007.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National
Archives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of
Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 2:00 p.m., EDT:
Tuesday, June 26, 2007:
2010 Census:
Census Bureau Is Making Progress on the Local Update of Census
Addresses Program, but Improvements Are Needed:
Statement of Mathew J. Scirč:
Director, Strategic Issues:
GAO-07-1063T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-1063T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Information Policy, Census, and National Archives, Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform, House of Representatives
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Department of Commerce‘s U.S. Census Bureau (Bureau) seeks updated
information on the addresses and maps of housing units from state,
local, and tribal governments through the Local Update of Census
Addresses (LUCA) program. This testimony discusses (1) the status of
the LUCA program, and (2) the Bureau‘s response to prior issues raised
by GAO as well as new challenges related to the program.
The testimony is based on a GAO report issued on June 14, 2007. GAO
reviewed LUCA program documents, met with and surveyed participants in
the LUCA Dress Rehearsal, and interviewed Bureau officials and local
officials.
What GAO Found:
The Bureau has conducted its planned LUCA operations in accordance with
its published timeline. The Bureau has also taken steps to reduce
burden and improve training for localities that participate in LUCA”all
areas GAO and others had identified as needing improvement. For
instance, to reduce participant burden, the Bureau provided a longer
period for reviewing and updating LUCA materials; provided options for
submitting materials for the LUCA program; combined the collection of
LUCA addresses from two separate operations into one integrated
program; and created MAF/TIGER Partnership Software (MTPS), which is
designed to assist LUCA program participants in reviewing and updating
address and map data. Also, the Bureau has planned improvements to the
2010 LUCA program training and plans to supplement the workshops with
computer-based training (CBT).
Figure: 2008 LUCA Dress Rehearsal Program Schedule:
[See PDF for Image]
Source: U.S. Census Bureau and GAO analysis.
[End of figure]
LUCA participants that GAO surveyed report that they had adequate time
to complete the LUCA review, and a majority of the participants were
satisfied with the options for submitting materials. However, the
Bureau faces new challenges. For instance, the Bureau tested MTPS with
only one local government and did not test its CBT software in the LUCA
Dress Rehearsal. Also, many participants had difficulty converting
Bureau-provided files to their own software formats. Finally, the
Bureau does not collect certain data on localities that agree to
participate in LUCA but provide no response. This information is needed
to fully assess the effect of the LUCA program on address lists and
population counts.
What GAO Recommends:
At this time, GAO is not making any new recommendations, but GAO‘s June
2007 report recommended that the Secretary of Commerce direct the
Bureau to take several actions to improve the LUCA program, including
further assessing usability issues of the MAF/TIGER Partnership
Software (MTPS) and the computer-based training (CBT) software, as well
as providing further instructions on converting files. GAO also
recommended that the Bureau collect additional data on localities that
agree to participate but provide no response.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1063T].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Mathew J. Scirč at (202)
512-6806 or sciremj@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Turner, and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss the Census Bureau's (Bureau)
progress in testing and implementing its Local Update of Census
Addresses (LUCA) program. In 1994 Congress required the Bureau to
develop a local address review program in order to give local and
tribal governments greater input into the Bureau's address list
development process.[Footnote 1] This program, LUCA, gives these
governments the opportunity to review the accuracy and completeness of
the Bureau's address information for their respective jurisdictions,
and suggest corrections where warranted. In Census 2000, LUCA
participants expressed frustrations about the program, including the
burden the program placed on the resources of local governments. As a
result, the Bureau undertook efforts in preparation for the 2010 LUCA
to reduce this burden. My testimony today discusses (1) the current
status of the LUCA effort, and (2) how the Bureau is addressing prior
issues and new challenges associated with implementing LUCA.
