Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges

Panel on Research on Future Census Methods

Daniel L. Cork, Michael L. Cohen, and Benjamin F. King, Editors

Committee on National Statistics

Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu



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 R1
Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges Panel on Research on Future Census Methods Daniel L. Cork, Michael L. Cohen, and Benjamin F. King, Editors Committee on National Statistics Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu

OCR for page R1
Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. The project that is the subject of this report was supported by contract no. 50-YABC-8-66016 between the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Census Bureau. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number 0-309-09189-6 (Book) International Standard Book Number 0-309-53146-2 (PDF) Library of Congress Control Number 2004103813 Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20001; (202) 334-3096; Internet, http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2004 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Suggested citation: National Research Council (2004). Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges. Panel on Research on Future Census Methods. Daniel L. Cork, Michael L. Cohen, and Benjamin F. King, eds. Committee on National Statistics, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

OCR for page R1
Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1
Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges This page intentionally left blank.

OCR for page R1
Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges PANEL ON RESEARCH ON FUTURE CENSUS METHODS BENJAMIN F. KING (Chair), Delray Beach, Florida DAVID A. BINDER, Methodology Branch, Statistics Canada, Ottawa MICK P. COUPER, Survey Research Center, University of Michigan, and Joint Program in Survey Methodology, University of Maryland C.A. IRVINE, San Diego, California WILLIAM KALSBEEK,* Department of Biostatistics, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill SALLIE KELLER-MCNULTY, Statistical Sciences Group, Los Alamos National Laboratories, Los Alamos, New Mexico GEORGE T. LIGLER, Potomac, Maryland MICHAEL M. MEYER, Intelligent Results, Inc., Seattle, Washington DARYL PREGIBON,** Google, New York City KEITH F. RUST, Westat, Inc., Rockville, Maryland JOSEPH J. SALVO, Population Division, Department of City Planning, New York City JOSEPH L. SCHAFER, Department of Statistics, Pennsylvania State University ALLEN L. SCHIRM, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., Washington, DC JOSEPH H. SEDRANSK, Department of Statistics, Case Western Reserve University C. MATTHEW SNIPP, Department of Sociology, Stanford University DONALD YLVISAKER, Department of Statistics, University of California, Los Angeles ALAN M. ZASLAVSKY, Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School MICHAEL L. COHEN, Study Director DANIEL L. CORK, Study Director SHOREH ELHAMI, Consultant AGNES E. GASKIN, Senior Project Assistant *   Served until March 2002 **   Served until March 2001

OCR for page R1
Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL STATISTICS 2004 JOHN E. ROLPH (Chair), Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California JOSEPH G. ALTONJI, Department of Economics, Yale University ROBERT M. BELL, AT&T Labs—Research, Florham Park, New Jersey LAWRENCE D. BROWN, Department of Statistics, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania ROBERT M. GROVES, Survey Research Center, University of Michigan, and Joint Program in Survey Methodology, University of Maryland JOHN C. HALTIWANGER, Department of Economics, University of Maryland PAUL W. HOLLAND, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey JOEL L. HOROWITZ, Department of Economics, Northwestern University WILLIAM KALSBEEK, Department of Biostatistics, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill ARLEEN LEIBOWITZ, School of Public Policy and Social Research, University of California, Los Angeles VIJAYAN NAIR, Department of Statistics and Department of Industrial and Operations Engineering, University of Michigan DARYL PREGIBON, Google, New York City KENNETH PREWITT, School of Public Affairs, Columbia University NORA CATE SCHAEFFER, Department of Sociology, University of Wisconsin, Madison JAMES F. HINCHMAN, Acting Director CONSTANCE F. CITRO, Acting Chief of Staff

