evaluation program “was refined and priorities reassessed due to resource constraints at the Census Bureau” (U.S. Census Bureau, 2003d). In an “[attempt] to obtain the best balance of resources” between “completing and releasing Census 2000 data products” and “conducting key Census 2000 evaluations” (U.S. Census Bureau, 2003d), the Census Bureau ultimately reduced the list of studies from 149 to a still-formidable 91. In addition, a series of 15 topic reports was developed based on groupings of evaluation reports; the Bureau released the individual evaluation reports only after the relevant topic report was publicly released.

In this chapter, we discuss suggestions for developing the evaluation program for the 2010 census. In Section 8-A, we outline major challenges that we perceive in defining evaluation studies for the 2010 census and, more broadly, redefining the research and evaluation program of the Census Bureau. In Section 8-B, we describe the Master Trace Sample, an evaluation tool that we—like other National Research Council panels—believe may be particularly critical to learning about census operations and guiding future practice.

The staff of both our panel and the Panel to Review the 2000 Census received access to the Census Bureau’s PRED-series evaluations and topic reports on an advance release basis, for which we thank the Census Bureau (the General Accounting Office, Department of Commerce Inspector General, and Congressional staff received the evaluation reports on the same basis). While our arguments in this report reflect observations from the evaluation reports, we do not here attempt a comprehensive review of the entire slate of Census Bureau 2000 census evaluations. This decision reflects a change in the panel’s charge described in Chapter 1 to a more forward-looking study of the developing plans for the 2010 census.

Of the Census Bureau’s 2000 census PRED-series evaluations, the Panel to Review the 2000 Census commented (National Research Council, 2004:Sec. 9–B):