Envisioning the 2020 Census (2010) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Appendix A: Past Census Research Programs
Appendix A: Past Census Research Programs
Pages 115-180
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 115... ...
. A–1 1950 CENSUS A–1.a Principal Pretests and Experiments Conducted Prior to the Census Supplements to the Current Population Survey (CPS)
|
From page 116... ...
: test of questions on physical char acteristics of dwellings; led to revised definition of "dwelling unit." Experiments Conducted in Special Censuses or Other Surveys • April 1946 (Wilmington, NC) : experiment conducted as part of special census, focusing on collection of both current and usual residence in formation.
|
From page 117... ...
: test of Survey of Residential Financing questions helped determine final procedures. Dress Rehearsals • April–May 1948 (Cape Girardeau and Perry Counties, MO)
|
From page 118... ...
. A–2 1960 CENSUS A–2.a Principal Pretests and Experiments Conducted Prior to the Census Supplements to the Current Population Survey (CPS)
|
From page 119... ...
• October 1957 (Indianapolis, IN) : focused test of several possible cov erage improvement techniques in one postal zone as part of a special census.
|
From page 120... ...
: test of self-enumeration and mailback • methodology as part of special census. Housing units were listed by enumerators and questionnaires distributed, with instructions to com plete and mail on the census date.
|
From page 121... ...
: test of classification of living quarters; used to formalize 1960 census definition of housing unit based on sep arate entrance or separate cooking equipment. • March, May 1958 (Prince George's County, MD)
|
From page 122... ...
• A follow-up study, called "Response Variance Study II," designed to measure variability in response due to the respondents themselves. A sample of 5,000 households from Response Variance Study I was drawn and enumerators sent to conduct interviews; a second sample of 1,000 housing units were asked to report again using a mailed, self-response questionnaire (with mailback, and interviewer follow-up if necessary)
|
From page 123... ...
About 10,000 hous ing units were administered a detailed housing questionnaire. • Postenumeration survey based on a list sample: About 15,000 living quarters (both housing units and group quarters)
|
From page 124... ...
A sample area of 10,000– 15,000 housing units was selected in each of the 15 postal regions in the continental United States. These areas were matched to census enumer ation districts.
|
From page 125... ...
, based on in put from a task force on difficult-to-enumerate areas that had been convened in Louisville in late 1963. In this test, the Census Bureau concluded that a computer-generated address register based on pre vious census records and building permits was more complete than listing books completed by enumerators.
|
From page 126... ...
, administered to a national sample of about 2,300 housing units. January–October 1966 (Wilmington, DE, SMSA)
|
From page 127... ...
administered to 4,900 urban housing units in a national sample. The version of the questionnaire modeled on that used in the New Haven experiment was judged to be most practical for both respondents and the Census Bureau.
|
From page 128... ...
: focused study of address list development in "fringe" areas where city delivery and rural service were mixed. About 16,500 such housing units were found in the Kalamazoo area in this test, with about 20 percent being addresses that could be found on city-delivery listings and in the enumerator canvasses.
|
From page 129... ...
– Current Population Survey–Census match: match of CPS records collected during the week of March 19, 1970, to census returns in order to estimate the gross number of missed housing units at the overall level (not just the mailout areas, as in the housing unit coverage study)
|
From page 130... ...
; and (5) vacancy recheck, a follow-up study of a nationwide sample of 15,000 housing units classified as vacant by enumerators.
|
From page 131... ...
A sample of about 11,000 housing units (10,000 occupied and 1,000 flagged as va cant) from the long-form sample universe was flagged for rein terview.
|
From page 132... ...
– Record check on gross rent: similar to the record check on home value, the study of gross rent in 1970 extended an idea from the 1950 census. In five selected metropolitan areas, about 1,200 rental-occupied households were drawn from the 1970 census returns; the local gas and electric utility companies provided data on amounts paid for each of the 12 months before Census Day, which were compared with census-reported figures.
|
From page 133... ...
The local review of population and housing units was also tested in subsequent experiments, and, in the end, local au thorities were given a chance to review counts between the first and second phases of follow-up during the 1980 census. • October 1975 (Pima County, AZ)
|
From page 134... ...
• May 1975 (national sample) : national mail-only test of the four in come questions tested on a local level in Salem County, NJ; the national test included 19,700 housing units, and some nonresponse follow-up was conducted by Census Bureau survey interviewers.
|
From page 135... ...
