> Number range CHAPTERCensus 2000 Evaluation I.4
>
> May 9, 2003

Coverage Improvement Followup

FINAL REPORT

This evaluation reports the results of research and analysis undertaken
by the U.S. Census Bureau. It is part of a broad program, the Census
2000 Testing, Experimentation, and Evaluation (TXE) Program, designed to
assess Census 2000 and to inform 2010 Census planning. Findings from the
Census 2000 TXE Program reports are integrated into topic reports that
provide context and background for broader interpretation of results.

> Number range CHAPTERDarlene A. Moul

Decennial Statistical

Studies Division

![](media/image1.png){width="2.402083333333333in"
height="0.3597222222222222in"}

**Number range CHAPTERCONTENTS**

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY v

1\. BACKGROUND 1

1.1 Past Censuses 1

1.2 Census 2000 1

2\. METHODOLOGY 5

2.1 Decennial Master Address File (DMAF) 5

2.2 Combo File 5

2.3 Decennial Response File -- Stage 2 (DRF2) 6

2.4 Hundred percent Census Edited File with the reinstated housing units
(HCEF_D') 6

2.5 TMO Decennial Data Warehouse 7

2.6 Applying Quality Assurance Procedures 7

3\. LIMITATIONS 7

3.1 Recount in Hialeah, FL (LCO 2928) 7

3.2 CIFU Operation Cost 7

4\. RESULTS 8

4.1 Profile of the CIFU Workload 8

4.2 Demographics of the CIFU-enumerated and how they compare with the

NRFU-enumerated and the Self-enumerated 18

4.3 Impact of Other Operations on CIFU 22

4.4 CIFU Operation Cost 25

5\. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 25

References 26

Appendix A: Example of an Enumerator Questionnaire 28

Appendix B: Decennial Master Address File (DMAF) Variable Definitions 30

Appendix C: Combo File Variable Definitions 33

Appendix D: Decennial Response File -- Stage 2 (DRF2) Variable
Definitions 35

Appendix E: Hundred percent Census Edited File with the reinstated
housing units

(HCEF_D') Variable Definitions 38

Appendix F: CIFU Workload by Source and by State 40

Appendix G: CIFU Housing Unit Status by State 41

Appendix H: CIFU Enumerator Questionnaires Checked-in by Day and by Form
Type 43

Appendix I: CIFU Proxy Interviews Checked-in by Day and by Form Type 45

Appendix J: CIFU Partial Interviews Checked-in by Day and by Form Type
47

Appendix K: CIFU Refusals Checked-in by Day and by Form Type 49

Appendix L: CIFU Added and Deleted Addresses by State 51

Appendix M: CIFU Added and Deleted Addresses by Address Type for the
Mailout/Mailback

(MO/MB) Areas 53

Appendix N: CIFU Added and Deleted Addresses by Address Type for the
Update/Leave

(U/L) Areas 54

Appendix O: CIFU Added and Deleted Addresses by Address Type for the
Urban

Update/Leave (UU/L) Areas 55

**List of Tables**

Table 1: Minimum Requirements for a Complete Interview 3

Table 2: CIFU Workload by Source and by Form Type 9

Table 3: CIFU Workload by Housing Unit Status and Form Type 10

Table 4: CIFU Occupied Housing Units with no POP Count (by Source) 10

Table 5: CIFU Housing Unit Status by Source 11

Table 6: CIFU Enumerator Questionnaires Checked-in by Week and by Form
Type 12

Table 7: CIFU Respondent Types by Form Type 13

Table 8: CIFU Respondent Types for Occupied and Vacant Housing Units 14

Table 9: CIFU Proxy Interviews Checked-in by Week and by Form Type 14

Table 10: CIFU Interview Summary Responses by Form Type 15

Table 11: CIFU Partial Interviews by Respondent Type for Occupied and
Vacant

Housing Units 16

Table 12: CIFU Partial Interviews Checked-in by Week and by Form Type 16

Table 13: CIFU Refusals Checked-in by Week and by Form Type 17

Table 14: Distribution of Continuation Forms Used in CIFU 18

Table 15: CIFU-enumerated People by Source 18

Table 16: Tenure of the CIFU, NRFU and Self-enumerated Housing Units 19

Table 17: Unit Type of the CIFU, NRFU and Self-enumerated Housing Units
20

Table 18: Sex Characteristics of the CIFU, NRFU and Self-enumerated
Households 20

Table 19: Age Characteristics of the CIFU, NRFU and Self-enumerated
Households 20

Table 20: Hispanic Origin of the CIFU, NRFU and Self-enumerated
Households 21

Table 21: Race Characteristics of the CIFU, NRFU and Self-enumerated
Households 21

Table 22: Tenure of the CIFU, NRFU and Self-enumerated Households 22

Table 23: CIFU Added and Deleted Addresses by TEA 22

Table 24: CIFU Added and Deleted Addresses by Unit Type 23

Table 25: CIFU Added and Deleted Addresses by Address Type 24

Table 26: CIFU-enumerated IDs with Multiple Data Captures 24

Table 27: CIFU Field Operation Cost 25

# EXECUTIVE SUMMARY {#executive-summary .unnumbered}

Coverage Improvement Followup, an operation developed for Census 2000
that followed Nonresponse Followup, was designed to improve coverage of
housing units in the mailout/mailback, update/leave, and urban
update/leave areas. There were 121,894,831 \[1, pg 1, R1\] housing units
in these mailback areas that were potentially eligible for Coverage
Improvement Followup; the workload (including Puerto Rico) consisted of
8,854,304\[1, pg 1, R2\] housing units. Most of this workload consisted
of units classified as vacant or delete in Nonresponse Followup;
exceptions included units that were identified as vacant or delete in
two census operations, units identified as seasonal vacants, and units
identified as "undeliverable as addressed." Additional components of the
Coverage Improvement Followup universe included:

-   Adds from the new construction operation

-   Adds from the Update/Leave and Urban Update/Leave operations

-   Blank mail returns

-   Lost mail returns

-   Non-respondents in Panels 7, 8, and 9 of the Response Mode and
    Incentive Experiment

-   February 2000 and April 2000 Delivery Sequence File adds

-   Adds from the Local Update of Census Addresses 1998 and 1999 Appeals
    process

-   Hialeah, Florida Nonresponse Followup units

-   Miscellaneous units: POP99s (housing units identified as occupied
    during Nonresponse Followup that do not have a population count) and
    Residual Nonresponse Followup units

The Coverage Improvement Followup operation was conducted in three
separate waves as groups of local census offices completed Nonresponse
Followup.

-   Wave 1 included 342 local census offices that started the Coverage
    Improvement Followup operation on June 26 and finished on July 26.

> \[1, pg 2, R3\]

-   Wave 2 included 175 local census offices that started the Coverage
    Improvement Followup operation on July 10 and finished on August 10.

> \[1, pg 2, R3\]

-   Wave 3 included three local census offices that started the Coverage
    Improvement Followup operation on July 30 and finished on August
    23.\[1, pg 2, R3\]

The aim of this operational summary is to develop a profile of the
Coverage Improvement Followup units that will provide Census Managers
with critical information needed for planning the 2010 Census. For this
executive summary, the term "workload" refers to the housing units
contacted in Coverage Improvement Followup and "returns" refers to the
questionnaires completed during Coverage Improvement Followup. The key
findings follow.

-   The Coverage Improvement Followup operation followed-up 3.9
    million\[2, pg 1, R2\] vacant units and 2.6 million\[2, pg 2, R3\]
    delete units. Approximately 21.9 percent \[5, pg 1, R2\] \[5, pg 1,
    R1\]of the vacant units were converted to occupied and 24.6 percent
    \[5, pg 1, R3\] \[5, pg 1, R1\]of the deletes were converted to
    occupied; these converted units resulted in a net gain of
    approximately 3.1 million \[18, pg 1, R2\]people. Approximately\
    18.1 percent \[5, pg 1, R4\] \[5, pg 1, R6\]of the deletes were
    converted to vacant.

> In the 1990 field followup operation Vacant/Delete/Movers Check, we
> followed-up\
> 7.3 million vacant units and 2.9 million deleted units. Approximately
> 8.7 percent of the vacants were converted to occupied and 6.4 percent
> of the deletes were converted to occupied; approximately 5.3 percent
> of the deletes were converted to vacant. Compared to the 2000 Census,
> the 1990 vacant and delete workloads were larger and the conversion
> rates were lower; these differences were the result of changes in the
> universe rules for inclusion (i.e., there were different rules for
> including/excluding vacant and delete units).

-   At the end of Coverage Improvement Follow, approximately 26.8
    percent \[3, pg 1, R1\] of the units were occupied, 43.4 percent
    \[3, pg 1, R1\] were vacant and 29.7 percent \[3, pg 1, R1\] were
    deletes; only 542 \[3, pg 1, R1\]of the 8.9 million \[1, pg 1, R2\]
    housing units had an undetermined status at the end of the
    operation.

-   More than 88 percent of the lost mail returns and 81.2 percent of
    the blank mail returns yielded valid housing units.

-   Approximately 52.9 percent of the new construction adds and 58.5
    percent of the Delivery Sequence File adds were deleted;
    approximately 63.6 percent of the LUCA Appeals adds were ultimately
    deleted which confirms our findings in earlier operations that these
    addresses were not valid addresses.

-   Although 74.1 percent \[10, pg 1, R1\]of the Coverage Improvement
    Followup returns were completed by a proxy respondent, more than
    three-fourths \[10, pg 1, R2\] of the proxy interviews were for
    vacant units. Approximately 18.1 percent of the proxy interviews
    were for occupied housing units.

-   Approximately 5.3 percent \[12, pg 1, R1\] of the returns were
    partial interviews; 70.4 percent\[13, pg 1, R1\] of the partial
    interviews were also proxy interviews. Approximately 26.6
    percent\[13, pg 1, R1\] of the partial interviews were with a
    household member.

-   Approximately 94,000 \[12, pg 1, R1\] Coverage Improvement Followup
    households refused to participate in the Census.

-   There were 76,762 \[4, pg 1, R1\] occupied units with no population
    count, which implies the housing units size may have had to be
    imputed.

-   There were 5.3 million \[17, pg 2, R2\] people enumerated in
    Coverage Improvement Followup. Like the Nonresponse Followup
    operation, Coverage Improvement Followup was successful in
    enumerating a higher percentage of the groups that are typically
    undercounted: males, young people (34 years old and younger),
    Hispanics, and Blacks and Some Other Race.

-   The field operation cost (stateside) for Coverage Improvement
    Followup was\
    \$202.4 million\[26, pg 1, R5\]. The cost per case -- based on the
    stateside workload of 8,668,809 \[26, pg 1, R6\] housing units --
    was \$23.35\[26, pg 1, R7\].

The Coverage Improvement Followup operation had successes. For example,
more than\
five million\[17, pg 2, R2\] people were enumerated, a higher percentage
of the typically undercounted groups were enumerated and more than 1.5
million\[5, pg 1, R5\] vacant/delete units were converted to occupied.
**Clearly, there was substantial coverage improvement by following-up
the vacant and deletes from Nonresponse Followup and we should continue
to do so**. Also noteworthy, more than 80 percent of the lost mail
returns and blank mail returns yielded valid housing units. **While we
should continue to follow up on these as well, we should consider adding
a "vacant" option to the mailback questionnaire so that respondents
could indicate the unit was vacant on Census Day; thus we would not
waste valuable resources (time and money) following-up legitimate blank
returns.**

There were also areas of the operation that need improvement. For
example, more than\
50 percent of new construction and Delivery Sequence File adds were
deleted. **We need to investigate ways to improve/screen the data we
receive from local governments so that we avoid spending time and money
following-up invalid/bad data**. There were also a substantial number of
occupied units with no population count and households that refused to
participate in the Census. In spite of the Census Bureau's unprecedented
outreach and promotion efforts, the public's participation in the Census
remains an issue. **Thus as we strive to count every person, our highest
priority should be to work on boosting the public's participation which
will minimize the need for expensive field followup operations and, in
turn, improve coverage and reduce cost**.

**1. BACKGROUND**

Coverage Improvement Followup (CIFU), an operation developed for Census
2000 that followed Nonresponse Followup (NRFU), was designed to improve
coverage of housing units in the mailout/mailback, update/leave, and
urban update/leave areas.

**1.1 Past Censuses**

Evaluations from the 1980 Census showed substantial coverage improvement
by following up housing units classified as vacant or nonexistent
(delete) in NRFU. The vacant/delete procedure followed-up 5.8 million
vacant housing units and 2.3 million deleted units. Approximately\
10.1 percent of the vacant units were converted to occupied. The
follow-up of deleted units resulted in the addition of about 408,000
housing units to the 1980 census - 177,000 occupied and 231,000 vacant.
About 1.7 million persons were added from the vacant/delete follow-up,
representing a coverage gain of approximately 0.8 percent. (U.S. Bureau
of the Census, 1988)

In 1990, a Vacant/Delete/Movers Check was conducted as part of the Field
Follow-up operation. Units classified as vacant or delete in NRFU or
during List/Enumerate fieldwork were revisited during the
Vacant/Delete/Movers Check to determine if the unit was classified
correctly. If the status from the Vacant/Delete/Movers Check matched the
one from NRFU then no further processing was done. If the two statuses
did not agree, the unit was enumerated and the change in status was made
to the Address Control File.

The Vacant/Delete/Movers Check followed-up 2.9 million deleted units and
7.3 million vacant units as classified by NRFU. About 6.4 percent of the
deleted units were converted to occupied while 8.7 percent of the vacant
units were converted to occupied. A total of 1.5 million persons were
added to the census from these conversions, representing a coverage gain
of 0.6 percent. Approximately 5.3 percent of the deleted units were
converted to vacant. (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1993)

The Vacant/Delete/Movers Check was also designed to identify and count
post-Census Day movers. For Census 2000, this operation occurred in NRFU
and not in the CIFU operation. For more information, see U.S. Bureau of
the Census, 2000a.

**1.2 Census 2000**

The operational plan for CIFU in Census 2000 was similar to the 1980 and
1990 plans in that most of the CIFU universe consisted of units
classified as vacant or delete in NRFU; exceptions included units that
were identified as vacant or delete in two census operations, units
identified as seasonal vacants and units identified as undeliverable as
addressed (UAA). The universe also included addresses requiring followup
but identified too late to be included in the NRFU. The additional
components of the CIFU universe were:

-   Adds from the new construction operation

-   Adds from the Update/Leave (U/L) and Urban Update/Leave (UU/L)
    operations

-   Blank mail returns

-   Lost mail returns

-   Non-respondents in Panels 7, 8, and 9 of the Response Mode and
    Incentive Experiment (RMIE)

-   February 2000 and April 2000 Delivery Sequence File (DSF) adds

-   Adds from the Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) 1998 and 1999
    Appeals

(For more information on the specifications and definition of the CIFU
universe, see U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1999, and U.S. Bureau of the
Census, 2000d, respectively.)

The Hialeah, Florida (Local Census Office (LCO) 2928) NRFU units were
also included in the CIFU operation. This LCO did not follow the NRFU
final attempt procedures and their\
corner-cutting led census officials to retrace information gathered from
approximately\
71,000 households. In the beginning, the Census Bureau enumerated 20
percent of the city portion of the LCO and sampled the remaining 80
percent of the city (of Hialeah). Due to irregularities found in the
sample re-enumeration, we decided to re-enumerate the entire LCO.
Consequently, an operational plan was developed to combine NRFU and CIFU
for this LCO since there was no time in the schedule to conduct separate
operations; additional mail return cuts reduced the NRFU workload by
several thousand housing units. Also included in the CIFU workload were
a few miscellaneous units that were POP99s (housing units identified
during NRFU as occupied without a population count) or Residual NRFU
returns.

The CIFU operation was conducted in three separate waves as groups of
LCOs completed NRFU. The number of LCOs and the *actual* start and
finish dates for each wave were:

-   Wave 1 included 342 LCOs and started the CIFU operation on June 26
    and finished on July 26.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Wave 2 included 175 LCOs and started the CIFU operation on July 10
    and finished on August 10.

-   Wave 3 included three LCOs (2520, 2525, and 2928) and started the
    CIFU operation on July 30 and finished on August 23.

*1.2.1 CIFU Data Collection Process*

Enumerators visited the CIFU units and determined the occupancy status
of the unit as of Census Day. The Census Day status was one of three
possible conditions:

-   The followup address was *occupied* on Census Day, either by the
    current household or a different household.

-   The followup address was *vacant* on Census Day.

-   The followup address was *nonexistent* on Census Day and should not
    be counted for purposes of the Census.

The addresses classified as nonexistent were units enumerators
determined did not qualify as housing units as of Census Day and were
therefore coded for deletion.

Based on status, the enumerators completed the applicable items on the
appropriate enumerator questionnaire (EQ). Enumerators initially visited
each CIFU address in person; occupied units were allowed up to three
personal visits and three phone calls. After the required number of
attempts, if an enumerator could not contact a household member at a
follow-up address, the enumerator attempted to obtain Census Day status
of the unit from a knowledgeable\
non-household (proxy) respondent. For units that were obviously vacant
or should be deleted, enumerators could interview a proxy respondent on
the first visit.

Although we emphasized obtaining complete interviews, in some instances
partial interviews were accepted. The CIFU Program Master Plan (PMP)
defines a partial interview as "an interview in which the enumerator was
unable to obtain the minimum amount of information from a household
member or a non-household (proxy) respondent but obtained at least Unit
Status and Population Count" (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000c). The
following table shows the minimum information required for a complete
interview.

