|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. 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
The 2000 Census: Counting Under Adversity
THE 2000 CENSUS
Counting Under Adversity
Panel to Review the 2000 Census
Constance F. Citro, Daniel L. Cork, and Janet L. Norwood, 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 R2
The 2000 Census: Counting Under Adversity
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-8-66010 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 0-309-09141-1 (book)
International Standard Book Number 0-309-52998-0 (PDF)
Library of Congress Control Number: 2004102206
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). 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, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
OCR for page R3
The 2000 Census: Counting Under Adversity
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 R4
The 2000 Census: Counting Under Adversity
This page intentionally left blank.
OCR for page R5
The 2000 Census: Counting Under Adversity
PANEL TO REVIEW THE 2000 CENSUS
JANET L. NORWOOD (Chair),
Chevy Chase, Maryland
ROBERT M. BELL,
AT&T Labs–Research, Florham Park, New Jersey
NORMAN M. BRADBURN,
National Science Foundation, Arlington, Virginia
LAWRENCE D. BROWN,
Department of Statistics, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
WILLIAM F. EDDY,
Department of Statistics, Carnegie Mellon University
ROBERT M. HAUSER,
Department of Sociology, University of Wisconsin–Madison
RODERICK J.A. LITTLE,*
School of Public Health, University of Michigan
INGRAM OLKIN,
Department of Statistics and School of Education, Stanford University
D. BRUCE PETRIE,
Canadian Institute for Health Information, Ottawa, Ontario
CONSTANCE F. CITRO, Study Director
MICHAEL L. COHEN, Senior Program Officer
DANIEL L. CORK, Program Officer
AGNES GASKIN, Senior Project Assistant
MARISA GERSTEIN, Research Assistant
SETH HAUSER, Research Associate
MICHELE VER PLOEG, Program Officer
MEYER ZITTER, Consultant
*
Served until March 2000.
OCR for page R6
The 2000 Census: Counting Under Adversity
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,
Department of International and 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 R7
The 2000 Census: Counting Under Adversity
Acknowledgments
The Panel to Review the 2000 Census wishes to thank the many people who have contributed to the panel’s work and helped make possible the preparation of this final report.
We thank, first, staff of the U.S. Census Bureau who prepared a large number of evaluation reports about the census, the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation (A.C.E.) Program, and demographic analysis, made informative presentations at panel meetings and workshops, and answered many specific questions about census procedures and evaluations. We thank particularly William Bell, Cynthia Clark, Donald Dalzell, Robert Fay, Philip Gbur, Howard Hogan, Ruth Ann Killion, Louis Kincannon, Joseph Knott, Donna Kostanich, John Long, Susan Love, Mary Mulry, J. Gregory Robinson, and Preston J. Waite. Former deputy director and acting director William Barron, former director Kenneth Prewitt, and former associate director for decennial census John Thompson also made valuable contributions to the panel’s meetings and workshops. Rajendra Singh has been very helpful as the Census Bureau’s project officer throughout the study.
We further thank the Census Bureau for arranging for panel members and staff to have access to key data files for analysis, beginning in February 2001. Such access was provided not only to the panel but also to congressional oversight groups, under procedures to safeguard confidentiality. The ability to analyze key data sets provided knowledge of census and A.C.E. procedures and evaluations that would not otherwise have been possible for the panel to obtain.
OCR for page R8
The 2000 Census: Counting Under Adversity
We thank others in the professional community who participated in panel workshops: Barbara Bailar, National Opinion Research Center (retired); Stephen Fienberg, Carnegie Mellon University; David Freedman, University of California, Berkeley; Charles Jones, U.S. Census Monitoring Board, Congressional Members (retired); Graham Kalton, Westat; Jeffrey Passel, Urban Institute; Allen Schirm, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.; Joseph Sedransk, Case Western Reserve University; Bruce Spencer, Northwestern University; Philip Stark, University of California, Berkeley; Michael Stoto, RAND; Joseph Waksberg, Westat; Martin Wells, Cornell University; Kirk Wolter, National Opinion Research Center (retired); Donald Ylvisaker, University of California, Los Angeles; and Alan Zaslavsky, Harvard Medical School.
