Items in cart [0]
| [ Top of Page ] [ Home ] [ Contact Us ] [ Help ] [ The National Academies Home ] | ||
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges
Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges
Panel on Research on Future Census Methods
Daniel L. Cork, Michael L. Cohen, and Benjamin F. King, Editors
Committee on National Statistics
Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu
OCR for page R2
Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
The project that is the subject of this report was supported by contract no. 50-YABC-8-66016 between the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Census Bureau. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number 0-309-09189-6 (Book)
International Standard Book Number 0-309-53146-2 (PDF)
Library of Congress Control Number 2004103813
Additional copies of this report are available from the
National Academies Press,
500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20001; (202) 334-3096; Internet, http://www.nap.edu.
Copyright 2004 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America.
Suggested citation: National Research Council (2004). Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges. Panel on Research on Future Census Methods. Daniel L. Cork, Michael L. Cohen, and Benjamin F. King, eds. Committee on National Statistics, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
OCR for page R3
Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.
www.national-academies.org
OCR for page R4
Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges
This page intentionally left blank.
OCR for page R5
Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges
PANEL ON RESEARCH ON FUTURE CENSUS METHODS
BENJAMIN F. KING (Chair),
Delray Beach, Florida
DAVID A. BINDER,
Methodology Branch, Statistics Canada, Ottawa
MICK P. COUPER,
Survey Research Center, University of Michigan, and Joint Program in Survey Methodology, University of Maryland
C.A. IRVINE,
San Diego, California
WILLIAM KALSBEEK,*
Department of Biostatistics, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
SALLIE KELLER-MCNULTY,
Statistical Sciences Group, Los Alamos National Laboratories, Los Alamos, New Mexico
GEORGE T. LIGLER,
Potomac, Maryland
MICHAEL M. MEYER,
Intelligent Results, Inc., Seattle, Washington
DARYL PREGIBON,**
Google, New York City
KEITH F. RUST,
Westat, Inc., Rockville, Maryland
JOSEPH J. SALVO,
Population Division, Department of City Planning, New York City
JOSEPH L. SCHAFER,
Department of Statistics, Pennsylvania State University
ALLEN L. SCHIRM,
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., Washington, DC
JOSEPH H. SEDRANSK,
Department of Statistics, Case Western Reserve University
C. MATTHEW SNIPP,
Department of Sociology, Stanford University
DONALD YLVISAKER,
Department of Statistics, University of California, Los Angeles
ALAN M. ZASLAVSKY,
Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School
MICHAEL L. COHEN, Study Director
DANIEL L. CORK, Study Director
SHOREH ELHAMI, Consultant
AGNES E. GASKIN, Senior Project Assistant
*
Served until March 2002
**
Served until March 2001
OCR for page R6
Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges
COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL STATISTICS 2004
JOHN E. ROLPH (Chair),
Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California
JOSEPH G. ALTONJI,
Department of Economics, Yale University
ROBERT M. BELL,
AT&T Labs—Research, Florham Park, New Jersey
LAWRENCE D. BROWN,
Department of Statistics, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
ROBERT M. GROVES,
Survey Research Center, University of Michigan, and Joint Program in Survey Methodology, University of Maryland
JOHN C. HALTIWANGER,
Department of Economics, University of Maryland
PAUL W. HOLLAND,
Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey
JOEL L. HOROWITZ,
Department of Economics, Northwestern University
WILLIAM KALSBEEK,
Department of Biostatistics, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
ARLEEN LEIBOWITZ,
School of Public Policy and Social Research, University of California, Los Angeles
VIJAYAN NAIR,
Department of Statistics and Department of Industrial and Operations Engineering, University of Michigan
DARYL PREGIBON,
Google, New York City
KENNETH PREWITT,
School of Public Affairs, Columbia University
NORA CATE SCHAEFFER,
Department of Sociology, University of Wisconsin, Madison
JAMES F. HINCHMAN, Acting Director
CONSTANCE F. CITRO, Acting Chief of Staff
OCR for page R7
Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges
Acknowledgments
THE PANEL ON RESEARCH ON FUTURE CENSUS METHODS of the Committee on National Statistics is pleased to submit this final report and wishes to thank the many people who have contributed to our work over the panel’s lifetime.