####  {#section .unnumbered}

#### Table 1: Minimum Requirements for a Complete Interview  {#table-1-minimum-requirements-for-a-complete-interview .unnumbered}

+------------------+------------+-------------------------------------+
| If a unit is\... | and the EQ | Then the minimum information        |
|                  | form       | required is\...                     |
|                  | is\...     |                                     |
+------------------+------------+-------------------------------------+
| Occupied         | Short      | \- name of each person              |
|                  |            |                                     |
|                  |            | \- 3 out of 5 100-percent           |
|                  |            | population questions (age, sex,     |
|                  |            | race, ethnicity, relationship) for  |
|                  |            | each person                         |
|                  |            |                                     |
|                  |            | \- house tenure                     |
+------------------+------------+-------------------------------------+
|                  | Long       | \- name of each person              |
|                  |            |                                     |
|                  |            | \- 3 out of 5 100-percent           |
|                  |            | population questions (age, sex,     |
|                  |            | race, ethnicity, relationship) for  |
|                  |            | each person                         |
|                  |            |                                     |
|                  |            | \- house tenure                     |
|                  |            |                                     |
|                  |            | \- any two additional housing       |
|                  |            | questions                           |
|                  |            |                                     |
|                  |            | \- any six additional population    |
|                  |            | questions for each person           |
+------------------+------------+-------------------------------------+
| Vacant - Regular | Short      | \- Question S4                      |
|                  |            |                                     |
|                  |            | \- Interview Summary (Sections A,   |
|                  |            | B, and C)                           |
|                  |            |                                     |
|                  |            | \- Respondent Information (Section  |
|                  |            | R3)                                 |
+------------------+------------+-------------------------------------+
|                  | Long       | \- Question S4                      |
|                  |            |                                     |
|                  |            | \- Interview Summary (Sections A,   |
|                  |            | B, and C)                           |
|                  |            |                                     |
|                  |            | \- Respondent Information (Section  |
|                  |            | R3)                                 |
|                  |            |                                     |
|                  |            | \- at least two of the              |
|                  |            | double-underlined questions         |
+------------------+------------+-------------------------------------+
| Vacant - Usual   | Short      | \- Question S3                      |
| Home Elsewhere   |            |                                     |
| (UHE)            |            | \- Interview Summary (Sections A,   |
|                  |            | B, and C)                           |
|                  |            |                                     |
|                  |            | \- Respondent Information (Section  |
|                  |            | R3)                                 |
+------------------+------------+-------------------------------------+
|                  | Long       | \- Question S3                      |
|                  |            |                                     |
|                  |            | \- Interview Summary (Sections A,   |
|                  |            | B, and C)                           |
|                  |            |                                     |
|                  |            | \- Respondent Information (Section  |
|                  |            | R3)                                 |
|                  |            |                                     |
|                  |            | \- at least two of the              |
|                  |            | double-underlined questions         |
+------------------+------------+-------------------------------------+

Data Source: CIFU Program Master Plan (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000b)

Completed questionnaires were processed through the assignment control
unit in the LCOs. Assignment control clerks reviewed the questionnaires
to ensure the critical items were completed. The critical items
included:

-   Questionnaire Label

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Enumerator's signature and Crew Leader's initials in the
    Certification item

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Introduction questions S2-S5, as appropriate

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Coverage questions C1 and C2, as appropriate

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Interview Summary items (A) unit status, (B) POP count and, if
    applicable, (G) Partial

    Interview and (H) Refusal.

####  {#section-1 .unnumbered}

The wording and the associated skip patterns for the introduction
questions S2 through S5 can be seen on the sample enumerator
questionnaire in Appendix A. The coverage questions C1 and C2 (also
shown in Appendix A) verified that:

-   The list of household members on the questionnaire included all the
    household members who should be counted (C1).

-   The household members listed on the questionnaire did not contain
    anyone who should not be counted (C2).

    Questionnaires failing this review were returned to the enumerator;
    questionnaires passing this review were routed to the Operations
    Control System (OCS) 2000 for automated check-in. All questionnaires
    were eventually checked-out using the OCS 2000 and shipped to the
    appropriate Data Capture Center for data capture.

    *1.2.2 CIFU Quality Assurance Program*

    The Quality Assurance (QA) program for CIFU had several objectives.
    They were:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   To minimize the number of mislabeled questionnaires.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   To ensure the questionnaires were completed correctly.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   To minimize data capture errors on data entered into the OCS 2000.

The first objective was obtained by reviewing the labeled questionnaires
before they were distributed to enumerators. The second objective was
accomplished by employing experienced enumerators, reviewing all
questionnaires for completeness, and verifying the correct
classifications on a sample of housing units. The third objective was
achieved by reviewing specific data items captured by the OCS 2000.

The sampling of housing units was referred to as the QA Dependent
Review. Cases eligible for the Dependent Review consisted of all the
CIFU universe components except the vacant and deleted housing units
identified in NRFU; these eligible cases were identified by an asterisk
on the questionnaire label and address listing pages. As questionnaires
were submitted by the enumerators, the crew leader examined the Census
ID on the questionnaire. If an asterisk followed the ID number, the
housing unit was eligible for the Dependent Review. If the housing unit
was occupied, no additional action was necessary. If the housing unit
was coded as vacant or delete, the unit was re-visited by the crew
leader and a decision regarding the correctness of the original
classification of the housing unit was noted. When a new questionnaire
was used for these vacant and delete cases, it was coded as a
"replacement" in Item H of the Interview Summary section of the EQ (see
Appendix A). For more information on the QA program for the Census 2000
CIFU operation, see U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000b.

**2. METHODOLOGY**

The data files used for this evaluation include:

-   Number range CHAPTERDecennial Master Address File (DMAF)

-   Combo File

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Decennial Response File - Stage 2 (DRF2)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Hundred percent Census Edited File with the reinstated housing units
    (HCEF_D')

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Technologies Management Office (TMO) Decennial Data Warehouse

**2.1 Decennial Master Address File (DMAF)**

The DMAF was the source file for the CIFU universe. The definitions of
selected DMAF variables can be seen in Appendix B.

*2.1.1 Identifying the CIFU-eligible Universe*

The CIFU-eligible universe consisted of residential addresses in the
mailback areas regardless of their mail return status. The universe was
identified by the type of enumeration area (TEA) variable (values of 1,
2, 6, 7, or 9), the group quarters housing unit flag variable (GQFLG = 0
or 3) and the Coverage Improvement universe (CIU) variable (values of
1 - 9).

*2.1.2 Identifying the CIFU Workload*

The CIFU workload was identified by the TEA and GQFLG variables and the
values specified in Section 2.1.1. The CIU variable was also used with
the values restricted to 2 through 9.

**2.2 Combo File**

This is a composite file that contains all variables from the MAF (March
2001 MAF extract) and selected variables from the DMAF, DRF2, HCUF and
HCEF files. The MAF data were used to identify the added addresses and
to classify these by address type. We classified addresses into five
categories based on the highest criteria met. The categories were:
complete city-style, complete rural route, complete P.O. Box, incomplete
address and no address information. The city-style category included all
units that had complete city-style addresses, which consists of a house
number and street name. The Rural Route category included units that did
not have a complete city-style address but did have a complete rural
route address, such as Rural Route 2, Box 3. The P.O. Box category
included units that did not have a complete city-style or rural route
address but did have a complete P.O. Box address, such as P.O. Box 5.
The incomplete category included units that had some address information
but did not have a complete address of any type. Addresses were further
delineated by whether or not the address had a location description
provided during a census field operation. For additional information on
how this variable was defined, see U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2001.

The added addresses were identified by the CIFU action code CIFUAC
(value of 'A'); the delivery specific address flag variable DLSPECAF='Y'
was used to identify the added addresses that met the criteria to be on
the DMAF. The housing unit flag variable GQ_HUF, values of 0 and 3, was
used to identify housing units. Selected variables from this file can be
seen in Appendix C.

**2.3 Decennial Response File -- Stage 2 (DRF2)**

The DRF2 was the file representing the capture of questionnaire data
from Census 2000 and was used as the source for CIFU return responses.
The DRF2 return level records for housing units (record type variable
RRT = 2 or 3) were used to identify the universe of CIFU responses. Also
used to identify the universe was the return form type variable RFT
(values of 5, 6, 17 or 18) and the source of the return variable RSOURCE
(values of 22, 23 or 24). The DRF2 was merged with the DMAF file to
examine the distribution of NRFU responses over time; the variable CID
(CIFU Check-in Date) from the DMAF was used to look at this
distribution. The files were linked by variable MAFID on the DMAF and
variable RUID on the DRF2. The definitions of selected DMAF and DRF2
variables can be found in Appendix B and Appendix D, respectively.

**2.4 Hundred Percent Census Edited File with the Reinstated Housing
Units (HCEF_D')**

The HCEF_D' contains the edited and imputed 100 percent data from the
census housing units, group quarters and persons; it was the source of
the demographics for the CIFU-enumerated housing units and households.
To ensure the housing unit and person records were valid CIFU IDs, these
files were merged with the DMAF extract described in Section 2.1, which
contains the official CIFU universe of housing unit IDs. Appendix E
contains a list of selected HCEF_D' variable definitions; selected DMAF
variables are shown in Appendix B.

1.  *Identifying the CIFU Housing Unit Universe*

The HCEF_D' housing unit record (variable RT = 2) was used to obtain the
housing unit characteristics of tenure (STENURE = 1, 2, 3 or 4) and unit
type (UBSA = 1 to 9999) for the CIFU-enumerated housing units. The CIFU
data were extracted using the Coverage Improvement Universe variable CIU
= 2 - 9.

2.  *Identifying the CIFU Person Universe*

The HCEF_D' person records (variable RT=3) were used to obtain the
person characteristics of sex (QSEX), age (QAGE), Hispanic origin
(QSPANX) and race (QRACEX). The housing unit (HU) file and person file
were merged by the MAFID variable on the HU file and the PUID variable
on the person file; the merged file contained the housing unit variable
CIU (values of\
2 through 9, inclusive), which was used to identify the CIFU-enumerated
persons.

4.  **TMO Decennial Data Warehouse**

The TMO data warehouse was a repository for data from the OCS 2000 and
the\
Pre-Appointment Management System/Automated Decennial Administrative
Management System (PAMS/ADAMS). This query system was used to obtain the
CIFU start and finish dates for the local census offices. The CIFU
"start" date is defined as the day the first CIFU EQ was checked into
the OCS 2000. The CIFU "finish" date is defined as the day the last CIFU
EQ was checked into the OCS 2000. This information was retrieved from
the data warehouse by the attributes "First Check-in Date" and "Last
Check-in Date."

5.  **Applying Quality Assurance Procedures**

We applied quality assurance procedures throughout the creation of this
report. They encompassed how we determined evaluation methods, created
specifications for project procedures and software, designed and
reviewed computer systems, developed clerical and computer procedures,
analyzed data, and prepared this report.

**3. LIMITATIONS**

**3.1 Recount in Hialeah, FL (LCO 2928)**

As a result of the enumeration problems that were mentioned in the
background, the Hialeah NRFU data were included with the CIFU data and
in all CIFU tabulations.

**3.2 CIFU Operation Cost**

Cost data do not include Headquarters and regional/LCO infrastructure
costs. Cost data for Puerto Rico was not available for this report.

> **4. RESULTS**

**4.1 Profile of the CIFU Workload**

Based on the DMAF, there were 121,894,831\[1, pg 1, R1\] housing units
that were potentially eligible for CIFU and 8,854,304\[1, pg 1, R2\]
housing units in the CIFU workload (including Puerto Rico). Most of the
CIFU workload consisted of units classified as vacant or delete in NRFU;
exceptions included units that were identified as vacant or delete in
two census operations, units identified as seasonal vacants and units
identified as UAA. Additional components of the CIFU universe included:

-   Adds from the new construction operation

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Adds from the U/L and UU/L operations

-   Blank mail returns

-   Lost mail returns

-   Non-respondents in Panels 7, 8, and 9 of the RMIE

-   February 2000 and April 2000 DSF adds

-   Adds from the Local Update of Census Addresses 1998 and 1999 Appeals

-   Hialeah, FL (LCO 2928) NRFU units

-   Miscellaneous units: POP99s (housing units identified as occupied
    during NRFU that do not have a population count) and Residual NRFU
    units

Table 2 shows the distribution of the CIFU workload by source and by
form type. We see in Table 2 that the majority (73.8 percent\[2, pg 1,
R1\]) of the CIFU workload was the NRFU vacants and deletes. However,
there were 9,893,046 \[2, pg 2, R7\] vacants in NRFU but only
3,927,175\[Table 2\] vacants in the CIFU universe as a result of
excluding the seasonal vacants. Similarly, there were 6,054,399\[2, pg
2, R8\] delete units in NRFU and only 2,606,520\[Table 2\] deletes in
CIFU due to the exclusion of the UAA housing units and the U/L and UU/L
undeliverables. The seasonal vacants reduced the workload by 5,965,871
units and the UAA/undeliverables reduced the workload by 3,447,879; by
excluding these, we reduced the CIFU workload by more than 9.4 million
units.

The Hialeah and miscellaneous units comprised less than 1.0 percent \[2,
pg 1, R4\] of the CIFU workload; the remaining seven sources
collectively represented 25.6 percent\[2, pg 1, R5\] (or approximately
one-fourth) of the CIFU workload. The CIFU workload by source and by
state can be seen in Appendix F.

Table 2: CIFU Workload by Source and by Form Type \[2, pg 1, R6\]

+------------------+--------+------+---+--------+------+---+--------+------+
| ####             | ####   |      | # | ##     |      |   |        |      |
|                  |        |      | # | ## For |      |   |        |      |
|                  | ####   |      | # | m Type |      |   |        |      |
|                  |  Total |      | # |        |      |   |        |      |
|                  |  Forms |      |   |        |      |   |        |      |
+------------------+--------+------+---+--------+------+---+--------+------+
| ####             |        |      | # | ####   |      | # | ###    |      |
|                  |        |      | # |  Short |      | # | # Long |      |
|                  |        |      | # |  Forms |      | # |  Forms |      |
|                  |        |      | # |        |      | # |        |      |
|                  |        |      |   |        |      |   |        |      |
+------------------+--------+------+---+--------+------+---+--------+------+
| #### Source      | ####   | #### | # | ####   | #### | # | ####   | #### |
|                  | Number |  Per | # | Number |  Per | # | Number |  Per |
|                  |        | cent | # |        | cent | # |        | cent |
|                  |        |      | # |        |      | # |        |      |
|                  |        |      |   |        |      |   |        |      |
+------------------+--------+------+---+--------+------+---+--------+------+
| #### Total       | ##     | ##   | # | ##     | ##   | # | ##     | ##   |
|                  | ## 8,8 | ## 1 | # | ## 6,9 | ## 1 | # | ## 1,9 | ## 1 |
|                  | 54,304 | 00.0 | # | 51,298 | 00.0 | # | 03,006 | 00.0 |
|                  |        |      | # |        |      | # |        |      |
|                  |        |      |   |        |      |   |        |      |
+------------------+--------+------+---+--------+------+---+--------+------+
| ####  Vacant    | ##     | #    | # | ##     | #    | # | #### 8 | #    |
|                  | ## 3,9 | ###  | # | ## 3,0 | ###  | # | 39,642 | ###  |
|                  | 27,175 | 44.4 | # | 87,533 | 44.4 | # |        | 44.1 |
|                  |        |      | # |        |      | # |        |      |
|                  |        |      |   |        |      |   |        |      |
+------------------+--------+------+---+--------+------+---+--------+------+
| ####  Delete    | ##     | #    | # | ##     | #    | # | #### 5 | #    |
|                  | ## 2,6 | ###  | # | ## 2,0 | ###  | # | 63,008 | ###  |
|                  | 06,520 | 29.4 | # | 43,512 | 29.4 | # |        | 29.6 |
|                  |        |      | # |        |      | # |        |      |
|                  |        |      |   |        |      |   |        |      |
+------------------+--------+------+---+--------+------+---+--------+------+
| ####            | #### 3 | #### | # | #### 3 | #### | # | ####   | #### |
| New Construction | 71,812 |  4.2 | # | 15,135 |  4.5 | # | 56,677 |  3.0 |
|                  |        |      | # |        |      | # |        |      |
|                  |        |      | # |        |      | # |        |      |
|                  |        |      |   |        |      |   |        |      |
+------------------+--------+------+---+--------+------+---+--------+------+
| ####  U         | #### 7 | #### | # | #### 5 | #### | # | #### 2 | #    |
| /L and UU/L Adds | 75,055 |  8.8 | # | 51,216 |  7.9 | # | 23,839 | ###  |
|                  |        |      | # |        |      | # |        | 11.8 |
|                  |        |      | # |        |      | # |        |      |
|                  |        |      |   |        |      |   |        |      |
+------------------+--------+------+---+--------+------+---+--------+------+
| ####  L         | ####   | #### | # | ####   | #### | # | ####   | #### |
| ost Mail Returns | 65,281 |  0.7 | # | 50,030 |  0.7 | # | 15,251 |  0.8 |
|                  |        |      | # |        |      | # |        |      |
|                  |        |      | # |        |      | # |        |      |
|                  |        |      |   |        |      |   |        |      |
+------------------+--------+------+---+--------+------+---+--------+------+
| ####  Bl        | #### 4 | #### | # | #### 3 | #### | # | #### 1 | #### |
| ank Mail Returns | 75,194 |  5.4 | # | 65,846 |  5.3 | # | 09,348 |  5.7 |
|                  |        |      | # |        |      | # |        |      |
|                  |        |      | # |        |      | # |        |      |
|                  |        |      |   |        |      |   |        |      |
+------------------+--------+------+---+--------+------+---+--------+------+
| ###              | ####   | #### | # | ####   | #### | # | #### 1 | #### |
| #  RMIE Returns |  5,285 |  0.1 | # |  5,284 |  0.1 | # |        |  0.0 |
|                  |        |      | # |        |      | # |        |      |
|                  |        |      | # |        |      | # |        |      |
|                  |        |      |   |        |      |   |        |      |
+------------------+--------+------+---+--------+------+---+--------+------+
| ####  Fe        | #### 5 | #### | # | #### 4 | #### | # | ####   | #### |
| b & Apr DSF Adds | 47,383 |  6.2 | # | 66,851 |  6.7 | # | 80,532 |  4.2 |
|                  |        |      | # |        |      | # |        |      |
|                  |        |      | # |        |      | # |        |      |
|                  |        |      |   |        |      |   |        |      |
+------------------+--------+------+---+--------+------+---+--------+------+
| ####  LUCA      | ####   | #### | # | ####   | #### | # | ####   | #### |
|  98 & 99 Appeals | 17,178 |  0.2 | # | 14,578 |  0.2 | # |  2,600 |  0.1 |
|                  |        |      | # |        |      | # |        |      |
|                  |        |      | # |        |      | # |        |      |
|                  |        |      |   |        |      |   |        |      |
+------------------+--------+------+---+--------+------+---+--------+------+
| ####  Hialeah   | ####   | #### | # | ####   | #### | # | ####   | #### |
|                  | 61,547 |  0.7 | # | 49,846 |  0.7 | # | 11,701 |  0.6 |
|                  |        |      | # |        |      | # |        |      |
|                  |        |      | # |        |      | # |        |      |
|                  |        |      |   |        |      |   |        |      |
+------------------+--------+------+---+--------+------+---+--------+------+
| ####             | ####   | #### | # | ####   | #### | # | ##     | #### |
|   Miscellaneous |  1,874 |  0.0 | # |  1,467 |  0.0 | # | ## 407 |  0.0 |
|                  |        |      | # |        |      | # |        |      |
|                  |        |      | # |        |      | # |        |      |
|                  |        |      |   |        |      |   |        |      |
+------------------+--------+------+---+--------+------+---+--------+------+

Data Source: DMAF

An entry with 0.0 percent indicates the value is less than one-tenth of
a percent.

