Another objective of the MAF/TIGER Enhancements Program is to "Enhance Geographic Partnerships" with federal, state, local and tribal governments. The goal of this objective is to gather reliable information (metadata) about the GIS files that are available (location accuracy, vintage, etc.), store that information in a repository called the TIGER Enhancement Database (or TED, for short), obtain copies of those GIS files that meet or are better than the location accuracy requirements of the MTAIP when those files are available without royalty or copyright restriction, to make use of these GIS data from geographic partners, whenever possible, and to develop a process for the ongoing receipt of acceptable information from those partners.
The Census Bureau cannot accept (nor does it favor) any restrictions on basic high quality geographic data of the types included in the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI), such as street centerlines, street names, hydrography locations, boundaries, etc. It is not an acceptable option for the Census Bureau to report a numeric data total for some geographic area (such as a 'block') and then not let the receiver of the statistical data see the definition of that block (in the form of a map or a digital file) unless they "insert their credit card." Information of the type included in the NSDI is "inherently governmental." (In adopting the foregoing position, the Census Bureau is not suggesting that all these geographic data must be exempt from copyright or restricted status. "Value added" items, such as speed limits, numbers of lanes, traffic direction, turn restrictions, and the locations of businesses that make use of the file more convenient, the generation of 'routes of travel,' etc., certainly can be considered for such protections.)
In the foregoing context, it is hard to imagine a business model (often referred to as, 'privatization') that could succeed in an environment that requires open access to NSDI types of information, as current federal government policy has for many years. The current model with "government/NSDI" data and "commercial/value-added" data each existing in separate environments has been the most successful in the world. No country with restrictive policies toward spatial data, including those with highly developed governmental and commercial sectors, has evolved a robust GIS business environment as exists in the United States. Some have tried; all have failed. Such approaches always create roadblocks to enterprise systems and data sharing.
Some have portrayed the Census Bureau's approach to geographic partnerships as, "cannot [apparently meaning, 'will not'] partner with states [apparently also meaning, 'local and tribal'] for data." Clearly this is neither the Census Bureau's current policy nor its intent. Some of the foregoing perception legitimately evolved from [apparently very frustrating] experiences in conjunction with the geographic preparations for Census 2000 when operational schedules precluded the Census Bureau from accepting offers of "good files" from then willing partners. As illustrated in the opening paragraph, the Census Bureau is now able (and anxious) to actively seek geographic partnerships with the operational pressures of Census 2000 behind the agency. The Census Bureau's hope is that those disappointed with the earlier "rejection" of their offers will recognize -- and accept -- this change in approach and participate now while the opportunity exists, and before the door may need to close again late in the decade, nearer the operational pressures for the 2010 Census.
Others have suggested the Census Bureau "cannot [will not] partner with states for data" because the Census Bureau is not a fund-granting agency. This perspective ignores the fact that the Census Bureau has a well-documented history of negotiating agreements that involve "in kind" transfers of services and/or products with partner agencies. For example, as part of the MTAIP, if a government has highly accurate imagery, but cannot afford the feature extraction cost to transform that imagery into GIS files, the Census Bureau will include the availability of that imagery in its TED data base. Under the assumption that use of this existing imagery is the most cost effective solution, the contractor will use that imagery to reposition and update TIGER. The Census Bureau returns a repositioned TIGER/Line or equivalent file to the imagery donor. Thus, the Census Bureau achieves its objective, the donor achieves their objective, neither agency has spent more than it originally had intended, and no funds actually needed to change hands.
Another perception that may lead to a view that "the Census Bureau cannot (will not) partner with states for data" is a consequence of law. The Census Bureau is bound by the confidentiality provisions of Title 13, United States Code, which is the collective set of laws passed by the Congress over several decades. Title 13 requires, among other things, that information about individuals and establishments (including their addresses and/or specific locations) cannot be disclosed (except in the form of statistical totals) to anyone who has not agreed to abide by these restrictions. Thus, much to the annoyance of some who participated in the Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) program conducted as part of Census 2000, only those local and tribal officials who agreed to sign a Confidentiality Agreement could review the Census Bureau's address information, and they could not retain or use that information for any local purpose.
The fact that the Census Bureau cannot (is prohibited, by federal law, from) let geographic partners "use" the address information it compiles does not mean the Census Bureau cannot [is unwilling to] be a good geographic partner. The widespread and frequent availability of TIGER/Line Files, including the location-corrected versions that will be issued as the MAF/TIGER Accuracy Improvement Project reaches conclusion for each county, are not restricted by Title 13, because they do not contain confidential (Title 13 protected) information.
