The 2000 Census: Counting Under Adversity

Questions? Call 800-624-6242

About | Ordering | New

LoginRegister

| Items in cart [0]

HARDBACK
price:$59.00
add to cart

Rights & Permissions

Free PDF Access

Free Resources

Related Titles

The 2000 Census: Counting Under Adversity (2004)
Committee on National Statistics (CNSTAT)

Citation Manager Export the bibliographic data for this book in your chosen format
Web Search Builder Use this book's key terms to search within this book, across our collection, or across the Web.
Skim This Chapter Skim this chapter and use this chapter's key terms to search within this book.
Reference Finder Paste in your own text to find books that relate to your topic.

Citation Manager

. "5 Coverage Evaluation: Methods and Background." The 2000 Census: Counting Under Adversity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2004.

Please select a format:

Page
177


E-mail Share on facebook Facebook Share on delicious Delicious Share on stumbleupon Stumble Share on twitter Twitter More Sharing ServicesMore

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: Counting Under Adversity

Table 5.1 Alternative Estimates of the Population and the Percentage Net Undercount, April 2000 (Original March 2001 A.C.E., Base DA, Alternate DA)

Source	Population (in millions)	Estimate of Percentage Net Undercount
Census Count	281.4	—
A.C.E. Estimate (Original, March 2001)	284.7	1.15
Base Demographic Analysis^a	279.6	–0.65
Alternate Demographic Analysis^b	282.3	0.32
NOTES: All estimates include the household population (273.6 million people), the group quarters population (about 7.3 million people), and people enumerated in special operations not included in the A.C.E. (e.g., the remote Alaska enumeration). The percentage net undercount is calculated as the population estimate minus the census count divided by the estimate. Minus sign (–) indicates a net overcount of the population. ^a The base demographic analysis estimate was made available in January 2001; it assumes about 6.0 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States under age 65 in April 2000—3.3 million from the 1990 DA estimate plus a net increase during the 1990s of 2.7 million. ^b The alternate demographic analysis estimate was made available in March 2001; it assumes a net increase in illegal immigration during the 1990s of 5.4 million for a total of 8.7 million undocumented immigrants as of April 2000. SOURCE: Robinson (2001a:Table 3).

In addition to the discrepancies between the A.C.E., demographic analysis, and census results, the ESCAP report cited several areas of concern about A.C.E. operations that might have affected dual-systems estimation as reasons for recommending against adjustment for redistricting purposes. It questioned the level of balancing error that may have occurred in the targeted extended search procedure. (Balancing error occurs when different criteria, such as different areas of search, are used in processing the P-sample and E-sample.) It also questioned the level of synthetic error that may have occurred for the poststrata DSE estimates. (Synthetic error occurs when the people included in a poststratum—who are intended to have the same likelihood of being included in the census or the A.C.E.—are in fact not sufficiently similar in this respect.) The report also considered the late additions to the census and cases of people who required whole-person (or whole-household)