^Note:\ There\ should\ be\ no\ long\ form\ RMIE\ returns;\ the\ one\ occurrence\ shown\ in\ the\ table\ represents\ an\ anomaly\ in\ the\ data.^

A housing unit was classified as either occupied, vacant, delete
(nonexistent) or undetermined in CIFU. The classifications are defined
as follows:

-   *Occupied* means someone lived at the follow-up housing unit on
    Census Day.

-   *Vacant* means the follow-up housing unit was for rent, for sale, or
    sold but not occupied, or for seasonal, recreational, or occasional
    use on Census Day.

-   *Delete* means the follow-up unit was demolished/burned out, cannot
    locate, duplicate, nonresidential, or other (open to the elements,
    condemned, under construction) on Census Day.

-   *Undetermined* means there was no status received for the follow-up
    unit.

Table 3 shows the distribution of the CIFU workload by housing unit
status and by form type. Approximately 43.4 percent\[Table 3\] of the
units were classified as vacant, almost 30 percent\[Table 3\] were
targeted for deletion and approximately 26.8 percent \[Table 3\]were
occupied. Only 542\[Table 3\] of the 8.9 million \[Table 3\]housing
units had an undetermined status at the end of CIFU; approximately 72.0
percent (390) of the 542 units were in Hawaii. This information is
provided by state in Appendix G.

Table 3: CIFU Workload by Housing Unit Status and Form Type \[3, pg 1,
R1\]

  --------------- ----------- --------- -- ----------- --------- -- ----------- ---------
                  Total Forms              Form Type                            

                                           Short Forms              Long Forms  

  CIFU HU Status  Number      Percent      Number      Percent      Number      Percent

  Total           8,854,304   100.0        6,951,298   100.0        1,903,006   100.0

   Occupied      2,375,668   26.8         1,842,542   26.5         533,126     28.0

   Vacant        3,846,067   43.4         3,003,388   43.2         842,679     44.3

   Delete        2,632,027   29.7         2,104,905   30.3         527,122     27.7

   Undetermined  542         0.0          463         0.0          79          0.0
  --------------- ----------- --------- -- ----------- --------- -- ----------- ---------

Data Source: DMAF

An entry with 0.0 percent indicates the value is less than one-tenth of
a percent.

Of the approximately 2.4 million\[Table 3\] housing units with a status
of occupied in CIFU, 76,762 \[4, pg 1, R1\]had no population count; thus
the housing unit size of approximately 3.2 percent \[4, pg 1, R2\] of
these cases might have been imputed. Table 4 shows the source of the
occupied units without a population count.

**Table 4: CIFU Occupied Housing Units with no POP Count**

**(by Source) \[4, pg 1, R1\]**

  ------------------------------------------- --------------- -----------
  Source                                      Number          Percent

  Total Occupied Units w/o POP Count          76,762          100.0

   Vacant                                    37,403          48.7

   Delete                                    24,251          31.6

   New Construction                          1,844           2.4

   U/L & UU/L Adds                           6,185           8.1

   Lost Mail Returns                         697             0.9

   Blank Mail Returns                        3,280           4.3

   RMIE Adds                                 62              0.1

   Feb & Apr DSF Adds                        2,713           3.5

   LUCA 98 & 99 Appeals Adds                 42              0.1

   Hialeah                                   256             0.3

   Miscellaneous                             29              0.0
  ------------------------------------------- --------------- -----------

Data Source: DMAF

An entry with 0.0 percent indicates the value is less than one-tenth of
a percent.

Since a primary function of the CIFU operation was to improve coverage
of housing units that may have been inaccurately classified as vacant or
nonexistent (delete) in an earlier operation, we were particularly
interested in the final status of the vacants and deletes. Table 5 shows
the source of the CIFU housing units and their final status at the end
of the CIFU operation.

**Table 5: CIFU Housing Unit Status by Source \[5, pg 1, R1\]**

  --------------- ----------- --------- --- -- ----------- --------- -- ----------- --------- -- ----------- ---------
                                               Final                                                         
                                               Housing                                                       
                                               Unit Status                                                   

                  Total                        Occupied                 Vacant                   Delete      

  Source          Number      Percent          Number      Percent      Number      Percent      Number      Percent

  Total           8,854,304   100.0            2,375,668   26.8         3,846,067   43.4         2,632,027   29.7

   Vacant        3,927,175   100.0            859,953     21.9         2,687,466   68.4         379,471     9.7

   Delete        2,606,520   100.0            642,480     24.6         471,785     18.1         1,492,054   57.2

   New           371,812     100.0            100,668     27.1         74,341      20.0         196,792     52.9
  Construction                                                                                               

   U/L & UU/L    775,055     100.0            350,137     45.2         295,924     38.2         128,982     16.6
  Adds                                                                                                       

   Lost Mail     65,281      100.0            50,555      77.4         7,187       11.0         7,535       11.5
  Returns                                                                                                    

   Blank Mail    475,194     100.0            140,597     29.6         245,079     51.6         89,500      18.8
  Returns                                                                                                    

   RMIE Adds     5,285       100.0            2,985       56.5         1,418       26.8         880         16.7

   Feb & Apr DSF 547,383     100.0            174,589     31.9         52,439      9.6          320,347     58.5
  Adds                                                                                                       

   LUCA 98 & 99  17,178      100.0            5,292       30.8         962         5.6          10,924      63.6
  Appeals                                                                                                    

   Hialeah       61,547      100.0            47,335      76.9         8,947       14.5         5,264       8.6

   Miscellaneous 1,874       100.0            1,077       57.5         519         27.7         278         14.8
  --------------- ----------- --------- --- -- ----------- --------- -- ----------- --------- -- ----------- ---------

Data Source: DMAF

Note: The columns do not sum to the total column because the table does
not include the 542 housing units that had a final status of
'undetermined' at the end of the CIFU operation.

From Table 5, we see that the NRFU operation followed-up 3.9 million
vacant units and\
2.6 million delete units. Approximately 21.9 percent \[Table 5\]of the
vacant units were converted to occupied and 24.6 percent \[Table 5\] of
the deletes were converted to occupied; these converted units resulted
in a net gain of approximately 3.1 million \[18, pg 1, R2\] people. (The
CIFU-enumerated people are discussed in Section 4.2.) Approximately 18.1
percent \[Table 5\]of the deletes were converted to vacant. The 1990
field followup operation Vacant/Delete/Movers/Check followed up 7.3
million vacant units and 2.9 million delete units (see Section 1.1).
Approximately 8.7 percent of the vacants were converted to occupied and
6.4 percent of the deletes were converted to occupied; approximately 5.3
percent of the deletes were converted to vacant. Compared to the 2000
Census, the 1990 vacant and delete workloads were larger and the
conversion rates were lower; these differences were the result of
changes in the universe rules for inclusion (i.e., there were different
rules for including/excluding vacant and delete units).

Other interesting findings in Table 5 include:

-   More than 88 percent of the lost mail returns yielded valid housing
    units.

-   Approximately 81.2 percent of the blank mail returns yielded valid
    housing units.

-   Over 50 percent of the new construction adds were deleted which
    implies the local governments provided inaccurate data in this
    program.

-   More than 58 percent of the DSF adds were deletes; these probably
    represent housing units on the DSF that have not been built yet.

-   Approximately 63.6 percent of the LUCA Appeals cases were ultimately
    deleted in the Census proving the addresses were not really valid
    given that we could not find these addresses in earlier census
    operations.

The CIFU operation was conducted in three separate waves as groups of
LCOs completed NRFU. The number of LCOs and the *actua*l start and
finish dates for each wave were:

-   Wave 1 included 342 LCOs that started the CIFU operation on June 26
    and finished on July 26.\[1, pg 2, R3\]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Wave 2 included 175 LCOs that started the CIFU operation on July 10
    and finished on August 10.\[1, pg 2, R3\]

-   Wave 3 included three LCOs (2520, 2525, and 2928) that started the
    CIFU operation on July 30 and finished on August 23.\[1, pg 2, R3\]

According to the OCS 2000, the LCOs started the CIFU operation as early
as June 23\[6, pg 1, R3\] ( three days before the official start date
for Wave 1) and finished as late as September 19 (27 days after the
official end date for Wave 3)\[6, pg 1, R4\]. The CIFU start date for
the LCOs is defined as the date the first CIFU questionnaire was checked
into the OCS 2000; the CIFU finish date is defined as the date the last
CIFU questionnaire was checked into the OCS 2000. According to the OCS
2000, the start dates ranged from June 23 through August 1\[6, pg 1,
R1\], and the CIFU finish dates ranged from July 5 through September
19\[6, pg 1, R2\]. According to the DMAF, nothing was checked-in after
August 24 thus there is a disconnect between the two data sources. Based
on OCS 2000 data, the duration of the CIFU operation ranged from seven
days\[6, pg 2, R5\] to 82 days\[6, pg 11, R6\].

Table 6 shows when the CIFU questionnaires were checked-in by week and
by form type. There were 542 \[7, pg 1, R7\] questionnaires with invalid
check-in dates that were excluded from the table; thus 8,853,762\[Table
6\] valid forms were checked-in between June 23 and August 24.
Approximately

78.5 percent \[7, pg 1, R2\] of these were short forms and 21.5
percent\[7, pg 1, R3\] were long forms. The majority

(83.9 percent\[7, pg 1, R5\]) of the forms were checked-in between July
2 and July 22 (weeks 3 -- 5). Only\
2.1 percent\[7, pg 1, R6\] of the enumerator questionnaires were
checked-in during the last four weeks of the operation. This information
can be seen by day and by form type in Appendix H.

**Table 6: CIFU Enumerator Questionnaires Checked-in by Week and by Form
Type** \[7, pg 1, R1\]

  ------ ------------- ----------- --------- -- ------- ----------- --------- -- ----------- ---------
                       Total Forms              Form                                         
                                                Type                                         

                                                Short                            Long Forms  
                                                Forms                                        

  Week   Date          Number      Percent              Number      Percent      Number      Percent

         Total         8,853,762   100.0                6,950,835   100.0        1,902,927   100.0

  1      Jun 23 -- Jun 976         0.0                  836         0.0          140         0.0
         24                                                                                  

  2      Jun 25 -- Jul 747,451     8.4                  609,939     8.8          137,512     7.2
         01                                                                                  

  3      Jul 02 -- Jul 2,527,984   28.6                 2,001,504   28.8         526,480     27.7
         08                                                                                  

  4      Jul 09 --     3,008,001   34.0                 2,345,326   33.7         662,675     34.8
         Jul15                                                                               

  5      Jul 16 -- Jul 1,883,965   21.3                 1,471,019   21.2         412,946     21.7
         22                                                                                  

  6      Jul 23 -- Jul 504,458     5.7                  376,376     5.4          128,082     6.7
         29                                                                                  

  7      Jul 30 -- Aug 103,271     1.2                  83,117      1.2          20,154      1.1
         05                                                                                  

  8      Aug 06 -- Aug 32,911      0.4                  27,005      0.4          5,906       0.3
         12                                                                                  

  9      Aug 13 -- Aug 39,335      0.4                  31,642      0.5          7,693       0.4
         19                                                                                  

  10     Aug 20 -- Aug 5,410       0.1                  4,071       0.1          1,339       0.1
         24                                                                                  
  ------ ------------- ----------- --------- -- ------- ----------- --------- -- ----------- ---------

Data Source: DMAF

An entry with 0.0 percent indicates the value is less than one-tenth of
a percent

The DRF2 was the source file for the CIFU responses to the "Respondent
Information" and "Interview Summary" sections on the back of the
enumerator questionnaire; an example of these sections are shown in
Appendix A. The DRF2 file contained 6,797,414 \[8, pg 1, R1\]returns
identified as CIFU questionnaires. When merged with the DMAF, the file
was reduced by approximately 164,000 returns; thus the new DRF2 file
contained 6,633,180 \[8, pg 3, R2\] CIFU returns which represent
6,574,971\[8, pg 5, R3\] unique housing units. Note that while there
were 8.9 million\[Table 2\] housing units on the DMAF requiring contact
in CIFU, there were only 6.6 million unique housing units on the DRF2
with a CIFU return. The difference in these numbers is a combination of
the cases classified as deletes during CIFU that were not on the DRF2
(i.e., no return was generated on the DRF2) and the DRF2 creation
process which linked forms and implemented the Primary Selection
Algorithm (PSA) [^1]. Of these 6.6 million housing units, approximately
99.1 percent \[8, pg 7, R4\] provided only one return; the remaining
57,140 \[8, pg 7, R5\]provided multiple returns -- ranging from two
returns to\
12 returns. \[8, pg 7, R6\]For this evaluation, the DRF2 universe is
based on the 6,633,180 \[8, pg 3, R2\]CIFU returns.

During an interview, enumerators completed the "Respondent Information"
section on the back of the questionnaire. In addition to the
respondent's name and phone number, we wanted to know if the respondent
was a household member, an in-mover, or a neighbor or other\
non-household member. This was determined by their response to the
question:

> *"Respondent --*

-   *Lived here on April 1, 2000*

-   *Moved in after April 1, 2000*

-   *Is neighbor or other?"*

A respondent that *"lived here on April 1"* was considered a household
(HH) member. A respondent that *"moved in after April 1"* was classified
as an in-mover and a respondent that was a *"neighbor or other"* was
shown as neighbor/other in the following tables. The in-movers and
neighbors/others were collectively known as "proxy" respondents.

We see in Table 7 that approximately 22.1 percent\[Table 7\] of the CIFU
respondents were household members and that long forms had a higher
percentage of household member respondents than short forms. Of the 6.6
million\[Table 7\] CIFU returns, 74.1 percent\[Table 7\] were completed
via a proxy respondent; the majority of the proxies were neighbors or
other non-household members for both short and long forms.

**Table 7: CIFU Respondent Types by Form Type \[9, pg 1, R1\]**

  ---------------- ----------- --------- -- ----------- --------- -- ----------- ---------
                   Total Forms              Form Type                            

                                            Short Forms              Long Forms  

  Respondent Type  Number      Percent      Number      Percent      Number      Percent

  Total            6,633,180   100.0        5,166,292   100.0        1,466,888   100.0

  HH Member        1,467,775   22.1         1,124,867   21.8         342,908     23.4

  Proxy            4,912,959   74.1         3,845,870   74.4         1,067,089   72.7

   In-mover       453,755     6.8          353,713     6.8          100,042     6.8

   Neighbor/Other 4,459,204   67.2         3,492,157   67.6         967,047     65.9

  No Response      252,446     3.8          195,555     3.8          56,891      3.9
  ---------------- ----------- --------- -- ----------- --------- -- ----------- ---------

Data Source: DRF2

An entry with 0.0 percent indicates the value is less than one-tenth of
a percent.

Although the proxy rate appears to be high, Table 8 shows that the
majority -- 3,701,297\[Table 8\] or\
75.3 percent\[10, pg 1, R2\] - of the proxy interviews were for vacant
housing units, which makes sense since there is typically no one at the
unit to interview. The exception would be the seasonal/vacation units
which are occasionally occupied by the household; these were classified
as "vacant" since the household usually lives somewhere else, but can be
enumerated by a household member. Less than 1.0 percent of the vacant
units were seasonal units enumerated by a household member.
Approximately 18.1 percent\[10, pg 1, R3\] (887,324\[Table 8\]) of the
proxy interviews were for occupied units. To put the proxy numbers in
perspective, 96.0 percent \[Table 8\] of the vacant units were
enumerated by a proxy respondent while 37.1 percent \[Table 8\] of the
occupied units were enumerated by a proxy.

