Address Canvassing Goals, Objectives, and Success Criteria

Address Canvassing Test

Draft as of February 8, 2016

Operation	Approving Official	Approving Official - Signature	Date approved
Address Canvassing	Evan Moffett
Geographic Programs	Evan Moffett
Content and Forms Design	Jessica Graber
Communications	Kimberly Higginbotham
Field Infrastructure (includes MDCP)	Alexa Jones-Puthoff
IT Infrastructure	Pete Boudriault
Decennial Logistics Management	Alexa Jones-Puthoff
Decennial Service Center	Alexa Jones-Puthoff
Approving all of the above	Deirdre Bishop

Assumptions and Site Selection Criteria

Operations -- (Note – Support Operations have not test objectives or research questions.)

Address Canvassing

Assumptions and Site Selection Criteria

Universe

1. The Address Canvassing Test will occur in two sites within the United States, with each containing 4,000 contiguous non-zero housing unit blocks.

2. The Address Canvassing Test will occur in two sites in the lower 48 states (the test sites will not be in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico or the Island Areas).

3. The Address Canvassing Test sites will contain a variety of address styles, such as city-style addresses, non city-style address, and location descriptions (low priority).

4. The Address Canvassing Test will contain one site that has been through GSS-I Local File Updating (specifically through the Address Source Evaluation) and one site that has not.

5. The Address Canvassing Test will contain one site that has commercial file data available for updating and one site that has not.

6. The Address Canvassing Test will contain one site that is experiencing growth (≥1.7% based on 2010-2014 housing unit estimates) and one site that is experiencing decline (<0% based on 2010-2014 housing unit estimates).

7. The Address Canvassing Test will contain one site that contains geographic areas identified as potential In-Field Address Canvassing blocks (i.e., excludes preliminary Update Enumerate areas, blocks with 100% Delivery Sequence File coverage, and blocks that have not experienced any changes in the MAF inventory of addresses between 2010 and 2014).

8. The Address Canvassing Test sites will not contain Update Enumerate areas.

9. The Address Canvassing Test sites will not contain military areas.

10. The Address Canvassing Test will use the Basic Collection Unit (BCU) as the unit of geography to organize and manage work assignments.

11. All BCUs in the Address Canvassing Test sites will be canvassed in both the office and the field.

In-Field Canvassing

12. In-Field Address Canvassing will be conducted using Corporate Listing and Mapping Solutions (LiMA), Mobile Case Management, MOJO and UTS (i.e., CEDCaP systems).

13. In-Field Address Canvassing data collection will be conducted using a smartphone device.

14. In-Field Address Canvassing will conduct a second canvass of selected BCUs to perform a rudimentary quality estimation on those BCUs. If a large discrepancy rate is found between the two listings on the same BCU, it may imply one of the two listings was of poor quality, or the block was difficult to list.  This information may be of use when resolving discrepancies between In-Office Address Canvassing and In-Field Address Canvassing.

15. In-Field Address Canvassing will not collect feature updates.

16. In-Field Address Canvassing results will update the MAF/TIGER database.

Other

17. In-Office Address Canvassing and In-Field Address Canvassing will inform the same management reporting system.

18. The Address Canvassing Integrated Product Team will review Lessons Learned from previous census tests and use them to guide the planning for the test if appropriate.

