Bibliography

Abramson, F. H. (2003, September 17). Special Place/Group Quarters Enumeration. Census 2000 Testing, Experimentation, and Evaluation Program, Topic Report 5. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

Adams, T. S. and E. A. Krejsa (2001). ESCAP II: Results of the Person Followup and Evaluation Followup Forms Review. Executive Steering Committee for A.C.E. Policy II Supporting Report 24. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

Adams, T. S. and X. Liu (2001). ESCAP II: Evaluation of Lack of Balance and Geographic Errors Affecting Person Estimates. Executive Steering Committee for A.C.E. Policy II Supporting Report 2. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

Adlakha, A. L., J. G. Robinson, K. K. West, and A. Bruce (2003, August 18). Assessment of Consistency of Census Data with Demographic Benchmarks at the Subnational Level. Census 2000 Evaluation O.20. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

Alberti, N. (2003, September 25). Data Processing in Census 2000. Census 2000 Testing, Experimentation, and Evaluation Program, Topic Report 7. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

Anderson, M. J. (1988). The American Census: A Social History. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

Anderson, M. J. (2000). Advertising and the census. In M. J. Anderson (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the U.S. Census, pp. 13–14. Washington, DC: CQ Press.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 533
The 2000 Census: Counting Under Adversity Bibliography Abramson, F. H. (2003, September 17). Special Place/Group Quarters Enumeration. Census 2000 Testing, Experimentation, and Evaluation Program, Topic Report 5. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Adams, T. S. and E. A. Krejsa (2001). ESCAP II: Results of the Person Followup and Evaluation Followup Forms Review. Executive Steering Committee for A.C.E. Policy II Supporting Report 24. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Adams, T. S. and X. Liu (2001). ESCAP II: Evaluation of Lack of Balance and Geographic Errors Affecting Person Estimates. Executive Steering Committee for A.C.E. Policy II Supporting Report 2. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Adlakha, A. L., J. G. Robinson, K. K. West, and A. Bruce (2003, August 18). Assessment of Consistency of Census Data with Demographic Benchmarks at the Subnational Level. Census 2000 Evaluation O.20. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Alberti, N. (2003, September 25). Data Processing in Census 2000. Census 2000 Testing, Experimentation, and Evaluation Program, Topic Report 7. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Anderson, M. J. (1988). The American Census: A Social History. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. Anderson, M. J. (2000). Advertising and the census. In M. J. Anderson (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the U.S. Census, pp. 13–14. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

OCR for page 533
The 2000 Census: Counting Under Adversity Anderson, M. J. and S. E. Fienberg (1999). Who Counts? The Politics of Census-Taking in Contemporary America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Anderson, M. J. and S. E. Fienberg (2001). Counting and estimation: Methodology for improving the quality of censuses—the U.S. 2000 census adjustment decision. Technical report, Department of History, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, and Department of Statistics and Center for Automated Learning and Discovery, Carnegie Mellon University. Paper presented at the International Conference on Quality in Official Statistics, Stockholm. Angueira, T. (2003). 2010 census planning, development, and testing: An update on the 2003 and 2004 census tests. Presentation to the Panel on Research on Future Census Methods, September 11, 2003, Washington, DC. Baker, G. E. (1986). Whatever happened to the reapportionment revolution in the United States? In B. Grofman and A. Lijphart (Eds.), Electoral Laws and Their Political Consequences, pp. 257–276. New York: Agathon Press, Inc. Bankier, M. (1999). Experience with the new imputation methodology used in the 1996 Canadian census with extensions for future censuses. Working Paper 24, Conference of European Statisticians, Session on Statistical Data Editing, Rome, Italy, June 2–4, 1999. Bankier, M., P. Mason, and P. Poirier (2002). Imputation of demographic variables from the 2001 Canadian census of population. Working Paper 25, Conference of European Statisticians, Session on Statistical Data Editing, Helsinki, Finland, May 27–29, 2002. Barrett, D. F., M. Beaghen, D. Smith, and J. Burcham (2001). ESCAP II: Census 2000 Housing Unit Coverage Study. Executive Steering Committee for A.C.E. Policy II Supporting Report 17. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Barrett, D. F., M. Beaghen, D. Smith, and J. Burcham (2003, February 21). Census 2000 Housing Unit Coverage Study. Census 2000 Evaluation O.3. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Bateman, D. V. (1991). Post Enumeration Survey Evaluation Project P11: Balancing Error Evaluation. 1990 Coverage Studies and Evaluation Memorandum Series M-2. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

