GPP OMB Supporting Statement V0.6_06272012

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

U.S. Department of Commerce

U.S. Census Bureau

Geographic Partnership Programs Generic Clearance

OMB Control No. 0607-0795

Part A. Justification

Question 1. Necessity of the Information Collection

The U.S. Census Bureau requests approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a three year extension of the generic clearance called the Geographic Partnership Programs (GPPs) that covers a number of activities needed to update or conduct research on the Master Address File/ Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) System. The information collected by these programs in cooperation with tribal, state, and local governments is essential to the mission of the Census Bureau and directly contributes to the successful outcome of censuses and surveys conducted by the Census Bureau. The generic clearance allows the Census Bureau to focus its limited resources on actual operational planning, development of procedures, and implementation of programs to update and improve the geographic and address information maintained in the MAF/TIGER System.

As part of this renewal request, we will follow the protocol of past generic clearances: We will submit clearance requests at least two weeks before the planned start of each activity that give more exact details, examples of forms and related materials, and final estimates of respondent burden. We also will file a year-end summary with OMB after the close of each fiscal year giving results of each activity conducted. We are providing a 12-month schedule of activities planned under this clearance (see Question 16), and we will submit schedule updates as necessary throughout the period covered by the clearance.

The following sections describe the categories of activities to be included under the clearance.

Geographic Support System Initiative (GSS-I)

The GSS-I is an integrated program designed to improve address coverage, obtain continual spatial feature updates, and enhance the quality assessment and measurement for the MTDB. The GSS-I builds on the accomplishments of the last decade’s MAF/TIGER Enhancement Program (the MTEP) which redesigned the MAF/TIGER Database (MTDB), improved the positional accuracy of TIGER spatial features, and emphasized quality measurement. The Census Bureau plans on a continual update process for the MAF/TIGER System throughout the decade to support Census Bureau surveys, including the American Community Survey. Major participants are the U. S. Census Bureau with tribal, state, and local governments. The Census Bureau will first send an advance notice letter to all tribal, state, and local governments introducing the GSS-I, detailing their respondent burden, and explaining how the Bureau will maintain the confidentiality of their information. Following the advance notice letter, the Census Bureau will then contact tribal, state, and local governments to obtain files containing their address and spatial data, to explore data exchange opportunities, and share best practices.

Redistricting Data Program

The 2010 Census Redistricting Data Program is established in accordance with the provisions of Title 13 U.S.C. 141(C) and provides the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico the opportunity to specify the small geographic areas for which they wish to receive decennial census population totals for the purpose of reapportionment and redistricting. The law also requires that by April 1 of the year following the decennial census the Secretary of Commerce will furnish State officials or their designee(s) with population counts for standard census tabulation areas (e.g. counties, cities, census blocks, and Congressional districts) and if provided by the states,  legislative districts and voting districts. 

The Census Bureau will conduct Phase 4 and Phase 5 of the 2010 Census Redistricting Data Program. In Phase 4 of the 2010 Redistricting Data Program, states submit new plans for updated congressional and state legislative districts to retabulate the 2010 Census data to these new redistricted boundaries. This phase is scheduled for 2012 and into 2013. Changes to congressional and state legislative boundaries that might result from further redistricting will be collected in 2014 and in 2016. Phase 5 of the Redistricting Program is the evaluation of the program and the final recommendations for the 2020 Census.

School District Review Program (SDRP)

The U.S. Census Bureau creates special tabulations of decennial census data by school district geography. These tabulations provide detailed demographic characteristics of the nation's public school systems and offer one of the largest single sources of children's demographic characteristics currently available. Information is distributed through the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).

The SDRP, conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau every two years on behalf of the Department of Education, is of vital importance for each state's allocation under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Public Law (P.L.) 107-110. The school district information obtained through this program, along with the 2010 Census population and income data, current population estimates, and tabulations of administrative records data, are used in forming the Census Bureau's estimates of the number of children aged 5 through 17 in low-income families for each school district. These estimates of the number of children in low-income families residing within each school district are the basis of the Title 1 allocation for each school district.

The scope of the SDRP is for state officials to review the Census Bureau’s current school district information and to provide the Census Bureau with updates and corrections to the school district names and Federal Local Education Agency (LEA) identification numbers, school district boundaries, and the grade ranges for which a school district is financially responsible. This includes updating unified, secondary, and elementary school districts.

The list above is not exhaustive of all activities that may be performed under this generic clearance. We will follow the approved procedure when submitting any additional activities not specifically listed here.

The authority for conducting the activities in this document comes from Title 13 United States Code, Sections 16, 141, and 193.

Question 2. Needs and Uses

All activities described above directly support the Census Bureau’s efforts to maintain its address and geographic database in partnership with tribal, state, and local governments nationwide. Because tribal, state, and local governments have current knowledge of, and data about, where housing growth and change are occurring in their jurisdictions, their input into the overall development of the address list for the Census Bureau makes a vital contribution. Similarly, those governments are in the best position to work with local geographic boundaries, and they benefit from accurate address and geographic data.

