Evaluation of the Block Splitting Operation for Tabulation Purposes

By Green, Somonica

Book Id: WPLBN0000580911
Format Type: PDF eBook
File Size: 150,362 KB.
Reproduction Date: 2005

Title:	Evaluation of the Block Splitting Operation for Tabulation Purposes
Author:	Green, Somonica
Volume:
Language:	English
Subject:	Government publications, Census., Census report
Collections:	U.S. Census Bureau Collection
Historic Publication Date:
Publisher:	U.S. Census Bureau Department


Citation APA MLA Chicago Green, S. (n.d.). Evaluation of the Block Splitting Operation for Tabulation Purposes. Retrieved from http://www.self.gutenberg.org/

Description
Statistical Reference Document

Excerpt
Excerpt: This evaluation measures the percent of the country affected by collection blocks split for tabulation purposes, and the accuracy of that block splitting. The country refers to all areas of the United States except Puerto Rico, the Island Areas, Remote Alaska, and collection blocks without housing units or group quarters. This evaluation does not measure geocoding error. Collection blocks are geographic areas that are usually defined by visible features, and used by the Census Bureau to conduct field operations. For Census 2000, the Census Bureau classified each collection block in the country into one of the following nine types of enumeration areas ...

Table of Contents
CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii 1. BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1 1990 Census . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 Relationship between blocks and Type of Enumeration Areas (TEAs) . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.3 Process for splitting blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1 Sample design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2 Field procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.3 Variance estimation and statistical significance testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.4 Applying quality assurance procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. LIMITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1 Blocks excluded from the sampling universe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2 Redefined boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.3 Data by type of tabulation geography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.4 Block statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1 Distribution of split blocks based on TEA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.2 Representativeness of the selected sample based on the estimated number of split blocks, HUs, and GQs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.3 Results of the field operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.4 How much of the country was affected by block splitting for tabulation purposes? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.5 What percent of the country was allocated to the wrong side of a tabulation boundary? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.6 Did the percent in error vary by TEA grouping? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.7 Did the percent in error vary by address type? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.8 Did the percent in error vary by block split/misallocation status? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.9 What can we conclude? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Appendix A: States in the Northeast and Midwest Census Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Appendix B: Distribution of Housing Units and Group Quarters by TEA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20