OCR for page 533
The 2000 Census: Counting Under Adversity Bauder, M. and D. Judson (2003). Administrative Records Experiment in 2000 (AREX 2000): Household Level Analysis. Census 2000 Experiment Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Baumgardner, S. (2002, November 26). Analysis of the Primary Selection Algorithm. Census 2000 Evaluation L.3.a (Executive Summary Only). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Baumgardner, S. (2003, September 10). Resolution of Multiple Census Returns Using a Re-interview. Census 2000 Evaluation L.3.b (Executive Summary Only). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Baumgardner, S. K., D. A. Moul, R. A. Pennington, R. I. Piegari, H. F. Stackhouse, K. J. Zajac, N. S. Alberti, J. W. Reichert, and J. B. Treat (2001). Quality of 2000 Census Processes. DSSD Census 2000 Procedures and Operations Memorandum Series B-3. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Beaghen, M., R. Feldpausch, and R. Byrne (2001). ESCAP II: Analysis of Non-Matches and Erroneous Enumerations Using Logistic Regression. Executive Steering Committee for A.C.E. Policy II Supporting Report 19. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Beaghen, M. and R. Sands (2002, December 31). Results from the Imputation of Unresolved Enumeration, Residency, and Match Status. DSSD Revised A.C.E. Estimates Memorandum Series PP-57. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Bean, S. L. (2001). ESCAP II: Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation Matching Error. Executive Steering Committee for A.C.E. Policy II Supporting Report 7. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Bean, S. L. (2002, June 20). Evaluation of Matching Error. Census 2000 Evaluation N.14. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Bean, S. L. and D. M. Bauder (2002, December 31). A.C.E. Revision II Report: Census and Administrative Records Duplication Study. DSSD Revised A.C.E. Estimates Memorandum Series PP-44. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Bell, W. R. (1993). Using information from demographic analysis in postenumeration survey estimation. Journal of the American Statistical Association 88(423), 1106–1118. Bench, K. (2002, August 22). Contamination of Census 2000 Data Collected in Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation Block Clusters. Census 2000 Evaluation N.1. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

OCR for page 533
The 2000 Census: Counting Under Adversity Bentley, M., T. Mattingly, C. Hough, and C. Bennett (2003, April 3). Census Quality Survey to Evaluate Responses to the Census 2000 Question on Race: An Introduction to the Data. Census 2000 Evaluation B.3. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Berkowitz, S. (2001, July 17). Puerto Rico Focus Groups on the Census 2000 Race and Ethnicity Questions. Census 2000 Evaluation B.13. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Berkowitz, S. (2002, July 17). Puerto Rico Focus Groups on Why Households Did Not Mail Back the Census 2000 Questionnaire. Census 2000 Evaluation A.8. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Berning, M. A. (2003). Administrative Records Experiment in 2000 (AREX 2000): Request for Physical Address Evaluation. Census 2000 Experiment Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Berning, M. A. and R. H. Cook (2003). Administrative Records Experiment in 2000 (AREX 2000): Process Evaluation. Census 2000 Experiment Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Binder, D. A. (1996). Comment. Journal of the American Statistical Association 91(434), 510–512. Brinson, A. and C. Fowler (2003, February 19). Assessment Report for Data Capture of Paper Questionnaires. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce. Brownrigg, L. A. (2003, October 16). Ethnographic Social Network Tracing of Highly Mobile People. Census 2000 Evaluation J.2. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Brudvig, L. (2003). Analysis of the Social Security Number Validation Component of the Social Security Number, Privacy Attitudes, and Notification Experiment. Census 2000 Testing, Experimentation, and Evaluation Program Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Bryant, B. E. (2000). Decennial census: 1990 census. In M. J. Anderson (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the U.S. Census, pp. 158–161. Washington, DC: CQ Press. Burcham, J. L. (2002, April 5). Block Canvassing Operation. Census 2000 Evaluation F.5. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Bureau of the Census (1964). Evaluation and Research Program of the U.S. Censuses of Population and Housing, 1960: Accuracy of Data on Population Characteristics as Measured by CPS-Census Match. ER 60–5. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.

OCR for page 533
The 2000 Census: Counting Under Adversity Bureau of the Census (1970). Evaluation and Research Program of the U.S. Censuses of Population and Housing, 1960: Record Check Study of Accuracy of Income Reporting. ER 60–8. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census (1975a). 1970 Census of Population and Housing Evaluation and Research Program: Accuracy of Data for Selected Housing Characteristics as Measured by Reinterviews. PHC(E)-10. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census (1975b). 1970 Census of Population and Housing Evaluation and Research Program: Accuracy of Data for Selected Population Characteristics as Measured by the 1970 CPS-Census Match. PHC(E)-11. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census (1976). Language Minority, Illiteracy, and Voting Data Used in Making Determinations for the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1975 (Public Law 94-73). Current Population Reports, Population Estimates and Projections. Series P-25, Number 627. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census (1982a). The Meaning of Enumeration. 1990 Planning Conference Series, Number 1. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census (1982b). User’s Guide—1980 Census of Population and Housing. Part A, Text. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census (1983a). Census of Population and Housing 1980: Public Use Microdata Samples Technical Documentation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census (1983b). Introduction and Overview of the 1980 Census, Chapter 1. Draft. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census (1984). 1990 census planning. Background paper for the Census Advisory Committee on Population Statistics, Washington, DC. Bureau of the Census (1992). Assessment of Accuracy of Adjusted Versus Unadjusted 1990 Census Base for Use in Intercensal Estimates: Recommendation. Report of the Committee on Adjustment of Postcensal Estimates. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census (1993). 1990 Census of Population and Housing: History—Part A. 1990 CPH-R-2A. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.