Information quality is an integral part of the pre-dissemination review of the information disseminated by the Census Bureau. A full description of the Census Bureau’s Information Quality Guidelines is available at the following web site: http://www.census.gov/quality/guidelines/index.html.

Information quality is also integral to the data collection activities conducted by the Census Bureau, and is incorporated into the clearance process required by the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Question 3. Use of Information Technology

The Census Bureau collects information on address, street, and street attribute updates, as well as legal and statistical boundary updates and other associated geographic information at the participating government’s option in one of the following methods:

Handwritten annotations on Census Bureau-supplied paper maps; or

Electronic updates to Census Bureau-supplied digital shape files; or

Partner-supplied digital file; or

Web-based update system; or

Block Equivalency files; or

Shapefile output

Question 4. Efforts to Identify Duplication

The information collected in these programs can be best obtained and updated only from tribal, state, and local officials. These geographic areas and address list development-themed programs do not duplicate information requested or collected by any other agency. Further, there is no similar current information available on a consistent national basis that could be used or modified for these purposes.

Question 5. Minimizing Burden

The Census Bureau has devised several measures to minimize the response burden for governments participating in its geographic programs.

• Wherever possible, the Census Bureau offers options in program materials. The Census Bureau will supply participants with software options which simplify the task of reviewing geographic materials and allow for easy visual comparison of the government’s own information to the Census Bureau data.

• The Census Bureau will supply its spatial data to participants in digital shape file format.

• The Census Bureau will accept partner-supplied digital files.

Question 6. Consequences of Less Frequent Collection

The Census Bureau is committed to maintaining the accuracy of the MAF/TIGER System to support current censuses and surveys including the American Community Survey. Less frequent collection would cause the accuracy of the MAF/TIGER System to suffer, causing increased costs for, and problems in, conducting censuses and surveys.

Question 7. Special Circumstances

The information collection will be conducted in a manner consistent with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidelines.

Question 8. Consultations Outside the Agency

The following sections describe the consultations outside the agency for each program.

GSS-I

The Census Bureau discussed the GSS-I with the following organizations:

• the Federal Geographic Data Committee;

• the National Geospatial Advisory Committee;

• the National Academy of Sciences.

The Census Bureau discussed the GSS-I at the following conferences:

• the Association of American Geographers conference;

• the Census Bureau Address Summit;

• the National States Geographic Information Council conference;

• the National Association of Counties conference;

• the Urban and Regional Information System Associations conference.

2010 Census Redistricting Data Program

The Census Bureau discussed the 2010 Census Redistricting Data Program, as well as plans for the 2010 Census, at the Redistricting Data Program meeting hosted by the state liaison in 48 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, and at annual meetings of the National Conference of State Legislatures.

School District Review Program

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) sponsors the School District Boundary Review on a cost reimbursable basis and the Census Bureau works closely with the NCES to develop the requirements, schedule and products for the SDRP. Geography Division staff have presented information about the SDRP at NCES sponsored conferences attended by school district officials, Title 1 Coordinators and Common Core of Data Coordinators. The Census Bureau presented two webinars for mapping coordinators in 2011, specifically related to the 2011-2012 SDRP. Primary contacts for our work at the NCES are:

William C. Sonnenberg

Statistician

Annual Reports Program-NCES

Telephone: 202-502-7453

Email: William.Sonnenberg@ed.gov

Tai A. Phan

Mathematical Statistician

Elementary/Secondary & Libraries Studies Division NCES

Telephone: 202-502-7431

Email: Tai.Phan@ed.gov

Federal Register Notice Discussions

Announcements concerning the 2010 Census Redistricting Data Program were published in the following Federal Register Notices:

• Establishment of the 2010 Census Redistricting Data Program in Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 93, Pages 26547-26548 / Thursday, May 13, 2004 / Notices

• 2010 Census Redistricting Data Program Commencement of Phase 1: State Legislative District Project in Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 30, Pages 7713-7714 / Tuesday, February 15, 2005 / Notices

• 2010 Census Redistricting Data Program Commencement of Phase 2: The Voting District/Block Boundary Suggestion Project in Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 76, Page 19879 / Friday, April 20, 2007 / Notices

For the notice dated May 13, 2004, the Census Bureau received and responded to two comments regarding the Redistricting Data Program. Both comments were concerned with the effect that the census residence rules have on State legislative redistricting. In response, the Census Bureau explained that, while the Census Bureau works closely with the States to identify new construction; correct political boundaries; and add nonstandard features for use as block boundaries, the data tabulation programs consistently use the residence rules established for census collection and tabulation purposes.

There were no comments regarding the notices dated February 15, 2005 and April 20, 2007.

Geographic Partnership Program Federal Register Notice

The Pre-submission Federal Register Notice for the Geographic Partnership Programs Generic Clearance was published on January 4, 2012 in Volume 77, No. 2 on pages 262-263.

• We received one comment generally opposing the Geographic Partnership Programs.

• We received and responded to a series of comments from the City of Montrose, Colorado that both supported the Geographic Partnership Programs and offered suggestions for improved data quality.

• We received and responded to a comment from the Puerto Rico Institute of Statistics generally supporting the Geographic Partnership Programs, and offering their agency’s support.

