Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
126 Plannincr 2010 C:en~Zls TP 8/15/03 9:33 AM tcre 1 PLAN N ~ NG TH E CENSUS Second Interi' ~ ~ Report Panel on Research on Future Census Methods Daniel L. Cork, Michael L. Cohen, and Benjamin F. King, Editors Com m ittee on Nationa ~ 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.etfu
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N'W ~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 authoress and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number 0-309-08968-9 (book) International Standard Book Number 0-309-52578-0 (PDF) 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 2003 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Suggested citation: National Research Council (2003~. Planning the 2010 Census: Second Interim Report. Panel on Research on Future Census Methods. Daniel L. Cork, Michael L. Cohen, and Benjamin F. King, eds. Committee on National Statistics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, aniMedirine The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering re- search, 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 out- standing engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the respon- sibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engi- neering 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 profes- sions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the pub- lic. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal gov- ernment and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, re- search, and education. Dr. Harvey ~ 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 engi- neering 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
PANEL ON RESEARCH ON FUTURE CENSUS METHODS BENrAMIN F. KING (ChairJ, Delray Beach, Florida DAVID A. BINDER, Methodology Branch, Statistics Canada, Ottawa MICK P. COOPER, Survey Research Center, University of Michigan, anc! Joint Program in Survey Methodology, University of Marylanc! C.A. IRVINE, San Diego, California WILLIAM KALSBEEK,* Department of Biostatistics, University of North Carolina SALLIE KE~ER-McNu~TY, Statistical Sciences Group, Los Alamos National Laboratories, Los Alamos, New Mexico GEORGE LIGLER, private consultant, Potomac, Marylanc! MICHAEL M. MEYER, Intelligent Results, Inc., Seattle, Washington DARYL PREGIBON,** AT&T Labs Research, Florham Park, New Jersey KEITH F. RusT, Westat, Inc., Rockville, Marylanc! JOSEPH l. 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 SEDRANSK, Department of Statistics, Case Western Reserve University MATTHEW SNIPP, Department of Sociology, Stanforc! University DONALD YLVISAKER, Department of Statistics, University of California, Los Angeles ALAN ZASLAVSKY, Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Meclical School MICHAEL L. COHEN, Stodgy Director DANIEL L. CORK, Study Director SHOREH ELHAMI, Consultant AGNES E. GASKIN, Senior Project Assistant *Served until March 2002 **Served until March 2001
COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL STATISTICS 2003 JOHN E. ROLPH (ChairJ, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California JOSEPH G. A~ToNrI' 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 Methoclology JOEL L. HOROWITZ, Department of Economics, Northwestern University WILLIAM KALSBEEK, Department of Biostatistics, University of North Carolina ARLEEN LEIBOWITZ, School of Public Policy anc! Social Research, University of California, Los Angeles THOMAS A. LOUIS, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University VIrAYAN NAIR, Department of Statistics anc! Department of Industrial anct Operations Engineering, University of Michigan ANDREW A. WHITE, Director DARYL PREGIBON, AT&T Labs Research, Florham Park, New Jersey KENNETH PREWITT, School of Public Affairs, Columbia University NORA CATE SCHAEFFER, Department of Sociology, University of Wisconsin-Mactison MATTHEW D. SHAPIRO, Department of Economics, University of Michigan .