• July 1976 (national sample) : National Content Test involving mailed questionnaires to about 28,000 housing units divided into two panels.
|
From page 136... ...
fielding of a short survey to assess awareness of the advertising and public information campaign associated with the test census; and (6) testing of a two-phase local review process to examine preliminary housing unit and population counts.
|
From page 137... ...
: based on responses to the Hispanic origin question in the Richmond dress rehearsal (below) , the Census Bureau conducted a National Test of Spanish Origin of about 3,200 housing units, by mail, during summer 1978.
|
From page 138... ...
. In this test, the Census Bureau experienced resistance from mail carriers when a postal check of address lists was performed; the carriers rebelled at having to complete a separate postcard for each unit in large multiunit structures that had been omitted from the cen sus address register (as a result of these criticisms, future postal checks permitted only one "add" postcard to be completed for all the units of a completely missed structure/address)
|
From page 139... ...
. The studies also estimated the rate at which whole housing units containing at least one household member dupli cated elsewhere were themselves duplicated in the census (i.e., through clerical or geographic coding error)
|
From page 140... ...
The precanvass was conducted on a 100 percent basis in the urban areas where the commercial address list–based register was to be used; after the census, precanvass registers were compared with final census registers and census data for a sample of enumeration districts in order to study the characteristics of added housing units. The Census Bureau estimated that the precanvass added 2.36 million addresses to the census, at a cost of about $12 million.
|
From page 141... ...
. The Census Bureau estimated that the living quarters check -- comparing the reported number of living quar ters at the address to the address register and following up on discrepancies -- ultimately added about 93,000 housing units to the census, concentrated in 30 of the 260 sample enumeration districts.
|
From page 142... ...
. In 137 district offices, areas were selected to be recan vassed and listed; these recanvass registers were then compared with the census master address register to determine whether any housing units could be added or deleted.
|
From page 143... ...
This review suggested another 148,000 housing units that might have been missed by the cen sus; ultimately, the Census Bureau estimated that this operation added about 50,000 housing units and 130,000 people to the final census counts. – Local review: evaluation of a procedure in which preliminary population and housing unit counts were generated down to the enumeration district level, after completion of nonresponse follow-up, and given to local officials to review.
|
From page 144... ...
; the other half of the customers served as a control group. The companies then submitted lists of customer names, addresses, average monthly utility cost, and sample/control group status to the Census Bureau for matching to census returns.
|
From page 145... ...
. Part of the evalua tion also considered the extent to which the data used to fill gaps for particular housing units wound up being drawn from an ad jacent unit -- that is, the housing unit immediately preceding the "gap" unit on the Census Bureau's record tapes.
|
From page 146... ...
. – Applied Behavior Analysis Study: experiment in which perma nent Census Bureau survey enumerators were sent to visit a sam ple of about 11,000 housing units (clustered in 20 district offices)
|
From page 147... ...
– Update List-Leave experiment: test of an alternative type of enumeration, conducted simultaneously with the main census effort between March 11 and March 26, 1980. Enumerators were tasked to canvass an enumeration district, simultaneously comparing and updating address register entries and leaving a short- or long-form questionnaire for respondents to complete and mail back.
|
From page 148... ...
. A–5 1990 CENSUS A–5.a Principal Pretests and Experiments Conducted Prior to the Census Pretests of Census Operations and Questionnaires • July–August 1983 (Essex County, MA)
|
From page 149... ...
In the Connecticut portion of the test, three basic address list sources were used and compared -- commercial vendor mailing lists, U.S. Postal Service lists, and the 1980 census address register updated through new construction permits and other sources.
|
From page 150... ...
: National Content Test of 46,000 hous ing units testing new question wording and formatting, particularly for the race and Hispanic-origin questions. The alternative questionnaires in this test also included a multiple residence coverage probe question ("Does this person regularly live at another residence for 30 or more days during the year?
|
From page 151... ...
• June 1987 (six metropolitan statistical areas -- Los Angeles–Long Beach, San Francisco–Oakland, and San Diego, CA; Houston, TX; New York, NY; Miami, FL) : further testing of race and Hispanic-origin questions, conducted by mailout to about 27,000 housing units in six metropoli tan areas known to contain significant concentrations of Asian or Pa cific Islander, Cuban, Mexican, or Puerto Rican populations.
|
From page 152... ...
