National Academy of Sciences | 150 Year Anniversary

Questions? Call 800-624-6242

| Items in cart [0]

The National Academies Press

HARDBACK
price:$59.00
add to cart

Rights & Permissions

topleft topright

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

Citation Manager

. "Appendix E: A.C.E. Operations." The 2000 Census: Counting Under Adversity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2004.

Please select a format:

BibTeX EndNote RefMan


Page
418
bottomleft bottomright

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

estimates, not only for the total population, but also for minority groups, and the cost of field operations for address listing and subsequent interviewing. In addition, the A.C.E. selection process had to work within the constraints of the design originally developed for integrated coverage measurement (ICM).

E.1.a First-Stage Sampling and Address Listing of Block Clusters

Over 3.7 million block clusters were formed that covered the entire United States, except remote Alaska.2 Each cluster included one census collection block or a group of geographically contiguous blocks, in which the block(s) were expected to be enumerated using the same procedure (e.g., mailout/mailback) and to contain, on average, about 30 housing units on the basis of housing unit counts from an early version of the 2000 Master Address File (MAF). The average cluster size was 1.9 blocks.

Next, clusters were grouped into four sampling strata: small (0–2 housing units), medium (3–79 housing units), large (80 or more housing units), and American Indian reservations (in states with sufficient numbers of American Indians living on reservations). Systematic samples of block clusters were selected from each stratum using equal probabilities, yielding about 29,000 block clusters containing about 2 million housing units, which were then visited by Census Bureau field staff to develop address lists.

The sample at this stage was considerably larger than that needed for the A.C.E. The reason was that the Census Bureau had originally planned to field a P-sample of 750,000 housing units for use in ICM, and there was not time to develop a separate design for the planned A.C.E. size of about 300,000 housing units. So the ICM block cluster sample design was implemented first and then block clusters were subsampled for A.C.E., making use of updated information from the address listing about housing unit counts.3

2  

A.C.E. operations were also conducted in Puerto Rico; the Puerto Rico A.C.E. is not discussed here.

3  

Our panel reviewed this decision and found it satisfactory because the development of direct dual-systems estimates for states was not necessary in the A.C.E. as it would have been under the ICM design (National Research Council, 1999a, reprinted in Appendix A.4.a).

Page
418