THE 2000 CENSUS

Interim Assessment

Panel to Review the 2000 Census

Constance F.Citro, Daniel L.Cork, and Janet L.Norwood, Editors

Committee on National Statistics

Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education

National Research Council

NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, DC



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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
The 2000 Census: Interim Assessment THE 2000 CENSUS Interim Assessment Panel to Review the 2000 Census Constance F.Citro, Daniel L.Cork, and Janet L.Norwood, Editors Committee on National Statistics Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education National Research Council NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, DC

OCR for page R1
The 2000 Census: Interim Assessment NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS 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-8–66010 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 0-309-07649-8 Library of Congress Control Number 2001097857 Additional copies of this report are available from National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, Lockbox 285, Washington, D.C. 20055; (800) 624–6242 or (202) 334–3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu Suggested Citation: National Research Council (2001). The 2000 Census: Interim Assessment. Panel to Review the 2000 Census, Constance F.Citro, Daniel L.Cork, and Janet L.Norwood, editors. Committee on National Statistics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Printed in the United States of America ©2001 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

OCR for page R1
The 2000 Census: Interim Assessment THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES National Academy of Sciences National Academy of Engineering Institute of Medicine National Research Council 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. William 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. Kenneth I. Shine 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. William A.Wulf are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.

OCR for page R1
The 2000 Census: Interim Assessment This page in the original is blank.

OCR for page R1
The 2000 Census: Interim Assessment PANEL TO REVIEW THE 2000 CENSUS JANET L.NORWOOD (Chair), Chevy Chase, Maryland ROBERT M.BELL, AT&T Labs-Research, Florham Park, New Jersey NORMAN M.BRADBURN, National Science Foundation, Arlington, Virginia LAWRENCE D.BROWN, Department of Statistics, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania WILLIAM F.EDDY, Department of Statistics, Carnegie Mellon University ROBERT M.HAUSER, Department of Sociology, University of Wisconsin RODERICK J.A.LITTLE,* School of Public Health, University of Michigan INGRAM OLKIN, Department of Statistics and School of Education, Stanford University D.BRUCE PETRIE, Canadian Institute for Health Information, Ottawa, Ontario CONSTANCE F.CITRO, Study Director MICHAEL L.COHEN, Senior Program Officer DANIEL L.CORK, Program Officer AGNES GASKIN, Senior Project Assistant MARISA GERSTEIN, Research Assistant MICHELE VER PLOEG, Program Officer MEYER ZITTER, Consultant *   Served until March 2000

OCR for page R1
The 2000 Census: Interim Assessment COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL STATISTICS 2000–2001 JOHN E.ROLPH (Chair), Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California JOSEPH G.ALTONJI, Department of Economics, Northwestern University LAWRENCE D.BROWN, Department of Statistics, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania JULIE DAVANZO, RAND, Santa Monica, California WILLIAM F.EDDY, Department of Statistics, Carnegie Mellon University ROBERT M.GROVES, Joint Program in Survey Methodology, University of Michigan HERMANN HABERMANN, Statistics Division, United Nations, New York, New York JOEL L.HOROWITZ, Department of Economics, University of Iowa WILLIAM KALSBEEK, Survey Research Unit, Department of Biostatistics, University of North Carolina RODERICK J.A.LITTLE, School of Public Health, University of Michigan THOMAS A.LOUIS, RAND, Arlington, Virginia DARYL PREGIBON, AT&T Labs-Research, Florham Park, New Jersey FRANCISCO J.SAMANIEGO, Division of Statistics, University of California at Davis RICHARD SCHMALENSEE, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology MATTHEW D.SHAPIRO, Department of Economics, University of Michigan ANDREW A.WHITE, Director

OCR for page R1
The 2000 Census: Interim Assessment Preface This volume contains the full text of two reports of the Panel to Review the 2000 Census. On October 9,2001, the panel released its interim report in pre-publication format. Titled The 2000 Census: Interim Assessment, the interim report reviewed major census operations. It also assessed the U.S. Census Bureau’s recommendation in March 2001 regarding statistical adjustment of census data for redistricting. By design, the interim report did not address the Census Bureau’s decision on adjustment for non-redistricting purposes, which was anticipated to occur on or about October 15 (the decision was actually announced on October 17). Subsequently, on November 26, the panel sent a letter report to William Barron, Acting Director of the Census Bureau. In the letter report, the panel reviewed the new set of evaluations prepared by the Census Bureau in support of its October decision. These two reports—the letter report and the interim report—are packaged together in this single volume to provide a unified discussion of statistical adjustment and other aspects of the 2000 census that the panel has considered to date. The letter report is Part I of the volume; the interim report is Part II. We have retained the title The 2000 Census: Interim Assessment to differentiate this volume from the panel’s forthcoming final report. Both reports have been edited slightly for continuity as a single volume; in particular, the references from both individual reports are combined into a single list, and the acknowledgments section has been revised to properly credit the reviewers of both reports. Janet L.Norwood, Chair Panel to Review the 2000 Census

OCR for page R1
The 2000 Census: Interim Assessment This page in the original is blank.

