The 2000 Census Interim Assessment (2001) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
1. Introduction
1. Introduction
Pages 23-34
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 23... ...
The Supreme Court's ruling did not preclude use of sampling to adjust census data for other purposes; consequently, the Bureau earned out its planned iThe population counts for purposes of congressional reapportionment include residents of the 50 states and the District of Columbia as of April 1, 2000, comprising citizens, legal aliens (except for visitors or staff of foreign embassies) , and undocumented aliens.
|
From page 24... ...
Secretary of Commerce that unadjusted counts from the enumeration process should be the official data for redistricting; the secretary adopted the Bureau's recommendation on March 6. The Bureau's recommendation not to adjust the block-level counts was driven by the lack of time to resolve its concerns over the accuracy of disparate population estimates derived from the census, the A.C.E., and demographic analysis (a technique that constructs a national population estimate based on birth, death, and Medicare records, and estimates of net immigration)
|
From page 25... ...
The group conducted a survey of 101 governments that participated in LUCA, completed over a dozen in-depth case studies of LUCA participation, and analyzed data on LUCA participation and the MAP provided by the Census Bureau (LUCA Working Group, 20011. Panel members and staff reviewed the extensive documentation and evaluation results made available by the Census Bureau in support of its March 1, 2001, recommendation not to adjust the data for redistricting.3 The panel also conducted extensive analyses of microdata that the Bureau made available to the panel, the 2000 Census Monitoring Board, and the U.S.
|
From page 26... ...
One panel was convened at the behest of Congress to consider data requirements and alternative designs for 2000 (National Research Council, 19951; the other panel was convened at the Census Bureau's request to consider detailed methodology (National Research Council, 19941. Subsequently, a third CNSTAT panel was organized in 1996 to comment periodically on the Bureau's maturing plans for 2000; this panel issued its final report in 1999 (National Research Council, l999b)
|
From page 27... ...
It also provided for expedited judicial review of the legality of the use of sampling for the census and established a 2000 Census Monitoring Board to consist of four members appointed by House and Senate Republican leaders and four members appointed by President Clinton in consultation with House and Senate Democratic leaders. The Monitoring Board was proposed as a way to address the concerns of some in Congress that the administration might manipulate the census data for political gain.4 With this mechanism in place, there was agreement that the dress rehearsal and other necessary census planning activities would be fully funded and that the dress rehearsal in one of the planned sites would be conducted without the use of either SNRFU or ICM.
|
From page 28... ...
A third dress rehearsal in Menominee County, Wisconsin (which includes the Menominee Indian Reservation) , was a hybrid using 100 percent nonresponse follow-up and ICM.
|
From page 29... ...
Policy (ESCAP) , comprised of senior Bureau staff, to recommend to the director and the director in turn to recommend to the Secretary of Commerce whether to release adjusted or unadjusted block data for redistricting.6 The Census Bureau also facilitated arrangements for staff and members of its oversight groups including our panel, our sister Panel on Research on Future Census Methods, the full 2000 Census Monitoring Board, Republican and Democratic staffs of the House subcommittee, and the 2000 Census Advisory Committee to observe census operations in the field during spring-summer 2000 at locations around the country.
|
From page 30... ...
estimated that the overall net undercount dropped Tom 1.6 percent of the population in 1990 as measured by the Post-Enumeration Survey to 1.2 percent of the population in 2000 and that the net undercount for blacks dropped Tom 4.4 percent in 1990 to 2.1 percent in Thor example, Census Bureau Director Kenneth Prewitt wrote: "The Census Bureau has determined that the A.C.E. is operationally and technically feasible and expects, barring unforeseen operational difficulties that would have a significant effect on the quality of the data, that these corrected data will be more accurate than the uncorrected data for their intended purposes" (Prewitt, 2000:2)
|
From page 31... ...
indicates a net overcount of the population. For 2000 demographic analysis net undercount rates, "base" uses the ong~nal estunate that includes an allowance for 6 million undocwnented immigrants; "alternate" uses an estimate that arbitrarily doubles the flow of undocumented immigrants between 1990 and 2000, allowing for 8.7 million undocumented immigrants total (see Chapter 5)
|
From page 32... ...
There were substantially more such people in 2000 than in 1990, but the report concluded that they did not likely affect the dualsystems estimates.~° The Census Bureau had always planned a longer term evaluation program, in addition to the short-term evaluations that were feasible to carry out before March 1, 2001. Given its conclusion that the accuracy of the census, the A.C.E., and demographic analysis population estimates could not be definitively established, the Bureau has expedited several evaluations on the longer term agenda and is carrying out additional evaluations to help reach its planned decision by October 15 on whether to recommend adjustment of census population estimates for such purposes as fund allocation.
|
From page 33... ...
net undercount for the population as a whole is not a reason for or against adjustment because net undercounts can mask sizable gross errors of omissions and erroneously included enumerations. The issue is how the balance between these components of error differs among population groups and geographic areas, resulting in different net undercount rates.
|
From page 34... ...
The panel looks forward to continuing its evaluation of the census and the A.C.E., as additional information becomes available that can support firmer conclusions about the quality of the adjusted and unadjusted census data and their appropriate use. The panel notes that the census obtained a wide range of socioeconomic data on the long form (which was sent to about one in six households)
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.