We thank the staff of the U.S. Census Bureau, under the leadership of director C. Louis Kincannon, deputy director Hermann Habermann, former director Kenneth Prewitt, and former acting director William Barron, for their interactions with the panel. In particular, we appreciate the efforts of Preston Jay Waite, associate director for decennial census. Rajendra Singh, the panel’s lead liaison with the Census Bureau, and Philip Gbur provided useful assistance. In plenary sessions and in smaller working group activities, the panel has also benefited from its interaction with other talented members of the Census Bureau staff, including Teresa Angueira, Andrea Brinson, Jon Clark, Dave Galdi, Nancy Gordon, Edison Gore, Joan Hill, Howard Hogan, Arnold Jackson, Dean Judson, Ruth Ann Killion, Joe Knott, Donna Kostanich, Juanita Lott, Robert Marx, Fay Nash, Alfredo Navarro, Sally Obenski, Ed Pike, Linda Pike, Jim Treat, Alan Tupek, Carol Van Horn, Frank Vitrano, and Tracy Wessler.
The tragic death of Charles H. “Chip” Alexander, Jr., in early September 2002 was an incalculable loss for the entire research community surrounding the decennial census and its related programs. The chief statistical methodologist for the American Community Survey (ACS), Chip was also the panel’s designated
OCR for page R8
Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges
liaison on ACS matters. One true pleasure of service on this panel was the opportunity for interaction with someone of Chip’s great knowledge and good humor, and we join his friends and colleagues in mourning his loss.
Our panel colleague Joseph Salvo, of the New York City Department of City Planning, ably chaired a working group to evaluate the Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) program from the local government perspective. Jointly sponsored by this panel and our sister panel, the Panel to Review the 2000 Census, LUCA working group members drew from their firsthand expertise in documenting their LUCA experience in case study form. We thank the members of this group—Shoreh Elhami, Abby Hughes, Terry Jackson, Tim Koss, and Harry Wolfe—and working group consultant Patricia Becker for their efforts, a solid reference work for our panel and the entire research community.
In particular, we have benefited greatly from the continuing consultation of LUCA working group member Shoreh Elhami, of the Delaware County (Ohio) Auditor’s Office. A current member of the National Research Council’s Mapping Science Committee, her expertise on census and geography matters from the local government perspective has enriched our discussions of the Census Bureau’s plans to modernize their geographic resources.
In April 2001 the panel opened its first examination of the proposed MAF/TIGER Enhancements Program by inviting a distinguished set of discussants to share their opinions on the proposed plans. In addition to Shoreh Elhami, this roster of discussants included Rick Ayers (Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc.), Donald Cooke (Geographic Data Technology, Inc.), Michel Lettre (State of Maryland), and Sarah Nusser (Department of Statistics, Iowa State University). We thank them for their time and their talents.
At the request of the Census Bureau, panel staff organized a meeting on September 10, 2003, dealing specifically with the Census Bureau’s plans to redesign the database structure for its geographic resources (Master Address File and TIGER geographic database). Conducted by the Census Bureau, the meeting supplemented expertise on the panel with additional experts in computer science, software engineering, and geogra-
OCR for page R9
Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges
phy. Panel members Al Irvine and Mike Meyer participated in the meeting; we thank invitees Michael Goodchild (University of California, Santa Barbara), Les Miller (Iowa State University and American Statistical Association/National Science Foundation Census Fellow), Jesse Poore (University of Tennessee), and Allan Wilks (AT&T Laboratories–Research) for their participation and discussion.
We are grateful to our colleagues on the companion Panel to Review the 2000 Census and to its chair, Janet Norwood, for their assistance and contributions over the course of the panel’s study. Members of our panel joined members and staff of the Norwood panel to visit local and regional census offices during the 2000 census. Since those early days, both panels have been continually updated on each other’s progress. In particular, the Norwood panel’s detailed discussion of the 2000 Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation and the possible statistical adjustment of the 2000 census figures has been most helpful to us in suggesting priorities for coverage measurement in 2010.
Over the years, the panel has greatly benefited from good relations and insightful interaction with the broader census community. Terri Ann Lowenthal’s “Census 2000 News Briefs” have been a most helpful resource and an important communications channel, and we appreciate her efforts. We have learned much from our discussions with relevant staff of the U.S. House Subcommittee on the Census of the Committee on Government Reform (and its successor subcommittees with census oversight authority), particularly David McMillen and former subcommittee staffer Michael Miguel. We have appreciated our interaction with census-related staff of the U.S. General Accounting Office, including Robert Parker and Ty Mitchell. We also thank Ed Spar of the Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics and Susan Schechter and Katherine Wallman of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget for their participation in panel meetings.
