EXPERIMENTATION AND EVALUATION PLANS FOR THE 2010 CENSUS: INTERIM REPORT

Panel on the Design of the 2010 Census Program of Evaluations and Experiments

Lawrence D. Brown, Michael L. Cohen and Daniel L. Cork, 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
EXPERIMENTATION AND EVALUATION PLANS FOR THE 2010 CENSUS: INTERIM REPORT Panel on the Design of the 2010 Census Program of Evaluations and Experiments Lawrence D. Brown, Michael L. Cohen and Daniel L. Cork, editors Committee on National Statistics Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education

OCR for page R1
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. YA1323-06-CN-0031 between the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Census Bureau. Support of the work of the Committee on National Statistics is provided by a consortium of federal agencies through a grant from the National Science Foundation (Number SBR-0112521). Any opinion, 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-13: 978-0-309-11545-2 International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-11545-0 Additional copies of this report are available from The National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001 or (202) 334-3096; Internet, http://www.nap.edu Printed in the United States of America Copyright 2008 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Suggested citation: National Research Council. (2008). Experimentation and Evaluation Plans for the 2010 Census: Interim Report. Panel on the Design of the 2010 Census Program of Evaluations and Experiments, Lawrence D. Brown, Michael L. Cohen, and Daniel L. Cork, editors. Committee on National Statistics, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. ii

OCR for page R1
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. Ralph J. Cicerone 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. Charles M. Vest 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. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org iii

OCR for page R1
iv

OCR for page R1
Panel on the Design of the 2010 Census Program of Evaluations and Experiments LAWRENCE D. BROWN (Chair), Department of Statistics, Wharton School of Business, University of Pennsylvania RICHARD A. BERK, Department of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania ERIC BRADLOW, Wharton School of Business, University of Pennsylvania IVAN P. FELLEGI, Statistics Canada, Ottawa LINDA GAGE, California Department of Finance, Sacramento VIJAY NAIR, Department of Statistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor JESSE H. POORE, JR., Department of Computer Science, University of Tennessee, Knoxville NORA CATE SCHAEFFER, Department of Sociology, University of Wisconsin–Madison ALLEN L. SCHIRM, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., Washington, DC JUDITH SELTZER, Department of Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles STANLEY SMITH, Department of Economics, University of Florida, Gainesville ROGER TOURANGEAU, Survey Research Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and Joint Program in Survey Methodology, University of Maryland, College Park KIRK WOLTER, National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago MICHAEL L. COHEN, Co-Study Director DANIEL L. CORK, Co-Study Director AGNES E. GASKIN, Senior Program Assistant MEYER ZITTER, Consultant v

OCR for page R1
Committee on National Statistics 2007-2008 WILLIAM F. EDDY (Chair), Department of Statistics, Carnegie Mellon University KATHARINE ABRAHAM, Department of Economics, University of Maryland, College Park, and Joint Program in Survey Methodology WILLIAM DuMOUCHEL, Lincoln Technologies, Inc., Waltham, Massachusetts JOHN HALTIWANGER, Department of Economics, University of Maryland, College Park V. JOSEPH HOTZ, Department of Economics, University of California, Los Angeles KAREN KAFADAR, Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Colorado, Denver, and Health Sciences Center DOUGLAS MASSEY, Department of Sociology, Princeton University SALLY MORTON, Statistics and Epidemiology, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina VIJAY NAIR, Department of Statistics and Department of Industrial and Operations Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor JOSEPH NEWHOUSE, Division of Health Policy Research and Education, Harvard University SAMUEL H. PRESTON, Department of Sociology, University of Pennsylvania KENNETH PREWITT, School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University LOUISE RYAN, Department of Biostatistics, Harvard University ROGER TOURANGEAU, Survey Research Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and Joint Program in Survey Methodology, University of Maryland, College Park ALAN ZASLAVSKY, Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School CONSTANCE F. CITRO, Director vi