We also thank David Harris, University of Michigan, and Joseph Salvo, New York City Department of City Planning, for major contributions to the panel’s work. David prepared an insightful paper on the measurement and definition of race and ethnicity in federal statistics and the census. Joe ably chaired a working group on the Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) Program commissioned by the panel to evaluate LUCA from the local government perspective.
Throughout its work, the panel benefited from discussions with congressional staff, particularly during the period when oversight authority for the census was vested by the U.S. House of Representatives in a Subcommittee on the Census of the Committee on Government Reform. In particular, we thank David McMillen and Michael Miguel for their insights. We have also benefited from interactions with staff of the U.S. General Accounting Office.
The panel is especially indebted to Constance Citro who, as senior study director, organized the work of the panel and guided its evaluation of the 2000 census. Her wide experience in census issues, her competence in statistical methods, and the clarity of her reasoning have been critical to the successful completion of our interim report and now our final report. We have benefited enormously from her talent and knowledge and feel extremely fortunate to have had her work with us.
The panel was assisted by a very able staff. Daniel Cork played a major role for the panel in conducting analyses of data files from the A.C.E., analyzing 1990 and 2000 census data on mail return rates,
OCR for page R9
The 2000 Census: Counting Under Adversity
drafting text for the report, developing informative graphs of key results, and preparing the report for release. His hard work and contributions, achieved under tight time pressures, were extraordinary. Andrew White, former director of the Committee on National Statistics, served as study director for the panel from November 1998 through March 2000. He was assisted by Michael Cohen, who organized three panel workshops and contributed to the panel’s work throughout, particularly to the text on issues of evaluation and imputation methods. Meyer Zitter contributed to the panel’s assessments of demographic analysis and the procedures for developing the Master Address File. He also specified and analyzed tables of comparable 1990 and 2000 census item imputation rates for the long-form sample. Michele Ver Ploeg and Marisa Gerstein assisted in data analysis, as did Zhanyun Zhao, University of Pennsylvania. Seth Hauser, now with the U.S. State Department, assisted in the analysis of item imputation rates and drafted text on the measurement of race and ethnicity. Heather Koball, now with the National Center for Children in Poverty at Columbia University, prepared background material for the panel on race and ethnicity and organized and assessed trips for the panel and staff to observe census and A.C.E. operations in January–June 2000. Carrie Muntean, now with the U.S. Foreign Service, prepared background material for the panel on the development of the 1990 and 2000 census address lists and provided invaluable support to the panel’s commissioned working group on the LUCA Program. Joshua Dick, Jamie Casey, and Agnes Gaskin provided valuable project assistance to the panel, particularly in making arrangements for the panel’s workshops. Christine McShane, senior editor of the reports office of the Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, made important contributions to the report through her fine technical editing. To all we are grateful.
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.
OCR for page R10
The 2000 Census: Counting Under Adversity
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: Vincent P. Barabba, Chairman, Market Insight Corporation and the Internet Home Alliance, Palo Alto, CA; Joseph B. Kadane, Department of Statistics, Carnegie Mellon University; Kenneth Prewitt, Department of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University; Bruce D. Spencer, Department of Statistics, Northwestern University; Michael A. Stoto, Center for Domestic and International Health Security, RAND, Arlington, VA; James Trussell, Office of Population Research, Princeton University; Donald Ylvisaker, Department of Statistics, University of California, Los Angeles; and Alan M. Zaslavsky, Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School.
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 John C. Bailar III, Professor Emeritus, Department of Health Studies, The University of Chicago. 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.