Logistical arrangements for panel activities were made with great skill by Agnes Gaskin, senior project assistant. Research assistant Marisa Gerstein deserves thanks for her help with maintaining an archive of materials related to both this panel and the Panel to Review the 2000 Census. Former CNSTAT staff mem-
OCR for page R10
Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges
ber Carrie Muntean, now stationed with the U.S. Foreign Service, did exemplary work for both panels and, in particular, with the LUCA working group. CNSTAT consultant Meyer Zitter’s enthusiasm in collecting information for both panels is greatly appreciated. Cameron Fletcher, associate editor, and Christine McShane, senior editor of the reports office of the Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, contributed to this report with fine technical editing. Finally, virtually all of the activities of the Committee on National Statistics benefit greatly from the involvement and advice of Constance Citro, senior program officer. Given her role as study director of the Panel to Review the 2000 Census, we have drawn quite heavily on her wisdom and benefited from her contributions.
Finally, I represent the whole panel in expressing our gratitude to Daniel Cork and to Michael Cohen, the codirectors of this study, for their invaluable assistance in all aspects of our work. Neither this report nor the interim and letter reports that have preceded it would have been possible without their excellent liaison activities with the Census Bureau, their able handling of the logistics of our meetings, their up-to-date reporting to distant panel members of all developments in the Census Bureau’s planning for 2010, and their translation into readable prose of our reactions to and recommendations for the process as it has unfolded. Personally, it has been a great pleasure to work with them.
This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the Report Review Committee of the National Research Council (NRC). The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making the published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process.
We thank the following individuals for their participation in the review of this report: Barbara A. Bailar, statistical consultant, Washington, DC; Barbara Everitt Bryant, University of
OCR for page R11
Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges
Michigan Business School; Don A. Dillman, Departments of Sociology and Community Rural Sociology and Social Economic Sciences Research Center, Washington State University; Michael Hout, Department of Sociology, University of California, Berkeley; Janet Norwood, consultant, Chevy Chase, MD; and Halliman H. Winsborough, Department of Sociology and Center for Demography and Ecology, University of Wisconsin–Madison.
Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of the report was overseen by Robert Hauser, Center for Demography, University of Wisconsin–Madison. Appointed by the National Research Council, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of the report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring panel and the institution.
Benjamin F. King, Chair
Panel on Research on Future Census Methods
OCR for page R12
Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges
This page intentionally left blank.
OCR for page R13
Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges
Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations
xix
Executive Summary
1
I Background and General Planning
15
1
The Panel on Research on Future Census Methods
17
1–A Charge and Operations of the Panel
17
1–B Previous Reports of the Panel
20
1–C Overview of this Report
20
2
The General Plan for the 2010 Census
23
2–A Basic Steps in the Decennial Census Process
24
2–A.1 Preparation
24
Box 2.1: Basic Steps in Conducting the Decennial Census
25
Box 2.2: Organization of the Census Bureau
26
2–A.2 Taking the Count
28
2–A.3 Data Processing
29
2–A.4 Research
31
2–B Planning and Conducting the 2000 Census
32
2–C The “Three-Legged Stool” Approach to the 2010 Census
37
OCR for page R14
Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges
2–C.1 Relation of the 2010 Plan to Basic Census Processes
39
2–C.2 Relation of the 2010 Plan to the 2000 Census
40
2–C.3 Planning Milestones of the 2010 Census
41
2–C.4 Status of the 2010 Census Plan
42
Table 2-1: Planned Testing and Development Cycle for the 2010 Decennial Census, Assuming a Short-Form-Only Census
43
2–D Reengineering The 2010 Census: A Process At Risk
