National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 10 Recommendations
Suggested Citation:"Bibliography." National Research Council. 2004. Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10959.
×

Bibliography

Alexander, C. H. (1993). A Continuous Measurement Alternative for the U.S. Census. Report CM-10. Washington, DC: Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce.

Alexander, C. H. (2002). A discussion of the quality of estimates from the American Community Survey for small population groups. Draft prepared for discussion at the fall 2002 Census Advisory Committee Meetings, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC.

Angueira, T. (2003a, June 3). Planning for the 2010 Decennial Census (“Plan for the Plan”). 2010 Census Planning Memoranda Series, Number 13. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

Angueira, T. (2003b, June 3). Reengineering the Decennial Census: The Baseline Design for 2010. 2010 Census Planning Memoranda Series, Number 14. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.


Bailar, B. A. (2000). Census testing. In M. J. Anderson (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the U.S. Census, pp. 62–66. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

Baird, J. (2003, October 2). Utah weighs a 3rd census fight. Salt Lake Tribune. Available: http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Oct/10022003/utah/ 97854.asp [12/15/03].

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.

Bennett, C. E. and D. H. Griffin (2002). Race and Hispanic origin data: A comparison of results from the Census 2000 Supplementary

Suggested Citation:"Bibliography." National Research Council. 2004. Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10959.
×

Survey and Census 2000. Paper prepared for the August 2002 Joint Statistical Meetings, New York City, NY. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC.

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.

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.

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.


Carbaugh, L. W. and R. W. Marx (1990). The TIGER system: A Census Bureau innovation serving data analysts. Government Information Quarterly 7, 285–306.

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.

Centech Group, Inc. (2002a). Census 2000 Operational Flow Baseline Report—Volume 1: Executive Package. Version 1.2 (Final). Arlington, VA: Centech Group, Inc. Prepared for the U.S. Census Bureau.

Suggested Citation:"Bibliography." National Research Council. 2004. Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10959.
×

Centech Group, Inc. (2002b). Census 2000 Operational Flow Baseline Report—Volume 2: Detailed Package. Version 1.3 (Final). Arlington, VA: Centech Group, Inc. Prepared for the U.S. Census Bureau.

Centech Group, Inc. (2002c). Logical Architecture Re-engineering Exercise. Version 1.1 (Draft). Arlington, VA: Centech Group, Inc. Prepared for the U.S. Census Bureau.

Citro, C. F. (2000). 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.


Decennial Management Division (2003, September 26). 2010 Census Risk Management Plan, Release 2.5. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.


Ericksen, E. P. and J. B. Kadane (1983). Using administrative lists to estimate census omissions: An example. In Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section, pp. 361–366. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association.

Executive Steering Committee for A.C.E. Policy (2001a). 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 (2001b). 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.


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.

Franz, L. M. (2002). 2010 reengineering. Presentation to the Panel on Research on Future Census Methods, September 13, 2002, Washington, DC. U.S. Census Bureau.


Gilbert, C. (2000, March 30). Politics on the menu: Visiting Wisconsin, Bush says he sympathizes with census critics. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Available: http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/mar00/george31033000.asp [12/01/03].

Gosselin, J. F. (1980). Reverse record check: Tracing people in Canada. Survey Methodology 6, 84–113.

Suggested Citation:"Bibliography." National Research Council. 2004. Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10959.
×

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.


Hahn, R. A. (1992). The state of federal statistics on racial and ethnic groups. Journal of the American Medical Association 267, 268–271.

Hahn, R. A., J. Mulinara, and S. M. Teutsch (1992). Inconsistencies in coding of race and ethnicity between birth and death in U.S. infants. Journal of the American Medical Association 267, 259–263.

Hauser, P. M. (1942). Proposed annual sample census of population. Journal of the American Statistical Association 37(217), 81–88.

Heimovitz, H. K. (2003). Administrative Records Experiment in 2000 (AREX 2000): Outcomes Evaluation. Census 2000 Experiment Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

Hill, J. M. and J. D. Machowski (2003, September 29). Master Trace Sample. Census 2000 Evaluation B.6. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

Hirschfeld, D. (2000). Address list development. In M. J. Anderson (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the U.S. Census, pp. 6–13. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

Hogan, H. (1983). The Forward Trace Study: Its purpose and design. In Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section, pp. 168–172. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association.


Imel, J. D. (2003, September 30). Local Census Office Profile for Census 2000. Census 2000 Evaluation H.9. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.


Jackson, A. A. (2003, September). MAF/TIGER Enhancements Program Update, Objectives 1–4. Presentation to the Panel on Research on Future Census Methods, September 11, 2003, Washington, DC. U.S. Census Bureau.