Janet L. Norwood, Chair
Panel to Review the 2000 Census
OCR for page R11
The 2000 Census: Counting Under Adversity
Contents
Executive Summary
1
1
Introduction and Overview
15
1–A The Panel and Its Charge
16
1–B Overview of This Report
17
1–C Evaluating a Census
18
1–C.1 Errors in the Census
19
1–C.2 Methods of Evaluation
22
1–D Summary of Findings: Overall Assessment
25
1–D.1 Achievements
26
1–D.2 Problems
27
1–D.3 Adjustment Decisions
28
1–D.4 Evaluation
30
1–D.5 Summary Assessment
31
2
Census Goals and Uses
33
2–A Congressional Apportionment
36
2–A.1 Treatment of Noncitizens
37
2–A.2 Treatment of Americans Overseas
38
2–A.3 Treatment of Uncounted People
42
2–B Legislative Redistricting
43
2–B.1 History of Redistricting Standards
44
2–B.2 Voting Rights Act of 1965 and Amendments
47
2–B.3 Implications of Redistricting for Census Data Requirements
53
OCR for page R16
The 2000 Census: Counting Under Adversity
8
Race and Ethnicity Measurement
303
8–A Historical Overview
304
8–B Standardizing Federal Collection: The OMB Guidelines
308
8–C Race and Ethnicity Data in 1990 and 2000
312
8–C.1 Questions and Results
312
8–C.2 Quality of Race and Ethnicity Data in the 2000 Census
313
8–D Future Requirements
322
9
Management and Research
325
9–A Organization and Management Structure
325
9–A.1 2000 Census Organization
325
9–A.2 Assessment
327
9–B Evaluation Program
330
9–B.1 Completing 2000 Census Evaluations
330
9–B.2 Strengthening the Evaluation Component for 2010
334
10
Detailed Findings and Recommendations
339
Appendixes
353
A Panel Activities and Prior Reports
355
A.1 List of Panel Meetings, Workshops, and Trips by Panel Members
355
A.2 Publications
356
A.2.a The 2000 Census: Interim Assessment
356
A.2.b LUCA Working Group Report
357
A.2.c Workshop Proceedings
359
A.3 Commissioned Paper
359
A.4 Letter Reports
360
A.4.a May 1999 Letter Report
360
A.4.b November 2000 Letter Report
369
A.4.c November 2001 Letter Report
373
B Questionnaire Items on the 2000 and 1990 Censuses and Census 2000 Supplementary Survey
375
OCR for page R17
The 2000 Census: Counting Under Adversity
C Census Operations
379
C.1 Master Address File
380
C.1.a Initial Development
380
C.1.b Local Review
381
C.1.c Further Development of MAF
384
C.1.d Internal Checks for Duplicates
384
C.1.e Comparison: Address List Development in 1990
386
C.2 Questionnaire Delivery and Mail Return
387
C.2.a Redesign of Mailings and Materials to Boost Response
390
C.2.b Multiple Response Modes
391
C.2.c Comparison: 1990 Questionnaire Delivery and Return
392
C.3 Field Follow-Up
392
C.3.a Nonresponse Follow-Up
393
C.3.b Coverage Improvement Follow-Up
395
C.3.c Comparison: 1990 Field Follow-Up and Coverage Improvement
397
C.3.d Summary: 1990 and 2000
400
C.4 Outreach Efforts
401
C.5 Data Processing
402
C.5.a Data Capture
403
C.5.b Coverage Edit and Telephone Follow-Up
403
C.5.c Unduplication of Households and People
404
C.5.d Editing and Imputation
405
C.5.e Other Data Processing
406
C.5.f Comparison: 1990 Data Processing
406
D Completeness of Census Returns
409
D.1 Coverage Completeness: 1990
409
D.2 Coverage Completeness: 2000
410
D.2.a Within-Household Omissions and Erroneous Enumerations by Type of Return
410
D.2.b Omissions and Erroneous Enumerations by Mail Return Rate Deciles
411
D.2.c Erroneous Enumerations by Domain and Tenure
414
OCR for page R18
The 2000 Census: Counting Under Adversity
E A.C.E. Operations
417
E.1 Sampling, Address Listing, and Housing Unit Match
417
E.1.a First-Stage Sampling and Address Listing of Block Clusters
418
E.1.b Sample Reduction for Medium and Large Block Clusters
419
E.1.c Sample Reduction for Small Block Clusters