44
Table 2-2: Census Bureau Listing of Perceived Risks in 2010 Census Planning
47
2–D.1 Specific Risk Areas
48
2–D.2 Mitigating the Risks
53
II Issues of Census Design
55
3
Modernizing Geographic Resources
57
3–A Development and Current State of the MAF and TIGER
59
3–A.1 The Master Address File
59
Box 3.1: Results of LUCA Working Group Study
64
3–A.2 The TIGER Database
66
3–B The MAF/TIGER Enhancements Program
71
3–B.1 Objective One: Address/Street Location Accuracy
72
3–B.2 Objective Two: Modern Processing Environment
75
3–B.3 Objective Three: Geographic Partnerships
76
3–B.4 Objective Four: Community Address Updating System
76
3–B.5 Objective Five: Evaluation and Quality Metrics
77
3–B.6 Update on Enhancements Program Progress
78
3–C Assessment of Geographic Modernization Efforts
79
3–C.1 Locational Accuracy of TIGER
79
OCR for page R15
Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges
3–C.2 Balance of the MAF/TIGER Enhancements Program
83
3–D Weakness: Enhancing the MAF
84
3–D.1 Current Plans for MAF Updates for 2010
84
3–D.2 Block Canvassing
87
3–D.3 Conclusions
88
3–E Recommendations
90
3–E.1 Plan MAF Improvements Independent of MAF/TIGER Enhancements
90
3–E.2 Coordinate Responsibility for the MAF
92
3–E.3 Improve Research on the Delivery Sequence File
93
3–E.4 Define the Role of the Community Address Updating System
93
3–E.5 Plan Local Geographic Partnerships and Implement Early
94
3–E.6 Justify the Complete Block Canvass
97
3–E.7 Exploit 2000 MAF Data, and Redesign MAF for Evaluation in 2010
99
4
American Community Survey
103
4–A Background and Current Plans
105
4–A.1 Test Sites and the Census 2000 Supplementary Survey
105
4–A.2 Current ACS Implementation Plans
106
4–B Assessing the ACS
108
4–C Estimation Using the ACS
109
4–C.1 Adequacy of Moving Averages as Point Estimates
109
4–C.2 Comparing ACS/C2SS to the Census Long Form
111
4–D Quality of ACS Estimates
112
4–D.1 Estimating Nonresponse
113
Table 4-1: Imputation Rates for Selected Long-Form Items, 2000 Long-Form Sample and Census 2000 Supplemental Survey, by Type of Response, Household Population (weighted)
116
4–D.2 Quality of Imputed Responses
117
4–D.3 Measurement Error
118
OCR for page R16
Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges
4–E Summary and Assessment
119
4–E.1 Benefits and Costs
119
4–E.2 ACS Funding
125
4–E.3 Contingency Planning
127
4–F Topics for Further Research and Design Consideration
128
4–F.1 Group Quarters
128
4–F.2 Voluntary versus Mandatory Response
129
4–F.3 ACS as Both a Census Process and a Federal Survey
130
4–F.4 Revisiting Sampling Strategies
132
4–F.5 Interaction with Intercensal Population Estimates and Demographic Analysis Programs
134
4–F.6 Research on General Estimation Issues
136
5
Enumeration and Data-Processing Methods
139
5–A Portable Computing Devices
140
5–A.1 Testing PCDs: Pretests and the 2004 Census Test
142
5–A.2 Assessment
144
5–B Challenging Definitions for a Modern Census
149
5–B.1 Housing Units
149
5–B.2 Group Quarters
150
5–B.3 Residence and Residence Rules
153
5–B.4 Wording and Format of Race and Hispanic Origin Questions
153
5–C Hard-to-Count Population Groups: Extremes of Urbanicity
156
5–C.1 Small Multiunit Structures and Immigrant Communities
157
5–C.2 Rural Enumeration
159
5–D Alternative Response Modes and Contact Strategies
160
5–D.1 Response Modes in 2000 and Early 2010 Testing
161
5–D.2 Response Mode Effects
163
5–D.3 Replacement Questionnaires
164
OCR for page R17
Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges
5–E Data-Processing Methodologies: Unduplication and Imputation
165
6
Technical Infrastructure and Business Process
169
6–A Toward a “Business Process” of the Decennial Census
172
6–A.1 Baseline: Logical Architecture of the 2000 Census
173
6–A.2 Reengineering Exercise
176
6–A.3 After the Pilot: Steps Toward an Architecture
177
6–B Assessment
177
6–B.1 The Need for Institutional Commitment
178
6–B.2 Management “Champions”
179
6–B.3 Establishing a System Architect
180
6–B.4 Cautionary Note: Breadth and Difficulty of Task
181
6–C The Architecture of Crucial Subsystems: The TIGER Redesign
183
6–D Challenges in Transition from Logical to Physical Infrastructure
188
6–D.1 Potential Pitfall: Locking in Physical Infrastructure Too Early
188
6–D.2 Enterprise Architecture as Learning Tool and Guide to Organizational Change
189
6–D.3 Changing Architecture and Methods Simultaneously
190
6–D.4 Improving Software Engineering and Development
191
7
Coverage Measurement
193
7–A The Shape of Coverage Measurement in 2010
194