Acknowledgments THE PANEL ON RESEARCH ON FUTURE CENSUS METHODS of the Committee on National Statistics (CNSTAT) is pleased to submit this second interim report and wishes to thank the many people who have contributed to the panel's work en cl helped make possible the preparation of this interim report. We thank the staff of the U.S. Census Bureau, uncler the leadership of director C. Louis Kincannon, deputy director Hermann Habermann, anc! former acting director William Barron, for their professionalism anc! their cooperation with the panel. In particular, we appreciate the commitment of Preston lay Waite, associate director for decennial census, to working with the panel even cluring the difficult transition period between closing one decennial census anct starting another. We thank Rajencira Singh, the panel's lead liaison with the Census Bureau, for his attention to the panel's neects. In acictition, the work of the panel has been greatly facilitated by its work in smaller, working groups. Each of the panel's working groups has a designated liaison insicle the bureau; they have been uniformly helpful anc! supportive, anct we look forward to continucct interaction over the panel's remain- ing year of service. These primary sources of contact inclucle: Robert Marx anct Lincla Pike (Acictress List Development); Tracy Wessler anct Andrea Brinson (Computing Systems anct Technical Infrastructure); Ton Clark (Coverage Evaluation anc! Statistical Infrastructure); en c! Fay Nash (Enumeration Methocls). The panel has also benefited from its interaction with other talented members of the Census Bureau staff, . . V11
. . . vine . PLANNING THE 2010 CENSUS 1nclucling Nancy Gordon, Howarc! Hogan, Donna Kostanich, Alfreclo Navarro, km Treat, Alan Tupek, anc! Frank Vitrano. The tragic cleath of Charles H. "Chip" Alexander, Tr., in early September 2002 was an incalculable loss for the entire research com- munity surrounding the decennial census anct its related programs. The chief statistical methoclologist for the American Community Survey (ACS), Chip was also the panel's clesignatect liaison on ACS matters. One true pleasure of service on this panel was the opportunity for interaction with someone of Chip's great knowledge anct good humor, anc! we join his friends anc! colleagues in mourning his loss. Our panel colleague Joseph Salvo, of the New York City Depart- ment of City Planning, ably chaired a working group to evaluate the Local Update of Census Aciciresses (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 ctrew from their firsthand expertise in documenting their LUCA experience in case study form. We thank the members of this group Abby Hughes, Terry Jackson, Tim Koss, anct Harry Wolfe anc! working group consultant Patricia Becker for their efforts, a solict reference work for our panel anct the entire research community. In particular, we thank working group member Shoreh Elhami, of the Delaware County (Ohio) Auclitor's Office, for her continuing consultation with the panel on census anc! geography matters. In April 2001 the panel opened its first examination of the proposed MAF/TIGER Enhancements Program by inviting a ctistinguishect set of discussants to share their opinions on the proposer! plans. In acicli- tion to Shoreh Elhami, this roster of discussants incluclecl: Rick Ayers (ESRI), Donalc! Cooke (Geographic Data Technology, Inc.), Michel Lettre (State of Marylancl), and Sarah Nusser (Department of Statis- tics, Iowa State University). We thank them for their time anc! their talents. T · . Logistical arrangements tor panel act1v1t1es 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 anct the Panel to Review the 2000 Census. Former CNSTAT staff member Carrie Muntean, now stationed with the U.S. Foreign Service, clic! exemplary work for both panels anct, in particular, with the LUCA Working Group.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS MIX CNSTAT consultant Meyer Zitter's zeal in collecting information for both panels is greatly appreciated. Finally, virtually all of the activi- ties of the Committee on National Statistics benefit greatly from the involvement anc! advice of Constance Citro, senior program officer. Given her role as study director of our sister Panel to Review the 2000 Census, we have drawn quite heavily from her wisdom anc! benefit from her contributions. This report has been reviewoc! in ciraft form by inclivicluals chosen . for their diverse perspectives anct technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approver! by the Report Review Committee of the National Research Council (NRC). The purpose of this inclepenclent review is to provide canclic! anc! critical comments that will assist the institution in making the published report as sounc! as possible anc! to ensure that the report meets institutional stanclarcts for objectivity, evidence, anct responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments anc! ciraft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the