**Table 8: CIFU Respondent Types for Occupied and Vacant Housing Units
\[10, pg 1, R1\]**

  ---------------- ----------- --------- -- ----------- --------- -- ----------- ---------
                   Total HUs                Occupied                 Vacant HUs  
                                            HUs                                  

  Respondent Type  Number      Percent      Number      Percent      Number      Percent

  Total            6,633,180   100.0        2,389,855   100.0        3,855,500   100.0

  HH Member        1,467,775   22.1         1,418,520   59.4         32,966      0.9

  Proxy            4,912,959   74.1         887,324     37.1         3,701,297   96.0

   In-mover       453,755     6.8          42,097      1.8          406,340     10.5

   Neighbor/Other 4,459,204   67.2         845,227     35.4         3,294,957   85.5

  No Response      252,446     3.8          84,011      3.5          121,237     3.1
  ---------------- ----------- --------- -- ----------- --------- -- ----------- ---------

Data Source: DRF2

Note: the occupied and vacant columns do not sum to the total column
because the respondent types for the "delete" and "no status" housing
units are not included in the table.

Table 9 shows the distribution of the proxy interviews by week and by
form type. There were 473 proxy interviews with invalid check-in dates
that were excluded from the table; thus 4,912,486 \[Table 9\]proxy
interviews with valid dates were checked-in between June 23 and August
24. Approximately 78.3 percent \[11, pg 1, R3\]of the forms were short
forms and 21.7 percent \[11, pg 1, R4\]were long forms. More than 85
percent \[11, pg 1, R5\]of the proxy interviews were checked-in between
July 2 and July 22

(weeks 3-5) which is consistent with the data in Table 6; approximately
1.2 percent \[11, pg 1, R6\]of the forms were checked-in during the last
four weeks of the operation. Proxy interviews checked-in by day and by
form type can be seen in Appendix I.

**Table 9: CIFU Proxy Interviews Checked-in by Week and by Form Type
\[11, pg 1, R1\]**

  ------ ------------- ----------- --------- -- ------- ----------- --------- -- ----------- ---------
                       Total Forms              Form                                         
                                                Type                                         

                                                Short                            Long Forms  
                                                Forms                                        

  Week   Date          Number      Percent              Number      Percent      Number      Percent

         Total         4,912,486   100.0                3,845,464   100.0        1,067,022   100.0

  1      Jun 23 -- Jun 440         0.0                  390         0.0          50          0.0
         24                                                                                  

  2      Jun 25 -- Jul 366,832     7.5                  297,612     7.7          69,220      6.5
         01                                                                                  

  3      Jul 02 -- Jul 1,426,262   29.0                 1,127,781   29.3         298,481     28.0
         08                                                                                  

  4      Jul 09 --     1,692,211   34.4                 1,315,899   34.2         376,312     35.3
         Jul15                                                                               

  5      Jul 16 -- Jul 1,060,183   21.6                 826,843     21.5         233,340     21.9
         22                                                                                  

  6      Jul 23 -- Jul 309,262     6.3                  232,094     6.0          77,168      7.2
         29                                                                                  

  7      Jul 30 -- Aug 30,236      0.6                  22,838      0.6          7,398       0.7
         05                                                                                  

  8      Aug 06 -- Aug 9,884       0.2                  8,225       0.2          1,659       0.2
         12                                                                                  

  9      Aug 13 -- Aug 14,140      0.3                  11,392      0.3          2,748       0.3
         19                                                                                  

  10     Aug 20 -- Aug 3,036       0.1                  2,390       0.1          646         0.1
         24                                                                                  
  ------ ------------- ----------- --------- -- ------- ----------- --------- -- ----------- ---------

Data Source: DRF2

An entry with 0.0 percent indicates the value is less than one-tenth of
a percent.

In addition to respondent information, enumerators were instructed to
complete Item A (HU Status on April 1) and Item B (POP on April 1) in
the Interview Summary and to check all other boxes in the Interview
Summary as appropriate. Other potentially appropriate categories were:

-   Spanish -- Item D, Interview Summary

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Partial Interview -- Item G, Interview Summary

-   Refusal -- Item H, Interview Summary

-   Replacement -- Item I, Interview Summary

Table 10 shows these interview summary responses by form type. Of the
6.6 million\[Table 10\] total returns, approximately 5.3 percent\[Table
10\] were partial interviews and 1.4 percent\[Table 10\] were refusals;
less than 2.0 percent\[12, pg 1, R6\] of the total forms were Spanish
interviews and Replacement forms. While long forms were 22.1
percent\[Table 10\] of the total returns, the long form rates for
partial interviews

(42.8 percent\[12, pg 1, R2\]) and refusals (40.7 percent\[12, pg 1,
R3\]) were substantially higher than the overall long form rate,
indicating poorer quality for the long forms compared to the short
forms. The long form rate for Spanish interviews (21.6 percent\[12, pg
1, R4\]) and Replacement forms (20.1 percent\[12, pg 1, R5\]) was lower
than the overall long form rate.

**Table 10: CIFU Interview Summary Responses by Form Type \[12, pg 1,
R1\]**

  ----------------- ----------- --------- -- ----------- --------- -- ----------- ---------
                    Total Forms              Form Type                            

                                             Short Forms              Long Forms  

  Return Responses  Number      Percent      Number      Percent      Number      Percent

  Total Returns     6,633,180   100.0        5,166,292   77.9         1,466,888   22.1

   Spanish         54,895      0.8          43,026      0.8          11,869      0.8

   Partial         351,353     5.3          201,079     3.9          150,274     10.2
  Interview                                                                       

   Refusal         93,805      1.4          55,597      1.1          38,208      2.6

   Replacement     39,778      0.6          31,771      0.6          8,007       0.5
  ----------------- ----------- --------- -- ----------- --------- -- ----------- ---------

Data Source: DRF2

One measure of the quality of the CIFU operation was the completeness of
the data collected by the enumerators. The Census Bureau went to great
lengths to obtain complete data directly from household members.
However, in the cases where the household members could not be contacted
or refused to answer part or all of the census questions, we allowed
enumerators to collect less complete data than were called for by the
census questionnaire. These incomplete interviews were called Partial
Interviews. A partial interview is defined as "an interview in which the
enumerator was unable to obtain the minimum amount of information from a
household member or a proxy respondent but obtained at least *unit
status* and *population count*."

We used this partial interview data to compare the completeness of the
proxy interviews with the non-proxy (HH member) interviews by examining
the proportion of each group coded as partial interviews. In Table 11,
we see that 70.4 percent of the partial interviews were also proxy
interviews. Approximately 26.6 percent\[Table 11\] of the partial
interviews were with a household member; this is what we call a "soft"
refusal - the household member is reluctant to give more than the unit
status and population count.

**Table 11: CIFU Partial Interviews by Respondent Type for Occupied and
Vacant HUs \[13, pg 1, R1\]**

  ------------------ ---------- --------- -- ---------- --------- -- -------- ---------
                     Total HUs               Occupied                Vacant   
                                             HUs                     HUs      

  Respondent Type    Number     Percent      Number     Percent      Number   Percent

  Total Partial      351,353    100.0        312,317    100.0        36,776   100.0
  Interviews                                                                  

  HH Member          93,391     26.6         92,724     29.7         516      1.4

  Proxy              247,474    70.4         210,810    67.5         34,707   94.4

   In-mover         11,522     3.3          8,473      2.7          3,011    8.2

   Neighbor/Other   235,952    67.2         202,337    64.8         31,696   86.2

  No Response        10,488     3.0          8,783      2.8          1,553    4.2
  ------------------ ---------- --------- -- ---------- --------- -- -------- ---------

Data Source: DRF2

The next table shows the distribution of the partial interviews by week
and by form type; this information is provided by day and by form type
in Appendix J. There were 11\[14, pg 1, R4\] partial interviews with
invalid check-in dates that were excluded from Table 12. Thus Table 12
shows there were 351,342 partial interviews that were checked-in between
June 23 and August 24. Approximately 57.2 percent\[14, pg 1, R2\] of the
partial interviews were short form interviews and 42.8 percent\[14, pg
1, R3\] were long form interviews. Clearly, there was a disproportionate
number of long form partial

interviews compared to the overall long form distribution rate (see
Table 10). Consistent with Table 6 and Table 9, approximately 82.0
percent\[14, pg 1, R5\] of the partial interviews were checked-in during
the peak weeks of July 2 through July 22; during these three weeks, long
forms were checked in at a slightly faster rate than short forms. A
little more than 3.0 percent\[14, pg 1, R6\] of the partial interviews
were checked-in during the last four weeks of the operation.

**Table 12: CIFU Partial Interviews Checked-in by Week and by Form Type
\[14, pg 1, R1\]**

  ------ ------------- --------- --------- -- ------- --------- --------- -- --------- ---------
                       Total                  Form                                     
                       Forms                  Type                                     

                                              Short                          Long      
                                              Forms                          Forms     

  Week   Date          Number    Percent              Number    Percent      Number    Percent

         Total         351,342   100.0                201,072   100.0        150,270   100.0

  1      Jun 23 -- Jun 2         0.0                  2         0.0          0         0.0
         24                                                                            

  2      Jun 25 -- Jul 20,517    5.8                  12,458    6.2          8,059     5.4
         01                                                                            

  3      Jul 02 -- Jul 85,636    24.4                 49,995    24.9         35,641    23.7
         08                                                                            

  4      Jul 09 --     117,859   33.5                 65,632    32.6         52,227    34.8
         Jul15                                                                         

  5      Jul 16 -- Jul 84,480    24.0                 48,416    24.1         36,064    24.0
         22                                                                            

  6      Jul 23 -- Jul 31,682    9.0                  17,995    8.9          13,687    9.1
         29                                                                            

  7      Jul 30 -- Aug 4,484     1.3                  2,461     1.2          2,023     1.3
         05                                                                            

  8      Aug 06 -- Aug 2,093     0.6                  1,322     0.7          771       0.5
         12                                                                            

  9      Aug 13 -- Aug 3,388     1.0                  2,039     1.0          1,349     0.9
         19                                                                            

  10     Aug 20 -- Aug 1,201     0.3                  752       0.4          449       0.3
         24                                                                            
  ------ ------------- --------- --------- -- ------- --------- --------- -- --------- ---------

Data Source: DRF2

An entry with 0.0 percent indicates the value is less than one-tenth of
a percent.

Table 13 shows the distribution of the refusals with valid check-in
dates by week and by form type; there were two\[15, pg 1, R2\] refusals
with an invalid check-in date that were excluded from the table.
Approximately 59.3 percent\[15, pg 1, R3\] of the refusals were short
form enumerator questionnaires;

40.7 percent\[15, pg 1, R4\] were long form questionnaires, which is
substantially higher than the 22.1 percent long form distribution rate
shown in Table 10. Consistent with Tables 6, 9 and 12, approximately
84.4 percent\[15, pg 1, R5\] of the refusals were checked-in during
weeks three through five; short forms were checked-in at a slightly
faster rate than long forms. Approximately 2.0 percent\[15, pg 1, R6\]
of the refusals were checked-in during the last four weeks of the CIFU
operation. The distribution of the refusals by day and by form type can
be seen in Appendix K.

**Table 13: CIFU Refusals Checked-in by Week and by Form Type \[15, pg
1, R1\]**

  ------ ------------- --------- --------- -- ------- -------- --------- -- -------- ---------
                       Total                  Form                                   
                       Forms                  Type                                   

                                              Short                         Long     
                                              Forms                         Forms    

  Week   Date          Number    Percent              Number   Percent      Number   Percent

         Total         93,803    100.0                55,595   100.0        38,208   100.0

  1      Jun 23 -- Jun 0         0.0                  0        0.0          0        0.0
         24                                                                          

  2      Jun 25 -- Jul 5,302     5.7                  3,265    5.9          2,037    5.3
         01                                                                          

  3      Jul 02 -- Jul 23,477    25.0                 14,159   25.5         9,318    24.4
         08                                                                          

  4      Jul 09 --     34,107    36.4                 20,176   36.3         13,931   36.5
         Jul15                                                                       

  5      Jul 16 -- Jul 21,602    23.0                 12,807   23.0         8,795    23.0
         22                                                                          

  6      Jul 23 -- Jul 7,404     7.9                  4,052    7.3          3,352    8.8
         29                                                                          

  7      Jul 30 -- Aug 698       0.7                  341      0.6          357      0.9
         05                                                                          

  8      Aug 06 -- Aug 233       0.2                  130      0.2          103      0.3
         12                                                                          

  9      Aug 13 -- Aug 766       0.8                  514      0.9          252      0.7
         19                                                                          

  10     Aug 20 -- Aug 214       0.2                  151      0.3          63       0.2
         24                                                                          
  ------ ------------- --------- --------- -- ------- -------- --------- -- -------- ---------

Data Source: DRF2

An entry with 0.0 percent indicates the value is less than one-tenth of
a percent.

Continuation forms were used in CIFU when there were more than five
people in a household; Table 14 shows how often the continuation forms
were used during CIFU. If a continuation form was used, the enumerator
checked the "Continuation form(s) attached" box in the upper left-hand
corner of the enumerator questionnaire. (An example of an enumerator
questionnaire can be seen in Appendix A.) For those who checked this
box, we examined how many continuation forms for the address were
attached. In Table 14, we see that there were\
71,080 continuation forms used in CIFU. In other words, approximately
1.1 percent\[16, pg 1, R2\] of the\
6.6 million \[8, pg 1, R1\]CIFU returns had a continuation form
attached. For these cases, the number of forms attached ranged from one
form\[16, pg 4, R4\] to as many as 99 forms\[16, pg 4, R4\].
Approximately 95.6 percent\[Table 14\] of these had one continuation
form attached, indicating there were 6 to 10 people in the household.
Approximately 2.9 percent\[Table 14\] had two continuation forms
attached, indicating there were\
11 to 15 people in the household. Approximately 1.5 percent\[16, pg 1,
R3\] of the returns had three or more continuation forms attached. There
were no invalid responses.

**Table 14: Distribution of Continuation Forms Used in CIFU \[16, pg 1,
R1\]**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- ----------- -----------
                                                  Number      Percent

  Total                                           71,080      100.0

  Number of Continuation  1 form                  67,988      95.6
  Forms attached...                                           

                          2 forms                 2,033       2.9

                          3 forms                 172         0.2

                          4 forms                 61          0.1

                          5 forms                 48          0.1

                          6 -- 10 forms           434         0.6

                          11 or more forms        344         0.5
  ----------------------- ----------------------- ----------- -----------

Data Source: DRF2

**4.2 Demographics of the CIFU-enumerated and how they compare with the\
NRFU-enumerated and the Self-enumerated**

The HCEF_D' was the source file for the demographics of the CIFU housing
units and households. There were 6,357,586\[17, pg 1, R1\] housing units
in the HCEF_D' CIFU universe. Note that the DMAF CIFU universe (Section
4.1) consisted of 8,854,304 housing units. The difference between the
DMAF and HCEF_D' universes is a result of the Hundred percent Census
Unedited File (HCUF) building process which includes the DRF2 creation
process, the PSA, the "kill" processing, the housing unit determination
processing, unclassified estimation and the housing unit unduplication
operation. Of the CIFU workload, approximately 2.5 million\[8.9M -
6.4M\] housing units did not meet the criteria to be in the Census
(i.e., on the HCUF and the HCEF_D'). There were 5,270,607\[17, pg 2,
R2\] people living in the 6.4 million housing units; Table 15 shows the
source of these\
5.3 million people.

**Table 15: CIFU-enumerated People by Source \[18, pg 1, R1\]**

  --------------------------------- ---------------------- -- ------------
  Source                            Number                    Percent

  Total                             5,270,607                 100.0

   Vacant                          1,733,785                 32.9

   Delete                          1,404,395                 26.6

   New Construction                244,759                   4.6

   U/L & UU/L Adds                 861,729                   16.3

   Blank Mail Returns              129,966                   2.5

   Lost Mail Returns               331,242                   6.3

   RMIE                            7,562                     0.1

   Feb & Apr DSF Adds              398,673                   7.6

   LUCA 98 & 99 Adds               8,733                     0.2

   Hialeah units                   145,616                   2.8

   Miscellaneous units             4,147                     0.1
  --------------------------------- ---------------------- -- ------------

Data Source: HCEF_D' and DMAF

The next few tables highlight the distribution of the housing unit and
person characteristics for the CIFU-enumerated and compares them with
the characteristics of the NRFU-enumerated and the self-enumerated. The
demographic data for the NRFU and self-enumerated housing units and
households were taken directly from the NRFU Evaluation (see U.S. Bureau
of the Census, 2002a). Tables 16 and 17 compare the tenure (owned versus
rented) and unit type (single versus multi) of the 6.4 million\[17, pg
1, R1\] housing units, respectively. Tables 18 - 22 compare the
demographics of the households; these tables show the distribution of
sex, age, Hispanic origin, race and tenure of the 5.3 million\[17, pg 2,
R2\] people in the households.

The tenure of the CIFU housing units in Table 16 was obtained through
the responses to the housing question: *"Is this house/apartment/mobile
home...*

-   *Owned by you or someone in this household with a mortgage,*

-   *Owned by you or someone in this household free and clear,*

-   *Rented for cash rent, or*

-   *Occupied without payment of cash rent?"*

These four options were collapsed into two categories -- the first two
became *"owned"* and the last two became *"rented."* Table 16 also
contains the category "vacant" since the data source for this
information (HCEF_D') included "not in universe (vacant)" as an optional
response. We see in Table 16 that 65.8 percent of the CIFU units were
vacant which is not surprising since the majority of the CIFU workload
was vacant/delete units. We also see in Table 16 that the percentage of
units enumerated in CIFU and NRFU were more evenly distributed between
owned and rented than the self-enumerated units. We attribute the higher
percentage of owned units for the self-enumerated to the greater sense
of community involvement of homeowners.