419
E.1.d Initial Housing Unit Match
419
E.1.e Last Step in Sampling: Reduce Housing Units in Large Block Clusters
419
E.2 P-Sample Interviewing
420
E.3 Initial Matching and Targeted Extended Search
422
E.3.a E-Sample and P-Sample Matching Within Block Cluster
423
E.3.b Targeted Extended Search
424
E.4 Field Follow-Up and Final Matching
425
E.5 Weighting and Imputation
426
E.6 Poststrata Estimation
428
F Methods for Treating Missing Data
433
F.1 Overview
433
F.1.a Mechanisms for Nonresponse
436
F.1.b Implementation Considerations
438
F.2 Outline of the Current Methodology
440
F.3 Problems with the Current Methodology
442
F.4 New Approaches to Imputation and Their Advantages
444
F.5 New Approaches to Variance Estimation and Their Advantages
449
F.6 Suggestions for Work for the American Community Survey and the 2010 Census
452
G 2000 Census Basic (Complete-Count) Data Processing
455
G.1 Data Capture and Coverage Edit
456
G.2 Item Imputation and Editing
457
G.2.a Imputation Methodology
457
G.2.b Example of Edit and Imputation Specifications: Housing Tenure
459
G.3 Person Imputation
462
OCR for page R19
The 2000 Census: Counting Under Adversity
G.4 Household Imputation
463
H 2000 Census Long-Form-Sample Data Processing
469
H.1 Data Capture
470
H.2 Weighting
470
H.2.a Initial Weighting Areas
470
H.2.b Data Augmentation
471
H.2.c Final Weighting Areas
472
H.2.d Construction of Weights
472
H.3 Item Imputation
476
H.3.a Example of Edit and Imputation Specifications: Education Variables
477
H.3.b Analysis
478
I Census 2000 Evaluations and Experiments
495
I.1 Census 2000 Evaluations
495
I.2 Census 2000 Evaluation Topic Reports
505
I.3 Census 2000 Experiments
506
Glossary and Abbreviations
511
Bibliography
533
Biographical Sketches of Panel Members and Staff
567
Index to Chapters 1–10
573
OCR for page R20
The 2000 Census: Counting Under Adversity
List of Figures
8.1
Race and Hispanic Origin Questions, 1990 Census
314
8.2
Race and Hispanic Origin Questions, 2000 Census
315
8.3
Imputation Rates for Hispanic Origin by Population (County Level)
318
8.4
Imputation Rates for Race by Population (County Level)
319
8.5
Imputation Rates for Hispanic Origin in Census Tracts of Selected Counties
320
8.6
Imputation Rates for Race in Census Tracts of Selected Counties
321
H.1
Imputation/Assignment Rates for Housing Items, 2000 and 1990 Census, Persons Receiving the Long Form (weighted)
494
OCR for page R21
The 2000 Census: Counting Under Adversity
List of Tables
2.1
Number and Approximate Average Population Size of State Senate and House Districts, by State, 2000
56
3.1
Decennial Census Costs, Total and Per Housing Unit, 1970–2000 (in constant fiscal year 2000 dollars)
94
4.1
People Requiring Imputation of All Basic Characteristics by Type of Imputation, 2000, 1990, and 1980 Censuses
129
4.2
Original and Actual Timelines for the Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) Program
136
4.3
Additions to and Deletions from the 2000 MAF from Major Census Operations in 2000
139
4.4
Participation of Local Governments in the 2000 Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) Program
143
5.1
Alternative Estimates of the Population and the Percentage Net Undercount, April 2000 (Original March 2001 A.C.E., Base DA, Alternate DA)
177
5.2
Alternative Survey-Based Estimates of Percentage Net Undercount of the Population, April 2000 (Original A.C.E. and Preliminary Revised A.C.E.) and April 1990 (Revised PES) (standard error percents in parentheses)
182
5.3
Alternative Demographic Analysis Estimates of Percentage Net Undercount of the Population, April 2000 (Base, Alternate, and Revised DA) and April 1990 (Base and Revised DA)