OCR for page 533
The 2000 Census: Counting Under Adversity Bureau of the Census (1994, February). Nonresponse Followup Reinterview. 1990 Census of Population and Housing Evaluation and Research Reports: Effectiveness of Quality Assurance. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census (1995a, October). 1990 Census of Population and Housing: History—Part B. 1990 CPH-R-2B. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census (1995b, October). 1990 Census of Population and Housing: History—Part C. 1990 CPH-R-2C. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census (1997). Report to Congress—The Plan for Census 2000. Originally issued July 1997; revised and reissued August 1997. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. Burt, G. and R. Mangaroo (2003, March 28). Nonresponse Followup (NRFU) Enumerator Training. Census 2000 Evaluation H.7. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Butcher, L. and N. Dunton (1999). Uses of Small-Area Poverty Estimates, Final Report. Kansas City, Missouri: Midwest Research Institute. Byrne, R., M. Beaghen, and M. H. Mulry (2002, December 31). Clerical Review of Census Duplicates (CRCD). DSSD Revised A.C.E. Estimates Memorandum Series PP-43. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Cantwell, P. J., D. McGrath, N. Nguyen, and M. F. Zelenak (2001). Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation: Missing Data Results. DSSD Census 2000 Procedures and Operations Memorandum Series B-7. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Carter, N. (2002, September 25). Be Counted Campaign for Census 2000. Census 2000 Evaluation A.3. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Carter, N. and S. Brady (2002, November 14). Date of Reference for Age and Birth Date Used by Respondents of Census 2000. Census 2000 Evaluation H.10. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Caspar, R. A. (2003). Synthesis of Results from the Response Mode and Incentive Experiment. Census 2000 Testing, Experimentation, and Evaluation Program Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Chesnut, J. (2003a, September 30). Study of the U.S. Postal Service Reasons for Undeliverability of Census 2000 Mailout Questionnaires. Census 2000 Evaluation A.6.b. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

OCR for page 533
The 2000 Census: Counting Under Adversity Chesnut, J. (2003b, March 20). Telephone Questionnaire Assistance. Census 2000 Evaluation A.1.a. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Childers, D. (1993). The Impact of Housing Unit Coverage on Person Coverage. Housing Unit Coverage Study Results Memorandum Number 2. Distributed with cover memo from Ruth Ann Killion to Thomas C. Walsh (June 24, 1993). Washington, DC: Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce. Childers, D. R. (2000, January 11). Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation: The Design Document. DSSD Census 2000 Procedures and Operations Memorandum Series S-DT-1. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Childers, D. R., R. L. Byrne, T. S. Adams, and R. Feldpausch (2001). Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation: Person Matching and Follow-up Results. DSSD Census 2000 Procedures and Operations Memorandum Series B-6. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Childers, D. R. and D. A. Fenstermaker (2000). Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation: Overview of Design. DSSD Census 2000 Procedures and Operations Memorandum Series S-DT-2. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Chiu, C. W. F., R. M. Yucel, E. Zanutto, and A. M. Zaslavsky (2001). Using matched substitutes to improve imputations for geographically linked databases. Paper prepared for the August 2001 Joint Statistical Meetings, Indianapolis, IN, and printed in Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section of the American Statistical Association, Alexandria, VA. Choldin, H. (1994). Looking for the Last Percent: The Controversy over Census Undercount. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press. Christenson, M. (2003, July 14). Puerto Rico Census 2000 Responses to the Race and Ethnicity Questions. Census 2000 Evaluation B.12. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Citro, C. F. (2000a). Advisory committees. In M. J. Anderson (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the U.S. Census, pp. 14–18. Washington, DC: CQ Press. Citro, C. F. (2000b). Editing and imputation. In M. J. Anderson (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the U.S. Census, pp. 195–197. Washington, DC: CQ Press. Citro, C. F. (2000c). Enumeration: Special populations. In M. J. Anderson (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the U.S. Census, pp. 201–206. Washington, DC: CQ Press. Citro, C. F. (2000d). Long form. In M. J. Anderson (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the U.S. Census, pp. 273–277. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

OCR for page 533
The 2000 Census: Counting Under Adversity Citro, C. F. (2000e). Population estimates and projections. In M. J. Anderson (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the U.S. Census, pp. 300–303. Washington, DC: CQ Press. Assisted by Meyer Zitter. Clark, J. R. and D. Moul (2003, September 29). Coverage Improvement in Census 2000 Enumeration. Census 2000 Testing, Experimentation, and Evaluation Program, Topic Report 10. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Clark, S. L., J. Iceland, T. Palumbo, K. Posey, and M. Weismantle (2003, September). Comparing Employment, Income, and Poverty: Census 2000 and the Current Population Survey. Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Commerce Secretary’s 2000 Census Advisory Committee (1995, March). Report to Ronald Brown, U.S. Secretary of Commerce. Commerce Secretary’s 2000 Census Advisory Committee (1999, January 22). Final Report to William Daley, U.S. Secretary of Commerce. Conklin, J. (2003, March 12). Evaluation of the Quality of the Data Capture System and the Impact of the Data Capture Mode on the Data Quality. Census 2000 Evaluation K.1.b. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Cresce, A. (2003). Overstatement of More Than One Race in Census 2000. Memorandum dated June 10. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Crowley, M. (2003). Generation X Speaks Out on Civic Engagement and the Decennial Census: An Ethnographic Approach. Census 2000 Ethnographic Study. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Davis, M. and P. Biemer (1991a, July 11). Estimates of P-sample Clerical Matching Error from a Rematching Evaluation. 1990 Coverage Studies and Evaluation Memorandum Series H-2. Washington, DC: Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce. Davis, M. and P. Biemer (1991b, July 11). Measurement of the Census Erroneous Enumerations—Clerical Error Made in the Assignment of Enumeration Status. 1990 Coverage Studies and Evaluation Memorandum Series L-2. Washington, DC: Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce. Davis, P. P. (2001). Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation: Dual System Estimation Results. DSSD Census 2000 Procedures and Operations Memorandum Series B-9. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Dawson, J. A. and D. W. Stoudt (2003, July 15). Automation of Census 2000 Processes. Census 2000 Testing, Experimentation, and Evaluation Program, Topic Report 2. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