As you know, the census is a critical national effort mandated by the
Constitution. Census data are used to apportion seats in the Congress,
redraw congressional districts, allocate billions of dollars in federal
assistance to state and local governments, and for numerous other
public and private sector purposes. Hence, failure for the decennial is
not an option and the Bureau employs a number of quality assurance
programs throughout the course of the census to ensure it delivers
quality data. One such program is LUCA. The success of LUCA can help to
contribute to accurate address lists and precise maps, which are key to
a quality census. Together, accurate address lists and maps help ensure
that (1) questionnaires are properly delivered; (2) unnecessary and
costly follow-up efforts at vacant and nonexistent residences are
reduced; and (3) the population is counted in their proper locations,
which is the basis of congressional apportionment and redistricting.
My remarks today are based primarily on our recent report on how the
Bureau has improved its LUCA program since the last decennial.[Footnote
2] During the autumn of 2006, we observed preparations for and the
conduct of LUCA for the 2008 Dress Rehearsal in sites located in North
Carolina and California. We reviewed LUCA program documents and
interviewed Bureau officials. Further, we conducted a Web-based survey
of LUCA Dress Rehearsal participants in California and North Carolina
to gauge their satisfaction with how the Bureau addressed prior
recommendations and new challenges for the LUCA program. We also
performed structured phone interviews with several localities that
decided not to participate in the LUCA Dress Rehearsal.[Footnote 3] We
conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, our recent work has shown that the Bureau has
made progress in planning for and implementing LUCA. For example, the
Bureau has completed nearly all of its planned LUCA Dress Rehearsal
operations in accordance with its published timeline, and has taken
steps to reduce participant workload and burden and improve training.
However, the Bureau can do more to mitigate possible difficulties that
participants may have with new LUCA software and training.
Specifically, the Bureau could do more to assess the usability of
software designed to assist LUCA participants in reviewing and updating
address and map data and to test computer-based training. In addition,
many participants in the Dress Rehearsal experienced problems
converting Bureau-provided address files into their own software
formats. The Bureau could do more to provide information to localities
on how to convert files from the Bureau to their respective
applications.
We also found that the Bureau could do more to understand the effect
that the LUCA program may have. For example, while the Bureau planned
to assess the contribution of LUCA to housing unit counts, it had not
decided whether to assess the contribution of the program to the
population count, and it did not plan to collect information on the
number of participants involved in LUCA that do not respond because
they have no changes. The Bureau agreed to implement recommendations we
made that address each of the concerns discussed above. We look forward
to its action plan, due in August 2007, for how it will implement our
recommendations.
Background:
The Bureau's approach to building complete and accurate address lists
and maps consists of a series of operations that sometimes overlap and
are conducted over several years. These operations include partnerships
with the U.S. Postal Service and other federal agencies; state, local
and tribal governments; local planning organizations; the private
sector; and nongovernmental entities. LUCA is one of those operations
that give local and tribal governments direct input into the Bureau's
address database.
LUCA was first implemented for the 2000 Census.[Footnote 4] Under the
LUCA program, the Bureau is authorized (prior to the decennial census)
to share individual residential addresses with officials of tribal,
state, and local governments who agree to protect the Title 13
confidentiality of the information.[Footnote 5] LUCA allows
participants to review, comment on, and provide updated information on
the list of addresses and maps that the Bureau will use to deliver
questionnaires within their communities. According to the Bureau,
because of their knowledge of or access to data in their jurisdictions,
LUCA participants may be better positioned to identify some housing
units that are hard to find or are hidden. For example, local
governments may have alternate sources of address information--such as
utility bills, tax records, information from housing or zoning
officials, or 911 emergency systems--which can help the Bureau build a
complete and accurate address list.
For 2010, the Bureau plans to invite approximately 40,000 entities to
participate in LUCA.[Footnote 6] After localities that opt to
participate in LUCA have submitted their updated maps and address
lists, the Bureau conducts a field check called address canvassing. At
that time, the address canvassers for the 2010 Census, will go door-to-
door (using handheld computers equipped with a global positioning
system) updating the address list. Through the address canvassing
operation, the Bureau can ensure that all changes submitted for the
LUCA program actually exist and that they are assigned to the correct
census block. After address canvassing the Bureau will provide feedback
to LUCA participants on the actions taken. Should local governments
disagree during LUCA 2010, they can appeal the Bureau's actions to the
Census Address List Appeals Office. In preparation for the 2010 Census,
both LUCA and the subsequent address canvassing operation will be
tested as part of the Bureau's Dress Rehearsal taking place in nine
counties in the Fayetteville, North Carolina, area and San Joaquin
County, California.