clelibera- tive process. We thank the following inctivicluals for their participation in the review of this report: Margo J. Anclerson, Department of History, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee; Lawrence Brown, Department of Statistics, University of Pennsylvania; Barbara Everitt Bryant, Uni- versity of Michigan Business School; Stephen Fienberg, Department of Statistics, Carnegie Mellon University; D. Bruce Petrie, Canadian Institute for Health Information; anc! Kenneth Wachter, Department of Demography, University of California, Berkeley. Although the reviewers listed above proviclec! many constructive comments anct suggestions, they were not askoct to endorse the conclu- sions or recommenclations, 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. Appointed by the National Research Council, he was responsible for making cer- tain that an inclepenclent examination of the report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures anct that all review comments were carefully consiclerecI. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring panel anct the institution. Benjamin F. King, Chair Panel on Research on Future Census Methods
Contents Executive Summary Emerging Structure of the 2010 Census Importance of Integration Real Reengineering: Business Process anc! Technical Infrastructure Moclernizing Geographic Resources American Community Survey Plans for Testing Assessing the Overall Strategy 2 3 4 6 7 8 1 Introduction The "Three-Leggecl Stool" Approach to the 2010 Census 12 Charge and Brief History of the Panel The Importance of Integration 2 Real Reengineering: Technical Infrastructure and Business Process Towarcl a "Business Process" of the Decennial Census Assessment Extending the Pilot Work: Commitment The Neecl for Institutional X1 11 17 18 23 26 31 32
. . all Challenges in Transition from Logical to Physical Infrastructure 3 Modernizing Geographic Resources Overview: Current State of MAF and TIGER The MAF/TIGER Enhancements Package Assessment of Geographic Modernization Efforts Weakness: Enhancing the MAF Neect for a MAF Improvement Coordinator Geographic Partnerships The Knowlecige Base for 2010: Current and Future Evaluation Work 4 American Community Survey Conclucting the ACS Strengths of the ACS Costs of the ACS ACS Information as a Replacement for Long-Form Information Estimation Using the ACS Quality of ACS Estimates Topics for Further Research and Design Consideration Summary and Assessment 5 The 2003 and 2004 Census Tests 2003 National Census Test 2004 Census Fielcl Test 6 Conclusions and Future Work Costs en cl Benefits Planning and Evaluation Integration Bibliography Biographical Sketches of Pane} Members and Staff PLANNING THE 2010 CENSUS 34 39 40 52 58 62 67 68 70 79 80 82 83 84 86 89 94 97 103 104 108 113 114 115 117 119 127
Acronyms ACE Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation ACE Aciciress Control File ACS American Community Survey ANTI Automatecl Listing and Mapping Instrument BAS Boundary anct Annexation Survey BSA basic street acictress C2SS Census 2000 Supplementary Survey CATI computer-assistecl telephone interviewing CAUS Community Aclclress Upclating System CIFU coverage improvement follow-up CIO chief information officer CMM Capability Maturity Moclel CNSTAT Committee on National Statistics COTS commercial off-the-shelf CPS Current Population Survey DADS Data Access anct Dissemination System DCS 2000 Data Capture System 2000 DEX digital exchange DMAF Decennial Master Acictress File DSF Delivery Sequence File FEAF Fecleral Enterprise Architecture Framework FIPS Federal Information Processing Stanclarcts X111
xlv GBF/DIME GIS GPS GQ GSS IDC/IQA IDEF0 IRS IT IVR LUCA MAF MAF/TIGER MAFGOR MCD MIS 2000 MTAIP MTEP NRC NRFU OCS 2000 OMB PALS PAMS/ADAMS REP SS01 SS02 TIGER TMU TQA/CEFU USGS USPS PLANNING THE 2010 CENSUS Geographic Base File/Dual Independent Map Encoding geographic information systems global positioning system group quarters Geographic Support System Internet Data Collection/Internet Questionnaire Assistance Integration Definition for Function Modeling Internal Revenue Service information technology . . . Interactive voice response Local Update of Census Addresses Master Address File Master Address File/Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing System MAF Geocoding Office Resolution mobile computing device Management Information System 2000 MAF/TIGER Accuracy Improvement Project MAF/TIGER Enhancements Program National Research Council nonresponse follow-up Operations Control System 2000 Office of Management and Budget Program for Address List Supplementation Pre-Appointment Management System/Automated Decennial Administrative Management System request for proposals 2001 Supplementary Survey 2002 Supplementary Survey Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing System Targeted Map Update Telephone Questionnaire Assistance/Coverage Edit Follow-Up United States Geological Survey United States Postal Service