OCR for page 533
The 2000 Census: Counting Under Adversity de la Puente, M. (2004, February 5). Census 2000 Ethnographic Studies. Census 2000 Testing, Experimentation, and Evaluation Program, Topic Report 15. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. de la Puente, M. and D. Stemper (2003, September 22). The Enumeration of Colonias in Census 2000: Perspectives of Ethnographers and Census Enumerators. Census 2000 Evaluation J.4. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. del Pinal, J. (2003, September 26). Race and Ethnicity in Census 2000. Census 2000 Testing, Experimentation, and Evaluation Program, Topic Report 9. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Dempster, A. P., N. M. Laird, and D. B. Rubin (1977). Maximum likelihood estimation from incomplete data via the EM algorithm (with discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 39, 1–38. Dillman, D., J. R. Clark, and M. D. Sinclair (1993). The 1992 simplified questionnaire test: Effects of questionnaire length, respondent-friendly design and request for Social Security numbers on completion rates. In Proceedings of the 1993 Bureau of the Census Annual Research Conference, pp. 8–17. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. Dillman, D. A., J. R. Clark, and J. B. Treat (1994). Influence of 13 design factors on completion rates to decennial census questionnaires. Paper presented at the Annual Research Conference of the U.S. Bureau of the Census, Arlington, Va. (March). Dimitri, C. R. (1999, June). Mail Implementation Strategy. Census 2000 Dress Rehearsal Evaluation Memorandum A1a. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Durbin, T. M. and L. P. Whitaker (1991). Congressional and State Reapportionment and Redistricting: A Legal Analysis. Congressional Research Service Report for Congress. 91-292-A. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Edwards, W. S. and M. J. Wilson (2003, September 24). Evaluations of the Census 2000 Partnership and Marketing Program. Census 2000 Testing, Experimentation, and Evaluation Program, Topic Report 6. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Ehrenhalt, A. (1983). Reapportionment and redistricting. In T. E. Mann and N. J. Ornstein (Eds.), The American Elections of 1982, pp. 44–71. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. Eltinge, J. L. (1996). Comment. Journal of the American Statistical Association 91(434), 513–515.

OCR for page 533
The 2000 Census: Counting Under Adversity Ericksen, E. P., L. F. Estrada, J. W. Tukey, and K. M. Wolter (1991). Report on the 1990 Decennial Census and the Post-Enumeration Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. Executive Steering Committee for A.C.E. Policy (2001a). Analysis Plan for Further ESCAP Deliberations Regarding the Adjustment of Census 2000 Data for Future Uses. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Executive Steering Committee for A.C.E. Policy (2001b). Report of the Executive Steering Committee for Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation Policy on Adjustment for Non-Redistricting Uses. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Executive Steering Committee for A.C.E. Policy (2001c). Report: Recommendation Concerning the Methodology to be Used in Producing Tabulations of Population Reported to States and Localities Pursuant to 13 U.S.C. 141(c). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Fairchild, L. (2001). Long Form Direct Variance Estimation Specifications for Census 2000. Working Draft, DSSD Census 2000 Procedures Memorandum Series LL (unnumbered; dated December 21). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Farber, J. (2001a). Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation: Consistency of Post-Stratification Variables. DSSD Census 2000 Procedures and Operations Memorandum Series B-10. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Farber, J. (2001b). Quality Indicators of Census 2000 and the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation. DSSD Census 2000 Procedures and Operations Memorandum Series B-2. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Farley, R. (2001). Identifying with Multiple Races: A Social Movement that Succeeded but Failed? PSC Research Report 01-491. Ann Arbor: Population Studies Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. Fay, R. E. (1992). When are inferences from multiple imputation valid? Paper prepared for the August 1992 Joint Statistical Meetings, Boston, MA, and printed in Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section of the American Statistical Association, Alexandria, VA. Fay, R. E. (1996). Alternative paradigms for the analysis of imputed survey data. Journal of the American Statistical Association 91(434), 490–498. Fay, R. E. (2001, October 26). ESCAP II: Evidence of Additional Erroneous Enumerations from the Person Duplication Study. Executive Steering Committee for A.C.E. Policy II Supporting Report 9. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

