The 1990 list was not used. There was also a LUCA Program conducted in 1999. Approximately 21 million addresses were included on the MAF for areas outside the blue line at the time when questionnaires were labeled and prepared for delivery. Census enumerators further updated the MAF in these areas when they delivered questionnaires in February-March 2000.
The same legislation that made it possible for the Postal Service to share the DSF with the Census Bureau also permitted the Bureau to invite local governments—counties, places, and minor civil divisions, over 39,000 jurisdictions in all—to review the MAF for their areas and provide additions, deletions, and corrections to the Bureau (LUCA Working Group, 2001).4 The Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) Program was conducted separately in areas inside the blue line (LUCA98) and areas outside the blue line (LUCA99). There was also a Special Places LUCA Program.
LUCA required participating local governments to sign a pledge to treat the address list as confidential. The program involved several steps of local review, field verification by the Bureau, and appeal to the U.S. Office of Management and Budget when localities disagreed with the Bureau’s decision to reject local changes to the MAF. Due to time constraints, some planned LUCA operations were combined and rescheduled (LUCA Working Group, 2001:Fig.1-1). In response to local concerns, a New Construction LUCA Program was added to give localities inside the blue line an opportunity during January-March 2000 to identify newly constructed housing units. Addresses identified in the program were not mailed questionnaires; instead, they were visited by enumerators during the coverage improvement follow-up operation in summer 2000.
Of the total 39,051 jurisdictions that were eligible for either or both LUCA98 or LUCA99, it is estimated that 25 percent participated fully in one or both programs by informing the Census Bureau of needed changes to the address list for their area (LUCA Working Group, 2001:Ch.2). Participation varied by such characteristics as geographic region of the country, population size of jurisdiction, type of government, and city-style or non-city-style area (see Chapter 4). Not yet known is what proportion of the MAF in city-style areas and non-city-style areas represented valid addresses that LUCA contributed (rather than repeating information from another operation, such as an update from the DSF).
MAF was a dynamic file during the operation of the census. Not only were addresses added from each stage of census field operations, they were deleted