The survey was administered to a sample of about 40,000 housing units mainly targeted to areas with high levels of American Indian and Asian and Pacific Islander response in 1980 (Philadelphia, Chicago, Detroit, New York, and San Diego) as well as a sample from rural areas in West Virginia and Mississippi.
|
From page 153... ...
to a usual home of residence. In the east central Missouri site, nine counties that were orig inally intended to be enumerated through mailout-mailback yielded large numbers of undeliverable addresses in an advance postal check of the address register; these were converted to update-list-leave ar eas where enumerators visited households (updating address entries as necessary)
|
From page 154... ...
These external sources may have in cluded the Current Population Survey as well as administrative data from states and from the federal Medicare program. Coding evaluation: quality assurance operation making use of – more experienced coding personnel to ensure that selected write in responses were keyed and categorized correctly.
|
From page 155... ...
The precen sus local review was judged to be particularly effective, with recanvass of challenged blocks ultimately yielding 367,313 additional housing units to the census roster.
|
From page 156... ...
to people who moved residences on or shortly after Census Day. Primary selection algorithm review: the Census Bureau's pri *
|
From page 157... ...
. A–6 2000 CENSUS A–6.a Principal Pretests and Experiments Conducted Prior to the Census Pretests of Census Operations and Questionnaires • 1992 (national sample)
|
From page 158... ...
: Implementation Test (IT) assessed the effects • on mail return rates of using a prenotice letter, a reminder postcard, a stamped return envelope, and a replacement questionnaire.
|
From page 159... ...
• March–June 1996 (national sample of housing units from 1990 census mailback areas not already included in previous tests) : National Con tent Survey testing 13 alternative questionnaire forms, seven short form designs and six long-form designs.
|
From page 160... ...
that the Census Bureau "plan, test, and become prepared to implement a 2000 decennial census, without using statistical methods" (i.e., the Census Bureau's plans for ICM and sampling rather than following up all nonresponding households) , and further required that both adjusted and unadjusted counts be made available in the 2000 census or "any dress rehearsal or other simulation made in preparation for the 2000 decennial census." As part of this compromise between the Census Bureau and Congress over fiscal year 1998 funding, the Bureau's planned dress rehearsal for 2008 in three sites was recast as a major operational test and comparison of alternative census designs.
|
From page 161... ...
A separate branch of the experiment sought to reconcile administrative records with the Master Address File to generate block-level population and housing unit counts. The results of the experiment are reported in Bauder and Judson (2003)
|
From page 162... ...
The C2SS was conducted as an experi ment, with the intent of determining whether it is feasible to collect long-form-census data at the same time, but in a separate process from, the decennial census data collection. The Census Bureau concluded that this simultaneous collection is feasible and that ACS work is fea sible for a full national sample; the results are reported in Griffin and Obenski (2001)
|
From page 163... ...
– Detailed Reasons for Undeliverability of Census 2000 Mailout Questionnaires by the Postal Service: further analysis of reasons for questionnaires to some housing units being deemed "undeliv erable as addressed," including follow-up work by local census offices. – Mailback Response Rates: examine mail response rates by geog raphy and questionnaire check-in dates.
|
From page 164... ...
– Master Trace Sample: archive and link the results for randomly selected census records across multiple operational databases, in cluding address list information, data processing archives, enu merator information, and Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation data. – Match Study of Current Population Survey to Census 2000: dis cuss results of person-level match between 2000 census returns and the Current Population Survey, emphasizing differences in estimates of poverty and labor force status.
|
From page 165... ...
: Documentation of Characteristics and Data Qual ity by Response Type; Match Study of A.C.E. to Census to Com pare Consistency of Race and Hispanic-Origin Responses; Hous ing Measures Compared to the American Housing Survey; Hous ing Measures Compared to the Residential Finance Survey; ACS Evaluation of Follow-Up, Edits, and Imputations; Comparisons of Income, Poverty, and Unemployment Estimates Between Cen sus 2000 and Three Census Demographic Surveys.
|
From page 166... ...
– Update-Enumerate: assess enumeration procedure through which interviewers visited housing units once, to verify ad dress list entries and to collect questionnaire information, rather than simply dropping a questionnaire for later return by mail. – List/Enumerate: assess enumeration procedure in which enumer ators simultaneously listed housing units and collected question naire data.
|
From page 167... ...