OCR for page R1
Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges Acknowledgments THE PANEL ON RESEARCH ON FUTURE CENSUS METHODS of the Committee on National Statistics is pleased to submit this final report and wishes to thank the many people who have contributed to our work over the panel’s lifetime. We thank the staff of the U.S. Census Bureau, under the leadership of director C. Louis Kincannon, deputy director Hermann Habermann, former director Kenneth Prewitt, and former acting director William Barron, for their interactions with the panel. In particular, we appreciate the efforts of Preston Jay Waite, associate director for decennial census. Rajendra Singh, the panel’s lead liaison with the Census Bureau, and Philip Gbur provided useful assistance. In plenary sessions and in smaller working group activities, the panel has also benefited from its interaction with other talented members of the Census Bureau staff, including Teresa Angueira, Andrea Brinson, Jon Clark, Dave Galdi, Nancy Gordon, Edison Gore, Joan Hill, Howard Hogan, Arnold Jackson, Dean Judson, Ruth Ann Killion, Joe Knott, Donna Kostanich, Juanita Lott, Robert Marx, Fay Nash, Alfredo Navarro, Sally Obenski, Ed Pike, Linda Pike, Jim Treat, Alan Tupek, Carol Van Horn, Frank Vitrano, and Tracy Wessler. The tragic death of Charles H. “Chip” Alexander, Jr., in early September 2002 was an incalculable loss for the entire research community surrounding the decennial census and its related programs. The chief statistical methodologist for the American Community Survey (ACS), Chip was also the panel’s designated

OCR for page R1
Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges liaison on ACS matters. One true pleasure of service on this panel was the opportunity for interaction with someone of Chip’s great knowledge and good humor, and we join his friends and colleagues in mourning his loss. Our panel colleague Joseph Salvo, of the New York City Department of City Planning, ably chaired a working group to evaluate the Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) program from the local government perspective. Jointly sponsored by this panel and our sister panel, the Panel to Review the 2000 Census, LUCA working group members drew from their firsthand expertise in documenting their LUCA experience in case study form. We thank the members of this group—Shoreh Elhami, Abby Hughes, Terry Jackson, Tim Koss, and Harry Wolfe—and working group consultant Patricia Becker for their efforts, a solid reference work for our panel and the entire research community. In particular, we have benefited greatly from the continuing consultation of LUCA working group member Shoreh Elhami, of the Delaware County (Ohio) Auditor’s Office. A current member of the National Research Council’s Mapping Science Committee, her expertise on census and geography matters from the local government perspective has enriched our discussions of the Census Bureau’s plans to modernize their geographic resources. In April 2001 the panel opened its first examination of the proposed MAF/TIGER Enhancements Program by inviting a distinguished set of discussants to share their opinions on the proposed plans. In addition to Shoreh Elhami, this roster of discussants included Rick Ayers (Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc.), Donald Cooke (Geographic Data Technology, Inc.), Michel Lettre (State of Maryland), and Sarah Nusser (Department of Statistics, Iowa State University). We thank them for their time and their talents. At the request of the Census Bureau, panel staff organized a meeting on September 10, 2003, dealing specifically with the Census Bureau’s plans to redesign the database structure for its geographic resources (Master Address File and TIGER geographic database). Conducted by the Census Bureau, the meeting supplemented expertise on the panel with additional experts in computer science, software engineering, and geogra-

OCR for page R1
Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges phy. Panel members Al Irvine and Mike Meyer participated in the meeting; we thank invitees Michael Goodchild (University of California, Santa Barbara), Les Miller (Iowa State University and American Statistical Association/National Science Foundation Census Fellow), Jesse Poore (University of Tennessee), and Allan Wilks (AT&T Laboratories–Research) for their participation and discussion. We are grateful to our colleagues on the companion Panel to Review the 2000 Census and to its chair, Janet Norwood, for their assistance and contributions over the course of the panel’s study. Members of our panel joined members and staff of the Norwood panel to visit local and regional census offices during the 2000 census. Since those early days, both panels have been continually updated on each other’s progress. In particular, the Norwood panel’s detailed discussion of the 2000 Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation and the possible statistical adjustment of the 2000 census figures has been most helpful to us in suggesting priorities for coverage measurement in 2010. Over the years, the panel has greatly benefited from good relations and insightful interaction with the broader census community. Terri Ann Lowenthal’s “Census 2000 News Briefs” have been a most helpful resource and an important communications channel, and we appreciate her efforts. We have learned much from our discussions with relevant staff of the U.S. House Subcommittee on the Census of the Committee on Government Reform (and its successor subcommittees with census oversight authority), particularly David McMillen and former subcommittee staffer Michael Miguel. We have appreciated our interaction with census-related staff of the U.S. General Accounting Office, including Robert Parker and Ty Mitchell. We also thank Ed Spar of the Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics and Susan Schechter and Katherine Wallman of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget for their participation in panel meetings. Logistical arrangements for panel activities were made with great skill by Agnes Gaskin, senior project assistant. Research assistant Marisa Gerstein deserves thanks for her help with maintaining an archive of materials related to both this panel and the Panel to Review the 2000 Census. Former CNSTAT staff mem-