The Bureau Has Completed Nearly All Planned Activities for the LUCA
Dress Rehearsal and the First Step of the 2010 LUCA Program:
The Bureau has completed nearly all planned operations for the LUCA
Dress Rehearsal in accordance with the LUCA Dress Rehearsal timeline
(see fig. 1).[Footnote 7] On June 26, 2007 the Bureau expects to
complete address canvassing--an operation designed to verify all
housing units at the Dress Rehearsal sites, including changes provided
by LUCA participants. Next, the Dress Rehearsal participants will have
the opportunity to review materials regarding their submissions--this
is scheduled to take place from December 2007 through January 2008.
The Bureau met the first date on its LUCA Dress Rehearsal timeline when
it mailed the advance notification letters and informational materials
to the highest elected officials in February 2006. The Bureau
officially invited localities to participate in LUCA, provided
participant training, and shipped LUCA materials on schedule.
Additionally, localities reviewed and updated LUCA materials within the
June to October 2006 period specified on the timeline. The Bureau also
finished its review of participants' LUCA submissions and updated the
MAF/TIGER[Footnote 8] geographic database in December 2006.
Figure 1: Bureau's LUCA Dress Rehearsal Timeline and Status:
[See PDF for image]
Source: U.S. Census Bureau and GAO analysis.
[End of figure]
It is important to note that while the Bureau generally met the time
frames listed in its published LUCA Dress Rehearsal timeline, some
activities were not included in that timeline. For example, plans to
test newly developed software, which is intended to assist
participating localities in their 2010 LUCA reviews, and test the new
computer-based LUCA training were not included in the Bureau's LUCA
Dress Rehearsal schedule--precluding the opportunity to test these
software products under census-like conditions.
To begin preparation for the 2010 Census, LUCA has already sent the
advance notification letters to the highest elected officials in each
of the eligible localities (see fig. 2). For Census 2000, slightly over
half of the eligible localities chose not to participate; for the 2010
Census, the Bureau has set a participation goal of 60 percent.
Figure 2: Bureau's 2010 LUCA Timeline:
[See PDF for image]
Source: U.S. Census Bureau.
Note: See the Bureau's Web site, hyperlink,
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/luca2010/luca.html.
[End of figure]
Bureau Modified LUCA to Address Issues from the Census 2000 Experience,
but Faces New Challenges for 2010:
The Bureau has taken steps to reduce participants' workloads and
burdens and improve training--all areas that the National Research
Council (NRC), we, and others had identified as needing improvement for
Census 2000. Building on the progress it has made, the Bureau could
take additional steps to address new challenges in these areas, as well
as issues related to measuring overall program effectiveness.
To reduce the workload and burden on LUCA participants, the Bureau
provided a longer period--from 90 to 120 days--for reviewing and
updating LUCA materials. This extension was well received by LUCA Dress
Rehearsal participants, as the majority of respondents to our survey
indicated that 120 days allowed adequate time for them to complete the
LUCA review (see fig. 3).
Figure 3: LUCA Dress Rehearsal Participants' Views on the Adequacy of
Time Allowed to Complete the Review:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO Web-based survey of LUCA dress rehearsal participants.
[End of figure]
Another change aimed at reducing workload and burden is providing
localities with more options for how they may participate in the LUCA
program. Those options are: (1) full address list review with count
review, (2) Title 13 local address list submission, and (3) non-Title
13 local address list submission. The options differ in the level of
review of Bureau materials by participating localities and in
requirements to adhere to rules concerning confidentiality of
information. For example, under option 1, participants directly edit
Bureau-provided address lists and maps. Under option 2, participants
review Bureau-provided maps but submit their own address lists in
Bureau-provided formats. Under option 3, participants do not receive
address lists from the Bureau, but may provide their own address lists
to the Bureau and edit Bureau-provided maps. A majority of LUCA Dress
Rehearsal participants that we surveyed were satisfied with the options
that the Bureau provided.