– Operational Analysis of Enumeration of Puerto Rico: consider the effectiveness of enumeration in Puerto Rico, which was con ducted using update-leave methodology in 2000. – Local Census Office Profile: operational summary of descriptive statistics on total housing units, average household size, mail re turn rate, and other information for each local census office.
|
From page 168... ...
– Coverage Improvement Follow-Up: report on the phase of follow-up that verified and collected information from units flagged as vacant or delete earlier in follow-up; units added in the New Construction operation; and other late additions, blank mail returns, and lost mail returns. – Coverage Gain from Coverage Questions on Enumerator Com pleted Questionnaire: consider effectiveness of change in ap proach from 1990, obtaining information on missing or erro neously included persons through a set of questions rather than a recitation of residence definitions as in 1990.
|
From page 169... ...
– Data Capture Audit Resolution Process: document results of au dit of data capture processing, including failure reasons, form type, and differential effects by data capture site. – Quality of the Data Capture System and the Impact of Question naire Capture and Processing on Data Quality: study impact of the automated data capture on data quality and compares data quality by the questionnaire item and form type, among other variables.
|
From page 170... ...
evaluation pro gram) : Analysis of Listing Future Construction and Multi-Units in Special Places; Analysis of Relisted Blocks; Analysis of Blocks With No Housing Unit Matching; Analysis of Blocks Sent Di rectly for Housing Unit Follow-Up; Analysis of Person Interview With Unresolved Housing Unit Status; Analysis on the Effects of Census Questionnaire Data Capture in A.C.E.; Analysis of
|
From page 171... ...
evaluation pro gram or combined with other evaluations) : Type of Enumeration Area Summary; Coverage of Housing Units in the Early Decen nial MAF; P-Sample Nonmatches Analysis; Person Coverage in Puerto Rico; Housing Unit Coverage in Puerto Rico; Geocoding Error Analysis; E-Sample Erroneous Enumeration Analysis; Anal ysis of Nonmatches and Erroneous Enumerations Using Logistic Regression; Analysis of Various Household Types and Long-Form Variables; Measurement Error Reinterview Analysis; Impact of Housing Unit Coverage on Person Coverage Analysis; Person Du plication; Analysis of Households Removed Because Everyone in the Household Is Under 16 Years of Age; Synthesis of What We Know About Missed Census People; Implications of Net Cen sus Undercount on Demographic Measures and Program Uses; Evaluation of Housing Units Coded as Erroneous Enumerations; Analysis of Insufficient Information for Matching and Follow-Up;
|
From page 172... ...
– Coverage Edit Follow-Up: program to resolve count discrepan cies and obtain missing data for large households. – Internet Questionnaire Assistance: system that allowed respon dents to use the Census Bureau's Internet site to ask questions and receive answers about the census questionnaire or other census related information.
|
From page 173... ...
– Data Capture: systems developed for full electronic data capture and imaging of census questionnaires, using optical mark and op tical character recognition. SOURCE: Adapted from National Research Council (2004a:App.
|
From page 174... ...
Internet returns, by comparison, experienced higher item re sponse rates than the control. As indicated in past research, reminder postcards and replacement questionnaires had a positive effect on re sponse.
|
From page 175... ...
Lake County, IL, was originally designated a test site but was dropped due to constraints in funding for fiscal year 2004. Intended to include approximately 200,000 housing units, the test centered around a few major topics: – Handheld devices: the test marked the Census Bureau's first at tempt to use handheld computers, equipped with GPS receivers, for nonresponse follow-up interviewing.
|
From page 176... ...
• August–September 2005 (national sample) : a second, mail-only Na tional Census Test in 2005 involved only variations in questionnaire design.
|
From page 177... ...
Housing units in this treatment group will receive questionnaires with the same wording for the Person 1 in struction that we used in the Census 2000 questionnaire. In the Final Question, respondents will be asked to provide their name, telephone number and proxy information.
|
From page 178... ...
– Group 3. Housing units in this treatment group will receive questionnaires with the revised wording for the Person 1 in struction.
|
From page 179... ...
APPENDIX A 179 SOURCES: Adapted from "2010 Census: How We Prepare for 2010" (http://2010.census.gov/2010census/about_2010_census/007623.html) ; for the 2006 Short Form Mail Experiment, Federal Register, October 5, 2005, pp.
|
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.