OCR for page R1
Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges ber Carrie Muntean, now stationed with the U.S. Foreign Service, did exemplary work for both panels and, in particular, with the LUCA working group. CNSTAT consultant Meyer Zitter’s enthusiasm in collecting information for both panels is greatly appreciated. Cameron Fletcher, associate editor, and Christine McShane, senior editor of the reports office of the Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, contributed to this report with fine technical editing. Finally, virtually all of the activities of the Committee on National Statistics benefit greatly from the involvement and advice of Constance Citro, senior program officer. Given her role as study director of the Panel to Review the 2000 Census, we have drawn quite heavily on her wisdom and benefited from her contributions. Finally, I represent the whole panel in expressing our gratitude to Daniel Cork and to Michael Cohen, the codirectors of this study, for their invaluable assistance in all aspects of our work. Neither this report nor the interim and letter reports that have preceded it would have been possible without their excellent liaison activities with the Census Bureau, their able handling of the logistics of our meetings, their up-to-date reporting to distant panel members of all developments in the Census Bureau’s planning for 2010, and their translation into readable prose of our reactions to and recommendations for the process as it has unfolded. Personally, it has been a great pleasure to work with them. This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the Report Review Committee of the National Research Council (NRC). The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making the published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We thank the following individuals for their participation in the review of this report: Barbara A. Bailar, statistical consultant, Washington, DC; Barbara Everitt Bryant, University of

OCR for page R1
Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges Michigan Business School; Don A. Dillman, Departments of Sociology and Community Rural Sociology and Social Economic Sciences Research Center, Washington State University; Michael Hout, Department of Sociology, University of California, Berkeley; Janet Norwood, consultant, Chevy Chase, MD; and Halliman H. Winsborough, Department of Sociology and Center for Demography and Ecology, University of Wisconsin–Madison. Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of the report was overseen by Robert Hauser, Center for Demography, University of Wisconsin–Madison. Appointed by the National Research Council, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of the report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring panel and the institution. Benjamin F. King, Chair Panel on Research on Future Census Methods

OCR for page R1
Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges This page intentionally left blank.

OCR for page R1
Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations   xix Executive Summary   1 I    Background and General Planning   15 1   The Panel on Research on Future Census Methods   17     1–A   Charge and Operations of the Panel   17     1–B   Previous Reports of the Panel   20     1–C   Overview of this Report   20 2   The General Plan for the 2010 Census   23     2–A   Basic Steps in the Decennial Census Process   24     2–A.1   Preparation   24     Box 2.1:   Basic Steps in Conducting the Decennial Census   25     Box 2.2:   Organization of the Census Bureau   26     2–A.2   Taking the Count   28     2–A.3   Data Processing   29     2–A.4   Research   31     2–B   Planning and Conducting the 2000 Census   32     2–C   The “Three-Legged Stool” Approach to the 2010 Census   37

OCR for page R1
Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges     2–C.1   Relation of the 2010 Plan to Basic Census Processes   39     2–C.2   Relation of the 2010 Plan to the 2000 Census   40     2–C.3   Planning Milestones of the 2010 Census   41     2–C.4   Status of the 2010 Census Plan   42     Table 2-1:   Planned Testing and Development Cycle for the 2010 Decennial Census, Assuming a Short-Form-Only Census   43     2–D   Reengineering The 2010 Census: A Process At Risk   44     Table 2-2:   Census Bureau Listing of Perceived Risks in 2010 Census Planning   47     2–D.1   Specific Risk Areas   48     2–D.2   Mitigating the Risks   53 II    Issues of Census Design   55 3   Modernizing Geographic Resources   57     3–A   Development and Current State of the MAF and TIGER   59     3–A.1   The Master Address File   59     Box 3.1:   Results of LUCA Working Group Study   64     3–A.2   The TIGER Database   66     3–B   The MAF/TIGER Enhancements Program   71     3–B.1   Objective One: Address/Street Location Accuracy   72     3–B.2   Objective Two: Modern Processing Environment   75     3–B.3   Objective Three: Geographic Partnerships   76     3–B.4   Objective Four: Community Address Updating System   76     3–B.5   Objective Five: Evaluation and Quality Metrics   77     3–B.6   Update on Enhancements Program Progress   78     3–C   Assessment of Geographic Modernization Efforts   79     3–C.1   Locational Accuracy of TIGER   79