To assist LUCA participants in updating the Bureau's address list and
maps electronically, the Bureau has created MAF/TIGER Partnership
Software (MTPS). This software will enable users to import address
lists and maps for comparison to the Bureau's data and participate in
both the LUCA and another geographic program, the Boundary and
Annexation Survey (BAS)[Footnote 9] at the same time. The Bureau has
also planned improvements to the 2010 LUCA program training by
separately offering specialized workshops for informational and
technical training and by supplementing the workshops with computer-
based training (CBT). Finally, based on complaints about the
multiphased LUCA program from the 2000 experience (where some
participants found the two separate operations for city-style and non-
city-style addresses to be confusing), the Bureau designed the 2010
LUCA program to be a single operation for all addresses.
All of these steps are intended to help reduce the burden on
localities' participation in LUCA. However, there are additional steps
the Bureau could take to ease participant burden. For example, the
Bureau could do more to assess the usability of the MTPS software. The
Bureau did not test MTPS as part of the LUCA Dress Rehearsal, and
tested MTPS with only one locality in preparation for the 2010 LUCA
program. Properly executed user-based methods for software testing can
give the truest estimate of the extent to which real users can employ a
software application effectively, efficiently, and satisfactorily. In
response to recommendations to our report on the 2010 LUCA program, the
Bureau agreed to better assess the usability of the MTPS for 2010.
Some participants will not rely on the MTPS. For these participants,
the Bureau could do more to help them use their own software. We found
that participants in the LUCA Dress Rehearsal experienced problems
converting files from the Bureau's format to their respective
applications--our survey of LUCA Dress Rehearsal participants revealed
that the majority of respondents had, to some extent, problems with
file conversions to appropriate formats. Our fieldwork also revealed
issues pertaining to file conversion. For example, one local official
noted that it took him two days to determine how to convert the
Bureau's pipe-delimited files. The Bureau previously informed us that,
to mitigate the potential burden on localities that choose not to use
MTPS, it would provide technical guidance on file conversion through
its LUCA technical help desk; however, it does not plan to provide
instructions for converting Bureau-provided address files through other
means. At present, the Bureau does not know how many localities will
opt not to use MTPS for LUCA as part of the 2010 Census, but those
localities may face the same challenges faced by participants in the
LUCA Dress Rehearsal. In response to recommendations in our report on
the 2010 LUCA program, the Bureau agreed to disseminate instructions on
file conversion on its Web site and provide instructions to help desk
callers.
The Bureau did not test the CBT it developed to supplement its new
workshops for informational and technical training during the Dress
Rehearsal. Though participants were not provided with CBT in the LUCA
Dress Rehearsal, our work found that this method of training is viewed
by participants as helpful. Specifically, respondents to our survey
ranked CBT higher than classroom training, in terms of being
"extremely" or "very" useful. Additionally, local officials told us
that CBT was more convenient for them because they need not leave their
offices or adjust their schedules to learn how the LUCA program works.
Because this is a new aspect of the LUCA program and will be used
nationally, it is important to test and improve the training prior to
implementing it for multiple local jurisdictions. In response to
recommendations in our report on the 2010 LUCA program, the Bureau
agreed to test the CBT software with local governments.
