procedures used in 1990. (Appendix A provides a more detailed description.) Chapter 4 provides the panel’s initial assessment of census operations. (Appendix B provides detailed results from an analysis of mail return rates in 1990 and 2000.)
Chapter 5 reviews demographic analysis and the issues surrounding the demographic estimates for 2000. Chapter 6 provides background information on the population coverage estimates from the A.C.E., the method of dual-systems estimation, and the A.C.E. operations, including important differences from the procedures used in the 1990 PES (Appendix C provides a more detailed description of the A.C.E. operations). Chapter 7 provides the panel’s initial assessment of the A.C.E. operations.
Finally, Chapter 8 examines the characteristics of two groups of people who could not be included in the A.C.E. They are people whose census records were available too late for A.C.E. processing and people who required imputation to complete their census records. These groups, especially the second, account for the puzzling aspects in the A.C.E. and PES results noted above.
The panel looks forward to continuing its evaluation of the census and the A.C.E., as additional information becomes available that can support firmer conclusions about the quality of the adjusted and unadjusted census data and their appropriate use.
The panel notes that the census obtained a wide range of socioeconomic data on the long form (which was sent to about one in six households). These data are also important to assess, given the use of long-form estimates for allocation of billions of dollars of federal funds to states and localities and for other important policy purposes. Processing of the 2000 long-form data has not been completed; the panel expects to assess those data in its final report, as part of the panel’s final assessment of the 2000 census.