OCR for page 533
The 2000 Census: Counting Under Adversity Feindt, P. and R. Byrne (2000, September 21). Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation Survey: Person Interviewing Results (Prototype). DSSD Census 2000 Procedures and Operations Memorandum Series B-5. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Feldpausch, R. (2002). ESCAP II: E-Sample Erroneous Enumerations. Executive Steering Committee for A.C.E. Policy II Supporting Report 5 (revised). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Fellegi, I. P. and D. Holt (1976). A systematic approach to automatic edit and imputation. Journal of the American Statistical Association 71(353), 17–35. Fenstermaker, D. (2002, December 31). A.C.E. Revision II: Summary of Estimated Net Coverage. DSSD Revised A.C.E. Estimates Memorandum Series PP-54. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Fienberg, S. E. (2000). Capture-recapture methods. In M. J. Anderson (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the U.S. Census, pp. 49–55. Washington, DC: CQ Press. Gaines, L. M., L. Gage, and J. J. Salvo (2000). State and local governments: use of census data. In M. J. Anderson (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the U.S. Census, pp. 337–340. Washington, DC: CQ Press. Gerber, E. (2003). Privacy Schemas and Data Collection: An Ethnographic Account. Census 2000 Ethnographic Study. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Gerber, E., A. Dajani, and M. A. Scaggs (2002). An Experiment to Improve Coverage Through Revised Roster Instructions. Census 2000 Alternative Questionnaire Experiment Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Green, A., R. Watson, D. Smith, D. Barrett, R. Byrne, and S. Spratt (2003). Evaluation of Housing Unit Field Operations and Instruments for the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation. Census 2000 Evaluation N.19. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Green, S. and C. Rothhaas (2002, December 10). Evaluation of the Block Splitting Operation for Tabulation Purposes. Census 2000 Evaluation F.16. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Griffin, D. H. and S. M. Obenski (2001, September 28). A Demonstration of the Operational Feasibility of the American Community Survey. Census 2000 Testing, Experimentation, and Evaluation Program Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

OCR for page 533
The 2000 Census: Counting Under Adversity Robinson, J. G., B. Ahmed, P. Das Gupta, and K. A. Woodrow (1993). Estimation of population coverage in the 1990 United States census based on demographic analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association 88(423), 1061–1071. Robinson, J. G. and G. S. Wolfgang (2002, December 31). Comparison of A.C.E. Revision II Population Coverage Results with HUCS Housing Unit Coverage Results. DSSD Revised A.C.E. Estimates Memorandum Series PP-50. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Rochester Institute of Technology Research Corporation (2002, September 20). DCS 2000 Data Quality, v.2.1 Final. Rochester, NY: Rochester Institute of Technology Research Corporation. Prepared for the U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. Rosenthal, M. (2002a, December 10). Update/Enumerate. Census 2000 Evaluation F.12. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Rosenthal, M. (2002b, October 3). Urban Update/Leave. Census 2000 Evaluation F.11. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Rosenthal, M. (2003a, October 24). DCS 2000 Data Capture Audit Resolution Process. Census 2000 Evaluation K.1.a. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Rosenthal, M. (2003b, June 30). Operational Analysis of the Decennial Response File Linking and Setting of Housing Unit Status and Expected Household Size. Census 2000 Evaluation L.2. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Rubin, D. B. (1996). Multiple imputation after 18+ years (with discussion). Journal of the American Statistical Association 91(434), 473–489. Ruggles, S. (2000). IPUMS. In M. J. Anderson (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the U.S. Census, pp. 264–267. Washington, DC: CQ Press. Ruhnke, M. C. (2002, January 30). The Address Listing Operation and Its Impact on the Master Address File. Census 2000 Evaluation F.2. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Ruhnke, M. C. (2003, August 19). An Assessment of Addresses on the Master Address File “Missing” in the Census or Geocoded to the Wrong Collection Block. Census 2000 Evaluation F.15. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Salvo, J. J. (2000). Data capture. In M. J. Anderson (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the U.S. Census, pp. 105–108. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

OCR for page 533
The 2000 Census: Counting Under Adversity Schafer, J. L. (1997). Analysis of Incomplete Multivariate Data. New York: Chapman and Hall. Schindler, E. (2000, January 12). Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation Survey: Post-stratification Preliminary Research Results. DSSD Census 2000 Procedures and Operations Memorandum Series Q-23. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Schindler, E. (2001). Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation (A.C.E.) Survey—Census Imputations by Post-stratum. DSSD Census 2000 Procedures and Operations Memorandum Series Q-64. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Schindler, E. (2003, April 9). Adjusted Data for States, Counties, and Places. DSSD Revised A.C.E. Estimates Memorandum Series PP-60. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Schneider, P. (2003, September 29). Content and Data Quality in Census 2000. Census 2000 Testing, Experimentation, and Evaluation Program, Topic Report 12. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Schneider, P. (2004, January 22). Content and Data Quality in Census 2000. Census 2000 Testing, Experimentation, and Evaluation Program, Topic Report 12 (revised). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Schneider, S., D. Cantor, P. Segel, C. Arieira, and L. Nguyen (2002). Response Mode and Incentive Experiment for Census 2000. Census 2000 Testing, Experimentation, and Evaluation Program Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Schwede, L. (2003, August 27). Complex Households and Relationships in the Decennial Census and in Ethnographic Studies of Six Race/Ethnic Groups. Census 2000 Testing, Experimentation, and Evaluation Program Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Sheppard, D. (2003, July 29). Coverage Edit Followup. Census 2000 Evaluation I.1. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Siegel, P. M. (1993). The Impact of Content on Census Coverage. Washington, DC: Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce. Singer, E. (2003, June 20). Privacy Research in Census 2000. Census 2000 Testing, Experimentation, and Evaluation Program, Topic Report 1. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