Jonas, K. (2002, November 7). Group Quarters Enumeration. Census 2000 Evaluation E.5. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

Jonas, K. (2003, August 6). Group Quarters Enumeration. Census 2000 Evaluation E.5, Revision 1. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

Suggested Citation:"Bibliography." National Research Council. 2004. Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10959.
×

Judson, D. H. and B. Bye (2003, October 21). Synthesis of Results from the Administrative Records Experiment in 2000 (AREX 2000). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.


Kish, L. (1981). Population Counts from Cumulated Samples. Pp. 5–50 in Congressional Research Service, Using Cumulated Rolling Samples to Integrate Census and Survey Operations of the Census Bureau. Prepared for the Subcommittee on Census and Population, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, U.S. House of Representatives. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Kish, L. (1990). Rolling samples and censuses. Survey Methodology 16, 63–71.


LaMacchia, R. (2003). MAF/TIGER update. Presentation to the Mapping Sciences Committee, National Research Council, October 23, 2003, Washington, DC. U.S. Census Bureau.

Liadis, J. S. (2000). GPS TIGER Accuracy Analysis Tools (GTAAT) Evaluation and Test Results. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

Logan, J. R. (2003). How race counts for Hispanic Americans. Research report, Lewis Mumford Center for Comparative Urban and Regional Research, State University of New York, Albany. Available: http://mumford1.dyndns.org/cen2000/BlackLatinoReport/BlackLatinoReport.%pdf [2/16/04].

Love, S. (2002). Methodological issues in local area application of the American Community Survey. Presentation prepared for the August 2002 Joint Statistical Meetings, New York City, NY. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC.

Lowenthal, T. A. (2003a). American Community Survey start would be delayed further under president’s budget proposal for 2004. Census News Brief posted to http://www.census2000.org, February 10.

Lowenthal, T. A. (2003b). President Bush sends FY04 budget to Congress; Census Bureau would scale back test plans under proposed funding levels. Census News Brief posted to http://www.census2000.org, February 4.


Martin, E., D. Sheppard, M. Bentley, and C. Bennett (2003). Results of 2003 National Census Test of Race and Hispanic Questions. Unpublished report, dated October 1. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

Suggested Citation:"Bibliography." National Research Council. 2004. Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10959.
×

Martin, P. and E. Midgley (2003, June). Immigration: Shaping and Reshaping America. Washington, DC: Population Reference Bureau. Issued as Population Bulletin, Vol. 58, No. 2.

Marx, R. W. (1986). The TIGER system: Automating the geographic structure of the United States census. Government Publications Review 13, 68–78.


Nash, F. F. (2000). Overview of the Duplicate Housing Unit Operations. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

National Research Council (1985). The Bicentennial Census: New Directions for Methodology in 1990. Panel on Decennial Census Methodology, Constance F. Citro and Michael L. Cohen, eds., Committee on National Statistics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council (1988). Priorities for the 1990 Census: Research, Evaluation, and Experimentation (REX) Program. Panelon Decennial Census Methodology, Constance F. Citro and Michael L. Cohen, eds., Committee on National Statistics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council (1994). Counting People in the Information Age. Panel to Evaluate Alternative Census Methods, Duane L. Steffey and Norman M. Bradburn, eds., Committee on National Statistics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council (1995). Modernizing the U.S. Census. Panel on Census Requirements in the Year 2000 and Beyond, Barry Edmonston and Charles Schultze, eds., Committee on National Statistics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council (1996). Continued Review of the Tax Systems Modernization of the Internal Revenue Service: Final Report. Committee on Continued Review of the Tax Systems Modernization of the Internal Revenue Service, Computer Science and Telecommunications Board. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council (1999). Measuring a Changing Nation: Modern Methods for the 2000 Census. Panel on Alternative Census Methodologies, Michael L. Cohen, Andrew A. White, and Keith F. Rust, eds., Committee on National Statistics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Suggested Citation:"Bibliography." National Research Council. 2004. Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10959.
×

National Research Council (2000a). Designing the 2010 Census: First Interim Report. Panel on Research on Future Census Methods, Michael L. Cohen and Benjamin F. King, eds., Committee on National Statistics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council (2000b). Small-Area Income and Poverty Estimates: Priorities for 2000 and Beyond. Panel on Estimates of Poverty for Small Geographic Areas, Constance F. Citro and Graham Kalton, eds., Committee on National Statistics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council (2001a). The 2000 Census: Interim Assessment. Panel to Review the 2000 Census, Constance F. Citro, Daniel L. Cork, and Janet L. Norwood, eds., Committee on National Statistics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council (2001b). The American Community Survey: Report of a Workshop. Committee on National Statistics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council (2001c). Letter from Benjamin F. King to William G. Barron, acting director, U.S. Census Bureau. Dated February 15. Panel on Research on Future Census Methods, Committee on National Statistics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council (2003a). 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.