**Table 16: Tenure of the CIFU, NRFU and Self-enumerated Housing Units
\[19, pg 1, R1\]**

  ---------- ----------------- --------- -- ----------------- --------- -- ----------------- ---------
             CIFU-enumerated                NRFU-enumerated                Self-enumerated   

  Tenure     Number            Percent      Number            Percent      Number            Percent

  Total      6,357,586         100.0        39,273,344        100.0        74,376,966        100.0

   Vacant   4,186,382         65.8         9,186,631         23.4         585,231           0.8

   Owned    1,110,547         17.5         15,414,050        39.2         53,368,207        71.8

   Rented   1,060,657         16.7         14,672,663        37.4         20,423,528        27.5
  ---------- ----------------- --------- -- ----------------- --------- -- ----------------- ---------

Data Source: HCEF_D' and the NRFU Evaluation (H.5)

The unit type in Table 17 is identified by the variable UBSA, or Units
at Basic Street Address (BSA). If the unit at the BSA had one unit, it
was classified as a single unit; if the unit at the BSA had two or more
units, it was classified as a multi-unit. Once again, we see that the
CIFU and NRFU units were distributed similarly. We also see that single
units were more likely to be self-enumerated than multi-units. This is
not surprising since single units are more likely to be owned and
homeowners generally have a stronger community connection.

**Table 17: Unit Type of the CIFU, NRFU and Self-enumerated Housing
Units \[19, pg 1, R2\]**

  ----------- ----------------- --------- -- ----------------- --------- -- ----------------- ---------
              CIFU-enumerated                NRFU-enumerated                Self-enumerated   

  Unit Type   Number            Percent      Number            Percent      Number            Percent

  Total       6,357,586         100.0        39,273,344        100.0        74,376,966        100.0

   Single    4,072,963         64.1         25,235,889        64.3         58,350,999        78.5
  Units                                                                                       

   Multi     2,284,623         35.9         14,037,455        35.7         16,025,967        21.5
  Units                                                                                       
  ----------- ----------------- --------- -- ----------------- --------- -- ----------------- ---------

Data Source: HCEF_D' and the NRFU Evaluation (H.5)

Table 18 shows the distribution of males and females. From the table, we
see that females were more likely to be counted on self-enumerated
returns, i.e. they make up the biggest percentage of the self-enumerated
population; more males were counted on CIFU and NRFU returns.

**Table 18: Sex Characteristics of the CIFU, NRFU and Self-enumerated
Households** \[20, pg 1, R1\]

  ------------ ----------------- --------- -- ----------------- --------- -- ----------------- ---------
               CIFU-enumerated                NRFU-enumerated                Self-enumerated   

  Sex          Number            Percent      Number            Percent      Number            Percent

  Total        5,270,607         100.0        80,735,128        100.0        189,122,655       100.0

   Male       2,689,206         51.0         40,774,677        50.5         90,815,964        48.0

   Female     2,581,401         49.0         39,960,451        49.5         98,306,691        52.0
  ------------ ----------------- --------- -- ----------------- --------- -- ----------------- ---------

Data Source: HCEF_D' and the NRFU Evaluation (H.5)

The ages of the 5.3 million\[17, pg 2, R2\] people enumerated in CIFU
ranged from less than a year old \[17, pg 3, R3\]to\
113 years old\[17, pg 6, R4\]; ages of the NRFU-enumerated ranged from
less than one year to 115 years old. These ranges were collapsed into
the seven categories shown in Table 19. Again we see a similarity
between the CIFU and NRFU distributions. Approximately 56.9 percent
\[20, pg 1, R2a\]of the\
CIFU-enumerated were 34 years old and younger. While this is slightly
lower than the percentage of NRFU-enumerated people in this age group,
it is approximately 11.5 percentage points \[20, pg 1, R2g\] higher than
the self-enumerated population for this age group. Approximately\
38.7 percent\[20, pg 1, R2f\] of the self-enumerated population was 45
years old and older while 26.7 percent\[20, pg 1, R2d\] of the
CIFU-enumerated were 45 or older; this is slightly higher than the
percentage of\
NRFU-enumerated in this age group. Thus it appears that older people are
more likely to be\
self-enumerated than younger people. In the 35 to 44 age group, there
was less than one percentage point difference between the groups.

**Table 19: Age Characteristics of the CIFU, NRFU and Self-enumerated
Households** \[20, pg 1, R2\]

  ------------ ----------------- --------- -- ----------------- --------- -- ----------------- ---------
               CIFU-enumerated                NRFU-enumerated                Self-enumerated   

  Age          Number            Percent      Number            Percent      Number            Percent

  Total        5,270,607         100.0        80,735,128        100.0        189,122,655       100.0

   00 -- 17   1,438,790         27.3         24,063,964        29.8         46,901,496        24.8
  yrs                                                                                          

   18 -- 24   602,928           11.4         9,554,871         11.8         14,470,269        7.7
  yrs                                                                                          

   25 -- 34   957,648           18.2         13,904,029        17.2         24,310,776        12.9
  yrs                                                                                          

   35 -- 44   865,173           16.4         13,435,658        16.6         30,121,374        15.9
  yrs                                                                                          

   45 -- 54   609,616           11.6         9,465,482         11.7         27,248,720        14.4
  yrs                                                                                          

   55 -- 64   356,544           6.8          4,922,418         6.1          18,796,677        9.9
  yrs                                                                                          

   65+ yrs    439,908           8.3          5,388,706         6.7          27,273,343        14.4
  ------------ ----------------- --------- -- ----------------- --------- -- ----------------- ---------

Data Source: HCEF_D' and the NRFU Evaluation (H.5)

The Hispanic category in Table 20 includes those that were Mexican,
Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central American, Dominican, Latin/South American
and other Hispanics. We see that Hispanics were 17.5 percent\[Table 20\]
of the CIFU population. While this is slightly less than the percentage
of Hispanics enumerated in NRFU, it is almost six percentage points\[20,
pg 1, R3a\] higher than the self-enumerated Hispanics.

**Table 20: Hispanic Origin of the CIFU, NRFU and Self-enumerated
Households** \[20, pg 1, R3\]

  -------------- ----------------- --------- -- ----------------- --------- -- ----------------- ---------
                 CIFU-enumerated                NRFU-enumerated                Self-enumerated   

  Hispanic       Number            Percent      Number            Percent      Number            Percent
  Origin                                                                                         

  Total          5,270,607         100.0        80,735,128        100.0        189,122,655       100.0

   Not Hispanic 4,349,153         82.5         66,187,643        82.0         166,950,304       88.3

   Hispanic     921,454           17.5         14,547,485        18.0         22,172,351        11.7
  -------------- ----------------- --------- -- ----------------- --------- -- ----------------- ---------

Data Source: HCEF_D' and the NRFU Evaluation (H.5)

Table 21 compares the race characteristic for the three enumerated
groups. Although the CIFU percentages of Blacks and Some Other Race were
lower than the NRFU percentages for these groups, they were still higher
than the percentages of the Blacks and Some Other Race for the
self-enumerated population. Similarly, there was a higher percentage of
Whites enumerated in CIFU than NRFU but the percentage was still lower
-- more than nine points \[20, pg 1, R4a\]lower -- than the percentage
of self-enumerated Whites. Fewer Asians and American Indians/Alaskan
Natives were enumerated in CIFU than were NRFU-enumerated or
self-enumerated.

**Table 21: Race Characteristics of the CIFU, NRFU and Self-enumerated
Households** \[20, pg 1, R4\]

  ---------------- ----------------- --------- -- ----------------- --------- -- ----------------- ---------
                   CIFU-enumerated                NRFU-enumerated                Self-enumerated   

  Race             Number            Percent      Number            Percent      Number            Percent

  Total            5,270,607         100.0        80,735,128        100.0        189,122,655       100.0

   White          3,744,171         71.0         54,248,751        67.2         151,560,251       80.1

   Black          895,754           17.0         14,573,315        18.1         18,828,965        10.0

   American       50,123            1.0          970,025           1.2          2,017,678         1.1
  Indian / Alaskan                                                                                 
  Native                                                                                           

   Asian          175,744           3.3          3,515,009         4.4          7,129,558         3.8

   Native         12,645            0.2          267,640           0.3          311,233           0.2
  Hawaiian / Other                                                                                 
  Pacific Islander                                                                                 

   Some Other     392,170           7.4          7,160,388         8.9          9,274,970         4.9
  Race                                                                                             
  ---------------- ----------------- --------- -- ----------------- --------- -- ----------------- ---------

Data Source: HCEF_D' and the NRFU Evaluation (H.5)

The next table compares the distribution of people living in owned units
with those living in rented units. In Table 22 we see that the CIFU and
NRFU-enumerated people are similarly distributed -- approximately 55
percent \[Table 22\]of the people lived in owned units and 45
percent\[Table 22\] lived in rented units. Almost three-fourths \[Table
22\] of the self-enumerated people lived in owned units while a little
more than one-fourth\[Table 22\] lived in rented units.

**Table 22: Tenure of the CIFU, NRFU and Self-enumerated Households
\[20, pg 1, R5\]**

  ------------ ----------------- --------- -- ----------------- --------- -- ----------------- ---------
               CIFU-enumerated                NRFU-enumerated                Self-enumerated   

  Tenure       Number            Percent      Number            Percent      Number            Percent

  Total        5,270,607         100.0        80,735,128        100.0        189,122,655       100.0

   Owned      2,913,064         55.3         44,145,685        54.7         141,208,651       74.7

   Rented     2,357,543         44.7         36,589,443        45.3         47,914,004        25.3
  ------------ ----------------- --------- -- ----------------- --------- -- ----------------- ---------

Data Source: HCEF_D' and the NRFU Evaluation (H.5)

3.  **Impact of Other Operations on CIFU**

There were 10,465\[21, pg 1, R1\] addresses added during CIFU. All of
these addresses were in areas where CIFU occurred (TEA = 1, 2, 6, 7, 9)
and all 10,465 \[21, pg 1, R2\] met the criteria to be included on the
DMAF (see U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000e).

In addition to the adds, there were 2,627,741\[21, pg 3, R3\] addresses
deleted during CIFU. A table of the 10,465 added and 2,627,741 deleted
addresses by state can be seen in Appendix L. Tables 23, 24 and 25 show
the distribution of these added and deleted addresses by type of
enumeration area, by unit type (single versus multi-unit) and by address
type, respectively.

There were three types of enumeration areas in CIFU. They were:

-   *Mailout/Mailback (MO/MB):* areas that were predominately city-style
    (house number/street name) addresses used for mail delivery by the
    USPS.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Update/Leave (U/L):* areas that were city-style and non-city style
    (e.g., P.O. Box or Rural Route) mailing addresses.

-   *Urban Update/Leave (UU/L):* areas that were originally
    mailout/mailback that were converted to the update/leave enumeration
    methodology.

Table 23 shows the distribution of the added and deleted addresses by
TEA. While the majority of the housing units were in the
mailout/mailback areas, the added and deleted addresses had a
substantially higher percentage of mailout/mailback units than the CIFU
universe. Similarly, 31.3 percent\[Table 23\] of the CIFU universe was
in the update/leave areas but the percentages of added and deleted units
in the update/leave areas were considerably less. The distribution of
the adds and deletes for the urban update/leave areas was consistent
with the overall CIFU population.

**Table 23: CIFU Added and Deleted Addresses by TEA \[22, pg 1, R1\]**

  ------------------ ----------- --------- -- ----------- --------- -- ----------- ---------
                     CIFU                     Added                    Deleted     
                     Universe                 Addresses                Addresses   

  TEA                Number      Percent      Number      Percent      Number      Percent

  Total              8,854,304   100.0        10,465      100.0        2,627,741   100.0

   Mailout/Mailback 6,037,885   68.2         8,898       85.0         2,108,616   80.2

   Update/Leave     2,771,176   31.3         1,527       14.6         496,862     18.9

   Urban            45,243      0.5          40          0.4          22,263      0.8
  Update/Leave                                                                     
  ------------------ ----------- --------- -- ----------- --------- -- ----------- ---------

Data Source: MAF/DMAF/HCUF/HCEF_D' Combo File

In the next table, we compare the distribution of the added and deleted
addresses by unit type (single versus multi-unit). If the unit at the
BSA had one unit, it was classified as a single unit; if it had two or
more units, it was classified as a multi-unit. In addition, the
multi-units were subdivided by the number of units at the BSA into the
five categories shown in Table 24. From Table 24, we see that the
majority (71.4 percent) of the adds were single units and the majority
(51.1 percent) of the deletes were multi-units.

**Table 24: CIFU Added and Deleted Addresses by Unit Type \[23, pg 1,
R1\]**

  ---------------- ----------- --------- -- ----------- --------- -- ----------- ---------
                   CIFU                     Added                    Deleted     
                   Universe                 Addresses                Addresses   

  Unit Type        Number      Percent      Number      Percent      Number      Percent

  Total            8,854,304   100.0        10,465      100.0        2,627,741   100.0

   Single Unit    5,218,821   58.9         7,471       71.4         1,283,842   48.9

   Multi Unit     3,635,483   41.1         2,994       28.6         1,343,899   51.1

  2 -- 4 Units     1,414,252   16.0         895         8.6          547,721     20.8

  5 -- 9 Units     471,745     5.3          335         3.2          176,705     6.7

  10 -- 19 Units   362,912     4.1          285         2.7          113,263     4.3

  20 -- 49 Units   389,913     4.4          360         3.4          123,632     4.7

  50+ Units        996,661     11.3         1,119       10.7         382,578     14.6
  ---------------- ----------- --------- -- ----------- --------- -- ----------- ---------

Data Source: MAF/DMAF/HCUF/HCEF_D' Combo File

Table 25 shows the distribution of added and deleted addresses by
address type. The classes of address types were based on a hierarchy of
available address information; we classified addresses into five
categories based on the highest criteria met. These categories were:

-   Complete City-Style with and without location description

-   Complete Rural Route with and without location description

-   Complete P.O. Box with and without location description

-   Incomplete Address with and without location description

-   No Address Information with and without location description

The city-style category included all units that had complete city-style
addresses, which consists of a house number and street name. The Rural
Route category included units that did not have a complete city-style
address but did have a complete rural route address such as Rural Route
2, Box 3. The P.O. Box category included units that did not have a
complete city-style or complete rural route address but did have a
complete P.O. Box address, such as P.O. Box 5. The incomplete category
included units that had some address information but did not have a
complete address of any type. Addresses were further delineated by
whether or not the address had a location description provided during a
census field operation. For additional information on how this variable
was defined, see U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2001.

In Table 25 we see that all of the adds and the majority of the deletes
were complete city-style addresses. The added and deleted addresses by
address type for the mailout/mailback, update/leave, and urban
update/leave areas can be found in Appendices M, N, and O, respectively.

**Table 25: CIFU Added and Deleted Addresses by Address Type \[24, pg 1,
R1\]**

  ------------------- ----------- --------- -- ----------- --------- -- ----------- ---------
                      CIFU                     Added                    Deleted     
                      Universe                 Addresses                Addresses   

  Address Type        Number      Percent      Number      Percent      Number      Percent

  Total               8,854,304   100.0        10,465      100.0        2,627,741   100.0

   Complete          7,467,646   84.3         10,465      100.0        2,290,153   87.2
  City-Style                                                                        

  With location       267,169     3.0          228         2.2          87,378      3.3
  description                                                                       

  without location    7,200,477   81.3         10,237      97.8         2,202,775   83.8
  description                                                                       

   Complete Rural    159,001     1.8          0           0.0          23,987      0.9
  Route                                                                             

  With location       154,459     1.7          0           0.0          23,008      0.9
  description                                                                       

  without location    4,542       0.1          0           0.0          979         0.0
  description                                                                       

   Complete PO Box   78,278      0.9          0           0.0          14,264      0.5

  With location       73,809      0.8          0           0.0          12,921      0.5
  description                                                                       

  without location    4,469       0.1          0           0.0          1,343       0.1
  description                                                                       

   Incomplete        201,577     2.3          0           0.0          98,068      3.7
  Address                                                                           

  With location       161,464     1.8          0           0.0          84,512      3.2
  description                                                                       

  without location    40,113      0.5          0           0.0          13,556      0.5
  description                                                                       

   No Address        947,802     10.7         0           0.0          201,269     7.7
  Information                                                                       

  With location       945,095     10.7         0           0.0          200,042     7.6
  description                                                                       

  without location    2,707       0.0          0           0.0          1,227       0.0
  description                                                                       
  ------------------- ----------- --------- -- ----------- --------- -- ----------- ---------

Data Source: MAF/DMAF/HCUF/HCEF_D' Combo File

An entry with 0.0 percent indicates the value is less than one-tenth of
a percent.

Table 26 shows the distribution of the housing unit IDs that were
enumerated multiple times -- once in CIFU and again in at least one
other data capture operation listed in the table. While there were 5.1
million\[Table 26\] IDs with multiple data captures, the majority (98.6
percent\[Table 26\]) were enumerated in CIFU and NRFU which is not
surprising since the majority of the CIFU workload consisted of NRFU
housing units classified as vacant or delete. Less than one percent
\[Table 26\]of the IDs were enumerated in CIFU and by a paper mail
return; approximately 0.5 percent\[Table 26\] were enumerated in CIFU
and at least two other data capture operations.

> **Table 26: CIFU-enumerated IDs with Multiple Data Captures \[25, pg
> 1, R1\]**

  ------------------------------------------ ----------------- ----------
  Operation                                  Number of IDs     Percent

  Total                                      5,091,331         100.0

   Mail Return                              44,832            0.9

   Be Counted Form (paper)                  1,071             0.0

   Be Counted Form (via TQA)                831               0.0

   Internet                                 0                 0.0

   Telephone Questionnaire Assistance (TQA) 5                 0.0

   Coverage Edit Followup                   0                 0.0

   Nonresponse Followup                     5,021,378         98.6

   Multiple Operations (three or more)      23,214            0.5
  ------------------------------------------ ----------------- ----------

Data Source: DMAF

An entry with 0.0 percent indicates the value is less than one-tenth of
a percent.