OCR for page R1
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Panel on the Design of the 2010 Census Program of Evaluations and Experiments (CPEX) wishes to thank the many people who have contributed to our work. To start, the panel is indebted to Deputy Director Preston Jay Waite’s support during the developmental stage of the study. The contracting officer for the study is Deborah Bolton, and she has been assisted throughout by Gary Chappell, Joyce Price, Jennifer Reichert, and Donna Souders. All of these Census Bureau staff have been extremely responsive to requests from the panel for help in the development of agendas, the collection of supporting materials, and assistance with other logistical details. They have been a pleasure to work with. Also, a number of Census Bureau personnel provided extremely useful presentations and supporting materials during the two plenary meetings of the panel on April 30–May 1, 2007, and July 16, 2007. In this regard, we would like to thank Theresa Angueira, Larry Cahoon, Joan Hill, Elizabeth Martin, Mary Mulry, Manuel de la Puente, Jennifer Reichert, Annetta Clark Smith, and Frank Vitrano. Many of these along with others also contributed to three very productive small group meetings of the panel (held July 13 and July 16, 2007), and here we would like to mention interactions with Nancy Bates, William Bell, Sharon Boyer, Mary Destasio, Donna Kostanich, Lauri Schwede, Jennifer Tancreto, and Jim Treat. We would like to single out Jim Treat to thank him for his help in learning about a number of disparate areas of census planning, experimentation, and evaluation. We would like to thank Connie Citro for helping, along with Jay Waite, in the development of the study. In addition, Connie participated actively in the panel meetings, providing her usual insightful comments and suggestions. We would also like to thank Meyer Zitter, consultant to the panel, for providing important advice on the potential use of administrative records in census taking. We express our gratitude to Agnes Gaskin, who has seen to it that the meetings of the panel run as smoothly as possible, facilitating the travel and other needs of the panel members, and formatting this report. The panel is also indebted to Christine McShane, who provided expert technical editing of the draft report. Finally, it has been a pleasure interacting with a very talented, energetic, and collaborative panel. We are excited at the prospect of working together in the future to provide additional assistance to the Census Bureau as it makes final preparations for the 2010 decennial census and the associated experiments and evaluations. 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. 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: C.A. (Al) Irvine, Consultant, San Diego, California; Benjamin King, Statistical Consultant, Durham, North Carolina; J. Michael Oakes, Division of Epidemiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis; vii

OCR for page R1
Joseph Salvo, Population Division, New York City Department of City Planning, New York, New York; Robert Scardamalia, Center for Research and Information Analysis, Department of Economic Development, Albany, New York; Frederick J. Scheuren, Consultant, Alexandria, Virginia; and Judith M. Tanur, Department of Sociology and Behavior, State University of New York, Stony Brook. 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 this report was overseen by William F. Eddy, Department of Statistics, Carnegie Mellon University. Appointed by the National Research Council, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this 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 committee and the institution. Lawrence Brown, Chair Michael Cohen, Co-Study Director Daniel Cork, Co-Study Director viii

OCR for page R1
Contents Executive Summary …….……………………………………………… 1 1 Introduction…………………………………………………………… 6 Charge to the Panel …………………………………………….. 6 Background: Experiments and Evaluations in the 2000 Census 8 Experiments 8 Evaluations 10 Post Hoc Assessment of the 2000 Experiments and Evaluations 10 Overview of the 2010 Census…………………………………… 12 The CPEX Planning Document…………………………………. 13 Guide to the Report……………………………………………… 14 2 Initial Views on 2010 Census Experiments … 16 A General Approach to the Selection of Census Experiments…… 16 Priority Topics for Experimentation in 2010………………………………………………………………. 17 Internet Data Collection…………………………………... 19 Use of Administrative Records to Assist in Component Census Operations………………………………………………… 20 Alternative Questionnaire Experiment……………………. 24 A Possible Additional Experiment: Comparison of Telephone to Personal Interview for Coverage Follow-Up Interview… 30 Conclusion………………………………………………………… 31 3 Initial Views on 2010 Census Evaluations 36 Suggestions for the 2010 Census Evaluations……………………… 36 Address List Improvement…………………………………. 36 Master Trace Sample……………………………………….. 38 Reverse Record Check ……………………………………… 39 Edit Protocols……………………………………………….. 40 Coverage Assessment of Group Quarters ………………….. 41 Training of Field Enumerators……………………………… 41 A General Approach to Census Evaluation………………………… 42 Initial Considerations Regarding a General Approach to Census Research……………………………………………………………... 43 4 Considerations for the 2010 Census 46 Technology…………………………………………………………… 46 Data Retention by Census Contractors……………………………….. 48 Census Enumeration as Part of Telephone Questionnaire Assistance… 48 References 51 ix

OCR for page R1
Appendixes A The Census Bureau’s Suggested Topics for Research…………… 56 B Internet Response Options in Selected Population Censuses…….. 75 C Biographical Sketches of Panel Members and Staff……………… 93 x