OCR for page 533
The 2000 Census: Counting Under Adversity Singer, E., J. Van Hoewyk, R. Tourangeau, D. Steiger, M. Montgomery, and R. Montgomery (2001). Final Report on the 1999–2000 Surveys of Privacy Attitudes. Census 2000 Testing, Experimentation, and Evaluation Program Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Singer, P. and S. R. Ennis (2002, December 13). Census 2000 Content Reinterview Survey: Accuracy of Data for Selected Population and Housing Characteristics as Measured by Reinterview. Census 2000 Evaluation B.5. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Singer, P. and S. R. Ennis (2003, September 24). Census 2000 Content Reinterview Survey: Accuracy of Data for Selected Population and Housing Characteristics as Measured by Reinterview. Census 2000 Evaluation B.5 (revised and final). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Smith, D., D. F. Barrett, and M. Beaghen (2003, October 17). Analysis of Deleted and Added Housing Units in Census 2000 Measured by the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation. Census 2000 Evaluation O.19. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Smith, D. and D. Whitford (2003). Census unduplication research plan for 2010. Paper prepared for the August 2003 Joint Statistical Meetings, San Francisco, CA. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. Smith, D. R. and J. Jones (2003, September 22). Use of Non-English Questionnaires and Guides in the Census 2000 Language Program. Census 2000 Evaluation A.4. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Spar, E. J. (2000). Private sector. In M. J. Anderson (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the U.S. Census, pp. 309–311. Washington, DC: CQ Press. Stackhouse, H. F. and S. Brady (2003a, January 30). Census 2000 Mail Response Rates. Census 2000 Evaluation A.7.a. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Stackhouse, H. F. and S. Brady (2003b, January 30). Census 2000 Mail Return Rates. Census 2000 Evaluation A.7.b. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Stapleton, C. and J. Irwin (2002, April 15). Census 2000 Internet Web Site and Questionnaire Customer Satisfaction Surveys. Census 2000 Evaluation A.2.c. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Starsinic, M. D., C. D. Stissel, and M. E. Asiala (2001). Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation: Variance Estimates by Size of Geographic Area. DSSD Census 2000 Procedures and Operations Memorandum Series B-11. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

OCR for page 533
The 2000 Census: Counting Under Adversity Steel, P. and L. Zayatz (2003, April 15). The Effects of the Disclosure Limitation Procedure on Census 2000 Tabular Data Products. Census 2000 Evaluation C.1. (Abridged). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Stevens, N. (2002, January 30). Telephone Questionnaire Assistance Customer Satisfaction Survey. Census 2000 Evaluation A.1.b. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Stevens, N. (2003, May 27). Evaluation of the Facility Questionnaire (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing and Personal Visit). Census 2000 Evaluation E.1.b. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Stiers, G. (2000, September 26). Demographic Full Count Report. DSSD Census 2000 Procedures and Operations Memorandum Series B-16. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Stiller, J. and D. R. Dalzell (2003). Hot-deck imputation with SAS™ arrays and macros for large surveys. Paper prepared for the Joint Statistical Meetings, San Francisco, CA. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. Tenebaum, M. (2001, July 24). Assessment of Field Verification. Census 2000 Evaluation H.2. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Thernstrom, A. M. (1979). The odd evolution of the Voting Rights Act. The Public Interest 55(Spring), 49–76. Thibaudeau, Y. (1998). Model Explicit Item Imputation for Demographic Categories for Census 2000. Statistical Research Division Research Report RR-99-02. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Thompson, J. H. (1992). CAPE Processing Results. Washington, DC: Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce. Thompson, J. H. (2000). Organization and administration of the census. In M. J. Anderson (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the U.S. Census, pp. 295–299. Washington, DC: CQ Press. Thompson, J. H., P. J. Waite, and R. E. Fay (2001). Basis of “Revised Early Approximation” of Undercounts Released Oct. 17, 2001. Executive Steering Committee for A.C.E. Policy II Supporting Report 9a. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Titan Corporation (2003, July 22). Census 2000 Data Capture. Census 2000 Testing, Experimentation, and Evaluation Program, Topic Report 3. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