3.  **CIFU Operation Cost**

The field operation cost for CIFU was taken from PAMS/ADAMS - the
payroll and administrative system used to support the 2000 Census. The
total field operation cost for CIFU was \$202.4 million\[Table 27\];
these costs do not include HQ and regional/LCO infrastructure costs.
\[Note: The CIFU Financial Management Report data were considered the
official operational cost data since it included cost information on the
permanent Census Bureau field employees paid through the National
Finance Center as well as the temporary census staff who worked on CIFU.
To be consistent with the NRFU evaluation, the PAMS/ADAMS data were
cited.\] The components of the operation costs are shown in Table 27.
The mileage cost included training miles and production miles because
training miles were not separately recorded on the payroll form D-308.
Other objects cost included civilian personnel benefits,
telecommunications services and other costs.

> **Table 27: CIFU Field Operation Cost** \[26, pg 1,\]

  --------------------------------------- ------------------- -------------
  Cost Component                          Dollars             Percent

  Total                                   202,412,399\[R5\]   100.0

   Production Salary Cost                136,034,796\[R1\]   67.2

   Training Salary Cost                  25,471,126\[R2\]    12.6

   Mileage Cost                          27,486,774\[R3\]    13.6

   Other Objects Cost                    13,419,703\[R4\]    6.6
  --------------------------------------- ------------------- -------------

Data Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2002b

Note: Cost data for Puerto Rico was not available for this report.

The DMAF workload -- stateside -- was 8,668,809\[26, pg 1, R6\] housing
units. Based on the workload associated with enumerating every unit, the
cost per case was \$23.35\[26, pg 1, R7\]. The cost data for Puerto Rico
were not available for this report.

5.  **CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS**

The CIFU enumerated a total of 5.3 million\[17, pg 2, R2\] people. Like
the NRFU operation, CIFU enumerated a higher percentage of the typically
undercounted groups: males, young people (34 years old and younger),
Hispanics, and Blacks and Some Other Race.

The CIFU followed-up 3.9 million\[3, pg 1, R1\] vacant units and 2.6
million\[3, pg 1, R1\] delete units; approximately\
21.9 percent\[5, pg 1, R2\] of the vacant units were converted to
occupied and 24.6 percent\[5, pg 1, R3\] of the deletes were converted
to occupied. \[18, pg 1, R2\]Approximately 18.1 percent\[5, pg 1, R4\]
of the deletes were converted to vacant.

**Clearly, we have improved coverage by following-up the vacants and
deletes from NRFU and we should continue to do so**. But we also
improved coverage by following-up the lost mail returns and blank mail
returns; more than 80 percent of the lost and blank mail returns yielded
valid housing units. **While we should continue to follow up on these as
well, we should consider adding a "vacant" option to the mailback
questionnaire so that respondents could indicate the unit was vacant on
Census Day; thus we would not waste valuable resources (time and money)
following-up these legitimate blank returns.**

While there were successes, there were areas of the operation that need
to be improved. For example, more than 50 percent of the new
construction adds and DSF adds were deleted. **We need to investigate
ways to improve/screen the data we get from local governments so that we
avoid wasting time and money following-up invalid/bad data.** In
addition, there were almost 77,000\[4, pg 4, R1\] occupied housing units
with no POP count and approximately 94,000\[12, pg 1, R1\] CIFU
households that refused to participate in the Census. In spite of the
Census Bureau's unprecedented outreach and promotion efforts, the
public's participation in the Census remains an issue because of
language/cultural differences, fears of the government or concerns over
privacy. **Thus as we strive to count every person, our highest priority
should be to work on boosting the public's participation; this will
minimize the need for expensive followup operations and, in turn,
improve coverage and reduce cost.**

**References**

U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1988, *1980 Census of Population and
Housing*, PHC80-E3 Evaluation and Research Reports, Programs to Improve
Coverage in the 1980 Census,

pages 57-60, 1988

U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1993, *Programs to Improve Coverage in the
1990 Census*,\
1990 CPH-E-3: 1990 Census of Population and Housing Evaluation and
Research Reports,

pages 62-68, November 1993

U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1999, *Specification of the Coverage
Improvement Followup Universe for Census 2000*, DSSD Census 2000
Procedures and Operations Memorandum Series #CC-3, December 10, 1999

U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000a, *Nonresponse Followup -- Mover Probe
(Draft)*, Census 2000 Operational Summary Study Plan 1.3, March 2000

U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000b, *Quality Assurance Specifications for
the Census 2000 Coverage Improvement Followup Operation*, DSSD Census
2000 Procedures and Operations Memorandum Series #II-14 (Revised), April
5, 2000

U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000c, *Coverage Improvement Followup (CIFU)
Program Master Plan*, Decennial Management Division, (Revised) June 2000

U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000d, *Definition of the Coverage
Improvement Followup Universe for Census 2000*, DSSD Census 2000
Procedures and Operations Memorandum Series #cc-2 Revision #4, June 28,
2000

U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000e, *Specifications for Updating the
Decennial Master Address File on August 15, 2000*, DSSD Census 2000
Procedures and Operations Memorandum Series #D-1, September 5, 2000.

U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2001, *Determining Address Classification for
MAF Evaluation Purposes (Draft),* Planning, Research, and Evaluation
Division TXE/2010 Memorandum Series: MAF-EXT-D-01, March 2001

U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2002a, *Nonresponse Followup for Census
2000*, Decennial Statistical Studies Division, July 25, 2002

U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2002b, *Assessment Report: Census 2000
Coverage Improvement Followup (Draft),* Decennial Management Division,
August 2002

**Appendix A: Example of an Enumerator Questionnaire**

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="6.0in" height="7.774305555555555in"}

Number range CHAPTER ![](media/image3.jpeg){width="6.49375in"
height="8.403472222222222in"}

Number range CHAPTER**Appendix B: Decennial Master Address File (DMAF)
Variable Definitions**

**LCO Local Census Office Code**

**ST Collection FIPS State Code**

**COU Collection FIPS County Code**

**TRACT Nonresponse Followup Tract**

**MAFID MAF and DMAF ID**

characters 1-2 = state code when the MAF ID was assigned

characters 3-5 = county code when the MAF ID was assigned

characters 6-12 = control ID

**TEA Type of Enumeration Area**

1 = Mailout Mailback

2 = Update Leave

3 = List Enumerate

4 = Remote List Enumerate

5 = Rural Update Enumerate

6 = Military in Update Leave Area

7 = Urban Update Leave

8 = Urban Update Enumerate

9 = Update Leave (converted from TEA 1)

**GQFLG Group Quarters Housing Unit Flag**

0 = Housing Unit

1 = Special Place

2 = Group Quarters

3 = GQ Embedded Housing Unit

**ASAM A Priori Sample**

0 = No A Priori Sample (Be Counted or Late Field Add)

1 = Short Form

2 = long Form

**CIU Coverage Improvement Followup Universe (CIFU)**

0 = Universe not set

1 = Not in CIFU

2 = In CIFU; vacant or delete housing unit from NRFU

3 = In CIFU; new construction

> 4 = In CIFU; adds from Update/Leave and Urban Update/Leave

5 = In CIFU; lost Mail return

6 = In CIFU; blank mail return

7 = In CIFU: Response Mode and Incentive Experiment (RMIE)

8 = In CIFU; Feb 2000 or Apr 2000 DSF add

9 = In CIFU; Late HU Adds from LUCA appeals

> **CID CIFU Check-in Month and Day**

0 = No CIFU Check-in

0101-1231 = CIFU Check-in Month and Day

Number range CHAPTER

**CIS CIFU Status**

> **(**Note that no computer edit had been done to verify consistency
>
> between the CIS and CIPOP fields.)
>
> 0 = Not in universe or No status received
>
> 1 = Occupied

2 = Occupied -- Continuation

3 = Vacant - Regular

4 = Vacant - Usual home elsewhere

5 = Demolished

> 6 = Cannot Locate
>
> 7 = Duplicate
>
> 8 = Nonresidential
>
> 9 = Other (open to elements, condemned, under construction)

##### CIPOP CIFU POP or Delete

> (Note that no computer edit has been done to verify
>
> consistency between the CIS and CIPOP fields.)
>
> 00 = Vacant or Not in universe
>
> 01 -- 29 = Housing Unit POP
>
> 98 = Delete

99 = POP Unknown

**NRS NRFU Status**

0 = Not in universe or No status received

1 = Occupied

2 = Occupied - Continuation

3 = Vacant - Regular

4 = Vacant - Usual Home Elsewhere

5 = Demolished

6 = Cannot Locate

7 = Duplicate

8 = Nonresidential

9 = Other (open to elements, condemned, under construction)

**MAC(17) MAF Action Codes**

A = Add

C = Correction

D = Delete

M = Block Move

N = Nonresidential

U = Uninhabitable

V = Verify

The 17 Operations are -

\(1\) Address Listing

\(2\) Block Canvassing

\(3\) LUCA 98

\(4\) LUCA 98 Field Verification

\(5\) LUCA 99 Relisting

\(6\) LUCA 98 Appeals

\(7\) LUCA 99 Appeals

\(8\) Special Place/GQ

\(9\) Questionnaire Delivery (UL, UE, UUL, LE, or remote AK)

\(10\) Postal Validation Check

\(11\) Nonresponse Followup

\(12\) Be Counted Verification

\(13\) TQA Verification

\(14\) Coverage Improvement Followup

\(15\) New Construction

\(16\) 1990 ACF (A or blank)

\(17\) DR - Specific (PALS,TC,TMUC)

**Appendix C: MAF/DMAF/HCUF/HCEF Combo File Variable Definitions**

**MAFID MAF and DMAF ID**

characters 1-2 = state code when the MAF ID was assigned

characters 3-5 = county code when the MAF ID was assigned

characters 6-12 = control ID

**GQ_HUF Group Quarters/Housing Unit Flag**

0 = Housing Unit

1 = Special Place

2 = Group Quarters

3 = GQ Embedded Housing Unit

**ADRESTYP Address Type**

*First Character - existence of a city-style address:*

C = Complete if both the house number and street name fields are filled

I **=** Incomplete if only the street name field is filled

N = Nonexistent if street name is blank

*Second Character - existence of a rural route address:*

C = Complete if both the rural route descriptor and rural route ID are
filled

I = Incomplete if only one of the two fields is filled

N= Nonexistent if both fields are blank

*Third Character - existence of a P.O. Box address:*

C = Complete if both the P.O. Box descriptor and P.O. Box ID are filled

I = Incomplete if only one of the fields are blank

N= Nonexistent if both fields are blank

*Fourth Character - existence of a location description:*

Y = Filled if the location description field is filled

N = Blank if the field is blank

**DLSPECAF Delivery Specific Address Flag**

Y = Valid Address for this Delivery

N = Not a Valid Address for this Delivery

**CIFUAC Coverage Improvement Followup Action Code**

A = Add

D = Delete

N = Non-Residential

**TEA Type of Enumeration Area**

1 = Mailout Mailback

2 = Update Leave

3 = List Enumerate

4 = Remote List Enumerate

5 = Rural Update Enumerate

6 = Military in Update Leave Area

7 = Urban Update Leave

8 = Urban Update Enumerate

9 = Update Leave (converted from TEA 1)

**Appendix D: Decennial Response File - Stage 2 (DRF2) Variable
Definitions**

**RST Collection FIPS State Code**

> **RUID Unit ID Number (DMAF)**

characters 1-2 = state (when MAF ID was assigned)

characters 3-5 = county

characters 6-12 = sequence ID

**RRT Record Type**

2 = Return-level record for short form in housing unit

3 = Return-level record for long form in housing unit

**RFT Form Type (DRF2)**

1 = D-1 (Short Form MR)

2 = D-2 (Long Form MR)

3 = D-1(UL) (Short Form MR)

4 = D-2(UL) (Long Form MR)

5 = D-1(E) (Short Form EQ)

6 = D-2(E) (Long Form EQ)

7 = D-10 (Be Counted)

8 = (not used)

9 = D-15A (ICQ, Short

10 = D-15B (ICQ, Long)

11 = D-20A (ICR, Short)

12 = D-20B (ICR, Long)

13 = (not used)

14 = D-21 (MCR)

15 = (not used)

16 = D-23 (SCR)

17 = D-1(E)Supp (Enumerator Supplement, Short)

18 = D-2(E)Supp (Enumerator Supplement, Long)

19 = D-1(E) (ccf) (Short EQ converted to continuation)

20 = D-2(E) (ccf) (Long EQ converted to continuation)

**RSOURCE Source of Return**

-1 = Not Computed

1 = Paper mail back questionnaire from mail out

2 = Paper mail back questionnaire from TQA mail out WITH ID

3 = Paper mail back questionnaire from TQA mail out with NO ID

4 = Paper mail back questionnaire from Update Leave

5 = Paper mail back questionnaire from Update Leave ADD

6 = Paper mail back questionnaire from Update Leave SUBSTITUTE

7 = Paper mail back questionnaire from Urban Update Leave

8 = Paper mail back questionnaire from Urban Update Leave ADD

9 = Paper mail back questionnaire from Urban Update Leave SUBSTITUTE

10 = Paper mail back questionnaire from Request for Foreign Language

11 = Paper mail back questionnaire from BCF marked as whole household

12 = Paper mail back questionnaire from BCF partial household (i.e., NOT
marked as whole

household)

13 = Paper enumerator questionnaire from List Enumerate

14 = Paper enumerator questionnaire from Update Enumerate

15 = Paper enumerator questionnaire from Update Enumerate ADD

16 = Paper enumerator questionnaire from Update Enumerate SUBSTITUTE

17 = Paper enumerator questionnaire from Nonresponse Followup (NRFU)

18 = Paper enumerator questionnaire from NRFU ADD

19 = Paper enumerator questionnaire from NRFU SUBSTITUTE

> 20 = Paper enumerator questionnaire from NRFU Whole Household Usual
> Home Elsewhere
>
> (WHUHE)

21 = Paper enumerator questionnaire from NRFU In-mover

> 22 = Paper enumerator questionnaire from Coverage Improvement Followup
> (CIFU)

23 = Paper enumerator questionnaire from CIFU ADD

24 = Paper enumerator questionnaire from CIFU SUBSTITUTE

25 = Paper enumerator questionnaire from T-Night

26 = Paper questionnaire for UHE from Service-based Enumeration (SBE)

(Individual Census Questionnaire (ICQ))

> 27 = Paper questionnaire for UHE from Group Quarters (GQ) enumeration
> (Individual Census
>
> Questionnaire (ICQ))
>
> 28 = Paper questionnaire for UHE from Military GQ enumeration
> (Military Census Report
>
> (MCR))
>
> 29 = Paper questionnaire for UHE from Shipboard GQ enumeration
> (Shipboard Census Report

(SCR))

30 = Electronic short form from IDC

31 = Electronic TQA reverse-CATI short form

32 = Electronic TQA reverse-CATI BCF for whole household

33 = Electronic TQA reverse-CATI BCF for partial household

34 = Electronic Coverage Edit Followup (CEFU) from long or short form

35 = Electronic CEFU from BCF for whole household

36 = Electronic CEFU from IDC

37 = Paper enumerator continuation form - unlinked "orphan"

**RCONT Continuation Form Attached**

-1 = No Response

1 = "Continuation forms attached" box marked

**RCONTN Number of Continuation Forms for this Address**

-1 = No Response

1 = Number of continuation forms attached

**RISSP Interview Summary Item D - SP, Spanish Interview**

**RISPI Interview Summary Item G - PI, Partial Interview**

**RISREF Interview Summary Item H - REF, Refusal**

**RISREP Interview Summary Item I - REP, Replacement Questionnaire**

**RISCO Interview Summary item J - CO, Close Out**

**RHHMEM Respondent Household Member?**

-1 = No Response

1 = Lived here on April 1, 2000 \[household member\]

2 = Moved in after April 1, 2000

3 = Is neighbor or other

**Appendix E: Hundred percent Census Edited File with the reinstated
housing units**

**(HCEF_D') Variable Definitions**

**ST Collection FIPS State Code**

**COU Collection FIPS County Code**

**LCO Local Census Office**

**TRACT Nonresponse Followup Tract**

***[HOUSING UNIT RECORD (Record Type 2)]{.underline}***

**RT Record Type**

2 = Housing Unit Record

**MAFID MAF and DMAF ID**

characters 1-2 = state code when the MAF ID was assigned

characters 3-5 = county code when the MAF ID was assigned

characters 6-12 = control ID

**NRU Nonresponse Followup Universe**

0 = Universe not set (The ID was added after NRFU was selected.)

> 1 = Not in NRFU; data received (This indicates that a from was checked
> in; it

does not guaranteee that the form has any data.)