183
6.1
Missing Data Rates for Characteristics, 2000 A.C.E. and 1990 PES P-Sample and E-Sample (weighted)
196
OCR for page R22
The 2000 Census: Counting Under Adversity
6.2
Percentage of 2000 A.C.E. P-Sample People with Imputed Characteristics, by Proxy Interview and Mover Status (weighted)
196
6.3
Data Sources and Evaluations Used in A.C.E. Revision II
210
6.4
Sex Ratios (Men per 100 Women) from the Census, Demographic Analysis (DA), Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation (A.C.E.) Revision II, and Post-Enumeration Survey (PES), 1990 and 2000
225
6.5
Correct Enumeration Rates Estimated from the E-Sample (percents), 2000 A.C.E. and 1990 PES, by Race/Ethnicity Domain and Housing Tenure (weighted)
227
6.6
Match Rates and Census Inclusion Rates Estimated from the P-Sample (percents), 2000 A.C.E. and 1990 PES, by Race/Ethnicity Domain and Housing Tenure (weighted)
228
6.7
Estimated Net Undercount Rates for Major Groups (percents), Original 2000 A.C.E. (March 2001), Revision II A.C.E. (March 2003), and 1990 PES (standard error percents in parentheses)
229
6.8
Components of Change from the Original A.C.E. Net Undercount Rate to the Revision II Net Undercount Rate for Selected Race/Ethnicity Domains
233
6.9
Percentage Distribution of People Requiring Imputation and Reinstated Records in the 2000 Census, and Percentage Distribution of Total People with Insufficient Information in 1990, by Race/Ethnicity Domain and Housing Tenure and by Age/Sex Categories
238
6.10
Percent Duplicate Enumerations in 2000 Census by Type for Race/Ethnicity Domains and Age/Sex Groups from the Further Study of Person Duplication
242
6.11
Estimated Net Undercount Rates (percents), Original 2000 A.C.E. (March 2001), Revised Demographic Analysis (October 2001), and A.C.E. Revision II (March 2003) by Race, Sex, and Age
255
7.1
Basic Item Imputation Rates, 2000 and 1990 Complete-Count Census, by Type of Form and Race/Ethnicity, Household Population
274
7.2
Percentage of Household Members Reporting Basic Items, 2000 Census, 2000 A.C.E. E-Sample and Independent P-Sample (weighted)
278
7.3
Basic Item Imputation Rates, 2000 and 1990 Census Long-Form Sample, Census 2000 Supplementary Survey, and 2000 P-Sample, by Type of Rate and Form, Household Population (weighted)
283
OCR for page R23
The 2000 Census: Counting Under Adversity
7.4
Imputation/Assignment Rates for Selected Long-Form Items, 2000 and 1990 Census Long-Form Samples, by Type of Response, Household Population (weighted)
285
7.5
Imputation Rates for Selected Long-Form Items, 2000 Long-Form Sample and Census 2000 Supplemental Survey, by Type of Response, Household Population (weighted)
287
7.6
Index of Inconsistency for Selected Long-Form-Sample Items, 2000 and 1990 Content Reinterview Surveys (weighted)
290
7.7
Whole-Household Nonresponse in the 2000 and 1990 Census Long-Form Samples
292
7.8
Whole-Person Nonresponse in the 2000 Long-Form Sample, by Race of Reference Person
293
7.9
Imputation/Assignment Rates for Selected Person Items, 2000 and 1990 Census Long-Form Samples, by Type of Residence, Group Quarters Population (weighted)
298
8.1
Census Race Categories, 1850–2000
306
A.1
Meetings of the Panel to Review the 2000 Census
356
A.2
Site Visits to Regional and Local Census Offices, 2000
357
A.3
Additional Site Visits to Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation Offices, 2000
358
D.1
Composition of 2000 Census Households, as Measured in the Original A.C.E. E-Sample, by Enumeration Status, Mail and Enumerator Returns, and Housing Tenure (weighted)
412
D.2