Overall, the effect that the LUCA program may have on housing unit and
population counts is not known. To perform such analysis, the Bureau
should collect additional data. Specifically, we found that although
the Bureau has not finalized its evaluation plans regarding the 2010
LUCA program, Bureau officials have stated that it intends to assess
the LUCA's contribution to housing unit counts and would consider a
plan to assess the program's contribution to the census population
count. Such analysis is important because it would provide a measure of
the ultimate effect of LUCA on achieving a complete count of the
population. However, the Bureau does not have a method of
distinguishing between localities that agreed to participate in the
program but do not submit an update because they have no changes, and
localities that did not submit an update because they did not review
the materials. Without this information, the Bureau cannot fully
measure the extent to which local reviews have contributed toward
accurate address lists and population counts. In response to
recommendations in our report on the 2010 LUCA program, the Bureau
agreed to establish a process for localities to indicate that they
participated in LUCA but found no changes to address lists and maps.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, the success of the census depends in large
part on the ability of the Bureau to locate and deliver questionnaires
to every household in the United States. To accomplish this monumental
task, the Bureau must maintain accurate address and map information for
every location where a person could reside. We applaud the moves the
Bureau has undertaken to improve its LUCA program so that user workload
and burden are reduced, thus, making it easier for local and tribal
governments to provide input into the accuracy and completeness of the
Bureau's address information for their respective jurisdictions.
However, there is more the Bureau can do to address information-
technology-based challenges to the LUCA program prior to the 2010
Census. The Bureau performed little user testing of MTPS and no user
testing of the CBT module for the LUCA Dress Rehearsal. Testing new
technology will help the Bureau identify any issues related to the
usability of the MTPS and CBT software. Finally, without better data on
why some localities that agree to participate do not provide updated
information, the Bureau may be hampered in its ability to estimate the
effect of the LUCA program on the MAF database and the census
population count.
As in the past, we look forward to supporting this subcommittee's
oversight efforts to promote a timely, complete, accurate, and cost-
effective census.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Turner, this concludes my prepared statement. I would
be pleased to respond to any questions that you or other members of the
subcommittee might have.
Contact and Acknowledgments:
For questions regarding this testimony, please contact Mathew J. Scirč,
on (202) 512-6806, or by e-mail at sciremj@gao.gov. Individuals making
contributions to this testimony include Lisa Pearson, David Bobruff,
Betty Clark, Jennifer Edwards, Ernie Hazera, Mark Ryan, and Tim Wexler.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Census Address List Improvement Act, Pub. L. 103-430 (Oct. 31,
1994).
[2] GAO, 2010 Census: Census Bureau Has Improved the Local Update of
Census Addresses Program, but Challenges Remain, GAO-07-736
(Washington, D.C.: June 14, 2007).
[3] Sixty-two localities were eligible to participate in the LUCA Dress
Rehearsal. The Bureau identified 44 state, county, and municipal
governments that had signed up to participate, had been shipped at
least some of the material needed to perform their reviews, and had not
subsequently formally indicated to the Bureau that they had decided to
drop out of the review process. As part of our Web-based survey,
questionnaires were sent to 42 local governments and completed by 31
such governments, for a response rate of 74 percent. Of the 18
localities that were eligible to participate in the LUCA Dress
Rehearsal but did not take part in the program, we also conducted 7
structured interviews (in person and by telephone).
[4] The 2000 LUCA program had two separate components: the 1998 city-
style address operation and the 1999 non-city-style address operation.
[5] 13 U.S.C. §9(a).
[6] For the 2000 Census, of the 39,051 eligible entities--such as
cities and counties--for LUCA participation, 20,718 chose not to
participate; 5,525 entities signed participation agreements; 2,877
entities returned materials but recorded no updates or action; and
9,931 entities submitted at least one address action or challenged at
least one block.
[7] Bureau headquarters and the Charlotte regional office provided us
with internal timelines for the 2010 LUCA Program and the LUCA Dress
Rehearsal operations held in parts of California and North Carolina
from June through October 2006. Additionally, we obtained a public
version of the Bureau's timelines for both the LUCA Dress Rehearsal and
the 2010 LUCA Program from its Web site,
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/luca2010/luca.html.
[8] The Bureau's address list is known as the Master Address File
(MAF); its associated geographic information system is called the
Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (TIGER)
database. TIGER is a registered trademark of the U.S. Census Bureau.
[9] The Bureau conducts the BAS annually to collect information about
selected defined geographic areas. The BAS is used to update
information about the legal boundaries and names of all governmental
units in the United States.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site.
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon,
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