2= Not in NRFU; but NRD, NRS, NRC and NRPOP will be set by
Update/Enumerator or

List/Enumerate

3 = In NRFU, Nonresponse

4 = In NRFU, Too late for mailout

**UBSA Units at Basic Street Address (BSA)**

1 = Single unit

2-9999 = Number of units at BSA

**STENURE "Is this house, apartment, or mobile home--"**

0 = Not in universe (vacant)

1 = Owned by you or someone in this household with a mortgage or loan

2 = Owned by you or someone in this household free and clear

3 = Rented for cash rent

4 = Occupied without payment of cash rent

***[PERSON RECORD (Record Types 3 and 5)]{.underline}***

**RT Record Type**

3 = Housing unit person record

5 = Group quarters person record

**PUID Unit ID Number**

characters 1-2 = state code when the MAF ID was assigned

characters 3-5 = county code when the MAF ID was assigned

characters 6-12 = control ID

**QSEX Sex**

1 = Male

2 = Female

**QAGE Age**

> 000-115 = Age

**QSPANX Hispanic Origin Edit/Allocation Group**

1 = Not Hispanic

2 = Mexican

3 = Puerto Rican

4 = Cuban

5 = Central American, Dominican

Latin/South American

7 = Other Hispanic

**QRACEX Race Edit/Allocation Group**

1 = White

2 = Black, African American, or Negro

3 = American Indian or Alaska Native

4 = Asian

5 = Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

6 = Some Other Race

**Appendix F: Coverage Improvement Followup (CIFU) Workload by Source
and by State** \[27, pg 1 - 2\]

  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  New       UL &                                                              
  ------- ----------- ----------- --------- --------- -------- --------- ------- --------- -------- --------- -------
  State   Vacant      Delete      Const     UU/L      Lost     Blank     RMIE    DSF       LUCA     Hialeah   Misc

  with PR 3,927,175   2,606,520   371,812   775,055   65,281   475,194   5,285   547,383   17,178   61,547    1,874

  w/o PR  3,834,363   2,572,395   371,812   717,882   65,086   474,005   5,285   547,383   17,178   61,547    1,873

  AL      111,808     59,590      9,211     26,073    339      7,002     82      6,169     32       0         38

  AK      8,170       6,535       860       4,549     38       586       11      474       13       0         1

  AZ      96,584      51,001      12,004    20,756    867      12,346    103     5,772     6        0         0

  AR      66,732      33,994      2,729     22,119    267      4,780     36      1,558     1,256    0         2

  CA      289,640     246,721     31,160    21,334    3,722    48,197    610     21,757    6        0         181

  CO      45,396      36,145      7,475     18,554    394      7,389     55      4,481     6,067    0         8

  CT      29,937      26,432      1,840     1,753     1,393    5,081     68      3,611     5        0         9

  DE      14,697      8,952       198       2,177     365      2,551     12      1,074     0        0         0

  DC      10,333      6,877       527       2         260      672       10      142       0        0         0

  FL      200,388     94,277      31,813    25,460    1,903    36,528    443     30,581    60       61,547    404

  GA      75,460      59,405      15,748    32,712    754      15,350    146     15,618    646      0         20

  HI      19,279      18,058      460       3,029     168      1,337     18      840       0        0         13

  ID      14,599      11,561      4,588     3,950     129      2,415     16      2,502     0        0         14

  IL      136,529     125,869     26,690    7,784     3,562    14,288    313     198,621   579      0         53

  IN      67,157      46,457      5,170     4,959     977      9,230     130     14,733    0        0         2

  IA      33,098      15,634      2,725     7,672     299      6,639     39      1,947     0        0         5

  KS      41,235      17,013      3,220     5,982     197      5,046     35      2,327     75       0         1

  KY      79,302      38,103      5,367     20,582    367      6,120     54      3,931     1        0         16

  LA      90,702      62,550      7,678     19,534    291      7,348     84      6,381     1,213    0         58

  ME      17,573      12,701      1,001     9,786     682      2,189     11      651       0        0         0

  MD      54,260      37,959      4,911     4,549     2,050    8,076     127     5,828     0        0         9

  MA      52,219      62,923      2,877     1,847     2,883    9,263     127     5,335     13       0         127

  MI      133,309     75,264      12,374    21,559    4,149    27,528    181     9,761     4        0         190

  MN      37,521      31,436      4,616     13,672    409      8,725     55      4,488     4        0         17

  MS      56,997      30,811      973       15,015    191      4,163     58      5,644     40       0         0

  MO      107,436     46,902      3,873     21,617    547      9,825     90      4,931     16       0         0

  MT      13,336      7,354       549       8,367     51       1,985     4       278       0        0         14

  NE      16,754      6,208       1,169     3,543     132      2,768     16      1,673     0        0         0

  NV      28,473      7,473       6,704     5,655     221      2,441     27      1,847     234      0         0

  NH      10,639      12,431      193       5,488     909      2,688     13      1,036     0        0         0

  NJ      93,917      84,752      5,343     2,755     3,101    11,488    191     7,713     50       0         9

  NM      28,305      16,194      51        16,532    151      3,413     33      1,984     0        0         2

  NY      247,963     359,775     16,087    26,699    9,642    19,553    443     53,034    695      0         183

  NC      165,719     88,285      18,720    55,791    591      18,232    122     12,007    14       0         61

  ND      9,303       3,729       516       2,384     55       1,276     4       328       0        0         0

  OH      126,248     60,769      14,004    9,918     5,413    20,884    225     10,565    4,809    0         104

  OK      93,220      29,542      1,342     20,047    367      4,673     60      3,222     0        0         24

  OR      40,431      28,285      9,685     6,366     365      8,270     61      5,807     573      0         11

  PA      167,419     117,048     6,243     17,775    5,712    23,164    234     15,569    0        0         71

  RI      15,454      12,481      377       1,243     503      2,085     17      2,025     0        0         0

  SC      94,983      69,957      5,935     28,042    496      7,682     89      5,484     0        0         14

  SD      7,903       3,050       348       3,048     4,132    1,579     7       388       0        0         0

  TN      117,486     64,946      24,045    26,661    368      9,550     105     7,887     347      0         3

  TX      389,977     174,724     33,596    73,606    1,712    22,511    381     31,936    393      0         121

  UT      16,076      11,951      4,832     6,216     272      2,612     25      2,264     0        0         0

  VT      7,485       7,451       147       5,397     317      1,080     3       855       0        0         0

  VA      100,648     41,973      8,713     22,639    539      11,822    84      5,614     6        0         13

  WA      66,180      53,726      4,498     7,225     669      11,098    131     10,400    0        0         30

  WV      42,419      14,719      250       14,309    1,055    2,673     12      329       0        0         37

  WI      39,879      29,065      8,216     9,096     1,076    16,981    78      5,678     21       0         8

  WY      3,785       3,337       161       2,054     34       823       6       303       0        0         0

  PR      92,812      34,125      0         57,173    195      1,189     0       0         0        0         1
  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#### Appendix G: Coverage Improvement Followup (CIFU) Housing Unit Status by State \[28, pg 1\] {#appendix-g-coverage-improvement-followup-cifu-housing-unit-status-by-state-28-pg-1 .unnumbered}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Total                                                   
  ------------ ----------- ------- ----------- ----------- ----------- --------------
  State        \#          \%      Occupied    Vacant      Delete      Undetermined

  Total with   8,854,304   100.0   2,375,668   3,846,067   2,632,027   542
  PR                                                                   

  Total w/o PR 8,668,809   97.9    2,316,123   3,751,010   2,601,134   542

  AL           220,344     2.5     63,020      108,234     49,090      0

  AK           21,237      0.2     5,202       9,173       6,862       0

  AZ           199,439     2.3     50,302      101,704     47,433      0

  AR           133,473     1.5     32,923      68,675      31,875      0

  CA           663,328     7.5     167,502     255,118     240,708     0

  CO           125,964     1.4     34,392      48,933      42,639      0

  CT           70,129      0.8     21,541      24,964      23,624      0

  DE           30,026      0.3     7,572       15,856      6,597       1

  DC           18,823      0.2     5,816       7,548       5,448       11

  FL           483,404     5.5     165,906     225,000     92,496      2

  GA           215,859     2.4     81,950      79,397      54,512      0

  HI           43,202      0.5     9,554       17,249      16,009      390

  ID           39,774      0.4     10,257      16,611      12,906      0

  IL           514,288     5.8     100,201     112,833     301,254     0

  IN           148,815     1.7     46,213      58,520      44,082      0

  IA           68,058      0.8     16,146      36,382      15,530      0

  KS           75,131      0.8     19,170      39,562      16,399      0

  KY           153,843     1.7     42,569      76,338      34,936      0

  LA           195,839     2.2     51,059      87,093      57,687      0

  ME           44,594      0.5     12,235      21,949      10,410      0

  MD           117,769     1.3     42,527      47,251      27,990      1

  MA           137,614     1.6     40,377      45,890      51,347      0

  MI           284,319     3.2     66,139      147,609     70,571      0

  MN           100,943     1.1     25,175      45,916      29,852      0

  MS           113,892     1.3     36,197      53,806      23,889      0

  MO           195,237     2.2     43,480      108,712     43,045      0

  MT           31,938      0.4     6,785       17,393      7,760       0

  NE           32,263      0.4     7,826       17,482      6,955       0

  NV           53,075      0.6     15,055      26,156      11,864      0

  NH           33,397      0.4     10,620      12,796      9,981       0

  NJ           209,319     2.4     59,128      83,721      66,470      0

  NM           66,665      0.8     20,668      29,285      16,712      0

  NY           734,074     8.3     165,302     218,562     350,210     0

  NC           359,542     4.1     99,461      171,446     88,604      31

  ND           17,595      0.2     2,958       10,205      4,432       0

  OH           252,939     2.9     71,674      119,957     61,308      0

  OK           152,497     1.7     34,427      91,062      27,008      0

  OR           99,854      1.1     25,847      40,822      33,185      0

  PA           353,235     4.0     92,626      154,925     105,679     5

  RI           34,185      0.4     9,223       14,566      10,396      0

  SC           212,682     2.4     57,370      98,849      56,463      0

  SD           20,455      0.2     7,414       9,531       3,510       0

  TN           251,398     2.8     66,740      115,114     69,544      0

  TX           728,957     8.2     203,662     366,510     158,768     17

  UT           44,248      0.5     11,897      17,761      14,590      0

  VT           22,735      0.3     6,357       9,433       6,945       0

  VA           192,051     2.2     50,382      100,579     41,090      0

  WA           153,957     1.7     45,037      62,395      46,457      68

  WV           75,803      0.9     16,764      46,224      12,799      16

  WI           110,098     1.2     29,067      51,111      29,920      0

  WY           10,503      0.1     2,408       4,802       3,293       0

  PR           185,495     2.1     59,545      95,057      30,893      0
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Data Source: DMAF

**Appendix H: CIFU Enumerator Questionnaires Checked-in by Day and by
Form Type \[29, pgs 1-5\]**

  --------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Date        Form Type                 Total Forms Cumulative   
                                        \[R1\]                   
  ----------- ------------- ----------- ----------- ------------ -----------
              Short         Long Forms              Total \[R2\] Percent
              Forms\[R4\]   \[R5\]                               \[R3\]

  Total       6,950,835     1,902,927   8,853,762   8,853,762    100.00

  June 23     19            4           23          23           0.00

  June 24     817           136         953         976          0.01

  June 25     1,219         227         1,446       2,422        0.03

  June 26     1,730         329         2,059       4,481        0.05

  June 27     15,049        3,017       18,066      22,547       0.25

  June 28     64,422        13,239      77,661      100,208      1.13

  June 29     154,088       33,540      187,628     287,836      3.25

  June 30     222,195       50,823      273,018     560,854      6.33

  July 01     151,236       36,337      187,573     748,427      8.45

  July 02     156,098       36,564      192,662     941,089      10.63

  July 03     373,029       91,460      464,489     1,405,578    15.88

  July 04     53,862        14,164      68,026      1,473,604    16.64

  July 05     353,984       91,030      445,014     1,918,618    21.67

  July 06     366,544       97,590      464,134     2,382,752    26.91

  July 07     431,420       118,878     550,298     2,933,050    33.13

  July 08     266,567       76,794      343,361     3,276,411    37.01

  July 09     204,905       56,785      261,690     3,538,101    39.96

  July 10     462,299       128,975     591,274     4,129,375    46.64

  July 11     386,452       112,698     499,150     4,628,525    52.28

  July 12     375,783       108,241     484,024     5,112,549    57.74

  July 13     375,154       106,568     481,722     5,594,271    63.19

  July 14     355,300       99,544      454,844     6,049,115    68.32

  July 15     185,433       49,864      235,297     6,284,412    70.98

  July 16     142,895       37,244      180,139     6,464,551    73.01

  July 17     342,256       93,220      435,476     6,900,027    77.93

  July 18     276,415       77,077      353,492     7,253,519    81.93

  July 19     240,222       68,286      308,508     7,562,027    85.41

  July 20     215,415       61,959      277,374     7,839,401    88.54

  July 21     167,478       49,471      216,949     8,056,350    90.99

  July 22     86,338        25,689      112,027     8,168,377    92.26

  July 23     56,379        17,304      73,683      8,242,060    93.09

  July 24     106,427       35,994      142,421     8,384,481    94.70

  July 25     79,046        26,484      105,530     8,490,011    95.89

  July 26     55,451        19,440      74,891      8,564,902    96.74

  July 27     42,947        15,907      58,854      8,623,756    97.40

  July 28     26,267        9,508       35,775      8,659,531    97.81

  July 29     9,859         3,445       13,304      8,672,835    97.96

  July 30     10,361        3,343       13,704      8,686,539    98.11

  July 31     12,558        3,890       16,448      8,702,987    98.30

  Aug 01      15,490        3,684       19,174      8,722,161    98.51

  Aug 02      21,489        4,265       25,754      8,747,915    98.80

  Aug 03      16,085        3,199       19,284      8,767,199    99.02

  Aug 04      4,385         1,186       5,571       8,772,770    99.09

  Aug 05      2,749         587         3,336       8,776,106    99.12

  Aug 06      1,779         390         2,169       8,778,275    99.15

  Aug 07      4,498         915         5,413       8,783,688    99.21

  Aug 08      4,254         927         5,181       8,788,869    99.27

  Aug 09      4,514         1,012       5,526       8,794,395    99.33

  Aug 10      4,734         1,003       5,737       8,800,132    99.39

  Aug 11      3,736         837         4,573       8,804,705    99.45

  Aug 12      3,490         822         4,312       8,809,017    99.49

  Aug 13      4,263         960         5,223       8,814,240    99.55

  Aug 14      4,509         1,114       5,623       8,819,863    99.62

  Aug 15      5,588         1,333       6,921       8,826,784    99.70

  Aug 16      5,321         1,274       6,595       8,833,379    99.77

  Aug 17      5,773         1,374       7,147       8,840,526    99.85

  Aug 18      3,810         938         4,748       8,845,274    99.90

  Aug 19      2,378         700         3,078       8,848,352    99.94

  Aug 20      1,081         330         1,411       8,849,763    99.95

  Aug 21      1,691         400         2,091       8,851,854    99.98

  Aug 22      869           402         1,271       8,853,125    99.99

  Aug 23      390           196         586         8,853,711    100.00

  Aug 24      40            11          51          8,853,762    100.00
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------

Data Source: DMAF

**Appendix I: CIFU Proxy Interviews Checked-in by Day and by Form Type
\[30, pgs 1 - 5\]**

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Date        Form Type                 Total Forms Cumulative   
                                        \[R1\]                   
  ----------- ------------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ---------------
              Short         Long Forms              Total \[R2\] Percent\[R3\]
              Forms\[R4\]   \[R5\]                               

  Total       3,845,464     1,067,022   4,912,486   4,912,486    100.00

  June 23     3             1           4           4            0.00

  June 24     387           49          436         440          0.01

  June 25     634           107         741         1,181        0.02

  June 26     835           151         986         2,167        0.04

  June 27     7,239         1,390       8,629       10,796       0.22

  June 28     27,139        5,751       32,890      43,686       0.89

  June 29     68,370        15,812      84,182      127,868      2.60

  June 30     111,960       26,052      138,012     265,880      5.41

  July 01     81,435        19,957      101,392     367,272      7.48

  July 02     83,596        19,960      103,556     470,828      9.58

  July 03     204,025       50,248      254,273     725,101      14.76

  July 04     33,759        9,020       42,779      767,880      15.63

  July 05     198,254       50,892      249,146     1,017,026    20.70

  July 06     207,979       55,435      263,414     1,280,440    26.07

  July 07     245,408       68,072      313,480     1,593,920    32.45

  July 08     154,760       44,854      199,614     1,793,534    36.51

  July 09     116,855       32,816      149,671     1,943,205    39.56

  July 10     247,994       71,335      319,329     2,262,534    46.06

  July 11     220,838       64,733      285,571     2,548,105    51.87

  July 12     214,809       62,220      277,029     2,825,134    57.51

  July 13     210,615       60,658      271,273     3,096,407    63.03

  July 14     200,386       56,424      256,810     3,353,217    68.26

  July 15     104,402       28,126      132,528     3,485,745    70.96

  July 16     77,956        20,171      98,127      3,583,872    72.95

  July 17     186,681       51,459      238,140     3,822,012    77.80

  July 18     153,990       43,460      197,450     4,019,462    81.82

  July 19     135,379       38,455      173,834     4,193,296    85.36

  July 20     125,058       36,008      161,066     4,354,362    88.64

  July 21     97,919        28,854      126,773     4,481,135    91.22

  July 22     49,860        14,933      64,793      4,545,928    92.54

  July 23     33,204        10,019      43,223      4,589,151    93.42

  July 24     63,022        21,556      84,578      4,673,729    95.14

  July 25     49,706        15,927      65,633      4,739,362    96.48

  July 26     35,631        11,915      47,546      4,786,908    97.44

  July 27     27,360        9,953       37,313      4,824,221    98.20

  July 28     17,055        5,760       22,815      4,847,036    98.67

  July 29     6,116         2,038       8,154       4,855,190    98.83

  July 30     5,616         1,942       7,558       4,862,748    98.99

  July 31     6,383         2,095       8,478       4,871,226    99.16

  Aug 01      3,523         1,222       4,745       4,875,971    99.26

  Aug 02      2,553         821         3,374       4,879,345    99.33

  Aug 03      2,348         621         2,969       4,882,314    99.39

  Aug 04      1,622         501         2,123       4,884,437    99.43

  Aug 05      793           196         989         4,885,426    99.45

  Aug 06      356           76          432         4,885,858    99.46

  Aug 07      1,215         250         1,465       4,887,323    99.49

  Aug 08      1,246         275         1,521       4,888,844    99.52

  Aug 09      1,583         313         1,896       4,890,740    99.56

  Aug 10      1,500         252         1,752       4,892,492    99.59

  Aug 11      1,118         236         1,354       4,893,846    99.62

  Aug 12      1,207         257         1,464       4,895,310    99.65

  Aug 13      1,376         303         1,679       4,896,989    99.68

  Aug 14      1,388         331         1,719       4,898,708    99.72

  Aug 15      1,882         472         2,354       4,901,062    99.77

  Aug 16      1,924         471         2,395       4,903,457    99.82

  Aug 17      2,206         548         2,754       4,906,211    99.87

  Aug 18      1,566         343         1,909       4,908,120    99.91

  Aug 19      1,050         280         1,330       4,909,450    99.94

  Aug 20      486           136         622         4,910,072    99.95

  Aug 21      1,095         187         1,282       4,911,354    99.98

  Aug 22      580           220         800         4,912,154    99.99

  Aug 23      202           94          296         4,912,450    100.00

  Aug 24      27            9           36          4,912,486    100.00
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Data Source: DRF2

