nursing homes, hospitals, group homes, and prisons. These types of group quarters had especially high rates of missing data for long-form items (see Section 7-D).
Because of poor results in the 1990 Post-Enumeration Survey Program, a deliberate decision was made to exclude group quarters residents from the 2000 A.C.E. Program (see Section 5-D.1 for the basis of this decision). As a consequence, there was no way to assess omissions of group quarters residents or the full extent of erroneous enumerations for this population.
Overall, we conclude that the procedures for enumerating group quarters residents and processing the information collected from them were not well controlled or carefully executed. There is evidence of errors of omission, duplication, and miscoding by geography and type of group quarters, although there are no data with which to conduct a definitive evaluation, partly due to the lack of procedures to track individual enumerations. The extent of imputation required for group quarters residents was high, not only in terms of the number of whole-person imputations required, but also in terms of item imputations, particularly for long-form-sample items (see Section 7-D).
Finding 4.6: The enumeration of people in the 2000 census who resided in group quarters, such as prisons, nursing homes, college dormitories, group homes, and others, resulted in poor data quality for this growing population. In particular, missing data rates, especially for long-form-sample items, were much higher for group quarters residents than for household members in 2000 and considerably higher than the missing data rates for group quarters residents in 1990 (see Finding 7.3). Problems and deficiencies in the enumeration that undoubtedly contributed to poor data quality included: the lack of well-defined concepts of types of living arrangements to count as group quarters; failure to integrate the development of the group quarters address list with the devel-