OCR for page R1
Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges     3–C.2   Balance of the MAF/TIGER Enhancements Program   83     3–D   Weakness: Enhancing the MAF   84     3–D.1   Current Plans for MAF Updates for 2010   84     3–D.2   Block Canvassing   87     3–D.3   Conclusions   88     3–E   Recommendations   90     3–E.1   Plan MAF Improvements Independent of MAF/TIGER Enhancements   90     3–E.2   Coordinate Responsibility for the MAF   92     3–E.3   Improve Research on the Delivery Sequence File   93     3–E.4   Define the Role of the Community Address Updating System   93     3–E.5   Plan Local Geographic Partnerships and Implement Early   94     3–E.6   Justify the Complete Block Canvass   97     3–E.7   Exploit 2000 MAF Data, and Redesign MAF for Evaluation in 2010   99 4   American Community Survey   103     4–A   Background and Current Plans   105     4–A.1   Test Sites and the Census 2000 Supplementary Survey   105     4–A.2   Current ACS Implementation Plans   106     4–B   Assessing the ACS   108     4–C   Estimation Using the ACS   109     4–C.1   Adequacy of Moving Averages as Point Estimates   109     4–C.2   Comparing ACS/C2SS to the Census Long Form   111     4–D   Quality of ACS Estimates   112     4–D.1   Estimating Nonresponse   113     Table 4-1:   Imputation Rates for Selected Long-Form Items, 2000 Long-Form Sample and Census 2000 Supplemental Survey, by Type of Response, Household Population (weighted)   116     4–D.2   Quality of Imputed Responses   117     4–D.3   Measurement Error   118

OCR for page R1
Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges     4–E   Summary and Assessment   119     4–E.1   Benefits and Costs   119     4–E.2   ACS Funding   125     4–E.3   Contingency Planning   127     4–F   Topics for Further Research and Design Consideration   128     4–F.1   Group Quarters   128     4–F.2   Voluntary versus Mandatory Response   129     4–F.3   ACS as Both a Census Process and a Federal Survey   130     4–F.4   Revisiting Sampling Strategies   132     4–F.5   Interaction with Intercensal Population Estimates and Demographic Analysis Programs   134     4–F.6   Research on General Estimation Issues   136 5   Enumeration and Data-Processing Methods   139     5–A   Portable Computing Devices   140     5–A.1   Testing PCDs: Pretests and the 2004 Census Test   142     5–A.2   Assessment   144     5–B   Challenging Definitions for a Modern Census   149     5–B.1   Housing Units   149     5–B.2   Group Quarters   150     5–B.3   Residence and Residence Rules   153     5–B.4   Wording and Format of Race and Hispanic Origin Questions   153     5–C   Hard-to-Count Population Groups: Extremes of Urbanicity   156     5–C.1   Small Multiunit Structures and Immigrant Communities   157     5–C.2   Rural Enumeration   159     5–D   Alternative Response Modes and Contact Strategies   160     5–D.1   Response Modes in 2000 and Early 2010 Testing   161     5–D.2   Response Mode Effects   163     5–D.3   Replacement Questionnaires   164

OCR for page R1
Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges     5–E   Data-Processing Methodologies: Unduplication and Imputation   165 6   Technical Infrastructure and Business Process   169     6–A   Toward a “Business Process” of the Decennial Census   172     6–A.1   Baseline: Logical Architecture of the 2000 Census   173     6–A.2   Reengineering Exercise   176     6–A.3   After the Pilot: Steps Toward an Architecture   177     6–B   Assessment   177     6–B.1   The Need for Institutional Commitment   178     6–B.2   Management “Champions”   179     6–B.3   Establishing a System Architect   180     6–B.4   Cautionary Note: Breadth and Difficulty of Task   181     6–C   The Architecture of Crucial Subsystems: The TIGER Redesign   183     6–D   Challenges in Transition from Logical to Physical Infrastructure   188     6–D.1   Potential Pitfall: Locking in Physical Infrastructure Too Early   188     6–D.2   Enterprise Architecture as Learning Tool and Guide to Organizational Change   189     6–D.3   Changing Architecture and Methods Simultaneously   190     6–D.4   Improving Software Engineering and Development   191 7   Coverage Measurement   193     7–A   The Shape of Coverage Measurement in 2010   194     7–B   Enhancing Demographic Analysis for 2010   196     7–C   Enhancing Administrative Records Analysis for 2010   199     7–C.1   Administrative Records Experiment in the 2000 Census   199     7–C.2   Administrative Records for 2010   202