National Research Council (2003b). Survey Automation: Report and Workshop Proceedings. Oversight Committee for the Workshop on Survey Automation, Daniel L. Cork, Michael L. Cohen, Robert Groves, and William Kalsbeek, eds., Committee on National Statistics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council (2004). The 2000 Census: Counting Under Adversity. Panel to Review the 2000 Census, Constance F. Citro, Daniel L. Cork, and Janet L. Norwood, eds., Committee on National Statistics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Norman, J. (2000, March 7). Stumbling beginning: Initial census mailing leaves some scratching their heads. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Available: http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/mar00/census08030700a.asp [12/01/03].

Suggested Citation:"Bibliography." National Research Council. 2004. Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10959.
×

O’Grady, K. (2000). A DOQ Test Project: Collecting Data to Improve TIGER. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

O’Grady, K. and L. Godwin (2000). The Positional Accuracy of MAF/TIGER. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

O’Hara, C. and D. Caterinicchia (2001, August 20). Census’ hunt for accuracy. Federal Computer Week, 10.

Owens, K. L. (2002, May 14). Evaluation of the Local Update of Census Addresses 99 (LUCA 99). Census 2000 Evaluation F.6. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

Owens, K. L. (2003, April 16). Evaluation of the Local Update of Census Addresses 98 (LUCA 98) . Census 2000 Evaluation F.3. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.


Passel, J. S. and W. Zimmerman (2001, May). Are Immigrants Leaving California? Settlement Patterns of Immigrants in the Late 1990s. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Prewitt, K. (2000, March 8). Prepared statement. Presented at hearing of the Subcommittee on the Census, Committee on Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives. Available: http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/3-8-00.html [12/15/03].

Robinson, J. G. (2001). ESCAP II: Demographic Analysis Results. Executive Steering Committee for A.C.E. Policy II Supporting Report 1. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

Rosenson, P. (2001). Automated Updating of TIGER from Locally Developed Geospatial Data Bases. Geography Division Report (unpublished). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.


Salvo, J. J. and A. P. Lobo (2002). The American Community Survey: Quality of response by mode of data collection in the Bronx test site. Paper prepared for the August 2002 Joint Statistical Meetings, New York City, NY. Department of City Planning, New York, NY.

Salvo, J. J., A. P. Lobo, and S. P. Love (2003). Evaluating continuous measurement: Data quality in the Bronx test site of the American Community Survey. Journal of Economic and Social Measurement 28, 263–277.

Singh, R. P. and W. Bell (2003). 2010 census coverage measurement goals and objectives. Presentation to the NRC Panel on Research on Future Census Methods, September 11, 2003, Washington, DC. U.S. Census Bureau.

Suggested Citation:"Bibliography." National Research Council. 2004. Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10959.
×

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. (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.

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.

Titan Systems Corporation (2002, June 6). Laptop Computers for Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation System Requirements Study. Census 2000 Evaluation R.2.b. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

Treat, J. B., S. Brady, J. A. Bouffard, and C. Stapleton (2003). 2003 National Census Test: The Impact of Alternative Modes and Contact Strategies on Self-Response. Unpublished report. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.


U.S. Census Bureau (2000). System Architecture, Version 2.0. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

U.S. Census Bureau (2001a, June). Potential Life Cycle Savings for the 2010 Census. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

U.S. Census Bureau (2001b, February). TIGER Documentation v. 7.0. Washington, DC: Geography Division, U.S. Census Bureau.

U.S. Census Bureau (2002a, May). Census 2000 Testing, Experimentation, and Evaluation Program. May 2002 Update. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

U.S. Census Bureau (2002b). Meeting 21st Century Demographic Data Needs—Implementing the American Community Survey: May 2002; Report 2: Demonstrating Survey Quality. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

U.S. Census Bureau (2003a, September 29). 2004 Census Test Operational Plan. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

U.S. Census Bureau (2003b, October 3). 2010 Census Business Architecture, Version 1.0. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

U.S. Census Bureau (2003c). American Community Survey Operations Plan, Release 1: March 2003. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

Suggested Citation:"Bibliography." National Research Council. 2004. Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10959.
×

U.S. Census Bureau (2003d, 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 (2003e, October). MAF/TIGER Enhancements Program Update, Objectives 1–4. Update of the October 21 Presentation to the NRC Panel on Research on Future Census Methods, September 11, 2003, Washington, DC (no attribution).