Rates of P-Sample Omissions, E-Sample Erroneous Enumerations, and P-Sample and E-Sample Unresolved Cases in the Original 2000 A.C.E., by Mail Return Rate Decile of Census Tract (weighted)
413
D.3
Rates of E-Sample Erroneous Enumerations and Unresolved Cases, in Mailout/Mailback and Update/Leave Types of Enumeration Area (TEA), by Mail or Enumerator Return, Race/Ethnicity Domain, and Housing Tenure, Original 2000 A.C.E. (weighted)
416
E.1
Distribution of the 2000 A.C.E. P-Sample Block Clusters, Households, and People, by Sampling Stratum (unweighted)
421
E.2
Distribution of Initial, Intermediate, and Final Weights, 2000 A.C.E. P-Sample and E-Sample
427
E.3
Poststrata in the Original 2000 A.C.E., 64 Major Groups
430
G.1
Percent Whole-Person Imputations (Type 1) by Age and Domain/Tenure Category, Household Members, 2000 (Percent)
464
OCR for page R24
The 2000 Census: Counting Under Adversity
G.2
Distribution of People Requiring Whole-Household Imputation by Type of Imputation, by Race/Ethnicity Domain and Housing Tenure, 2000 Census
467
H.1
Imputation/Assignment Rates for Selected Population and Housing Items, 2000 and 1990 Census Long-Form Sample, Household Members, by Type of Response: Household Respondent (Self) vs. Enumerator-Filled (Enum) (weighted)
480
H.2
Imputation Rates for Selected Population and Housing Items, 2000 Census Long-Form Sample, Household Members, by Race and Hispanic Origin of Household Reference Person (weighted)
481
H.3
Imputation Rates for Selected Population and Housing Items, 2000 Census Long-Form Sample, Household Members, 10% Worst Census Tracts, by Race and Hispanic Origin of Reference Person (weighted)
482
H.4
Imputation Rates for Selected Population and Housing Items, 2000 Census Long-Form Sample, Household Members, by Geographic Aggregations (weighted)
483
H.5
Imputation Rates for Selected Population and Housing Items, 2000 Census Long-Form Sample, Household Members, Worst 10% Census Tracts, by Geographic Aggregations (weighted)
484
H.6
Imputation Rates for Population Items, 2000 and 1990 Census Long-Form Sample, Household Members (weighted)
485
H.7
Imputation Rates for Housing Items, 2000 and 1990 Census Long-Form Sample, Household Members (weighted)
486
H.8
Imputation/Assignment Rates (percents) for Selected Population Items for Group Quarters Residents, 2000 and 1990 Long-Form Samples, by Type of Group Quarters (weighted)
487
OCR for page R25
The 2000 Census: Counting Under Adversity
List of Boxes
2.1
Selected 2000 Census Data Products
34
2.2
Utah v. Evans: Legal Challenges to 2000 Census
40
2.3
Congressional Redistricting Cases on Population Equality, 1990s
48
2.4
Congressional Redistricting Cases on Population Equality, 2000s
49
2.5
State Legislative Redistricting Cases on Population Equality, 1990s
50
2.6
State Legislative Redistricting Cases on Population Equality, 2000s
51
2.7
Voting Rights Act Redistricting Cases, 2000s
54
3.1
Department of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives: Sampling in the 2000 Census
90
4.1
Mail Response and Return Rates
100
4.2
Imputation Types for Basic (Complete-Count) Characteristics
128
4.3
Defining Participation in the Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) Program
144
6.1
Alternative Treatment of Duplicate Census Enumerations, Two Examples
201
C.1
Basic Steps to Develop the Master Address File Prior to Census Day, 2000 and 1990
382
C.2
Types of Enumeration Areas (TEAs)
388
F.1
Model-Based versus Model-Free Treatments for Imputation
446
F.2
EM Algorithm
448
OCR for page R26
The 2000 Census: Counting Under Adversity
G.1
Simple Illustration of 2000 Census Hot Deck Imputation Process for a Single Cell of an Imputation Matrix
460