Address Canvassing Test

Test Focus	Focus of the test is: Measure the effectiveness of In-Office Address Canvassing through In-Field Address Canvassing Measure the effectiveness of In-Field Address Canvassing Understand the implications of moving from Assignment Area (a grouping of blocks) to Basic Collection Unit (BCU), which encompass the characteristics of both collection blocks and assignment areas.
Milestone Schedule	Begin Field Management Training August 29, 2016 Begin Field Supervisor Training September 13, 2016 Begin Field Representative Training September 26, 2016 Begin In-Field Data Collection October 3, 2016 End In-Field Data Collection November 15, 2016 Release Address Canvassing Test Analysis Report April 29, 2017
Scope and Limitations	The Address Canvassing Test allows for the comparison of results from both In-Office Address Canvassing and In-Field Address Canvasing to measure the effectiveness of In-Office Address Canvassing procedures and processes. This test is not intended to measure or assess the coverage of the Master Address File. Field Staff hired to support the Test will be Field Representatives and Field Supervisors; we are not hiring staff via DAPPS due to time constraints.
Operations with Test Objectives and Research Questions
Goals		Objectives	Success Criteria	Questions to Answer
Address Canvassing
Measure the effectiveness of In-Office Address Canvassing		Implement In-Office Address Canvassing processes. Including: Interactive Review Active Block Resolution (ABR) MAF Update Identification of the In-Field Address Canvassing workload	Update the MAF Collect production metrics Make use of resources provided by local governments and commercial third party data Collect data to directly compare In-Office to In-Field Address Canvassing results Collect data to determine if the identification of the In-Field Address Canvassing workload was accurate	How accurate are the results from In-Office Address Canvassing relative to In-Field Address Canvassing? Did In-Office Address Canvassing miss housing units that In-Field Address Canvassing identified? What types of units were missed (e.g., multi-units, trailers)? Did In-Office Address Canvassing identify housing units that In-Field Address Canvassing missed? What types of units? Did In-Field Address Canvassing take actions (adds, deletes, changes, moves) that appear to be consistent with other sources of data (e.g., DSF status, GSS-I local file update status)? Can we identify the kinds of housing situations in which In-Office Address Canvassing performs as or more effectively than In-Field Address Canvassing and vice versa? Did In-Office Canvassing accurately identify the BCUs that required In-Field Address Canvassing work?
Measure the effectiveness of system integration for In-Field Address Canvassing		Integrate multiple information technology applications (LiMA, MCM, MOJO, MOCs, MAF/TIGER, UTS and CEM) to create one seamless operational data collection, control, and management system	The appropriate data were passed from system to system in order to implement In-Field Address Canvassing processes	N/A
Measure the effectiveness of In-Field Address Canvassing		Implement In-Field Address Canvassing on a small platform device	Data were collected to assess the effectiveness of listing on a small platform device Data were collected to assess whether there is an impact on field staff	Can listing effectively be completed on a small platform device? What are the impacts on field staff?
Measure the efficiency of In-Field Address Canvassing		Collect operational paradata	Data are summarized to inform field cost factors for future budget estimation Data are collected from systems to inform future operational planning activities	How much time did FRs spend doing each of the following tasks: Driving to the assigned block? Conducting work in the assigned block?
Assess management of Address Canvassing using the NRFU approach to alerts		Refine and expand alerting capabilities related to Address Canvassing activities	Newly developed alerts are deemed effective.  Refinements to existing alerts are deemed potentially effective	What are the most effective set of alerts for field supervisors to stay aware of potential issues in the Address Canvassing operation?
Test methods to train Field Staff to effectively conduct In-Field Addressing Canvassing		Evaluate the effectiveness of: Field Representative and Field Supervisor Online training Field Representative Classroom training utilizing Field Supervisors who will be trained on facilitation skills and subject matter. Field Supervisors Classroom training utilizing Field Managers who will be trained on facilitation skills and subject matter	Field Representatives and Field Supervisors demonstrate competency and application of knowledge and skills to perform at desired level	To what degree do Field Representatives and Field Supervisors react favorably to the Online and Classroom training To what degree do Field Representatives and Field Supervisors acquire the intended knowledge and skills based on their participation in the Online and Classroom training To what degree so Field Representatives and Field Supervisors apply what they learned during training when they are on the job
Understand the implications of moving from Assignment Area (a grouping of blocks) to Basic Collection Unit (BCU), which are the equivalent of blocks.		Use BCUs as the lowest level collection geography used for canvassing	The operation is successfully completed using BCUs	What was the impact of using BCUs? Did the field staff successfully canvass the BCUs?

Support Operations

Geographic Programs

N/A

Content and Forms Design

N/A

Communications

N/A

Field Infrastructure

N/A

IT Infrastructure

Multiple devices, including iOS and Android, will be fielded under the Device-as-a-Service capability.

Further testing of field data collection automation in a disconnected state.

Further testing and paradata collection related to GPS point collection.

Decennial Logistics Management

Decennial Service Center

Identifying and cataloging the types of Service Desk tickets/issues associated with an In-Field Address Canvassing operation

Page 4 of 4