U.S. Census Bureau (2003f). Meeting 21st Century Demographic Data Needs—Implementing the American Community Survey: Report 3: Testing the Use of Voluntary Methods. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

U.S. Census Bureau, Geography Division (1999). The Census Bureau’s Master Address File (MAF): Census 2000 Address List Basics. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

U.S. Census Bureau, Geography Division (2000). The Global Positioning Systems Test Project: A Report of the Newberry County, South Carolina Field Test. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

U.S. Census Bureau, Mobile Computing Device Working Group (2002). Map Display Usability Test—Gloucester County, Virginia. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

U.S. Census Bureau, Public Information Office (2003). U.S. Census Bureau to count Americans in France, Kuwait and Mexico. Press release, January 16.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Inspector General (2000). Bureau of the Census: PAMS/ADAMS Should Provide Adequate Support for the Decennial Census, but Software Practices Need Improvement. OSE-11684. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Inspector General (2002). Improving Our Measure of America: What Census 2000 Can Teach Us in Planning for 2010. OIG-14431. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Inspector General (2003). Bureau of the Census: MAF/TIGER Redesign Project Needs Management Improvements to Meet Its Decennial Goals and Cost Objective. OSE-15725. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.

Suggested Citation:"Bibliography." National Research Council. 2004. Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10959.
×

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 (2002a). The American Community Survey: Accuracy and Timeliness Issues. GAO-02-956R. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. General Accounting Office (2002b, April). Legal Authority for American Community Survey. Letter Report B-289852. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.


Vitrano, F., J. Treat, and R. Pennington (2003, 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.


Waite, P. J. (2002). 2010 census reengineering. Presentation to the Panel on Research on Future Census Methods, September 13, 2002, 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.

Working Group on LUCA (2001). Assessment of the 2000 Census LUCA Program. Washington, DC: Committee on National Statistics.


Zaslavsky, A. M. and A. L. Schirm (1998). Interactions between the American Community Survey estimates and federal funding formulae: A look ahead. In American Community Survey Workshop—Technical Papers. Washington, DC: Committee on National Statistics, National Research Council.

Zaslavsky, A. M. and A. L. Schirm (2002). Interactions between survey estimates and federal funding formulas. Journal of Official Statistics 18(3), 371–392.

Suggested Citation:"Bibliography." National Research Council. 2004. Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10959.
×

This page intentionally left blank.

Suggested Citation:"Bibliography." National Research Council. 2004. Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10959.
×
Page 251
Suggested Citation:"Bibliography." National Research Council. 2004. Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10959.
×
Page 252
Suggested Citation:"Bibliography." National Research Council. 2004. Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10959.
×
Page 253
Suggested Citation:"Bibliography." National Research Council. 2004. Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10959.
×
Page 254
Suggested Citation:"Bibliography." National Research Council. 2004. Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10959.
×
Page 255
Suggested Citation:"Bibliography." National Research Council. 2004. Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10959.
×
Page 256
Suggested Citation:"Bibliography." National Research Council. 2004. Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10959.
×
Page 257
Suggested Citation:"Bibliography." National Research Council. 2004. Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10959.
×
Page 258
Suggested Citation:"Bibliography." National Research Council. 2004. Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10959.
×
Page 259
Suggested Citation:"Bibliography." National Research Council. 2004. Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10959.
×
Page 260
Suggested Citation:"Bibliography." National Research Council. 2004. Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10959.
×
Page 261
Suggested Citation:"Bibliography." National Research Council. 2004. Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10959.
×
Page 262
Next: Biographical Sketches of Panel Members and Staff »
Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and Challenges Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $60.00 Buy Ebook | $47.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

At the request of the U.S. Census Bureau, the National Research Council’s Committee on National Statistics established the Panel on Research on Future Census Methods to review the early planning process for the 2010 census. This new report documents the panel’s strong support for the major aims of the Census Bureau’s emerging plan for 2010. At the same time, it notes the considerable challenges that must be overcome if the bureau’s innovations are to be successful. The panel agrees with the Census Bureau that implementation of the American Community Survey and, with it, the separation of the long form from the census process are excellent concepts. Moreover, it concurs that the critically important Master Address File and TIGER geographic systems are in dire need of comprehensive updating and that new technologies have the potential to improve the accuracy of the count. The report identifies the risks and rewards of these and other components of the Census Bureau’s plan. The report emphasizes the need for the bureau to link its research and evaluation efforts much more closely to operational planning and the importance of funding for a comprehensive and rigorous testing program before 2010.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!