**Appendix J: CIFU Partial Interviews Checked-in by Day and by Form Type
\[31, pgs 1 -- 5\]**

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Date        Form Type                   Total Forms Cumulative    
                                          \[R1\]                    
  ----------- ------------- ------------- ----------- ------------- -----------
              Short         Long                      Total\[R2\]   Percent
              Forms\[R4\]   Forms\[R5\]                             \[R3\]

  Total       201,072       150,270       351,342     351,342       100.00

  June 24     2             0             2           2             0.00

  June 25     10            2             12          14            0.00

  June 26     15            6             21          35            0.01

  June 27     253           161           414         449           0.13

  June 28     1,207         665           1,872       2,321         0.66

  June 29     2,821         1,729         4,550       6,871         1.96

  June 30     4,437         3,001         7,438       14,309        4.07

  July 01     3,715         2,495         6,210       20,519        5.84

  July 02     3,566         2,202         5,768       26,287        7.48

  July 03     7,928         5,661         13,589      39,876        11.35

  July 04     1,213         827           2,040       41,916        11.93

  July 05     8,737         6,086         14,823      56,739        16.15

  July 06     9,569         6,767         16,336      73,075        20.80

  July 07     11,286        8,377         19,663      92,738        26.40

  July 08     7,696         5,721         13,417      106,155       30.21

  July 09     5,987         4,068         10,055      116,210       33.08

  July 10     12,144        9,390         21,534      137,744       39.21

  July 11     10,977        8,849         19,826      157,570       44.85

  July 12     10,425        8,758         19,183      176,753       50.31

  July 13     10,570        8,701         19,271      196,024       55.79

  July 14     10,235        8,344         18,579      214,603       61.08

  July 15     5,294         4,117         9,411       224,014       63.76

  July 16     3,957         2,986         6,943       230,957       65.74

  July 17     9,023         7,305         16,328      247,285       70.38

  July 18     8,568         6,387         14,955      262,240       74.64

  July 19     8,135         6,006         14,141      276,381       78.66

  July 20     8,177         5,882         14,059      290,440       82.67

  July 21     6,931         4,835         11,766      302,206       86.01

  July 22     3,625         2,663         6,288       308,494       87.80

  July 23     2,812         1,889         4,701       313,195       89.14

  July 24     4,685         3,554         8,239       321,434       91.49

  July 25     3,900         2,839         6,739       328,173       93.41

  July 26     2,334         2,033         4,367       332,540       94.65

  July 27     1,791         1,670         3,461       336,001       95.63

  July 28     1,837         1,231         3,068       339,069       96.51

  July 29     636           471           1,107       340,176       96.82

  July 30     452           481           933         341,109       97.09

  July 31     697           524           1,221       342,330       97.43

  Aug 01      365           343           708         343,038       97.64

  Aug 02      222           208           430         343,468       97.76

  Aug 03      319           196           515         343,983       97.91

  Aug 04      261           183           444         344,427       98.03

  Aug 05      145           88            233         344,660       98.10

  Aug 06      51            50            101         344,761       98.13

  Aug 07      250           117           367         345,128       98.23

  Aug 08      217           114           331         345,459       98.33

  Aug 09      270           143           413         345,872       98.44

  Aug 10      210           138           348         346,220       98.54

  Aug 11      155           106           261         346,481       98.62

  Aug 12      169           103           272         346,753       98.69

  Aug 13      241           134           375         347,128       98.80

  Aug 14      259           161           420         347,548       98.92

  Aug 15      312           196           508         348,056       99.06

  Aug 16      321           238           559         348,615       99.22

  Aug 17      322           227           549         349,164       99.38

  Aug 18      304           204           508         349,672       99.52

  Aug 19      280           189           469         350,141       99.66

  Aug 20      166           97            263         350,404       99.73

  Aug 21      268           105           373         350,777       99.84

  Aug 22      248           182           430         351,207       99.96

  Aug 23      69            61            130         351,337       100.00

  Aug 24      1             4             5           351,342       100.00
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Data Source: DRF2

**Appendix K: CIFU Refusals Checked-in by Day and by Form Type \[32, pgs
1 -- 5\]**

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Date        Form Type                   Total         Cumulative   
                                          Forms\[R1\]                
  ----------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------ -----------
              Short         Long                        Total \[R2\] Percent
              Forms\[R4\]   Forms\[R5\]                              \[R3\]

  Total       55595         38208         93803         93803        100.00

  June 25     1             0             1             1            0.00

  June 26     5             5             10            11           0.01

  June 27     67            34            101           112          0.12

  June 28     262           181           443           555          0.59

  June 29     626           414           1040          1595         1.70

  June 30     1154          710           1864          3459         3.69

  July 01     1150          693           1843          5302         5.65

  July 02     1018          628           1646          6948         7.41

  July 03     2327          1396          3723          10671        11.38

  July 04     272           164           436           11107        11.84

  July 05     2593          1706          4299          15406        16.42

  July 06     2715          1843          4558          19964        21.28

  July 07     3049          2088          5137          25101        26.76

  July 08     2185          1493          3678          28779        30.68

  July 09     1448          1028          2476          31255        33.32

  July 10     3926          2703          6629          37884        40.39

  July 11     3124          2263          5387          43271        46.13

  July 12     3521          2424          5945          49216        52.47

  July 13     3551          2300          5851          55067        58.70

  July 14     3161          2131          5292          60359        64.35

  July 15     1445          1082          2527          62886        67.04

  July 16     940           641           1581          64467        68.73

  July 17     2932          2043          4975          69442        74.03

  July 18     2141          1507          3648          73090        77.92

  July 19     2271          1443          3714          76804        81.88

  July 20     1966          1400          3366          80170        85.47

  July 21     1719          1202          2921          83091        88.58

  July 22     838           559           1397          84488        90.07

  July 23     642           444           1086          85574        91.23

  July 24     1052          871           1923          87497        93.28

  July 25     881           651           1532          89029        94.91

  July 26     584           585           1169          90198        96.16

  July 27     449           398           847           91045        97.06

  July 28     290           278           568           91613        97.67

  July 29     154           125           279           91892        97.96

  July 30     90            105           195           92087        98.17

  July 31     104           105           209           92296        98.39

  Aug 01      45            48            93            92389        98.49

  Aug 02      35            45            80            92469        98.58

  Aug 03      29            22            51            92520        98.63

  Aug 04      28            26            54            92574        98.69

  Aug 05      10            6             16            92590        98.71

  Aug 06      2             4             6             92596        98.71

  Aug 07      6             3             9             92605        98.72

  Aug 08      13            16            29            92634        98.75

  Aug 09      26            31            57            92691        98.81

  Aug 10      22            23            45            92736        98.86

  Aug 11      54            21            75            92811        98.94

  Aug 12      7             5             12            92823        98.96

  Aug 13      20            12            32            92855        98.99

  Aug 14      48            38            86            92941        99.08

  Aug 15      81            46            127           93068        99.22

  Aug 16      77            51            128           93196        99.35

  Aug 17      120           44            164           93360        99.53

  Aug 18      100           32            132           93492        99.67

  Aug 19      68            29            97            93589        99.77

  Aug 20      56            18            74            93663        99.85

  Aug 21      33            14            47            93710        99.90

  Aug 22      47            19            66            93776        99.97

  Aug 23      14            11            25            93801        100.00

  Aug 24      1             1             2             93803        100.00
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Data Source: DRF2

**Appendix L: CIFU Added and Deleted Addresses by State \[33, pg 1\]**

  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  CIFU                     Added                    Deleted     
                  Universe                 Addresses                Addresses   
                  \[R1\]                   \[R2\]                   \[R3\]      
  --------------- ----------- --------- -- ----------- --------- -- ----------- ---------
  State           Number      Percent      Number      Percent      Number      Percent

  Total with PR   8,854,304   100.0        10,465      100.0        2,627,741   100.0

  Total w/o PR    8,668,809   97.9         10,465      100.0        2,596,848   98.8

  Alabama         220,344     2.5          161         1.5          49,057      1.9

  Alaska          21,237      0.2          9           0.1          6,860       0.3

  Arizona         199,439     2.3          206         2.0          47,361      1.8

  Arkansas        133,473     1.5          50          0.5          31,865      1.2

  California      663,328     7.5          766         7.3          240,462     9.2

  Colorado        125,964     1.4          47          0.4          42,622      1.6

  Connecticut     70,129      0.8          46          0.4          23,602      0.9

  Delaware        30,026      0.3          19          0.2          6,595       0.3

  DC              18,823      0.2          15          0.1          5,445       0.2

  Florida         483,404     5.5          1170        11.2         92,078      3.5

  Georgia         215,859     2.4          267         2.6          54,417      2.1

  Hawaii          43,202      0.5          145         1.4          15,897      0.6

  Idaho           39,774      0.4          157         1.5          12,824      0.5

  Illinois        514,288     5.8          842         8.0          300,946     11.5

  Indiana         148,815     1.7          745         7.1          43,500      1.7

  Iowa            68,058      0.8          39          0.4          15,513      0.6

  Kansas          75,131      0.8          56          0.5          16,376      0.6

  Kentucky        153,843     1.7          62          0.6          34,920      1.3

  Louisiana       195,839     2.2          126         1.2          57,638      2.2

  Maine           44,594      0.5          9           0.1          10,409      0.4

  Maryland        117,769     1.3          206         2.0          27,915      1.1

  Massachusetts   137,614     1.6          127         1.2          51,292      2.0

  Michigan        284,319     3.2          461         4.4          70,405      2.7

  Minnesota       100,943     1.1          133         1.3          29,787      1.1

  Mississippi     113,892     1.3          88          0.8          23,866      0.9

  Missouri        195,237     2.2          249         2.4          42,826      1.6

  Montana         31,938      0.4          4           0.0          7,758       0.3

  Nebraska        32,263      0.4          7           0.1          6,954       0.3

  Nevada          53,075      0.6          166         1.6          11,748      0.4

  New Hampshire   33,397      0.4          46          0.4          9,954       0.4

  New Jersey      209,319     2.4          190         1.8          66,397      2.5

  New Mexico      66,665      0.8          61          0.6          16,687      0.6

  New York        734,074     8.3          331         3.2          350,102     13.3

  North Carolina  359,542     4.1          362         3.5          88,445      3.4

  North Dakota    17,595      0.2          72          0.7          4,361       0.2

  Ohio            252,939     2.9          121         1.2          61,263      2.3

  Oklahoma        152,497     1.7          51          0.5          26,983      1.0

  Oregon          99,854      1.1          167         1.6          33,103      1.3

  Pennsylvania    353,235     4.0          524         5.0          105,495     4.0

  Rhode Island    34,185      0.4          41          0.4          10,377      0.4

  South Carolina  212,682     2.4          183         1.7          56,405      2.1

  South Dakota    20,455      0.2          11          0.1          3,501       0.1

  Tennessee       251,398     2.8          264         2.5          69,448      2.6

  Texas           728,957     8.2          945         9.0          158,563     6.0

  Utah            44,248      0.5          47          0.4          14,568      0.6

  Vermont         22,735      0.3          3           0.0          6,944       0.3

  Virginia        192,051     2.2          82          0.8          41,058      1.6

  Washington      153,957     1.7          306         2.9          46,389      1.8

  West Virginia   75,803      0.9          10          0.1          12,796      0.5

  Wisconsin       110,098     1.2          269         2.6          29,779      1.1

  Wyoming         10,503      0.1          1           0.0          3,292       0.1

  Puerto Rico     185,495     2.1          0           0.0          30,893      1.2
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Data Source: DMAF and Combo File

An entry with 0.0 percent indicates the value is less than one-tenth of
a percent.

**Appendix M: CIFU Added and Deleted Addresses by Address Type for the
MO/MB Areas** \[34, pg 1, R1\]

  ------------------- ----------- --------- -- ----------- --------- -- ----------- ---------
                      CIFU                     Added                    Deleted     
                      Universe                 Addresses                Addresses   

  Address Type        Number      Percent      Number      Percent      Number      Percent

  Total               6,037,885   100.0        8,898       100.0        2,108,616   100.0

   Complete          5,887,930   97.5         8,898       100.0        2,021,181   95.9
  City-Style                                                                        

  with location       68,860      1.1          77          0.9          48,537      2.3
  description                                                                       

  without location    5,819,070   96.4         8,821       99.1         1,972,644   93.6
  description                                                                       

   Complete Rural    2,245       0.0          0           0.0          799         0.0
  Route                                                                             

  with location       2,015       0.0          0           0.0          737         0.0
  description                                                                       

  without location    230         0.0          0           0.0          62          0.0
  description                                                                       

   Complete PO Box   2,379       0.0          0           0.0          1,287       0.1

  with location       1,681       0.0          0           0.0          814         0.0
  description                                                                       

  without location    698         0.0          0           0.0          473         0.0
  description                                                                       

   Incomplete        143,451     2.4          0           0.0          83,724      4.0
  Address                                                                           

  with location       138,268     2.3          0           0.0          79,300      3.8
  description                                                                       

  without location    5,183       0.1          0           0.0          4,424       0.2
  description                                                                       

   No Address        1,880       0.0          0           0.0          1,625       0.1
  Information                                                                       

  with location       1,620       0.0          0           0.0          1,387       0.1
  description                                                                       

  without location    260         0.0          0           0.0          238         0.0
  description                                                                       
  ------------------- ----------- --------- -- ----------- --------- -- ----------- ---------

Data Source: Combo File

**Appendix N: CIFU Added and Deleted Addresses by Address Type for the
U/L Areas \[35, pg 1, R1\]**

  ------------------- ----------- --------- -- ----------- --------- -- ----------- ---------
                      CIFU                     Added                    Deleted     
                      Universe                 Addresses                Addresses   

  Address Type        Number      Percent      Number      Percent      Number      Percent

  Total               2,771,176   100.0        1,527       100.0        496,862     100.0

   Complete          1,535,347   55.4         1,527       100.0        247,112     49.7
  City-Style                                                                        

  with location       198,075     7.1          151         9.9          38,676      7.8
  description                                                                       

  without location    1,337,272   48.3         1,376       90.1         208,436     42.0
  description                                                                       

   Complete Rural    156,755     5.7          0           0.0          23,187      4.7
  Route                                                                             

  with location       152,443     5.5          0           0.0          22,270      4.5
  description                                                                       

  without location    4,312       0.2          0           0.0          917         0.2
  description                                                                       

   Complete PO Box   75,892      2.7          0           0.0          12,977      2.6

  with location       72,121      2.6          0           0.0          12,107      2.4
  description                                                                       

  without location    3,771       0.1          0           0.0          870         0.2
  description                                                                       

   Incomplete        57,278      2.1          0           0.0          13,956      2.8
  Address                                                                           

  with location       22,829      0.8          0           0.0          5,045       1.0
  description                                                                       

  without location    34,449      1.2          0           0.0          8,911       1.8
  description                                                                       

   No Address        945,904     34.1         0           0.0          199,630     40.2
  Information                                                                       

  with location       943,467     34.0         0           0.0          198,649     40.0
  description                                                                       

  without location    2,437       0.1          0           0.0          981         0.2
  description                                                                       
  ------------------- ----------- --------- -- ----------- --------- -- ----------- ---------

Data Source: Combo File Number range CHAPTER

**Appendix O: CIFU Added and Deleted Addresses by Address Type for the
UU/L Areas** \[36, pg 1, R1\]

  ------------------- ---------- --------- -- ----------- --------- -- ----------- ---------
                      CIFU                    Added                    Deleted     
                      Universe                Addresses                Addresses   

  Address Type        Number     Percent      Number      Percent      Number      Percent

  Total               45,243     100.0        40          100.0        22,263      100.0

   Complete          44,369     98.1         40          100.0        21,860      98.2
  City-Style                                                                       

  with location       234        0.5          0           0.0          165         0.7
  description                                                                      

  without location    44,135     97.6         40          100.0        21,695      97.4
  description                                                                      

   Complete Rural    1          0.0          0           0.0          1           0.0
  Route                                                                            

  with location       1          0.0          0           0.0          1           0.0
  description                                                                      

  without location    0          0.0          0           0.0          0           0.0
  description                                                                      

   Complete PO Box   7          0.0          0           0.0          0           0.0

  with location       7          0.0          0           0.0          0           0.0
  description                                                                      

  without location    0          0.0          0           0.0          0           0.0
  description                                                                      

   Incomplete        848        1.9          0           0.0          388         1.7
  Address                                                                          

  with location       367        0.8          0           0.0          167         0.8
  description                                                                      

  without location    481        1.1          0           0.0          221         1.0
  description                                                                      

   No Address        18         0.0          0           0.0          14          0.1
  Information                                                                      

  with location       8          0.0          0           0.0          6           0.0
  description                                                                      

  without location    10         0.0          0           0.0          8           0.0
  description                                                                      
  ------------------- ---------- --------- -- ----------- --------- -- ----------- ---------

Data Source: Combo File

[^1]: The Primary Selection Algorithm selected the person and return
    records best describing the household that lived at the address on
    Census Day.