OCR for page 533
The 2000 Census: Counting Under Adversity Titan Systems Corporation (2001a, December 28). Coverage Edit Followup System Requirements Study. Census 2000 Evaluation R.1.b. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Titan Systems Corporation (2001b, December 28). Internet Data Collection System Requirements Study. Census 2000 Evaluation R.1.d. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Titan Systems Corporation (2001c, December 28). Internet Questionnaire Assistance System Requirements Study. Census 2000 Evaluation R.1.c. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Titan Systems Corporation (2001d, December 28). Telephone Questionnaire Assistance System Requirements Study. Census 2000 Evaluation R.1.a. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Titan Systems Corporation (2002a, May 10). Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation 2000 System Requirements Study. Census 2000 Evaluation R.2.c. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Titan Systems Corporation (2002b, June 6). American FactFinder System Requirements Study. Census 2000 Evaluation R.3.b. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Titan Systems Corporation (2002c, August 23). Census 2000 Data Capture System Requirements Study. Census 2000 Evaluation R.3.d. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Titan Systems Corporation (2002d, June 6). Laptop Computers for Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation System Requirements Study. Census 2000 Evaluation R.2.b. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Titan Systems Corporation (2002e, July 22). Management Information System 2000 System Requirements Study. Census 2000 Evaluation R.3.c. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Titan Systems Corporation (2002f, April 17). Matching Review and Coding System for Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation (Housing Unit, Person and Final Housing Unit) System Requirements Study. Census 2000 Evaluation R.2.d. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Titan Systems Corporation (2002g, February 28). Operations Control System 2000 System Requirements Study. Census 2000 Evaluation R.2.a. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

OCR for page 533
The 2000 Census: Counting Under Adversity Titan Systems Corporation (2002h, June 6). Pre-Appointment Management System/Automated Decennial Administrative Management System System Requirements Study. Census 2000 Evaluation R.3.a. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Titan Systems Corporation (2003, January 14). Operational Requirements Study: The Beta Site Systems Testing & Management Facility. Census 2000 Evaluation L.5. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Treat, J. B. (1993). 1993 National Census Test Appeals and Long-Form Experiment, Long-Form Component, Final Report. Washington, DC: Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce. Treat, J. B. (2003, September 30). Response Rates and Behavior Analysis. Census 2000 Testing, Experimentation, and Evaluation Program, Topic Report 11. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Trentham, S. and L. Larwood (2003). Synthesis of Results from the Social Security Number, Privacy Attitudes, and Notification Experiment. Census 2000 Testing, Experimentation, and Evaluation Program Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Tucker, C. and B. Kojetin (1996, September). Testing racial and ethnic origin questions in the CPS supplement. Monthly Labor Review, 3–7. U.S. Census Bureau (1998, November). Census 2000 Operational Plan. Revised. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Census Bureau (1999a, December). 1990 Data for Census 2000 Planning [Data CD]. U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Census Bureau (1999b, January). Census 2000 Operational Plan Using Traditional Census-Taking Methods. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Census Bureau (2001a). 2000 Census Household Education Edit. Unnumbered specifications document shared with panel (dated May). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. U.S. Census Bureau (2001b, February 16). P-Sample and E-Sample Dual-System Estimation Output Files. DSSD Census 2000 Procedures and Operations Memorandum Series Q-38. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. U.S. Census Bureau (2002a). Specifications for Edit and Allocation of Housing Tenure. Unnumbered specifications document shared with panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

OCR for page 533
The 2000 Census: Counting Under Adversity U.S. Census Bureau (2002b). Specifications for Joint Economic Edit, 2000 Census Long Forms. Unnumbered specifications document shared with panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. U.S. Census Bureau (2003a, February). Census 2000 Testing, Experimentation, and Evaluation Program Summary Documentation: Program Modifications Since May 2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. U.S. Census Bureau (2003b, March 12). Decision on Intercensal Population Estimates. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. U.S. Census Bureau (2003c, March 12). Technical Assessment of A.C.E. Revision II. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. U.S. Census Bureau (2003d). Technical Documentation, Summary File 3, 2000 Census of Population and Housing. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. U.S. Census Monitoring Board Congressional Members (1999, September 30). Unkept Promise: Statistical Adjustment Fails to Eliminate Undercounts, as Revealed by Evaluation of Severely Undercounted Blocks from the 1990 Census Plan. Suitland, MD: U.S. Census Monitoring Board. U.S. Census Monitoring Board Congressional Members (2001, May 23). A Guide to Statistical Adjustment: How It Really Works. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Monitoring Board. U.S. Census Monitoring Board Presidential Members (2001a, September). Final Report to Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Monitoring Board. U.S. Census Monitoring Board Presidential Members (2001b, April). Report to Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Monitoring Board. U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Inspector General (1997). Bureau of the Census: Headquarters Information Processing Systems for the 2000 Decennial Census Require Technical and Management Plans and Procedures. OSE-10034-8-0001. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. General Accounting Office (1992). Decennial Census: 1990 Results Show Need for Fundamental Reform.GAO/GGD-92-94. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. General Accounting Office (1997, February). High Risk Series: Quick Reference Guide.GAO/HR-97-2. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. General Accounting Office (1999a, September). 2000 Census: Analysis of Fiscal Year 2000 Amended Budget Request. Report GAO/AIMD/GGD-99-291. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