OCR for page R1
The 2000 Census: Interim Assessment Acknowledgments The Panel to Review the 2000 Census wishes to thank the many people who have contributed to the panel’s work and helped make possible the preparation of this interim report. We thank, first, staff of the U.S. Census Bureau who prepared a large number of evaluation reports about the census, the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation (A.C.E.) Program, and demographic analysis, made informative presentations at panel meetings and workshops, and answered many specific questions about census procedures and evaluations. We thank particularly William Barron, Cynthia Clark, Robert Fay, Howard Hogan, Ruth Ann Killion, Joseph Knott, Donna Kostanich, John Long, J.Gregory Robinson, John Thompson, and Preston J.Waite. Former director Kenneth Prewitt also made valuable contributions to the panel’s meetings and workshops. Rajendra Singh has been very helpful as the Census Bureau’s project officer throughout the study. We further thank the Census Bureau for arranging for panel members and staff to have access to key data files for analysis, beginning in February 2001. Such access was provided not only to the panel, but also to congressional oversight groups, under procedures to safeguard confidentiality. The ability to analyze key data sets provided knowledge of census and A.C.E. procedures and evaluations that would not otherwise have been possible for the panel to obtain. We thank others in the professional community who participated in panel workshops: Barbara Bailar, National Opinion Research Center (retired); Stephen Fienberg, Carnegie Mellon University; David Freedman, University of California, Berkeley; Charles Jones, U.S. Census Monitoring Board, Congressional Members; Graham Kalton, Westat; Mary Mulry, Abt Associates; Jeffrey Passel, Urban Institute; Allen Schirm, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.; Joseph Sedransk, Case Western Reserve University; Bruce Spencer, Northwestern University; Philip Stark, University of California, Berkeley; Michael Stoto, George Washington University; Joseph Waksberg, Westat; Martin Wells, Cornell University; Kirk Wolter, National Opinion Research Center; Donald Ylvisaker, University of California, Los Angeles; and Alan Zaslavsky, Harvard Medical School.

OCR for page R1
The 2000 Census: Interim Assessment We also thank Joseph Salvo, New York City Department of City Planning, who ably chaired a working group on the Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) Program commissioned by the panel to evaluate LUCA from the local government perspective. The panel is especially indebted to Constance Citro who, as senior study director, organized the work of the panel and guided its evaluation of the 2000 census. Her wide experience in census issues, her competence in statistical methods, and the clarity of her reasoning have been critical to the successful completion of this interim report. We have benefited enormously from her talent and knowledge and feel extremely fortunate to have her working with us. The panel was assisted by a very able staff. Daniel Cork played a major role for the panel in conducting analyses of data files from the A.C.E., analyzing 1990 and 2000 census data on mail return rates, drafting the chapters on evaluation issues and mail response, developing informative graphs of key results, and preparing the report for release. His hard work and contributions, achieved under tight time pressures, were extraordinary. Andrew White, director of the Committee on National Statistics, served as study director for the panel from November 1998 through March 2000. He was assisted by Michael Cohen, who organized three panel workshops and contributed to the panel’s work throughout, particularly to the chapter on issues of census evaluation. Meyer Zitter contributed to the panel’s assessments of demographic analysis and the procedures for developing the Master Address File. Michele Ver Ploeg and Marisa Gerstein assisted in data analysis, as did Zhanyun Zhao, University of Pennsylvania. Heather Koball, now with the Urban Institute, prepared background material for the panel on race and ethnicity and organized and assessed trips for the panel and staff to observe census and A.C.E. operations in January-June 2000. Carrie Muntean, now with the U.S. Foreign Service, prepared background material for the panel on the development of the 1990 and 2000 census address lists and provided invaluable support to the panel’s commissioned working group on the LUCA Program. Joshua Dick, Jamie Casey, and Agnes Gaskin provided valuable project assistance to the panel, particularly in making arrangements for the panel’s workshops. Eugenia Grohman, associate director for reports of the Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, made important contributions to the report through her fine technical editing and eye for effective organization and presentation of technical material. To all we are grateful. The reports in this volume have 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 reports as sound as possible and to ensure that the reports meet institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study

OCR for page R1
The 2000 Census: Interim Assessment 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 one or both of the reports in this volume: Alfred Blumstein, H.John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University; Barbara Bryant, University of Michigan Business School; Brad Efron, Department of Statistics, Stanford University; Stephen Fienberg, Department of Statistics, Carnegie Mellon University; Eugene Hammel, Department of Demography, University of California, Berkeley; William D.Kalsbeek, Department of Biostatistics, University of North Carolina; Jeffrey Passel, Urban Institute, Washington, D.C.; Stephen Stigler, Department of Statistics, University of Chicago; and Martin T.Wells, Department of Social Statistics, Cornell University. 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 drafts of the reports before their release. The review of the panel’s interim report was overseen by Samuel Preston, School of Arts and Sciences, University of Pennsylvania, and the review of the letter report was overseen by John T.Bailar, University of Chicago (emeritus). Appointed by the National Research Council, they were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of these reports 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. Janet L.Norwood, Chair Panel to Review the 2000 Census

OCR for page R1
The 2000 Census: Interim Assessment This page in the original is blank.

