The following HTML text is provided to enhance online
readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML.
Please use the page image
as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.
The 2000 Census: Interim Assessment
possible adjustment of census counts, in October 1999, February 2000, and October 2000 (National Research Council, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c). Individual panel members and staff also discussed aspects of the census, the A.C.E., and demographic analysis with other experts in the field.
Panel members and staff made observation visits in 1999 and 2000 to selected census data capture centers, regional census offices, regional A.C.E. offices, and local census offices around the country. (The panel chair and staff previously observed operations in the 1998 Columbia, South Carolina, and Sacramento, California, dress rehearsal sites.) The purpose of the trips was to familiarize the panel with census and A.C.E. operations.
Because of the importance of the Master Address File (MAF) to a complete census and because of new procedures used for input to the 2000 MAF by localities, the panel commissioned a review of the 2000 Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) Program by a working group of six representatives of governments that participated in the program. The group conducted a survey of 101 governments that participated in LUCA, completed over a dozen in-depth case studies of LUCA participation, and analyzed data on LUCA participation and the MAF provided by the Census Bureau (LUCA Working Group, 2001).
Panel members and staff reviewed the extensive documentation and evaluation results made available by the Census Bureau in support of its March 1, 2001, recommendation not to adjust the data for redistricting.3 The panel also conducted extensive analyses of microdata that the Bureau made available to the panel, the 2000 Census Monitoring Board, and the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on the Census (see “Census Oversight,” below). These data not only informed the panel about the operations of the A.C.E., but also provided a window (from the census enumerations in the A.C.E. sample blocks) into operational aspects of the census itself.
This is the panel’s third report. A letter report, released in May 1999, commented on aspects of the proposed sample and post-stratification design for the A.C.E. (National Research Council, 1999a). A second letter report, released in November 2000, commented on the process and evaluations that the Census Bureau planned to follow for its March 2001 decision on whether to provide adjusted or unadjusted data for legislative redistricting (National Research Council, 2000b). We expect to issue a third letter report after the Bureau makes a recommendation on adjustment of census data for such purposes as fund allocation (see Part I). The panel is charged to issue a final report in September 2002.
These documents, archived at http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/EscapRep.html, include a report from the Census Bureau’s Executive Steering Committee for A.C.E. Policy (2001a) and 19 memoranda in the “B” series, many of which are cited in this report.