7–B Enhancing Demographic Analysis for 2010
196
7–C Enhancing Administrative Records Analysis for 2010
199
7–C.1 Administrative Records Experiment in the 2000 Census
199
7–C.2 Administrative Records for 2010
202
OCR for page R18
Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges
7–C.3 Other Possibilities: Megalist and Reverse Record Check
203
III The Census Bureau’s Research and Research Design
205
8
Evaluations
207
8–A Strengthening the Evaluation Program of the 2010 Census
208
8–A.1 Correcting the Disconnect Between Research and Operations
210
8–A.2 Pursuing New Research Directions
212
8–A.3 Exploiting Existing Data Resources
214
8–B Master Trace Sample
215
9
Census Tests
225
9–A Constraints on Census Testing
226
Box 9.1: 2003 National Census Test
228
Box 9.2: 2004 Census Field Test
230
9–B The 2006 Census Test as a Proof of Concept
231
9–C Design Options that Should Be Considered for Testing in 2006
233
9–C.1 Human Factors for Portable Computing Devices
233
9–C.2 Various Cost-Benefit Trade-offs
234
9–C.3 Other Testing Considerations
236
9–C.4 Site Selection
238
10
Recommendations
239
Bibliography
251
Biographical Sketches of Panel Members and Staff
263
OCR for page R19
Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ACE
Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation
ACF
Address Control File
ACS
American Community Survey
ALMI
Automated Listing and Mapping Instrument
AREX 2000
Administrative Records Experiment (2000)
BAS
Boundary and Annexation Survey
BSA
basic street address
C2SS
Census 2000 Supplementary Survey
CAI
computer-assisted interviewing
CAPI
computer-assisted personal interviewing
CATI
computer-assisted telephone interviewing
CAUS
Community Address Updating System
CEFU
coverage edit follow-up
CIFU
coverage improvement follow-up
CIO
chief information officer
CMM
Capability Maturity Model
CNSTAT
Committee on National Statistics
COTS
commercial off-the-shelf
CPS
Current Population Survey
DADS
Data Access and Dissemination System
DCS 2000
Data Capture System 2000
DEX
Digital Exchange
DMAF
Decennial Master Address File
OCR for page R20
Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges
DSE
dual-systems estimation
DSF
Delivery Sequence File
ESCAP
Executive Steering Committee on ACE Policy
FEAF
Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework
FIPS
Federal Information Processing Standards
GAO
U.S. General Accounting Office
GBF/DIME
Geographic Base File/Dual Independent Map Encoding
GIS
geographic information systems
GPS
global positioning system
GQ
group quarters
GSS
Geographic Support System
ICM
Integrated Coverage Measurement
IDC/IQA
Internet Data Collection/Internet Questionnaire Assistance
IDEF0
Integration Definition for Function Modeling
IRS
Internal Revenue Service
IT
information technology
IVR
interactive voice response
LCO
local census office
LUCA
Local Update of Census Addresses
MAF
Master Address File
MAF/TIGER
Master Address File/Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing System
MAFGOR
MAF Geocoding Office Resolution
MaRCS
Matching and Review Coding System
MCD
minor civil division; mobile computing device (Census Bureau usage)
MIS 2000
Management Information System 2000
MTAIP
MAF/TIGER Accuracy Improvement Project
MTEP
MAF/TIGER Enhancements Program
NCT
National Census Test (2003)
NRC
National Research Council
NRFU
nonresponse follow-up
OCR
optical character recognition
OCS
2000 Operations Control System 2000
OIG
Office of Inspector General (U.S. Department of Commerce)
OCR for page R21
Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges
OMB
Office of Management and Budget
OMR
optical mark recognition
PALS
Program for Address List Supplementation
PAMS/ADAMS
Pre-Appointment Management System/Automated Decennial Administrative Management System
PCD
portable computing device
PDA
personal digital assistant
PES
postenumeration survey
PRED
Planning, Research, and Evaluation Division (U.S. Census Bureau)
PSA
primary selection algorithm
RFP
request for proposals
RMIE
Response Mode and Incentive Experiment
SIPP
Survey of Income and Program Participation
SNRFU
sampling for nonresponse follow-up
StARS
Statistical Administrative Records System
TEA
type of enumeration area
TIGER
Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing System
TMU
Targeted Map Update
TQA/CEFU
Telephone Questionnaire Assistance/Coverage Edit Follow-Up
USGS
United States Geological Survey
USPS
United States Postal Service
OCR for page R22
Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges
This page intentionally left blank.