• We received and responded to a comment from the Center for Demographic Research in Fullerton, California generally supporting the Geographic Partnership Programs, and suggesting the expansion of Census Bureau geographic outreach to include county surveyor departments and local agency formation commissions.

Question 9. Paying Respondents

We do not pay respondents nor provide them with gifts for responding to Census Bureau programs.

Question 10. Assurance of Confidentiality

All confidential information collected as part of these geographic programs will adhere to the data stewardship provisions of Title 13, United States Code, Section 9. The Census Bureau staff will give notice to program participants working with this information that they are required to protect the confidentiality of those data and will set forth guidelines and procedures for their physical and information technology protection. Census Bureau field staff will use this notice to inform each program participant that any information given to the Census Bureau will be held in strict confidence and that participant participation is voluntary.

Question 11. Justification for Sensitive Questions

None of the questions asked during the activities described above are of a sensitive nature, and they should not pose any problem for respondents in that respect.

Question 12. Estimate of Hour Burden

The following table shows the calculation of burden for FYs 2012, 2013, and 2014.

Activity	FY 2012 Respondents	FY 2013 Respondents	FY 2014 Respondents	Average Hours per Respondent	FY2012 Burden Hours	FY 2013 Burden Hours	FY 2014 Burden Hours
GSS-I	12,000	13,000	14,000	5	60,000	65,000	70,000
Redistricting Data Program	52	----	5	50	2,600	----	250
SDRP	----	52	----	50	----	2,600	----
Totals	12,052	13,052	14,005	105	62,600	67,600	70,250

Estimates of burden per response are derived from the Census Bureau’s experience conducting the same or similar activities previously.

Question 13. Estimate of Cost Burden

The only expected cost to respondents is their time to respond or provide information. For government entities, the information requested is of the type and scope normally available in records and no special hardware or accounting software or system is necessary to provide answers to this information collection. For some programs where software reduces the collection burden, free software is provided. Therefore, respondents are not expected to incur any capital and start-up costs or system maintenance costs in responding. Further, purchasing of outside accounting or information collection services, if performed by the respondent, is part of usual and customary business practices and not specifically required for this information collection.

Question 14. Cost to Federal Government

The annual cost to the Federal Government associated with each specific activity will be provided in the clearance request that will precede the activity.

Question 15. Reason for Change in Burden

The change in burden is due to the completion of the 2010 Census programs and the addition of the GSS-I.

Question 16. Project Schedule

The chart in Question 12 and the description of each activity in Question 1 give an approximate time frame for each activity. Table 1 below contains a more detailed schedule of high-level activities for all activities requested under this clearance. An expanded schedule for completing each activity will be provided in the specific clearance request that will precede the activity.

12 Month Schedule for OMB Control No. 0607-0795
Month/Year	Redistricting Data Program	School District Review Program	GSS Initiative
July 2012	(Shaded cells are intentionally left blank)	Deliver 2011-2012 SDRP Products to Department of Education	Conduct Address Summit Pilot activities with select partners Regional Offices begin acquiring data from Test County partners
August 2012			Begin testing process using data from Test County partners Begin feedback dialogue with Test County partners based on initial process testing
September 2012	Phase 4 of the 2010 Redistricting Data Program (Verification of the 113th Congressional and State Legislative Districts) ends (9/7/2012)
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012			Complete Address Summit Pilot activities with select partners Deliver Advanced Notice Letter to initial FY13 universe of partners
January 2013			Begin receiving and processing data from initial FY13 partners based on Test County experience
February 2013
March 2013			Deliver Advanced Notice Letter to supplemental FY13 universe of partners
April 2013			Begin receiving and processing data from supplemental FY13 partners
May 2013			Begin sending Feedback Reports to initial FY13 partners
June 2013			Complete processing data from initial FY13 partners Complete sending Feedback Reports to initial FY13 partners
Look-Ahead Schedule (Projected)
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013			Complete processing data from supplemental FY13 partners Send Feedback Reports to supplemental FY13 partners Deliver Advanced Notice Letter to FY14 universe of partners
October 2013			Begin receiving and processing data from FY14 partners
November 2013
December 2013			Begin sending Feedback Reports to FY14 partners
January 2014	Begin receiving 2012 RDP updates from States as part of the bi-annual update of Congressional and State Legislative Districts (@ 5 states expected)
February 2014	Begin insertion of 2012 RDP updates into MAF/TIGER System
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014	Begin sending 2012 RDP Verification materials to States
June 2014	Complete receiving 2012 RDP updates from States
July 2014	Complete insertion of 2012 RDP updates into MAF/TIGER System
August 2014	Complete sending 2012 RDP Verification materials to States		Complete processing data from FY14 partners Complete sending Feedback Reports to FY14 partners
September 2014			Deliver Advanced Notice Letter to FY15 universe of partners

Table 1. 12 Month Schedule for OMB Control No. 0607-0795

Question 17. Request Not to Display Expiration Date

We will display the expiration date on the Information Collection Forms and on the Privacy Act Notice given to respondents.

Question 18. Exceptions to the Certification

There are no exceptions.

14