OCR for page 533
The 2000 Census: Counting Under Adversity U.S. General Accounting Office (1999b). Formula Grants: Effects of the Adjusted Population Counts on Federal Funding to States.GAO/HEHS-99-69. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. General Accounting Office (2000a, October). 2000 Census: Headquarters Processing System Status and Risks. GAO-01-1. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. General Accounting Office (2000b, February). 2000 Census: New Data Capture System Progress and Risks.GAO/AIMD-00-61. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. General Accounting Office (2000c, May). 2000 Census: Status of Nonresponse Follow-up and Key Operations.GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-00-164. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. General Accounting Office (2000d, September). 2000 Census: Update on Data Capture Operations and System.GAO/AIMD-00-324R. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. General Accounting Office (2001a, August). 2000 Census: Review of Partnership Program Highlights Best Practices for Future Operations. Report GAO-01-579. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. General Accounting Office (2001b, December). 2000 Census: Significant Increase in Cost Per Housing Unit Compared to 1990 Census. Report GAO-02-31. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. General Accounting Office (2002a, February). 2000 Census: Best Practices and Lessons Learned for More Cost-Effective Nonresponse Follow-up. GAO-02-196. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. General Accounting Office (2002b). 2000 Census: Complete Costs of Coverage Evaluation Programs Are Not Available. GAO-03-41. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. General Accounting Office (2002c). 2000 Census: Lessons Learned for Planning a More Cost-Effective 2010 Census. GAO-03-40. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. General Accounting Office (2003a). 2000 Census: Coverage Measurement Programs’ Results, Costs, and Lessons Learned. GAO-03-287. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. General Accounting Office (2003b). Decennial Census: Methods for Collecting and Reporting Data on the Homeless and Others without Conventional Housing Need Refinement. GAO-03-227. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

OCR for page 533
The 2000 Census: Counting Under Adversity Viator, M. A. and N. Alberti (2003, February 20). Evaluation of Nonresponse Followup—Whole Household Usual Home Elsewhere Probe. Census 2000 Evaluation I.2. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Vitrano, F., J. Treat, and R. Pennington (2003a, November 4). Address List Development in Census 2000. Census 2000 Testing, Experimentation, and Evaluation Program, Topic Report 8 (revised). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Vitrano, F., J. Treat, and R. Pennington (2003b, September 26). Address List Development in Census 2000. Census 2000 Testing, Experimentation, and Evaluation Program, Topic Report 8. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Waite, P. J., S. M. Obenski, and L. E. Buckley (2001, August). 2010 census planning: The strategy. Paper prepared for the Joint Statistical Meetings, Atlanta, GA. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. Waters, M. C. (1990). Ethnic Options: Choosing Identities in America. Berkeley: University of California Press. West, K. (1991, July). 1990 Post-Enumeration Survey Evaluation Project P9a: Accurate Measurement of Census Erroneous Enumerations—Evaluation Followup. 1990 Coverage Studies and Evaluation Memorandum Series K-2. Washington, DC: Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce. West, K. K. and J. G. Robinson (2001, May). The Use of Demographic Benchmarks to Ensure Census Data Quality. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Westat (2002a, June 7). Census 2000 Staffing Programs, Pay Component. Census 2000 Evaluation G.1. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Westat (2002b, June 7). Census 2000 Staffing Programs, Recruiting Component. Census 2000 Evaluation G.1. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Westat (2002c, May 21). Report of Survey of Partners. Census 2000 Evaluation D.3. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Whitworth, E. (2002, August 14). Internet Data Collection. Census 2000 Evaluation A.2.b. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Wolfgang, G., T. S. Adams, P. Davis, X. Liu, and P. Stallone (2001). ESCAP II: P-Sample Nonmatch Analysis. Executive Steering Committee for A.C.E. Policy II Supporting Report 18 (revised). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

OCR for page 533
The 2000 Census: Counting Under Adversity Wolfgang, G., R. Byrne, and S. Spratt (2003, March 19). Analysis of Proxy Data in the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation. Census 2000 Evaluation O.5. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Wolfgang, G., P. Stallone, and T. S. Adams (2002, September 5). Targeted Extended Search Analysis. Census 2000 Evaluation N.17. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Wolter, K., B. Calder, E. Malthouse, S. Murphy, S. Pedlow, and J. Porras (2002, July 17). Partnership and Marketing Program Evaluation. Census 2000 Evaluation D.1. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Working Group on LUCA (2001). Assessment of the 2000 Census LUCA Program. Washington, DC: Committee on National Statistics. Wright, T. (2000). Sampling for follow-up of nonresponding households. In M. J. Anderson (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the U.S. Census, pp. 325–327. Washington, DC: CQ Press. Zajac, K. J. (2002, May 23). List/Enumerate. Census 2000 Evaluation F.13. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Zajac, K. J. (2003, September 25). Analysis of Item Imputation Rates for the 100 Percent Person and Housing Unit Data Items from Census 2000. Census 2000 Evaluation B.1.a. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Zhao, Z. (2003). Analysis of the Dual System Estimate in the 2000 Census. Ph. D. thesis, Department of Statistics, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

OCR for page 533
The 2000 Census: Counting Under Adversity This page intentionally left blank.