OCR for page R1
The 2000 Census: Interim Assessment Contents I Letter Report   1 II Interim Report   15     Executive Summary   17 1   Introduction   23     Charge to the Panel   24     Census Oversight: A Brief Review   26     Availability of Information   28     March Adjustment Decision   29     Scope and Limitations of this Interim Report   33 2   Evaluation Issues   35     Census Data in Context   36     Error   37     An Evaluation Program   42     Summary   44 3   Census Operations: Overview   45     Developing the Master Address File   48     Questionnaire Delivery and Mail Return   50     Outreach   51     Field Follow-Up   53     Data Processing   54 4   Census Operations: Assessment   57     Overall Design and Execution   58     Multiple Sources for MAF   59     Participation in LUCA   61

OCR for page R1
The 2000 Census: Interim Assessment     Redesigned Questionnaire and Mailing Strategy   64     Paid Advertising and Partnerships   65     Aggressive Recruitment of Enumerators   66     Use of Contractors and Improved Technology   68     Increased Use of Computers   69     Population Coverage   70     Coverage-Related Factors   72     Conclusions   73     Next Steps   74 5   Demographic Analysis   77     Methodology: Overview   77     The 2000 Estimates   78     Uncertainty in Immigration Estimates   79     Estimates by Race   83     Other Estimates   84     Conclusions   85 6   Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation: Overview   87     Coverage Patterns, 2000 and 1990   87     Dual-Systems Estimation   92     A.C.E. Operations   95 7   Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation: Assessment   103     Conduct and Timing   103     Household Noninterviews in the P-Sample   104     Missing and Unresolved Data   105     Quality of Matching   110     Targeted Extended Search   116     Post-Stratification   118     Variance Estimates   121     Final Match Codes and Rates   123     Gross Errors   125     Conclusions   127 8   Imputations and Late Additions   131     A Puzzle   132     People Requiring Imputation   139     Late Additions   148     Conclusions   152

OCR for page R1
The 2000 Census: Interim Assessment A   Census Operations   155     Master Address File   155     Questionnaire Delivery and Mail Return   161     Field Follow-Up   165     Outreach Efforts   171     Data Processing   172 B   Mail Returns   179     Quality in 1990   180     Quality in 2000   181     1990–2000 Differences in Mail Return Rates   186     Conclusion   193 C   A.C.E. Operations   195     Sampling, Address Listing, and Housing Unit Match   195     P-Sample Interviewing   197     Initial Matching and Targeted Extended Search   199     Field Follow-Up and Final Matching   201     Weighting and Imputation   202     Post-Strata Estimation   203 Glossary   205 References   215 Biographical Sketches of Panel Members and Staff   223

OCR for page R1
The 2000 Census: Interim Assessment This page in the original is blank.

OCR for page R1
The 2000 Census: Interim Assessment List of Tables L-1   Alternative Estimates of Percentage Net Undercount of the Population in the Census from the 2000 Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation (A.C.E.) and the 1990 Post-Enumeration Survey (PES)   6 L-2   Alternative Estimates of Percentage Net Undercount of the Population from Demographic Analysis, 2000 and 1990 Censuses   12 1-1   Alternative Estimates of Percentage Net Undercount of the Population, April 2000 and 1990   31 3-1   Operational Components and Challenges for the 2000 Census   46 4-1   Original and Actual Timelines for the Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) Program   60 4-2   Participation of Local Governments in the 2000 Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) Program   63 5-1   Total Population Counts for 2000   78 5-2   Net Census Undercount, by Sex and Age, as Measured by Demographic Analysis and Post-Enumeration Surveys, 1990 and 2000 (in percent)   80 5-3   Net Census Undercount by Race, as Measured by Demographic Analysis and A.C.E., 2000 (in percent)   82 5-4   Sex Ratios (Men per 100 Women) from the Census, Demographic Analysis, A.C.E., and PES, 1990 and 2000   84 5-5   Comparisons of Population Estimates for Children   85 6-1   Net Undercount for Major Groups, 2000 A.C.E. and 1990 PES (in percent)   88 6-2   Post-Strata in the 2000 A.C.E., 64 Major Groups   98 7-1   Missing Data Rates for Characteristics, 2000 A.C.E. and 1990 PES P-Sample and E-Sample (weighted)   106 7-2   Percentage of 2000 A.C.E. P-Sample People with Imputed Characteristics, by Proxy Interview and Mover Status (weighted)   107 7-3   Percentage of 2000 A.C.E. E-Sample People with Imputed or Edited Characteristics, by Type of Return (weighted)   108 7-4   Percentage of 2000 A.C.E. P-Sample Matches to Census Enumerations, by Source of Final Match Code Assignment, Race/Ethnicity Domain, and Housing Tenure (weighted)   112 7-5   Outcome of Computer Matching and Cases Followed Up in the Field, 2000 A.C.E. (weighted)   114

