Archive


home
in espanol
mission statment
news
board of directors
A.
Dr.
Joe
reports to congress
contact us
                

 

Appendix E

Scientific Criticism

Committee on Adjustment of Postcensal Estimates.  Assessment of accuracy of adjusted versus unadjusted 1990 Census base for use in intercensal estimates (C.A.P.E. Report).  Technical report, U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census, 1992.

L. Breiman.  The 1991 Census Adjustment: Undercount or bad data?  Stat. Sci., 9:458 537, 1994.

L.D. Brown, M.L. Eaton, D.A. Freedman, S.P. Klein, R.A. Olshen, K.W. Wachter, M.T. Wells, and D. Ylvisaker.  Statistical controversies in Census 2000.  Technical Report 537, Dept. Statistics, Univ. of Calif., Berkeley, January 1999.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of the Secretary.  Decision of the Secretary of Commerce on Whether a Statistical Adjustment of the 1990 Census of Population and Housing Should Be Made for Coverage Deficiencies Resulting in an Overcount or Undercount of the Population.  ACTION: Notice of final decision.  Federal Register, 56 FR 140, 22 July 1991.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration Bureau of the Census.  Decision of the Director of the Bureau of the Census on whether to use information from the 1990 Post-Enumeration Survey (PES) to adjust the base for intercensal population estimates produced by the Bureau of the Census.  ACTION: Notice of final decision.  Federal Register, 58 FR 69, 1993.

K. Darga.  Fixing the Census Until It Breaks. Washington, D.C., publication planned for 2000.

K. Darga.  Sampling and the Census: A Case Against the Proposed Adjustments for Undercount.  AEI Press, Washington, D.C., 1999.

M.C. Davis and P. Biemer.  1990 Post-Enumeration Survey Evaluation Project P7 Series #H-2, Estimates of P-sample clerical matching error from a rematching evaluation.  Technical report, U. S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census, 1991.

D. Freedman.  Adjusting the 1990 Census.  Science, 252:1233 1236, 1991.

D. Freedman.  Adjusting the Census of 1990.  Jurimetrics, 34:99 106, 1993.

D. Freedman and K. Wachter.  Heterogeneity and Census Adjustment for the Intercensal Base.  Stat. Sci., 9: 458 537, 1994.

D. Freedman and W.C. Navidi.  Should we have adjusted the U.S. Census of 1980?  Survey Methodology, 18:3 74, 1992.

D. Freedman, K. Wachter, R. Cutler, and S. Klein.  Adjusting the Census of 1990: Loss functions.  Evaluation Review, 18:243 280, 1994.

Report to the Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate.  2000 Census: Preparations for dress rehearsal leave many unanswered questions.  Technical Report GAO/GGD-98-74, U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C., 1998.

P.B. Stark.  Differences Between the 1990 and 2000 Census Adjustment Plans, and their Impact on Error.  Technical Report 550, Dept. Statistics, Univ. of Calif., Berkeley, March 1999.

K. Wachter.  Recommendations on 1990 Census adjustment, report to the Secretary of Commerce as a member of Special Advisory Panel.  Technical report, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1991.

K. Wachter.  Comment: Ignoring nonignorable effects.  J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 88:1161 - 1163, 1993.