OCR for page R1
Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges     7–C.3   Other Possibilities: Megalist and Reverse Record Check   203 III   The Census Bureau’s Research and Research Design   205 8   Evaluations   207     8–A   Strengthening the Evaluation Program of the 2010 Census   208     8–A.1   Correcting the Disconnect Between Research and Operations   210     8–A.2   Pursuing New Research Directions   212     8–A.3   Exploiting Existing Data Resources   214     8–B   Master Trace Sample   215 9   Census Tests   225     9–A   Constraints on Census Testing   226     Box 9.1:   2003 National Census Test   228     Box 9.2:   2004 Census Field Test   230     9–B   The 2006 Census Test as a Proof of Concept   231     9–C   Design Options that Should Be Considered for Testing in 2006   233     9–C.1   Human Factors for Portable Computing Devices   233     9–C.2   Various Cost-Benefit Trade-offs   234     9–C.3   Other Testing Considerations   236     9–C.4   Site Selection   238 10   Recommendations   239 Bibliography   251 Biographical Sketches of Panel Members and Staff   263

OCR for page R1
Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges Acronyms and Abbreviations ACE Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation ACF Address Control File ACS American Community Survey ALMI Automated Listing and Mapping Instrument AREX 2000 Administrative Records Experiment (2000) BAS Boundary and Annexation Survey BSA basic street address C2SS Census 2000 Supplementary Survey CAI computer-assisted interviewing CAPI computer-assisted personal interviewing CATI computer-assisted telephone interviewing CAUS Community Address Updating System CEFU coverage edit follow-up CIFU coverage improvement follow-up CIO chief information officer CMM Capability Maturity Model CNSTAT Committee on National Statistics COTS commercial off-the-shelf CPS Current Population Survey DADS Data Access and Dissemination System DCS 2000 Data Capture System 2000 DEX Digital Exchange DMAF Decennial Master Address File

OCR for page R1
Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges DSE dual-systems estimation DSF Delivery Sequence File ESCAP Executive Steering Committee on ACE Policy FEAF Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework FIPS Federal Information Processing Standards GAO U.S. General Accounting Office GBF/DIME Geographic Base File/Dual Independent Map Encoding GIS geographic information systems GPS global positioning system GQ group quarters GSS Geographic Support System ICM Integrated Coverage Measurement IDC/IQA Internet Data Collection/Internet Questionnaire Assistance IDEF0 Integration Definition for Function Modeling IRS Internal Revenue Service IT information technology IVR interactive voice response LCO local census office LUCA Local Update of Census Addresses MAF Master Address File MAF/TIGER Master Address File/Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing System MAFGOR MAF Geocoding Office Resolution MaRCS Matching and Review Coding System MCD minor civil division; mobile computing device (Census Bureau usage) MIS 2000 Management Information System 2000 MTAIP MAF/TIGER Accuracy Improvement Project MTEP MAF/TIGER Enhancements Program NCT National Census Test (2003) NRC National Research Council NRFU nonresponse follow-up OCR optical character recognition OCS 2000 Operations Control System 2000 OIG Office of Inspector General (U.S. Department of Commerce)

OCR for page R1
Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges OMB Office of Management and Budget OMR optical mark recognition PALS Program for Address List Supplementation PAMS/ADAMS Pre-Appointment Management System/Automated Decennial Administrative Management System PCD portable computing device PDA personal digital assistant PES postenumeration survey PRED Planning, Research, and Evaluation Division (U.S. Census Bureau) PSA primary selection algorithm RFP request for proposals RMIE Response Mode and Incentive Experiment SIPP Survey of Income and Program Participation SNRFU sampling for nonresponse follow-up StARS Statistical Administrative Records System TEA type of enumeration area TIGER Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing System TMU Targeted Map Update TQA/CEFU Telephone Questionnaire Assistance/Coverage Edit Follow-Up USGS United States Geological Survey USPS United States Postal Service

OCR for page R1
Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges This page intentionally left blank.