OCR for page R1
The 2000 Census: Interim Assessment 7-6   2000 A.C.E. Matched P-Sample and E-Sample Cases: Consistency of Race/Ethnicity Post-Stratification Domain (unweighted)   120 7-7   Distribution of Initial, Intermediate, and Final Weights, 2000 A.C.E. P-Sample and E-Sample   122 7-8   2000 A.C.E. P-Sample Final Match Codes, and A.C.E and PES Match Rates, by Race/Ethnicity Domain and Housing Tenure (weighted)   124 7-9   2000 A.C.E. E-Sample Final Match Codes, and 2000 A.C.E. and 1990 PES Correct Enumeration Rates, by Race/Ethnicity Domain and Housing Tenure (weighted)   126 7-10   Gross Omissions and Erroneous Enumerations, 2000 A.C.E. and 1990 PES   128 8-1   Coverage Correction Factors, Correction Ratios, and Percentage Insufficient Information People, by Race/Ethnicity Domain and Housing Tenure, 2000 A.C.E. and 1990 PES (weighted)   133 8-2   Percentage Distribution of People Requiring Imputation and Late Additions to the Census in 2000, and Percentage Distribution of Total People with Insufficient Information in 1990, by Race/Ethnicity Domain and Housing Tenure   134 8-3   Distribution of People Requiring Imputation by Type of Imputation, by Race/Ethnicity Domain and Housing Tenure, 2000   141 B-1   Composition of 2000 Census Households, as Measured in the A.C.E. E-Sample, by Enumeration Status, Mail and Enumerator Returns, and Housing Tenure (weighted)   182 B-2   Rates of P-Sample Omissions, E-Sample Erroneous Enumerations, and P-Sample and E-Sample Unresolved Cases in the 2000 A.C.E., by Mail Return Rate Decile of Census Tract (weighted)   184 B-3   Rates of E-Sample Erroneous Enumerations and Unresolved Cases, in Mailout/Mailback and Update/Leave Types of Enumeration Area (TEA), by Mail or Enumerator Return, Race/Ethnicity Domain, and Housing Tenure, 2000 A.C.E. (weighted)   185 B-4   Summary of Tract-Level Regression Models Using the Planning Database as the Source of Predictor Variables   189 C-1   Distribution of the 2000 A.C.E. P-Sample Block Clusters, Households, and People, by Sampling Stratum (unweighted)   198

OCR for page R1
The 2000 Census: Interim Assessment List of Figures 6-1   Post-stratum coverage correction factors (CCF) by domain and tenure, 2000 A.C.E.   90 6-2   Coverage correction factors by race/ethnicity domain, housing tenure, and age/sex groups.   91 8-1   Persons requiring imputation by race/ethnicity domain, housing tenure, and age/sex groups (percent).   136 8-2   Late additions to the census by race/ethnicity domain, housing tenure, and age/sex groups.   136 8-3   State population requiring imputation (percent).   144 8-4   State population requiring partial household imputation (percent).   145 8-5   State population requiring whole household imputation (percent).   146 8-6   State population requiring imputation of housing status (percent).   147 8-7   State population due to late additions (percent).   149 B-1   Plot of 2000 and 1990 mail return rates.   188 B-2   Census tracts whose mail return rate increased or decreased by at least 20 percent between 1990 and 2000.   191 B-3   Census tracts in the Washington-New York corridor whose mail return rate increased or decreased by at least 20 percent between 1990 and 2000.   192

OCR for page R1
The 2000 Census: Interim Assessment This page in the original is blank.

OCR for page R1
The 2000 Census: Interim Assessment List of Boxes 3-1   Mail Response and Return Rates   52 8-1   Relationship of People with Insufficient Information (Imputations and Late Additions) to Dual-Systems Estimation: Illustrative Examples   138 A-1   Basic Steps to Develop the Master Address File Prior to Census Day, 2000 and 1990   157 A-2   Types of Enumeration Areas (TEAs)   162 A-3   Imputation Methods and Uses   176

OCR for page R1
The 2000 Census: Interim Assessment This page in the original is blank.